Democrats Desperation Is Tearing Apart This Country, Today's Impeachment Hearings Are Proof
Democrats Desperation Is Tearing Apart This Country, Today's Impeachment Hearings Are Proof. Today was the first day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump. For the most part we learned very little other than unelected officials feel their opinion on foreign policy supersedes the president's. But we also learned that much of the testimony presented in the press is second, third, and even fourthhand information.None of these witnesses have even talked to the president.The Democrats will likely impeach Trump but the Senate will likely not convict. So what is the point of all of this? It seems the plan is to generate as much negative press about Trump as possible in the hopes people vote against him instead of for Democrats.but if the impeachment goes to the senate for trial it means that many of the 2020 democrats will be pulled off the campaign trail and will be unable to present their ideas to the people. In a senate trial they won't even be able to speak.Democrats are facing a huge backfire over this but it seems they think it is all worth it if the bad press helps them even a little bit. They are shaking confidence in our government all for a small chance at winning back some power in 2020.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Once again, according to many different stories and sources, it seems like the impeachment inquiry is bad news for Democrats.
Today marks the first day of public hearings in the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump, and I gotta say, to me, it seems like Democrats, in complete desperation, are willing to tear apart the fabric of this country if it means slightly increasing their chance to win in 2020.
Because let's be real, Even if Trump is impeached, the Senate likely will not convict him.
So what's the point?
And if he is impeached, then Republicans who control the Senate may be able to call their own witnesses and make the Democrats look really, really bad.
It could actually be really bad for the Democrats.
And now we have new internal polling data from the RNC that says even among Democrats, support for impeachment is down.
Now, this is a biased source, and polls are usually trash.
But the point is, we have many factors showing us that either the impeachment inquiry is all based upon hearsay and second-hand information, or that it's not going anywhere anyway.
So what's the point?
Well, at least according to some sources, my opinion as well, is that the Democrats want to get as much negative press as possible about the president So that people simply vote against him come 2020.
They don't care that he was elected.
They don't care that many of these people testifying are people who think their opinion supersedes the president, and they should be allowed to disrupt the president's foreign policy.
We did not elect these individuals.
I didn't elect Donald Trump, but I recognize the people of this country did, and for better or for worse, you let him do his job, and if you don't like it, you vote for somebody else.
But now the bigger point, which shows that the Democrats do not care.
I'm not saying every single Democrat, but enough of them, the leadership.
They don't care about what this is doing to our country.
According to a Politico story, they bring up a very great point.
If the impeachment goes to trial in the Senate, that means many of the 2020 presidential candidates on the Democrat side will be pulled from the campaign trail.
They will become jurors in an impeachment trial where they will not be allowed to directly ask questions and must remain silent.
That means the Democrats are not even going to be able to campaign.
So what?
I want to hear policy ideas.
But the impeachment is going to shut that down?
Why?
What's the long-term plan?
The plan is simply, orange man is bad, vote for literally anyone else.
I won't do that.
I will vote on principle.
To me, this is a last-ditch, desperation Hail Mary, where the Democrats are showing they don't care about policy.
They don't have a plan.
And they know that people don't like their candidates.
So they need to make sure you hate the president.
Well, I'll tell you what.
I've never been a big fan of the guy.
I think he's done a lot of things wrong.
I can talk about the commando raids in Yemen, Saudi Arabia, all that foreign policy stuff that I normally rag about.
And I've repeatedly said I think he has bad character, which makes him... He doesn't generate confidence among the American people.
I think you can see the divisiveness.
But I'll tell you this.
I'm also a mature adult who recognizes I don't always get what I want, and for better or for worse, the president who is elected should serve their term and not be disrupted by unelected officials or individuals in the intelligence community who think their opinions supersede the president.
But that's what we're getting now.
We're getting second-hand, third-hand testimony from people who think their opinion on what foreign policy should be is better than that of the president.
No, I tell you what.
The president will serve out his term or terms, and then you vote for someone else.
If he does a bad job, people won't vote for him.
But you know what?
The analytics, Moody's, the economy, it shows that people do like the job Trump is doing.
So why is all of this happening?
Why can't the Democrats just campaign on the campaign trail and talk about policy positions?
Well, it's because the positions they offer up are unpopular.
So now they are literally pulling the Democrats, potentially, if they go to Senate, they will be pulling the Democrats off the campaign trail.
To me, that's insane.
So let's get started.
The first thing I want to do is I want to start with this opinion piece, which is a bit hyperbolic.
But I think it's kind of interesting and I agree with a lot of it.
But I will mention it is a worrisome thought piece on what's currently happening with impeachment.
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, share this video.
I'm going up against all of these big media players, and you're going to be barraged by all of this partisan, anti-Trump, negative press.
They're going to twist and spin.
And I'll admit, look, they're entitled to their opinions, and so am I. So I'll put it this way.
I encourage you to watch all of that news and make sure you're getting a full picture, because there are things I can't see.
But because they're going to dominate the press and I can't, if you think I'm right, if you agree with me on my opinions and my thoughts on this, then sharing this is the best way to help.
But let's read this story.
And I'll try to go through it quickly because there are 10 points.
The first point brought up in this New York Post op-ed.
Is that the impeachment inquiry is just the latest attempt in a list of all of these different attempts to damage the president.
From the Mueller debate, from Logan Act, Emoluments Clause, Twenty-Fifth Amendment, Michael Rosenstein, Stormy Daniels, etc., etc., etc.
They just keep doing this.
When was the last time one of these major news outlets did some on-the-ground reporting?
I know Fox News is in Israel recently, but based on the Veritas leaks, we learned that CNN is foregoing policy talk to just do panel after panel about Donald Trump.
That's what they're doing.
Where's the on-the-ground reports about Hong Kong and Chile and all these other places?
Now, I know many outlets are still doing it.
But impeachment has become lucrative for the press.
And this is just the next phase.
The next point he brings up is the false whistleblowers.
He says the whistleblower is no whistleblower by any common definition of the noun.
He has no incriminating documents, no information at all.
He doesn't even have first-hand evidence of wrongdoing.
Instead, the whistleblower relied on second-hand water-cooler gossip about a leaked presidential call.
Even his mangled version of the call didn't match that of official transcribers.
He wasn't disinterested, but had a long history of partisanship.
Now I'll stop.
And I'll say, legally speaking, this person is a whistleblower.
They heard rumors of wrongdoing, and they brought it up.
But then Trump released the transcript, and we could see that his version of events were incorrect.
What we're left with now, the testimony from today is that, you know, in one instance, I believe it was maybe Bill Taylor saying that My staffer overheard a phone call with Sondland and then Sondland said, the president cares more about this investigation than anything else.
So it's the, it's, it's, we have the testimony of a man who heard from a staffer who heard from another staffer that his opinion on the president is thus.
Is that grounds for impeachment?
No, but this is one of the big bombshells coming out today.
I'm sorry, I just don't see this.
If you don't like the president's foreign policy, you can be quiet and follow through with what he asks, or you can leave and complain about it.
Instead, they're trying to impeach him about a year out from an election when he could be voted out anyway if he's done something wrong.
Well, that's the point.
They want all of this on TV, and I gotta say, thinking about it, I question whether they would actually end up impeaching him.
Maybe they won't.
They just want the bad press.
Let's read more.
They say this is a first-term impeachment.
The Clinton and Nixon inquiries were directed at second-term presidencies, when there were no more electoral remedies for alleged wrongdoing.
By contrast, Trump is up for election in less than a year.
Impeachment then seems a partisan exercise in either circumventing a referendum election or in damaging a president seeking re-election.
I completely agree.
No special counsel finding.
Right, we get it.
22 months, $35 million, and Robert Mueller found nothing.
But here we are, Russiagate 2 Ukrainian boogaloo, where I kid you not, they are still saying on MSNBC that Trump is a Russian asset, this is all about the Russians, and Trump is just working for Russia, and he's trying to frame the Ukraine.
It is absurdity.
He brings up no bipartisanship.
In fact, there is bipartisanship in the other direction.
Two Democrats defected and voted against impeachment.
Or the inquiry, I'm sorry.
No high crimes or misdemeanors.
There is no proof of any actual crime.
Asking a foreign head of state to look into past corruption is pro forma.
That Joe Biden is now Trump's potential rival doesn't exculpate possible wrongdoing in his past as vice president when his son used the Biden name for lucrative gain.
And more importantly, in the testimony so far, I believe it may have been Taylor, they asked him about CrowdStrike.
They said, do you know anything about this?
And he said, no, I just read about it in the paper last month.
And they said, is the story true?
And he says, no.
He basically said no.
But you don't even know about what CrowdStrike is, but you're sure it's false?
They're acting now like the documents released by John Solomon are fake.
He's a conspiracy theorist.
This is a guy, my understanding, John Solomon, who's done a lot of the reporting on Ukraine.
He worked at the AP for a couple decades.
But now he's no longer a journalist.
Now he's a right-wing commentator and conspiracy theorist.
That's the game they're playing.
Number seven says thought crimes.
Even if there were a quid, there is no quo.
Unlike the case of the Obama administration, the Trump administration did not supply arms to Ukraine, and the Ukrainians apparently did not reinvestigate the Bidens.
They mentioned double standards.
The Schiff factor.
Schiff is now de facto chief impeachment prosecutor.
He has repeatedly lied about the certainty of impending Mueller indictments or bombshells.
He flat out lied that he and his staff had no prior contact with the whistleblower.
He made up a version of the Trump call that didn't represent the transcript, and when called out, he begged off by claiming he was offering a parody.
Right.
Now here's the scariest part and why I wanted to read this.
Precedent.
The indiscriminate efforts to remove Trump over the past three years, when coupled with the latest impeachment gambit, have now set a precedent in which the out party can use impeachment as a tool to embarrass, threaten, or seek to remove a sitting president and reverse an election.
We are witnessing constitutional government dissipating before our eyes.
I have to agree.
