Democrats Have LOST FAITH In Impeachment, Majority Now Believe Trump Will WIN And They Will FAIL
Democrats Have LOST FAITH In Impeachment, Majority Now Believe Trump Will WIN And They Will FAIL. In a new poll from Hill Harris X a majority of Democrats believe impeachment will fail and Trump will finish out his first term.This marks a 10 point drop from those who though impeachment would succeed and a 7 point gain putting majority of Democrats on the side believing they will fail.As of the 14th, a day after the first public impeachment hearing Trump's approval is on the rise. As of the day of the first hearing support for impeachment and removal has gone down.The hearings are tedious and boring. While people like Jimmy Kimmell and left wing pundits criticize commentators for bringing this up they fail to realize why its boring.The impeachment inquiry is boring because we are not learning anything new and these witnesses have literally nothing to do with the accusations against the president nor do they have first hand knowledge of any wrong doing.In fact much of the second hearing with Marie Yovanovitch was spent hearing her lament being fired and being upset that she was relocated to a new position. I don't care what her feelings are I want to know real information regarding potential wrong doing.In the end we can see exactly why Democrats think Trump is going to win the impeachment debacle.This is a last ditch hail mary with reckless abandon by Adam Schiff and the Democrats. The scorched earth plan will end up leaving Democrats reeling with no real path forward
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Majority of Democrats believe Trump impeachment proceedings will fail.
President will complete first term, according to a new poll.
And I believe the number is something like 74% of Democrats believe it will fail.
Now, this poll was conducted, I believe, on the 8th to the 9th.
The 13th was the first day of public hearings, and on the 13th, I don't know if this is impacted by the proceedings or the hearings or not, but support for impeachment and removal in the RCP aggregate went down by 0.2.
So, I have to ask myself, why are the Democrats doing this?
If even constituents believe it will fail, what's the point?
Right now, as I'm recording this, they are hearing the testimony of Maria Ivanovich, the former ambassador to Ukraine, who had literally nothing to do with the phone call, who didn't even know about it until it was public, who didn't coordinate any of these meetings, and didn't have anything to do with withholding aid.
So why is she testifying?
She is not a material fact witness in any way, and in fact, for the most part, she was talking about her feelings about being fired.
Devin Nunes said this is an issue for the HR committee, not the Intelligence Committee.
So why do all of it?
I honestly, I can't tell you, but I can tell you this.
People don't care.
Ratings for the impeachment hearing on the 13th were down 32% from the Comey hearing.
Now, I know you can, you know, maybe it's a pointless comparison, but at least that's what the media is saying, that the ratings, not that great.
And one of the big problems that Democrats have is that the impeachment hearings are boring.
Now, of course, Jimmy Kimmel came out and other leftists and comedians were like, you're mad that a procedural hearing is boring.
Yes, it's boring because we are learning nothing from no one.
Nothing.
In fact, the only thing I think we're actually getting out of this is that there's a potential reason to believe there is corruption in the Ukraine that needs to be investigated.
The other day I brought it up, that even George Kent said it would probably make sense to look into the corruption of Burisma.
And now we have questions being posed by the Republican Council about whether or not Trump was justified in believing Ukrainians were out to get him.
If Trump believed that, and a story in 2017 said they did this, perhaps it makes sense then to request an investigation into what's really happening.
Are we learning anything about any impeachable offense?
No, and the goalposts keep moving.
So I take you now.
Trump's going to be impeached.
I think that's actually a fair bet.
anything's gonna come of this. And the prediction markets, the people who bet
money on this, are even saying Trump will complete his first term. Although people
are betting Trump's gonna be impeached, I think that's actually a fair bet.
Impeached does not mean removed. It just means that they're going to impeach and
then it'll go to trial.
So yeah, the Democrats control the House.
It'll likely happen.
But let's get started with a story from Newsweek to learn what this poll is saying and what it could possibly be suggesting.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do Share this video.
I am competing with all of these news outlets that want to tell you about bombshell, bombshell, bombshell.
There was no bombshell yesterday.
We heard of hearsay, hearsay, hearsay.
They come out and they say, yeah, well, Trump's blocking people from testifying.
Listen, if you don't have evidence beyond hearsay, I don't know what to tell you.
So I'm not surprised people aren't going to be testifying who are allegedly next to the president because you haven't presented any real substantial evidence in the first place.
Now, I will fully say, You know, I think it's a bad look that the president doesn't want these people testifying.
But I can also then say, to counter Wolf Blitzer's point in CNN, he said, if the president has nothing to hide, why not have these people testify?
Good point, CNN.
Good point, Wolf Blitzer.
If that's the case, why not have Hunter Biden and Joe Biden testify about what happened with Brazil?
They got nothing to hide.
They can testify, right?
You see the inherent problem?
If Adam Schiff is going to block the Bidens from testifying, why shouldn't Trump block his people from testifying?
It is a game.
It is politics.
And people already made up their mind.
But in the end, the Democrats don't think it's going anywhere.
So with that being said, you can now see why I'm pushing back on CNN and competing with them.
If you think I make sense and my points are correct, then please share the video.
It helps support my work.
Let's read from Newsweek.
As the public hearings on impeachment proceedings continue against President Donald J. Trump, voters are reasonably sure the president will stay in office throughout his first term, according to a poll conducted by The Hill and Harris X. Of those polled, 73% said that Trump would likely finish out his first term, while 14% said it was unlikely.
13% of those surveyed Some Democrats were unsure with 19% responding as such.
in the number of Democrats who said Trump will likely stay until the end of
his first elected term with 56% responding positively. A 7% increase since
an identical poll taken in October 2019. Democrats who said Trump would be unable
to complete his term dropped by 10 points with 25% responding in the
negative. Some Democrats were unsure with 19% responding as such. So I'll clarify
The number I said originally was at 74.
It's actually 73, and that's all voters.
But get this.
From the past poll, right, in October, to today, when we're having the second hearing, the people who believe that Trump would be unable to complete his term dropped by 10 points.
These are Democrats!
I gotta tell you, you know, I can only imagine this means there are a lot of Democrats watching what's happening and saying, there's nothing here!
Literally nothing.
In the end, what we're hearing about is a policy dispute between unelected officials, bureaucrats, and the president, who, look, look man, even if the president's foreign policy is the stupidest foreign policy ever, he was elected to enact his ideas.
But I will say this, One of the most frustrating things.
If you've ever managed a team or an office, you know that periodically you have a vision.
You say, I know what we need to do.
I have, I want to take this risk and we're going to implement plan ABC.
We go from A to B to C. And then all of a sudden you have people in your office saying, no, no, no, no, no.
That makes no sense.
I don't want to do that.
Listen, you weren't hired.
To- to set the plan.
The president was.
You might not understand his plan, okay?
That doesn't mean you get to undermine him.
More importantly, I do not think Trump has a good plan, in my opinion, but I don't- it doesn't matter.
Trump got elected.
What are we gonna do?
Undermine this- the- the branch of the- the executive branch in- in its entirety?
So that unelected bureaucrats can decide for us what should or shouldn't be in Ukraine?
Sorry, I don't play that.
Not a big fan of the executive branch and their abuses of power.
And I do like the fact that since Trump got elected, there's been a massive curtailing of that power.
But there's a limit, okay?
I recognize the president has a job to do.
We don't always know what they're doing.
I disagree with Trump heavily on his foreign policy.
Same with Obama.
And I will criticize it.
And I will make those moves to where I will vote for someone I like.
But I recognize This is the best we've got so far.
And if 63 million people want this person as the president, he was hired to do a job.
Let's read on.
Republicans were confident in the president, as 93% of those polled said Trump would continue on.
Only 5% said it was unlikely that Trump would be able to continue, while 3% were not sure.
As a whole, independent voters also were on Trump's side.
74% of independents indicating they thought Trump would complete his first term.
Those who thought it was unlikely was 12%.
That's amazing.
And they say this, a two-point drop from October.
Independents are the voters that Donald Trump needs.
They're the bulk.
They're the biggest group.
They might lean left, lean a little bit to the right.
They don't believe Trump is going to be removed.
I have to imagine that that brings us to two possibilities.
That many think Trump just can't be taken out.
He's too strong.
He's got too much support.
Or it means they don't think he did anything wrong.
But with Democrats dropping by 10%, I think it's fair to say many of them are looking at what's unfolding and saying, This is kinda ridiculous.
But not only that, it's Trump fatigue, man.
If you think you're gonna get a bombshell report from this testimony, I got news for you.
Ratings are down, and people are just tired of it.
Dude, I will tell you this, I know for a fact viewership is down.
I research viewership, media, I do this all day and night, it's my business, and I know people are sick and tired of hearing this.
You know, when there's a big, big, you know, a real bombshell, that's when you can expect the viewership to come back.
And that's why every single outlet Okay, not every, but many outlets on the left said there was a bombshell testimony from Bill Taylor implicating Trump, which in reality was that he said he heard from his staffer who asked the opinion of Sondland of what he thought Trump's opinion was.
That is not implication of anything.
That is not direct evidence of anything other than Sondland's opinion based on him working for the president.
And now we have Marie Yovanovitch, who was asked, have you spoken with Donald Trump in 2019?
No.
You got to be kidding me.
What?
We are literally wasting time.
So I'll tell you what, even Democrats, even the Democrats think this is not going to happen.
And so let me show you a few things.
