All Episodes
Nov. 14, 2019 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:37:22
Impeachment Hearing BACKFIRES On Democrats Potentially Proving Trump Right, Even CNN Notes Problems

Impeachment Hearing BACKFIRES On Democrats Potentially Proving Trump Right, Even CNN Notes Problems. The first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry offers no new information, at least no new real information.So far all we really have is questions about Burisma and Hunter Biden's role in the company and whether the president should seek an investigation into potential corruption. The left on the other hand is running themselves crazy by claiming that second hand stories about a fourth parties opinion are somehow credible evidence.Even CNN was quick to point out that these witnesses have never even met the president. What's more is that they didn't seem to know about the Ukrainian election interference in 2016. The story from Politico was even entered into the record with Adam Schiff acknowledging it.Assuming Politico is correct then it stands to reason that there may be deep corruption in Ukraine dealing with US interests. Assuming thats the case we can at least seek an investigation into whether the claims are true, thats what Trump did.All we learned is that unelected officials seem to disagree with Trump's foreign policy and were ignorant of why he might be seeking an investigation. Democrats are either ignoring the facts or acting like its all fake news. Its not.In the end we have only moved toward a reason to carry out Trump's investigation into Burisma and the Biden's and nothing proves Trump did anything wrong.  Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:36:49
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
Yesterday was the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, and already this is blowing up in Democrats' faces.
The first story, impeachment witness urges Burisma probe, testifies to concern of Hunter Biden conflict.
It seems Like these two government individuals were concerned that Hunter Biden was working with this Ukrainian company, and they thought it looked bad.
And they were upset that their concerns went unheard.
They're actually now testifying to a reason why we should be investigating the Bidens.
More importantly, We're learning that many of these people didn't know a whole lot about what Ukraine was doing in the 2016 election.
And perhaps Donald Trump was right to have an investigation into the Bidens and into Burisma, because people were concerned about corruption.
But it turns out, much of what their concern was really about, a disagreement in policy.
If you don't know about the story from Politico in which Ukrainian officials were working with a DNC consultant, you'd probably be alarmed.
Why is Trump calling for an investigation?
But the point is, the president was elected to do a job.
It is not your job to question his motives.
But this is apparently what's happening.
But it gets worse.
Now, there seems to be real concern over Hunter Biden.
We're learning this.
But the Democrats got no new information.
Yet, sure enough, we're seeing a bunch of left leaning out.
Let's talk about the bombshell report.
The new testimony from Bill Taylor.
Yes.
Claiming that Donald Trump was directly implicated after new information emerged about a phone call.
Donald Trump is done for.
A bombshell, a bombshell, a bombshell.
We've heard it a million times.
But it turns out that it was an individual testifying that they heard from a staffer that overheard on a phone call and asked for the opinion of an individual as per the opinion of the president.
And somehow they're claiming this as evidence.
Here's what I'm seeing.
For one, All that's happened so far is we have actual grounds, in my opinion, to look into Hunter Biden.
The Democrats haven't gotten anything from it, but the media is now whipping the left into a frenzy, making them believe there's evidence.
But when this comes to nothing, when nothing happens, they're going to be shocked and dismayed, as that's what keeps happening.
Russia, Russia, Russia for years.
And now here we are again with the media pretending there's evidence when there isn't.
And here I am, somebody who's not a particular fan of Trump, being forced to once again defend him because the media is full of it.
Let's get started.
I want to break down a couple things for you.
How it's damaging for Democrats already, and there's several reasons, but more importantly, how the media keeps whipping the left in a frenzy, in my opinion, to generate clicks, to make them believe Trump actually did something.
But sure enough, when it comes to the actual letter of the law, there is no evidence and
the media is claiming there is.
So once again, the left are being led in the wrong direction, but they keep clicking and
they keep generating these clicks for these news companies who are looking for a bombshell
because they need your money.
They need your eyes.
They need ad revenue.
So everything must be a big bombshell.
Let's start with a story from Fox News.
Impeachment witness urges Burisma probe.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video because I'm going to break down how the press is wrong and why this could lead or should lead, but probably won't, to a Biden probe.
Fox News reports State Department official George Kent testified Wednesday that he would love to see Ukraine look into the circumstances surrounding the closure of a probe tied to natural gas firm Burisma Holdings, while also raising concerns that Hunter Biden's role on the board of that firm created the appearance of a conflict of interest.
During questioning by GOP counsel Steve Castor at the first public hearing of the House impeachment inquiry, Kent was asked about the Ukrainian investigation into Burisma Holdings and why it was closed.
So here's the thing for those that don't know.
Biden came in, said fire this prosecutor because he's not doing his job.
They believe there was corruption.
That's their story.
But the new prosecutor who came in cleared this individual of all wrongdoing.
So if the argument is that they needed a new prosecutor to look into corruption, why did they end up being okay with someone who cleared the guy of all wrongdoing?
It doesn't seem to make sense.
But what does make sense is that Hunter Biden, for seemingly no reason other than his name, got a job.
And even Democrats, and people even on the left, have mentioned this.
They call it soft corruption.
So why then was the investigation stopped after Joe Biden removed this prosecutor?
The new prosecutor did not find any evidence.
The guy's money was released.
Something doesn't make sense.
Let's read on.
Kent testified that it was his and other officials' strong assumption that the founder of the firm, Mykola Zlochevsky, had stolen money and that a prosecutor had taken a bribe to close the case.
Castor asked Kent whether he was in favor of the matter being fully investigated and prosecuted.
I think since U.S.
taxpayer dollars are wasted, I would love to see the Ukrainian Prosecutor General's Office find who the corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe and how much was paid.
Kent, though, was not saying he wanted an investigation into Burisma over Hunter Biden's role, and testified that he did not witness any U.S.
officials working to protect that firm from criticism or investigations.
The Biden family's action in Ukraine, along with a separate issue connected to 2016 election interference, were at the core of what Trump wanted investigated out of Kiev.
Trump's now-famous July phone call in which he pressured Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch the investigations.
Now, pressure is a bit strong, I would say.
He said, do me a favor.
It's not much pressure.
Prompted a whistleblower complaint, and in turn, the impeachment inquiry in the House.
The President's request came after millions in U.S.
military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which Democrats and some witnesses have cited as a quid pro quo arrangement.
Now, let's stop.
They say Trump wanted a public announcement and an investigation of the Bidens.
Never happened.
They say that, in exchange, Trump was withholding this aid to pressure them, to extort them to do it.
They never knew about it.
So nothing really happened.
I believe it was Jim Jordan who said, it's actually quite simple why Trump held up aid.
For one, aid gets held up every so often.
But more importantly, you had a new Ukrainian administration.
And Trump said, let's withhold the money, or I'm assuming this is his assumption as to what Trump was thinking.
Withhold the money, we'll see if they're on the level, we'll take some time to talk to them and figure out what they're all about, and if they are genuine, then we'll give them the aid.
That actually makes a lot of sense, because the argument about extortion makes no sense.
Trump was extorting them without telling them?
Well, Vindman, the colonel who testified, claims it's because there's an implied extortion because the power disparity between the US and Ukraine.
I'm sorry.
That's not a legal issue.
We can't legally determine what someone's frame of mind was when no demand was made of them, and Trump never told them they were withholding money.
But now, in the impeachment inquiry, we actually see at least one of the witnesses saying, yeah, that was a conflict of interest, and we should probably look into it.
They say in Ukraine, meanwhile, the Burisma investigation isn't entirely closed.
Last month, Ukraine's prosecutor general, Ruslan Ryaboshapka, Said at a news conference that his office was instructed to review cases that have been closed to make sure they were fairly and thoroughly handled, including the probe into Burisma.
That announcement did not mean that Ukraine was opening a new investigation into Burisma or the Bidens.
But it does tell us enough.
With the investigation, with the circumstances around Joe Biden getting this prosecutor fired, and then the individual in question being cleared of all charges, with the questions from George Kent about what Ukraine was doing with this Burisma, Stands to reason Trump may have fought.
They've got to investigate this corruption.
None of this makes sense.
So why then are these two individuals shocked that Donald Trump was taking this foreign policy action?
And more importantly, why should they feel they have a right to supersede the president?
Now I want to show you a simple breakdown.
It's from the Politics subreddit from something called AutoTLDR.
Too long, didn't read.
read they say quote not only does President Zelensky deny the Democrats
characterization of the call but as Ambassador Taylor testified to this
committee the Ukrainians did not even know at the time of the call that a
temporary delay was put on the security assistance for them.
Ambassador Taylor testified that President Trump was the first president to
see that Ukraine was afforded javelin anti-tank weapons.
What's strange is some of the witnesses at these hearings and previous depositions who express alarm about these inquiries were remarkably uninformed about these indications of Ukrainian election meddling and why the president may have been concerned.
This story was entered into the record on day one.
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
Kyiv officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.
From Ken Vogel and David Stern.
The story exists.
It's real.
It's from Politico.
From this, you'd imagine a president would say, You know what?
This needs to be investigated.
Should Trump have called and said, do me a favor and do these things?
No, I think it's inappropriate, but I don't think it's that big of a deal.
I think Trump has made strategic errors, and I'm not a big fan of him in terms of a lot of the policies enacted.
He's followed Obama's suit in terms of, you know, commando raids and drone strikes.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
But let's talk about what's going on domestically.
I'm sorry, not domestically, but I mean, yes, technically.
What I mean to say is the Democrats and many of these outlets are complaining that the Republicans were asking the wrong questions, weren't actually getting the core of what Trump did, because the Democrats think all of this is predicated on a conspiracy theory.
But let's say the story from Politico didn't exist, and most of these Democrats don't seem to know it exists.
Well, then it sounds like Trump was saying, dig up dirt.
But when you start from this point that Ukraine did this, Politico reported it, everything seems to make sense.
Why would Trump give military aid to a country that was interfering in our election and doing things that are unethical or even illegal?
In which case he'd say, You gotta look into this.
But he didn't even offer up the quid pro quo in the phone call.
They never knew the egg was being withheld.
So all of this is predicated on absolutely nothing.
The only thing we've gotten so far from the hearing is one, this story's now entered into congressional record.
I believe that's what happened.
And George Kent testified, yeah, we probably should look into Ukraine.
Now here's the more important part.
Breaking news from this morning.
U.S.
envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid Ukraine minister.
Who are we going to believe, man?
The partisans in this country who have been chasing after ghosts nonstop for years to try and get Trump removed?
Or the numerous officials in Ukraine who said that's not what happened?
Now you can argue all day and night that they're just trying to play to Trump because they have to, because Trump's in control.
And I'm sorry, man.
We cannot make assumptions about what their state of mind is.
If they say it, they say it.
That's all we can really do.
But check this out.
Even CNN recognizes Democrats have a big impeachment problem.
When CNN comes out and says, you've got a problem with your testimony, I think it's fair to say this impeachment blew up in their faces.
CNN analyst, it's a problem for Dems that impeachment witnesses never met Trump.
Not only that, this analyst said they've never met Trump.
They didn't talk to Trump.
It's not firsthand.