Because here's what I see.
I see a group of people that just want negative press, that are willing to use the system, use the process, and use the Constitution to implement a phony kangaroo court because they want negative press about Trump.
I'm sorry.
Russiagate didn't work.
Stormy.
None of this worked.
Trump's approval rating is higher today than it was two years ago.
Moody's Analytics predicts a Trump victory.
And the Democrats know this is their Hail Mary.
They are tearing apart the fabric of our country in a desperate bid.
Here's the story from the Daily Mail.
Democrats plan to dominate media coverage and drown Trump in bad news with eight witnesses next week in jam-packed impeachment hearings as White House officials hope full court press is just another storm.
That's the game they're playing.
Just generate bad press.
And I think I've been right the whole time.
You know, I recognize I could be wrong about this, but this is what I'm seeing.
I'll tell you how I see it, man.
I see ineffectual Republicans.
I don't know what they're doing or what they're getting at.
They controlled the House before and they were able to get nothing done.
Okay, they got things done.
That's a bit hyperbolic.
But now that the Democrats are in, I see a lot of wishy-washy Republicans in leadership who could be doing more.
And I see a president who I'm not a particular fan of.
But you know what?
Like I stated earlier, I'm an adult.
And so I sit back and say, listen, man, I lived through Bush.
I get it.
What needs to happen now is you need to rally the troops and go vote.
Not try and threaten the system and remove a president because you don't like him.
Maybe they don't really want to remove him, though.
Because here we can see all of this news about bad press.
But check this out.
In a story from Politico, the impeachment calculus Democrats don't want to talk about.
It's not something Dems readily discuss, but politics permeate the House proceedings, and the Senate trial could upend the presidential primary in 2020.
That's right.
Check it out.
There are others who aren't so sure.
This individual, Schatz, is mentioning that it sounds like Alexander Hamilton was talking about Trump specifically in talking about the need for impeachment.
They say there are those who aren't so sure, particularly when it comes to the political risk of conducting an impeachment process in the middle of the Democratic presidential primaries.
At the center of the Ukraine scandal is a conspiracy theory about the party's frontrunner that, while repeatedly debunked, full stop, no it hasn't, Why do this?
inevitably gain more attention over the next three months.
The House, most everyone assumes, will vote to impeach Trump.
Then the Senate trial will force six other candidates, Bernie, Warren,
Klobuchar, Harris, Booker, and Bennett, off the campaign trail,
just weeks before Iowans gather for their caucuses.
And at the end of it all, the most likely outcome is that Trump will be acquitted
and claim a broad exoneration for anything he's been accused of.
Why do this?
Listen, when I talk about the fabric of our government, of our country,
I'm talking about the Democratic primaries as well.
Why are you pulling these presidential candidates, many of the frontrunners for instance, why are you pulling them off the campaign trail where they need to talk about ideas and talk about why people should vote for them?
The reason they want bad press, the reason they're doing impeachment, and the reason they're doing this is because we have seen in other polls that when moderate voters learn about the far-left policies of, say, Bernie or Warren, they are less likely to support the Democrats.
So get them off the trail where they can't speak, and then hope People just vote against the president based on the negative press you've generated.
That is not a democratic process.
That is not how our country is supposed to work.
That is the most nefarious and dirty political plan I've ever seen.
But I'll tell you, look, it's my opinion.
And perhaps it is nothing but the noble Adam Schiff who really does believe he's doing the right thing.
Or it's a political ploy.
I do not believe that there is a such thing as, for the most part, for the most part, noble politicians who always do and say and do the right things.
I think most people, even the politicians I kind of like, are going to play politics and are going to have some underhanded tactics.
That's just the way the game is played.
And it's typically why I don't like these politicians, typically why I don't like politics.
But check this out, they say this.
Schatz thinks it's worth it.
He recalled the Friday last September when Trump's Ukraine machinations first became clear.
And even the most reluctant Democrats suddenly and enthusiastically embrace impeachment.
A bunch of members of the House and Senate independently came to the same conclusion,
which is that this is what impeachment is for, except two Democrats defected.
And according to the Republicans, if you wanna take them at their word, they say this.
McDaniel reports that opposition to the hearings among Democrats is up six points.
Could it be that there are still some sane members left in the Democratic Party who see this spectacle for what it is?
It's possible, yes.
Let's get back to the Politico story.
A bunch of members said independently this is what it's for.
They were not getting a polling briefing, and they did not have time to call their kitchen cabinet back home.
This was a matter of principle.
That if impeachment was not to be used in this instance, it was rendered useless forever.
And the moment we disregarded the politics, the politics started to work better for us.
What's interesting, however, Is that the story mentions that in a Senate trial, you can't ask questions.
The Democrats who are running for office are not going to be able to stand up, grandstand, make viral moments like they normally do, like the House Democrats might do in this hearing.
What's going to happen is they will submit their questions in writing, and I believe they say it's John Roberts.
Let's make sure it's John Roberts, who, there it is.
Okay, make sure we have it.
They say.
Senators, including the six presidential candidates, don't speak during the trial.
And if they want to ask questions, they need to write it down and pass it to Chief Justice John Roberts, all of which was news to numerous aides I spoke with this week on multiple campaigns.
The Biden campaign, which includes several people who are working in the Senate or White House in 1999, seemed to know this history better than others.
And apparently, they're happy about it.
Biden's people know this will jam up Bernie.
It'll jam up Warren and the other contenders.
And with Biden being the front runner, it's going to allow him to maintain his position for a longer period of time.
But let's do this.
Let's talk about the merit of impeachment, because I think I've told you the main point about how I think they're attacking these institutions.
They're manipulating the rules of impeachment for political gains.
Check this out.
Steve Scalise.
He's a Republican as well, so take it with a grain of salt.
I understand these people are, this is a biased view.
But he's not wrong when he says this.
Meet the star witnesses Adam Schiff called today.
Neither have any first-hand knowledge.
Neither spoke to Donald Trump.
And one of them got his information from the New York Times.
This hearing is a sham.
Read the transcript, an actual first-hand account, it shows nothing impeachable.
In fact, Colonel Vindman said that his view on why Trump did a quid pro quo was because of the power disparity between the US and Ukraine and that Ukraine would take it as a hint.
His opinion.
His speculation.
His opinion that the foreign policy enacted by Trump was negative because of how he viewed a power disparity that was never explicitly claimed.
Can you blame Trump if someone else makes assumptions or is going to bend the knee over a perceived power disparity that he may not notice?
I don't think that makes sense.
Trump simply said, uh, it was, I believe Zelensky said, you've done great things for us in terms of military.
Thank you very much.
And Trump said, do us a favor though.
Could you look into this?
There's some horrible things.
And you know, he mentions Biden and that's about it.
He never said, if you want this, you get this.
Now there has been testimony that Trump wanted a public announcement of the investigation.
And that may, may have been a quid pro quo, but apparently I don't even know if the- my understanding so far, and this is all very confusing because the story keeps changing, according to the closest sources and reporting from the New York Times, the Ukrainians didn't even know there was going to be military aid held up unless they did something.
So the aid wasn't held up in the long term, it was eventually released, and they didn't publicly announce an investigation.
So I don't see where any, you know, gain is had.
The Ukrainians are going about their business, and so is Trump, but now they're using this to launch an investigation.
Check this out.
Reporter for Axios, Elena Treen, says Taylor adds new information that he received last Friday.
This is one of the most interesting things to come out of the hearing today.
Everyone's running around saying this is the new bombshell.
Big breaking news.
This is from Taylor where he says, last Friday, a member of my staff told me of events that occurred on July 26.
While Ambassador Volker and I visited the front, This member of my staff accompanied Ambassador Sondland.
Sondland met with Mr. Yermack.
Following that meeting, in the presence of my staff at a restaurant, Sondland called President
Trump and told him of his meetings in Kiev.
The member of my staff could hear Trump on the phone asking Ambassador Sondland about
the investigations.
Ambassador Sondland told President Trump that the Ukrainians were ready to move forward.
Following the call with President Trump, the member of my staff asked Sondland what President Trump thought about Ukraine.
Sondland responded that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which Julian was pressing for.
At the time I gave my deposition on October 22nd, I was not aware of this information.
So let's back up for a second.
I want to tell you where I'm at.
Bill Taylor, a man that I'm not super familiar with, is telling me that he heard from a member of his staff who overheard on a phone call and heard from an ambassador that Donald Trump wants something.
Sondland's opinion, then transferred to a staffer, then transferred to Taylor.
This is beyond, what, third- or fourth-hand information.
Why should this be relevant information?
Why should I weigh a game of telephone against whether or not a president should be in office?
So this is the big takeaway.
There's not much here as far as I can tell.
Of course, they'll argue on the left.
It's all there.
The corruption is plain as day.
And Trump was seeking to upend, you know, the 2020 election and win against Biden.
But you know what, man?
Joe Biden is barely raising money.
He's gaffing up and down every rally he goes to.
He's forgetting which state he's in.
I'd be shocked if Trump actually wanted to win in this way, if he actually needed this help.
I think Trump is driven by personal reasons, but I think he's upset over the Russia collusion investigation, the attempts to smear and defame him, and so he wants to see it investigated.
The question then becomes, even if Trump is wrong and believes fake news, doesn't he as the president have a right to ask a foreign country to investigate?
In the transcript, he did not say aid would be withheld, and as far as I can tell right now, official sources say the Ukrainians didn't even know about it.
Although there has been some testimony now, things have gone back and forth, and it's pretty complicated trying to understand what's happening.
But I'll leave you with one final thought.
I saw this story.
Piers Morgan, of all people.
Democrats have put all their chips on impeaching Trump, but they've forgotten the golden rule of warfare.
Never start a battle you can't win.
And I saw this and I thought to myself, why would the Democrats start a battle they know they can't win?
It's because they want the negative press.
And I started thinking about it and I thought, maybe they won't actually even impeach Trump.
Or better yet, Maybe Trump really did want to be impeached.