I love looking at the RealClearPolitics average.
First of all, on the 13th, a support for impeachment and removal went down by 0.2.
It went down a little bit!
We will see what happens because these polls were conducted just before the first hearings.
But I'm willing to bet Well, actually, no, it's hard to predict.
It's hard to predict how people respond to exaggerated, embellished news.
But I'm willing to bet it goes down.
I could be wrong.
We can see that the no, people who want Trump to stay, has remained stagnant.
But I'll show you this.
This matters.
Because these polls have gone into the 14th, okay?
And this shows that Trump's approval rebounded!
It's highest point just recently was, I believe, 45.3, and it's currently sitting at 44.4.
But when the impeachment, all that nonsense broke, when all the story broke about the whistleblower, Trump took a big hit in his approval rating.
Down like four points.
It's rebounded.
So let me show you where we're at so far.
Democrats Believe Trump will finish his term and they are losing faith.
Impeachment's not going to do anything.
Not only that, Trump's approval rating has started going back up.
I think once people realized what was going on with the call, and it's the fact that Trump may just be, you know, tactless, but he didn't really do anything illegal, just kind of tactless, they were like, oh, okay, this is ridiculous.
And now the people testifying are third, fourth, fifth hand, and the media is lying.
And that could be another big factor.
When people finally realize, when they read the news, like, wait a minute, I thought you said bombshell report.
Now they're saying there's no evidence?
Like, even NBC said no bombshell.
But these leftist outlets, these activist outlets are saying it's the big bombshell!
Sorry.
Rasmussen, of course, has Trump with a plus-one spread, a 50% approval rating.
That's Rasmussen.
I will say, they were the most accurate when it came to 2016, but they were off in 2018.
We'll see what happens.
But you know what?
Let's take a step forward and see what the prediction markets say, because even predicted has a 95% chance that Trump will be the president by the end of 2019.
They don't, there's a 78% chance he will be impeached in his first term and a 43% chance he will be impeached by the end of 2019.
So that's interesting.
77% believe Trump will complete his first term.
I look at these numbers and I think, you know, when people put money where their mouth is, it's much better than whether or not they're going to claim to support something or not.
But this brings me to the bigger problem today.
Democrats' problem breaking through on impeachment.
Axios reports opening day of the impeachment hearings hardly hit blockbuster status, generating middling viewer interest compared with other Trump-era political hearings.
Democrats are banking on the public spectacle of the hearings to shift more independents and Republicans in favor of impeaching President Trump.
But new data about Wednesday's hearing shows the difficulty in capturing the attention of a nation that's developed a higher tolerance for permanent political drama under the current president.
Day one, 13 million live TV viewers fell well shy of James Comey's testimony in 2017 of 19.5 million.
And the Michael Cohen hearing in February, 16 million.
The impeachment hearing, which featured some newsy testimony from Bill Taylor and George Kent, generated 7 million social media interactions on Wednesday, according to data from social analytics company Newswhip.
That's higher than the $6 million for Comey on the day of his testimony, but shy of the $8 million for Mueller's testimony.
And way below the $18 million for Kavanaugh, Ford.
You know, I'll put it this way.
I think when you stack up what we're hearing now, somebody who is completely uninvolved, Who can only give her opinion on how she feels about why she was fired and is angry about it.
People are starting to look at this and say, I'm not going to watch.
This is literally nothing.
This is not a material witness.
There's no facts.
There's no news.
So I find it really funny that we have these pundits saying, Republicans are complaining that the hearings are boring.
Yeah, one of the first things I said when the hearing started the other day was that it's like watching paint dry.
Do you know why it's boring?
It's not boring because it's procedural.
It's not boring because it's monotonous and they're saying, can you please explain to me what you thought?
It's boring because they are telling us nothing new.
If they were giving us new information, I'd be interested.
If they said, I previously never told anyone this, but X, I'd be like, whoa, now we're getting somewhere.
But no, they are rehashing what we already know.
They're asking the same questions.
Nothing new is coming of this.
And that's probably why Democrats think, you know what?
Trump's going to win.
I'm sure they thought.
That Trump would be impeached up until they saw what the Democrats had to offer and probably said, wow, there's literally nothing here.
They say, Axios reports, while the other events were confined to a single day of viewing, the public impeachment hearings will play out over many days.
It's unclear whether that could scatter viewership or build interest over time.
I have to say, my opinion, ratings are going to drop.
Well, it'll be interesting to see what the ratings are for the hearing today, but I think they're going to drop.
They say a number of factors may be working to suppress viewer interest.
The outcome of the impeachment saga appears predictable and predetermined.
The Democrat-led House will impeach and the Republican-led Senate will acquit.
We all know it!
It's a waste of everyone's time.
The testimonies are largely known ahead of time.
Exactly.
Witnesses have already been deposed.
Media echo chambers mean there are few facts and narratives agreed upon by the left and the right.
The witnesses weren't household names until last month, making them unfamiliar and less interesting.
Americans could be experiencing hearing fatigue after sitting through the day-long slog for other high-profile Trump-era testimonies.
The daytime airing prevents many potential witnesses, I'm sorry, potential viewers from being able to tune in.
While the public hearings may be Democrats' best chance to shift the status quo, 81% of voters say their opinions about impeachment already are mostly met.
But now I got the big bombshell for you.
They claimed first, quid pro quo.
Now they're saying bribery.
They keep changing the goalposts.
They keep moving the goalposts.
They said Donald Trump was suspending aid as extortion.
They then said that, you know, Donald Trump wanted them to publicly announce an investigation.
Then they said it was about predicating the investigation on having a meeting.
If they wanted to meet with Trump, they had to agree to these things.
Well, let me tell you a few things.
The meetings, I think it was Pence who met in Poland, I'm not sure, but none of this stuff was fulfilled.
The aid was released, there was no announcement of an investigation.
And here's the best part.
Donald Trump released the transcript.
The first call between Trump and Ukrainian leader show President offering him White House visit, no strings attached, and no mention of Biden probe or military aid money.
That's right.
Donald Trump released the first phone call.
It was very short.
It was apparently just after President Zelensky was elected.
And Trump said, when you're ready, I'd like to invite you to the White House.
Now look, it's possible that Trump said that, and the assumption was, now that he's all excited, here's what the left will argue.
Trump said, I'll invite you to the White House.
Zelensky gets all excited because he knows what the U.S.
can offer because of that vast power disparity.
And then when Zelensky comes crawling back saying, let's come to the White House, Trump goes, what about that investigation?
But I think it's fair to say I'm not going to assume the motives of what we think Trump may or may not do.
And I tell you why I do this.
While I may do it sometimes in my, you know, my opinion segments, when it comes to the bigger stuff, I try to avoid this.
I'm not perfect.
Maybe I'm getting it wrong.
But I think the challenge is that the left has an extremely negative view of the president.
The right has a positive view of the president.
So naturally, those assumptions are going to play in what they think Trump's motives are.
If Trump says come to the White House, I'm not going to assert he did or didn't want to do anything or there was an ulterior motive.
I don't know.
Maybe.
It's possible.
But you can't make a statement of fact based on nothing.
So in the end, here's what we can say.
The argument that Trump was trying to leverage the investigation so they could get a meeting is likely predicated on a falsehood, considering Trump offered a White House visit, no strings attached.
I think it is a stretch to say Trump would tell them, come to the White House, And then a month later, be like, aha, that invite?
I'm taking it back!
You gotta do something for me now!
I just don't see that.
It does not seem likely.
It does seem like Ukraine is, you know, they were saying something to the president, like, tell people about how good our food is and, you know, and our culture is rich.
And Trump's like, yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it, you know.
And they ask for Trump to come to Ukraine and says Trump, they asked Trump to come to Ukraine and Trump said, maybe we'll send a representative.
And it seemed like a very boring, you know, typical call.
Now, of course, the left is arguing, that's not a transcript either.
It's just a rough transcript, omitting details.
They're saying, I thought Trump outlined corruption.
He wanted to investigate corruption.
He didn't say any of that.
Look, man, I don't tell you.
They got all riled up.
They claimed Trump was trying to, you know, leverage a meeting with this investigation, and then Trump released a transcript showing that he invited him in the first place.
So, yeah, maybe, but I just think it's stretching it.
And I think if we're going to move based on the facts we have, we don't have facts to purport that Trump was trying to leverage this meeting so far.
There is some testimony, but what we've seen directly from the president, we're not there.
So I ask you this.
Am I wrong?
Do you think I'm wrong?
It's possible.
I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
I don't think I've seen every single news story.
But when I look at Newsweek talking about a poll from the Hill-Harris Acts where Democrats believe Trump will survive impeachment and carry out his first term, even Democrats seem to think nothing's going to come of this.
And that could be for a few reasons, that either Trump is untouchable, which I doubt, or that a lot of this is overblown and overhyped.
Now here's my favorite part.
I'm going to end you with one good laugh.
So if you're somebody who agrees with me that impeachment has been farcical, it's about politics, the Democrats hail Mary Pitch to generate negative partisanship so they can drum up voters to vote against the Trump and not for their awful candidates.
I give you now the greatest hot take so far.
Bill Clinton says Trump should forget about impeachment and do his job.
Are you?
What?
You know what I've been saying for the longest time?
I would much prefer to see the Democrats talk about policy and advocate for things that can actually get done than talking about impeaching Trump over and over again.
