FBI Arrests Epstein Guards In "Criminal Enterprise" Investigation, Media Tries To COVER IT UP Again
FBI Arrests Epstein Guards In "Criminal Enterprise" Investigation, Media Tries To COVER IT UP Again. The two guards tasked with guarding Jeffery Epstein at the NY MCC have been arrested and indicted on charges of falsifying records and conspiracy.The FBI has said they are currently investigating a "criminal enterprise" surrounding the issue of Epstein.Nothing here is ordinary yet already media gatekeepers are trying to downplay the severity of what is going on as well as the strange circumstances involved.HuffPo runs a quote saying basically there is nothing to see hereABC News spiked the Epstein story years agoBut now Republicans are demanding answers from ABC news and even suggesting there will be hearings if they don't provide answers.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The two guards that were supposed to be checking on Jeffrey Epstein have been indicted and arrested by the FBI on conspiracy charges as well as several counts of falsifying records.
And get this, they're adding that they believe that the FBI is investigating criminal enterprise.
I have no idea what that means, but I have some bad news for you.
While one, yes, we can say the FBI is confirming conspiracy in the Jeffrey Epstein case, it is low tier.
It's You're not getting what you want, right?
Everybody says Epstein, you know, didn't end his own life.
There's that meme.
I gotta be careful about how I phrase things on YouTube.
But in reality, what they're claiming is that these individuals were just browsing the internet and falsifying records for, essentially, the conspiracy was they colluded with each other to not do their jobs and it resulted in this, I don't know, this horrifying incident.
And we even have, you know, look, the gatekeepers and media saying, nothing unusual.
See, this proves it.
No, this proves nothing.
Okay, what it does prove is that the bare minimum, we have something nefarious going on.
And I don't think this will be enough to satisfy anybody.
Now, I will clarify.
I can't tell you exactly what or why.
I'm not going to tell you what you should or shouldn't believe.
I'm going to read you the news as it see fits.
But I will make one very important point.
For the longest time, the naysayers, the rejecters who said this is all This is all, you know, this is what happens in prisons.
It's terrible.
They said nothing, nothing was happening.
But then all of these weird things started emerging.
The cameras weren't working.
The guards were sleeping or whatever.
But now we have step one.
They want to act like there's nothing out of the ordinary here.
The FBI just filed some conspiracy charges against individuals.
This could be hope.
That there's going to be a deeper investigation into what really happened, because mind you, not saying the guy's worthy of any credibility, but Epstein apparently told people that his cellmate attacked him.
Now everyone questions whether that happened, but I'll tell you what, man.
You watch Joe Rogan, you watch any mainstream personality, they will not believe what they're trying to pass off.
So I'll say it.
Perhaps this FBI, these charges, perhaps it's a glimmer of hope that there will be a real investigation into what's going on, or perhaps it's just trying to throw a bone to the masses because they know the meme won't stop.
But there is a bigger update.
Kevin McCarthy, Republican, is demanding answers from ABC News.
Why do these media gatekeepers withhold this information?
One of the biggest stories, they say, oh, we couldn't, we didn't have enough to go on.
Sorry, not buying it.
Photos, witnesses, and now you've got Prince Andrew giving that interview and everyone's saying, wow.
No direct denial, just, I don't remember.
Let's read this story from the Daily Mail.
I got a bunch of other things to go through.
I've actually got the indictment here.
This is crazy.
But there's more important information, too.
I don't want to bury the lead.
This is a big story.
These prison guards rejected a plea deal.
And everyone was asking, what are they being accused of?
Well, now we know.
Two days later, conspiracy.
So perhaps that'll be enough to satisfy some people.
Nah.
The meme is not that, you know, no one's saying the guards neglected to watch Epstein.
That's not the meme.
The meme is that Epstein didn't take his own life.
But let's read this news.
Before we get started, make sure you head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's multiple ways you can give, but the best thing you can do Share this video.
Let me stress, I will not tell you what you should or shouldn't believe about this.
I will just read you the story, talk about some of the ideas around it, and I know invariably these media gatekeepers, the Huffington Posts, the ABCs will say, Tim's a conspiracy theorist.
They don't want you to talk about the story.
They don't want you to think critically about how dangerous it is that this high-profile individual, who probably had evidence and was about to out a bunch of high-profile individuals as creepy, disgusting monsters, Just so happened, these two guards weren't doing their job, so maybe that's the extent of it, I don't know.
But I'm saying, something doesn't smell right.
I will stress that point I just made.
Initially, we had these media gatekeepers saying, nothing to see here, this is normal.
Well now the FBI has launched a criminal enterprise investigation, and there's two conspiracy arrests.
If the people refuse to let up, maybe it'll go further.
Or maybe it'll end here.
Maybe that's the extent of it.
I don't know.
I'm just trying to point out that they said nothing was happening.
Nothing was going on.
And now all of a sudden we have a conspiracy charge?
I think what happened is the people refused to be quiet.
And so now they're saying, OK, OK, we'll keep digging.
Not that it's a conspiracy.
I'm not saying that.
Calm down.
Calm down.
I'm saying maybe they don't care.
And you need pressure from the public to make change in this country.
Whatever it may be.
There may be more.
Or there may not be.
But let's read.
They say the FBI is investigating criminal enterprise in connection with Jeffrey Epstein's death.
Prison chief admits as male and female guards are indicted for browsing the internet instead of checking on him, even though he was in the closest cell to the desk.
I kid you not.
15 feet, they say.
He was 15 feet away.
But they got up and apparently walked around.
Something doesn't smell right.
They say the two Federal Bureau of Prisons employees, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, were charged on Tuesday with falsifying records and conspiracy in relation to Epstein's death.
They will face the U.S.
District Court in Manhattan later on Tuesday over their alleged failure to check on the millionaire.
We'll call him just the evil, evil offender, because I've got to be careful about the words used on YouTube.
In his cell at the Metropolitan Correction Center the night he died, their arrest came as Bureau of Prisons Director Kathleen Hawke-Sawyer testified in front of a Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday.
Quote, the FBI is involved and they are looking at criminal enterprise.
What does that really mean?
If they're going to allege these two individuals conspired, what do they conspire to do?
Go to the lunchroom and eat Cheetos?
Because if that's the case, I think it's weird that they're charging him with conspiracy.
But they are.
That's why I think maybe it's about placating the public.
Maybe Epstein really did, you know, take his own life.
Maybe he did.
Okay?
No one really believes that, but maybe he did.
And maybe now they're concerned that people won't stop.
And so they're throwing a bone.
I don't know.
I can't tell you.
They say, Noel and Thomas, who were assigned to Epstein's special housing unit at the federal jail, are accused of failing to check on him every half hour, as required, and fabricating log entries to claim they had.
So what, the cameras didn't work?
He claimed his previous cellmate attacked him?
These two guards get up, falsify records, and walk away?
Something else?
Look, how'd the cameras break?
You know, I'll admit, maybe the cameras were always broken, and they don't want to admit the system's corrupt.
That's possible, but come on.
Too many grains of sand, too many coincidences.
How many coincidences until you've won the lottery?
That's what I always say.
In the lottery, it's, what, five or six?
This?
This is nuts.
They say they were allegedly just 15 feet from his cell.
The two guards are accused of repeatedly signing false certifications saying they had conducted multiple counts of inmates during their shift.
The prisoners were not checked on for eight hours, according to the indictment.
The guards discovered Epstein's body at 6.30 a.m.
They go on to talk about the broken bones in the neck.
The charges are the first in connection with the 66-year-old's death after he took his own life in August at the MCC while awaiting trial on charges of abusing teenage girls.
Now, Daily Mail says it's definitive that he took his own life, but I'm going to say this.
If you've got an independent pathologist saying that's not the case, and you have the official pathologist saying it is the case, inconclusive.
Because I'll tell you what.
We don't just take the government's word for it.
That's not proof.
That's not a statement of fact.
And it's hard to know at what point something becomes definitive, but I'll tell you this.
Famed pathologists in viral public stories saying, no way.
And the official autopsy report, yes way.
So who do you choose to believe?
Do you just choose to believe the government?
Well, that's absurd.
Journalists shouldn't do that.
In which case, I don't know what to tell you, man.
Inconclusive.
They say both guards have been working overtime because of staffing shortages when Epstein was found.
The two officers were placed on administrative leave while the FBI and the Justice Department's Inspector General investigated the circumstances surrounding his death.
The warden of the MCC was also reassigned.
Epstein had been on suicide watch after he was found on July 23rd on his cell floor with bruises on his neck.
He was taken off watch about a week before his death.
Which meant he was less closely monitored, but still supposed to be checked on every 30 minutes.
You know what, man?
I'm not gonna buy it.
I'm not gonna tell you what is, but I'll tell you this.
As we all know, 30 minutes?
What does that mean?
It means nothing.
Falsifying records?
If there's criminal enterprise, it's not just these two guards, to say the least.
Both Epstein's brother and the lawyers who represented him in the criminal case have expressed doubts about the medical examiner's conclusion.
His autopsy report found his neck had been broken in several places, including the hyoid bone located near the Adam's apple.
Forensic experts said the breakages to that specific bone could occur when people hang themselves but were more commonly seen in victims who had been strangled.
A source close to Epstein told Daily Mail that he appeared to be in good spirits in the days before his death.
His brother Mark recently said he could not think of a single reason why Epstein would take his own life.
He called the financier's death suspicious and said he had seen no evidence to support the official ruling on his brother's cause of death.
So you get the point.
I don't want to rehash all of the old stories, but I will say this.
These guards have rejected a plea deal.
The feds wanted them to admit to falsifying records, which they refused to do.
Is it possible these guards are essentially serving as patsies?
I don't know.
And I gotta be very careful, but you can believe whatever you want.
All I can say is we don't know yet.
This is just the latest breaking news.
Here's the indictment.
Count one.
Conspiracy.