This was an idea floated back a few weeks ago, a month or two ago.
Questions were raised.
Does Trump want to be impeached?
Because he uses it to rally his base as though the deep state is coming after him.
But think about it.
If he does get impeached, and Republican senators are able to call forth witnesses or present evidence, that could then bring up what Joe Biden was doing.
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but they're not going to convict him.
So maybe then the Republican side, with more control in the Senate, could present damning information against the Democrats.
Maybe that's their play.
And maybe the Democrats are walking into a trap.
I don't think so, though.
So we'll see what happens.
But you know what?
I do think they might not impeach.
They might just want the hearings to make sure the media is dominated with orange man bad once again.
I'll tell you what.
I've been watching the hearings.
It's like watching paint dry.
It is the same thing all over again.
Second-hand, third-hand, fourth-hand hearsay.
Opinions of opinions.
Trump's foreign policy is bad for this country.
This is what we're hearing.
That, oh, we heard Trump wanted to do X and we disagreed with it.
Well, that's too bad you disagreed with it.
You might not like the guy.
He could be the worst president in the world.
He could be the worst president we've ever had.
But the alternative is more dangerous.
Unelected intelligence officials subverting the will of the duly elected representative of the people.
We've been through worse presidents, in my opinion.
Or maybe not, I don't know.
But all that matters is it's not the end of the world.
Trump will be out if you vote him out.
Or he will be out when he serves two terms.
It is not the end of the world.
But if you try to subvert the system and literally tear at the fabric of this country, it will be wielded against you next time.
That's what's so scary about all of this.
Even if this does nothing to Trump, what happens in 2020, 2024, when a Democrat gets elected
and Republicans turn around and play the exact same game?
Confidence is eroding.
Republicans and Democrats have completely different views of what's happening.
Adam Schiff calls the Ukraine story a conspiracy theory, even though there's documents released.
Which official do you choose to trust?
Republicans will choose Trump and the Republicans, obviously.
Democrats will choose Schiff and the Democrats.
And in the end, the next time this happens, impeachment and constitutional processes will
fall for, will be activated for tribal reasons to win political battles.
If you can't win in the vote and you decide to use impeachment to gain power, then we
are no longer a nation ruled by the people and for the people.
We are a nation of people playing underhanded games, subverting the rules and trying to
exploit the system for power.
And that's when everything comes falling apart.
Bye.
We'll see what happens.
It's day one.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
The executives over at ABC News are freaking out, in full-on panic mode, trying to figure out who the leaker is.
The whistleblower, I should say, in this case.
You see, for those that aren't following, Project Veritas released a video of anchor Amy Roback saying that they had the Epstein story years ago, but ABC spiked it.
Now, this created a major press storm.
Everybody wants to know what happened.
And instead of doing the right thing and releasing the evidence and information they had covering the story, instead, they've sought to out the whistleblower.
In fact, they've gone so far as to... ABC called CBS, where a woman was working for four days.
CBS then fired her, even though she wasn't the leaker.
This woman then did an interview with Megyn Kelly.
She said it wasn't her.
Project Veritas came out and said, that is not the leaker.
Now, here's the best part.
You guys are gonna love this.
First, ABC is apparently doing some, like, inquisition, where they're, like, taking all of the people and trying to figure out who did it.
But a letter was released after this innocent woman was fired.
It was released by Project Veritas, allegedly from the individual at ABC.
I'm not gonna read the letter, but it's signed, Ignotus.
Here's what I love.
Because people at ABC, because millennials haven't read any book outside of Harry Potter, they're like, hey, Ignotus is the name of a wizard in the Harry Potter series.
Maybe this person is young and likes Harry Potter.
Wow.
That's the first place they went.
Okay.
Do you know what Ignotus means in Latin?
It means unknown.
Quite literally, the letter is just signed, unknown.
Ignotus is just Latin.
You're gonna absolutely love the next part, but first, I have to give you the context that's going to make you laugh very, very hard when I explain this to you.
The Daily Mail says top executives at ABC are freaking out amid a probe into who leaked a hot mic video where Amy Robeck is seen ranting that the network spiked an Epstein story an insider has claimed.
Let's stop there and say, another insider now speaking to the press and talking about what's happening.
ABC, you are leaking like a sieve and there's nothing you can do about it.
Perhaps the best thing you can do is release the interview and evidence.
That you had on Epstein.
Because I'll tell you this.
Epstein may be no longer among the living, but Bill Clinton is.
And Amy Roback said, we had everything.
We had Clinton.
Whoa!
Hillary Clinton is still influencing politics today.
Bill Clinton is still alive.
Okay?
Perhaps it's important for the victims, or I should say, alleged victims of Bill Clinton, that you release this evidence so we know exactly what happened.
But no.
After all is said and done, what does ABC News do?
An inquisition to hunt down those that would share this information.
Well, congratulations, ABC.
Apparently, now another ABC insider is spilling the beans.
That's what you get.
You try to shut down one person who did the right thing.
Don't be surprised when another person comes out and does the right thing.
And guess what?
The leaker is still apparently working with Veritas.
So, congratulations.
You can't solve this problem by continuing to do evil.
Let's read more.
The source claims ABC has searched emails and news logs in a bid to find the culprit, and has been isolating and encouraging staff to turn against each other amid their investigation.
Wow.
Confusion surrounds a letter published after former ABC News producer Ashley Bianco was wrongly accused and fired from CBS.
Why was she fired from CBS?
It's a different company.
This is creepy.
The author admitted they sent the tape to Veritas and was mysteriously signed off as Ignotus.
There's gonna be a great reveal.
I'm gonna- There's gonna be a great reveal, but I gotta read more before I can reveal- Okay?
You're gonna- You're gonna laugh.
Some of you probably already figured it out.
They are freaking out over the Harry Potter reference.
A Harry Potter reference!
The ABC insider told Page Six.
Does this mean the leaker is a Potter fan?
Likely one of the younger staff members who worked the overnight shift?
Or is the leaker citing Latin?
Which means he or she could be an older member of staff.
I mean, how many young producers speak Latin these days?
Is that... Okay, if this insider is right, the payoff at the end of this video is going to be Hilarious.
Maybe not the end.
Maybe I'll tell you soon.
But you've got to see just how obsessed they are with this, like, Ignotus.
What could it mean?
What could it really be?
I'm going to tell you what it is and you're going to laugh.
Page six reports.
The source as saying the company has been isolating certain employees and putting them under pressure to turn on their colleagues regarding the footage from the Good Morning America anchor while she was not on air.
Referring to Epstein's victims who accused him of lending her out for his friends.
Okay, yeah, we're getting pretty woof.
I've had this interview with Virginia Roberts.
We would not put it on air.
So we know all this.
There's been a good deal of backlash against ABC ever since the video first emerged, with many people pointing out that none of the network's news programs have mentioned the story.
CNN, surprisingly, Mom's the word, huh?
CNN can talk all day and night about just the same old- Like, they did a segment on Trump typos.
I don't want to pretend like that may have been before, but the point is, you know what you get with CNN.
They're not going to talk about the media.
They're not going to talk about the real problems, because they're buddies.
Birds of a feather flock together.
They don't really care to compete.
They have, like, You know, look.
I'll put it this way.
I don't want to allege this is a big conspiracy.
It's just that birds of a feather flock together.
And if ABC sees a problem, they call CBS, and CBS says, we got you, buddy.
Don't worry about it.
You're fired.
And this woman, Ashley Bianco, did literally nothing wrong.
Nothing.
Nothing at all.
Veritas confirms it.
So look, they're showing clips of Harry Potter.
On Tuesday, Page Six reported the source also said the investigation into Ignotus reports back up the very highest levels back up to the very highest levels at HR at ABC's parent company, Disney.
It could literally be anyone.
It could have been a janitor, okay?
So I've been to these controls.
I worked in this building in New York City.
I used to work there back in the day.
So four or five years ago, you could just bumble into a control room and see all the monitors.
Someone, a janitor, or even a guest, a visitor, may have seen it and filmed it.
They may be hunting down an employee who doesn't even work there.
They may be hunting down, they may be looking for somebody that's like the mother of an employee.
It's just not, sorry, you know, you're not going to figure this out.
The best thing they could do is, for those that are still concerned about what Bill Clinton may have done, is release that story.
Veritas editors confirmed the memo titled, why I alone released the Amy Robach Epstein tape, was written by the same ABC News insider who gave them the clip in light of the actions taken against those wrongfully identified as involved in the leaking.
The message began, in part, by ignotus to my fellow man.
I came forward with this information bearing no motives other than to have this information public.
To those wrongly accused, it is terrible that you have been lashed out at by the company.
I know some may put the burden of guilt on me, but my conscience is clear.
The actions of the company toward you are the result of their own, and not anyone else.
The public outcry from coast to coast of all people, creeds, and political affiliations is clear.
I have not one doubt that there will always be support for you, and you will have prosperous careers, for neither you nor I have done anything wrong.
Megan Collied in the interview.
Okay, so we get all this stuff, right?
Let's just read the very end of the story.
It ends with just the statement from the letter, and I'm gonna bring you the best part next.
We are all human and mortal, creatures of mistake and redemption.
The road to redemption favors no soul.
Sincerely, Ignotus.
ABC did not immediately respond to request for comment.
What could Ignotus be?
What makes the most sense?
Now, a lot of employees are saying, well, that's a Harry Potter reference because they haven't read any other books.
Perhaps it's an older employee who speaks Latin.
Drat!
Who at ABC would speak Latin?
How about this?
No one.
It's simple.
What does ignotus mean?
Why?
It's Latin for the word unknown.
Who speaks Latin?
Could it be Project Veritas?
Because Veritas is Latin for truth?
And is it possible that Veritas added by unknown on purpose because they don't have a name or they won't reveal the source?
You know what, man?
Maybe I just helped you guys at ABC out a bit.
Maybe it was that simple.