We are less than a year out from an election.
If impeaching him is a waste of time, what's the thing President Pence?
Okay, Trump is going to run for re-election.
If the people don't like him, they will vote against him.
But I know, I know.
The Democrats are doing this for negative press.
So that brings me to the funny point.
The best thing they can hope for is negative story after negative story.
Bombshell, bombshell, bombshell.
That's their strategy, a press play.
Except people don't want to watch anymore.
And even Axios points out Democrats are struggling to attract viewership because it's boring.
The people who of any merit testified, nothing came of it.
Years of Russiagate.
It was boring.
We were bored then, but we still watched and we're even bored today.
And now we are fatigued.
We don't care anymore.
And now we can see even Democrats are throwing up their arms.
At least, and all of them, but 56% in saying, this is not going to go anywhere.
Trump's going to finish his first term.
And if that's the case, I can only imagine there are many Democrats who are frustrated because there are real concerns about healthcare, about the economy, about immigration that are going unaddressed.
A trade agreement that could be voted on, not, it's not happening because Democrats want to talk about Trump offering, you know, something that wasn't in the transcript.
I tell you what, man.
The fake news can work.
The other day I was at the store and I was talking about this to a friend and some guy butted in and said, but it's in the transcript.
It proves that Trump's lying.
And I'm like, what are we talking about?
Like Trump said, I talked to that, like Trump published the transcript.
What he said, what is he lying about?
He said it.
I think, you know, look, listen, it's, it's crazy to me that we are now in this world where You have a Democrat testify hearsay is better evidence.
It's like, what?
Hearsay is not better evidence.
Now you have Bill Clinton saying, why won't Trump just shut up and do his job?
Are you kidding me?
What do you think Trump?
You know what?
He's mad that Trump tweeted one time while the Democrats won't shut up about it.
Bravo!
Fantastic.
Well, in the end, I tell you what's gonna happen.
Trump's gonna win.
He's gonna carry this term.
I think he'll be impeached.
Most people can see that.
In which case, this is pointless.
He'll be impeached, but he won't be removed.
And he's gonna fundraise like no other.
He already has!
Trump shattered records in fundraising.
Congratulations!
You've presented us with witnesses who know nothing.
One who's complaining about her feelings about being fired.
I mean no disrespect, but that's literally what it is.
Okay?
If you're a disgruntled employee, take it up with HR.
And that's what we're hearing now?
You know what, man?
The reason I say these things, uh, is for one, I call it like I see it.
I see these stories and I'm just like, dude, if Newsweek, they're not conservative, man.
Newsweek, if anything, is left-leaning, is saying Democrats are not happy.
You can't deny it.
Okay?
But I tell you what, even NBC News has no bombshell.
And then you get the Young Turks showing Vox and like, you know, other left-wing outlets claiming there was a big bombshell.
If the media is going to lie, I got to call it out.
I think the path to victory against Donald Trump would be a, Would be having politicians talk about real policy.
Well, let's be real.
Which Democrat has policy that's going to be attractive to the average American?
Joe Biden, I guess?
Because in the end, here's what we have.
The Democrats know that their 2020 candidates, the people leading the PAC and leading the party, are duds.
What are they gonna do?
Instead of voting for them, they need you to vote against Trump.
That's the plan.
And that's how they'll win.
I don't know if they will, but maybe.
You'd be a fool to underestimate the play.
Because even though nobody's really watching this, it may still work.
They've been relentless on this.
So I'll leave it there.
Thank you, Bill Clinton, for reminding us that it's Trump who should be not focused on impeachment, and not the Democrats, who won't shut up about it, who have tried to impeach him since he started.
And I will say one funny point.
In the hearing today, I think it was Nunes who commented that there are people on this committee who voted to impeach Trump even before the whistleblower came out and any of this information or inquiry even happened.
Okay, so we know what the end result is.
We know what they want.
It's not for anything legitimate.
They're making excuses.
You don't gotta like the president to recognize that the Democrats are playing politics.
Next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all there.
Emails, messages, and documents from Rashida Tlaib's campaign have been released as an ethics probe is being expanded by the Office for Congressional Ethics.
It is being alleged that Rashida Tlaib may have broken federal law by requesting personal money from her campaign.
Now, the campaign says this is legal and the campaigns are allowed to pay the candidates if they're not taking standard work because they have to campaign.
However, they concede that Rashida Tlaib was paid after she was elected, which is interesting, though they say it was for work done before she was elected.
However, in messages released, it looks like Tlaib is saying, I need to pay off my debt.
It's one thing if you need money for food, for rent.
It's another thing if you're just trying to pay off debt and you want to use your campaign funds to do so.
Now, the general argument we've heard from Ilhan Omar, from Rashida Tlaib, And Ocasio-Cortez is always, it was an accident, I didn't know, it was an accident, but it just keeps happening.
There have been, I think, a couple ethics complaints against Ocasio-Cortez, although I don't know where those have gone so far.
Ilhan Omar was actually forced to pay a fine for improperly using campaign funds.
Now, although it was a crime, no one really expects anything to come of, you know, she used the funds.
She took funds.
She used them, I think, for her divorce.
They told her she had to pay it back and pay a fine.
So a lot of people were like, oh, she broke the law.
Yeah, she did.
And her penalty was a fine.
Now we have this story about Rashida Tlaib.
But here's the thing.
This story's not coming from some conservative watchdog group that wants to file a complaint, like we hear about Ocasio-Cortez, right?
Back in March, conservative group hits AOC with ethics complaint, and it kept happening, and there may be real reasons to complain about what Ocasio-Cortez is doing.
I will say it's kind of funny that the far-left squad is being repeatedly hit with these complaints, and where there's smoke, there's fire.
It's not always true, but hey, it's worth looking into.
This is different.
Rashida Tlaib is not being investigated by just some conservatives.
This is the Office for Congressional Ethics.
So let's check out this story from Fox News, they say.
The House Ethics Committee on Thursday released a trove of striking internal campaign communications sent in 2018 by Michigan Democratic Rep.
Rashida Tlaib, in which Tlaib urgently requested money from her congressional campaign to defray personal expenses, and a government watchdog said, Possibly violated federal law.
Now, of course, there's going to be a watchdog, you know, saying they think she may have violated the law.
But it's the Office of Congressional Ethics expanding this probe.
Check it out.
The document dump was related to the committee's ongoing ethics probe into Tlaib, which the panel said on Thursday would be expanded based on a referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics.
Additionally, the Ethics Committee acknowledged for the first time on Thursday an investigation into Florida Democratic Rep Alcee Hastings concerning a personal relationship with an individual employed in his congressional office.
Democrats!
Stop having adult relationships with your staff members.
Come on.
Apparently there's like a bunch of documents pretending all these payouts that Congress has done because of their affairs.
Maybe we'll see at some point.
Texts and emails released by the Ethics Committee show Tlaib frantically contacting members of her staff for financial help.
Now I want to stop real quick.
I want to make sure we're careful and that I think it's fair to say if somebody is poor and wants to run for office, then I think it's fair that a campaign will pay them for their time.
Otherwise, what are they supposed to do?
Are we only supposed to allow rich people to run for office?
No, we can't have that.
At the same time, it should be legitimate.
If, if, if, you know, I can't tell you in depth what is legal, and I'm not a lawyer, but it sounds to me, when Tlaib says, I wanna pay off my debt, that's kinda not, that's kinda weird, and it doesn't sound like you need food, it doesn't sound like you need money for expenses, it sounds like you recognize your campaign raised a bunch of money, and you're like, ooh, I can pay off my credit cards, right?
Let's read.
In one April 2018 email offered as an exhibit by OCE, Tlaib wrote that she was struggling financially right now and was sinking.
She continued, so I was thinking the campaign could loan me money, but Ryan said that the committee could actually pay me.
I was thinking a one-time payment of $5,000.
And that might be legitimate, right, if they can argue it.
In another email on April 4th, Tlaib wrote, I am just not going to make it through the campaign without a stipend.
With a loss of a second income to lean back on, she wrote, I am requesting $2,000 per two weeks, but not exceeding $12,000.
The cost of living stipend is going towards much-needed expenses due to campaigning.
That includes car maintenance, childcare, and other necessities.
Please let me know if I can proceed.
That sounds completely fair and legitimate and on the level.
She's got kids.
She's got car maintenance.
I can respect that.
Absolutely.
Now, I don't know what the time frame is.
She's asking for a thousand bucks a week.
And she's got to take care of her necessities.
And she even asked, can we do this?
That's fair.
In August of that year, Tlaib texted her future chief of staff, Ryan Anderson, at 6.38 a.m.
Sorry for the early text, but do you think the campaign can still pay me a stipend until the general trying to get out of debt?
You may have racked up debt because you didn't have money to do this.
But there's a big difference between actually sorting out whether or not your campaign is going to be paying you and how you're going to be living.
It's not our responsibility to pay for your life if you want to run for office.
Like I said, I think it's fair if you're not going to work and your campaign pays you.
But at the same time, if you're fundraising money off a campaign, mismanaging your funds, like, you know what, to an extent, you do have some responsibility in preparing yourself for, you know, running for office.
I think we definitely afford to do so, but we need to really clearly define your time and space, Anderson responded, noting that the arrangement could arouse concern among the media.
Oh, and there it is.
Uh-oh, she's taking money from her campaign.