They say, in or about August 2019, in the Southern District of New York, Tova Noel and Michael Thomas, the defendants, knowingly conspired with each other to knowingly defraud the U.S.
by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful function of the Department of Agency of the United States to wit, the MCC's function, to ensure the care, custody, and control of its inmate population.
They say they went on to make false statements, and then they falsely certified several times.
There are several counts of false records.
This seems strange to me.
If somebody did their job poorly, why would they be indicted on conspiracy?
I don't know.
But what I can say is, from the Washington Post story, this is from August 21st, they say, Investigations have already found a troubling lack of follow-through by Bureau of Prisons personnel after a July 23rd incident in which Epstein may have tried to kill himself, according to people familiar with them.
In that incident, guards rushed to Epstein's cell when his cellmate at the time, Nicholas Tartaglione, began yelling.
According to these people, Tartaglione told officers he had noticed Epstein had a bed sheet around his neck and appeared to be trying to kill himself, the people said.
Epstein denied that, they said, and told prison staff he had been attacked, something Tartaglione denied.
Was there an investigation into that?
I mean, if you find somebody with bruises on their neck and two people yelling, typically the cops are going to arrest, detain the other person, and question whether or not they had anything to do with that.
So I think it's fair to say, story don't add up.
Well, there's more.
Let me see what we have here.
This story is about a new accuser has come out.
A new accuser, Maria Farmer, says Ghislaine Maxwell threatened her life and the FBI failed her.
So let's stop now.
There's a reason I'm highlighting the story.
For one, this is breaking news as well.
This is from today.
A new accuser coming out.
The FBI failed her.
Well, the FBI is now charging these two guards who rejected the plea deal.
It doesn't add up.
I'm sorry, man.
I don't know what that means.
I'm not alleging a conspiracy, but I am telling you, if the FBI is investigating this and saying these two guards did a thing, they'd refuse the plea deal and decide to go up against the federal government on this one.
This woman saying the FBI failed her, who are you going to trust?
Everything is messed up.
And, you know, It's a tough position because you have these mainstream media journalists that do everything in their power to stifle investigation and make sure that none of us can actually dig into these stories by trying to destroy anyone who would seek to actually investigate.
Two jailers charged in Epstein's death.
But in the story, they quote the ACLU.
Check this out.
David Fothy, the director of the ACLU National Prison Project, noted the problem.
Tragically, there's nothing out of the ordinary about what happened to Mr. Epson.
Are you kidding me?
And there's therefore no reason to resort to bizarre conspiracy theories.
This is just the, you know, baseline dysfunction of prisons and jails and how suicide prevention in most prisons and jails is broke.
Who are these people that are trying to basically slap us in the face and tell us to deny all of the problems we have seen?
He was either attacked or attempted it the first time.
So he should have been kept on live CCTV for the internet to watch.
No.
The camera broke.
The guards falsified records.
A new witness, a new victim emerges saying the FBI failed.
You want us to cast all of this aside and say, you know, these things happen.
Yeah, sometimes I have no problem saying that.
Sometimes I'd have no problem signing Hanlon's razor.
Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
This is not one of those cases.
This is a case where something happened and we don't know what.
Because you've got two different pathologists saying one thing or the other.
I don't know who to trust.
You've got the FBI being accused of failing one of the victims.
You've got, listen man, Roger Stone.
This is a point brought up by many people on the right.
They raid his house with a SWAT team because what, he lied to Congress?
But what about Epstein with his private island and the accusations against him and the numerous witnesses?
They tell us there is nothing out of the ordinary here?
Is that a joke?
Because I'll tell you what, even Kevin McCarthy Republicans are saying something is out of the ordinary here.
There's a lot going on here.
Why did ABC News spike this story?
We now have a letter, Megyn Kelly breaking the story, that Republicans, Kevin McCarthy, who else do we have?
We have Kevin McCarthy, we have Mike McCall, and we have Doug Collins sending a letter asking these questions.
They go on to talk about ABC News and the Project Veritas report.
A letter from Congress, and they're now threatening inquiries into this.
Recently, we saw some people were testifying to the Judiciary Committee already.
This is not going away.
So to those gatekeepers in the media who want to say there's nothing to see here, stop.
Stop.
We're not playing this game, okay?
We've got politicians demanding answers, at least until far here with ABC News, and now testifying about the prison to the Judiciary Committee.
But check this out.
They go on to talk about Epstein, about the accusations, and they say this,
to that end, we are requesting more information from ABC News.
Will ABC News provide Congress the interviews Ms. Robach conducted with the victim?
Let me give you a quick context for those who aren't familiar.
Project Veritas released a video where you had this ABC News anchor saying, we had this story three years ago, ABC wouldn't air it.
And based on what she was saying, she said, we had everything.
We had Clinton, we had photos, we had witnesses on the record.
They spiked the story.
So they asked, will ABC News provide Congress with the interview?
What did ABC News learn about Jeffrey Epstein after Ms.
Robach first presented her story to executives?
Who was involved in deciding the story was not of public interest, and what were the reasons for deciding so?
Can Ms.
Robach expand on the outside forces she mentioned as potentially responsible for the story not running?
Was ABC News ever presented with additional evidence on Mr.
Epstein from the time Ms.
Robach first brought her investigation to the network and when he was ultimately arrested?
Were authorities alerted at any time after Ms. Robach presented ABC News executives with
her reporting?
If so, when and what was provided?
I think the answer is no, but maybe.
And maybe ABC News spiked the story.
Let's be fair.
There's a slim possibility, I'll entertain this possibility, that ABC News had the information, reached out for a comment, and were told by the feds, please, we're actively investigating this, you can't do the story, it'll compromise the investigation.
It could be that simple.
And so there could be a lot of outrage over nothing.
I'm less inclined to believe that's the case, but I will entertain the possibility because I think it's a reasonable thing to say.
They end by saying, ABC News' initial response and subsequent actions reveal their priority is to identify and hold accountable the individual who released the video to the public.
We believe that uncovering the source of the information is incomparably less important than the possibility of exposing the source of a human trafficking operation.
It is imperative that the public be assured newsroom decisions regarding exposing trafficking are not tampered by financial interests or outside forces.
And now, the final update.
First, let me just say, we don't know what's going to happen with the FBI and his indictments.
They rejected the plea deal, so there may be stuff coming out in court.
This is not over.
So Huffington Post, you better watch yourself when you want to cite people saying, nothing, nothing to see here, nothing out of the ordinary.
I'll tell you what, man.
It is out of the ordinary, even if, in the end, it's the FBI indicting these guards.
That is not normal.
That does not happen every day.
It's not something we should be—we should just say, oh, that happened again.
No, it doesn't.
So, at the very least, the official story is not ordinary.
Please, spare us your attempts, for some reason, to protect powerful interests and the elites.
We deserve a fun investigation and the evidence to be made public.
McCarthy will push for hearings if ABC News does not comply with Epstein inquiry.
Good.
The Examiner reports Kevin McCarthy acknowledged that he would push for congressional hearings if ABC News doesn't respond to his inquiry into the decision against running a story about a Jeffrey Epstein accuser years ago.
McCarthy wrote the letter.
We've seen it all.
I just read that to you.
The California Republican stated that he'd push for hearings if the network doesn't comply.
I get it.
He said it several times.
Quote, I think as a legislator and as somebody that serves in Congress, I, knowing this human trafficking is a bipartisan issue, I think we should have hearings on it because we're talking about lives.
We're talking about young women.
We're talking about people who do not have a voice.
On this letter, we have the ranking member, Doug Collins, from the Judiciary Committee, and we also have the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, because this is a worldwide problem.
All these committees could have hearings on this.
We can raise the issue, and again, I'm not accusing ABC of anything.
I actually want to work with them.
I just think these questions have to be asked.
Of all of the issues plaguing us today, with the impeachment hearings, and the bickering, and the partisanship, there is one thing that unites left and right.
The Epstein story.
When this story broke, all of these people on my Twitter, from left to right, are talking about it.
Saying, this does not add up.
So, no.
Sorry, Huffington Post.
You're the odd person out.
You are not going to be the media gatekeepers like ABC did, pretending that this is just, same old, same old, happens all day, every day.
Sorry, no it doesn't.
There are wealthy individuals who are kept under lock and key.
There are people who are kept in solitary confinement and who really do have reason to harm themselves.
They don't do it.
You have so many high-profile moments where these people are protected and they don't let them, you know, they watch them and they put them in smocks and it's locked down of all the people.
That should have been, you know, put on the rack with their arms and legs strapped so they couldn't move because they had information relevant to American public interest, to the world's public interest.
This is an individual who should have been restrained and should have been watched on live CCTV camera so everybody knew.
He knew stuff.
You get it.
It's frustrating.
These journalists, not all of them, but many of them, many of these people have just no curiosity.
Take whatever the government says as fact.
I don't care if you think Trump was involved.
I don't care if you think Clinton was involved.
I think all that needs to happen is we're not getting the truth and we need to.
If the truth is that Epstein accused his cellmate of attacking him, and then a couple weeks later, for some reason, the camera broke and the guards wandered off and falsified records, I think we're going beyond these two guards.
Somebody else seems to have been involved.
Unless the guards went and broke the cameras, are you going to claim that happened?
The answers are not sufficient.
And I don't think anyone will accept this.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment is coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6pm.
I will see you all then.
Fartgate, one of the most scandalous scandals of our generation.
Eric Swalwell, a Democrat, who is in the process of ragging on Donald Trump on MSNBC, appears to let out a massive, dare I say it, fart.
Now, this is not big news, but I thought it was interesting because there's a lot of denials going around, and I'll be honest with you.
I didn't actually care to do a full segment on the farting of Eric Swalwell on MSNBC, but because of the insane denials and weird explanations, the media, at least MSNBC, is trying to protect him.
Instead of just owning up to the fact that the dude let one rip, they're claiming it's a conspiracy, and what you hear is not actually a fart on live television, but someone scraping a mug across a desk.
I kid you not.
But we'll read into this.
It all started here.
I saw this tweet from Ryan Saavedra of the Daily Wire.