And then Jake Tapper says, ever.
That's right.
They've never talked to Trump.
So now that brings me to the big bombshell report.
They're saying new testimony has emerged!
This proves it!
And in my opinion, this is nothing but bad news for the Democrats.
When you have an uninformed electorate, you may be happy they mindlessly follow behind you, but when they start believing crazy things and you can't control the crazy, you just lose.
If the media... Look, Media companies need clicks, which means nothing really happened yesterday.
Like, I think it's interesting that, you know, the Hunter Biden stuff came out, but it's minor.
It's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
Trump was already trying to investigate.
Whether you trust the guy or not, it seems like there's a real reason to investigate.
But the media can't be satisfied, they can't stop, with just saying, nothing really happened.
No, they need to make sure that everything's sensational.
Guess what?
Brian Stelter, in a segment says, later today, this is from this morning, later today, we'll have some early ratings for the first impeachment hearing.
But TV ratings are only part of the picture.
And I predict the audience for the hearings will grow over time, here's why.
I'm not saying you shouldn't discuss ratings, but we can see what the media's motivation is.
They're going to tell you all of these crazy things because their intention, in my opinion, is to shock you into watching.
In reality, it was like watching paint dry.
And sure enough, Brian Seltzer says, oh, Republicans are going to tell you it's boring, it's nothing.
Yeah, it was boring nothing.
We learned nothing.
Now let's get to the meat and potatoes here.
The Democrats claiming new testimony.
I'm going to walk you through the gradual increase in pure insanity.
First, Huffington Post doing a decent job in telling you what really happened.
Bill Taylor says aid was told Trump cared more about Biden probe than Ukraine.
The acting U.S.
ambassador to Ukraine revealed the new information while testifying before House impeachment investigators.
Okay, so this is a story, I think it warrants a couple paragraphs, that Bill Taylor was told by an aide that Sondland's opinion of Trump was that he cared more about the Biden probe.
This headline's basically telling you what it is, but let's step it up a notch.
Here's what Vox says.
Bill Taylor dropped a bombshell in his impeachment hearing opening statement.
He said a member of his staff gave an account of a previous unknown Trump phone call.
Yeah, if you're on the left and you trust the media and you read that, you're like, whoa, what's happening?
And it sounds like something big.
It gets better.
First of all, a previously unknown Trump phone call that isn't corroborated.
unidentified
So far.
tim pool
I mean, Sondland might testify and say it happened.
But the point is, just because someone testified that someone else told them that they heard someone they think was the president on the phone, tell someone else and then gave them an opinion of what the president said, it's absurd.
But check it out.
It gets crazier.
Talking points memo.
In impeachment surprise, Taylor unveils new evidence directly implicating Trump.
That's just absolutely not true.
Could you imagine going to court and saying, John told me that Bill was hanging out with Steve, and Steve said that Zach stole a candy bar.
They're gonna be like, what?
So wait, we're playing a game of telephone here?
It's not even implicating Trump.
It's about the opinion of one person.
Someone is giving you their opinion on what they think Trump's opinion is.
It's an opinion hearsay that's gone through four layers.
And Trump is not involved.
But it gets better.
I'm sorry.
Here's Politico.
Democrats land damning new evidence in impeachment testimony.
I saw this and I was like, whoa, what did I miss?
Damning new evidence, you say?
Key figures in the Ukraine saga appeared to help Democrats make the case that Trump abused his power in the presidency.
What?
Oh man, check out this first paragraph.
Revealed?
Donald Trump called a US diplomat and close GOP associate in July for an update on efforts
to push Ukraine to investigate his democratic adversaries, a witness in the House's impeachment
inquiry revealed yesterday.
Revealed?
No, nothing was revealed.
This is serious.
This is what they wrote.
None of this is true.
It's just one person's hearsay about another person's opinion on what they think the president's opinion is.
Now, at the very least, if we're going off just the phone call, then what we have so far is hearsay testimony.
Oh, but of course, they got to cover their bases.
Democrat Rep Quigley hearsay can be much better evidence than direct evidence.
No, you know what, man?
The Democrats Are floundering.
Let me throw it to Six Hexenhammer.
You might not know who he is.
He's a YouTuber personality and he tweeted this out just before I started filming this.
I gotta throw this out.
He's got it right.
He said, a month ago, the main problem for the Democrats is that they had no recognizable platform.
Their main problem now is that their platforms have been rejected soundly.
And so they're scrambling into another fake scandal to cover themselves.
That's right.
See, Ocasio-Cortez gave an interview where she said, this is really about uniting the party.
So, Daily Wire with the, sorry guys, it's a clickbait headline.
But she said impeachment is uniting the different factions in the Democrats.
Is that what we're really doing?
Check this out.
At the very least, when it comes to this new damning evidence, what we have is hearsay.
I'm sorry.
Bring in the aid and have them testify.
The other problem is, let's talk about a real cross-examination.
Let's say someone tells you, My staff member was at a meeting, okay, and he told me he overheard a phone call with the president where the president asked about investigations into the Bidens.
Then that aide testifies.
I'd ask, are you 100% certain the person on that phone was the president?
Is it possible it wasn't?
Is it possible, you know, so you weren't on the call.
You don't know the full depth of the conversation.
You overheard this one section.
So it's possible that you misinterpreted what was happening?
Even if Donald Trump asked about the investigations, I take you back to the first, the first, the start of the story.
If it's true that Ukraine did this and it's in the record, okay, then why is it a bad thing that Trump said, we've got to look into corruption?
We now have a real reason to believe there may be wrongdoing.
And I'm not even including John Solomon's reporting.
You know, John Solomon is an investigative reporter who's presented testimony and documents.
And let's put that aside.
Let's just look at what's going on.
Hunter Biden?
That's strange.
How did he get that job?
That's weird.
Former CIA director.
That's weird, too.
Joe Biden gets a prosecutor fired.
But the new prosecutor clears this Zolotchevsky of all wrongdoing?
I thought you said there was corruption.
But the new guy clears him?
And now your son is off the hook?
That's strange.
And if Trump wants to investigate that, okay, I don't care.
Nobody gets special access.
But the Democrats aren't starting with this.
They're ignoring this and starting from the premise that Trump just wants dirt.
And that's fake news and there's no real story behind this.
Let me show you a little graphic I drew up.
Channeling my best Glenn Beck.
What we have here is Bill Taylor testifying that a staffer told him that Sondland thinks Trump cares more about the Biden investigation than Ukraine, but at no point was Trump involved in actually speaking to any of these people and saying definitively that he cared one way or another.
Now it's possible Sondland testifies and says, the president told me the investigations are more important.
I defer you then back to the Politico story.
If it's true that Ukraine is corrupt, It's true that Joe Biden got this prosecutor fired and the new prosecutor didn't find corruption or didn't even investigate.
We don't know what happened.
Then why would Donald Trump want to give aid to a country that is corrupt?
It's the same exact argument that they're claiming Joe Biden had.
OK, then we need to investigate.
But here we are today with a media absolutely convinced.
Look what Cenk Uygur says of the Young Turks.
He tweeted this.
This is the Trumpification of media.
When a witness gives damning testimony of clear criminal wrongdoing by the president, but media complains the testimony wasn't entertaining enough.
Would it have been better if this sober-minded diplomat had threatened to pile-drive someone?
Here's what Trump- I'm sorry, here's what Cenk was referring to.
Jonathan Larson of the Young Turks tweeted out an NBC story.
The story says, NBC said, no bombshell.
Yet Taylor and Kent failed, or perhaps succeeded, given their nonpartisan roles in government
and the atypically serious posture struck by lawmakers of both parties, by dropping
no bombshells and largely repeating the testimony they gave congressional investigators at depositions
previously held behind closed doors.
NBC said, no bombshell.
They're right.
The Young Turks reporter then says, here's, shows Vox's story, bombshell report.
Then shows this from CNN, bombshell revelation.
And then shows what appears to be Business Insider, bombshell impeachment.
They're angry that NBC correctly said this is no bombshell.
Cenk Uygur said that was clear criminal wrongdoing by the president, damning testimony of clear criminal wrongdoing by the president.
What's illegal about saying how are the investigations going?
What's definitive and clear about an ambassador hearing from an aide who heard from an ambassador the opinions of the president?
But Cenk Uygur sees this and he's biased and he believes the fake news and this is what he ends up believing about it.
I'm sorry.
Hearsay of hearsay of hearsay of some, like, listen, if Trump came out and said, here's what I think and here's what I like, I'd be like, OK.
If Sondland says Trump wants the investigations more than, you know, he cares more about that than Ukraine.
OK, Sondland, that's your opinion.
Did the president tell you that directly?
Well, here's what he has to say.
Maybe it's true.
Maybe.
But for the time being, here's what happens.
Nothing comes of the hearing.
It's watching paint dry, watching grass grow.
It's boring.
We do get a little tidbit, and yeah, maybe we should investigate Burisma.
Everybody seems to think so now.
Or, I'm sorry, I mean, like, there's reason to believe there's wrongdoing.
Not everybody wants to investigate.
But the left, needing the rage bait, the proof that Trump has done wrong, is exaggerating to an extreme degree.
Because I tell you this, when this goes to trial, in our legal system, this is beyond, beyond inadmissible.
I could be wrong.
I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not a lawyer.
And impeachments can be different.
But seriously?
They're gonna try and admit this into, like, testimony?
Let me go back to that point I was making earlier.
Go to the police and say, my friend Steve told me that he overheard a phone call where John mentioned something about candy bars and what was going on with them.
So I asked Bill what John wanted with the candy bars and he says, John stole candy bars.
They're gonna be like, I completely lost track of what you're trying to say.
Completely.
Now here's where it gets good.
Something funny happened.
So we have this post here.
This is not the first one.
I want to show you this from the r slash politics subreddit.
An impeachment surprise Taylor unveils new evidence directly implicating Trump.
It's got 28,836 upvotes.
28,836 upvotes, 92% upvoted.
Okay.
All of these people reading Reddit have just been fed an embellishment.
And they're reading the headline, and they're seeing the story, and they're believing this is real evidence.
But of course, in court, it's not evidence.
It's evidence of nothing.
It's hearsay of hearsay.
It's literally nothing.
It does nothing.
Why, then, are they running that headline?
They may be ideologically driven.
They may be desperate to get any negative thing on Trump, or they probably just want the traffic.
As Brian Seltzer pointed out, hey, ratings, you know, we're gonna check the ratings, see what the ratings are doing.
That's what media cares about.
How are the ratings?
Is impeachment making us that good loot?
And all of these people upvoted, believing it's true.
I don't think Sondland will be able to amend his testimony out of that one.
Or Sondland will say, I don't rec- that never happened.
I don't believe that ever happened.
Maybe the staffer must be mistaken.
Who's the staffer?
So the staffer has to testify.
And apparently they're going to.
We'll see what the staffer says.
Probably we'll say something similar.
Then Sondland will say something.
But now we're going to get to the heart of the game of telephone.
And it may come back to the staffer and he's like, no, no, no, no, no, he's mis- he misunderstood.