There's no Harry Potter reference.
There's no Latin scholar working in your midst.
There's an unknown individual who sent a letter to Veritas, so Veritas tagged it with Ignotus.
That makes infinitely more sense.
Or, more importantly, it could be someone who leaked to Veritas, and Veritas, being Latin for truth, said, I'll do Latin for unknown.
You gotta hand it to these media companies.
They're not here to protect you.
They're not here to protect the American people.
And I gotta tell you this, man.
Everything we've been seeing, especially with the impeachment stuff and the media and the whistleblower, I gotta tell you, it's some of the most nightmarish and dystopian nonsense I've ever seen.
Think about it.
For one, look at what ABC News did with the Epstein story.
They covered it up.
And I say that, you know, in understanding a bit of... It's a bit hyperbolic, right?
But you can say they covered it up.
They had the story, they had everything.
If we take Amy Roback at her candid word, it sounds like they had the story and they got rid of it because of pressure from powerful elites.
Now you can see what Facebook and YouTube are doing.
We can't talk about the whistleblower even though we've had high-profile journalists claim it's confirmed.
Can't say his name.
This is the craziest thing ever.
There were some people who were tweeting out that with Epstein's unfortunate end, they must be really desperate.
That's the conspiracy theory.
They.
I don't know what they is supposed to mean, and it probably means different things to different people, but I can imagine, at least for me, it has to do with the intelligence apparatus in the United States.
I don't think that there is an Illuminati or a big conspiracy, but I do think that there
are intelligence agencies that work together, intra-agency as it's called, and they have
goals and they do things that are probably extrajudicial or illegal.
I'm not saying that they did or are responsible for what happened to Epstein.
I don't know what happened to Epstein, but I do think the story is quite fishy.
I don't even know how a reasonable person can conclude that what happened to Epstein
makes sense.
You've got the coroner, the autopsy, famous pathologist overseeing it saying, nah, nah, nah, this guy was, he had his life taken from him, right?
So you put all those things together and a reasonable person would conclude, foul play.
But man, look at everything happening, right?
The impeachment against Trump, these intelligence officials who have been from day one seeking to defy and betray.
You have now Nikki Haley saying that even at the highest level, these people were trying to resist Trump.
So, Trump gets elected, and instead of actually being able to do anything, he has all of these weird things happening around us.
Now, let me tie these together.
The media is supposed to be informing us.
What do we get?
Brian Stelter on CNN said Facebook and YouTube were being responsible by banning the name of the whistleblower.
That's not responsibility.
No private corporation should have the right to shut down freedom of the press and the right for the public to know.
I'm sorry.
That's just the way it is.
I did not reveal this man's name.
This man's name has been out there.
But all of these companies... I mean, look, I understand CNN and ABC are not the same company.
But did Brian Stelter come out and say, whoa, this is a huge violation of ethics and journalism?
No!
He said basically nothing.
It was like a blurb in a newsletter.
Then he comes out and defends major tech platforms, political censorship, and the shutting down of the free press.
ABC contacted CBS and got an innocent woman fired.
CNN won't cover it but praises the censorship in a different area.
I'm telling you, these media companies are not the fourth estate.
They're an apparatus of the state.
They're not here to protect you from the corrupt.
They're not here to tell you about powerful individuals who are enslaving women and working with powerful individuals, even potentially a prince.
That's not their job.
Their job is to stop you from knowing these things.
Their job is to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist for pointing these things out.
Their job is to hire people who are willfully ignorant, who don't do the real work journalists are supposed to do.
I feel like there was this great journalistic apparatus in this country for a long time.
Taken over.
And I want to say, I don't mean like a literal they, I mean the corporate interests, the special interests, those who sought to make money, took these things over.
I'm not saying it's an intelligence conspiracy.
What I'm saying is these companies are dominated now by those who seek to make the most money.
It is not good for CNN to come out and talk about this.
It's controversial and it's going to cost them access.
Mum's the word.
ABC News doesn't want to talk about this.
They were worried they wouldn't be able to interview Will and Kate.
Mum's the word.
You can't say anything.
It's going to be bad for advertisers.
These stories are bad news.
Facebook and YouTube.
YouTube censors content, not for the most part.
That's not for political reasons.
It's because they don't want to lose money.
It's that simple, okay?
YouTube would love all of this political commentary if the press wasn't ragging on them.
It is these willfully ignorant individuals who are now coming out and saying that journalist John Solomon is a conspiracy theorist who's making it all up.
Yeah, so John Solomon's the guy who's reported on Ukraine.
And the dealings with the DNC consultant and confirmed a lot of these details.
But the story originated with Politico.
Now we're seeing in the impeachment inquiry and all this stuff that he's a conspiracy theorist.
He's basically out now.
He's published on his own website.
But I'll tell you what.
He FOIA requested real documents.
He has proof.
He has evidence.
Well, this is what they do.
These media companies, not because I think there's a grand conspiracy, I think because they're concerned about their bottom line, will toe the line for the establishment and say what is profitable, not what's important.
Because if John Solomon actually got access to a major platform, I mean, he's a contributor to Fox News, right?
So they do like it.
But if he was actually able to speak on all of these outlets, CNN, MSNBC, ABC, etc., I mean, there would be a public outcry for an investigation into the Bidens.
It would be bad for business.
They've got deals.
I mean, Chelsea Clinton, she had a deal for MSNBC.
Oh, we don't want to get involved in that.
If Clinton looks bad, we look bad for hiring her.
And that's what ends up happening.
What everybody needs to realize about conspiracies is that it's not always a group of individuals who are drawing up a plan and saying, here's what we're going to do.
It's quite simple.
Birds of a feather flock together, and no one wants to hold their own community accountable.
Activists say, snitches get stitches.
The police say, don't cross the thin blue line.
We know exactly what happens when you snitch on your own.
So when it comes to the wealthy elites, they're not plotting anything.
They're not, like, I mean, obviously the intelligence agencies have foreign policy plans, right?
That's what they're supposed to do.
But, like, ABC and Hillary Clinton aren't twirling their mustache to cover up Epstein.
What's really happening is they're saying, are we going to lose access to the palace if we do this story?
I don't want to do the story then.
It's bad for business.
And then you'll have people in politics saying, like, we got some, ooh, this is corruption over at the big media companies, but hey, they cover me favorably.
We gotta, I'll talk to them.
We'll deal with it internally.
And that's what happens.
The real journalists are the ones who have no problem speaking truth to power.
Where was Amy Roback?
Why, after three years, did she not blow the whistle?
Why did she not come out and say, I refuse to stand idly by?
Ronan Farrow did.
They told him to stop the story, and he said, later, I'm doing the story.
That's journalism.
Good for him.
But what about her?
A lot of people have said, wow, it's sad to see her all angry.
No, I'll tell you what.
Amy Roback never came out and said, this is happening.
It was only when her rant was leaked.
She's never come out and blown the whistle, and even after the fact, tried downplaying it.
And in that video, I do not see a journalist who's angry that she could have spoken truth, uh, she could have been known.
Or, I'm sorry, I did not see an individual who was angry that she was unable to call it the corruption.
I saw an individual who was angry she didn't get credit for it.
That's what it sounds like to me, that she was like, I had this!
It could have been me!
My story!
And now it's all come out.
It wasn't her going, I could've stopped this.
I could've let everyone know what he was doing.
Nah.
For three years he carried on.
Because she didn't want to speak up.
Because she preferred her high-profile job and her paycheck.
That's what it's all about.
Amy Roback did not collude with anybody to cover up the story, same as ABC did.
She just wanted the money.
I'm losing my voice.
I'm gonna stop now.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Facebook is being sued for censoring the name of the potential Trump Ukraine whistleblower.
If anything comes out of this lawsuit, I will be very, very surprised.
But I gotta admit, Facebook and YouTube censoring a name is quite possibly, in my opinion, one of the most egregious acts of censorship and political interference we have ever seen.
Now, we've seen Twitter ban people over Learn to Code.
That was, for the most part, a conservative meme making fun of journalists while Twitter took action against that one particular community.
It's very strange.
Now what we're seeing is way worse than that, though.
The president is currently, he's facing an impeachment.
We've got testimony happening right now where people are arguing whether or not Trump committed crimes.
The New York Times provided details into who the whistleblower was and a name was floated.
It was then confirmed by one journalist who later deleted his confirmation.
I don't know why.
But what we learned is very important.
This whistleblower may be acting for partisan means and is now facing a lawsuit of their complaint, an ICIG complaint, for potentially soliciting illegal donations or illicit donations.
This whistleblower We now know a lot of information about this person, and if this name is true, we need to, one, talk about who this person is and why they're doing this.
Was it financial motivation?
Political motivation?
Both?
Or, is the reporting wrong?
If the reporting is wrong, don't we need to talk about it?
We can't.
All they do, Facebook, by guaranteeing we can't talk about it, is make sure that everyone just says, it must be true.
Why do that?
It's strange.
Especially when Fox News and many outlets have already said the name over and over and over again.
I can't say it.
If I say this, it's like Voldemort.
Can't say it.
They'll shut this video down.
Let's read the story and see what's going on with this lawsuit.
The Hill reports Facebook accused of censorship in lawsuit over posts naming whistleblower.
Oh, they don't even say alleged anymore.
They just say straight up whistleblower.
A new lawsuit accuses Facebook of censorship over alleged removal of posts.
Alleged removal?
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold on.
A new lawsuit accuses Facebook of censorship over alleged removal of posts.
Let me just stop you right there.
I was suspended and my posts were removed for linking to a story on Politico about the importance of journalism talking about the whistleblower.
So yes, it's not an allegation.
It's happening.
The alleged Ukraine whistleblower, it says in quotes, whose complaint sparked the impeachment inquiry into President Trump.
Law school student Cameron Atkinson claimed in court that the social media platform didn't explain to him why it deleted the three posts Bloomberg Law reported Tuesday.