Eric Swalwell appears to drop a massive fart during live on television.
They're claiming that sound was a cup dragging on the desk.
But a lot of people think it's fake.
No, the clip is real.
Okay?
So go to msnbc.com slash hardball.
Eric Swalwell.
You'll see the clip at the 34 second mark.
It exists.
So let's take a look at why this warrants a segment.
You see, the thing is, BuzzFeed actually wrote this up.
Here's what I gotta be honest.
I thought, after seeing the clip of Swalwell farting, we'd have a laugh, we'd move on.
But not being satisfied with just being like, eh, you know, sometimes people fart, and moving on, they decided to push this weird conspiracy idea They decided to issue all these tweets and denials.
Journalists started writing about it.
I'll be honest, man.
If our political landscape was divided over whether or not Eric Swalwell really did fart instead of tearing the country apart over impeachment, I'd be a lot happier.
So yeah, we're gonna read the story.
A lawmaker denied ripping an absolutely enormous fart on live television.
Bravo, Andy Baird!
Excellent headline.
It was not me, Rep.
Eric Swalwell said in a text message.
It's funny, though.
I gotta say, I would say Swalwell was taking it like a sport if he just said, you know, everybody farts.
But he's not.
He's denying it and it's so obvious it was him.
Here's the thing.
In the clip, you see he pauses, he's talking, and then he stops and he flinches like he's clenching up to push out an enormous fart.
Let's read.
In an interview Monday night with MSNBC host Chris Matthews, California Rep Eric Swalwell appeared to, well, rip an absolutely enormous fart.
I love politics today, huh?
Chris, so far the evidence is uncontradicted that the president used taxpayer dollars to help him cheat an election.
That's a lie.
The evidence is unco- Okay, listen, man.
First of all, can I sidestep into impeachment?
That's an opinion.
Here's the facts.
Donald Trump had a phone call with the President of Ukraine.
In it, he asked them to do a favor and look into CrowdStrike, a server, an oligarch potentially, and something that happened with Joe Biden.
That's it.
Anything else beyond saying that is an opinion.
Why Trump did it, we don't know.
That's not a fact.
If Trump came out and said, I did X, well, there you go.
But he didn't.
He's saying it's an investigation.
To the very least, we could say circumstantial evidence points to the fact he wants to investigate.
Let's read on.
The Democrat who sits on the House Intelligence Committee appeared to react to the fart with a brief pause while attempting not to smile.
Now, what's funny is, and I'm really offended by this, it appears that Andy Baird tried to protect Eric Swalwell and so was Hardball by making it seem like someone else farted and he heard it and was trying not to laugh.
No, dude, he clenched up because he was farting.
As the clip of Swalwell quickly circulated on the internet, some began to speculate that the California representative was the one behind the loud flatulence.
But in a text to BuzzFeed News on Monday night, Swalwell denied having anything to do with it.
It was not me, he wrote.
Ha.
And I didn't hear it when I was speaking.
I will say this.
If he did fart, I'm curious as to what microphone picked that up, because that was a loud noise.
So let me read.
I'll give you their explanation.
And I think the dude farted.
So Andy Baird says, a text I never thought I'd send.
I'm really sorry about this, but I have to ask if this was you or someone in studio.
First of all, what are you sorry about?
Journalists should not be apologizing to politicians when they ask them questions, even if it's about a fart.
You can just simply say, this post has been going viral accusing you of farting on live TV.
We're hoping to get a comment.
Yeah, that's professional, okay?
Don't apologize to somebody.
Swalwell denies it was him.
She says, so I'm really sorry about this.
He was responsible, so it was not me.
I didn't hear when I was speaking.
The reporter for BuzzFeed says, you look like you heard it and are stifling a laugh.
I deftly did not hear it.
It's almost like she's trying to play it off like it wasn't Swalwell.
Do you really think that?
Are there really people who think that wasn't him talking and then clenching up and pausing because he was pushing a fart out?
Here's the best part.
Pressed by this reporter, Swalwell denied again, having heard the fart before adding, it's funny though.
MSNBC did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The show Hardball, where Swalwell appeared, did however post the cryptic, yet not-so-subtle subtweet about the ongoing mystery.
I don't understand.
Look, they posted this, the Spider-Man meme.
Two Spider-Mans pointing at each other.
What does that have to do with whether or not the dude farted on television?
Don't ask me.
Maybe I'm just not getting it.
Maybe I'm just an old fogey, you know, can't quite understand what you're trying to say with Spider-Man meme.
Are you saying we all fart?
I would agree with that.
But what about the next one?
The tweet was deleted within a few minutes.
The show later tried to explain the sound on Twitter, saying it was all a mug scraping across the desk.
Oh!
That explains it!
Somebody, for some reason, decided to slowly drag their mug across a desk for about one second.
I don't... What?
Why won't you just pick the mug up like a regular person?
Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy theorists.
It was the hardball mug scraping across the desk.
Get yours today and let's get back to the news.
Well, guess what?
If there is any story that will unite left and right, bring them together, it is the fact that Eric Swalwell farted on live television.
And your denials mean nothing.
Eric... Eric Swalwell farted on TV.
Check this out.
BuzzFeed runs a poll.
Uh, who do you think is responsible for the fart herd around the nation?
Eric Swalwell.
62% of BuzzFeed readers believe it was him.
Sorry.
Nobody's buying it.
Someone else.
Chris Matthews.
Now I will be, I will be, I think it's fair maybe that there was, because of how loud the sound was, maybe there really was a mug on the table and someone just nudged it very lightly to like grab a cable or something.
But that would be, I'm sorry, absurd.
And the reason I say that's absurd is because Eric Swalwell pauses and clenches.
But there's a bigger issue at play here.
Let me first go and show you the tweet from Swalwell.
In response to the, it was just a mug tweet, Swalwell responded, total exoneration.
No, but I see he really has no choice.
I mean, that's gross.
You know, I'm just like, dude, can't you hold it in for a few minutes?
Like, you really, like, way, man, you know, when you gotta fart, you gotta fart, I guess.
But hey, we all fart.
Humans let out like tons of gas all day, every day.
It would have been much better if he said, you know what, man?
Yup.
I always tell people this.
Think about two scenarios.
says, oh, grow up.
Then people would have been like, hey, you can't really hold it against him.
So I want to make two important points here.
The first, you only embarrass yourself.
I think this is embarrassing for Swallow because he's desperate to deny it instead of just owning up to it.
I always tell people this.
Think about two scenarios.
You're in a classroom, like you're in school, or you're at work, and all of a sudden you fart and people notice.
And now you're like, oh no, people are gonna know it's me.
And they look at you and you're like, you farted.
And you're like all embarrassed, like, oh no, they know I farted.
Think about the other scenario where there's like an obnoxious person who walks up to you and goes, yo.
And then just farts and then starts laughing about it.
That's owning it.
Asserting your dominance.
Owning the fact that you farted.
And then people don't, like, if there's something embarrassing about it, you only embarrass yourself.
But I'll make a bigger point here.
And I think it's a funny point to be made.
The media loves defending these politicians.
It is an incestuous relationship, and I find it disgusting.
Listen, man, the fart is—who cares, dude?
It was funny.
I wake up to see these stories and these tweets, and I gotta admit, like I said, last night, I would never consider doing a full segment on whether or not a lawmaker farted.
But there's a bigger and more important issue here.
The first is that the reporter from BuzzFeed is trying to make it seem like you heard it and are stifling a laugh.
Like, dude, are you defending the guy?
You even apologized.
I'm really sorry about this.
What are you sorry about?
The dude farted on TV asking the damn question.
And then you say, you look like you heard it.
No, he didn't.
He looked like he farted.
Any sane, rational person's gonna look at that and think he farted.
Even BuzzFeed's own viewers.
So why is this reporter giving him all of this leeway to be like, I don't think it was you, like, trying to defend him?
More importantly, why is Hardball trying to claim it was a mug?
Okay, unless it actually was a mug scraping across a desk.
But what is it with the media's desperate attempt to defend politicians?
And I'll tell you what, man.
You turn on Fox News, you will see people who are just, they will bend over backwards
to believe whatever Trump says and defend whatever Trump says.
But guess what?
They have people on Fox News who don't like Donald Trump.
They've got that dude on the five, I can't remember his name, but he rags on Trump all
day.
They've got Judge Napolitano.
They've got Donna Brazile.
At the very least, you turn on Fox and they will be critical of the president.
Well, can you say the same thing about CNN?
CNN hired one guy who was critical of the president, or who supported the president, and all of the staffers are outraged.
Oh, harumph, I say.
Man, I didn't want to bring it up because I was like, it's a stupid thing to say, but, you know, a couple days ago, I was flipping through the news, I turn on Fox News, and they're talking about Hong Kong, and the fact that the Chinese government is putting troops into Hong Kong, secretly.
And I'm like, wow!
And then I thought to myself, you know what?
I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money that while Fox News is talking about Hong Kong and the incursion by the Chinese, CNN will be talking about Trump.
And they were.
I flipped to CNN and sure enough, it was a panel discussion about Trump and his tweet or something.
And I'm just like, man.
What is up with this?
Fox News is not the best, you know, outlet on the planet.
They got their opinion people with silly opinions too.
But they seriously are doing a better job in terms of just basic news reporting.
Like man, I don't want to turn on the TV and just hear about Trump all day.
I was at a skate park and there were some kids and they said they don't really care
and pay attention to the news anymore because it's literally just Trump 24-7.
And I laughed and I'm like, yup.
Like here we are now where a politician farted on live TV and it devolves into a conversation
about Trump.
To be fair, I'm talking specifically about the problem of the media doing it.
But more importantly how you turn on CNN, everything's all negative, all Trump, period.
You turn on Fox News, it's mostly positive for the president, but there is a mix of people who are very critical of him.
You can't say the same for MSNBC, because even when Swalwell rips a huge fart on TV, these journalists bend over backwards to defend him, and it's the craziest thing.
So, look, we can launch off of, who cares, like, it's a story of a fart, it's funny, fine, we can move on.
