Democrats Are LOSING Impeachment Fight, OPPOSITION To Impeachment SPIKING, Schiff Seems Angry
Democrats Are LOSING Impeachment Fight, OPPOSITION To Impeachment SPIKING, Schiff Seems Angry. The latest from Politico and Morning consult shows that general opposition to the Trump impeachment inquiry is up 3 points, support is down 2 points.But the big hammer is that among independent voters opposition for impeachment is up TEN POINTS, a major failure for Democrats. Not only that but ratings are collapsing. Democrats are struggling to maintain the attention of Americans as that grow tired and angry over the nonsense and political bickering.No matter what happens the media and Democrats insist everything is bad for Trump but the most we can muster is that it seems slightly more likely Trump was looking to tackle corruption in Ukraine but still the only fact so far is that Trump wanted an investigation.Democrats are desperately trying to prove Quid pro Quo but quid pro quo is NOT impeachable. Democrats need to prove it was intended to dig up dirt on Biden. Instead they are asking about "quid pro quo"Democrats are mishandling this and it will result in a major loss of independent voters in the end. Democrats have only Adam Schiff to blame. Certainly Nancy pelosi and Nadler should take some responsibility for this failure but Schiff is leading the charge and the failure is on his watch.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today, Gordon Sondland is testifying before Congress in the ongoing impeachment inquiry, and I'll tell you what, I really don't care.
It is the same thing over and over and over again.
The same points, maybe the same people, and nothing's really advancing.
It's a political fight.
However, interestingly, Gordon Sondland does appear to have flipped, now claiming quid pro quo and trying to seemingly protect himself while he plays this game of, yeah, maybe there was something going on.
The problem is, the testimony yesterday from Morrison and Volker kind of contradicts all of this.
So I'll tell you what, if you go to the staunchest of Trump supporters, they will say nothing here, nothing to see here.
And I think to a certain degree, that's fair.
The Democrats are going to claim, oh, everything's, there's proof, it's proof.
Listen, at the end of the day, it's a political fight.
It doesn't matter what's true.
The only fact we know is Trump asked for an investigation.
Everyone seems to agree on that.
Trump released the transcript.
Now, did he do it to dig up dirt on Biden?
Don't really see evidence for that.
Did he do it to weed out corruption?
Honestly, don't see a whole lot of evidence of that either.
The fact remains, it is mostly just an opinion fight.
Which brings me to today's video.
It is dragging the Democrats down.
It was a terrible strategy and I think the only reason they did it is because they desperately need to shore up their base.
The latest poll from Politico in the morning consult shows that opposition by independents to the impeachment inquiry has jumped 10 points and overall Support has dropped two points.
General opposition is up three points.
And most people, by a small degree, believe the Democrats are mishandling what's going on.
Here's what I want to do today.
Let me take you through some of this data.
And we'll talk about why, ultimately, I think this is a shot in the foot for Democrats.
This is bad for them.
But I really don't see any other strategy they could implement, right?
So it does make sense.
But I'll tell you what.
I'm tired of it.
I really don't care.
And I am begrudgingly talking about it today.
We'll see what happens going forward if I continue to care about it.
Because I'll tell you what, no one else cares about it.
The ratings are continuing to drop down more than 1 million from its first day.
And that was last week.
I can only imagine nobody cares about this.
And I will tell you what, yesterday was a 12-hour hearing.
Man, and you know what?
I listened to all of it.
Please, pray for me.
I listened to all of it.
And I'm still listening to it now.
So let's not talk too much about the nitty-gritty waste of time where the same thing is said over and over again, and talk about how this will impact 2020.
We'll get started with the hill.
But before we do, as per usual, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you want to support my work.
Listen, I listened to 12 hours of testimony yesterday.
I listened to last week.
And let me assure you, there's nothing here.
If you respect and support me sitting here with this insanity, then TimCast.com slash donate.
Or just share this video.
If for some reason you're still tuned in to what's going on with impeachment, I respect you.
I appreciate it.
Thank you for watching.
And, uh, you can help me out by sharing this video, but I'll admit it.
I mean, look, I'm talking about impeachment because I think it is important, but it is mind-numbing, and even my views are down.
My views on my second channel, where I talk about culture stuff, doing great.
Mainstream, big breaking news, oof, not so much.
But I do think it's important.
However, I will concede, I think I'm probably gonna just drop it.
Let me tell you something, okay?
I am one of these independents.
My opposition has also jumped, and I think we're at a point now Where they have cried wolf incessantly nonstop.
And I can't tell you what the point of this is anymore.
You've got several people saying, you know, they wanted to hear about the investigations because it just proved that Ukraine was turning a new leaf and not going to be corrupt.
And even Sondland, who has apparently flipped on Trump, is saying essentially that, but trying to make it seem like, no, that's a quid pro quo.
It's just nothing.
So let's talk about what happens.
People like me, and probably people like you, are saying enough.
Now I know Trump supporters are mad it happened in the first place, but I'll tell you what, man.
First of all, look at this.
Opposition by independents to the House's ongoing impeachment inquiry jumped 10 percentage points in the last week.
This mirrors what we saw from the Hill-Harris acts on the 7th.
Before the initial public hearing, the same thing happened.
Now being reflected, this is from the 15th to the 17th.
After the initial hearings, people watched it and said, whoa, enough!
And the Democrats are mishandling this.
They say the poll showed 47% of independents opposed the inquiry, compared to 37% last week.
Meanwhile, support for the inquiry by independents fell 7 points to 40%.
So there's a difference here.
The independent voters who are supporting this have dropped off, but the independent voters who are opposing it has jumped a lot.
Either way, it's bad news across the board for Democrats because you need to win the middle.
I can say it a million times, but people in the middle have a choice between left and right.
People on the far left and the far right can only choose that one direction, the Democrats or the Republicans.
So as the Democrats lose moderates, the Republicans open up the door to gaining those votes.
It is a huge blunder.
Support for the inquiry among all respondents fell two points to 48%, while opposition rose to three points to 45%.
So this is an important point.
There is still more support than opposition.
That's very important and could be bad for Trump, but many of these people will not vote.
So what Democrats need to do is they need to make sure that those who do support the inquiry are willing to vote.
Sorry, I doubt you can.
They say the latest polls come as the House launched a second week of public testimony with Lt.
Col.
Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Pence, appearing in the morning.
The polls showed that 48% of respondents support the House impeaching President Trump, compared to 44% to oppose it, while 47% backed the Senate removing the President from office.
That's huge.
But it'll never happen.
There's a lot going on here.
So check it out.
Not only that, but the ratings are down.
And this is the more important thing, because what Democrats are playing here is an attempt to generate negative press.
It's actually been reported that one of their strategies is to saturate the market with content, with news segments that make the president look bad.
Right now we have CNN and MSNBC playing all of these silly games where they're saying, here's the new tagline, game over.
Game over.
All they're saying, first it was the walls are closing in, the beginning of the end, you know, bombshell, and now game over.
That's what they're saying.
Sorry.
Just because you have one person today saying quid pro quo doesn't prove anything.
Quid pro quo is not impeachable.
Joe Biden did a quid pro quo.
Joe Biden said, if you want this military aid, you got to fire the prosecutor.
The question is, was it done for legitimate reasons?
So far, everyone, including Sondland, who has flipped on Trump, has agreed.
Trump was concerned about corruption.
So this brings me to another little segment here, a part of this poll.
Based on what you know, do you approve or disapprove of the way House Democrats are handling the current impeachment inquiry into President Trump?
And just by a couple points, between somewhat and strongly, I believe it's by about three or four, they disapprove of the way that Democrats are handling this.
So I'll tell you what.
Trump is right.
In the wake of this news, Donald Trump came out and said it will never work.
Confident Donald Trump blasts impeachment hearings as polls show independent voters are scouring, are souring, on Democrat-led takedown of the GOP.
Trump returns to slash-and-burn tweeting about impeachment hearings.
He predicts the process will backfire on Democrats.
New poll shows 47% of independent voters oppose it, up 10 points from just a week ago.
This is the second poll showing these results.
President blasts Nancy Pelosi as ineffective and controlled by socialist congressmen intent on removing him from office.
Now why would they launch the impeachment inquiry?
There are several different reasons.
I've talked about the negative press attempts.
There's also AOC saying it unites the party, that they're fractured, and that's a fact.
There are multiple different Democrats.
There was this really interesting data that was recently published showing what the different parties would be in this country if people could vote on core issues, and there were five.
There were two conservative parties, a nationalist and a traditional party.
There was a social justice party that was just social justice.
There was a labor party and a socialist party.
So these are the different factions, apparently.
But you can see that among Democrats, I'm sorry, among Republicans, traditional issues, as well as nationalist issues, overlap swimmingly.
I'll tell you, if you go to a Trump supporter whose number one priority is border security, they'll probably tell you they're traditional in many ways, too.
Not all of them, but a lot of them.
But when you look at the socialists, the labor, and the social justice, they do not overlap.
They are feuding.
Labor tends to represent, like Barack Obama, So in the end, they are fractured, right?
That's the main point.
We'll make that the main takeaway.
Here's an important bit of data from just, I believe it's from yesterday.
NPR, a poll shows Americans overwhelmingly say impeachment hearings won't change their minds.
This is an NPR PBS NewsHour Marist poll.
They say, 65% of Americans say they can't imagine any information or circumstances during the impeachment inquiry where they might change their minds about their position on impeachment.
30% say yes, it's possible.
Here's the very, very important point.
First, nobody cares!
Ratings are down.
I don't even want to be talking about it.
I am tired of this dominating the news.
I did a long segment this morning on Hong Kong and China because it's very, very important.
And I might switch and just cover that from now on because this is nonsense.
Okay?
And we all know it.
It's the same thing being repeated.
The same thing we've heard a million times.
It's boring and it's not doing anything for anybody.
Check this out.
Democrats, 25% might change their mind.
Republicans, 24% might change their mind.
And among independents, 39% might change their mind.
I say, can you imagine any information or circumstances during the impeachment inquiry where you might change your mind?
39% of independents said yes, and they did change their mind to now opposing the impeachment inquiry.
Congratulations!
You actually had independents in support of the removal of the president, and the strategy by Democrats has resulted in them opposing it.
So when I show you that poll saying most people, by a small percentage point, believe the Democrats are mishandling it, the proof is in the pudding.