It may go back to Sondland, and Sondland's gonna be like, I can't recall that ever happening, that seems strange.
Sondland might say, yep, that actually happened.
But Sondland already gave testimony.
So I have to imagine, even if it was true, Sondland can't amend his testimony out of that one, so he might say, oh no, he was confused, I was talking about something else.
Look, Bill Taylor overheard from a staffer who heard from me, and I was just, you know, giving my opinion, sorry.
Here's where it gets funny, though.
In this other story, it says Republicans barely questioned the witnesses.
They went for delay tactics, half-truths, and utter BS.
What ends up happening is what I showed you earlier.
Remember when I mentioned the auto-TLDR bot?
It actually got downvoted.
Because the people of politics are so trapped in an echo chamber that when someone presents a quote from the story, and again, it's a quote from the Republicans, it's not indicative of what the story is trying to say, so maybe, you know, I can see why they're like, this is a bad TLDR, but I think more importantly, as we all know, Our slash politics on Reddit has, I think, you know, 5 million subscribers.
But it effectively acts like the inversion of the Donalds on Reddit.
Everything is from left-wing activists, you know.
They have real news, but it's a lot of, like, left-wing political websites that aren't giving you the truth.
They're not telling you, or breaking things down.
And so when people see this, They downvoted.
If you're not familiar with what that means, it means that they're saying it's bad.
It doesn't contribute to the conversation, so they get rid of it.
And that was what I read to you earlier.
That some of these witnesses at hearings who express alarm about the inquiries were remarkably uninformed about Ukrainian election meddling.
That President Zelensky of Ukraine denies the Democrats' characterization.
So where does that leave us?
It leaves us with absolutely nothing in the hands of Democrats except an uninformed base.
Maybe that's a good thing.
I think it's bad.
Because when nothing comes of this, they will blame you.
I mean, they'll for the most part blame Republicans, but look at the fracturing of the Democratic Party.
It's in part because they feel like the Democrats can't get anything done.
And they want new voices, new strategies, new laws, etc.
New policies.
So I don't think it's completely in this regard, but think about it.
If a bunch of Democrats who are convinced by the media that Trump did this, direct evidence, Cenk Uygur says, clear testimony, testimony of clear wrongdoing, criminal activity.
None of that is true!
It's just hearsay, hearsay, hearsay, okay?
You can't prove it.
We'll get there if it's true.
But for now, no.
All these people believe it.
They read the media.
Trump will not be convicted on this.
This is not evidence of anything.
Even if he did ask for the investigation.
So they end up leaving thinking the Democrats have failed them once again and couldn't get the job done.
The Democrats don't seem to care.
So it's all blowing up in their faces.
And the only thing that really came out of it is that we learned that George Kent actually did think there may have been a conflict of interest, or at least the appearance of one, with Hunter Biden taking a job in which she didn't really offer anything.
So in the end, nothing.
Yeah, even CNN pointing it out.
So I'll leave you with this.
When CNN says, you've got a problem, these witnesses never even met Trump.
Never met Trump!
What are we doing?
And you can tell what the media is after.
They're after the ratings.
The media will prop this up all day and night to whip the left into a frenzy.
The Democrats just chase after them.
And guess what?
I do have one more thing for you.
Here's proof.
Storybench from Northeastern University.
They dug into different news stories to try and figure out if the news was following the Democrats or vice versa.
And they came to a rather sad conclusion.
First, they say, pundits often say the Republican Party is in disarray.
But based on this analysis of media coverage of Democratic candidates in 2019,
The average U.S.
voter is unlikely to be clear yet what Democrats want this election to be about.
The story goes on to say, unfortunately though, our analysis underscores that the media hasn't broken away from the poll and controversy-driven coverage since March.
Yes, quality news organizations such as the New York Times and the Washington Post have produced some excellent stories on policy, the candidates' leadership styles, and how those politicians have met challenges over the course of their careers.
But those tend to be overshadowed by day-to-day horse race coverage, and even those news outlets aren't immune from following the pack over the cliff.
That's the point.
One outlet comes out and says, here's proof.
The next outlet comes out, rewrites the same thing.
They're all running off a cliff, and they're dragging the left and the Democrats behind them.
Because in the end, These news outlets aren't writing stories like, hey, we did an investigation, here's what we found.
They're waiting for some shock and outrage, and then just affirming the biases of those who don't like the president.
They end up believing a fictitious reality.
And you can blame people like Cenk Uygur who says it's clear evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
It's clear.
It's not.
Absolutely not.
Nothing came of this.
And it is going to blow up in the Democrats' face as the media drags them off a cliff.
I will see you all in the next segment at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6pm.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you there.
This happened.
A Republican congressman.
23 tweets about impeachment, and the first letter of each tweet spells out Epstein didn't kill himself.
Perhaps one of the most epic Epstein memes ever entered into public meme record.
See, this is about the impeachment of the president.
And these were 23 substantive tweets that made points.
And he had to post them starting with the last letter of the sentence and go back so that as you read going down his Twitter thread, it says Epstein didn't come soft.
But it gets better.
Apparently, when someone reached out for comment, his response spelled out Area 51.
Clearly, he's messing around.
He's being silly.
I think it's fair to say that in matters of impeachment, we should probably keep jokes to a minimum.
So, I think there's some criticism warranted here, but for the most part, it's his time, it's his Twitter account.
It's not like he's reading into public record a fake statement he made up and that he's going to claim was a bit.
Oh, Adam Schiff did that.
That's right.
You want to criticize really goofing off and really causing problems, we're going to look at Adam Schiff, who literally read a bit, like he was doing a comedy routine while we're supposed to be dealing with the impeachment of the president.
It's ridiculous and insane.
And then after the fact, they said, that was fake.
He made that up.
And he goes, well, I thought that was obvious.
No, he's seriously right.
He's like, this is what Trump is communicating.
And now people believe that fake news.
Okay.
Somebody wants to put a meme in the, in a series of their tweets.
I'll say, come on, come on, let's keep it serious.
But I get it.
It's a joke.
Now here's, here's the bigger point here.
First of all, Bravo, Dr. Gosar, epic meme.
I want to point out.
Many people do not believe Epstein ended his own life, including individuals who are working in New York currently investigating what's happening.
My understanding is that subpoenas are being issued as to what happened with the prison because either Epstein did or he didn't, but we know there's tons of irregularities, so there's still an investigation.
We know a famous pathologist says, no, no, no, no, no, I do not buy this.
Okay, so fine.
There's no grand conspiracy so far, just doubt and inconclusive results.
But guess what?
The Fun Police are here.
That's right.
Former rep Katie Hill proving and giving us a great example of why the left can't meme because they're the Fun Police.
They are the student council members who are raining on your parade.
They are Buzz Killington from the Family Guy joke.
They are that dorm floor RA who's going to come down and say, you can't be drinking.
And all the 21-year-olds and 20-year-olds in college are like, dude, are you seriously going to rat us out because we're having a few beers?
Yes, that's what they do.
Check this out.
Let me show you the first tweet, for those that are listening.
Kyle Chaney of Politico said, this is wild.
As many have pointed out, the first letter in each of the top 23 tweets on Rep Gosar's account spell Epstein didn't kill himself.
The 23 tweets were about today's impeachment hearing, but that's besides the point.
The top response is, he didn't.
Okay, dude, you ask a regular person.
They're gonna tell you that he didn't, okay?
I'm not saying he did or he didn't, but I'll tell you what, my favorite... I can't remember who posted this, but they were like, I got into an Uber, and the first... I think it was Chris Regan, and he's a YouTuber.
He's like, I got into an Uber, and the first thing the guy says is, y'all, that dude didn't kill himself.
Like, nobody believes it, okay?
We just had the expose from ABC.
The story was spiked.
We know powerful interests are protecting powerful people.
So yeah, nobody's gonna buy it, dude.
Whether it's true or not, I can't say.
But it's being looked into.
We've got conflicting reports.
An investigation is still happening.
So hey, check this out.
GOP rep clashes with Katie Hill after she condemned his Epstein Twitter joke.
Seriously, she tweeted.
No, like this actually happened.
Real members of Congress tweeting out real conspiracy theories.
In an acrostic, no less.
Okay, okay, fun police.
You see, here's the problem.
The Epstein meme?
The Hillary Clinton meme?
These are mainstream culture memes.
Regular people who don't pay attention to politics make the same joke because it's funny.
Here's how the meme works.
You present a fact, like Did you know that today, there's actually more tree growth in North America than there were in the 1970s?
That deforestation has actually begun to reverse itself due to new laws and regulations, and Epstein didn't kill himself.
That's part of the meme.
So you say a fact and then just tack it on at the end?
Or, people are now doing things where like, At a cafe, there was a board, I can't remember where I saw it, it was just Reddit, it was just like a meme page.
And it said like, you know, cappuccino, foam and coffee, you know, latte, milk and coffee, and then it said Epstein, and then didn't kill himself, and yes, regular people are getting in on the meme.
Most people don't believe it, but most people just see it as a cultural phenomenon, that's funny.
There's also the joke about Hillary Clinton.
Whenever a show ends or something, or like a product is cancelled, that's the joke.
That Hillary did it.
So like, let's say there's a flavour of seasonal candy bar, and they announce the candy bar is being shut down.
Someone will tweet, make a fake tweet of the candy bar saying, I have evidence that will lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton.
That's the joke!
They don't really believe it.
It's meant to be funny, like she's going around like a boogeyman getting rid of candy bars.
So a lot of people are not playing this, but here's what they've done.
Katie Hill has turned a mainstream meme into a conspiracy theory.
Okay, dude.
If you actually pay attention to the jokes people are making, to the shows they're watching, to the fun they're having, you'd realize that not everyone is literally trying to claim that there's a grand conspiracy involving Clinton and Podesta and, ooh, boogeymen.
They're just getting in on the fun.
Like, it's a weird circumstance, and it is fun.
And I'll tell you this, too.
You watch the Joe Rogan podcast, possibly the biggest podcast in the world, at least one of them, and near the top, because it goes up and down.
Joe posts all the time about Epstein and saying, like, hashtag look into it.
I'll tell you this, man.
Joe is an MMA commentator, podcast host.
He's a good example of, like, the regular American.
And that's why his show is so popular, because he's willing to talk about everything from kind of like a layman point of view, except MMA, of which he is, like, one of the foremost experts.
But that's besides the point.
His MMA show is different.
I'm bringing this up because if you follow Joe on Instagram, you're going to be seeing the Epstein stuff all the time.
Regular people Understand what this means.
Katie Hill's here to reign in the parade.
And I don't think it's because she actually is concerned about conspiracy theories.
It's because she's so tribal, she can't recognize that regular people are into this.
And this is what I've talked about before.
Listen.
I was, someone was tweeting about Warren's meme team.
Elizabeth Warren is gonna be producing memes.
She's got meme smiths.
No.
It fizzled out.
Nothing happened.
Because the left can't meme.
Okay, some of them can.
But it's about averages.
I can't tell you why, but I will say.
Most memes in the political space, as according to a study, come from 4chan and rslashthedonald.