But in the end, you do start to see more grains of sand added to that heap where the media actively seeks to protect those who align with them politically.
And it's creepy.
And you look at what's going on with John Solomon.
John Solomon was a reporter, contributor to The Hill, now he's doing his own website, but they're repeatedly smearing him.
And I'm like, dude, listen.
This is a reporter who's got sworn statements and affidavits.
That's enough to launch an investigation as far as I'm concerned.
But nope!
It's a conspiracy theory.
And the media tears them to shreds.
Because the media works in concert with these Democrats, not because I think, like, I don't think Andy Baird is, like, good friends with Swalwell, and they go out for drinks, and they're high-fiving, and he says, don't worry, I got your back.
No, I think she's, like, access journalism.
If I push him too hard, he'll never talk to me again.
And if I want to keep my job, I need to be able to get quotes from him.
So then they publish a story saying he denied it.
She makes it seem like he denied it.
Stop protecting these people.
You know what?
This is the problem of access journalism.
It all needs to go away.
Give up those phone numbers.
Stop texting these people.
They need your press.
You don't need them.
But I guess in today's day and age, the market is so saturated and everyone's flailing so desperately, they have no choice but to be like, we're gonna protect this guy.
Nah, I'm sorry man.
But there it is, a 15 minute segment talking about the loud fart of Eric Swalwell.
Swalwell farted, and we all know it.
I'll see you all in the next segment coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Well, Bill Barr was right.
The progressives view their politics as their religion, and they are willing to sacrifice business and productivity if it means they feel better, their ideas progress.
We now have a statement, two statements.
Salvation Army released a statement on Chick-fil-A cutting ties, and Chick-fil-A issues a new statement.
And as it turns out, Chick-fil-A is now admitting They are canceling their donations to these charities because of left-wing protest, and they want to prioritize business in liberal areas.
And I have one very important thing to say about all of this.
I am furious.
How could Chick-fil-A care or bother?
And why do I care?
I don't.
I'll be honest with you guys.
This whole thing about Chick-fil-A, I'm still gonna eat there.
I'll probably go eat there. Actually, I'm not gonna go eat there later. I'd love to.
I don't care who Chick-fil-A does or doesn't donate to, but there is an important point to be brought up outside of
what Chick-fil-A is doing.
And it's that conservatives separate their politics from their religion, as I mentioned in my video the other day.
But so long as the left doesn't care about whether a business succeeds or fails, so long as they feel good and the politics are there, conservatives are just going to keep losing.
And now we can see it.
I mean, look.
Chick-fil-a for nearly a decade was under, you know, under fire for donating to a few charities.
I mean, the Salvation Army, dude?
People are mad about that?
That's nuts.
I can understand the Christian athletes thing, like why the left is mad, but it's nonsense.
So I'll tell you what.
First, grow a spine, Chick-fil-a.
I will still eat your food because this has nothing to do- like, I gotta be honest, man.
I am not going to be outraged enough to not eat a chicken sandwich.
But I'll tell you what.
I'm also not a conservative, I guess.
But the thing is, this is why they will do it.
They know I don't care, and they know you probably don't care either.
They know one of the biggest talking points in the whole fight was people on the right saying it's just a chicken shop who cares.
So they made a bet.
They said, well listen, if conservatives are going to eat our food no matter what because we're just a chicken shop, why donate to these charities if it's making the left angry?
Well, I'll tell you what the fault in that logic is.
The left doesn't care if you apologize.
They are still attacking Chick-fil-A.
And I must stress...
I must stress, Chick-fil-A could donate to a company that lobbies against skateboarding.
And I'd still, whatever, man, I don't care.
I mean, actually, if they lobbied against skateboarding, I probably would stop eating there.
But I wouldn't be like, shut down Chick-fil-A, oh, they don't like skateboarding.
I'd be like, whatever, man, I just won't eat there.
Let's read and see what happens.
Salvation Army is deeply upset.
Now, I can respect the Salvation Army on this one.
They didn't do anything wrong.
And they're being smeared and defamed now because of it.
The Daily Wire reports, The Salvation Army responded on Monday to reports that Chick-fil-A was cutting ties with the Christian organization over its support for traditional marriage by noting that it's the largest social services provider in the world and that it serves millions of members of the LGBT community.
Quote, We're saddened to learn that a corporate partner has felt it necessary to divert funding to other hunger, education, and homelessness organizations, areas in which The Salvation Army, as the largest social services provider in the world, is already fully committed.
The Salvation Army said in a statement, we serve more than 23 million individuals a year, including those in the LGBTQ plus community.
In fact, we believe we are the largest provider of poverty relief to the LGBTQ population.
I don't know if it matters at all, but all of my friends, we used to go to the Salvation Army all the time and go thrift shopping.
All of that money is being donated to that organization to help.
We would donate clothes, we would buy clothes.
Thrifting.
Everybody does it.
And we would seek out Salvation Army stores.
Now they're being dragged into this mess because the protesters need something to point out, and this just happens to be one of the organizations that was being supported by Chick-fil-A.
Listen, man.
You know what?
I'll tell you.
Chick-fil-A should grow a spine.
They didn't do anything wrong and don't even do whatever they want.
Well, let's read out, let's read out.
Otherwise I'll make the same point over and over again.
When misinformation is perpetuated without fact, our ability to serve those in need regardless of orientation, gender identity, religion, or any other factor is at risk.
We urge the public to seek the truth before rushing to ill-informed judgment, and greatly appreciate those partners and donors who ensure that anyone who needs our help feels safe and comfortable to come through our doors.
In response to Chick-fil-A's bending of the knee, they're passing the buck and blame off to other organizations who didn't do anything wrong.
The whole protest is predicated on complete BS.
Look, the Christian Atheist Association does oppose same-sex marriage, but it's not like it's actively funding those things.
It just happens to have that stance.
The protesters should be protesting them.
But here's the other problem.
When Chick-fil-A comes out and says, OK, you know, then Salvation Army is getting the flack now.
But check it out.
We actually got a statement now from the chief operating officer and president of Chick-fil-A admitting, we're trying to open business in more liberal areas, and that means we've got to bend the knee if we want their money.
I can respect it.
That's good business.
I'll tell you the problem is, though, did no one tell you they won't care?
Listen, man, people are going to eat your food because your food's good.
None of this matters.
I'll still go eat there.
I don't care who you donate to or who you don't donate to.
I do think it's pathetic to give in to outrage mobs who probably still won't eat your food.
Congratulations.
They hate you.
You've admitted doing wrong.
They're calling... There are now people saying Chick-fil-A needs to issue a pro-LGBT statement.
Join organizations.
They want more.
It's never enough.
It's never gonna stop.
Now they're dragging Chick-fil-A, saying they're pandering to them.
It's a poor attempt.
We know where they stand.
All you've done is offend the people who actually supported you.
Now, I will add us, you know, saying people, well, we can recognize it's stupid for these companies to play these games.
It's just a chicken chop.
At the end of the day, dude, I'm not concerned about the politics of Wendy's, Burger King, McDonald's, Taco Bell, or otherwise, and I'll probably end up eating there if it's convenient.
I will say Chick-fil-A does have some of the better quality food, and I don't actively eat other fast food.
I hear the Popeye's sandwich is better.
Haven't tried it.
Chick-fil-A is a bit better quality.
I think that's fair to point out.
And so when it comes to fast food, I really don't like to eat anywhere else.
Chick-fil-A is pretty good, man.
And that's not going to change.
So there's a lot of people now on the left claiming, aha!
This proves the right was lying about it just being a chicken shop.
Now they're angry and they're going to boycott Chick-fil-A.
I really don't think so.
I really, really don't think anybody's going to boycott Chick-fil-A over this.
I think you'll see people who are angry about it.
Some people have said, now I've got to find somewhere else to get chicken.
And I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I thought this wasn't about politics.
I thought it was about the absurdity of protesting chicken chops.
Well, for me, it is.
I still think Chick-fil-A is delicious.
That Chick-fil-A sauce is so good.
That'll never change.
Chick-fil-A, well, like I said, I guess if they donate to something like an organization that lobbied against making guitars and skateboards illegal, you know, that'll never happen, though.
Okay, so here's a statement.
As Chick-fil-A expands globally and into more liberal parts of the U.S., the chicken chain plans to change which cherries it donates to after years of bad press and protests from the LGBT community.
Beginning next year, Chick-fil-A will move away from its current philanthropic structure BizNowLearned, that's the news outlet.
After donating to more than 300 charitable organizations this year, the Atlanta-based fast food chain will instead focus on three initiatives, with one accompanying charity each.
Education, homelessness, and hunger.
Which is what the Salvation Army does!
And I'm not familiar, I could be wrong, but is the Salvation Army going out and picketing same-sex marriage?
Mind the noise, we're building a studio.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Forgive me for the noise.
There's no question we know that as we go into new markets, we need to be clear about who we are.
There are lots of articles and newscasts about Chick-fil-A, and we thought we needed to be clear about our message.
BizNow noted that Chick-fil-A would no longer include donating to organizations like the Salvation Army, the Fellowship of Christian Athletes, and the Paul Anderson Youth Home.
Now, I will say this.
First of all, A lot of companies have charitable arms and make big donations.
I think there's a question to be asked about why do these companies engage in politics in the first place, right?
So if I think it's fair to be consistent and say, you know, if, I don't know, Marvel started making donations to a bunch of charities, I'd ask the question too.
Admittedly, though, I really don't care.
Be it a skateboarding company, a guitar company, a movie industry, video games, if they took their profits and donated them to whatever they wanted, if it was something egregious, I'd say, I'm not going to buy it.
I won't support it.
But should they be banned?
No, I mean, people can choose what they want to support and if they know.
I think it's fair.
To, like, try and inform people.
You know, if you were gonna... They wanted to shut them all down.
I think if you stand outside with flyers saying that profits from this go towards organizations that we think are bad, that's fair, that's fine.