You've lost the moderates.
You are helping Donald Trump.
I can only imagine that their game plan is, of those who are Democrats and who won't have their mind changed, they're hoping that group will be brought to the polls.
They're hoping that with enough negative press, they will shock these people into getting out the vote.
They're betting on massive voter turnout.
Now the other day, I want to go through just a little bit of what we saw, and we'll start
with this tweet here.
Alana Ambrimson, covers Congress for Time, said, Schiff seems to be getting angry right now.
This is at 8, 27 p.m. last night.
He's remained very calm throughout the hearings, as was expected, but can detect the slightest
hint of annoyance.
You know why I think he was annoyed?
Because yesterday we saw the testimony of Morrison and Volcker, who essentially defended the president.
I mean, I'll tell you what, for those that are interested in what's going on, because you tuned things out, what we have so far, based on even Sondland, As of testifying right now, and there's a lot to still happen, but it sounds like the big complaint is that Donald Trump believed conspiracy theories.
That Volker said the stories were fake and we were trying to convince the president Ukraine turned a new leaf.
You can't impeach the president for being a moron.
You can't impeach the president for believing conspiracy theories.
The fact is, the president has a right to set policy, and if he says, I believe they're corrupt, well too bad.
Apparently what they're hoping is that through Rudy Giuliani, they could convince Trump that Ukraine has turned a new leaf.
And what they're talking about now with quid pro quo, yes there was quid pro quo, that Donald Trump wasn't convinced Ukraine turned a new leaf, and that although he didn't want anything from them specifically, he felt that if they didn't believe, If they didn't want to announce they were going to be investigating corruption, he didn't believe they were serious.
All of this is predicated on the assumption that either Trump wanted dirt on Biden, which is a stretch and there's no evidence to prove that, that's intent, or Trump wanted to investigate corruption.
And the best I can come up with is that the fact is Trump wanted an investigation.
That's it.
Everything else, throw it out.
Can you impeach and convict on that?
In my opinion, no.
But it is a political fight and there is a lot of support.
47% for removing the president.
I believe, based on the evidence, what we're looking at is Donald Trump probably believed fake news or exaggerated claims.
He was getting it second-hand through getting a telephone with Giuliani.
And that's still whatever, man.
That's not illegal.
And if Trump felt that there was corruption and said, listen, here's what it comes down to.
If Ukraine is actually serious about weeding out corruption, won't they announce it?
Won't they say, hey, we're doing this?
Won't they go out and tell people?
Because I'll tell you what, money, you know, you gotta walk the walk.
Money talks, BS walks.
If they're not willing to tell the world we are going to do this, why would I believe they will?
That's the essential argument we've gotten so far from impeachment.
So I'll tell you why most people probably disapprove of Democrats.
Because the Democrats who hate Trump are probably going, no!
You're making him look right, having these people testify.
But I will assure you, the woke Twitterati and journalists for some reason keep putting out misinformation saying game over, bombshell, and I'm just shocked by it.
Listen, man, there's no proof Trump wanted to weed out corruption.
And I don't care.
There's no proof you want to dirt on Biden either.
And I don't care.
In the end, we have nothing.
Okay?
You want to claim Trump is this great hero sent to fight corruption in Ukraine?
I don't believe you!
I really just don't think Trump cared for the most part.
I think the Democrats have found a threat and they're pulling as hard as possible, and there's nothing there.
Trump wanted an investigation, probably didn't care too much.
You know, I was talking to some people and I said, listen, man, do you think that over the past several months, literally the only thing Trump has done was talk about Ukraine?
What about every other country on this planet?
I'm sure he's had numerous meetings about Brazil or Iran.
I mean, we almost went to war.
But for some reason people believe Trump was obsessed.
No, I'll tell you what I think happened.
I think the president's sitting there twiddling his thumbs, you know, while someone talks to him about some security issue that he's not super interested in.
And then someone pulls up folder 7 of 53 and says, now about Ukraine.
And Trump goes, I heard from Giuliani they were corrupt.
I don't know, we shouldn't be giving them money if they're just going to steal it, right?
If they want to prove it to me, but anyway, what's the next folder?
And that was it.
Like, my assumption about this is that all of these things, like, you gotta understand, these people testifying, these witnesses and experts on Ukraine, do you think Trump only has a cabinet that deals with Ukraine?
Or do you think all of his staff, White House staff, national security personnel, deal with a ton of other countries as well?
So you have to take that into consideration.
That the president probably looked at 50 different folders and said, I don't know, Giuliani said they're corrupt.
You figure it out.
Get them to say, like, to commit in some way.
What's the next one?
Could have been a couple seconds.
And for the most part, most of these people never even talked with the president.
That's amazing.
But let's do this.
First, I want to show you a couple more stories just moving quickly.
The left will tell you that, you know, Vindman was this great hero.
No.
The New York Post runs this op-ed saying he condemned himself.
Because I gotta tell you my opinion.
And just take my opinion for what it is.
You can, you know, find your own opinion.
It's fine.
I looked at this guy as somebody who was mad that he wasn't more prestigious, I guess.
He corrected, I think it was Nunes, when someone called him Mr. Vindman.
He says, that's Lieutenant Colonel.
It's like, dude, I get it.
You got an ego, alright?
Respect.
Like, or I can respect your ego, fine.
Like, I'll call you what you want to be called, right?
I'll use someone's title if they ask.
But he was complaining apparently about not getting to go to a trip to Ukraine, and then his boss, Morrison, testified that they questioned his judgment.
So it's like, this dude was just salty, and it appears this guy may have been the person who leaked to the whistleblower.
So here we have an insubordinate staffer who's upset that he's not getting the respect he deserves, call me Lieutenant Colonel, and then going and ranting to his friend, who then goes and writes a whistleblower report.
That was wrong and out of context.
So let's just jump straight at it, because otherwise, you know, I don't want to waste too much time.
This is from today.
Gordon Sondland, ambassador to the EU, just flipped on Trump.
Nothing happened.
You know what, man?
There is, I believe it is fair to say, this is the best interview Democrats have gotten so far.
Sondland said yes to quid pro quo.
But the problem we're seeing now in the political space is this discussion over what constitutes victory.
In my opinion, we've got to look at this from like legal standards.
I understand it's a political fight.
Sondland did not say that Trump wanted dirt on Biden.
I'm sorry.
It just didn't happen.
Several journalists have posted, have written that he's confirmed that Trump, as a quid pro quo, wanted an investigation into Biden.
But Sondland has said over and over so far today, not Biden, Burisma, not Biden, Burisma.
Yet the journalists are still saying Biden because apparently they're biased.
Look, man, let me wrap it up for you.
Well, this was good for Democrats because he said, yes, there was a quid pro quo.
Everyone knew it.
If Ukraine wanted the aid, they had to announce this investigation.
The problem is what are we getting to its core?
I think this actually could undermine Democrats.
Let me stress.
It does give Democrats a win in many areas, but you must consider quid pro quo is not illegal.
Joe Biden's done it.
Obama's done it.
It's normal.
The issue is, was the quid pro quo.
For political campaigns or to weed out corruption, either one of those will be your opinion.
So in the end, it will be political.
What do the American people believe?
I think the Democrats are hoping that they're going to convince people that it was really about digging up dirt on Biden.
I just don't see any evidence to that.
The problem is, the Democrats are not digging at whether or not Trump's intent was dirt.
They're digging at whether or not quid pro quo happened.
So I've seen conservatives, Trump supporters, saying it was a mistake for the conservatives, for the White House, to fight over quid pro quo.
I disagree.
Quid pro quo is not a crime.
It is not impeachable.
Let the Democrats win that fight, and you go, oh, drat, you won on quid pro quo.
And then once it finally comes to the trial, the Democrats are going to say, well, we proved quid pro quo, and everyone's going to be like, congratulations, that's not impeachable.
No, but it was about campaign dirt.
Ah, sorry, you didn't spend any of the time during the impeachment hearings proving Trump's intent to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.
Perhaps there's some statement from Trump saying, I'm going to lose to Biden.
Nothing.
Never been brought up.
Perhaps there was a document that shows Biden is going to beat Trump and Trump was concerned about it.
Never happened.
Did the Democrats ask any of these people, has Trump ever expressed concern to you that Biden was going to beat him in 2020?
No.
All they're doing is talking about Burisma Biden and quid pro quo.
Congratulations.
No substance, no proof that Trump wanted dirt on Biden.
So in the end, my conclusion is, Trump wanted an investigation.
I don't know why.
The assumption, based on what we're hearing from the staff, is that there were concerns that Ukraine would siphon away U.S.
taxpayer dollars to oligarchs.
That's the best-case scenario.
If Democrats want to disprove that narrative, they have to ask, at any point, did Trump express fear that he would lose to Joe Biden?
Did he say this could be an attempt to help him win?
Did he say if Ukraine announces this, they might give me a leg up in 2020?
Did anything ever happen like that?
No.
No one has asked a single question about intent.
In the end, this is a waste of time.
And I'm sorry you've watched this much of it.
Seriously.
But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that it's true Gordon Sondland flipped and he's providing contradictory testimony.
First, we have this tweet.
From Pence's Chief of Staff, Mark Short.
Ambassador Gordon Sondland was never alone with Vice President Pence on their September 1st trip to Poland.
This alleged discussion recalled by Ambassador Sondland never happened.
It doesn't matter so much what Sondland said or what this pertains to, just the fact is that Sondland flipped and now his testimony seemingly doesn't make sense and it's even being contradicted by Pence's Chief of Staff.
We also can point this out.
On November 14th, U.S.
envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid Ukraine minister.
But someone, the Ukraine minister is saying it didn't happen?
You know what, man?
I think I've just about had enough.
I think we know this is a waste of time.
The Democrats aren't investigating anything of substance, and so this is just dragging them down to where they're losing independence.
Independent voters oppose what they are doing now.
Or more so, I should say.
They still have some.
But in the end, these are the votes you need.
I think Adam Schiff, I think Nancy Pelosi, they're not coordinating.
They don't know what their strategy is.
Without a strong leader in the Democratic Party, this is what you get.
I imagine that you've got Pelosi, Schumer, and you've got Schiff, and they're arguing over what move should be made, and Schiff finally pushed them towards impeachment and Nadler.
And in the end, there's no charismatic leader to unite the party.
Obama has tried and failed.