Coincidentally, then, you know, Reddit quarantines The Donald for dubious reasons, but I digress.
The memes still exist.
But also, it's not so much the memes come from the Donald, it's that the Donald memesmiths understand the overlap between regular meme culture.
Young people on Instagram and on Reddit like making jokes.
And the Donald can take some of these mainstream jokes and add a political tint to it, right?
So there's one that's funny.
You ever see the meme where the lady's like yelling and pointing the finger and the cat looks all angry?
Yeah, they put a beanie on the cat and it says, take the red pill, Tim.
And I'm like, dude, People act, you know, I will address that meme and say, people think as though there is a red or blue pill, and I completely disagree.
I think there are staunch tribalists that you could ascribe that to, but there is no taking of the pill unless you're not actually paying attention.
I understand, for the most part, this is also a meme.
And just because you've taken the red pill or become woke doesn't mean you're 100% on board with every single idea.
This, too, should not be taken so seriously.
But it is!
The Anti-Defamation League puts out a list of, like, the pills, and it's like, oh, dude, you know what, man?
It's mostly a joke.
It's not completely serious.
There are some people who take it seriously, but for the most part, it's a joke.
The meme about me, it's meant to be funny.
Because I am not a Trump supporter.
I am not a conservative.
I just think these people are killing the fun.
And I can't tell you what, I don't know.
Here's what I think really happens.
When someone like Dr. Paul Gosar decides to have a bit of fun and posts a mainstream meme, right?
Listen.
I'll tell you what, man.
Joe Rogan hosts a fun podcast.
Possibly the biggest.
Like I said, right?
Think about how many Americans love listening to his show.
And then take a look at which faction is more in line with that kind of narrative.
Well, Joe's gonna talk about aliens, he's gonna talk about DMTs, he's gonna talk about quantum theory, and politics.
And Joe's a pretty lefty dude.
And Joe's gonna post Epstein memes.
Now take the biggest podcast.
Take the average listener and present them with one of these.
And they're going to be like, oh, it's so funny when Joe does the Epstein stuff.
And they're going to look at Paul Gosar and go like, oh!
Nailed it.
Wow.
23 tweets in reverse order.
Epic.
Epic memeing.
And they're going to look at Katie Hill, and she's ragging on you.
Why would you want to take the buzzkill minority position on a good time?
I have no idea.
But you know what?
I was thinking about some personalities, and I will say this.
Republicans have their problems too, okay?
I look at like, You know, the Katie Hill types, the left today, it's no longer the cool punk rock people.
They're not there anymore, sorry.
Like, Joe Rogan is not in line with what Katie Hill is saying.
The punk rock, skateboarding, fun-loving individuals who believe in freedom are not with you because you've gone nuts.
And now the Democrats are being dominated by the stodgy, pocket-protector, glasses-wearing, well, actually, it's-a-conspiracy-theory kind of people.
And I can't tell you why, but it happened.
Maybe it's because social justice is inherently... I shouldn't say social justice.
I should say these left-wing identitarians who believe heavily in race-based policy and racial government and all these things are too authoritarian.
And so the punk rock greaser types, the lone wolves, the skateboarders, the people who want to chill, play video games, have a good time, mind their own business, don't want to have anything to do with that.
But they're not conservatives.
So the Democrats have effectively, like, split themselves off from the good time.
And from that, somehow, a bunch of Republicans, and when I was growing up the Republicans were these stodgy, well, actually, listen, straightening their tie, now you've got Republicans getting in on the meme!
So what's gonna happen then?
When you get a young kid who's on Instagram, and what does he see?
Stodgy Katie Hill going like, I cannot believe he's posting conspiracies.
And that young kid, that Gen Z-er is like, dude, I post these all the time.
Like, they're funny.
And then who does he look to?
Dr. Paul Gosar, of all people?
That's the person who's more likely to align with the young kid who's posting memes on Instagram?
You know what, man?
I'm thinking something more and more.
I'm thinking about where the Millennials are with Democrats and where Gen Z is.
And I think there's something interesting.
This moral authoritarianism exists mostly, it seems, within Millennials.
It certainly exists with Gen Xers, Boomers, and Gen Z, but I think it's strongest with the Millennial left.
My opinion.
So I was looking at Dana and I talked about this quite a bit in the past and I'll wrap this up with the responses between Gosar and Katie Hill, but I want to mention...
You know, in 2006, I did a couple videos on this, but it bears repeating, a researcher at Syracuse University noticed that liberals were having 1.4 kids per family, and Republicans were having 2.04.
Republicans, or conservatives, I should say, were having just above replacement, slightly.
But liberals were below replacement.
We're now 13 years after that study was done.
And that study went back several years.
So now we're looking at 13 to 19 year olds.
unidentified
Gen Z.
tim pool
And it's no surprise that Pew research shows they're slightly more likely to favor Trump, slightly more conservative on certain issues, still a bit progressive on many, many issues like millennials.
That says to me that you know what the next generation's going to be like?
If there are more conservatives being born than liberals, I'll tell you what, 20 years, the trend's going to reverse.
These stodgy, boring types like Katie Hill, they're not having kids, they're not having families, they're not going to relate to young people, they're going to be old weirdos.
And so I really want to mention this again because it's important in the meme conversation.
Two people.
And one is out of sync with mainstream pop culture.
And for some reason, the Republican doctor is more in line with mainstream pop culture.
I'm talking about the Uber driver.
I'm talking about when you get in the car and the Uber driver looks back at Chris Ragon.
I think it was Ragon.
And he says, yo, that guy didn't kill himself.
And everyone's laughing like, yeah, dude, we get it.
We understand each other, right?
That's what this is really about.
When we see crazy conspiracy theories, we're like, get out of here, dude.
But this one, everyone goes, I don't know about that.
And I'm not saying it's true or it's not, I'm just saying that's how people feel.
So think about the majority of the people, how they feel and what they relate to.
And that's why I use Joe Rogan as an example, because his show is so popular.
Katie Hill is not a part of that.
She's some elite, snooty individual who's trying to kill everyone's buzz.
So here's what I think's gonna happen.
You know, Ocasio-Cortez put out this animation where she's like, in 50 years, young people are looking at a Green New Deal, and trees are growing, and everyone's got government jobs.
And she talks about how, like, native elders are brought in because they know better than, like, biochemical engineers or something, which makes no sense.
I don't know.
Anyway, the point is, Ocasio-Cortez's vision of the future is predicated upon the fact that she thinks there will be a bunch of young progressives.
That these young women of color are now going to be able to go into government because of her.
But I start, you know, but think about it.
The older millennials are not having fun like Gen Z is.
PewDiePie and his army of nine-year-olds, I know they're not really nine-year-olds, but skewing younger towards Gen Z and younger millennials, they make fun of him, they smear him, they berate him.
No matter what he does.
They recently made a video claiming because PewDiePie did a video on No Nut November.
They showed PewDiePie's video claiming it was linked to the far right.
Kid you not.
So what happens when there's a young person, 16, 17 years old, and they're memeing like everybody else, they're like, ah, this is funny, meme, Epstein, haha.
And then they get scolded for it by the adults, going, actually, no one knows, and the coroner ruled you wrong, so you need to stop, or I'm gonna take your phone away.
Like, that's never been what young people wanted to do.
Young people rebel.
But it's not just that.
It's that liberals don't have kids.
So Katie Hill, who I'm assuming is childless?
I don't know.
When she's 50, or 60, or 70, when Ocasio-Cortez is 50, or 60, or 70, their vision of this future, where young people are all like, Green New Deal!
I'm sorry.
You're going to be weirdos, moral authoritarians, and young people are going to look at you, it's going to be like I Am Legend.
Right?
You ever read I Am Legend?
The movie butchered the plot, but it's basically like this.
A bunch of vampires pop up, start doing vampire stuff.
But there's only a little bit of vampires.
So, a vampire hunter goes around taking out the vampires.
But the vampires win out.
Eventually, there are more vampires than actual humans.
In the end, they arrest him, lock him up, and he's looking out the window and they look to him, terrified of him.
And he realized something.
When the whole world became vampires, he became the legend.
He was what went bump in the night, taking out and killing people.
He was the boogeyman.
The vampires would sleep during the day, and he would lurk around while they were sleeping, killing them.
To them, it was a terrifying story of the man who would get you in your sleep.
When he started, he was the hero defending his people.
In the end, he was the odd person out.
I think that's the future that's in store for a lot of these millennial progressives.
When conservatives have more kids, conservative values are more likely to persist.
But it's not just that.
With this trend, and more young people now pushing fun memes, Their peers, even from liberal parents, are likely going to want to be involved in the majority.
What the cool kids are doing, what the fun is.
So here's what'll happen.
AOC will be 70 years old, she'll be sitting on that train, and she'll be looking out her window, and she'll see a bunch of, you know, young, memeing, libertarian-type individuals looking at her like she's the weird vampire, like she's the weird boogeyman who believes crazy things.
And she'll be gone.
Now, she'll always have her generation, she'll always have the people around her, but it'll be shrinking and dwindling because they're not having kids.
That's just a fact.
And though their ideas will persist for the most part, we gotta talk about averages.
Yes, it's possible conservative parents will have liberal kids, but that's assuming the majority of the generation is progressive.
Because Gen Z is now more likely to be conservative because liberals didn't have kids, you're more likely to get a generational majority leaning towards free-spirited memeing and Epstein memes.
And that means the other liberal kids are going to reject their parents and say, no, I want to be like the cool kids.
You see how that works?
It's not like the kids who were born to conservative parents just, it's like a law of nature they become progressive.
No, it's because the younger generations were majority progressive.
But what happens when the younger generation is majority conservative?
Then those born to liberal parents will try to fit in.
They'll want to be a part of their generation.
So I give you this example.
Paul Gosar responded to Katie Hill, you're surprised by me?
You single-handedly taught an entire country a new word, thruple.
And what's up with that, too?
Relax.
And I'll give you another really funny example.
Katie Hill tweeted about Gosar, saying he's pushing conspiracy theories.
So he responded to her.
And then you can see this.
This Twitter account in response to Katie Hill, Gosar would be wise to mind his own business and go tweet elsewhere.
But she tweeted at him first!
You see, you know what?
I don't want to be a part of a stodgy, unfun, buzz-killing tin party.
I never have.
I don't care about that.
And so I'll tell you what I see happening right now.
You can talk about libertarian, authoritarian, we can talk about why the left is the left, you know, globalism, nationalism, all that stuff.
I don't know, man.
But I can tell you this.
As I've mentioned time and time again, the left will kick you out because they all want to assert that they're morally superior, and the right is fanning everybody over, offering a beer.
And I mean this literally.
I know people who actively protested for Bernie Sanders, for Black Lives Matter, who were insulted and berated and spat on.
And they walked out saying, I don't understand why you're so mean to me.
And there was a bunch of dudes in MAGA hats being like, got extra beers over here.
You don't got to agree with us, man.
Just come hang out.
And then here's what happens.
You get a lot of these people now who become Trump supporters because they're like, these people are nice and being reasonable to me.