But the outrage... And a lot of people were doing that, and I have no problem with that.
But I do think it is, still at the end of the day, silly to protest the restaurant and not the actual organizations you're upset with.
Like, if you're gonna be mad about this, are you gonna go protest the chicken farms where, like, they raise the chickens because a chicken will be sold at Chick-fil-A?
They don't do that, where does it end?
It is now noted that, oh yeah, yeah.
After facing intense backlash online ever since announcing its decision, Chick-fil-A gave a new statement to the Christian Post.
And I think this is basically what we just read, right?
Beginning in 2020, the Chick-fil-A Foundation will introduce a more focused giving approach, donating to a smaller number of organizations, working exclusively in the areas of hunger, homelessness... Yes, we know that.
We have also practically disclosed our 2018 tax filing and a preview of 2019's gifts to date on Chick-fil-Aafoundation.org.
The intent of charitable giving... Okay, we get the point.
Look, man, Chick-fil-A...
You guys, grow spine.
Grow up.
Who cares?
But hey, the money's there, and the money's more important.
I'll tell you the big problem.
You do tend to find that conservatives will more likely be in favor of capitalism and the left and the progressives will more likely be in favor of socialism.
So what do you think then happens to someone who overtly believes in capitalism?
This is probably a really great argument against laissez-faire capitalism for the most part.
That corporations will always side with the masses.
They don't care about what you want.
They don't care about what's better.
They know that you won't do anything about it, but the progressives won't shut up so the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
And instead of catering to making things better and improving this country, they will cease donations to charitable organizations who actively help people if it means making money because the LGBT and leftist protesters won't shut up.
You see how that game is played?
That's why you will lose.
That's why the conservatives lose these fights.
Now, it's possible this level of absurdity just drives more liberals away from the current iteration of whatever the left is, because they've gone nuts.
So now you have people who are not conservatives, but can't stand this.
So I don't know where you stand.
I don't know if you guys watching it are now going to be outraged and refuse to shop at Chick-fil-A, but I can assure you of one thing.
I'm still going to eat there.
It's a chicken shop.
Here's the thing.
There's a good point to be made in the difference between protesting a chicken shop and protesting the decision to cease donations.
Chick-fil-A is the one saying, we're going to bend to the outrage.
I think that's messed up.
That's screwed up.
You should not give in.
You should not apologize for doing nothing wrong.
The difference here is, being mad directly at the organization for caving is different from being mad about the organizations they donate to.
Like, I don't see anybody showing up at Salvation Army and protesting, or the Fellowship for Christian Athletes.
They're not leading protests against the actual organizations who are doing the work.
They're mad at Chick-fil-A for their philanthropic endeavors.
So there is a difference.
I can understand if you're angry now that Chick-fil-A is bending the knee.
You're not mad about who they're giving to or not.
You're mad they're caving to outrage.
That, I completely understand and respect and I agree with.
But in the end, you know, I gotta say, there are certain issues where I absolutely would say, you know, I won't, I'm not gonna support this organization.
I've said in the past, when people engage in the culture war, I bow out.
Chick-fil-A has always been making political donations.
They've always been in the culture war.
And so, to an extent, I'm just like, you know what, man, whether they give or they don't, I'm, it's fine.
I'll eat there.
I really don't care.
I will, however, be critical of their pathetic spinelessness.
of caving to outrage that won't change anything, the ill-informed, the ignorance of taking this
action, which will make nothing better, will make everything worse, and proves to these lunatics
they're, they can win, they can make you do whatever. And so now we go from having an organization
donating the Salvation Army of all places, not a perfect organization by any means,
but come on, it's a charity, now they're not.
Now they're like, oh, oh, yeah, whatever, man.
I, you know what?
I think it's so dumb that this is the big fight, or at least a big fight.
I just, you know, I can't even believe I made a video about it, but it's news, it's news, and it's relevant, so I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast, and I will see you all there.
Julian Assange being investigated for dubious claims of assault on women.
The investigation was dropped at one point.
It was reopened.
He spent, what, seven years in the embassy because he told us the moment he steps out, they will arrest him and try to deport him to the United States.
It was denied by everyone.
There's no secret grand jury against Julian Assange.
Journalism is protected under the First Amendment.
And then, sure enough, what happened?
Julian Assange has now served all of his time.
He should be free to go, but instead he's locked up waiting extradition to the U.S.
for I believe around 18 or so charges.
And the question I have then...
For many Trump supporters is after everything that Assange did exposing so much of the corruption from the DNC and those Democrats with the praise from Trump and other people on the right, where is he now?
Will Donald Trump do right by Julian Assange?
There are certainly some people who believe that once Assange is extradited to the US, he's going to get a hero's welcome or at the very least a slap on the wrist and be let go and I do not believe that will be the case.
As we can see with the impeachment inquiry, I'll put it this way.
Impeachment shows us... What did we learn today?
If you missed it, and I'll probably go into greater detail tomorrow, when the Republicans were asking, Vindman, who did you tell about this?
He said, I told George Kent.
And they said, who else did you tell?
I will not reveal the identity of the whistleblower.
And everyone said, what?
Nobody asked you to do that.
We're asking who you told.
And they said, the intelligence community is essentially immune from any exposure or whatever.
Vindman wouldn't release the name of the intelligence community official he spoke to because it could out the whistleblower, they say.
So once again, the intelligence community is protected from all transparency at public hearings under the House Intelligence Committee.
I tell you this, I get it, Adam Schiff's the chairman, but if we can't even get to the bottom of this in public inquiries from the Intelligence Committee, yeah, we know the game that's being played.
And does Donald Trump have the ability to actually do anything to stop or say it?
I don't think so.
Now look, It's entirely possible Trump's just a dick, and he's not going to help Assange because he doesn't care.
Or it's entirely possible the president doesn't have nearly as much power as people think they do, and I think that's fair to say.
I don't know if Trump would want to help Assange, and I kind of feel like, you know, my view of the president is that he's... I don't know the right way to put it, but I don't want to say that he's overtly selfish, right?
I certainly think he's self-driven.
He knows what he wants to do.
I certainly think Trump wants to help America.
And I certainly think he does not care about Julian Assange.
I think he got what he needed from WikiLeaks.
It helped him.
That's the end of it.
It doesn't mean that Trump doesn't care about anybody, but he certainly doesn't care about Assange, in my opinion.
I could be wrong.
I could be wrong.
But from everything that's happened so far, you know, let me try and be a bit more fair.
It's entirely possible Trump knows that if he says anything at this point, they'll accuse him of Russia and whatever, and he's got to be very, very careful.
He's treading on thin ice.
But that just shows you, that lends itself to my other point.
Basically, the deep state, whatever you want to call it, the intelligence agencies, these individuals can completely undermine Trump through nefarious means very, very easily.
In which case, Assange is screwed.
That's it.
Now look, man, Assange is not a perfect individual.
There are certainly things to question him about.
Colbert did an interview with him a long time ago and questioned editorialization of the leaks he was putting out.
And I think Assange is a partisan actor himself.
But he's doing journalism.
Now they're trying to say he was hacking computers.
You know what, man?
Let me read this story from the Daily Wire.
The investigation in Sweden is dropped.
They say Swedish prosecutors have dropped an investigation against WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange dating back to 2010.
The controversial Australian is currently serving 50 weeks in jail in London for breaching his bail conditions after being forcefully removed in April from the Ecuadorian embassy in London, where he'd been holed up since 2012 in an attempt to avoid extradition to Sweden.
No, to avoid extradition to the United... Well, yes, to Sweden, because he was concerned that once he was in Sweden, they'd extradite him to the US.
Now, I think it's fair to point out the UK has an extradition treaty with the US as well, but, you know, whatever.
Assange was accused of misconduct by two different women, one accusing him of forceful assault and the other accusing of, yeah, I'll be careful about it here.
And I also think this reporting is factually inaccurate.
I do not believe he was ever accused of rape.
Following a 2010 conference in Stockholm involving WikiLeaks, Assange, now 48, has consistently denied the allegations, maintaining that it was consensual and that he was only avoiding returning to Sweden because he feared extradition to the US.
This is a complicated story, but I believe Daily Wire is wrong.
My understanding is that Assange was accused of not using a condom, that it broke, and that in Sweden that constitutes assault.
Sweden dropped their investigation in 2017, though they did.
Federal prosecutors reopened the case after Assange was finally dislodged from the embassy, where he had sought refuge for seven years.
And that was the pretext for why they did it.
And now they're dropping it, showing everything Assange said about what was going to happen was right.
And I think the real issue is that journalism is forbidden.
Assange is not perfect.
Assange has done things worthy of criticism.
But Assange is essentially doing what most news outlets do.
But we can see this.
The only journalists that are allowed to function in the U.S.
are those that do exactly what the establishment wants them to do.
If you're John Solomon, for instance, and you come out and say there's evidence of Ukrainian wrongdoing and interference in the election, they'll call you a conspiracy theorist.
They'll run smear after smear after smear, and they'll try to do everything to destroy you.
Assange got the worst of it.
Assange got locked up, essentially, for seven years, and he's still locked up today, even though this was all BS.
They say the reason for this decision is that the evidence has weakened considerably due to the long period of time that has elapsed since the events in question, the Swedish Prosecution Authority said in a statement Monday, as reported by BBC.
After conducting a comprehensive assessment of what has emerged during the course of the preliminary investigation, I then make the assessment that the evidence is not strong enough to form the basis for filing an indictment.
Such utter BS.
I would like to emphasize that the injured party has submitted a credible and reliable version of events.
Person stressed, her statements have been coherent, extensive, and detailed.
However, my overall assessment is that the evidential situation has been weakened to such an extent that there is no longer any reason to continue the investigation.
Man, how funny.
How funny that for the longest time Julian Assange was a hero on the left.
Up until he started exposing the DNC and Hillary Clinton, etc.
All of a sudden, then, those that claimed to support the principled actions of WikiLeaks now were upset by it.
And this is something I experience and fully expect to experience in the future.