The OCE also attached scans of checks made out to Tlaib from her campaign, totaling thousands of dollars.
Tlaib's lawyers said in August there was no evidence that she violated the law on purpose.
On purpose, huh?
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.
Or otherwise.
And insisted there were no bad intentions.
Notice they didn't say there's no evidence she violated the law.
No, they said there's no evidence she violated the law on purpose or otherwise.
What does that mean?
We're playing games here.
They noted that Federal Election Commission regulations permit campaigns to pay limited salary to candidates who curtail outside employment to focus on their campaigns, in certain limited conditions that the lawyer said were met in this instance.
The attorneys went on to say that it was most irregular for OCE to call for a probe into a member of Congress based on pre-election activities and argue that there was no conscious disregard for any law or regulation.
Tlaib was paid by her campaign after Election Day, the attorneys conceded, but they asserted that the money was for services performed before Election Day.
Okay, stop.
I see their point.
Why would the Office for Congressional Ethics be investigating something that happened when she wasn't even in office?
She got paid after the fact.
And now it's when she was in office and you open the door for this.
Tlaib's campaign committee said, and I want to stress, look, I'm looking at this and I'm saying like, okay, so she's trying to get money to pay off her debt, it's eye roll, what's she going to do, pay a fine?
But I'm going to say, based on what we've heard about Ocasio-Cortez potentially funneling money to her boyfriend through this weird, you know, thing they had where they had two different companies and then money was shifted around and then her boyfriend, Didn't, like, he got paid for two months and then moved to New York?
It's very suspicious, but they didn't launch an investigation into that.
I gotta say, I do not think the OCE or the House Ethics Committee just willy-nilly launches investigations.
I think they have actual probable cause, and I think we're only getting a little bit of the picture.
Keeping in mind, Ilhan Omar had to pay a fine.
She did violate campaign finance law.
They say that Tlaib's campaign committee, Rashida Tlaib for Congress, allegedly reported campaign disbursements that may not be... Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Rashid Tlaib for Congress allegedly reported, this is from the OCE, wow, they reported campaign
disbursements that may not be legitimate and verifiable campaign expenditures attributed
to bona fide campaign or political purposes according to a release from OCE that unanimously
recommended the ethics committee investigate Tlaib.
And there it is, OCE said, it looks like there is probable cause that they were giving out
money that had nothing to do with campaigning.
If Tlaib converted campaign funds from Rashid Tlaib for Congress to personal use or if Tlaib's
campaign committee expended funds that were not attributed to bona fide campaign or political
purposes then Tlaib may have violated house rules, standards of conduct and federal law.
The OCE continued.
That's what I was saying to me.
This is not just some conservative group.
This is the Office for Congressional Ethics saying she may have violated federal law.
Keep in mind as well, with Ilhan Omar, she made bulk payments to that Tim Minette guy, right?
And there was concern that she broke the law because she didn't itemize those expenses.
Where's the investigation?
You know, we're still waiting to see what comes of that.
Rashida Tlaib, no, the House, the Ethics Office for Congressional Ethics is straight up saying she may have violated the law.
Board recommends that the committee further review the above allegation concerning Rep Tlaib, because there is substantial reason to believe that Rep Tlaib converted campaign funds from Rashida Tlaib for Congress to personal use or Rep Tlaib's campaign committee expended funds that were not attributed to bona fide campaign or political purposes.
The Ethics Committee first announced on August 16th that it had received a referral from the concerning Tlaib.
From who?
Meanwhile, the Ethics Committee also said it was looking into an alleged relationship between Hastings and a staffer.
Okay, so this is a whole other issue.
Democrats, what are you doing?
And whether Hastings had received any improper gifts, including any forbearance from that employee.
Oh, so it looks like we got a bonus story here.
What is this?
So now, coming off of Rep.
Katie Hill, we got another Democrat who apparently had an improper relationship.
They're a small faction of the Democrats, but they cause a lot of problems for the Democrats.
It's entirely possible you're going to see some establishment Democrats saying, aim the cannons at them.
So whether or not it's legit, we'll see.
And I certainly think if this is the establishment trying to push out new candidates, that I would completely disagree with.
But, I'll tell you what, man.
When you challenge the machine, be it a journalist or an outside candidate, they're gonna come for you.
In every way possible.
So the question now is, you know, Ilhan, Tlaib, Omar, are they illegally using money?
It's entirely possible.
It's also entirely possible that there's a bunch of complicated rules that make it very difficult for new people to come in.
So, I'll tell you what.
I'm absolutely open to the possibility that the establishment cronies, uber-wealthy millionaire Democrats do not want these people in Congress, and will stop at nothing to get rid of them, because as we've seen from Nancy Pelosi, it's nothing but problems for them.
Now, Ocasio-Cortez is basically saying impeachment unifies the party.
I gotta say, I'm actually leaning towards, I think you've got conservatives who don't like the far left because they're crazy far leftists causing us problems, but then you've also got crony Democrats who don't like them coming in and trying to disrupt the party, which will essentially hand a win to Republicans.
So hey man, member of the squad, you're fighting an uphill battle, and that means don't break the law in any way.
And you might say, it's not fair, other people do it.
Other people might do it, but you know what?
If you broke the law, you broke the law.
We'll see what happens though, because I'll say, it bears repeating, who's going to get in trouble over this?
They're going to be like, you're found guilty, pay $75, and that'll be the end of it, right?
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
A video going viral depicts what appears to be a kidnapping, taken from a ring doorbell.
We're seeing the front porch of someone's home, a woman standing on it as a car drives past, and a woman in the car lets out a blood-curdling scream, please help me, as she shrieks and cries.
And I have to admit, This thing shook me to my core.
This scream is one of the... it's fuel for nightmares.
I really do mean that.
I'm gonna play this clip for you in a second and I'm letting you... I'm warning you.
Now, I'm sure there are a lot of women who understand this fear that this could be you.
I mean, this could be anybody.
You're walking outside minding your business.
Someone grabs you, throws you in a vehicle.
I want to read for you this news story.
But I also pulled up some other stories and I just want to talk about safety.
And I often talk about, you know, there are a lot of women who travel by themselves, and I hope this serves as a warning that you must be responsible for your safety.
You know, of course, always, we blame these criminals and these lunatics who go around kidnapping and selling women and abusing them.
But to a certain degree, you have to make sure you are vigilant and watching out because these people exist.
They don't care about rules.
They don't care about what you think.
They don't care about who's responsible.
They are evil, sick people.
I'm going to play this clip for you now and again.
I'm warning you, you know, there's... to a young woman or a woman who might fear this kind of thing, this may be shocking, but even to me, to a father, to a brother, to a husband, to a boyfriend, this is going to... it'll send chills down your spine.
So I have the clip here and I'm gonna play it.
I'm gonna try and turn that up for you guys and and play it once more so that
I'm not trying to get shock out of this I just I'm just hoping you can hear this
because this this this may be one of the best ways to convey to people the
seriousness of taking care of yourself and your loved ones Screaming in pain.
This is no joke.
It's no laughing matter.
I seriously hope the police figure out what happened.
They find this woman and they find out if she's okay.
There's apparently some tweets going around claiming that she busted out of the car and ran full speed, you know, or she was limping.
But I don't believe these are true.
For now, they don't know what happened.
So let's get real.
It's a flash.
You're outside minding your own business.
A car pulls up and somebody grabs you by the throat, throws you in a car, and you're gone.
They know what the car looks like, but by the time... I mean, think about it.
You're in Los Angeles.
You're a couple hours away from another country.
Not only that, in Los Angeles they could easily drive into any area and the police are going to show up five to ten minutes later and ask what happened and say, We have no idea.
As much as people in cities like to rely on police, let me remind you, police typically respond after the fact.
Now, there are instances where a crime is currently being committed, the police show up and can do something about it.
But when it comes to a kidnapping, it can't.
They can show up after the fact, they can investigate, and hopefully they can figure it out, but you've got, what, less than 24 hours.
I believe Los Angeles is only a couple hours to Mexico, and you're gone.
So let's read the story, and then I want to talk to you about...
Look, man, these stories are terrifying.
I did a simple search, and there's a story from the New York Post.
A woman was sitting outside of her house listening to music when a guy walks up, grabbed her by the throat, beat the crap out of her, threw her in a car, and she was gone.
Now, there's complicated issues to some of these stories, but she was essentially sold into slavery.
And it wasn't until a few years later that she was able to get justice.
She was able to get justice and they arrested these guys who had sold her into slavery.
There's also a couple other stories that I've seen periodically throughout Reddit.
One where there was a woman leaving a bar with her boyfriend and her boyfriend's friends
and she was like texting or something.
So she was like 10 feet behind her boyfriend when a car pulled up, the door popped open,
when a guy jumps out, grabs her, and drags her into the car while she screams.
And fortunately, the boyfriend was able to grab her leg, and as they were trying to speed off, he was able to pull her out.
These things are... These stories... These happen, man.
Especially when you're close to the southern border.
So...
Let's try and get as many details as we can in the story.
KTLA5 says, Possible kidnapping investigated after woman's screams captured on doorbell video in Lymert Park.
A day after, home security video emerged of woman's terrified screams for help.
As a vehicle drove by in a Lymert Park neighborhood, police on Thursday said they need the public's help in locating a possible kidnapping victim.
I don't think so, man.