Even if Trump is a bad president, it doesn't matter.
What matters is there's a group of people who are laughing, posting memes.
The kids are getting in on it.
Everybody feels like we're having a good time.
And across the room is a bunch of Antifa, Buzz Killington types going like, Why are they having fun?
Fun should be illegal.
And then they go around smashing windows and bashing skulls.
The more the left tells people to stop having fun, to stop talking, to stop playing, you're going to end up with a lot of people like... You know what really blew my mind is when I got hit up by a bunch of pro skateboarders.
Not at the same time.
I've been skateboarding my whole life.
Skateboarders are punk rock anti-establishment, anti-authoritarian.
Skateboarders Go around, like, fighting with security guards.
And I detest this part of the culture.
But skateboarders are anti-authoritarian.
They're like, I'm going to skateboard on your private property, do something about it, and they won't leave until the cops show up and they have to run away.
And for some reason, I'm getting hit up by skateboarders saying, like, I love what you do, man.
And I'm like, how did a group of people who basically reject the establishment, who fight with security guards, now say that the left, like, they agree with me.
They're not fun.
It's like, okay, dude, when you've lost skateboarders, I don't know what to tell you, man.
Because skateboarders are as anti-establishment, anarcho-left as they come.
A lot of punk rock people.
But you know what?
Now?
Man, I have pro skateboarders who are like, I want to send you gear, like it's really cool, man.
Because in the end, I think, it's actually, they lost the skateboarders because the skateboarders want to have fun and be free.
They want to be told that they can travel around and smell the flowers without someone getting in their way.
They want to laugh at jokes and have a good time and mind their own business.
Skateboarders are a perfect example of, you know, live and let live.
Even to the point where they actually, you know, you grind on certain property and you can actually damage things.
To an extent, I don't think skateboarding's that bad.
But yeah, you know, skateboarders are on private property and people try to kick them out and they refuse and they come back later.
They don't care about your authority, for the most part.
So they're very, very anarchistic.
Anarcho.
And that's why They're no longer in line with this moralistic left that says, no fun allowed.
You know, they'll be like, fun's allowed, but then they'll make ridiculous memes because they don't want to offend anybody.
Nah.
I'll keep this one short, but I'll leave it there.
Epic meme, Dr. Gosar, pulled off a 10 out of 10 in the Meme Olympics.
You, sir, would win an award.
I do think it's fair to say we should keep impeachment hearings serious, but it was his own Twitter account, so I think that's fair.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m., and I will see you all then.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks has filed to run for Katie Hill's House seat.
What?
Does this mean he would have to leave the Young Turks?
I have a lot of questions about how this would work.
But there's older news from a couple weeks ago.
George Papadopoulos also filed to run.
Here's how NPR put it.
George Papadopoulos, former Trump aide and felon, runs for Rep Katie Hill's seat.
Welcome to WWE America.
Where your president is a reality TV real estate mogul.
I know that's a bit, that's diminishing a bit of what he actually is.
He's a real estate mogul from around the world.
But come on.
Trump's in the WWE Hall of Fame.
He's an entertainer.
He's a celebrity.
That is your president.
And now we are going to have progressive pundit Cenk Uygur up against George Papadopoulos in a California election because apparently At some point in 2016, our universe collided with a parallel reality and a bunch of us got thrown from Earth Prime to whatever this is.
Okay, I'm kidding a bit.
But come on, think about how absurd this is going to be.
Cenk Uygur versus George Papadopoulos?
What?
Assuming either of them actually win a primary?
I don't even know what's going to happen.
But I do have a lot of questions about Cenk Uygur doing this.
Because the Young Turks receives fan funding.
And one of the biggest problems with any personality running we've seen so far is in today's digital economy, there's a lot of donations that come from foreign sources.
So Cenk probably doesn't directly receive them, but his company does.
He's probably going to have to leave the Young Turks if he's going to run, so... He said no comment.
Let's read the story and see what's going on.
And then we can take a look at this new... This is going to be the craziest race in the country.
Outside of the presidency?
This is going to be nuts.
The Hill reports, the Young Turks founder, Cenk Uygur, filed, uh, Cenk Uygur, I think, I'm, I hope I'm pronouncing your name right, filed Wednesday to run for the House seat vacated by former rep Katie Hill, who resigned following a House Ethics Committee investigation into allegations of inappropriate relationships with staffers.
An FEC filing, oh, do we have the filing?
Let's pull that up.
Dated Wednesday, announces the formation of the Cenk for Congress Committee.
Oh man, there's so much wrong here.
With Uygur listed as the group's treasurer, Uygur addressed the filing on Twitter, saying, to all reporters, no comment.
Cenk is one of the founders of the Justice Democrats, who got AOC and a bunch of other far-left progressive types elected.
He was removed from Justice Democrats, my understanding, because a bunch of blogs surfaced where it turns out Cenk said a bunch of really offensive things in the past.
Essentially, Cenk Uygur was cancelled from the progressive Justice Democrats over past wrongdoing.
Well, now he's forming his own group and he's going to run.
The left-leaning broadcaster aligns himself with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party and in 2016 endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary.
He recently endorsed Sanders in the 2020 primary as well.
Hill's district will be the site of a special election following her resignation last month due to the publication of nude pictures of her as well as an investigation by House Ethics Committee into allegations of an improper relationship with a House staffer.
Hill had also admitted to an affair with a campaign staffer, though that relationship did not break House rules.
She resigned while blaming the photo's publication on her estranged husband, Kenny Heslett, and has vowed to fight revenge photos, adult photos, after leaving office.
But let's be real.
There's two big reasons Katie Hill resigned.
The first was the House Ethics Investigation.
Stands to reason she got a lot more dirt coming.
And she bowed out because she knew that could be bad, potentially legally bad, because one of her lovers received a bunch of money from her, even up until last month.
The accusation, I suppose, then, is if your campaign is over, you have your lover collecting paychecks from your campaign.
Maybe not illegal, but people are going to find out, and that's going to be really bad.
The other big issue is, she said, and I believe this is fair, more embarrassing information was to come.
That assuming this was her husband or somebody who had access to her private information, they weren't going to stop.
And she probably has a bunch of naughty, she's probably done a bunch of naughty, I mean look, one of the photos she was doing something overtly illegal.
Although I think, you know, I don't want to get into it because YouTube's going to ban me if I do, but Let's just say, no, she was partaking in a substance that is now legal in many places, okay?
And I think, you know, you shouldn't hold it against her, except for the fact that at the time of the photo, what she was doing was illegal.
I have to wonder then, are there other more embarrassing photos or illegal activity?
And lastly, before we move on and talk about the bigger campaign stuff, I gotta stress the point.
Katie Hill, According to some text messages, may have been emotionally abusive to these relationships.
And one person, I believe it was the campaign staffer, even said that if she says anything against her, she could be removed from her life.
And that means more than what you think it means.
It means you could lose your job.
So having your boss and a subordinate in a relationship, there's a lot of problems.
There's reasons why you do not do this.
Okay?
Because that person might feel, like she did, that if she says anything like, hey, I don't like this, you'll just be fired.
Gone.
No money.
You're out.
So there's risks there.
But that's an ethical issue.
I don't think that's a legal issue.
Now, as for Cenk Uygur running for office, I happen to know that they receive a substantial amount of monthly contributions, like an absurd sum.
And you'd have to assume a lot of them are coming from foreign sources.
Cenk probably pays himself a salary as, you know, the founder of the Young Turks, but there's a lot of questions here.
So what is the Young Turks?
What kind of company is it?
It's not a non-profit.
I'd assume it's like a C Corp.
If that's the case, perhaps he just leaves the company and forgoes a salary and then You know, he can carry on running for Congress.
But if he's announcing now that he's running for Congress, then I have to wonder, is anyone going to go after him over campaign finance laws?
Because already, and I'm sure he knows this, so he's probably in the good, he's probably clear, but you never know.
There's going to be a ton of laws going into effect.
There are some individuals who announced they were going to run for office and their online personalities and immediately said, nope, nope, nope, no, I'm wrong, I'm stopping, I'm stopping.
Because, fan funding.
So I'd have to look into it, but does The Young Turks have a PayPal?
Does Cenk have any personal contribution systems?
Whether on purpose or not, is someone sending him money?
There's a lot of things he's gonna have to go through.
Not only that, access to that platform might actually be an issue.
The fact that he has a big channel at a company.
Now I'd imagine, If Cenk was the Young Turks, right?
If his channel was just him, then he might be able to say whatever he wants, not have to give the channel, not have to walk away, but may have to cut off donations.
So I guess the issue is, if a company employs him, even if he's the founder, What are the campaign laws around having access to that massive platform is what I'm wondering.
But here's what I want to do.
Let's actually take a peek over at this.
This is just what... Oh, check it out.
Chank for Congress.
11-13-2019.
Got the FEC identification number.
His website is chank2020.com.
Wow.
Is the special election going to be next year?
I guess it is.
It's rather simple.
I guess this is public.
It's from the FEC, so we know that he's running.
He's running.
He's got his bank info.
But here's who he is potentially going to be running against.
George Papadopoulos, former Trump aide and felon, runs for Rep Katie Hill's seat.
You know what, man?
We get the politicians we deserve, and you are going to have, in today's day and age, with this fierce extremism, this divide, this cultural split, with Donald Trump winning, we got rumors of, like, The Rock, Oprah, Kanye West announcing he's running for president, I kid you not.
Now we have former Trump aide Papadopoulos stepping up into the fray.
You know what, man?
This is a good thing.
It's a good thing.
I mean, it's going to be weird, and I think Cenk is a bit off his rocker.
My next video, I'm going to show you Cenk saying some... Oh, man.
I wouldn't vote for either of these people.
But hey, I'll tell you what.
The fact that politics has become so serious, that you're getting people active and passionate, actually wanting to run, I think is actually kind of a good thing.
It's bad that everyone's divided to an extreme degree.
That's for sure.
Because we've seen violence.
We've got breakdown of constitutional government.
Things are getting worrisome.
So maybe this is a bad thing, I don't know.
We've been through rough patches in the past.
But here's a dude who feels like he was steamrolled.
You know, his story essentially is that he was tricked, they were spying on him, they set him up, things like that.
Actually, let's read a little bit of this NPR story to get some context.
They say Papadopoulos was a minor figure in Trump's 2016 presidential campaign.
He later became a major player in the FBI's investigation into Trump campaign ties to Russia and pleaded guilty to lying to federal investigators.
He served time in federal prison and wrote a book.
I think it was like a really short amount of time.
So what could Papadopoulos possibly do next?
Of course he'll run for a U.S.
congressional seat.
He filed the paperwork Tuesday, this story's from October 30th, to run as a Republican for the soon-to-be-vacant seat currently held by Rep.
Katie Hill, who announced her resignation over the weekend.
Hill, a freshman lawmaker stepping down, yeah, yeah, yeah, we know all this.
Okay, I guess that's it.
What is this?
I'm smelling blood in the water now that Katie Hill has resigned.
California's 25th congressional district is wide open for the taking.