During Occupy Wall Street, oh, they loved what I was doing up until I turned the camera on them and exposed them for wrongdoing.
See, no one really likes journalists.
And this goes for everybody.
Left, right, center, top, down, whatever.
People on the right.
They love to hear what I have to say when reality is on their side.
But I believe in the next few years, maybe after Trump, it'll invert, and I'll have all the people on the right saying, you know, oh, whatever.
But I will say this.
The individuals on the left who did like what I was doing have been pushed out and are kind of on the right now.
A lot of Occupy Wall Street people are now Trump supporters, so maybe it's not necessarily the left or right.
I think it might be that principled individuals respect journalism even when it proves them wrong, and for the time being, that's on the right.
There's, you know, the people on the right have no problem having open inquiry discussions and debates even if they end up looking wrong in the process because it gives, you know, I think for the most part...
The people who are willing to accept their wrong have a moral advantage because they say, listen, I know I'm not the smartest person, I know I'm not always right, and that I'm showing you that I'm acting in good faith.
Right now the left is not.
They hate Julian Assange even though he provided for them so much back in the day.
He was a hero.
Today, he's a pariah.
BBC notes that prosecutors also held a news briefing in Stockholm saying that the decision to drop the inquiry had been taken after interviews with seven witnesses in this case.
In addition to the assault charges, Assange was also accused of molestation and unlawful coercion.
The investigations into those charges were dropped in 2015 due to statute of limitations.
We get it.
You know, maybe he did something wrong.
I'm not saying the guy's completely innocent.
I'm saying he's a guy.
I'm saying he did journalism.
And he was railroaded after doing a lot of important work.
I don't care if you're a Republican.
I don't care if you're a Democrat.
If you're doing wrong, I want to know about it.
Now, it's possible that Assange was doing things because he's a political actor.
Fine, whatever.
But news organizations do that all the time.
So why is he the one who's facing, you know, the brunt of this?
Hopefully, and I'll tell you what, I don't know if it'll happen, but I would love to see, if Trump is re-elected, the complete commuting of the charges against Julian Assange, a full pardon should he be convicted, etc.
Look again, I will stress, I don't think the guy is completely innocent, but there's a fine line between allowing a government to imprison someone, even a foreign citizen, for doing journalistic acts, and, you know, let's put it that way, listen.
And criminal activity, right?
If Julian Assange was crossing that line, fine.
We can bring that up.
But we have to tread very carefully, because like any group, allowing the government the power today means someone else will wield that power tomorrow, and they will wield it against you.
It's Julian Assange today, and it's the journalists you like tomorrow.
John Solomon is uncovering a lot of information about Ukraine, and they hate him for it.
Don't be surprised if they come after him in similar ways.
And if we allow the government to do this, if we allow the United States to go after journalists because they don't like the fact their secrets are being leaked, we got a problem.
I'll tell you what the problem is, CIA.
It's not Julian Assange, it's you got leakers.
So how about instead of punishing the people who are doing their job, which is protected by the Constitution, which you're supposed to be defending, you go after those who are disloyal to you, and you figure out who's leaking, and you try and stop it at that point.
To all the whistleblowers who find real malfeasance, good on you for exposing it.
The CIA is not an immutable object.
They're not a perfect, holy, holistic government agency here to protect everybody.
That's not the case.
They do wrong, same as anybody else.
And they should be held accountable.
And if that means a whistleblower, so be it.
So you got real problems then.
The more people in government, the more leaking.
And I admit, that could be bad for the U.S.
But taking it out on Assange and other journalists and organizations, that's insane.
I'm not confident Trump's gonna do anything to help Assange or otherwise, and I think, truth be told, all branches of government love the idea that if they want to, they can accuse a journalist of being a conspiracy theorist, partisan actor, foreign agent, whatever, and lock you up.
And you know what?
The other side will defend it.
That, to me, is what's scary.
Whatever.
We'll see what happens.
They say Assange's legal team issued a statement reiterating the claim that the reason he refused to return to Sweden was not because he feared the allegations, but because of the threat of extradition to the U.S.
You get the point.
He issued a statement saying that, you know, I'll leave it there.
I don't know.
Let me know what you think.
Am I wrong?
Do you think Trump will do anything for this guy?
Or do you think Trump is going to try to protect what he has?
And it's complicated.
I've talked to some people who are big Trump supporters who told me that they think Trump's abandoned Assange outright.
Whatever.
I'll see y'all in the next segment in a few minutes.
Bless Nancy Pelosi's heart.
She's blowing off the impeachment critics, saying that it's weak and dangerous to let an election decide who should be the president.
She's right.
Bless millionaire Nancy Pelosi, this corporate elite individual who seemingly has no real solid principles.
Could you imagine living in a country where political power, where the power of the government, was derived from the will of the masses?
And not elite multi-millionaires with corporate special interests?
Oh, heavens!
The peasants would be crawling all up and down the ivory tower, getting their muck and grime up in our beautiful tea room.
Yeah, sorry, Nancy Pelosi.
We should let the election decide.
It's less than a year away.
But I know what you're trying to do.
I know what the Democrats are trying to do.
They want to manipulate the election by generating as much negative press as possible.
The impeachment inquiry is happening.
Testimony is happening as I record this video.
And you know what I'm hearing?
I'm hearing disgruntled employees angry that they're not more special than they really are.
That Vindman is angry that they wouldn't take his opinion on things.
And he claims that he was the foremost expert advisor to the president on issues of Ukraine.
Oh, please, dude, you're a low-level aide.
And that's what he's really mad about.
Aw, poor baby.
So what does he do?
He goes and complains about a phone call.
Here's the best part.
And we'll read about what Nancy Pelosi says, but let me tell you something.
The Republicans asked some good questions.
Turns out, these two witnesses had no idea that Ukraine was trying to interfere in an election.
And what that means is there are people within Ukraine doing this.
They had no idea.
Going back years, there have been concerns about corruption with Burisma, and the American people want to know why Hunter Biden was sitting on the board of directors of a corrupt company.
They had no idea.
So, let's put it this way.
Let's say you're told that chocolate ice cream is poisonous.
Like, let's say there's a big batch of chocolate ice cream that comes into your shop.
Comes into your shop, right?
You're the manager.
Now you get word, a bunch of people are saying, this stuff, it's actually poisoned, okay?
So you get on a phone call with the manufacturer, and you say, listen, okay, I need you to look into what happened with this batch, and we're going to be getting rid of it.
And then all of a sudden some employees who overhear you get angry, saying, but everyone loves chocolate ice cream!
Why is he getting rid of it?
He's running this company to the ground!
Here's the point.
Maybe the analogy was bad.
But these people, like Vindman, had literally no idea what was going on.
And they thought their low-tier lack of knowledge superseded the president, his advisors, his lawyer, and all these people.
So let me make it simple.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't want you to decide.
She doesn't think you know better.
Thank you, Nancy.
Nancy, that's exactly what the country was supposed to be.
A bunch of millionaires in Congress telling the poor dumb people they shouldn't have a choice.
And now they're angry that Trump won because they don't like the president, they think he's stupid, whatever, fine.
I don't like the guy either.
And now someone can, you know, whatever, you get the point.
I don't like him, but I do respect the process.
That people voted for him, and that's what we get.
And we need to make sure we're acting on our principles and doing the right thing to make
sure people understand why we can do better.
But I'll tell you what, Trump is a response exactly to this.
So what do you want me to say?
How am I supposed to defend a system run by the uber elite millionaires like Nancy Pelosi
and otherwise, who tell us poor people that we shouldn't be allowed to decide, that we're
not smart enough, it's weak and dangerous to let an election decide whether or not someone
and should be our president.
It's literally what the election is for.
So now what do we get?
Vindman has no idea what's going on, hears Trump and says, but why would he investigate Hunter Biden?
Did you Google it?
If you Google it, you would have seen stories going back years talking about the fact that Joe and Hunter Biden, there have been questions around soft corruption and nepotism and why he's working for this corrupt company.
If you knew that, maybe you'd say, ah, that's exactly why the president wants an investigation, or at least a good reason.
Does it mean Trump is this pure angel sent from the heavens to save the world?
Of course not!
Trump probably had his own personal interest in it.
He's mad about Russiagate.
But it doesn't mean he's wrong.
At the very worst case scenario, I can say of the president, is that he was like, I'm mad at these people.
They did Russiagate.
And then he's like, oh, what's this stuff going on with corruption?
That's an opportunity.
Fine.
You want to come at me?
I did nothing wrong.
Let's dig into the corruption.
You're, you know.
Trump was talking about locking up Hillary Clinton.
That never happened.
But let, you know what?
Let's read the story and learn about why Nancy Pelosi is a bad person.
This is offensive to me, okay?
They say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doubled down on impeachment Monday, telling her Democratic colleagues in a memo that it was weak and dangerous to back off and let the American people decide in 2020.
Oh, my word.
The weak response to these hearings has been, let the election decide.
That dangerous position only adds to the insurgency of our... I'm sorry.
That dangerous position only adds to the urgency of our action.
Because POTUS is jeopardizing the integrity of the 2020 elections.
Yet people aren't stupid.
Okay?
Actually, let me reframe that.
People actually are stupid.
But a person is smart.
And the people who are focused and paying attention understand.
But you know what she's really saying here?
Nancy Pelosi says Trump is trying to interfere.
He's trying to jeopardize the integrity of the 2020 elections.
Therefore, we can't let the election decide.
What do you think the Democrats are doing?
Launching an impeachment inquiry less than a year out from an election.
They're trying to sway the public because they think people are stupid.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of stupid people.
But I do believe a person is smart.
And that's why it's important to push back on this nonsense.
Pelosi also asserted the facts of the case were uncontested, saying that President Donald Trump has abused his power for his own personal political benefit at the expense of our national security interests.
Pelosi responded to Republicans who have argued the president's decision to withhold the aid is a nonstarter because the aid was eventually released.
I'll stop you right there.
I don't even care if you said no to the aid, period.