I'm sorry.
She's gone.
I mean, keep looking.
And they may find her.
But we've seen so many stories of people who go missing, kidnapped, and it's years later they're found.
It's going to be very difficult to track this down.
The ring doorbell video was captured along 3rd Avenue around 11.10pm Tuesday, about the time LA police said they responded to a report of a kidnapping on the street.
On the street.
So what is it?
It sounds like the woman was on the street and someone just grabbed her.
Investigators said they responded to the scene Tuesday, but were unable to find evidence of a crime.
The chilling video that emerged Wednesday, however, prompted them to reopen the case.
They closed this case.
She's gone.
They had to reopen it because of the video.
The video doesn't show a kidnapping, but a woman can be heard frantically pleading, help somebody, help me, as a sedan passes by.
It's true, it may not be a kidnapping, but what could it be if someone is screaming in a car, please help me, as a car drives by?
I guess, theoretically, it could be a woman.
She was injured?
She's bleeding, maybe?
But if she's in a car being helped, I doubt she'd be screaming, help me, especially if the driver was heard shouting, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Witnesses told detectives the car was possibly a white four-door Toyota Prius with two people inside.
It appeared a black woman or girl with dark braided hair was in the front passenger seat while the driver was described as a black man.
One witness saw the victim's hair being pulled back while she screamed, and there was plastic wrap on the front passenger window as if the vehicle was recently involved in a collision.
The driver was heard shouting, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
The car was last seen speeding south down 3rd Avenue.
LAPD on Wednesday said officers responded to the 3800 block of 3rd Avenue around 11 p.m.
Tuesday, but the department's Thursday news release stated witnesses on the 3000 block of 3rd Avenue observed the car around 1120 p.m.
Tuesday.
The ring video is from a home on the 3800 block of 3rd Avenue with an 11-11 p.m.
time stamp.
I've heard stories like this before, and I will stress we don't know what's going on yet.
This could be a lot of things.
I honestly don't know.
It could be an abusive boyfriend refusing to let her out of the car.
But I- I- I- In my opinion, I've- I've- I've seen fights.
I have seen, um, you know, abusive relationships.
This, to me, please somebody help me, screaming and crying.
It sounds like a kidnapping.
I mean, look, I get it.
A boyfriend could kidnap his girlfriend.
But... This... It's reported as a kidnapping on the street.
So here's the thing.
I did a quick Google search, and I wanted to look into these stories because I've read a lot of these stories, man.
The first thing I want to show you is this story from just last year in August.
I was kidnapped and sold into sex slavery.
This woman, she says, a Romanian woman who was snatched from a London street and trafficked as a sex slave, has told of her horrifying ordeal.
Revealing she was forced to sleep with thousands of men.
She was listening to music and reaching into her bag for keys when she was grabbed by the neck and dragged into a car in Woodgreen, North London.
She said, it's hard to scream when you feel so threatened.
They had my papers.
They knew where my mom was.
They knew everything about me.
Apparently, a gang of two men and a woman stole her passport, took her to the airport
right away, where they forced her to board a flight.
Immediately many people may say, how do they force someone to board a flight?
Airports have security, yes, I understand.
But there are some people, they react this way.
And I know it's hard for people to get, they're like, why wouldn't you scream?
I can't tell you why someone would or wouldn't do something.
They might be terrified.
They may have threatened her mom and said, if you say anything, we know where your mom is.
And so she kept her mouth shut.
She was snatched from her home.
They knew who she was.
They probably planned this.
And she was sold into slavery from a London street.
Like I mentioned, that story I read on Reddit.
Leaving a bar with her boyfriend and her friends.
Thinking everything is fine.
So look, man.
I don't want you to leave thinking the world is dangerous, everyone's gonna come for you.
This stuff is extremely rare.
But I do wanna make sure it's clear to people that It can happen.
You can win the lottery.
Yup.
Winning the lottery can be a great experience.
You get a lot of money.
But there's a negative.
There's statistical lotteries in that you could be the victim of one of these crimes.
And it's going to disproportionately affect women.
And this exemplifies exactly why I'm frustrated by so many people encouraging women to do these solo female travel things.
There's so much security that goes... If you're a dude, And you want to travel the world by yourself.
You need security prep.
You need inoculations.
You gotta go to the doctor.
You gotta prepare for these things.
In all of the trips that I used to do, traveling the world, we did security assessments.
We would bring armor to some places.
And you have these outlets saying, like, by all means, go and do this.
This happened in Los Angeles.
This happened in London.
What do you think's gonna happen if you're in Pakistan?
Or Syria?
Now, of course, there are a lot of women who go about, you know, these trips just fine.
But if you think that you're invincible, that you're immune, or that your family and your loved ones are, you're sadly mistaken.
So I'll tell you, what really frustrates me about so much of this don't-blame-the-victim mentality is that, well, yes, we seek justice against those who commit these crimes.
We blame the criminals.
It doesn't mean it's your fault.
It just means if you want to avoid this, you must protect yourself.
Now, of course, there are a lot of people sharing the story, the LA story, advocating for the Second Amendment.
And I have to say, it's one of the most compelling arguments.
What is it saying?
When seconds matter, the police are there in minutes.
When I lived in Miami, I was in the farmlands, in the Redlands area, we had reports of home invasions and murders.
And we also knew that even though we were only 40 miles outside of Miami, a big city, it would take the police about a half an hour to get to our house because it was essentially farmland.
It's out in the middle of nowhere.
It's like, you know, large acre properties with neighbors were close, but still pretty spread out.
And we had an incident where someone actually was snooping around on our property, jumping over our fence.
What do we do?
And I asked some of my liberal friends, what do you do?
You know, you think no one should ever have a personal home defense or weapon.
Like, I can understand.
Like, I'm fairly moderate when it comes to these issues.
I think, you know, like Joe Rogan's much more pro-gun.
But I think it's fair to say that there can be proper regulation to protect from people who shouldn't get weapons getting weapons, but for the most part, we need to be able to protect ourselves, because you can't just assume everyone will be safe all the time.
Now I can understand the argument.
So typically what I say when it comes to cities is that the police are there and there's a lot of witnesses and, you know, people around who can help you if something goes wrong.
But this just shows it's not always the case.
That if this woman was armed, she wouldn't have been kidnapped.
That's just a fact.
No matter what you want to say.
We can argue about accidental discharge and injury, and we can argue about violent criminals, and we can also argue the inverse that this woman standing on the street who was allegedly, they're saying it was a street kidnapping, When they went to grab her, she could have unholstered her weapon and protected herself.
And maybe, you know, but I don't want to act like that's a guarantee.
It's not a guarantee, simply because you're a weapon.
They could go up behind you, disarm you, and there's a lot of things.
But you've gotta take care of yourself.
You've gotta protect yourself.
I wanted to do this video because I just see too many of these stories where it's people go hiking in Tajikistan and we know what happens next.
People go hiking in Morocco and we see what happens.
But more importantly, while we can talk about the dangers of the world outside of our glorious American first world bubble, the sad truth is on the streets of Los Angeles, This could happen to you.
It could happen to your daughter, your wife, your girlfriend, your aunt, your mom.
It could happen to someone you care about.
Or more importantly, it could happen to you.
It's more likely to affect women, but I could not imagine what it must feel like to be taken in that way.
I don't know what it is.
And my biggest fear is that it's slavery.
Because we've heard these stories on the southern border.
They do this.
They go to border towns where it's easy to flee the country and escape the jurisdiction of the United States.
And they will look for young women and they will take them.
And that's it.
There's nothing you can do.
As much as we like to think that many cultures in the world have become civilized or that all cultures are equal, the fact is there are many cultures that still practice slavery.
And there are individuals, even within the United States, that have no qualms about selling you into slavery, given the chance.
There's slavery happening in Libya right now.
And this is young men.
But around the world, there are... there's a substantial number of sex slaves.
And I can only imagine what some of these people would pay for a nice American woman.
They probably would love it.
These people are sick, twisted individuals.
And they're, you know...
It's probably why it happens.
But I can't tell you.
You know?
Who knows what this was?
But that scream sends chills down my spine.
And it's... it's... it's... it's... it's what nightmares are made of.
Let me know what you think.
I don't know.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Different channel.
It's my main channel.
And I will see you all there.
A trend emerged during the impeachment hearing.
A trend in which Donald Trump supporters tweeted, I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch.
This started because of the hearings where Marie Yovanovitch is testifying as to, I don't know what she's testifying to, as to why she's upset she got reassigned by the president.
The Democrats are trying to claim that Trump moved her because she was obstructing his corruption.
Listen man, you gotta prove the corruption first, okay?
You wanna claim that, there's nothing here.
But, Twitter has begun suspending these people.
In a story from Buzzfeed, led by Ryan Broderick, who falsely claimed this was bots, this is hilarious, and he's now having to walk it back, he claimed all these Trump supporters were bots.
And there's a really simple explanation as to how the trend started, and I'm going to show it to you.
It's possible there's automated activity, or botting.
Probably not.
It's probably a much simpler solution in that several high-profile channels pushed the meme out and people adopted it.
Buzzfeed reports Twitter has suspended several accounts responsible for spreading, quote, I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch.
Well, take a look at this.
They say, I'm sorry, a spokesperson for Twitter said they're looking into whether or not the phrase is trending organically or not.