Someone has to step up.
I love my state too much to see it run down by candidates like Hill.
All talk, no action.
And a bunch of sellouts.
Boy, oh boy!
This district is traditionally Republican.
That's my understanding.
Katie Hill won.
So who is going to win?
The far left, Cenk Uygur?
Or the Troubled past Republican George Papadopoulos.
Man, I can't tell you what he then said, taking back California, making California great again.
They say, unlike others who were implicated in the Mueller investigation, Papadopoulos was never hired to work in the Trump administration, and the president dissed himself from him.
Trump did, however, tweet at Papadopoulos this summer to promote his book, Deep State Target, which is subtitled, How I Got Caught in the Crosshairs of the Plot to Bring Down President Trump.
Good luck with the book, George.
You should do well, Trump tweeted.
So we know all the details about this.
In the end, you get the point.
It's going to be progressive, you know, Cenk Uygur.
said in 2016 he was going to attack the Democrats at their core.
And it now appears he's going to be running as a Democrat, up against a Republican.
I'm wondering, who's going to win?
But I'll tell you what, of all of the congressional campaign battles, this is huge for a few reasons.
It's going to be televised, everyone's going to want to know about it, because you've got Katie Hill's resignation, and now you've got Papadopoulos versus Young Turk's founder.
So I'll be curious, in the end, like I mentioned, what Cenk is going to do with the Young Turks.
Could this mean the end of Cenk Uygur's tenure at his own organization?
And more importantly, is he going to be able to win with a name like the Young Turks, which is a direct reference to a certain incident that happened in the last century, having to do with a lot of people losing their lives, if you know what I'm talking about.
That name is very, very controversial, and a lot of people have demanded that he change it, and he refuses to.
Which is creepy, in my opinion, especially for someone who claims to be a progressive.
The way I see it, if you're gonna be a progressive, and you recognize that names and culture changes and some things are offensive, I can't believe he's sticking to that name.
But you know what?
His business is more important to him than actually caring about progressive values, huh?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
Go check it out, and I will see you all there.
The impeachment hearings don't matter.
After everything is said and done, I just don't think it matters.
So I made this video as an addendum to my main channel video where I talked about the impeachment kind of backfiring on the Democrats, potentially proving Trump right.
But I want to point out, after all of that, I think Everything is happening.
Like, the Democrats are doing all of this just to signal to their base they're doing something.
And in the end, it won't matter.
Because conservatives are going to defend their position, Democrats will defend their position, and the media is going to just cycle rage bait in an effort to get everybody to click.
Now, I firmly believe that in the half an hour video I just made on my main channel, I did break things down to the best of my ability as to why I think this is ultimately bad for Democrats.
There's so many reasons.
Like, first of all, we know Trump's not going to be impeached.
I'm sorry, he may be impeached, but we know he won't be convicted in the Senate.
In which case, why do it?
Why pull off some of your top 2020 contenders in the Democratic primary and force them to go through a trial?
Why do any of this?
In the end, I think they don't care.
Whether or not people change their mind, they think people are entrenched.
We've seen increased polarization.
So I've got two stories for you that I really want to break things down.
I want to recognize this, and I want to go through these different assessments of what's happening with impeachment, because it's important that you don't just watch me talk about my feelings.
You know, so when I make a video saying I think this is backfiring, I want to show you what other outlets are saying.
And I think, and I encourage you to go watch those other outlets, because my opinion's my opinion.
There's probably a bunch of stuff I missed.
But here's what I think's happening.
We've known for a long time, you know, we have this story from Axios going back 2018 about the radicalization of people politically, and everyone wants to blame something or another, but in the end, all that really matters is people are radicalized.
I mean, we want to try and figure out what's causing this and get to the root of the problem, but it's just tribalism.
So no matter what happens, all of these hearings are pointless.
The Democrats and the left-wing media are going to say exactly what they want to hear.
The right-wing media is going to say exactly what they want to hear.
And then you have me, where I probably fall somewhere slightly in the middle with my perspectives more similar to a lot of conservatives, simply because I'm a moderate, and the left is so far away from moderates and conservatives, moderates and conservatives tend to have more in common in their worldview.
But I think I laid out my case, right?
You know, they're doing all of these things that are ultimately bad for Democrats, so how could this possibly make sense?
Of course, Fox News is taking it one step further, saying, you know, a glorious day for Trump and yadda yadda.
But I want to read you this story from Axios.
Impeachments dueling echo chambers.
And show you just how.
If you're watching just one of these outlets, including just watching me, well then you're not getting a balanced diet, okay?
Some of these outlets are going to spoon feed you complete and total BS.
And that's what I was showing you in the main segment.
But ultimately, you can't just eat pizza, man.
I know pizza tastes good, you might like watching my stuff, but you gotta go get your veggies somewhere else.
You gotta maybe take a break on the pizza, try some, I don't know, Thai food.
So if you're only watching me, you've gotta, you know, I wanna highlight that.
I wanna make sure I can point out that you've gotta mix things up.
Check this out.
CNN says, key witness reveals staffer overheard President Trump asking Ambassador Sondland about investigations.
That seems pretty straightforward.
What does that ultimately tell us?
A whole lot of nothing.
Fox News says, deep state against Trump from the start on Russia.
Well, they're taking the deep state route.
But I think there's a fair point to be made in that the New York Times and other outlets have pointed to a deep state.
I also think it's important to clarify, because a lot of people get mad at me when I say it's not a conspiracy.
No, it's called a standalone complex.
When a bunch of people do things at the same time, and it looks like it's connected, when it's just not.
You have a ton of people who have this fake news resistance mentality because they're being fed complete BS from outlets like MSNBC or Talking Points Memo or The Young Turks.
They're living in its delusional reality where they think fourth degree hearsay is admissible evidence proving everything.
Well then they're gonna go nuts and they're gonna believe nuts.
It's just they're living in a world of nonsense.
Let's read a little bit more, they say.
The story of the first day of public impeachment hearings varied dramatically Wednesday based on where consumers get their news.
The absence of shared facts and narratives on TV and online will make it hard for either party to make its case stick.
So, the Republicans win.
unidentified
Period.
tim pool
Let's move on.
The story of the first day of public impeachment hearings varied dramatically Wednesday based
on where consumers get their news.
The absence of shared facts and narratives on TV and online will make it hard for either
party to make its case stick.
So the Republicans win, period.
On the right, conservative media doubled down on the narrative that Republican questioners
like Jim Jordan and Devin Nunes crushed Democrats' main arguments.
Oh yeah!
Because this is how it always goes down, right?
I did a discussion with Sam Seder, and sure enough, the left was saying Sam Seder destroyed Tim Poole, and the right was saying Tim Poole destroyed Sam Seder, and I'm like, dude, we had a conversation, man.
We agreed, we disagreed, neither of us knew everything, and we had a conversation.
And I thought it was a good conversation.
And that's what needs to be happening, but instead everyone's like, yeah, like claiming they won.
It's like people, you know, it reminds me of that image of two people looking at, there's a six or a nine on the ground, and they're looking at it from different directions.
On Fox News, Hennedy opened his 9 p.m.
hour saying, it was a great day for the U.S., for the president, and for the country, and a lousy day for the corrupt, do-nothing-for-three-years, radical, extreme, socialist Democrats.
Whoa!
unidentified
Okay.
tim pool
And their top allies known as the media mob.
See, that's technically the truth.
It's just very bombastic.
Here's how I'd put it.
You have Democrats who are floundering and struggling, and this is their last-ditch Hail Mary effort to try and win back some power.
And yes, many people in the media support that narrative, as I showed you in the main video.
I mean, look, they're hyperbolic.
They're exaggerating.
impeachment hearings concluded read it looks like the star witness in Trump
Ukraine impeachment effort just torch the Democrats narrative Breitbart
homepage Wednesday evening shouted Democrat done but those are that's
reality man I mean look they're hyperbolic they're exaggerating but
that's what's listen when you hear that there's fourth degree hearsay have you
find me a story where someone was convicted on fourth degree hearsay
I'm sure maybe it happened at some point.
We're talking about the president, where there's going to be scrutiny on top of scrutiny, and you've got, you know, Republicans versus Democrats.
This is nuts.
There's literally nothing here, but two people told us, even NBC said no bombshell.
There's nothing of substance here.
On social media, the most popular post from right-leaning outlets also highlighted this dynamic according to social analytics company Newswhip.
For example, The most popular story from the Daily Caller was titled, I've seen church prayer chains that are easier to understand.
Jim Jordan eviscerates impeachment process.
And now for the left.
MSNBC, Rachel Maddow opened her 9pm hour saying that the hearing was unprecedented and that Taylor's testimony offered new detailed revelations about the actions of the president and him directing this scheme personally.
What?! !
You mean the president was concerned about corruption and was looking for an investigation, and fourth degree hearsay is your new revelation?
That's just not reality, man!
You don't have to like the president to recognize, that's insane!
The top story on Vox read, Bill Taylor dropped a bombshell in his impeachment hearing opening statement.
Huffington Post, the banner story read, Taylor bombshell, damning Trump call.
Nobody has direct knowledge of a phone call or what was said, and it could be as simple as Sondland saying, never happened.
Okay, there you go.
It's ridiculous.
You know what, man?
They like to claim the right is living in a fake news alternate reality.
You know, Brian Stelter talks about the right-wing media machine.
It's like, dude, we saw his tweets about the ratings.
You guys, I don't know what you're talking about.
There was no bombshell.
Even NBC News said no bombshell.
You live in a weird, freakish... You know what it is?
It's like I said.
This is what gets clicks.
Bombshell.
Someone will click it, and they gotta make sure they frame it just right so it sounds more damning than it is.
Revelations of a new phone call.
Actually, it was a guy, heard from his staffer, who overheard Trump on the other end of a phone call, which he wasn't on, which means maybe it wasn't even Trump.
We don't know.
That's not admissible evidence, man.
On social media, the most popular story from left-leaning news aggregator News & Guts was titled, Ambassador Taylor delivers damaging new evidence against Trump.
No, he didn't!
I mean, technically it's evidence, I guess it's fair to say, but it's not damning, it's not damaging.
It's enough to say, let's reach out to this aide and see what they heard, and then ask Sondland himself.
If Sondland comes out and says, the president was talking to me about investigations, how is that news?
In the transcript, Trump asks for an investigation.
You know what, man?
We live in a parallel reality.
Even live coverage of the hearing acquired a partisan overlay.
MSNBC labeled Bill Taylor as a top U.S.
diplomat who testified, yet had a clear understanding aide tied to probes.
Fox said President Trump dismissed Taylor as a never-Trumper.
Now, Taylor was a top diplomat.
They say, be smart.
The echo chambers on social media are ones users build for themselves by choosing who to follow and befriend online.
The echo chambers on TV are prefabricated by cable news networks trying to amass ratings.
Together they lock in partisan narratives and lock out conflicting information.
Full stop.
Completely correct.
You would do yourselves, all of you, a huge favor by making sure you go and watch conflicting news.
I always recommend someone like David Pakman.