But don't let that stop the left from saying basically the same thing I am.
am.
Radley Balco, two observations.
The two witnesses Republicans wanted were incredibly damning to Trump.
This would matter only if the Republicans were susceptible to being persuaded by facts
or reality.
They aren't.
So they'll claim vindication anyway.
Now listen, I will leave you with one very, very important point.
I don't know if I'm in a bubble and you're in a bubble and they're in bubbles.
Who's right?
Where's objective reality?
Honestly, it's hard to know for sure when someone tweets that these, these two witnesses,
Volker and Morrison were damning the Trump when they actually defended him.
I saw that.
And I said, wow, this is bad for Democrats.
And I got to tell you, man, even according to Time Magazine, Schiff was getting angry.
And presumably he was getting angry because they kept rejecting the Democrat premise.
And for like an hour and a half, I was listening to these guys defend the president inadvertently.
Like they insulted him to an extent.
They said he was accused of believing conspiracy theories.
He was wrong, but nothing illegal or impeachable.
So Schiff got mad.
Yet still they say Republicans don't believe the facts.
Radley, I think you've done some great work.
He's written about police and security apparatus and stuff like that.
It's been very great.
But let me just tell you one thing.
I don't know who's right or who's wrong.
I understand the point you're making.
I just made the same point.
But at the end of the day, The independents now oppose the impeachment inquiry after the first week of hearings.
So if you believe that it's the Republicans who are trapped in a parallel reality, I'd have to look to the polls and show you that whether or not they're right or wrong, maybe you're right, maybe they can't be persuaded by facts, but I'll tell you what, you are now in the minority.
Okay.
Actually, no, I take that back.
I think in terms of support or opposition, most people, by two percentage points, people support removal versus opposing it.
But what I should say is the people in the middle who haven't made up their minds, the independent voters, the Republicans overwhelmingly support Trump.
The poll shows it.
The Democrats overwhelmingly oppose Trump.
Your side is your side and you can rag on the Republicans all you want.
But I will tell you this.
Republicans might not be able to be swayed by facts, fine, make that point.
Independents, the people you're trying to convince, disagree with you.
And they are now opposing what you are doing.
In the end, I can only say it seems like this is falling into a Republican victory overall.
Gordon Sondland testified many things that will benefit the Democrats.
It was a great win for them in many ways.
But in the end, so far, the ratings are down, people don't really care, and the independents oppose impeachment.
This will likely play out very well for Trump in 2020.
But it is not over!
We have yet to collect the data, and the hearings are currently happening as I record this video, so keep that in mind as we move forward.
Although it's entirely possible I just stopped talking about impeachment.
Man, it is... There was... Let me tell you.
There was a day, I remember, where everything was great.
I was feeling great.
I was energized.
I was passionate.
And then something happened.
And I can't remember what that story was, but all of a sudden it felt like someone took a sledgehammer to my chest, and it was just like, I snapped.
This is insane.
It's Russiagate 2, electric boogaloo.
It's the same thing over and over again.
But I saw it reflected in viewership and engagement and TV ratings.
Whatever hit me, hit everyone else all the same.
And I'm confident that, you know, the past few videos I've done on impeachment, they've done rather poorly.
Relative to where things were, you know, a while ago, I think people have genuinely just said, I'm tired of this.
Enough.
So if you've managed to watch this video all the way to the end, you have my profound respect.
Because I- I can't- I can't- I can barely stand sitting here listening to this.
And for you to sit here and listen to me every day, that's impressive.
So you have my eternal gratitude.
If you do think I could do a good job, please consider sharing the video.
But I will wrap it up there.
Next segment will be at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Did you notice yesterday I did a video about aliens?
I actually did pretty well.
Not the greatest video I've ever done in terms of, like, interest.
But it feels good to talk about something other than this insanity.
I will see you all at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and thank you again for watching.
New York City is exporting homeless people to other states and abandoning them.
Chicago is running solitary confinement for children in grade schools when they're naughty.
And Los Angeles is seeing the resurgence of medieval diseases.
Welcome, my friends, to the Nightmare Dystopia.
On today's episode, I have for you an even more chilling story.
Chinese agents, we believe, we don't know for sure, but assailants entered the Epoch Times in Hong Kong, a paper that has been pretty, you know, they've given pretty positive coverage to the Hong Kong resistance protests.
Well, these assailants showed up and torched the printing press.
For those that aren't familiar, the Epoch Times is associated, I believe, with the Falun Gong movement.
There's some controversy around that, I suppose, but for the most part, They're a fairly credible outlet.
They get a very similar rating from the News Guard rating agency to CNN.
I know that's not saying a lot, but CNN.com is very different from, you know, say, Brian Stelter or Don Lennon.
And the fact is, I'm not saying that because I know a lot of people are going to be like, CNN's awful.
But in terms of how the mainstream, uninitiated political people view it, Epoch Times is considered on par with CNN's, which is a good thing in perception.
Now, I personally believe Epoch Times is substantially better than CNN, but they did get criticism because they don't hate the president enough.
There was some concern that they didn't include negative information about Trump.
So suffice it to say, The Epoch Times does a fairly good job in a lot of ways, and I think the coverage they do is relatively similar to mine, like, you know, the Orange Man is not that bad, right?
Everyone's kind of freaking out.
So here's the Nightmare Dystopia story.
We've got a few.
For one, Arson in Hong Kong.
Masked men set fire to the Epoch Times and Hong Kong print shop.
Staff managed to put out the fire, but only after affecting significant damage.
CCP involvement is suspected, given HK Epoch Times truthful and transparent coverage of the Hong Kong protests.
I think it's fair to say we all Have a pretty good idea of what's happening in Hong Kong.
Freedom-loving protesters who are not perfect, who have done things I've heavily criticized, right?
They've beaten people, they've vandalized stuff.
They're far from perfect, but this is a group of people fighting for free speech and resisting the Communist Party of China.
I absolutely will condemn the violence against civilians, the targeting of individuals who they think or they suspect might be, you know, communist or something.
Those are all bad things we would criticize anti before.
But let's be real.
Resisting the Communist Party of China's influence into your country, into your, I guess you could call it, you know, sovereign region.
I apologize if I'm not understanding what it is.
Special economic zone, whatever.
Resisting the Communist Party of China is legitimate.
Complaining about the Orange Man is somewhat legitimate, but not walking around bashing progressives over it.
Look, Antifa goes around beating random people.
I'm sorry, that has nothing to do with resisting fascism.
This, the Hong Kong protests, is substantially more legitimate, though again, can be criticized.
Well, you now have Suspected involvement from the Communist Chinese Party coming in.
And I gotta say, man, this video's crazy.
I think... I don't wanna play it entirely, but I just wanna show you here, for those that are watching, this is a big fire it damaged.
So my understanding is that the printing press is not owned by the Epoch Times.
It's like the Epoch Times commissions them.
I could be wrong.
Here's the Nightmare Dystopia part.
For one, look, we all know that the Chinese government is gonna go and try and destroy the free press, right?
Guess who else wants to destroy the free press?
Would you be surprised if I told you that NBC News smears Epoch Times and the Wall Street Journal says its attack on the Epoch Times is in line with Beijing's propaganda demonizing Falun Gong?
The NBC News put out a ridiculous smear, and I was surprised to see that Epoch Times got a strike from NewsGuard over the fact that they're not negative about Trump enough.
Seriously, NewsGuard, I do not think they're perfect.
I use them because to check on my bias.
But they said something to the effect that because the Epoch Times regularly covers Trump in a neutral to positive way, they're not showing their difference in opinion, like they're not admitting, or they're conflating opinion with news.
It's like, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on.
If Donald Trump goes to, you know, the Mall of America and gives a speech, and I say Donald Trump today showed up at the Mall of America and gave a speech, many people were excited.
That's, that's, there you go.
What do you want me to do?
Apparently, because they didn't say, and there were also protesters, they were rated bad for it.
Now, Epoch Times is pretty good.
They're biased.
That's fine.
Everybody has their perspective.
But they are far from the worst.
And I do think they're way better than CNN.
But NBC News came after them, and it was weird.
And I think the reason is, Epoch Times will tell the truth about Donald Trump.
I mean, let's just be honest.
Like, you know, there's something weird going on in terms of the nightmare dystopia that we're currently in.
And it's mind-blowing to me with all the impeachment stuff, which I am so sick and tired of.
And I know all of you are too.
Ratings are down.
My friends and family are like, no one cares anymore, dude.
And I'm like, I know, I know.
I don't even know if I'm going to do a video on it later.
But there's something crazy in that Yesterday, the testimony of Tim Morrison and Volker completely undermined everything the Democrats said.
But I'm not going to get fully into that.
I just want to mention, what do I see from all of these people on Twitter?
This is damning for Trump.
Oh, this is the worst day for Trump.
And I'm like, what are you talking about?
These two people testified everything was above board.
What's going on?
They're trying to control the narrative.
There are a lot of people who don't know or care, and they'll just say whatever they think will pander to the tribe, instead of looking at the facts objectively.
Epoch Times is a problem in that case.
Because again, while I'll stress, they're far from perfect.
I don't think anybody's perfect, by all means.
Just because I'm giving them praise for doing a pretty good job doesn't mean they've always done everything right.
You can criticize them, that's fine.
But now we can see Well look, it's no surprise to anybody that China's gonna go torch a printing press, right?
But NBC News pulled this off.
This was in August.
And now for the even more nightmarish story.
The real story here.
Reuters completely changes article on Hong Kong protesters and issues no correction.
This to me is the scariest thing.
And this is where I think we need to have a serious conversation about the nightmare dystopia we're in.
Listen, all of these things happening in these other cities that I mentioned, New York exporting homeless people, the collapse of their public infrastructure.
Yeah, there's a lot of bad things happening.
And I only mentioned one of these things because I was making a point about how There's some pretty bad stuff happening.
I mean, Chicago operates torture facilities.
Los Angeles has a drug homeless problem.
San Francisco's covered in feces.
Yeah, we got a lot of nightmarish dystopian problems.
Reuters issuing no correction and changing a story to remove the fact that the Chinese Communist Party was threatening the protesters with live ammunition.
That's what they did.
And I have to wonder why.
I think I can tell you why.
These companies want money from China.
So let me ask you a question.
At what point is this treason, and I mean this seriously, providing aid to an enemy of the United States?