Here we can see a series of tweets, not all at the same time, but within a few seconds of each other, where people say identically, I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch.
Actually, let me read and we'll debunk.
The phrase, I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch, trended on Twitter Friday morning as former U.S.
Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch testified in front of the impeachment inquiry held by the House Intelligence Committee.
And while it may seem like a spontaneous outcry from supporters of the president, the phrase has spread at a rate consistent with the coordinated inauthentic behavior expected from a network of bots or sock puppet accounts.
Full stop, wrong, speculation, no facts, no evidence.
Prove it, you didn't.
BuzzFeed, fake news.
Okay?
Let me tell you something.
Jack Posobiec has 575,000 followers.
And after saying all of this, do you know what BuzzFeed actually admits to?
Although the tweet may have been amplified by automated activity, it does not appear to have originated in an inauthentic way.
The first account to post I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch was a real person, Carrie Kellerman, a pro-Trump influencer, whose tweet was retweeted by far-right activist and one America News Network host, Jack Posobiec.
Posobiec in a tweet denied there was anything inauthentic about the tweets spreading the phrase
BuzzFeed blogger Broderick is now spreading a kook conspiracy theory that the phrase
I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch is being tweeted by bots without evidence
He also renamed his account to botnet warlord poso That he did Jack Posobiec and he put his his face is now a
robot face. Let me tell you something Jack is like I could be getting it wrong a Catholic
conservative nationalist conservative Catholic with a family
Why is he laughing and joking and having a good time at your expense?
When did it become the Republicans were the ones who were laughing and having a good time?
It used to be the left.
I mean, look at South Park, okay?
They would make fun of the moralistic Christian conservatives.
You have Big Gay Al as a character, I think.
And it was taking fun, making fun of the authoritarian types.
Something happened, and now it's Jack Posobiec making a joke out of this shenanigans, making his face look like a robot, and having a good time.
It's funny, right?
What do we get from BuzzFeed?
Oh, harumph, I say!
It must be robots!
You know, I'll tell you what, man.
I'm not surprised, BuzzFeed of all places, and I've defended them in the past, that they would look at something and instead of actually investigating what this was, immediately write a story about how it's consistent with coordinated inauthentic behavior.
See how they call it coordinated inauthentic behavior expected from a network of bots or sock puppet accounts instead of saying automated activity?
They're trying to make it seem more ridiculous than it is.
Let's see what he had to say and we'll debunk.
To be sure.
Many human users are sharing the phrase, including Trump Jr., who tweeted a version of the phrase an hour after it surfaced.
America hired real Donald Trump to fire people like the first three witnesses we've seen.
Career government bureaucrats want nothing more.
The way the phrase has spread does not appear to be completely authentic.
At least 7,320 tweets, including retweets, were posted that included the words posted in the first 45 minutes, according to an analysis conducted by BuzzFeed News.
Within that time period...
Let me just go back to what I pointed out earlier.
It makes more sense now.
Jack Posobiec has 575,000 followers.
You know what's more shocking?
There weren't more tweets.
You'd think out of half a million followers, if Posobiec tweeted, here's a phrase, people more than 7,000 would retweet it.
It's actually absurd to me.
That BuzzFeed doesn't understand what a follower is and numbers.
7,000 people tweeting this is not that much relative to the fact that Posobek has substantially more.
I mean, you'd think 20, 30, 40, 50,000 would have tweeted it right away, right?
No, only 7,000.
Actually, I gotta say this.
Those are pretty bad numbers, Jack.
Only getting 7,000 of your half a million followers to tweet this phrase out, man, not that good.
But I'll tell you what, I'm kidding.
It's infinitely more likely that when Jack tweets something out to his large following, they say, okay, and we'll tweet this too.
What evidence do you have to support that these followers are bots?
In response to this, Trump supporters started taking pictures of themselves, holding up signs saying, not a bot.
Surprise, surprise, real people exist on the internet, who would have thought?
So he actually reached out to Twitter.
A representative for Twitter told BuzzFeed News they, the company, That the company, copy editor guys, was looking into whether or not the activity was coordinated or not.
Later in the day, several accounts in BuzzFeed and his dataset were suspended.
Are you kidding me?
It's like, we hear this all the time.
Learn to code.
A bunch of conservatives do a viral meme campaign because they're laughing and having a good time.
Twitter makes assumptions, and they act at the behest of journalists, because this is what journalists do.
They'll see something they don't like, and because they're basically dorm room RAs, they want to make sure no one's allowed to drink in college.
Nobody can have a good time!
What was that?
People were posting a meme?
No.
Memes are forbidden, because they can't meme.
So basically, here's how I see it.
Jack invited half a million people to come party in his dorm room, and they're all high-fiving and drinking beers and laughing about how much they like the president.
And the BuzzFeed journalists are like, those aren't real people.
He hired them.
That's not a real party.
And so he stomps his feet to the dean, and he's like, tell them they can't be here.
And so the dean goes, OK, OK, God, stop yelling at me, and goes and starts pulling people out of the party.
That's what's happening.
People are literally being suspended.
Because they got in on a meme.
Welcome to Twitter.
They say there's no bias against conservatives.
Please point to the people who are being banned for complaining about Donald Trump.
Now, look, don't get me wrong.
There are people who have been, but there's a lot of people who have said really awful things about the president have been banned for it.
I'm talking about why are people being suspended for tweeting, I hired Donald Trump to fire people like Yovanovitch?
What about that is wrong?
Perhaps.
And I think it's fair to say, I think it's always fair to point out, it may have been one person with two or three accounts with some sock puppets, and maybe they posted it twice, and then Twitter said, ah, you can't do that.
Even still, like, even then, it's kind of like, why can't you have more than one account in that capacity?
We're not talking about people who are running a network of slave computers who are all pumping this out.
He says the phrase became popular on Twitter, it spread beyond the platform appearing on YouTube, and in two 4chan posts it also began appearing in the public Facebook posts.
So why is it surprising that it's a trend?
It's like BuzzFeed saw a trend and was confused at how trends exist and then claimed it was bots.
Not every trend is a bot, dude.
You know what I think it is?
I think people like the people at BuzzFeed are in a bubble of liberals so much, they can't imagine that conservatives exist.
And so when they see this virality, they're like, no, that can't be real.
I don't know a single person who's conservative.
Not realizing like, dude, 63 million people voted for the president.
But congratulations on calling Twitter and getting people banned over this.
Separating out bot activity from genuine virality, particularly among pro-Trump social media users who often operate in ways that look like bots What?
People are nuts.
It's difficult.
What do you mean pro-Trump people operate in ways that look like bots?
Are you nuts?
Listen, man.
You know what?
If people behave a way, you can't claim they're acting like bots.
Benchmarks vary, but according to Oxford's Internet Institute Computational Propaganda Team and the Atlantic Council's Digital Forensics Lab, tweeting 50 to 72 times a day is suspicious, and more than 144 tweets per day very suspicious.
The rate of posts from many accounts amplifying the anti-Ivanovich phrase is consistent with automated services.
Okay, you know what, man?
It's possible.
Yeah, for sure.
But why did he start digging into this?
That's a big question.
Like, what about this said to you, hey, this is probably bots?
Is it surprising that someone with half a million followers tweeted something out and 7,000 of them then tweeted it too?
I would look at that and be like, yeah.
So here's my take, right?
I tweeted at him saying, in my opinion, I think, you know, there's bots, but you can't make that a statement of fact, right?
I would never come out and say, it's bots!
Like Broderick did.
He did, on Twitter, he called them bots.
No, you can't do that.
You gotta prove it.
What's your source?
Oh, it was an assumption.
Congratulations!
You made an assumption, you're probably wrong, we don't know, and now you've got a bunch of people banned.
Twitter, YouTube, Facebook needs to stop bending over backwards for these angry, whiny people who want to kill the party, okay?
They're buzzkills.
People having a good time over here with jokes and memes, and they're laughing about it.
And so all these journalists get all harumph and they go and get everybody banned.
Nah, okay, not playing that game.
But hey, there it is.
There's your viral phrase for the impeachment hearing day two, of which people apparently don't care for.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Injustice will not go unanswered.
We must seek justice for actress Monique.
She is suing Netflix for race and gender discrimination.
The lawsuit claims Monique was given a lowball offer that was only a fraction of what Netflix paid other comedians.
Right.
How dare they offer her only half a million dollars when they offer Dave Chappelle a prominent white- Oh wait, Dave Chappelle's not white.
Okay, scratch the race thing off of here.
We'll just call it gender discrimination.
How dare they pay Monique $500,000 when Amy Schumer was given fi- Oh wait, Amy Schumer's a woman too.
What's the complaint about?
I'll tell you what's really going on here, at least in my opinion.
Monique is not Seinfeld.
Monique is not Dave Chappelle.
Monique is not Amy Schumer.
Monique is Monique.
And Monique is pretty cool.
That's fine.
But she's suing now over discrimination because her brand isn't as valuable as Dave Chappelle?
I kid you not.
Dave Chappelle got 60 million dollars because he's Dave Chappelle, possibly the greatest comedian of our generation.
And I really do mean that.
But he's up there.
There's a handful of people.
For a variety of reasons, but Dave Chappelle, man, is a legend.
He is a legend, and he is a hero.
He has pushed back on the authoritarian insanity.
He has spoken truth to power.