And boy, do I disagree with him on a lot of things.
But he's like a go-to, straightforward guy.
And the reason I say Pac-Man, because even though a lot of people I know who watch me are going to be like, Pac-Man's lying.
It's like, they say the same thing about me, dude.
They say I'm wrong.
They say I'm stupid.
They say I'm a liar.
And so I noticed that a lot of the coverage David and I have kind of oppose each other in that way.
And I thought, I think he's a good dude.
I've known him for a while.
Talked to him periodically.
And I think we disagree.
And that's perfect.
Go see what he has to say.
And not just him.
There's other people.
Brian Stelter recently said to avoid the spin, tune out Fox News and the right-wing spin machine.
No way!
The opposite.
Go watch Steven Crowder.
Go watch David Pakman.
Watch the Young Turks.
Watch Brian Stelter.
Watch as much as you can.
I know it's difficult.
But here's what I'm trying to tell you.
The reason why I did this segment.
I know it's not the most sensational, bombastic thing.
It's not going to get the most clicks.
It's probably going to get very little views.
But I have to say it.
After that video I just did, I have to say.
I look at MSNBC, I look at Talking Points Memo, I point these things out, that they're claiming hearsay about a potential phone call that we don't know anything about is proof positive, it's evidence of clear wrongdoing, and that's not the case.
So I think I'm correct in saying, hey look, it may be true, but right now we don't have any evidence.
What we do have is some clear questioning about Hunter Biden, and one of the witnesses testifying, yeah, we probably need to look into what these companies were doing, and these prosecutors.
In which case, Trump may have been right!
So then if we're predicating everything upon that statement from George Kent, then it stands to reason, from there, Trump should be talking about investigations.
But I gotta say, man, if you're watching mainstream left-wing media like CNN or otherwise, I know Fox News is pretty mainstream, but if you're watching these more left-leaning channels, they're misleading you, right?
If someone told you... Remember how your friend... Let's say you had a friend who convinced you that someone stole your wallet.
And they said, yep, damning new evidence implicates so-and-so in stealing your wallet.
And then I said, hold on.
What he's saying is, he heard from a friend who was talking to one of his employees who overheard a phone call.
Then you'd be like, wait, what?
How am I supposed to figure out who took my wallet if that's the case?
I look at all this and I say, well, you can certainly point to the right being super bombastic, media mob, radical, extreme, socialist, democrat, dud.
It's like, OK, guys, calm down.
You're already winning this one because you're more likely to be correct.
But I get it.
If you're going to watch a right-wing show, they're going to give you all those haymaker smears and slams and bombastic statements.
I'll tell you what, if you're watching left-wing media, they're lying, okay?
Now look, I can say the same thing about Hannity calling the Democrats radical-extreme socialist Democrats with their top allies known as the Media Mob, and say it's not true.
These Democrats like Schiff and Pelosi are not the radical-extreme socialists.
There are some, you could say that, but that's an opinion.
That's an opinion.
And he's allowed to have it.
Okay, if he wants to call someone a radical extreme socialist, I can push back on that.
But if MSNBC is going to say, new revelations with damaging new evidence, and these outlets are going to claim it's directly implicating Trump, that is factually incorrect.
So I may be wrong.
That's just my opinion.
I think I'm doing right.
But everyone thinks they're doing right.
So check out other channels and see what they have to say.
Break the echo chamber.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
Survivor contestants admit Me Too allegations were exaggerated to win the game.
Oh, oh no!
Who would have ever thought that somebody would try and exploit our goodwill to make monetary gain?
Look, man, there have been a lot of stories about false MeToo allegations.
And I always start these segments by saying that MeToo, for the most part, did a lot of good.
But with everything, there's collateral damage.
We've got to be careful about that.
There have been innocent people who have been accused.
Notably, I think Chris Hardwick had to, like, get investigated.
You have people like Aziz Ansari on a bad date.
But now we have a story about women who lied to win.
If, listen, A lot of people seem to think it's impossible.
They say, don't blame the victim.
Don't accuse them.
We must believe women.
No, no, no, no, no.
People lie, cheat, and steal.
That's a fact.
And it could be a man, a woman, or somebody who doesn't identify as either.
But yes, people lie, cheat, and steal, period.
So let's see what happened with the survivor's story and fake MeToo allegations, where I guess they admitted it.
Controversy erupted on Wednesday when two contestants on Survivor Island of the Idols admitted that they exaggerated a Me Too allegation of inappropriate touching to win the game.
According to People, when contestant Kelly Kim began to complain about a pattern of inappropriate touching from fellow contestant Dan Spillo in Wednesday night's episode, Her allegations were quickly corroborated by contestants Missy Bird and Elizabeth Beisel, who both alleged they had similar experiences.
Imagine being that person and someone starts accusing you of the worst crime imaginable, or at least a degree of it, and you know it's not true.
What are you going to do about it?
They say, a tearful Kelly.
Tearful?
Really?
She was crying?
Huh, that's weird.
Finally felt comfortable coming forward with her experiences when two other women on the show, players Missy Bird and Elizabeth Beisel, said they had similar encounters with Dan and also felt uncomfortable with his behaviors.
During Kelly's emotional reveal, Missy went as far as saying it's inappropriate touching I'm not an object.
However, when Kelly left their company, both Missy Bird and Elizabeth Beisel admitted they overplayed the allegations in order to position Dan for elimination.
Taking this further, Missy advised Elizabeth to encourage another contestant, Janet Carbon, to vote Dan off the island for the alleged Me Too offense.
You tell her how uncomfortable you are, Missy said.
Like, you have a very open mom-daughter moment about how uncomfortable you are right now.
That's our only play.
Whoa!
There it is.
We have a high-profile public instance where women have conspired to falsely accuse somebody to win a contest.
You have to imagine, in something as low stakes as this, what about politics?
What about things that are actually going to have a huge impact?
What about divorces?
Is it entirely possible that some people are bad people and some people are liars, and you can't just blindly believe someone when they tell you something?
Just because someone says it's true doesn't mean it is.
Elizabeth said she felt no discomfort, but promised she can play up that card in whatever way possible.
Yeah.
My job is to do whatever it takes to get on the right side of the numbers, said Elizabeth.
The original Vokai are not the biggest fan of Dan, so if I can play up that card in whatever way possible, I'll do it.
Honestly, I've felt safe this entire time, and if I had felt uncomfortable, I would have said, please stop, she added.
That's interesting.
Because you can see similar stories to this, where there's questions raised about how someone might be mutually... Actually, there's... Who's a good example?
There's one story... I think it may be Matt Lauer.
And this is not a guy who deserves defense, for the most part.
But there was one story where, apparently, this woman repeatedly engaged in this affair with him, and later came out and said that he was abusing her, and she felt like he had all this power over her, and here it goes.
Like, Met Lauer is supposed to read your mind.
Now, for the most part, the stories about Lauer are pretty, pretty bad and pretty damning, so, you know, the guy doesn't need defense.
But I do think facts are important.
And if it turns out that a woman writes a book, or something to this effect, and says, she did this for career gain, Maybe we should take that seriously and consider it's possible.
Look, if someone comes out and makes a claim against somebody, it should be investigated.
All the way around.
Like, period.
We can't have people going around alleging false crimes, and we can't have people being falsely accused, and we can't have people being criminals.
So if you're gonna come out and make a claim against somebody, there's a serious challenge.
If you make an accusation, in this case, they're using the accusation to try and win, you know, monetary gain.
And we've seen potential similar things where women have tried to use this for career gain.
Does that mean every woman always, all the time?
No, of course not.
It could only be 1%.
But we gotta make sure we do check.
We do.
You can't just blindly believe everyone who tells you something because then you're gonna find people will lie to you all the time.
Kelly came to show producers with her concerns, who proceeded to issue an official warning to Dan for his behavior.
Ironically, Dan was not the one sent home on Wednesday night's episode.
When it came time to vote, Janet voted against Dan due to her personal emotional need to have these girls feel okay on the island.
Meanwhile, Missy and Elizabeth voted for Kelly to be knocked off the island.
Whoa!
Missy, they turned on her, reported people.
Ultimately, Kelly was sent home.
What?
And Janet and the rest of the contestants soon learned the truth of this heartening situation.
unidentified
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
tim pool
Drama time.
Check this out.
Missy and Elizabeth, they're the women who were- yep, those are the women who backed up Kelly.
They set her up to fail.
They lied and then voted against her!
Man!
Wow.
After learning the truth of the situation, Janet said that Missy and Elizabeth exaggerating their Me Too stories disgusted her, and even considered quitting the episode as a result.
Later, When Dan confronted the two women, they denied ever feeling uncomfortable by his actions.
Talk about Machiavellian, whatever the word is.
A ridiculously circuitous plan to back up a MeToo allegation, to pit people against Dan, but then turn around and get rid of Kelly.
That's weird.
Now here's what's crazy.
Kelly, apparently, she must have been genuine, I suppose, saying that she actually talked to producers, but these other women are now saying they never felt uncomfortable at all.
So is it possible that even Kelly was making something up or that Dan was just inappropriate to her?
Why are we talking about this weird gossip?
I don't know.
It's kind of fun.
Let's finish this.
Let's finish this story.
My viewpoint is that if I've, if I've, if I have never felt uncomfortable, I, uh, my viewpoint is that I have never felt uncomfortable, as it was said.
I know what people are talking about, but it's more in a joking way, and maybe that's where we're on the wrong side of it, because we shouldn't be joking about it.
Oh, not, not trying to save face, being like, oh, okay, maybe the joke, no, it really did happen.
Man, these people are awful, huh?
Despite that, Dan later apologized during tribal council for his behavior.
I work in the most high wire industry in regard to this business.
Most of my clients are women.
Most of the people I work with are women, he said.
I work in an industry in which the Me Too movement was formed and allowed, thank God,
to blossom and become powerful and strong.
My personal feeling is that if anyone ever felt for a second uncomfortable at anything
I've ever done, I'm horrified about that and I'm truly sorry.
So here we have an instance where these women not only admitted that they weren't comfortable
but that they lied to try and pressure someone off the island.
Think about situations where somebody, where they have no obligation to admit it, where
they stand to gain financially, substantially, if they make those claims.
And then think about all of these industries.
Man, I'll tell you what.
Typically when someone makes a claim against their superior, they're going to settle out
And that is a mistake.
I'll tell you all right now, if someone makes a claim against you, you've got to fight it in court.
And here's the problem.
There's too much leverage now on one side.
If they make an accusation against you, the challenge is that if it goes public, people will just believe it's real.
If you pay the settlement, eventually the settlement becomes public and then people say, ha, you admitted it.
If you go to trial, they're going to accuse you of trying to fight the truth and refuse accountability.
unidentified
It's tough.
tim pool
What'd he say?
My personal feelings that anyone... I'm sorry.
If that person was Kelly, if Kelly ever felt that in the freezing cold rain or in tight shelters, or in all the ways we have to crawl around and through each other in this game, if I ever did anything that has even remotely made her feel uncomfortable, it horrifies me.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Full stop, dude.