Now, we can start here and say, is China a direct enemy of the US?
The answer is no, not legally.
We know there are main antagonists and opponents in geopolitics, but as far as legally, we're not at war and they're not an enemy of ours.
But there is a question.
At what point do we say when Reuters decides to protect the Chinese Communist Party for cash?
That they're acting against the interests of the United States people?
They're not informing us?
Listen.
You know, you wanna complain about the horrors of China and the concentration camps they're running?
Yeah, absolutely.
That's in China.
I think we gotta do something about it, I don't know what to do.
Right?
And mind you, I'm a very anti-war person, but I'll tell you what, man, when it comes to liberating people from organ-harvesting concentration camps, I think that's a justifiable cause, though I'm not sure war is the right answer.
I'm just saying, Like, if you're gonna tell me we should drone bomb Yemen because Saudi Arabia pays the bills, I'm gonna be like, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Now, now, hold on.
We don't want to risk World War III because we want to make some cash selling, you know, missiles and bombs to another country who's having a conflict with another region over, you know, access to resources.
However, when China's operating concentration camps that harvest organs, there's a video of them loading Hong Kong protesters onto trains.
I think we've got bigger questions that need to be answered and a real debate needs to happen.
But I'll tell you what, man.
China's powerful.
They're very powerful, and they're going to become more powerful.
I don't know what the solution is, and I don't think anybody wants war, but I will ask, legitimately, where is that line?
Do we sit back and let them keep doing this?
But more worryingly is the fact that Reuters, for whatever reason, I don't know, I don't know why Reuters did this, changes a headline and removes one of the most damning things to date, threatening the protesters with live ammunition.
Check this out.
Daily Caller reports, Reuters changed an article about the Hong Kong protests Monday, first highlighting allegations that police were threatening protesters with live bullets and later omitting any mention of that news.
The original article is headlined, Hong Kong Police Threaten to Use Live Bullets as Standoff with Protesters Escalates, according to an archived version.
Published November 17th, the article described the ongoing and escalating violence of the months of Hong Kong protests, noting in the first paragraph that police were escalating threats against rioters.
Quote, Hong Kong police threatened on money to fire live bullets if rioters did not stop using lethal weapons in the latest flare-up in the anti-government protests that have convulsed the Chinese-ruled city for five months.
Now, I gotta be fair, okay?
The problem was, some of the protesters were firing flaming arrows at the police.
And the police were basically saying, these have the potential for lethal violence as well as petrol bombs, therefore we will respond in kind.
I think, Escalation's inevitable, and it's worrying.
And I'm not saying that all of the protesters are innocent.
Of course not.
At what point do you escalate from throwing rocks to firing flaming arrows?
I don't know, man.
But it's complicated when you're dealing with a country that's got a million-plus people in organ-harvesting concentration camps.
If that's the case, just report the news.
Why remove that?
I don't know.
I really don't.
I think it may have to do with Reuters having an international group of journalists, and they're scared that they will be restricted in China.
Access is everything.
There was apparently some Australian guy who was a politician.
I don't know how the story pulled up, so fact-check me on this one.
But he said something to the effect of, you know, China, you know, he insulted, he criticized them over a lot of the stuff.
So they said he can't come, unless he apologizes.
And he says, no way!
I'm not gonna apologize.
China is growing out of control.
The things they're doing around the world are becoming nightmarish.
The things they're doing in Hong Kong are what nightmares are made of.
So I can joke about New York's homeless problem, which is disturbing.
Los Angeles' drug, homeless, and feces crisis, also very, very disturbing.
But I'll tell you what, man.
Oregon harvesting concentration camps takes that cake.
So yeah, I can jokingly complain.
I mean, half-jokingly.
These are serious problems in the U.S.
we gotta deal with.
I guess the Orange Man is so bad that we can't focus on those real problems.
Fine.
And the Orange Man is so bad, we're not gonna deal with organ-harvesting concentration camps.
That, to me, is mind-blowing.
And that's why I'm leading today with this big story.
It's actually really scary to me that a company, a news agency, would say, instead of informing the American people, you know, Reuters is headquartered in Times Square, the Thomson Reuters building, instead of informing the American people as to what's going on, we need the access to China, they got money, look at what those NBA, I can't remember the NBA, I'm not a fan of the NBA, but look at how fast they bend the knee to China for that sweet, sweet won.
That's scary.
China is doing something.
You know what, man?
All of these companies, they want to claim that they're all about social justice or whatever.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, man.
You want to talk about BDS boycotting Israel?
China is operating organ harvesting concentration camps.
Something.
Something needs to be done.
And I don't know what the answer is.
Because I don't know if there's a strong enough, you know, I don't know if war would be the answer.
Maybe I'm definitely jumping the gun on this one.
Maybe hard diplomacy sanctions.
I gotta say it, man.
Trump is trying to take China to task.
He really is.
And I'll tell you this.
I don't know if what he's doing will work, if it's right or wrong.
There's a lot of subsidies now being paid to farmers because of the trade war.
There's a lot of negatives.
But I'll tell you what, when Trump said China had to be taken on, he was right.
And I'll tell you what the problem is.
If you got a problem with that, and I don't, look, I can talk about the Saudi Arabia stuff and disagree with Trump on a lot of things.
When it comes to trade with China, man, I'm not gonna, I don't know.
Right or wrong, I have no idea.
I can point out some of the criticisms, but I really just don't know.
So I'll tell you what, if you're somebody who hates the president, doesn't like Trump, you should have focused on the growing threat of China a long time ago, and you didn't.
And in fact, Obama and Hillary Clinton wanted to give them more with the TPP.
You see what's happening with this country, and they're growing out of control, and something needs to be done about it.
So these people who are screeching that the orange man is bad, I'm like, listen man, Like most presidents, they have problems.
Obama had a ton of problems.
He prosecuted more whistleblowers who leaked to journalists than all other presidents combined.
Donald Trump, in my opinion, has taken some foreign policy actions that I really disagree with and I think there really are leadership issues.
The president should not be tweeting during an impeachment inquiry, right?
During an impeachment hearing.
The White House should not be posting these things.
This is exactly what gets Trump into these problems and opens up the door for the Democrats to waste time.
So Trump is deserving of some of that, you know, criticism.
He's responsible for some of this.
I mean, think about it.
If Trump just had one of his people make that phone call about investigating Burisma and the Bidens, we wouldn't be in this mess.
But Trump is a guy who says, I'm going to do it.
I know it's best.
And look, I get it.
That's why a lot of people like him.
I can understand that.
And I think in some ways there are good things about having someone who's willing to take charge, especially as I'm talking about China.
But in the end, you know, I think for me, I will say, Something needs to be done about this.
At least Trump is doing something.
I don't know if it's right or wrong because I am not an expert in those areas and I've heard criticism and praise based on what Trump is doing.
So what do you want me to say about it?
All I can tell you is, hey man, for the longest time our leaders sat by while this problem grew like a dangerous I don't know what to call it.
I gotta be careful about what the words I say, but it is getting worse.
And at a certain point, you know, we see what they're doing to their people.
We see media companies bending over backwards.
They removed it, said the article was updated Monday.
Now it reads like a different post, with no paragraph the same as original.
The headline now is, a Hong Kong university, a daring escape but fears of bloodshed.
There's nothing on this article that mentions anything about an update or a correction.
It just says, November 17th, a day ago.
Look at the- look- can you see the URL?
Look at the URL up top.
Hong Kong police threaten to use live bullets as standoff with protesters escalates.
I don't care if you want to protest the president.
about these problems like when I was talking about them during Obama years
when I made videos about the NDA which is still on my main channel you can read
about the AUMF about prosecuting whistleblowers you said nothing you
clapped and cheered as as your president did all of these things and now that
Trump does things that are in line with what past presidents have done you're
screeching the top of your lungs fine I don't care if you want to protest the
president but come on man okay what's happening in China is damn near
nightmarish dystopia And I mean that literally.
I can joke about the US, but this is nuts.
And now I'm worried seeing NBC News and Reuters seemingly getting in line with the Communist Party of China.
So you know what?
I'll say it.
I have no problem.
And if in 10 years China takes over the world because these people are screeching about the Orange Man, and they do nothing to stop the encroaching insanity of the Chinese Communist Party, when they're paying off the NBA, when they're paying off video game companies, and they're seeping in to every aspect of this world, they will become the dominant power.
They will take over.
And then you know what?
Fine.
Maybe the communists will string me up, but I will say it now.
Something needs to be done about this.
They are harvesting organs.
You can see these camps from space.
Okay?
Meanwhile, you're sitting there saying, but the Orange Man is the second coming of Hitler!
Shut up.
Just stop.
Okay?
Man, there are real problems in this world, and we're facing it down, okay?
You want to complain about Donald Trump saying, uh, the enemy of the people, the press.
Aw, poor babies.
You got insulted?
People who we believe may be associated, at least in favor of, the Communist Party of China just torched a printing press.
And you know what?
It comes a few months after NBC News joined the smear fest against a news outlet because they have some people who believe some... I don't know.
They have a religious group that runs part of the company?
Man, I'll tell you what, I think we're doomed.
I really do.
Because nothing's gonna stop China.
They are powerful, and they are paying people off.
And it's very easy.
China goes to these NBA guys and says, don't insult us, we got money for you.
And what do they do?
They say, hey man, leave China alone.
Dude.
NBA bros, I can't remember your names, but you are literally defending a country that is harvesting the organs of people based on their religion, locking them in concentration camps.
We know where you would be in World War II.
To all those people who claim that Trump is pure evil running concentration camps, I know where you would be in World War II as well.
You wouldn't be dealing with the actual problem.
You'd be ignoring it.
You'd be complaining about some dumb domestic issue.
Meanwhile, overseas, in a massive country with a billion people, they're gaining power.
They're putting pressure on the South China Sea.
They're invading the territory of other sovereign nations.
They're locking up their own people in re-education camps, where they also happen to be like, hey, you got an extra kidney!
I can just take it!
Yeah.
And then you have the nerve to call us right-wing fascists or whatever.
Nice try, dude.
Nice try.
It's mind-blowing to me to see people on the left defending the police in Hong Kong and defending the Communist Party of China.
There is no grounds for this, period.
We know what they're doing.
So you know what, man?
I can open this video with a funny joke about the Nightmare Dystopia, but who's gonna do anything about this?