And I really do mean that.
exaggerating a little bit but when he when he put on the red carpet and he
mocked the apologies they asked him about being offensive he goes yada yada
yada everything I'm supposed to say then they'll fart noise and I'm like thank
you Dave Chappelle for standing up to the moral authoritarians it is it is it
is needed by someone like you who is prominent respected talented funny he's
great he's a great dude seems like a reason He seems like a good dude in person, but career-wise, epic.
Why should Monique be getting anywhere near what he gets?
How many people have talked in the past few years about the great comedy of Monique?
Some!
I'm saying, yeah, she's cool.
She's prominent.
She's good at what she does.
But come on, man.
Just because you're not a legend like Seinfeld is, just because you're a comedian, Doesn't mean you're worthy of the same amount of money as Seinfeld or even Amy Schumer.
Now, I will stop there for a second, and I'll be honest.
Monique deserves a lot more money than Amy Schumer, and I mean that literally.
While I'm very critical of Monique over this lawsuit because I think it's stupid, Amy Schumer should not have been given any money for her special.
But let's read the story and see exactly what she's talking about.
They say the suit was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, accusing Netflix of giving a biased, discriminatory offer to Monique for a one-hour comedy special around November 2017.
The 39-page filing.
Monique calls out everyone from the top executives of the Netflix management team to highlighting the gender wage gap and lack of diversity in Hollywood.
Yeah, but come on, man.
Dave Chappelle was one of the top people they hired for a special.
Didn't they do it with Kevin Hart, too?
Let's read.
Despite Monique's extensive resume and documented history of comedic success, when Netflix presented her with an offer of employment for an exclusive stand-up comedy special, Netflix made a lowball offer that was only a fraction of what Netflix paid other non-black female comedians, according to the lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages and was filed on her behalf by attorneys at the DiRoberto's Law Firm, APC, and Schimmel & Park's APLC.
The community was offered half a million dollars as a talent fee.
An offer the lawsuit claims was significantly less than those offered to men and white women for the same type of stand-up original specials.
When the talent was not a black woman, Netflix offered to pay and did pay astronomically more than it pays to black women like it offered to Monique.
In a statement posted to Instagram, Monique Thursday said she had a choice to make.
make. I could accept what I felt was paid discrimination or I could stand up for
those who came before me and those who will come after me.
I chose to stand up.
Let's stop for a second. If I own a business, can I claim you discriminated
against my business because my business is a thing?
No, you can't.
Monique is a brand.
Just because your brand is not powerful enough to warrant this money doesn't mean they're racist.
And the proof is Dave Chappelle.
They certainly paid Dave Chappelle a lot more money than other people, more than a white person, Amy Schumer.
You can say it's about women?
Amy Schumer got paid a lot more than you did.
It's about brand.
This is the weirdest thing.
Celebrities are brands.
That's what you do.
You sell something.
Do you have the talent to sell your brand?
I have to imagine, Monique isn't acting as a sole proprietor.
Going to Netflix and being like, it's all gonna go under my social security number.
I would imagine, she's going there and saying, you will pay my LLC, Monique Incorporated.
So, is it corporate discrimination?
Like, what if your company had two comedians?
And I said, we will pay your company X.
Let's read on.
She says she chose to stand up.
Netflix disputes the claims and has vowed to challenge the suit.
We care deeply about inclusion, equity and diversity and take any accusations of discrimination very seriously, a Netflix spokesperson told NBC News on Thursday.
We believe our opening offer to Monique was fair, which is why we will be fighting this lawsuit.
Can I just stop and ask a question?
Was that the first offer?
Did they lowball her and she walked away off the first offer?
I'll tell you what.
You wanna know how I work?
I don't negotiate.
I do not negotiate.
Period.
I don't play that.
You come to me, and you offer me something, I'm gonna say, here's what I want, and when you say no, I'll say the same thing again.
You know what I want.
Are we done here?
Okay?
However, I understand how the business works.
And if someone came to me and said, Tim, we want you to host a comedy special for half a million dollars, you know what I would say to that?
My first response would be like, yes, please.
I'll take half a million dollars.
I don't think I'm that funny, but sure, I'll give it a shot.
Man, half a million dollars?
Wow.
My house?
You know, I don't know, man.
Buy a new car?
Or invest it.
Start a company.
That's probably the better thing to do.
Invest it.
Grow that investment.
She's mad about it.
Okay, but let's be real.
If someone came to me and offered me half a million dollars for some kind of news-related thing, I'd say, I want a million.
And when they say, how about $7.50?
I'd say, I want a million.
And if they said, $7.75?
You're not hearing me.
I told you.
Call me when you're serious, and if you can't offer what I'm asking for, I appreciate your time, I hope you succeed in your endeavors, have a nice day.
Now let's be real, nobody's offering me a million dollars.
However, Subverse did raise a million bucks thanks to all you beautiful, beautiful people who invested and are helping us launch this news venture.
Point is, if someone did offer me that money, I'd probably just be like, alright.
You know, why do you think you deserve something?
If you think you deserve more than half a million, why wasn't her first response, you paid Jerry Seinfeld 100 million dollars, you paid Dave Chappelle 60, Chris Rock got 40, and Amy Schumer got 11.
Why can't you offer me that?
Now I'll admit, If those are the initial offers, yeah, Monique got lowballed pretty hard.
But let's be real.
Monique is nowhere near as famous as any of these people.
In fact, on Reddit, which tends to be a very lefty place, someone brought up an interesting point.
Let me read this quote for you.
It says, quote, Thus, Netflix reportedly offered or paid Rock, Chappelle, DeGeneres, and Gervais 40 times more per show than it offered Monique, and it offered Schumer 26 times more per show than Monique.
The lawsuit said, excuse me.
In short, Netflix's offer to Monique perpetuates the drastic wage gap forced upon black women in America's workforce.
On Reddit, the top comment on this story said, I'd be willing to bet that Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, Ellen DeGeneres, and Ricky Gervais are in fact 40 times more notable than Monique.
In which case, that brand power is going to sell Netflix subscriptions.
Why would Netflix hire somebody?
Is it because they want to hear your jolly good jokes?
Sort of.
But for the most part, it's so that Netflix can run an ad campaign saying, hey, you know that guy you really, really like?
Dave Chappelle?
Jerry Seinfeld?
We got him.
If they came out and said, you know that comedian you really like, Monique?
How many people, like, is it gonna be nearly as big as Dave Chappelle?
No, let's be honest.
I think Monique is very talented.
She's successful and famous.
But she's not Dave Chappelle, okay?
Let me tell you something.
I think I'm talented, and I'm also well-known.
But I am a fraction of the value of Monique!
Should I complain now that Netflix isn't offering me money to do a comedy special?
How dare they?
Perhaps you're just not as funny, not as famous, or you don't have the brand power.
Could you imagine if I sued a news company and they refused to pay me the $10 million they paid Anderson Cooper and it's because I'm mixed race?
I'd be like, no!
It's because Anderson Cooper is really famous!
The lawsuit claims that Netflix lacked diversity in its leadership and reportedly turned a blind eye or did not act quickly enough when a senior executive and an actor in a series used racist language.
Okay, now come on.
This has nothing to do with you being offered money.
Now they're complaining about Kevin Spacey.
Dude, she complains that Kevin Spacey... Where does it say this?
They say that Netflix reportedly allowed actor Kevin Spacey to repeatedly make racist remarks, including the N-word, while he worked on his series House of Cards.
I think we all know how things turned out for Kevin Spacey, and in short, not well.
So, I don't think you should be trying to use Kevin Spacey in defense of- to defend yourself.
Netflix letting him do things.
They got rid of him, the show bombed, and nobody likes Kevin Spacey.
So, no.
Right?
They say it also claims that Chief Communications Officer Jonathan Friedland used the N-word in a meeting.
Multiple employees reportedly complained, according to the lawsuit, which led to Friedland apologizing.
Later, Friedland reportedly met with Black Human Resources employees and used the N-word again.
This is a guy who is explaining to staff that the N-word was offensive and not to say it.
Yes, that's the story.
An executive was in a meeting saying, here are the words that are offensive you can't say, and he said it.
Oh, heavens!
They complained about it.
So when he went to HR, and he was talking to them, he said, I was explaining to them words that were offensive and included the n-word.
But he said it.
And they were like, you said it again!
And he had to get- I think they fired him, right?
I can't remember.
It said he didn't apologize.
Apologize for what?
Explaining why a word is offensive?
And now it comes crawling back.
Do not bend to these lunatics.
Otherwise, you know what?
You deserve what you get.
Netflix deserves all of this.
You know what?
You know what?
I hope Monique wins.
I hope Monique wins half a billion dollars.
I hope Netflix is forced to pay out $500 million in the biggest settlement because they deserve it over what they did to that executive.
When you bend the knee, you get what's coming.
You're going to get people trampling all over you and now they are using this against you because you fired a dude for explaining why a war was offensive.
Look, if someone doesn't want to hire you, sorry, too bad.
Go work somewhere else.
What's the real complaint here?
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Oh man, it appears Google lied and they do blacklist sites and they have suspended or banned conservative news sites.
Who would have seen this coming?
The Daily Mail reporting.
But in fact, this original reporting comes from the Wall Street Journal.
Probably one of the publications I like a lot more.
They're very good.
I've cancelled a ton of news outlets.
Wall Street Journal and Financial Times I've kept because they haven't let me down yet.