Dude, if you feel uncomfortable about me doing my normal thing, that's on you, okay?
What he's saying here is totally incorrect.
If you did something inappropriate, apologize for it.
If you happen to be crawling around because you're on a game show, don't apologize for it.
It doesn't matter whether I'm aware of it.
Yes, it does!
It doesn't matter whether I've ever sensed it.
It doesn't matter whether I knew it happened or didn't happen.
You know what, man?
Grow a spine, you whiny babies.
If I'm hanging out with someone and they're like, that joke you said made me uncomfortable, I'll be like, OK, there's a table over there.
You can go away.
I'm going to do my thing in it.
Nobody can tell me what I can or can't do.
It's absurd if you do wrong and you say, okay, I'm sorry, I won't do it again.
But in the normal course of your life, okay, shaking someone's hand, please don't reach and touch my hand.
How dare you?
I'm like, shut up, dude.
I couldn't be more sorry.
I couldn't be more confident in that I'm one of the kindest, gentlest people I know, he concluded.
I have a wife.
I've been married for 21 years.
I have two boys.
I have a big business.
I have lots of employees.
I think what upset everybody here is that this has somehow turned into gameplay.
Well, I'll tell you what's really upsetting.
I don't care about you touching somebody, you know, and not realizing they didn't like it because they didn't say so.
Listen, like these women said, if he ever made them uncomfortable, they would have just said, please stop.
They lied about inappropriate touching to try and win the game.
Real life is a competition.
And the stakes are even greater than a game.
They have no problem admitting it because it's a game.
But what about in the real world where they won't admit it?
And that's the problem.
So no, I'm sorry.
While I certainly respect any victim of any crime coming forward and reporting it, we don't just believe anyone at any point for everything.
If a person comes up to me and says, X happened, I'll say, okay, let's look into it.
But it doesn't mean I believe them.
It means we'll act on good faith and give someone the benefit of the doubt if they've been victimized.
But it does stand to reason, especially with evidence like this, sometimes people are seeking to exploit you and to use your goodwill to manipulate you.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you shortly.
South Park mocks trans athletes.
A new episode of South Park aired the other day, and I have to admit it was one of the funniest episodes I've seen in a long time.
South Park used to have no problem tearing at the fabric of society, making absurd jokes, being as offensive as possible, and channeling that through characters you're meant to despise.
Eric Cartman, for instance, will just be the worst possible person.
And lo and behold, in this episode, A person who is overtly male with a beard, who looks like macho man Randy Savage, identifies as a woman, and starts crushing women's sports, even MMA, where he's, they have a scene where he's just pounding and beating the crap out of this woman.
And it's hilarious.
And it's hilariously offensive.
This episode is probably one of the most offensive things South Park has ever done, and takes a very hard political stance that I would say is in line with the gender-critical feminists, which is surprising.
So let me break things down for you.
I'm gonna give you a spoiler alert if you haven't seen it.
I'm gonna give you just the gist of it.
We have two stories here.
Hollywood Reporter saying they're mocking trans athletes.
Uh-oh, you're going, that's orthodoxy.
Pink News says, South Park sinks to new lows with jokes about trans athletes in latest episode.
New lows, okay.
South Park has gone very low.
Mr. Hankey, dude.
The Christmas Pooh.
Come on, man.
You're really gonna try and go after South Park, but I'll tell you what.
For the longest time, it felt to me that South Park lost its bite.
They filed down their teeth, and they weren't willing to really tackle the hard issues.
They created a character called PC Principle.
Politically Correct Principle.
And he's just an overly PC guy, and it's kind of a caricature, but it in no way actually does anything substantive.
Now this, on the other hand, was probably some of the more poignant and direct commentary we've seen in a long time.
Two things happened in this episode.
Eric Hartman has a board game club, and he only wants boys to be in it.
And the girls show up, and they actually know the rules better, and they end up beating the boys because they've studied and presented a strategy.
The other storyline is Strong Woman, yes, that's the character's name, Strong Woman, is competing in female sports, and she keeps losing to a newly transitioning individual named Heather Swanson, real name Blake, or I'm sorry, dead name Blake.
This person looks like Randy Savage, and says, two weeks ago I transitioned, and then starts just wiping out the competition.
The funny thing, so here's where it gets really funny.
We all understand that point, that if someone's biologically male, they're likely going to win.
Strong Woman, that's the character's name, is trying to be PC.
PC Principal is also trying to be PC, but they're conflicted now because she's losing the competition.
However, they have a bunch of babies, and they're called the PC Babies.
And while in the show they're literal babies, the way they describe the babies, they're directly referring to what we would call SJWs.
There's a scene where P.C.
Principal finally confronts this trans woman and says, of course you're winning, you went through male puberty so you have advantages.
And then shoves Heather, who's macho man Randy Savage, and he goes whoa and he falls down.
Now P.C.
Principal is in trouble.
A news article emerges, he looks at his phone and it says South Park has a problem with trans people.
Macho man, you know, analog guy, Heather, trans woman, it's confusing because of the way South Park put it, but the trans woman keeps calling PC Principal a transphobe.
So here is the social justice principal being berated as a transphobe, and then yells, no, you have an advantage.
Here's where it gets funny.
So now, he says, PC Principal, I can't go and look the babies in the eye because we've tried to raise them to be good PC babies, but as we know, PC babies already made up their minds and don't care about the facts.
They weren't talking about the babies.
That was a direct commentary on social justice and these far-left ideologues and how they already think they know everything and don't care about the facts.
But something interesting happens at the end.
He comes home, he sees the babies, and they say, I love you, Daddy.
And he says, wait a minute.
Maybe people are willing to understand nuance.
Maybe we can actually have a conversation and recognize everything's not black and white.
It's like, aw, that's so sweet of you.
But I got to say, the episode was pretty brutal.
Because in the end, when Cartman tries to have this all-boys gaming club, and the girls come in, the girls are winning because they've studied the rules.
And so they're making a point about, yes, the girls can beat the boys if the boys are slacking off.
It's actually quite in line with the gender-critical feminists.
This trans woman, who looks like Macho Man, Claims he can beat anybody.
I gotta say, it's a brutal episode.
Like, there's a scene where the trans woman rips off her pants and flopping around their genitals.
It's nuts.
It's totally nuts.
South Park went way, way on board.
Like, they went deep.
But anyway, the macho man trans woman says I can beat a girl at anything.
And so the girls challenge him to board games in which they lose.
It's so confusing, man.
I'm gonna get banned for this video.
I don't even know how to address South Park, okay?
And then Cartman agrees with the trans woman.
And this is where it's crazy.
Cartman is supposed to be the embodiment of all of the awful everything.
Carmen wants to ban the girls, but then also agrees with the trans woman when the trans woman complains that they're exploiting the rules to win.
Carmen is showing that Look, all I can really say is my conclusion was it felt like they were trying to balance it with, like, girls can win games, but, you know, physically, you know, a biological male's gonna win, but in the end, they just showed the trans woman being a terrible character, which is gonna offend the lefties and the social justice crowd, and then showed that biological females were capable of winning if they were smart and studied, and I'm like,
It's pretty in line with, like, gender-critical feminists, okay?
Because, like, the girls form their own club where they don't allow the boys, and they flourish.
So when they have their own space and are protected, they have this big, beautiful club.
You see where I'm, you see where it's going?
So let's, let's, let's see what the, what Pink News has to say.
They call it a new low.
The Krays of South Park have waded into the debate over transgender women in competitive sports by hitting out at trans athletes in their latest episode.
They say the seventh episode of the 23rd season, entitled Bored Girls, was broadcast on Wednesday.
It introduces the character of Heather Swanson, a transgender woman who looks and sounds just like the late wrestler Randy Savage.
With the cowboy hat and talking like this!
unidentified
And going...
tim pool
Heather says she started identifying as female two weeks ago in order to compete in a local strongwoman tournament.
I'm not here to talk about my transition.
I'm here to kick some effing A, she says.
And Pink News uses the female pronoun.
It's like, dude, this is where the problem comes in.
South Park was specifically trying to make a point that this person was not trans and was exploiting the system, and it was confusing to the PC characters who didn't know which pronouns to use.
I'm so confused!
Pink News is just ideologically rigid.
She immediately starts dominating the competition, but is later revealed to be the ex-boyfriend
of a rival disguised as a trans woman to undermine her.
I'm so confused!
Which pronouns are you going to use?
Now we're going to switch back to he?
The revenge plot sees the scheming athlete brought down by the girls of South Park Elementary
in a board game tournament.
That's right, the cis females.
It's not the first time South Park has poked fun at transgender people.
A 2014 episode entitled The Sissy sees Eric Cartman putting a bow on his hat and claiming to be trans-ginger in order to use the girls' toilets at school.
Family Guy has similarly run episodes attacking the trans community, despite previously suggesting it would be seeking a more tolerant path by phasing out the anti-gay jokes, which they now understand are not acceptable.
Acceptable to who?
Okay.
You know what, man?
You want to make fun of somebody, make fun of them, okay?
We want to make jokes.
Sometimes we joke about ourselves because it's a relatable experience.
Sometimes we joke about others because we actually do have a relatable experience with them as well.
Or we're just making fun at ideas and exaggerating.
It's comedy.
A recent episode features Quagmire's transgender mother, Ida, who is looking at adult images on her phone while sitting at a bar.
The bartender tells her, excuse me, ma'am, but none of that at the bar.
Ida replies, oh, it's okay, I'm transgender.
Oh, I had no idea the bartender apologizes.
Do whatever you want all the time.
You think that's making fun of somebody?
That's Family Guy making a point.
That's South Park making the point.
That when you try and have a discussion, actually PC Principle says, I'm trying to have a discussion, I'm not a transphobe.
When you try and call these people out for their bad behavior, they try and use their identity as a cudgel or a shield to protect themselves from real criticism.
So I'll tell you this.
Most people don't think it makes sense for males who transition to women, it doesn't make sense for them to compete against women.
Okay?
We've talked about it a lot.
But I'll tell you what, man.
People deserve their rights.
People, you know, we should set up a new division specifically for trans people.
I think that'd be fair.
But in the end, a conversation is being had whether you want it to or not.
If the activists want to shut people down who are trying to bring up these ideas, You're going to get this.
You're going to get Family Guy.
You're going to get South Park.
You're going to get comedians saying, we don't care what you think.
South Park, finally, in my opinion, coming out with some sharp teeth and making some sharp criticism about something that we've all been saying is going too far.
South Park used to be fearless, and I feel like they lost that, and the shows have really lost their steam, but this was one of the better episodes.
Does it mean that literally every trans woman is this evil macho man?
No, they were making a point about people who exploit the system, who are whiny losers in the end, who want advantages.
That's what it's all about.
It doesn't mean they're right, necessarily.
It just means that they're pointing to something that we all kind of think about.
And are we going to talk about it?
Or are we going to ignore it up until the point people get angry and then laugh at this show?
Well, whatever.
Go watch it.
I just gave you a rundown.
I'll see you all tomorrow at 10 a.m.
on this channel.
Podcast at 6.30.
Export Selection