I honestly don't know.
I really don't.
Trump, I guess?
Is Trump, you know, is his plan perfect?
I don't know, man, I'll tell you what.
If you don't like what he's doing, then the worst thing you can say is that Trump is doing it wrong, but at least he's doing something, alright?
I think a really big issue for me, you know, coming in 2020 is who's going to stand up to China?
And I'll tell you what, this problem cannot be ignored any longer.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel and I will see you all there.
A Democratic state senator has announced he is leaving the Democratic Party because they are moving too far to the left.
Now Fox News refers to it as the increasingly liberal party and I take issue with that because I view myself as fairly liberal and the Democratic Party is anything but.
They're continually embracing far-left, identitarian, socialist policies that is not liberal.
Liberal is kind of based in liberty.
Not always, the word has changed, but the point is, far-left does not mean liberal.
Let's take back that word.
But, let's take a look at this story.
And I want to highlight something after this as well.
Obama warned.
You're going too far left.
And they refused to listen.
So I tell you what.
As these younger progressives and far left start getting more and more media play because their allies in media prop them up, they're going to fracture and destroy the Democratic Party.
It's not going to be this, you know, I imagine that the Young Turks and AOC and all these other people are imagining this future where they run the Democratic Party.
No, no, no, no, no.
No, you will destroy it and then you'll have something else.
But here's the big challenge I see in this country is we're, for the most part, a two-party system.
It's not perfect.
There's a lot of problems.
We could implement ranked choice voting or a multi-party system.
But the point is, for the time being, what they're going to do, in my opinion, will ensure a Republican presidency for several generations to come.
I mean generations of presidency, not, you know, like human generations.
I mean, like, we'll probably have a Republican come 2025.
Probably after that, too.
Because the Democrats are split in half, so they're likely not going to be able to pull together.
And here's just more proof.
Let's read the story from Fox News.
They say, a Democratic state senator in Pennsylvania who represents a district that flipped to Trump in 2016 said he plans to become an independent and caucus with the Republicans because he's tired of purist politicians and felt a disconnect with the increasingly liberal party.
Quote, As an independent, I will continue to put people above politics, said Senator John Yudachek, who represents Pennsylvania's 14th senatorial district in the northeastern part of the state.
I will continue to support Democratic ideas as well as Republican ideas when it is clear that they serve the greater good and help government work for people rather than the narrow interests of partisan purists.
Now, I will make a very important distinction.
I believe it was, correct me if I'm wrong in the comments, Justin Amash left the Republican Party to become an independent, that's at the federal level.
And that's significant too.
And we've known for a while that with Trump a lot of Republicans are retiring.
Here's the thing though.
When it comes to Democrats, there's an internal civil war.
When it comes to Republicans, they have people leaving.
This is just another instance of someone leaving, but you combine this with Nancy Pelosi butting heads with AOC, with Obama warning everybody, with the Gallup poll showing the split between the progressives and the conservative and moderate Democrats, and what we see with Republicans is that for the most part, they are rallying behind Trump.
Tremendous support.
Some people are leaving.
I guess that's to be expected when you see this change in the Republican Party.
On the Democrats' side, however, they haven't.
The establishment refuses to let go.
They're holding on for dear life, and because of that, the left is gaining more ground.
You will start seeing people defect, but you will also see a loss, right?
So when people like Amash or whoever leave the Republican Party, they can be replaced.
Someone else will come in and vote because Republicans do like Donald Trump.
This is different.
The Democrats are fighting over progressive or moderate and the moderates... I hate saying moderate because it's more like the crony establishment types.
They're not going to stop.
They're not going to give up.
They resisted Bernie Sanders and are refusing to let the far left take over.
Senate Minority Leader Jay Costa said Democrats were extremely disappointed by Yudhoychuk's decision to turn away from their big tent values.
Yudhoychuk responded that the Democrats' tent is shrinking every day.
The Republicans will likely have a 29-21 majority next year, with Yudhoychuk and a January special election in a solidly Republican district.
This is unique, Yudhoychuk said.
I'm an independent.
I'm going to be fiercely independent.
I've been independent by nature.
Now it's going to be by party.
So what do you think?
re-election to a third term in 2018 in the district without any challengers.
He said his stances on issues won't change and he'll continue to support some of the
Democratic Governor Tom Wolf's policies.
Democrats picked up six seats in the state in 2018, causing the party to look at potentially
getting the majority for the first time in almost 30 years.
Yudhoychuk will be up for re-election in 2022.
And now it seems like that will not be the case.
So what do you think?
You know, after Obama said, listen, you know, this is, it's not going well, right?
You've got to stop this.
What do you think the response was?
Well, let me show you this story from The Guardian first.
Democratic candidates reject Obama's warning of going too far left.
I'm not tearing down the system, Bernie Sanders says in response to former president's message.
You are.
You are.
We know it is the left that has jumped off a cliff, not the right, not the moderates.
So I'm sitting here listening to Republicans, listening to Democrats, and Democrats just jumped off a cliff, and the media went right after.
And now we can see it.
Again, I will make sure it's absolutely clear.
You did have some Republicans retire, some anger.
But look at it this way.
With the Republican side, you have a pyramid.
That's what the data shows us.
Most people agree on their values, and some people fall off and leave.
With the Democrats, you have a flat space fractured in the middle.
You have two different pyramids, with people jumping over and being like, the moderates are being like, I'm out later.
So that means the Democrats' support is going to shrink.
While Republicans do lose some people from the fringes, they will just be replaced by more people who support the president.
The Democrats don't have a unifying figure.
Not even Obama could bring the Democrats together.
And that's the important point.
Nothing unifies Democrats.
They're in a state of civil war, and they completely disagree.
And I will tell you this, as somebody who has always been on the Democrat side, yeah, I'm proof of that, dude!
You look at Tulsi Gabbard, and who supports her?
A ton of people who are Bernie or Bust support Tulsi Gabbard.
That's what the data shows.
It's amazing.
People who voted for Bernie Sanders, or who primaried for the Democrats, and then flipped for Trump.
I know people who straight up voted for Trump and now want to support Tulsi Gabbard because to a lot of these people, they said Trump was better than Hillary.
Obama steps up saying, listen, OK, we need to bring things together.
And their response?
Get out of here, Obama.
You don't know what you're talking about.
Obama does.
However, it doesn't matter because they don't like Obama either.
They call Obama right wing.
The far left does not see themselves in Barack Obama.
And that just shows exactly what I'm saying.
So what do we get?
AOC.
Democrats are not headed too far left, says Ocasio-Cortez.
We are bringing the party home.
I want to be the party of the New Deal again, says the progressive congressman from New York.
The party of the Civil Rights Act.
The one that electrified this nation and fights for all people.
But let me assure you, listen.
Progress for the sake of progress doesn't seem to make sense.
Progress, in its truest definition, makes absolute sense.
We want to advance technology.
We want to protect civil rights.
We want to make sure we are thinking ahead and planning for our future.
That's not what they're talking about.
What they're doing is they're taking things that we've already accomplished, like the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which grants a ton of protections, and they're just, like, instead of saying, what's the next thing we can do to make things better, they're saying, take that thing from the past and beat it over the head with a hammer.
You know, like, turn the knob to 11.
Listen.
We have civil rights.
We passed that law.
That fight has been won.
For the most part.
It's not perfect.
There can be some advancements and changes.
Racism is still a big problem.
But the law is the law.
And the culture needs to change.
Okay?
What they're talking about, the New Deal again.
We did a New Deal for a reason.
Okay?
We had a Great Depression.
We had war.
We are not in the same place.
You are looking to the past because you are regressives.
You are reactionaries.
See, here's the problem.
They like to claim that people like me are reactionary and their argument is that we're resisting the change.
You're not changing things.
You're trying to make things the way they were a hundred years ago.
Okay, the New Deal may not be what we need today.
Jacking up the minimum wage may not be what we need today.
That's not progress.
Technology is changing.
Our culture is very different, and the international stage looks very different.
Your archaic plans, based off a hundred years ago, are reactionary.
They are saying, why can't we be like we were a hundred years ago?
Why can't we be still fighting for civil rights, even though we won that fight?
Now I get it.
There are some areas that we can fight for.
But listen.
The fight for civil rights was very specific.
Laws were passed.
Those laws exist.
Now you just want to keep fighting the same thing that was already done?
Now they want to add new language, like the Equal Rights Amendment.
That would actually take rights away.
These people are reactionaries.
They're trying to bring us back in time.
They're ignoring technological development.
You know what, man?
This right here is the perfect example.
I want to be the party of the New Deal again.
Now look, I'll spare no punches for the make America great again, but at least make America great again is a nebulous phrase that says we're going to make America great.
Not by old standards.
It doesn't actually specify anything and could mean something different to different people because Well, it doesn't really mean anything.
Being great could be based on technology, development, our current state culture.
It could mean a lot of reasons.
To be great today requires a different path.
So certainly, the left has criticized the right saying they're trying to bring us back in time.
But quite literally, we are seeing now a Democrat defecting.
I know it's a state senator in Philly.
It kind of matters to me because I live in the Philly area.
But now you can see it plain as day.
I want to be the party of the New Deal again.
The New Deal may or may not have made sense.
Depending on who you ask, they might tell you it was a success or a failure, but the left believes it was a great success.
And I think most people kind of do.
Okay, does that mean we need the exact same plan today?
No.
Does that mean we should look to the past and see what they did to try and solve our problems today?
Absolutely not!
Could you imagine if somebody said something like, in order to solve, you know, crossing the Atlantic Ocean, we should build wooden frigates and caravels?
Look what they used to do!
I want to be the party of Ferdinand Magellan again!
No!
What?
We developed different solutions.
We advanced technology.
The New Deal might not make sense.
It may!
Just because it's an old idea doesn't mean it won't work today, but I'm saying, they're looking to the past, they're romanticizing the way things were, and they're trying to rewind time.
And I'll give you another really great example.
AOC did this art piece with a painting and pictures of her, and she was like, in 50 years, 50-year-old Ocasio-Cortez is teaching a group of young, diverse people of color to be in Congress.
And she lets, you know, whatever.
She actually says in this art piece that They will start replanting trees with the help of native elders because of their expertise.
Okay, let me point something out.
You should watch it, you should.
It's something to that effect.
This is reactionary.