However, I do want to jump over to the Daily Mail part, because the Wall Street Journal does get a little flavorful in this every minute.
An estimated 3.8 million queries are typed in to go, okay, okay, we get it.
Give me the gist of it, Daily Mail!
They say, Google is secretly blacklisting certain sites to prevent them from appearing in search, despite publicly denying doing so, according to an investigation.
The Wall Street Journal report claims the search giant has been blacklisting certain spam sites since early 2000s, as well as those featuring child abuse or copyright infringement, to prevent them from appearing in search results.
Okay, hold on.
Blacklisting spam?
I'm cool with that.
Child abuse?
Definitely cool with that.
Copyright infringement?
I also agree, to an extent.
But yeah, okay, to an extent.
And preventing them from appearing in search results.
Well, I can understand that.
The newspaper also reported that conservative publications have been blacklisted in Google News and said that it has seen documents to support this claim fueling cries of political bias.
Oh, remember how literally like all of these lefty journalists are like, Republicans asserted without evidence that they're being discriminated against.
It's like, dude, we got leaked emails.
We have witness testimony, numerous witness testimony from Gizmodo's insiders to Project Veritas' insiders.
People have said, yes, social media is throttling, suspending, censoring conservative content.
And the left says, without evidence.
And they call it a conspiracy theory.
Dude, come on, man!
Right-wing websites The Gateway Pundit and United West included on a list of hundreds of websites that wouldn't appear in Google News or featured products, although they could appear in organic search results.
It said.
Let me, let me, let me ask you something.
Google News is supposed to be for news, yet Google has an editorial team which curates this.
Guess what, journalists?
You work for Google.
We all do now.
This is the future we're heading towards, because my private company.
And I love it.
These journalists are now complaining.
The New York Times ran a piece about how Google is stripping out billions of dollars in revenue.
See, here's what Google does.
When a story pops up, the Google web crawlers take all the text and then publish it on Google.
So when you go to Google News, you can read the gist of the story, see the headlines, see the story, boom, you're done.
Nobody has to go to the news publication anymore.
These companies are then reliant on Google and Facebook for traffic to sell ads against, and Facebook and Google know it.
So when conservatives started complaining that they were being censored by YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, etc., what did these lefty journalists do?
They said, nope, you're wrong, and they protected their abuser.
Remarkable.
Their companies are dying.
Journalists are being laid off left and right.
Facebook and Google play a huge role in that.
And what was the response?
Well, because we don't like conservatives, let's set our face on fire.
They're cutting off their nose to spite their face.
Congratulations.
That's why there are many of us who are principled who have called this out.
I'm not concerned about getting banned at all.
Okay?
I mean, in terms of journalism, yeah, they banned saying the whistleblower's name.
That's nightmarish.
But for the longest time, I'm like, I'm not going to say hate speech.
I'm not going to say anything that's going to get me banned.
Like, banning journalism outright is different.
But, the problem I saw was that if you allow these companies the power, they will move against you.
Which brings me back to what I just said.
In the beginning, when conservatives cried foul, I said, I looked into it, you're correct, this is a problem, it should not be allowed.
And the left started attacking me saying, you're a conservative for defending them.
And then sure enough, Facebook suspended me for publishing a news article about the whistleblower.
YouTube force-locked one of my videos because I talked about the whistleblower.
And here we are.
It's not about being conservative anymore.
Now they're outright wielding this power to shut down journalism, and we knew it!
Thank you, journalists, for protecting your abuser.
You cry all day and night that Google is hurting your industry, and then you defend them when they do this.
You know what they do?
Google is, like, draining the blood from these news organizations, and instead, like, in order to distract them, they're, like, literally a vampire latched onto the neck of the news organizations, but pointing the finger at some, like, low-wage Trump supporter who's hoping manufacturing jobs come back.
And so, no, don't!
Don't mind us!
Look at that guy!
And over there's, like, a Trump supporter with, like, a little hat on, waving a flag, being like, please allow my news, and they're like, you're the problem!
Meanwhile, their revenues are being sucked dry by Google.
A Google spokesperson for the company does not manually determine the order of any search
result.
However, she said sites that don't adhere to Google News' inclusion policies are not
eligible to appear on news surfaces or in information boxes in search.
This means that these woke, outraged journalists, they're the ones who set what is true or isn't
because they're a consortium of sorts, will accuse the Gateway Pundit of being fake news,
And then Google will say they're fake news.
Let's put it this way.
John Solomon worked at the AP for 20 years.
He's reporting heavily on Ukraine and people trust him.
In response, BuzzFeed and a bunch of other outlets call him a conspiracy theorist pushing fake news, even though the reporting started with Politico and he's following up on it.
Well, there it is.
Now he's fake news.
So now when he publishes documents, you're gonna have other news outlets fact-checking him against those who are politically aligned and are smearing him, and they're going to say, if Vox and BuzzFeed say you're fake news, and they're real news, you're fake news.
And then they remove you from Google News.
Gateway Pundit made a mistake once with, I think, Jacob Wall worked there or something.
Okay.
Yep.
Well, assess it.
You know what?
I gotta admit, I'm not a big fan of the Gateway Pundit.
But in the end, why should Google be the arbiter of truth?
They should not.
If you are a news website, you should run same as anybody else.
So who at Google is determining what the truth is?
Or why Gateway Pundit should be removed?
I don't read Gateway Pundit.
And I use NewsGuard, even though I disagree with them on a lot of things.
They say Google has repeatedly said, has said repeatedly it doesn't make decisions based on politics, and has previously said in congressional testimony that it doesn't use blacklists, and former employees claim there is no political bias involved in decisions.
Let me explain to you how the political bias works.
You're an engineer.
You don't know about news or politics.
John Solomon writes a story, publishes it in The Hill, and it says, Ukraine, Biden-Burisma, Then all of a sudden, someone at Vox or BuzzFeed says, John Solomon is lying and this story is fake.
The engineer then looks at these stories and says, I know BuzzFeed and Vox.
I don't know John Solomon.
Therefore, BuzzFeed and Vox are more trustworthy.
Therefore, John is lying.
Remove John from search.
Congratulations!
It is not a conspiracy of bias.
It is a standalone complex.
Many people with similar ideologies are acting individually, creating the appearance of a concerted effort.
So the left tries to claim there's no bias.
There is, and it's your fault.
But you know what's going to happen?
The people who are fighting against the machine are the people you are smearing.
So in the end, we see it from the New York Times, complaints.
That Google is stripping our industry of our resources.
If you refuse to fight back against massive multinational corporations that are extracting your industry, Then you deserve it.
You're sitting there watching it happen, and you're defending them as it... Like, imagine having, like, a leech on your arm, and you're, like, looking at it, like, well, no, you know, it's an important organism.
It's like, no, dude, get it off!
Burn it with a cigarette!
In 2018, responding to the Wall Street Journal report, a Google spokesperson told MailOnline, This article contains a number of old, incomplete anecdotes, many of which not only predated our current processes and policies, but also give a very inaccurate impression of how we approach building and improving search.
Sure.
But the Wall Street Journal spent a long time actually doing searches, doing experiments to see what's happening.
And guess what?
If you're not going to be transparent about it, don't be surprised when the information published by news outlets isn't 100% spot on to what you're currently doing.
If the Wall Street Journal started reporting this seven months ago, well then, yeah, they'll have some outdated data.
Too bad.
Maybe you should publish it, Google, so we know what you're doing.
They say, according to a draft policy document from August 2018 seen by the Wall Street Journal, the purpose of the blacklist is to bar the sites from servicing in any search feature or news product sites.
The policy instructs engineers, known as maintainers, to focus on sites that actively aim to mislead, such as a publisher misrepresenting their ownership or web properties and having deceptive content, rather than those that have inaccurate content.
Now, I will say, I do believe Google should be doing something to this effect.
The problem with not enforcing some kind of restriction is that people will exploit the system and sell snake oil against it.
You will see a lot of people become very prominent who are exploiting our goodwill.
Google, on the other hand, is taking things a step too far.
Look, I get it if you want to ban spam, but you should not be in the business of banning news websites.
Now, I get it.
It is a double-edged sword.
Because think about all the fake news websites that would dominate their news tab if they didn't follow some standard.
The problem arises then is who determines what's true?
So Google's gonna be like, eh, we'll leave CNN up.
Yeah, but CNN is another spin site just same as anybody else.
Why should they be given preferential treatment?
And more importantly, why should major corporate news outlets be given the spotlight?
You are protecting the establishment.
But I guess it's maybe the point.
I guess YouTube realized it was a problem to create a possibility to become famous, to gain influence, and all these other social networks are realizing something similar.
Now they're focused on pushing major famous corporate channels, people with money, and so YouTube is becoming their tube.
It's becoming, not for you, it's a big club but you ain't in it.
So I guess this is where we're headed, right?
Google News doesn't want any old news website.
No, they want ABC.
They want Vice, Vox, BuzzFeed, etc.
And they'll get it.
And you know what?
Those sites are probably betting on it.
As much as they try to complain about Google stripping their industry, they know that Google destroying the news industry It will keep them as nice little pets.
We'll put it that way, right?
Imagine if a gigantic monster arose out of the ocean and a bunch of people defended it because they knew that after that monster wiped out humanity, they would get to walk around on leashes under that giant beast, but at least they'd live.