The student reportedly claimed that he wanted to test whether Facebook was blocking posts that mentioned a name that conservative outlets claim is the whistleblowers.
Atkinson said in court, That his three posts, one calling the person a hero, another calling the person a dirty rat, and a third saying he had conflicting feelings, were taken down, according to Bloomberg.
Asked for a comment on the lawsuit Wednesday, a Facebook company spokesperson repeated the statement given by the company while announcing it will remove mentions of the potential whistleblower's name on its platform last week.
Quote, any mention of the potential whistleblower's name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content outing of witness, informant, or activist.
Okay.
If they were going to say something like, it violates the privacy of an unconfirmed individual.
Interesting.
No, Facebook just flat out said they think this guy is the whistleblower.
I wonder why that is.
Well, listen, man, I reached out to Yashir Ali twice, the journalist who said he confirmed it, and he didn't get back to me.
So I don't know what to tell you.
But if he's going to tweet it out saying, I have three sources confirming it, I'm gonna go ahead and believe him.
As far as I know, he didn't issue a retraction or a correction or anything.
He just deleted it.
And I think he deleted it because of outrage, saying, you can't do this, don't confirm this.
Well, it was put out there.
So there's good reason to believe it's true.
It's possible it's not.
And I'll say this, how bad would it look for all of these conservative sites talking about this, if it turns out, not him, whistleblower's somebody else, and then they're all gonna have egg on their face?
For me, I think the most important issue, and I'll mention too, it doesn't even matter, the fact that even I argue about it, they're gonna try and claim the same thing about me, but my point is, I don't, I assume this guy is the whistleblower, but Facebook is censoring people.
YouTube censored my video because I read an article talking about who this guy is.
In which case, I think the bigger issue at play is, look, I gotta be honest, the impeachment of the president is an extremely important historical moment.
But this, the floodgates are being opened right now.
Facebook is saying, we've decided this name cannot be said.
That benefits only one political faction in this country.
Overtly banning conservative media talking about the biases of this individual who, look, if you search this person's name, going back years, you can see all of the political stuff he's involved in.
I'll tell you what's even funnier.
I can't say his name.
I can't say it.
But this name isn't particularly unique.
There are many people who share this name.
So what would happen if, I'll use a hypothetical, John Smith.
Let's say Facebook says, no one's allowed to talk about the potential, you know, figure John Smith.
Can I no longer interview anyone named John Smith?
Like what would happen if I go on Facebook and I say, John Smith is a chiropractor from Dubuque.
Is Facebook going to take my post down?
They will.
One of the videos that got taken down on YouTube YouTube force locks any video that mentions the name.
Just says the name in any context, okay?
If they catch it.
One video was a Fox News segment that was talking about something else.
It was talking about pronouns, and it was talking about... You know, the clip was highlighting an argument over pronouns.
And one of the individuals said the name, but didn't say this person was the whistleblower.
They were just like, look, we're hearing a lot about so-and-so, and then we hear about what his lawyers are saying on Twitter.
YouTube took it down.
I don't think... This is why it's the most egregious censorship we've seen to date.
Because not only are they telling us that we can't, as people, engage in this impeachment process and try and figure out what's going on, but you could be a random person who makes a video.
Hi everybody, my name's John Smith.
Gone.
They take your video down.
So is John Smith not allowed to have a profile anymore?
Of course John Smith isn't the name of the whistleblower.
You can Google it to find out because it's literally everywhere.
And the funny part is, Google will tell you, but YouTube, no, I can't do it here.
Facebook told Bloomberg in a statement that any mention of the potential whistleblower's name violates our coordinating harm policy, which prohibits content outing of witness, informant, or activist.
Or activist?
What does that mean?
Okay, uh, an activist for like, you know, I don't know, PETA?
You can't say, hey, there was a guy outside my place named John Smith from PETA?
That's weird.
So, but again, I will stress, too, it sounds like they're actually saying this is the whistleblower.
I wonder how they know that.
Or, there may be some credence to this lawsuit, because Facebook is asserting that's the case, and if it turns out it's not true, then they were censoring content.
I wonder where, in the terms of service it says, they can do this.
You know, I wonder if there's a potential contractual argument in the lawsuit.
We're removing any and all mentions of the potential whistleblower's name and will revisit the decision should their name be widely published in the media or used by public figures in debate, the company added, which has already happened.
So they're full of it.
They suspended me well after.
Well, so if you don't know, yeah, Facebook suspended me.
I think it was like a 12-hour suspension.
When I caught it, I had six hours left.
I wasn't able to post because I was sharing news.
Some Republicans on Capitol Hill, including Senator Rand Paul, have tweeted out stories that claim to reveal the possible identity of the whistleblower.
It is not clear if those reports are accurate.
The Hill has not named the individual being targeted by Republicans.
It is also typically the policy of the Associated Press and other major news outlets not to reveal the identity of whistleblowers who enjoy federal protections against retribution.
I'm just so sick of this game, okay?
You don't have protections from the First Amendment.
The government is restricted by it.
Which means, if I know it, I can say it.
There are certain things you can't say, you can't incite, you can't instruct people to do, like, you can't give instruction for things that would be crimes.
But if we know a name, we are allowed to say it.
By law.
But they always keep saying this.
Federal protections against retribution.
Making it seem like we as private citizens aren't allowed to talk about this.
That's where we're headed, man.
I am just sick and tired of all of this.
It's only going to get worse.
I don't think this is going to do anything.
You can fully expect that in the coming years... Actually, no.
Hold on.
Take this back.
I think the trend we're on is dangerous.
But I also think it's fair to point out Liberals aren't having kids.
I talked about it before.
In 2006, a study found that liberals weren't having kids.
They were having 1.4.
Conservatives were having 2.04, just above replacement.
And now, 13 years later, Gen Z is slightly more conservative on many issues.
Yeah, I think this trend is actually getting worse.
We've seen more and more stories about the left refusing to have kids.
So guess what?
20, 30 years from now, hey, this might flip completely.
And you might have a very traditional Christian conservative country again.
They say the whistleblower's attorney and Democrats have argued the person's name should not be made public, that there is little reason for the person to come forward now that their allegations have been overtaken by testimony by public officials.
Oh, and yes, the hearings are going on.
But just wait.
I really, really can't stand talking about impeachment.
I am so sick of this.
It is Russiagate 2, Ukraine boogaloo.
But yes.
Just wait till we talk about what's going on with impeachment.
Long story short, it's a bad play.
It's a bad play.
I don't think they're actually going to impeach.
We'll see.
But I'm leaning towards them not doing it.
But I'll explain that in the next video because I really don't want to deviate from the Facebook stuff.
They say, some of those officials will be testifying publicly starting on Wednesday, which is today.
Facebook said last week that it will remove mentions, you said that like eight times the hill, come on.
The company has recently struggled to toe the line between free expression and limiting harmful speech.
Recently, Facebook has had a high-profile disagreement with Democrats over whether it should fact-check political advertisements that go up on its platform.
Facebook told me that my posts were a crime activity.
Facebook told me that my post's journalism was a crime activity.
It won't matter if it's actually illegal.
If Facebook has control of economics, of speech, they have our data, they know where we are, nah, it won't matter.
Because the government will say, don't worry, you have free speech, but yeah, our political conversations are on these platforms.
And then the left, because they just love the establishment, they say, oh, but they're private platforms.
Oh, okay, dude.
Here you go.
We have a lawsuit.
So at least someone's fighting back.
But we'll see if anything comes of it.
Facebook's gonna make their argument, and the judges are gonna say, Facebook's a private company, it can do whatever it wants.
So now that Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have monopolized their respective spaces, what are we supposed to do?
That's why I say, listen man, when these companies get too big, they gotta be regulated.
Well, you know what, man?
To all the Republicans and all the Conservatives who said, no, that's the wrong idea.
Like I said, OK, I said this a year ago.
By all means, advocate for private companies to restrict speech.
We know which direction the censorship is going.
It's all flowing in one direction.
Now you can't even say who this whistleblower is.
And it turns out they're potentially a Democrat, Democratic operative in the intelligence community.
Unless the First Amendment is protected even on these monopolistic platforms, you can just wait for your ideas to die.
That's what'll happen.
So by all means, allow these companies to do whatever they want, protect them, and then, sure enough, in a few generations, even though conservatives aren't having kids, they will force you to say what they want you to say.
So think about it this way.
Liberals are not having as much kids.
A lot of millennials are not having kids.
Many more are pledging not to have kids because of the climate.
Conservatives are having kids.
However, the conservatives who remain on these platforms can only say what they're told to say.
So they're also being pushed left.
And their kids will be pushed left.
So even though the children are of conservatives, if the major institutions where speech and content is produced and distributed controls what you can think and say, Then there won't be conservatives anymore.
So if that's what you want, by all means, for me, you know...
My bigger concern is free speech.
I don't care if you're conservative, I don't care if you're liberal, libertarian, I don't care if you're a communist.
Free speech.
That's what it's all about.
There are some restrictions.
Some.
I get it.
But now we can see how it's getting bad.
And now they can use this power to subvert elections.
Let's say a whistleblower comes out, like Snowden.
They can say, can't say his name.
How are we supposed to tell people what's going on and explain who this guy is?
Can't do it.
Anyway, let's talk impeachment.
The hearings are ongoing.
It's mind-numbing.
It's like watching paint dry.
But, you know, whatever.
That segment will be at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast, a different channel, and I will see you all there.
I agree with Hillary Clinton.
And I didn't think I'd be saying that anytime soon, but recently she said, women have legitimate concerns about transgender issues.
And they do.
The big problem is, whenever someone tries to bring up any legitimate concern, you're branded as all of the worst things in the book, and people try to cancel you or end your career.
Now I will say, it seems like In recent times, that's actually been subsiding a bit, because people are growing a bit more resilient, I hope.
Like, cancel culture seems to be kind of losing out in certain key areas.
Comedians, for instance, Dave Chappelle, you know, made jokes, sort of, in this area.