It is romanticizing the past.
Okay?
We had shamans, shamanic elders, who were doing rain dances.
That doesn't mean it worked.
It doesn't mean they know anything better.
You know who knows better?
Biochemical engineers.
People who can splice and crisper.
And genetic advancements, and plant, and we had people like Norman Borlaug who did artificial selection to increase crop yields.
No!
Trying to get shamanic elders to teach the poor, you know, technologically advanced culture how to do things right is reactionary.
The word reactionary doesn't mean like you're reacting to something.
It's a reference to, I believe, France, where you had revolutionaries who wanted to, you know, remove the monarchy, and you had the right which reacted to that.
That's where it comes from.
So they try to claim that the people telling them to stop doing this are reactionary because we're rejecting change.
But this isn't change!
They're quite literally trying to do what we did a hundred years ago!
And stay on the exact same path.
No, we need progress.
I'll tell you what's progress.
I just watched a video from this guy.
I forgot what it's called.
Sorry, it was a great channel.
He was talking about a new solid-state battery.
And I don't know how old this video was, but he said there's been a new development that possibly we could have higher yield, denser, and safer solid-state batteries that could get a Tesla car a 700 mile per charge rating, right?
That's amazing.
Imagine, you charge one time, you can drive 700 miles.
That's battery technology.
That's progress.
When you have automation computers, okay, maybe a new deal doesn't make sense.
This is why I've complained about how the left just keeps saying minimum wage over and over and over again.
Maybe that made sense 50 years ago, but it doesn't make sense today when it's cheaper to install a computer and even a robot.
You know what?
I went to, where was I?
I was like at the airport.
And no, no, it was a rest station.
And they have a frozen yogurt with a topping stand, vending machine, and there's a robot man inside.
You press a button, and he goes and he grabs it, and he pulls the ice cream lever, and then he puts sprinkles on it.
I'm like, they've just turned an ice cream shop into a single machine.
So this is why what they're proposing is all reactionary.
They're saying, stop, don't change.
That's why I like Andrew Yang, because Andrew Yang said no to the minimum wage.
He says, we've got to talk about technology.
Breaking up Google doesn't necessarily make sense.
Does anybody want to use Bing?
I'm like, that's a really great point.
Even when it comes down to the things we've proposed in the past, like these monopoly laws against something like Google, He makes a great point.
Maybe the old solution isn't the solution.
Maybe we need a new solution for a change, for how technology is shaping our society in ways we never could have imagined.
Could you imagine, to use that similar analogy, if someone said, the solution to this problem is technology from 200 years ago, is policy from 200 years ago.
No!
When she says this to me, I'm like, you realize there were a lot of really, really bad ideas back then.
We don't want to go back to the way things were.
Now of course, I will stress, it is important we take the good ideas of yesteryear and maintain them today.
And that's a fair argument.
The problem with what she's saying is that the New Deal made sense based on the technology we had.
Today it might not make sense.
So while there are great ideas like, I don't know, English common law protecting the innocent, we've preserved those for thousands of years.
Well, not perfectly, but we've gotten really good at it.
At least better than we've been in a long time.
There certainly are good ideas from the past we keep.
This is, in my opinion, thinking that past technology and policy could be applied to today.
They want to bring us back in time.
I'm sorry, we can't do that.
The cat's out of the bag.
Social media has rapidly changed everything.
So you can't just ban speech now.
Sorry, those laws won't work.
Been there, done that.
We're in a different world today.
We need to think about solutions based on the problems of the day, with the available technology, and the state of our policy.
This is not it.
So I'll tell you what.
There are reactionaries who want to bring us back in time, so don't be surprised when the Democrats start saying, buh-bye!
And this guy's going to caucus now with Republicans.
Congratulations.
This is what you get when you don't listen.
I guess I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Oh man!
More impeachment news.
I think this might be the end.
I might just stop talking, period, about impeachment.
We'll see what happens.
I'll see you all then.
Major breaking bombshell reports are emerging from Interfax Ukraine, alleging that, well, I got to be very careful about how I say this, but it seems, let me just read for you.
$16.5 million received by Hunter Biden, the son of former US Vice President Joe Biden, as payment from Burisma was stolen from Ukrainian citizens, Member of Parliament Andriy Derkach has said.
Durkheist said at a press conference at the Kiev-based Interfax Ukraine news agency that on November 14th, the prosecutor general's office announced a new suspicion to the owner of Burisma, former ecology minister Mykola Zachevsky.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, let's slow down.
There's a lot you gotta know first.
Interfax is a Russian-owned website, but this story is getting a lot of traction because, naturally, it lends to the idea that Trump really did need to be investigating the Bidens and Ukraine.
Now, first, if the Prosecutor General's Office is releasing a new file, a document, a suspicion, whatever you want to call it, making these implications, then we're done.
It needs to be looked into.
There's more here, because apparently these MPs are calling on Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, to investigate $7.4 billion They say this, they say, suspicions of the legalization of $7.4 billion by the family of ex-president Viktor Yanukovych through the American investment fund Franklin Templeton Investments, which they said has ties to the U.S.
Democratic Party.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
First.
Interfax is a Russian news website.
As far as I know, I believe it to be the case.
I reached out to a trusted source and asked them what is the validity to this because these are huge bombshell accusations and I was told That Andrei Derkach is a pro-Russia MP.
Essentially that his sympathies are more to the Russian side of the ongoing conflict.
So take it all with a grain of salt.
Don't give it too much weight until these documents come out.
That is the most important thing I can tell you right now.
There's going to be a lot of people saying it exonerates the president, it's proof positive.
It is good for the president, yes, but not until the documents are public.
I will also stress John Solomon's reporting has tracked much of these similar reports, and it's been dismissed outright by the U.S.
media.
You need to understand, there absolutely is a conflict between U.S.
and Russian interests as it pertains to Ukraine.
Russia moved into Crimea, claiming it was a referendum.
There's a lot of complicated issues here.
So yes, Russia has interests and absolutely would be putting out this info, but none of that matters.
All that matters is whether or not the prosecutor in Ukraine did issue this, because as we know, Joe Biden intervened specifically to get rid of the bad ones, and they've claimed over and over again in these impeachment inquiries, these hearings, that Zelensky is on the level.
Volker and Morrison have said Zelensky's a good dude.
Trump didn't trust him.
So now you've got a conundrum here.
If this is true, and the prosecutor is saying this, then it stands to reason the new prosecutor and the new administration is on the level, and Trump was right.
They should be investigated.
Now let's say the prosecutor general is not on the level, and this is fake news.
Then Trump was right to investigate!
Why would the Prosecutor General make false accusations against Hunter Biden and potentially the Democrats?
Now, it's also fair to say, hold on, a lot of these accusations are coming from Andriy Derkach, and I'm not familiar with who he is.
So again, we need to figure out what's up with these documents.
But again, if it comes down to a filing by the prosecutor, the only outcome is that Ukraine must investigate.
Period.
Let's read.
The PGO document once again confirms the data I had previously published on Burisma and international corruption, according to Zlochevsky's suspicion notice.
Biden and partners received their $16.5 million for their services to Burisma.
Biden received funds not due to the successful activity of Burisma or for brilliant business decisions or recommendations.
This is the money of Ukrainian citizens.
The funds were obtained by criminal means.
That's what they say in the PGO, Derkach said.
Derkach said the new suspicion notice to Zlochevsky was received by him from investigative journalists.
You need to take it all with a grain of salt.
Until these documents are public, and these investigative journalists, whoever they are, we need to see the documents.
We need confirmation from the prosecutor.
So track this.
Again, fact-check me.
The main reason I wanted to do this segment is because, I'll be honest with you, I did not want to read inter-facts.
But I've seen some high-profile people sharing this story, and I believe this is a very, very important context.
The last thing you want to do is find yourself caught up in political disinformation.
I believe it's probable.
That this will come out from the PGO.
But we're nowhere near confirmation.
I have been wrong many times in the past, okay?
Take it with a grain of salt.
But I do think it's important to track this.
Interfax is not... Just because they're Russian doesn't mean they're not credible.
They do news.
And this is the Ukrainian arm of them, and that's fine, right?
What we need to figure out is now we go towards the investigation.
So again, I want to make sure I stress for the millionth time.
It's important.
Read this.
And we need to dig further.
There's a lot of people who are going to tell you it's true, and it may be.
Grain of salt.
We need more verification.
According to the investigations, Lachevsky was directly involved in the withdrawal of funds by the Yanukovych family.
They laundered the funds of Yanukovych through three companies in Latvia.
As reported on October 9th, Derkac made public official correspondence between the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine and the U.S.
Embassy, according to which First Deputy NABU Director Gizo Uglava, through his assistant Polina Chiz, provided the U.S.
Embassy with information that affected the course of events in Ukraine and U.S., according to him.
Chiz received an order from U.S.
employee Hannah Yemelyanova to provide information on the case of ex-ecology minister and Burisma Group owner Mykola Zlochevsky.
Zlochevsky revealed the amount of money that was transferred to the representatives of Burisma Group, including Hunter Biden.
According to the documents, about $16.5 million was transferred in favor of Hunter Biden, Alexander Kwasniewski, Alan Apter, and Devin Archer.
According to Durkacz, ex-prosecutor general Viktor Shokin repeatedly contacted NABU director Artem Sitnik in the framework of criminal proceedings involving Burisma, but constantly received formal replies.
The activities of Shokin, according to Durkacz, Irritated Joe Biden during his fifth visit to Kiev in two years on December 7th through 8th, 2015.
The visit was devoted to the issue of removing Shokin as prosecutor general and the affairs
of Zlochevsky and Brizma.
The instrument issued for pressure was the $1 billion credit guarantee that the United
States should have provided to Ukraine.
Biden himself acknowledged the pressure in his speech to the U.S. Foreign Relations Council
in January 2018.
On November 11, Derkacz said on his video blog that head of the Specialized Anti-Corruption
Prosecutors Office, Nazar Kolodnytsky, launched an investigation into his allegations that
the NABU had provided information to the U.S.
Embassy in Ukraine.
He also noted that from May 2014 until October 2015, Burisma transferred $4.817 million to
Rosemont and the latter transferred $871,000 to Hunter Biden.
Derkac, according to a source, may be pro-Russia, so take it into consideration.
Yes, the Russians do want to undermine our efforts in Ukraine.