If Donald Trump said, no aid, Ukraine, you get nothing, I'd be like, well, OK, that's the president.
He's going to do that.
Vote for somebody else and let them come in and choose.
That's the point of elections, right?
The president does a bad job, so you decide someone else should come in.
Our whole country is built upon the premise of letting elections decide.
And I'll tell you what, when it comes to Mitch McConnell, and it was a garland merrick garland or whoever what obama's
appointee who got be pushed out because mcconnell said we're gonna
let the election and then and that's bs
the election decided when when obama got elected so don't act like republicans are immune to this
and i will i will absolutely point out my it's complicated
i said that fifty billion times a day But I do not like Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham.
There are some new Republicans who have come in who I disagree with politically, but I think are principled.
And I'll point out, you want to play a game about letting the election decide.
The president gets elected.
That's the decision.
They get four years.
That means Obama should have picked the Supreme Court justice.
It should have been voted on.
Instead, it was waited on.
It was pushed out.
Now we have Donald Trump.
Congratulations.
He gets his four years.
So they want to rag on the Republicans and say, but they held up to Obama's.
Yeah, I get it.
I get it.
I don't like it.
And you think I'm supposed to now defend you doing the same thing?
Absolutely not.
Homie, don't play that.
The aid was released only after the whistleblower exposed the truth of the president's extortion and bribery.
And you know what, man?
This is exactly why.
She wants to do this.
She doesn't want an election unless she can smear the president.
Let me tell you exactly what these hearings are for.
They're not having hearings to uncover new information.
They already know.
They've auditioned these people.
They're having hearings so they can grandstand.
Adam Schiff knows that if he held a press conference, nobody would care.
But he knows an impeachment hearing will get him as much press as possible.
What they're betting on is not convincing you or I that Trump didn't do anything wrong or that he did.
They're hoping that they can just make the partisans who already lean in their direction even more angry.
That's it.
And the journalists march in line like the Pied Piper leaving all the rats or snakes or whatever.
Was it snakes?
They're just following in line to whatever the Democrats say.
You look at these journalists.
You know, there was one journalist who said, everyone hates Nunes.
And I'm like, no, I'm pretty sure the last vestige of journalism grasping onto the withering husk of the fourth estate is actively listening to Schiff and Nunes.
Okay, I'll tell you what, I listen exactly to what Adam Schiff is saying.
I'm not a big fan of the guy, but I'll tell you this, I don't like Nunes or Schiff.
Nunes is suing somebody because they're ragging on him with a cow Twitter account.
Come on.
But I'll tell you what.
There have been some fine statements across the aisle.
Some Democrats have made some good points.
Some Republicans have made some good points.
But the facts are on the Republican side on this one.
What's happening right now is they're trying to generate negative press to win in 2020.
I actually don't think they will impeach Trump.
They might, I don't know.
But I think, the one reason I think they might not is because they would give Republicans power.
It would go to a Senate trial, and the Republicans can then take action.
They can then call witnesses, and the Democrats would be restricted, and it would stop the 2020 candidates from campaigning.
A lot of these Senators would be forced to go into the Senate trial, and they can't speak.
So impeachment sounds like a really bad idea.
In which case, I think they want the hearings, and then they're going to blame Republicans for refusing to hold Trump accountable, and there will be some Democrat defectors.
That way they get their run of bad press, they can tell all of the American people about extortion and bribery, and then they're going to say, we are trying to uphold the rule of law, but Donald Trump and his Republican allies, it is a shame that so many moderates, blah blah blah, that's what they're going to do.
I don't know though.
I think in the end they might actually just impeach him.
It's tough to say.
I think impeaching him would be a really, really bad idea.
That's what I kind of lean towards.
They probably wouldn't, but it seems like they are.
So in the end, thank you Nancy Pelosi, thank you Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, these uber-wealthy politicians, career politicians who don't care about the American people, they don't care about America, they don't care about civil liberties, they care about keys to the castle.
Vote for me and I can then go sit in the ivory tower.
And that's what they're doing.
Do they care that this is divisive?
Do they care that the American people are happy, the economy is doing well?
They don't care.
They just want Trump to look bad.
Trump is not an angel.
McConnell's not an angel.
Republicans are not angels.
And you know what?
There will come a time when some of these old crony Republicans play the same game and I will be saying very similar things.
But for now, I can just say that for those who are on the right, who have been on the right for a long time, the facts are on your side for the most part for now.
Don't be surprised in the future when journalists and other individuals you may have liked, you know, centrists, moderates, start calling you out if you play these same games.
I don't think everybody is perfect.
I think everybody has their agenda and their motives.
It just so happens that there are a lot of people, when it comes to the questioning we're hearing, it's clear what the Democrats are doing.
They're losing.
They're mad the Republicans won.
They're mad that Trump actually helped the economy and is doing well, so they're doing everything in their power to shut him down.
It's possible that we see something similar again, because the Republicans certainly tried to obstruct Obama.
I just can't stand everybody.
You know, in the end, here's what I'd like to see.
Real politicians who care about the American people.
I think Donald Trump, for all of his character defects, his boorishness, he does want America to succeed.
Call it whatever you want.
Call it ego, call it arrogance, call it narcissism.
Call it true love for the American people.
I don't care what he's feeling.
I think Trump's end goal is make America better.
Could it be that Trump wants to brag about how he fixed the problem?
That could be it.
You don't gotta act like he's some empathetic hero who loves everybody.
Although Trump supporters would feel that way.
I think a reasonable position is Trump wants to brag.
He wants to succeed.
He wants to win.
And I think a lot of people recognize that.
You know, there's a focus group.
They basically said that they... Here we go.
Pro-Trump group finds swing voters like POTUS's policies but hate his tweets.
And that explains exactly how I feel.
There's a lot of policies that I think have worked out really well.
And you know what?
Maybe I was wrong about some of these policies and I'll accept that things are going well to a certain extent.
The deficit's certainly going to be bad.
We've got a college tuition bubble.
We've got some problems.
But I can agree with most people.
The independents?
Yeah, Donald Trump's tweets cause problems.
You know, so in the end, let the people vote.
If Donald Trump has done enough to earn the trust of the American people, it is the will of the people to choose him.
And I am sick and tired of hearing BS about low-level aides obstructing the president who was hired to do a job.
Did I hire Donald Trump?
No.
But I'll tell you what, I understand that when I work at an ice cream shop, When the boss says, here's why we, when the boss says, we're dumping chocolate, I'm not going to be like, no, stop.
I'm going to be like, is there something wrong with chocolate?
And then he says, it was contaminated.
I say, whoa!
So imagine if Vindman heard this call, instead of running around screeching about how he opposes it, he says, he asks someone, why does Trump want to investigate the Bidens?
And then someone said, there was this video of Biden saying, you know, he was getting the aid removed and there are concerns over his son being on the board.
We know Burismo's corrupt.
His son got the job.
Whether or not Biden anything wrong, Trump wants to look into it.
Oh, that actually makes sense.
But now they're pawns, pawns being used to be, you know, by people like Pelosi who don't want the Americans to
I might not like your president, but I will respect the fact that you guys won the election.
And I think that's fair.
And if, you know, I didn't vote for Obama a second time, but if people vote for Obama and he wins, I'm not a big fan of any of these people.
But I respect that people are voting them in.
I disagree, I don't like the idea of voting for the lesser of two evils, but that's just the way it is.
So I'm not going to try and burn everything down because of it.
Nancy Pelosi doesn't want us to vote.
Yeah, no thank you.
I got one more segment coming up.
It's gonna be a lot more fun because all this is frustrating.
We're talking about aliens!
I'll see you in a few minutes.
Aliens turning off nuclear weapons to show humans they're useless.
Boom-bomb.
Aliens have been turning our nuclear weapons on and off to show us how useless they are against them, according to a lobbyist who says he thinks ETs are not a threat.
Then why would they be turning our weapons on or off?
If they weren't a threat, then maybe they could just deactivate them if we used them.
Look, politics has been so insane lately that I think it's important to sometimes get a break and talk about the wonders and mysteries of life.
And we have a couple really interesting stories.
This guy believes that aliens are shutting off our nuclear weapons.
And I think it's fair that it's possible.
I mean, if aliens existed.
Think about it this way.
Imagine you're in a helicopter, and you fly up to, like, North Sentinel Island, where those, like, those humans are, who have never been, like, directly contacted.
They're firing bows and arrows at you, and the arrows just bounce off the whole of the body of the helicopter, because it's made of metal.
And we're just like, they're not doing anything, it's just pieces of wood.
And they'd be like, our weapons are useless, but those are their greatest weapons.
Well, nuclear, our nuclear arsenals are greatest weapons.
And it's safe to say that if aliens have the ability to travel, you know, great distances across the universe, they may have some kind of dimensional manipulation technologies that can directly manipulate these weapons.
Or not only that, I mean, I'm gonna tell you straight up.
I believe If it's true that aliens have come to Earth, that based on what we know in science, the appropriate assumption about space travel is that they are using a form of energy or spatial travel that we don't know we don't know.
Whenever we think about spaceships, we think about rocket propulsion, or ion propulsion, or solar sails, or things like that, because it's within the confines of our understanding of science.
But there could be some kind of, you know, mass energy network of gigantic beams of energy called floor bows.
Well, we don't have a name for it, because we've never conceptualized it.
But just, the point I'm making is, We didn't know that radio waves existed, right, up until like a hundred and some odd years ago.
150, 160 years ago?
Well, maybe a little bit longer than that.
But we didn't know about the electromagnetic spectrum.
So if somebody saw a walkie-talkie or a cell phone, they'd think it was magic and not even be able to fathom how that works.
So think about being able to travel light years.
Now we've had Star Trek, you know, and people conceptualizing warp drives and stuff like that, but that's still within our current understanding of space-time.
Since, you know, we have the publication of the space-time relativity, special relativity, et cetera, someone can then see that and say, ah, what if you did a warp drive?
But what if there's something else we just don't know about?
And I bet you there is, and you can manipulate that.