Talked about his friend who praised him for it.
Dave Chappelle made a series of very offensive jokes, and many comedians are coming out and saying, you know what, we don't care anymore.
So I think, certainly, that with someone now like Barack Obama coming out saying, you know, this is not activism, not Hillary Clinton saying we gotta address these issues, I think we're seeing a pullback.
And as much as I am no fan of Hillary Clinton, I give credit where credit is due.
Always.
What she's saying right here, I agree with, and I'll give her respect for it.
That's what you should do.
You should encourage good behavior.
Let's read this story and see what she's actually talking about.
Maybe she's wrong.
Maybe there's some nuance here I'm missing.
The Daily Caller reports, Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in an interview that transgender issues raise a legitimate concern for women.
Clinton appeared on BBC Radio 4 with her daughter Chelsea on Tuesday to promote their book, The Book of Gutsy Women, favorite stories of courage and resilience.
And now, you see what happens now?
She makes these statements and here I am telling you the name of her book.
They differed in their answers.
When asked about the subject of biological males who identify as transgender, Chelsea Clinton defended the idea that those men can become women, while her mother struck a more cautionary note.
I do think there is a legitimate concern about women's lived experience and the importance of recognizing that, and also the importance of recognizing the self-identification of people who identify as transgender, said the elder Clinton woman.
This is all relatively new.
People are still trying to find the language for it, trying to sort it out.
I think in the right mindset this can be understood, but it's going to take some time.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Hey, credit where credit is due.
I always say, no matter who it is, be it Trump, be it a former communist, if they're going to come out and do the right thing and say the right thing, you give them credit for it.
And if Hillary Clinton's going to come out right now and say, look, it's new.
It's going to take time.
We should talk about it.
I agree with that.
Absolutely.
I'm willing to bet, though, they're going to call Hillary Clinton far right.
Now, she is not super far left.
I hate it when they call her a centrist, because it's like, dude, there's a big difference between your average centrist and your crony corporate Goldman Sachs warmonger, okay?
But in this regard, I'll rag on her, I'll rag on Trump, I'll rag on whoever, but okay, I agree with this.
I think it's important.
And I can respect someone who's trying to give a calm and more nuanced approach to this problem.
It wasn't the first time the former Secretary of State has shown hesitance on transgender issues.
She expressed skepticism when asked last month if a man with a beard and female organs could be- I'm sorry, with a beard and male organs could be a woman, calling it a very big generational discussion.
You got that right.
If Hillary Clinton's words on transgender issues in October were off-the-cuff and spontaneous, her words to the BBC today were not, British writer James Kirkup argued in the Spectator magazine.
She's chosen to state clearly that there are indeed legitimate concerns about the way transgender issues relate to women and their lives.
Clinton on Tuesday also declined to rule out running for president.
Oh, here we go.
Of course, you can't have a story without mentioning Hillary Clinton might run for president.
She refused to rule it out, saying, as I say, never, never, never say never.
She said in another BBC interview, I will certainly tell you, I'm under enormous pressure from many, many, many people to think about it.
But as of this moment, sitting here and this dude talking to you, that is absolutely not in my plans.
Okay, here's what's gonna happen.
Trump impeachment thing's going to happen.
They're going to fail.
And then the Democrats—so check it out, check it out.
In my main video, I mentioned that the impeachment trial will restrict all of these other candidates because they're in Senate.
They've got to be jurors in the trial, right?
They're not going to be campaigning as much while that's going on.
It could be, what, six weeks?
Well, then you get the bad news.
Maybe Biden drops out.
Maybe his polls are dropping.
So Hillary says, with all of this stuff going on, I have no choice!
And she enters the race.
I don't know, though.
I mean, that would be nuts.
We'll see.
And I gotta say, I think she could win.
I really do.
Especially now.
The Democrat strategy is negative partisanship.
And Hillary Clinton lost some areas by only a few votes.
Now, I get it.
Trump did win by something like 70 electoral votes, I think.
But I do think if you underestimate her, she can win.
And that's a word of warning to everybody who doesn't like her or who likes Trump.
Don't fall for the same trap she did.
They all thought she was going to win.
They all laughed and cheered.
Amen.
Never underestimate your opponent.
But this video is not about Hillary running for office.
It's about transgender issues and what Hillary Clinton is saying.
So let's read more.
The Daily Caller ends by saying, And that's true.
We have another story here from the Daily Caller.
It says just 29% of Americans support allowing biological males on girls' sports team a Democratic bill would require.
I believe they're referring to the Equality Act?
Is that what they're referring to?
Well, I don't know what they say, but let me tell you something.
A lot of people are going to argue Because I've read these articles, I've talked about this many times.
They say, if a person transitions and is off testosterone, taking blockers and taking hormones, they have lost their advantage.
That is not true.
That is factually incorrect and will always be incorrect and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Here's the thing.
If someone goes through male puberty, no amount of therapy, no amount of testosterone suppression will change the fact that they have narrower hips.
So when it comes to sports, women are more prone to ankle, knee, and leg injuries because of something called the Q angle.
From the hips, the femur goes like this, and then, you know, it goes down.
So skateboarding is a really good example.
There's also center of gravity differences, where male center of gravity is a bit higher.
Even if they switch, even if men start taking different hormones and blockers, their center of gravity, broad shoulders, and upper body muscle mass will not change all that much.
So these things are major factors.
Bone density, muscle mass, collagen, they all will still be there.
So I've heard from a million people saying, oh no, no, no, no, listen, listen, listen, man.
This is not meant to be disrespectful in any regard.
I am talking about an issue right now in terms of protecting the civil rights of women.
And this is the big challenge in having this conversation.
Because they'll accuse you of being a transphobe for saying this.
So are you a misogynist if you don't?
If you don't protect biological females, then you're a misogynist.
So which one?
Is it impossible to talk about on YouTube because YouTube will ban me no matter what?
No, let me say this.
I fully respect and support the rights of all individuals, and my goal here is to make sure that biological females, as well as trans individuals, are placed into a fair standard that protects both groups.
And simply placing biological males who have transitioned to compete alongside biological females does not a fair sport create.
What we would need to do is potentially make a transgender, you know, I guess league, right?
Depending on the various different sports, there will be divisions for trans individuals.
And that probably makes more sense for a couple reasons.
A female, someone who was born female and transitions to male, who now has the testosterone, is going to be at an advantage compared to biological females.
But a biological male who takes hormones will be at a disadvantage to biological males.
But perhaps there's an overlap between trans men and trans women, so a trans division may be the fairest and best, because then trans people will get their own league to compete fairly with no, you know, then who's going to be able to complain, right?
You're not going to get any left, right, or whatever.
You're going to have your own league.
Okay, and then you compete, set your own records, and no one can take that away from you.
The challenge now is that biological females are physically at a disadvantage in almost every capacity.
There are certain sports where that might not be the case, but for the most part, it is.
And I always explain to people like NFL, NBA, etc.
My understanding is there's no rule saying women can't compete.
They just don't qualify.
So this is a story that elaborates on this, and the reason I bring this up is not because I really, you know, wanted to do a segment on the trans issues, but I thought it was interesting that Hillary Clinton was willing to bring this up, and she doesn't really have fear that she's going to get ripped apart for it, and she probably will!
And so will I for just agreeing with her.
But she's right, there's legitimate concerns, check it out, they say, a majority of Americans, 51%, oppose, excuse me, Allowing biologically male athletes who identify as transgender onto girls sports teams, according to a Rasmussen survey released Friday.
57% of black Americans, a key voting demographic for Democrats, told Rasmussen they oppose male athletes in girls sports.
Just 29% of Americans said they favor allowing male athletes onto girls athletic teams, while another 20% said they aren't sure.
I can respect those who aren't sure.
But I think facts matter.
The science matters.
And the easiest way to describe it is, if you tell everyone in a room to line up from tallest to shortest, you're gonna get male to female, with some mix in between.
Some taller females, and there may be some anomalous, you know, really tall females.
But then if you take any one of these males, I can't tell you on average, but many of them, and then transition, they will still likely be tall and show male characteristics.
One of the biggest problems I think we have in social justice, particularly with the LGBT community and the trans community, is a propensity for people to lie to each other, in my opinion, to try and protect the feelings of those they think are vulnerable.
I think this is to an extent commendable, but I think it presents people with a world of false expectations.
If there is someone who is visibly, biologically male, I'm sorry, I'm not attracted to those features.
Yes, if there is a biological female who has very masculine features and broad shoulders, to me, that's not attractive.
This in no way is disrespectful to the individual, you'll just need to find someone who would find you attractive, and there are going to be many.
You know, there's billions of people on this planet.
The point I'm making is, It's... Well, you know, I think you get the point.
You can't make perfect changes.
And when someone tells you that you're beautiful and you're very male... Here's what I'm trying to say.
If you look masculine, even if you're ever transitioning, broad shoulders, tall, you know, Adam's apple, etc, people will tell you online how beautiful you are and all those things because I think they're trying to spare your feelings.
And I can respect it.
Again, I find it commendable.
But in the end, you still will not be the same as someone who's biologically female.
Now, I think it's fair to point out, just because someone doesn't find you attractive doesn't mean all women are attractive.
There are plenty of unattractive men and women, so I don't think that's necessarily an issue unique to trans people.
I think a concern that we're seeing is now, with so many trans activists trying to shut down conversations, conversations like this, even ones in good faith, you can't get a legitimate conversation about what someone can expect.
I think that the challenge then becomes, when you see these people post online, and they're looking for validation, And they're very, and we'll call it not passing, like it's very obvious you're either female or male, you know, if they're trans.
People in the comments will all just tell you all these good things, because if you don't, you'll get banned.
If you tell them the truth, you'll get banned.
But what happens to those people then when they have everyone on the internet saying, oh, you look great, and they go outside of the real world, and they don't get treated that same way?
It's not always that way.
I'm just saying, we have to be careful about just placating people's emotions.