Just because the Democrats are overplaying their hand and screeching Russia non-stop doesn't mean there isn't a risk here.
There is.
So again.
But however, we need to break this down because if this is true, This may be one of the most damning implications we have heard so far.
It might not be true, but if it is, we have a story now of Joe Biden intervening in a criminal investigation into Burisma, which is now being investigated again.
That's what they're saying.
And that Hunter Biden received substantially more money than previously thought, 16.5, and a lot of money, nearly 5 million to Rosamond Seneca.
Listen, if the United States is giving a billion dollars to Ukraine, and it's true that Ukrainian tax dollars are being siphoned back to the Bidens, and Joe Biden intervened and said, you will not get this money unless you do as I say, this sounds particularly bad.
Particularly bad.
But I'm sorry I have to do it again.
We are far from having confirmation on this.
This should be the point at which people in the United States, including real journalists, are digging.
But I want to bring up a more important point moving on from here, just to end this video.
Gordon Sondland flipped.
That's what we're hearing today in the impeachment inquiry.
They're saying he flipped, even though he's providing nothing and he's contradicting himself.
We've learned some very important things.
For one, according to Sondland's testimony, Donald Trump was asked, what do you want from Ukraine?
And Trump said, I want nothing.
I want nothing.
I want no quid pro quo.
Tell Zelensky to do the right thing.
I want him to do what he ran on.
That should be it.
Game over, right?
Game over.
The question is, even after Sondland testified to that fact, why would he come out now and say there was quid pro quo?
Well, I saw this tweet from Ari Melber, I believe of MSNBC, The Beat with Ari, airing on MSNBC.
He said, within a matter of days, Trump admin witnesses are seeing the stark choices between Roger Stone, obstruct convicted Friday and now facing serious prison time.
Giuliani, resist and facing a major SDNY probe.
Gordon Sondland, cooperate and reveal who ordered you to do what.
I'd like to point out the important takeaway from this tweet and the horrifying implication Ari is making.
Roger Stone wasn't convicted over anything to do with Russia collusion, for the most part.
What he's saying has nothing to do... I mean, Trump was exonerated, right?
Well, no, okay, the argue wasn't.
But Trump was cleared.
He did no wrong.
He did not collude with Russia.
Roger Stone still went to prison.
That's weird.
Giuliani.
Resist and face a major SDNY probe.
What does the SDNY probe have to do with Ukraine?
Nothing.
What Ari here is insinuating is that there are elements within the government that will jam you up.
They will find a reason unless you give them what they want.
That's what he's implicating.
This whole thing stinks.
All of it.
I can't tell you what's happening.
But we do have major conflicts of interest.
And I think based on the media reports around Hunter Biden going back to 2014, the dozen or so I pulled up on Twitter and posted the other day, every single time they said, corruption, corruption, corruption, Hunter Biden is undermining the US.
Nobody looked into it.
I'm going to have to lean towards, at the very least, it's time to investigate the Bidens.
Otherwise, you look at this terrifying potential reality.
What?
That if you're innocent of wrongdoing, but you don't do what these intelligence agencies want, they will find a way to put you in prison?
Welcome to your free world, huh?
I got a couple more videos coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I will see you shortly.
Another major breaking story.
We've had a ton going on today.
The FBI is seeking an interview with the CIA whistleblower.
It appears that the name may become public soon.
Yahoo News reports the FBI recently sought to question the CIA whistleblower who filed a complaint over President Trump's July 25th Ukraine call.
A move that came after a vigorous internal debate within the bureau over how to respond to some of the issues raised by the complaint's allegations And whether they needed to be more thoroughly investigated, according to sources familiar with the matter.
An FBI agent in the Washington field office in October reached out to one of the lawyers representing the whistleblower and asked to question the CIA analyst who triggered the congressional inquiry into the president's conduct, one of the sources said.
But no interview has yet to be scheduled.
It is unclear what the intended scope of the interview would be or whether the whistleblower's lawyers will agree to it.
Mark Zaid, one of the lawyers for the whistleblower, said he and his co-counsel would have no comment.
An FBI spokesperson also declined to comment.
This does not sound, for the most part.
Like the FBI is trying to dig into what the CIA whistleblower may have done wrong.
But it seems like the FBI might be investigating into whether the President did something wrong.
Now, it's strange, but I'll tell you what, with Russiagate and Mueller, I do not believe the FBI is acting in the interests of the elected President.
It sounds like they heard of a complaint, and they wanted to dig up dirt.
I'm being a little hyperbolic there, but it sounds like the FBI was looking into what the President may have done.
The request from the FBI comes at a sensitive moment where Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee are making repeated efforts to out the whistleblower in order to suggest he may have had political motivations hostile to the President when he filed his August 12th complaint with the Intelligence Community's Community Inspector General.
Now, he did, okay?
We know, for the most part, Listen, let me tell you something.
What people don't seem to understand about political bias is that they think people are actively biased.
As though someone, like, they're imagining that this individual is sitting there going like, I hate the president!
I must find a reason to destroy him!
I mean, that may be the case.
But in all actuality, the political bias is subtle.
Meaning, this individual is known to be a registered Democrat who worked for Obama, who is probably being fed information from politically biased sources, and he's watching MSNBC all day, and if that's the case, he doesn't know what's going on.
His actions are based on incomplete information due to his being in a bubble.
We can see that the impeachment hearings so far have revealed That's Vindman and Williams knew nothing about the Ukrainian scandal.
They didn't know anything.
You know, it's really annoying when subordinates think they know more than the people running the ship.
Could you imagine if you're piloting a boat, you're on a plane, you're flying that plane and you start doing a bank to the left.
And then all of a sudden, some guy, a steward, a flight attendant, says, why are we turning?
We're not supposed to be turning.
And he runs and starts complaining and demanding the pilot be removed because we shouldn't be turning this way.
I don't understand.
We never do this.
And the reason the plane was turning was because there was potential danger, a storm ahead, something, and they had to move.
These people don't know anything about what's going on, and they are causing undue strife to our country and massive partisan divide because they think they know better than the pilot.
Now in reality, it sounds like the pilot might be wrong.
Uh, uh, Volker and Morrison testified the president was believing fake news.
Sure.
Was- were we at risk of crashing because of the turn?
No!
Well, the pilot gets to choose!
So if he sees clouds ahead and says it looks like a storm and says it's not, trust us, I'm turning anyway.
So what?!
Let's read more.
They say any investigation by the FBI into the issues raised in the whistleblower complaint has the potential to introduce a new wild card into the debate over whether to impeach the president over his Ukraine dealings.
In late September, the Justice Department confirmed that Brian Benczkowski, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's criminal division and an appointee of Trump, had reviewed the whistleblower's detailed complaint the previous month and determined there was no violation of campaign finance laws by the president When he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to open up an investigation into the gas company that once paid Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, to serve on its board.
Thank you, Yahoo, for getting this right.
We have heard over and over and over again from the media trying to claim that Trump wanted an investigation into the Bidens.
No.
Burisma.
Big difference.
Because now, based on the story I just covered, the other breaking news, it seems like there may be good reason to investigate Burisma.
As a result, Kerry Kupec, Chief of Public Affairs, said the Justice Department determined that no further action was warranted.
Yet here we are!
Huh?
How about that?
But that decision, a Justice Department official said, was limited only to the question of potential campaign finance law violations and not to any other issues raised in the whistleblower complaint.
It was a very narrow issue, the official said.
Some officials within the FBI, which received its own copy of the whistleblower's complaint in early September, Chafed at a Justice Department move that they believed was aimed at shutting down any inquiry at all, especially into potential counterintelligence issues raised by the allegations, according to a former senior U.S.
intelligence official who has discussed the matter with current FBI counterintelligence agents.
There were guys who wanted to run with it, said the former senior official.
People were pissed off.
Others in the FBI were wary and didn't want to touch the whistleblower complaint with a 10-foot pole because of the Russia investigation, said this former senior official.
FBI counterintelligence officials were particularly concerned about the claims detailed in the whistleblower's complaint, that the president's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and two of his associates may have been manipulated by Russian interests, said the former senior official.
The two associates in question are Igor Fruman and Lev Parnas, both of whom were recently indicted by federal prosecutors for allegedly conspiring to funnel money into U.S.
elections.
There were guys within the intelligence community who believe this is another Russian attempt, the former official said.
People think Giuliani is being led down the primrose path.
No, let me stop you there.
Do you know what the Russians are probably trying to do in order to divide and harm the United States?
Pandering to the Democrats.
If anything, the whistleblower's complaint is that it's information.
Think about attack vectors.
What is easier?
To actually compromise Rudy Giuliani or to compromise the Democrats who are desperate for anything they can use to tear apart the executive branch.
They are mad at Trump losing.
They are the vulnerability.
Trump's base has rallied behind him and the Democrats won't stop.
So what do you think happens after three years of Russiagate?
Putin's probably laughing going, look how nuts they go.
Let's throw him a bone and see what happens.
And it takes only a whisper.
A whisper through perhaps, I don't know, A Ukrainian lieutenant colonel who was offered defense minister position from Ukraine, who admitted to it on three occasions, who then gets angry and then goes and spreads some rumors which result in exactly what the Democrats want.
Listen man, I don't know anything about Vindman.
I do think it's very strange he would be offered the position of head of the defense minister for Ukraine.
But he seemed like somebody who had undermined the president.
Because apparently he talked to Ukraine about the president.
Is it possible that there are nefarious interests that would sow discord in our country through Russia?
Well, yeah, of course.
Did the Democrats overestimate what that was?
Absolutely.
It turns out after three years, it was nonsense.
In fact, guess what?
The Russian disinformation was the Steele dossier!
How about that?
So if you want to talk to me about who's being manipulated by the Russians, it's the Democrats, not Trump.
Let's read what else we have.
They say one question likely to be raised by the FBI's inquiry is why the Bureau is still interested in talking to the whistleblower given that the House has since taken testimony from others who have far more direct knowledge of the White House's interactions on Ukraine issues.
Perhaps!
Perhaps it's because the whistleblower started an impeachment inquiry which may damage or even destroy the fabric of this country.
And maybe that was Russian disinformation.
Maybe the useful idiot is the whistleblower.
Maybe we need to know who this person is because they may be seeking to sow discord in this country.
The Russian disinformation started the Mueller investigation, and it was not revealed by it.