Let's read the story.
Who is this guy and why does he think aliens are doing this?
Stephen Bassett is the founder of Paradigm Research Group, PRG, which has spent years trying to get the U.S.
government to reveal the truth about extraterrestrials and UFOs, which he prefers to call unidentified aerial phenomena, in line with the U.S.
Navy's official definition.
Discussing what motives aliens might have, Stephen claimed, several witnesses have observed them controlling our own nuclear weapons with ease.
But he insists, this is not intended as a threat.
It actually shows us that ETs and UAP support nuclear disarmament.
I do too.
And I think my favorite, I wouldn't call it a conspiracy theory, because I don't take it seriously, but the idea I had about why we don't have direct contact with aliens is, there's two reasons.
Or actually, it's technically one.
We are a fractured globe.
We are not unified.
Human beings are not one people.
We have different nations, we have opposing interests, and we're fighting.
So think about what happens if aliens arrive on Earth.
If these alien spaceships decide to land in the United States, what does Russia do?
Russia would panic and probably fire some nuclear weapons, or maybe not, but you've got to think about what happens when technology that's never been experienced before falls into the hands of your enemies, or at least you think that's the case.
Yeah, that could lead to catastrophe.
It would lead to panic.
Like, if aliens landed right now, man, people would be riding in the streets, it would destroy the economy, there would be explosions, nuclear weapons would be firing left, you know, who knows what.
You're gonna get one dude somewhere, like, operating a nuclear sub, and he's gonna panic and be like, what is it, we don't know, fire!
And then all hell breaks loose.
So, the conspiracy theory that I love, I'm not saying it's true or I believe it, I just love the idea, Is that, for one, you've heard the conspiracy about the globalists, that they're evil authoritarians.
What if they're desperately trying to ram down globalism because aliens refuse to provide us with amazing technology until our people have been unified?
I'm not saying that's true, I'm just saying it would make a great sci-fi novel.
Let's read a little bit more.
He told Daily Star Online, They turned off our nuclear weapons repeatedly.
Does that mean they are bad?
The witnesses to the events, and there are many, generally believe that it is not an ominous thing, but rather it was a message.
It wasn't a threat, but a message that these things are useless.
As if they're saying, they certainly are useless against us.
All you are going to do is kill yourselves, and we can turn them off at will.
Why don't you just get rid of them?
No, if that were the case, I'll tell you what, that does sound like a threat to me.
Turning our weapons off, telling us you can do nothing to stop us?
I do not think that's the appropriate way to go about sending a message.
More importantly, if it was the case, and we fired them, you know, maybe what they're really saying is, go ahead and fire, we'll just turn it off, and it'll, boop, be gone.
Let's read a little bit more.
That's how witnesses, by and large the majority, have interpreted this.
This is not the first time it has been claimed that aliens have been shutting down nukes and showing an interest in military bases.
Former U.S.
Air Force Lt.
Bob Jacobs gave a shocking interview on CNN's Larry King Live in 2008.
He made the staggering claim that during a missile test, an object shot a beam of light at the warhead in what has been called the 1967 Mahlstrom AFB UFO incident.
The footage was confiscated and he was told never to speak of it again.
It's the men in black.
Steven previously told this site that NASA is forced by the U.S.
government to shut down the ISS live feed when aliens appear.
This comes after a cigar-shaped UFO was allegedly spotted flying over Kansas in a mysterious video, and the U.S.
Navy pilot who chased the USS Nimitz UFO claims there are missing tapes of the encounter.
Clearer footage would allegedly show it has legs beneath a tic-tac body.
Not too long ago, about a week ago, a story broke that a bunch of these sailors from the USS Nimitz spoke out saying that their footage of the UFO was confiscated by unknown officials and destroyed.
Is this evidence of aliens?
No.
It could just be evidence of advanced military technology.
But this is the story, I believe.
We have the story about the USS Nimitz.
Footage show it had legs below tic-tac body.
And this story is from just the end of October.
Daily Star, you know what sells, don't you?
Now I will point something out.
I don't know if they're aliens.
I think it's more likely it's military technology.
There is a question about Fermi's Paradox.
If the universe is so vast and large, why haven't we encountered aliens?
Let me tell you a few reasons.
I'm not a scientist.
I might get some of these details wrong, but I like to read about this stuff and speculate.
One of the easiest ways that we know of, or one of the only ways we know of for the most part, of separating lighter metals from denser metals, smelting, etc., is using fire.
Because of the perfect balance, or because of the balance of chemicals we have in our atmosphere and what we breathe, we can make fire.
We have carbon from wood, which is life, which grows.
We can burn that in fossil fuels, other hydrocarbons.
And because there's just enough oxygen in the atmosphere, fire can exist.
This is, I believe, it's a fusion reaction which turns physical matter into heat.
I could be getting the details wrong, but basically the fuel, which is a physical substance, becomes thermal radiation.
That can then be applied.
You can transfer that energy from a physical object into heat to liquefy certain objects.
Making metal, making wires, making computers.
Imagine if you lived underwater.
Would you have hands?
It's possible something could evolve underwater to have hands.
But could you make fire?
I think the answer is no, unless under, you know, in certain specific circumstances.
It's probably possible there's some crazy, you know, planet we couldn't even imagine where it has the conditions to separate elements and manipulate them.
But it just so happens that we evolved several important factors which are extremely rare.
We're intelligent.
We have fingers, opposable thumbs, which can manipulate small objects, and we have an atmosphere that supports creating fire, which allows us to apply energy to other objects and manipulate those elements into other things.
We can then start mapping out how the manipulation of these objects reacts, plan ahead with our intelligence, and create machines that can do amazing things.
Can every life form do that?
No.
As far as we know, we're the only ones for the most part.
Because not only do you need all of these factors, but you need a certain degree of intelligence in the first place.
Sure, a beaver can build a dam, but is a beaver going to improve upon the dam and share that knowledge with its children?
I mean, actually, maybe they could.
I don't know.
I don't think so.
For the most part, they just go about their beaver business.
The other thing to consider is that Jupiter in our solar system acts as a gigantic filter, pulling away a lot of these asteroids and other heavenly objects that might crash into the Earth and destroy it and wipe out life as we know it.
So we really do have this perfect set of circumstances.
Some people take that and they say that's proof of God creating this.
It's too specific.
I think it just so happens that we are the lottery winners.
We are the rare phenomena.
In which case, maybe Aliens don't exist because it is astronomically rare relative to everything that came together.
Everything that came together was so astronomically rare, it's just not going to happen.
Perhaps this is actually aliens.
I don't know.
But I'll tell you what.
Most people wish it was aliens.
That's a thing.
I'm sure there's a lot of people who clicked this video because they want to believe it's true.
You know why?
Think about life.
Imagine you're an atheist.
If you are an atheist, you get this.
And if you're not an atheist, there are a lot of people who have no faith.
And to them, life is just a dull sludge through nonsense until you die, I guess.
What's your purpose?
What comes next?
Why do we do anything?
A lot of people don't have that.
So a lot of people A lot of people on their own lives.
You gotta make your own purpose, in my opinion.
And I certainly have my own.
But there are people with faith.
People with religion.
They know why they're alive, they have that belief, and so they're gonna work towards that.
But there are a lot of people who wish this was real.
Because it shows you that there's something else out there, and we're not just going to be trapped on this rock until the universe expires.
At a certain point, the sun will grow into a red giant, engulf the earth, and destroy everything.
Is that it?
Do we just sit here complaining about Donald Trump until our lives end?
That would be horrible.
Imagine if an alien ship came down and said, there are infinite possibilities.
You can travel the cosmos like that.
And all of your wildest dreams can come true.
Imagine if there was just more to be discovered.
I will let you in on the bad news.
And I'll wrap this video up.
There are a lot of people who say, there's like this meme, this idea that's passed around saying, born too late to explore the world, born too soon to explore the stars.
And that is absolutely not true.
There are many places on this planet you can go explore and discover and I'm sure there's ancient ruins no one's ever found.
The reality is that for the longest time humans knew the earth was big and there was stuff they didn't know they didn't care.
Humans care about their own settlements and their own society.
They don't care about what happens in the middle of the Aleutian Islands.
But has every person mapped and charted every single island and every place on this planet?
The answer is no.
We have satellites which can show us, but have you actually gone there and tried to uncover ancient relics?
No.
What about the oceans?
There's plenty to explore.
Let me explain something to you.
When the people in Europe, the great colonizers, who drum up all that anger on the far left, For them, to travel from Europe to the New World.
Those ships were the pinnacle of technology, and it was expensive.
So you wanna talk about exploring the ocean, you'll say, yeah, but who can afford to do that?
Who could afford to go on a gigantic ship, the pinnacle of technology at the time?
There wasn't that many of them.
There's many now because we have better tech.
But yeah, getting a giant boat, a caravel or a frigate or whatever, that was nuts!
That was like...
That was what humans built.
That was a pinnacle of our technology.
So yeah, it was expensive.
Just like an undersea exploration vehicle would be today.
So, not everybody could be an explorer.
But you can.
You can literally just go around and explore stuff.
Go find some unincorporated, uninvestigated, uncharted island or something.
They exist.
But anyway, the point I'm saying is, I think a lot of people wish aliens were real, because it means that there's just more to be discovered, and it would be a big boon in curiosity, and adventure, and competition, and market, and right now a lot of people feel stuck in routine.
All we've done for the past couple years is complain about Donald Trump, and it's been boring.
I don't care.
You know, these people who base their lives off of how much they hate the president is insane to me.
But there you go.
I mean, I make videos about this stuff all day.
So it would be great if aliens came down and said, cast aside the orange man complaints.
He's fine.
He's not that bad.
And come on to our spaceship and travel the stars.
I'm sure a lot of people would be like, deal.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
What do you think?
Are they turning off our weapons?
Do they even exist?
I don't know.
But it's fun to talk about, especially when you have nonstop impeachment BS.
And even somehow I managed to seep that into Talk of Aliens.