Okay?
I understand there's vulnerable people we want to respect and protect them.
But we also can do good, we can respect and protect someone by telling them the truth.
I'm not saying literally every trans person.
I'm just saying.
I don't care if, you know, your mom tells you you're the most handsome boy in school.
Probably not true.
Okay?
Take that into consideration.
What we're seeing now with sports is the real physical, tangible results of people saying, don't worry, we'll let you do whatever you want.
I'm sorry.
If we want to protect the rights of everyone, including females, we have to recognize we are taking their rights away by making them compete against biological males in any circumstance.
Well, in most circumstances.
I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
California!
What an awful, awful place.
Man, I can't tell you.
You know what I could do?
I could create a show called, like, The California Show, where all I do is local reporting about how awful California is.
Now, I think it's fair to point out, California's got some beautiful places, some beautiful mountains.
There's a lot of nice things going on in California.
Unfortunately, as of late, we have a few really big stories.
The big story here.
Truckers sue California saying new gig economy law would kill 70,000 jobs.
Okay, California, what are you doing?
The other day, I did a video about two homeless guys who got shot with an arrow from a bow because a guy was riding on a purple bicycle and fired an arrow at these dudes and hit them.
What is going on in California?
So you've got the natural disasters, right?
That, I'm sorry, you know, I don't know.
There's been arguments that the natural disasters are the result of poor forest management.
That was in the New York Times.
Trump said everyone got mad when Trump said it, but it was in the New York Times.
So now you've got all these wildfires.
All that brush that built up is now burning.
Houses are burning.
So then the power company shuts the power off.
I'm going to give you guys a trigger warning on this one.
Because we're going to be talking about the economy, okay?
We can get away from the insanity, but let's talk about the economy.
However, before we move forward, to explain the severity that is California's problems, particularly the homeless crisis, I give you all a trigger warning, in good faith.
You may not want to hear about what comes next because it has to do with bodily fluids and homeless people.
I hope you're prepared.
I gave you a warning.
Don't say I didn't warn you.
Homeless man hurls bucket of diarrhea at woman near Hollywood Walk of Fame.
I kid you not.
California, what's happening?
LA's got a bad homeless crisis, man.
And so I know I want to focus on economics right now, but I highlight that just to show you there are these anomalous stories.
It's not like every homeless person is doing it, but there are things like this that they do.
You know, spitting on law enforcement, pooping in the streets.
And now we have quite possibly one of the most horrifying stories.
And I'll tell you this, I did not want to dedicate a whole video to that segment.
I just want to highlight that now to let you know it's getting bad.
But let's get back to the serious track.
Yes, a homeless man hurled a bucket of feces at a woman.
It's horrifying.
But you know what's worse?
I mean, that woman, that's messed up.
But let's talk about the 70,000 jobs California is going to destroy.
And at the same time, this is related to a story having to do with journalists who are freaking out that, guess what?
This new bill would actually take away a ton of freelance journalism jobs.
Journalism ain't doing too well.
But let's read about truckers.
Fox Business Reports.
The California Trucking Association on Tuesday filed what appears to be the first lawsuit challenging a sweeping new labor law that seeks to give wage and benefit protections to workers in the so-called gig economy, including rideshare drivers at companies such as Uber and Lyft.
The legislation violates federal law and would deprive more than 70,000 independent truckers of their ability to work, the association said.
Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks and the right to set their own schedules in order for companies to comply with a law, it says, illegally infringes on interstate commerce.
I agree.
How can you pass a law saying that an individual isn't freely allowed to sell their own wares that are legal wares?
If I make widgets, you pass a law saying no one can sell more than 30 widgets per year?
To me, that's nuts.
And I understand there can be restrictions in some areas, but this is too broad.
For journalists, they were told they couldn't write more than like 35 in a year or something like that.
So think about it.
I write a story, I sell it to you, and you publish it.
To me that's no different than if I whittled a little boat from a piece of wood and sold you that for a couple bucks.
Imagine if they said, you're selling too much!
Think about how insane this is.
You know what it is?
There will be no entrepreneurs anymore.
You will have to be an employee of someone else's company.
I say no way!
I ain't working for anybody but myself, but that's what California's doing.
Independent truckers are typically experienced drivers who have previously worked as employees and have, by choice, struck out on their own.
We should not deprive them of that choice, Association CEO Sean Yudon said in a statement.
The law, set to take effect January 1st, makes it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees who are entitled to minimum wage and benefits, such as workers' comp.
We expect big corporate interests, especially those who have misclassified their workers for years, to take this fight back to the place they know they can delay justice for workers, the courts.
The bill's author, Democratic Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez of San Diego, said in a statement, let me stop you right there.
Lorena Gonzalez is not popular right now.
Journalists across Twitter were railing on her, saying, you are destroying our industry, you are hurting these people and taking their jobs away.
She didn't care.
Apparently, you know who really pushed for this law?
Unions.
This is nightmarishly dystopian, if you were to ask me.
You know why?
For one, I have been a member of, I believe, two different unions.
I will never be a part of one again.
I have no problem, if you want to join a union, I have no problem with collective bargaining.
I think, actually, I really, I love collective bargaining.
I think it's fantastic.
But unions, in my opinion, are becoming corrupt and want power.
So what happens is, these unions go to companies, convince people to unionize, and then take a cut of their paychecks and do nothing for them, just to cause problems.
This new bill, which, again, maybe wasn't, but a lot of people are saying was pushed by big unions in California, is now making it harder for you to work for yourself.
Dude, if I want to drive a car, and you're going to pay me to drive the car, how can you make that illegal?
To me, that's insane!
Like, what if someone came to you and said, How would you like to mow my lawn for 20 bucks?
And you're like, okay.
And then along comes a bill where they're like, if you do that more than 30 times in a year, you're going to get fined.
It's illegal.
You can't do that.
You're like, dude, if I want to mow someone's lawn for money, I can do it.
Apparently not.
That's independent contracting.
Her office said it's apparently the first such lawsuit.
Although Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash have said they will spend $90 million on a 2020 ballot measure opposing the law if they can't negotiate other rules for their drivers.
Uber also said it will keep treating its drivers as independent contractors and defend the decision in court if needed.
Do you think any one of these journalists who is outraged is going to defend this woman?
No way.
She's gonna see what happens when you make everybody angry.
You're gonna get major, multinational, heavily invested companies like Uber, and truckers coming after you, and all the journalists are gonna write puff pieces about how correct they were.
You'll notice all of a sudden, you're shaking hands with a trucker, and then a story emerges about how that trucker actually is alt-right.
And you're gonna be like, wait, no, what?
Oh, but those journalists are mad at you.
You better make sure.
This is the problem with journalists.
They're like, Journalism is supposed to be a watchdog profession, but they just circle the wagons around themselves, you know?
It reminds me of a story from, it was, I think, Youngstown, Ohio, during Occupy Wall Street.
The police and the firefighters were protesting along with the people, and then the city cut a deal for the police, and the police then turned around and started arresting everybody else.
So it's like, oh gee, oh gee, thanks!
So yeah, the journalists will be totally on board up until they get their deal.
So here's my advice to Lorena Gonzalez.
The first thing you gotta do, I'm half kidding, by the way.
journalists. Give them what they want, lest they start smearing you and destroy your life.
I'm half kidding, by the way. It's that scary.
They say the law could also affect construction workers, janitors, and home health aides.
But the law's effect on ride-sharing and meal-delivery drivers has received the most attention because those companies pay their drivers on a per-ride basis and don't provide benefits such as health insurance and paid leave.
So what?
Do I have to have those things?
Look, I get it, man.
You do want paid leave.
You do want health benefits.
It makes sense.
What if you're somebody who just want to take a couple gigs and you're like, no, I don't need none of that.
What if you're on your parents health insurance and you're like, I don't need none of that.
They're going to make you sign up and take their program.
What if you have a better program on your family plan?
They're going to make you sign up and like the company has to give you these things.
Now I get it, you could probably forego, but why should they have to make you employee?
Why should I have to work specifically under someone else?
I don't want to do that.
They say the law implements a legal ruling last year by the California Supreme Court regarding workers at the delivery company Dynamax.
The court set a new three-pronged test for companies to use when determining how to classify their workers.
To be labeled a contractor, a worker must be free from control of the company, performing work outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business, and engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work they are performing.
Well, here's what I see.
You pass a law making sure that all these independent contractors have to be employees.
And I'm going to be a little bit hyperbolic here, but you're one step closer to communism, where you are mandated to work for someone else.
You can't be an independent contractor.
You can't set your own terms.
I'll tell you what, if you want to work for something, that's your choice, for the most part.
Employment and independent contracting is different.
The concern I guess is that by hiring independent contractors, you can bypass minimum salary requirements and wage requirements.
But in the end, it's kind of like, if somebody wants to work for that, why can't they?
I tend to be in favor of progressive taxation and, you know, trying to solve for wealth inequality, because the last thing you want is an oligarchy or something like Ukraine, where the rich people own almost every property and the poor people can never, never make enough money to buy anything.
No, seriously, like, buildings in central Kiev could be like a hundred grand, but rent is like a hundred bucks.
So these people who work in Ukraine are making 400, 500 bucks a month.
It's different.
I could be getting it wrong, but you're never going to afford it.
That's oligarchy, where you're guaranteed to be ruled by wealthy elites who don't offer you anything else.
Just, just, we're rich, therefore we're in charge.
Nah, I'm not okay with that.
I'm not okay with that here, I'm not okay with that in California, I'm not okay with that in Ukraine, but I'll tell you what, that's what they're doing in California.
They're not doing the opposite.
They're making sure that if anybody wants to make money, you're gonna be employed and under the boot of a company.
That's nuts!
Hey!
You wanna know who's the real bootlicker?
But I'll leave it there!
Freelance journalists are furious about this.
California may actually be hurting its own economy.
And in the end, a homeless man chucked a bucket of diarrhea at a woman at the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
What a nightmare.