The Steele dossier was fake news with fake information by Russians.
Here we are.
They say, largely overlooked in the impeachment debate so far is the CIA analyst, whose complaint was forwarded to the FBI, specifically raised his concerns in the context of an intelligence threat to the country.
I am also concerned that these actions pose risks to U.S.
national security and undermine the U.S.
government's efforts to deter and counter foreign interference in U.S.
elections.
Attached to the seven-page complaint was a classified appendix that has since been partially released, but one of these sections and a footnote to the appendix have been blacked out by the intelligence community and remained classified.
And here we are, still.
This CIA whistleblower, we are not allowed to hear from.
We have rampant allegations of Ukrainian interference, corruption, and now the FBI wants to interview the CIA whistleblower.
Could this be the intelligence agencies turning on each other or are they working in concert to try and dismantle the presidency?
I don't know.
What I can tell you is, it is easy.
To sow discord through the Russian insanity.
And the Democrats are the ones causing it.
Because if they back away, it is not Trump.
Trump's the one who gave the weapons to Ukraine.
Obama was the one who didn't give the weapons.
Did Russia want Ukraine to have weapons to fight it with?
No!
It seems like the Russian disinformation is affecting the Democrats.
And that, that is scary.
But I'll leave it there.
This is a wrench in the spokes.
I'll say that.
We'll see what happens.
The FBI wants to interview the whistleblower.
Maybe it won't happen.
I think it would be unlikely, but we might learn.
I mean, we know who the whistleblower is for the most part.
We believe we do.
But maybe we'll learn something.
Maybe something will happen.
I don't know.
I do have one more story coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
Another major breaking story, this time from Politico.
Documents reveal massive dark money group boosted Democrats in 2018.
A little-known nonprofit called the 1630 Fund pumped $140 million into Democratic and left-leaning causes.
The green wave of campaign cash that boosted Democrats and liberal causes in 2018 included an unprecedented gusher of secret money.
New documents obtained by Politico show.
The 1630 Fund, a little-known nonprofit headquartered in Washington, spent $141 million on more than 100 left-leaning causes during the midterm election year, according to a new text filing from the group.
The money contributed to efforts ranging from fighting Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh and other Trump judicial nominees to boosting ballot measures, raising the minimum wage, and changing laws on voting and redistricting and numerous states.
The spending was fueled by massive anonymous donations, including one gift totaling $51.7 million.
That single donation was more than the group had ever raised before, in an entire year before President Donald Trump was elected.
Most of the group's funders are likely to remain a mystery because federal law does not require social welfare-focused non-profits to reveal their donors.
Let me tell you something, Republicans.
I have never been a fan of super PACs, of the ability to funnel unlimited funds into non-profits who can then campaign on behalf of these organizations, of these individuals, etc.
And now it seems that somebody just put 50 plus million dollars into making sure Democrats won in 2018.
So why did they win in 2018?
And I'll tell you what, if you do not get a handle on this, they will likely win in 2020.
I know there's a lot, there's a lot riding on 2020.
It's entirely possible that Trump takes it in a landslide based on all these metrics we've seen.
But one thing you're not counting on is secret dark money schemes.
It's hilarious, I might add, that it's the left, it's the Young Turks, it's the Ocasio-Cortezes complaining about money in politics.
But who is benefiting from it?
Yep.
Makes you wonder.
These people are going to run on term limits of getting out the incumbents.
But what do we see?
Is Ocasio-Cortez any different?
In my opinion, a little bit.
I do think so.
But for the most part, no.
She's a celebrity-driven egomaniac.
And all she does is play the game of tribe versus tribe.
Does she ever talk about the problems, the mistakes?
Nope.
She lies and she deflects.
And who is making sure people like her win?
Dark Money.
The group's 2018 fundraising surpassed any amount ever raised by a left-leaning political non-profit, according to experts who pointed to the Koch Network and the Crossroads Network as rare right-leaning groups that posted bigger yearly fundraising totals at the height of their powers.
The 1630 funds rise last year is a sign that Democrats and allies have embraced the methods of groups they described as dark money earlier this decade, when they were under attack from the money machines built by the conservatives, including the Kochs.
Make no mistake.
The parties have flipped.
The moral authoritarians are the left.
The dark money secret fundraising campaigns, the dirty schemes to get elected, are happening on the Democrats' side.
The nefarious and underhanded tactics, lies, and smears are coming from Democrats.
And this should prove to you, if you were a Democrat at any point who was concerned about Citizens United and unlimited money being funneled into political organizations to benefit politicians, this should show you.
It is flipped.
The Koch brothers recently did some event with like George Soros or something.
In terms of the size of dark money networks, there are only a few that have gone into the 100 million plus range, said Robert Maguire, the research director for the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and an expert in political non-profits.
These kinds of totals aren't unheard of, Maguire added.
I do think they're unheard of on the liberal side.
I think that's what's so striking about this.
In an email, 1630 Fund Executive Director Amy Kurtz wrote that the group provides support to advocates and social welfare organizations around the country, and we are pleased with the growth we had in 2018.
Oh, you're pleased?
That's interesting.
I thought the left was opposed to dark money and funneling unlimited funds.
1630 Fund played a role in the battle for the House of Representatives in 2018, a crucial contest for Democrats trying to seize back power after Trump's rise.
The election featured dozens of Democratic candidates who decried the influence of money in politics on the campaign trail, and let me add, secretly benefited from one of the biggest dark money schemes we've seen to date.
The nonprofit operated under four dozen different trade names in 2018, many of which have benign-sounding local titles like Arizonans United for Healthcare, Floridians for a Fair Shake.
Politico revealed in 2018 that a number of these linked groups were collectively spending millions of dollars to pressure Republican members of Congress on their stances on healthcare, taxes, and the economy through TV ads and grassroots organizing.
A related organization called the Hub Project controlled the flow of money for this effort from 1630 Fund into states and districts, according to reporting by the New York Times.
This year, the group is continuing to work on campaigns that Americans care about.
Hub Project spokesman Dan Crawford said, including campaigns focused on health care, taxes, and the economy.
Demand justice.
The court's focused group, helmed by former Hillary Clinton press secretary Brian Fallon, also ran out of 1630 fund.
Demand Justice spent millions of dollars on TV ads as Democrats tried to prevent Brett Kavanaugh from being confirmed to the Supreme Court in 2018.
More recently, the group projected a video of Christine Blasey Ford accusing Kavanaugh of assault on the side of a truck outside a Washington gala where Kavanaugh was speaking.
You want to know where the unfounded smears of Brett Kavanaugh came from?
Look no further.
One of the largest dark money schemes we have ever seen.
In addition to the direct spending conducted under prominent trade names, 1630 Fund also distributed more than $91 million in grants to 95 other groups in 2018, according to the tax filing.
These funds made 1630 Fund a major source of money for political nonprofits pushing an array of changes to state and federal law.
More than $27 million of that money went to America Votes, another liberal non-profit that describes itself as the coordination hub of the progressive community on its website.
That grant by itself was nearly twice the amount America Votes had ever raised in a single year, $14.2 million, according to federal tax records.
1630Fund also directed tens of millions of dollars directly into state-level politics, including a series of successful ballot measures.
The group gave $6.25 million to a group urging passage of a Nevada ballot measure promoting automatic voter registration, as well as $6 million to a Michigan group pushing changes to the state's redistricting process.
Another $2.65 million went toward boosting a Florida constitutional amendment, restoring voting rights to felons, Groups pushing minimum wage increases in Arkansas, Missouri, and other states received millions more.
More than $10 million flowed from the 1630 fund into Colorado alone to organizing supporting Democrats in state legislative races and campaigns for statewide office, as well as several more focused on expensive ballot measure campaigns.
Does it sound like 2018 was a blue wave of outraged suburbanites who were seeking to oust Trump?
Or does it sound like the largest dark money scheme we've seen on the liberal side ever?
Perhaps a little bit of both.
I don't think that just this money is enough to get them the victories, but it certainly was enough to offset incumbents and Republicans competing against it.
The ballot initiative process offers an important counterbalance to the failings of partisan politics, and we are proud of our support for some of the most impactful and important initiatives in the 2018 cycle.
Kurtz, the 1630 Fund Executive Director, wrote in an email, The group does disclose the amount of money of each donation, which shows several strikingly large contributions.
One donor gave the group $51 million, another gave $26 million, and a third gave $10 million.
And the Hub Project disclosed three of its donors in 2017.
Seattle venture capitalist Nick Hanauer, the Union American Federation of Teachers, and the Wyss Foundation, founded by businessman and environmentalist Hansjörg Wyss.
The huge size of 1630 Fund and its donations raised questions about whether it has its own independent base of donors.
Or, if Weather acts as one of part of a larger network, said Brad Kappel, campaign finance lawyer at Ackerman LLP.
When you see a very large contribution, which is more than a third of the money raised, that raises the possibility that other groups are funneling money to this group to distribute to individual states.
Is this part of a dark money network, and what is its function?
There are some signposts that partly show 1630 Funds operators and potential sources of funding.
1630 Fund is closely tied to Arabella Advisors, a firm that advises donors and non-profits about where to give money, and was founded by former Clinton administration appointee Eric Kessler.
Kessler is president and chair of 1630 Fund, and Arabella Advisors provides business and administrative services to the non-profit, according to the tax filing.
Several of the biggest donors and organizations in Democratic politics also have public links to 1630 Fund.
Potential presidential candidate and megadonor Michael Bloomberg gave $250,000 to a super PAC linked to 1630 Fund.
Change now, in 2018.
And the Democratic donor group Democracy Alliance, which has dozens of members including billionaire George Soros, recommended last spring that donors invest several million dollars into 1630 Fund, according to documents obtained at the time by Politico.
So, there it is.
We got a lot going on.
And I think it's about time that people started looking into it.
From the Ukrainian investigation, to the FBI trying to talk to the whistleblower, and now, documents revealing a massive dark money group boosting Democrats.
We got dirty politics.
And the Democrats who claimed they were fighting against it, I think their colors have been shown.
They're true colors.
When they complained that Republicans were using Coke money, they didn't actually care.
When they accused Dave Rubin of taking Coke money, they don't really care.
They do literally the same thing, and I hate all of it.
I don't care if you're Soros, I don't care if you're Coke, I do not like that massive special interests are dictating what our country is doing.