You must be nuts to want to keep living in a place like that.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
I will see you all shortly.
The Men in Black, are they real?
Fifteen years after the USS Nimitz UFO encounters, five sailors are speaking out.
And they say they turned over videos to unknown officials and the evidence was destroyed.
Welcome to a mystery of all mysteries.
No, I don't really think the Men in Black are real.
In the sense that, like, the movie would have you believe.
But there's probably, you know, top secret, confidential clearance individuals.
You don't know where they're from because they want to get the evidence.
But I'll tell you this.
This says to me, the mysterious UFO tic-tac objects that people have reported seeing, especially in the Navy, U.S.
military technology.
That's what I think.
And I think this lends itself to that idea.
But let's read these statements from these sailors who are speaking out and see whether or not it sounds like it could be military tech.
Look, if unknown officials come and destroy the evidence, yeah, maybe they're making something, dude.
Five men who served in the U.S.
Navy have come forward to say they witnessed the mysterious tic-tac-shaped unidentified flying objects that harassed and outperformed fighter jets off the coast of Southern California in 2004.
Imagine this.
You're an experimental pilot for a high-tech U.S.
military program, and you and your buddies are flying weird new machines, and you see a bunch of, like, old-school fighter jets, and you're like, let's screw with them!
The witnesses also claim that two mysterious individuals confiscated videos of the incident, and that all other evidence at the time was wiped from data recording equipment.
Gary Voorhees, Jason Turner, Patrick Hughes, Ryan Weglit, and Kevin Day say they were enlisted in the Navy when the USS Nimitz UFO encounters happened in November 2004.
Before we read on, because maybe the story is going to fall apart, while we're still sitting here in wonder, thinking, what could this possibly have been?
I want to present to you an idea I had.
When we use decoys for duck hunting, those ducks don't know the decoy is not a duck.
They think it is a duck.
And so they fly down and they're like, yo, what up, my duck friend?
Not realizing they're talking to a lump of wood or something.
Or there's that famous, there's a famous picture of a puffin decoy.
And this one puffin, puffin, the bird, would hang out with it all the time, not realizing that this thing that never moved was not a real bird.
Think about that.
What if the reason we haven't seen aliens is because there are decoy humans that walk around doing stuff, and we just can't tell they're decoys?
Wouldn't that be freaky?
Previously, the mysterious incident was only backed by a grainy black-and-white video taken by fighter jets when they encountered what the Navy acknowledged was an unidentified aerial phenomena, in an eyewitness account given by one of the pilots of the aircraft reports Popular Mechanics.
The witness, Navy Commander David Fravor, has expressed doubt over the accuracy of the stories the five have told about the incident.
In response, the five say it's disappointing to learn Fravor believes their account are not accurate.
However, they stand by their claims and insist the only reason they went public was to support Fravor and their fellow sailors.
That's what it's always been about since day one, Turner, a former petty officer aboard the USS Princeton, says.
Voorhees, also a petty officer on the Princeton, which was part of the USS Nimitz carrier group, said he heard radar technicians on the vessel saying they were getting ghost tracks and clutter on the radar.
As the only system technician on board, Voorhees said a possible malfunction was a concern and that the high-tech hardware was recalibrated because of what was assumed were false radar returns.
Once we finished all the recalibration and brought it back up, the tracks were actually sharper and clearer, Voorhees says.
Sometimes they'd be at an altitude of 80,000 or 60,000 feet.
Other times, they'd be around 30,000 feet going like a hundred knots, he recalls of the radar readings.
Day, who was in the Princeton's Combat Information Center serving as an Operations Specialist Senior Chief, was watching over the airspace in charge of protecting the strike group.
My job was to man the radars and ID everything that flew in the skies, Day said in the documentary film, The Nimitz Encounters.
Day said that on or around November 10th, about 100 miles off the coast of San Diego, he noticed weird radar tracks near the area of San Clemente Island.
The reason why I say they're weird is because they were appearing in groups of 5 to 10 at a time, and they were pretty closely spaced to each other, and there were 28,000 feet going 100 knots tracking south, Day said in the documentary.
Weglit, in a YouTube clip, who at the time was the former leading petty officer and power plant specialist for an SH-60B Seahawk helicopter, remembered hearing Day's name being called over on the Princeton communications system.
Senior Chief Day, his name, was being called over the comms, no BS, every two minutes, Weglit said.
I recall hearing something like a big real-world scenario was going on, but I just didn't really understand.
Voorhees added that he caught a glimpse of the ship's advanced tracking systems to look at the objects.
Alright, let's stop here.
I have another idea.
You know what can fly the way they describe?
Shooting left and then stopping and then jolting the other direction?
When a lot of these UFOs were being talked about, the flight technology we had was like helicopters, who can make fast turns, but still, you know, it's not, they can't just stop and then turn backwards.
And planes had to do, had to curve because they're using air, you know, airfoils to fly.
You know what can shoot around in crazy directions?
Up and down, left, right, zoop, zoop, zoop, zoop, zoop.
Drones.
Think about it.
How complicated is drone technology?
Decently, they've got microcomputers that can help control, but drones can go left, right, up, down.
You ever watch one of these videos?
Where they have the toy helicopters, and they have really sharp blades, they're really dangerous, but they go up, down, left, right, and fly in really weird patterns.
What if all of these UFO stories, these tic-tac things, were just early military technology, using something as quad-rotor or octorotor-like technology, and because we weren't used to it, and it was top secret, We didn't know about it.
All of a sudden, you get all these stories about anti-gravity and weird technologies and weird energy weapons and stuff, when in reality, it may just be multi-rotor technology that we see commonplace today.
Check out some of these pro-drone races.
These drones fly in really weird ways.
I've got the Mavic 2.
You can make it go 35 miles an hour and then stop super quick and shoot back the other direction really, really quickly.
I'm sure if they made a really massive version, a really powerful version, because think about it.
If one of these companies in the US or in Germany or whatever can make these little things on the cheap, imagine what a military budget can do.
Imagine how they could do better air brakes and make that thing zoom, zoom, zoom like crazy.
If they were working on this stuff even back 20 years ago, I mean, it would make sense.
The military technology is substantially more advanced than the private sector.
I'd imagine.
In which case, the solution may be boring and simple.
And I'm sorry, UFO enthusiasts.
Maybe I just gave you a logical answer to the problem.
Kind of makes the most sense.
It sounds like.
If these unnamed officials showed up and took the evidence, it was just military tech.
And we've seen similar types of flight.
Massive drones.
Now, I get it.
A really, really massive system might have inertia, so it's not going to be able to slow down.
But think about if they have a series of, like, imagine a jet engine drone, right?
With these massive jet turbines, and it could immediately stop and then shoot in the other direction.
Maybe that's possible.
Maybe that's the easy answer.
Maybe what they saw was exaggerated.
Maybe they remembered it being more extreme than it really was.
You know, for me, I remember when I was looking at a space we were going to try and rent for a speaking thing, I looked at it and I'm like, hey, this is great.
And then when I left, I imagined it being bigger than it really was.
And when we came back, I was like, oh, I was just imagining it was bigger.
Yeah, because memory isn't perfect.
So maybe they saw something.
It did zoom around really, really quickly, but not nearly as quickly as the stories have made it seem now.
Maybe it was just a drone.
So Voorhees says, when they showed up on radar, I'd get the relative bearing and then run up to the bridge and look through a pair of heavily magnified binoculars in the direction the returns were coming from.
The object were too far away for Voorhees to get a look at, but he could still tell they were moving erratically.
I couldn't make out details.
But they'd just be hovering there.
Then all of a sudden, in an instant, they'd dart off to another direction and stop again.
At night, they'd give off a kind of phosphorous glow and were a little easier to see in the day.
Because drones have lights on them.
Think about it.
He saw it move and then stop, and then move and stop.
That's exactly what octocopters can do.
You know, really powerful ones.
Around November 14, the objects had been tracked for about a week.
With an air defense exercise scheduled that day, Day says he convinced his commanding officer to intercept what was showing up on the radar readings, which is how Fravor was sent on to make his encounter with what an unofficial executive summary would describe as an object with an elongated egg or a tic-tac shape.
It was approximately 46 feet in length.
Okay, okay, okay.
A 46-foot-long drone.
Maybe that's crazy.
Maybe that's too much.
But it doesn't mean... Just because it's really, really big, it's really, really dense.
They could have been using, like, carbon fiber.
Maybe the military has perfected graphene.
Or maybe they're experimenting with extremely expensive, lightweight materials to make something that's just heavy enough to be able to make these maneuvers.
Maybe we haven't seen them implemented because the U.S.
keeps its weapons a secret in the event of an actual war breaking out.
I gotta say, it was what, 1945?
Or no, it was earlier than that.
The Manhattan Project?
We made nuclear bombs, man!
And from then we've been making the craziest weapons in the world.
MIRVs, multiple independently targeted reentry vehicles, one rocket with 12 warheads.
You'd have to imagine the U.S.
has got crazier weapons than that.
I doubt the U.S.
government stopped producing weapons after the Manhattan Project.
Like nuclear weapons, come on.
Can't we do better than that?
Yeah.
Maybe it's a weird flying tic-tac thing.
Maybe they just don't know about it because they're not... Petty officer doesn't have clearance.
And maybe these people, these unknown officials, came and took the evidence because they were witnessing and filming experimental U.S.
military technology.
Look, I'm sorry, man.
You know, I wish it was aliens.
That would be exciting.
Could you imagine how fun it would be if there were other plants to go to and you could go adventuring and exploring new things and learning things?
But life just seems to be pretty routine.
And in the end, the simple solution is we know the U.S.
government works on these weapons.
Why would this be any different?
I'll leave it there.
I'll leave it there.
But maybe, just maybe, you will keep that in the back of your mind, the possibility that aliens are walking among us.
We just can't notice because, like a duck, the decoy is indistinguishable based on our perception.
