Democrats Unhinged Russia Theories Persist, Nancy Pelosi AGAIN Cries PUTIN And DEMANDS Impeachment
Democrats Unhinged Russia Theories Persist, Nancy Pelosi AGAIN Cries PUTIN And DEMANDS Impeachment. Today Nancy pelosi officially requested articles of impeachment saying that the President, Donald Trump, violated the constitution.She said, once again, "all roads lead to Putin."It was never about Ukraine, it was always about Russia. Even after years of speculation and absurd claims, even after the Mueller probe found no evidence of collusion the press and the democrats refuse to let it go.Jerry Nadler even referenced the Mueller probe when discussing impeachment and now it seems that Russiagate never stopped. In the past several days several media outlets have written about the Russia probe as if its still on going. Unhinged claims of Trump and Russia never stopped following the conclusion of the investigations.Either Democrats have truly lost the plot or they are so desperate they still cry Putin and Russia in their last ditch effort to remove Trump from office.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
So Nancy Pelosi has formally asked her chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment.
We are moving beyond the inquiry into what may have happened into an official impeachment against the president, with the big update being that the Democrats have planned new hearings to see evidence on Monday, where presentations will be brought forth to determine whether or not there is evidence against the president, of which there is very little.
Other than the fact that the president has been accused of obstruction, we don't really have any facts.
And in one of the most bold things I've seen in a while, Matt Gaetz asked a question to the judiciary panel yesterday.
If they had—let me hear what he says.
He wanted to ask, if any witness has any personal knowledge of a single material fact of the Adam Schiff report, no one answered in the affirmative.
So why did we have an impeachment hearing yesterday?
And I'll admit, I tuned it out.
I jumped in from time to time, but you know what the problem was?
Yesterday, the Judiciary Committee brought in three anti-Trump scholars, and the Republicans had one kind of, not really pro-Trump scholar, but anti-impeachment scholar.
If I want to see a group of people opine on their feelings about the President, I'll turn on MSNBC or CNN.
Why we had a hearing, I have no idea.
And because there was nothing in the hearing that presented any evidence or any reason to suggest Trump should be impeached, I just didn't bother with it.
But there is some interesting information coming out now.
It appears, I kid you not, that they are actually seeking to impeach the president because of...
Russia.
I'm not kidding.
It's not even about the Ukraine scandal.
Let me show you this from left-wing journalist Aaron Ruppar.
Quote.
This isn't about Ukraine.
This is about Russia.
Who benefited by withholding that military assistance?
Russia.
It's about Russia.
Russia is invading eastern Ukraine.
All roads lead to Putin.
Understand that.
How about this story from Politico?
Dems signal Mueller-related impeachment charges as witnesses assail Trump.
One legal expert said Trump's Ukraine dealings were, quote, worse than the misconduct of any prior president.
It's insane.
The Democrats have taken conspiracy, debunked conspiracy by their own investigation, and are pushing forward now With a legitimate impeachment.
Possibly a huge mistake.
Now, they're not yet voting on articles.
They're going to present evidence, which is another drawn-out, delayed process.
But according to these stories, it may actually get to that point where they do end up voting on impeachment within the next week or before the end of the year.
This will be a huge mistake.
The Republicans will then have a legitimate trial in the Senate.
And because they control it, and because it'll be more legitimate, they're gonna call witnesses.
Like Adam Schiff.
Like Joan Hunter Biden.
I don't understand what Democrats think they're getting from this.
They're destroying everything with little to no, like, there's no real evidence here.
I'll be interested to see what they present, but I gotta admit, I'm, like most people, tuning this out, and...
You know, let me be honest with you guys.
I have a bunch of other stories prepared.
But because this is the formal announcement of impeachment, I want to stay up to date with the big news.
And I know most people probably don't care.
But let's get started with what Nancy Pelosi literally said and what's going to be the next steps in impeachment before I show you.
The Democrats are abusing their power.
They're insulting the president's family.
And they are obsessed with this conspiracy theory about Russia.
Please stop!
But they can't let it go.
They have never stopped.
Even before Trump got elected, they were talking about Russia.
Even after they had their own investigation, they won't stop talking about Russia.
And now Nancy Pelosi today is saying it's Russia!
They've lost the plot.
I'm sorry if you spend millions of dollars on your own investigation and you find nothing.
In fact, Mueller says no evidence of collusion.
It just didn't happen.
And you still can't let it go.
There's derangement, depravity, and outright corruption, but we'll get to it.
Let's get started with a story from CBS News, the straight news about what's happening with the impeachment and what Pelosi wants.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but of course the best thing you can do is share this video.
Look, I gotta compete with these big mainstream media players.
I have no big budget to compete with their marketing departments.
But if you share this, that's more powerful than any marketing department.
But more importantly, this segment, as well as all of my segments, appear every day on all podcast platforms.
So check this out on iTunes, Google Play, Spotify.
If you want to listen to an hour and a half of every segment I do, there's six segments per day.
Let's get started with the news.
CBS News reporting.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called on Judiciary Committee Chairman Gerald Nadler to draft
articles of impeachment against President Trump.
Quote, Sadly, but with confidence and humility, with allegiance to our founders, and a heart
full of love for America, today I am asking our Chairman to proceed with articles of impeachment,
Pelosi said.
Pelosi's announcement is a formal indication that the House will move forward with impeaching
Mr. Trump after weeks of hearings.
Democrats have previously insisted that they had not decided whether to draft articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump, although many Republicans believed impeachment to be a foregone conclusion.
But interestingly, I believe it was just the other day, even Eric Swalwell said he wasn't entirely convinced he would vote on this.
And we have seen many media outlets, including The Week, The Hill, or the contributors, I should say, of these outlets, saying it's time to abandon impeachment and call for censure of the president, a way to save face, because they will lose.
Not only have they lost moderates who have swung in opposition to impeachment, but, well, I'll leave it there.
They've lost the moderates and now even the media is saying it's time to back down.
They've even lost one Democrat in a safe blue district saying maybe it's too close to the election and we should censure.
They are risking everything for what is sure to fail.
The latest update here is that they are preparing evidence hearings on Monday saying, this is from the Hill, The Thursday announcement came hours after Speaker Pelosi formally announced that the House is drafting articles of impeachment.
It also comes after the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing with constitutional experts to discuss whether Trump's efforts to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate his political opponents amounted to impeachable offenses.
But right away, I gotta stop here.
The media, even The Hill, who I like, have a problem of framing things exactly as the Democrats keep framing it.
And framing is everything.
Let me stress this point right here.
They say, whether Trump's efforts to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate his political opponent.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Hold on there.
That is not a fact.
That is not what's being discussed here.
What should be said is that the House Judiciary Committee held a hearing with constitutional experts to discuss whether the testimony provided thus far and the statements, conjecture, and circumstantial evidence amounted to evidence that Donald Trump was seeking to get the Ukrainian government to investigate his political opponent for political reasons.
You see, it's more complicated than that.
But right away, the media will just frame it this way and make it seem like, well, Trump did want his rivals investigated.
No, no, no, no, hold on.
Just jumping the gun and saying Trump wanted his rival investigated is missing important context.
Trump wanted Joe Biden investigated.
It just so happens that Biden is running for the Democratic nomination, but you can't assert that Trump's motivations so far had anything to do with the 2020 election, like Jerry Nadler is claiming.
Jerry Nadler said the president openly welcomed interference in 2016 and demanded it in 2020.
That is not a fact.
That is not a statement of fact.
That is conjecture and opinion.
I cannot speak to why Trump wanted an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens.
The right will tell you it's because they're corrupt.
In fact, In one report, in the Schiff report, this is noted by Jack Posobiec, who is, I think it's fair to say, a Trump supporter, that Trump met with Viktor Orban of Hungary.
Orban is very critical of Ukrainian corruption, and Hungary is a NATO member.
If a NATO member meets with Trump and says, Ukraine bad, and then Trump says, I want proof that Ukraine is going to weed out corruption, well, then it stands to reason Trump's motivation was backed by weeding out corruption.
Worse still for the Democrats, and I cannot stress this enough, at no point in any of the impeachment inquiries did any Democrat at any time ask a single question about Trump's intent in 2020.
Not once.
They could have asked, has Trump ever expressed anxiety about losing in 2020?
Has Trump ever talked about Joe Biden and losing to him in 2020?
Has Trump ever asked for strategies to defeat Biden related to any foreign interference to Ukraine, to Russia?
Not once.
All they tried to establish was whether or not Trump was leveraging an announcement of an investigation to military aid.
But all that does is prove that Trump was tying an investigation to military aid.
If it's true that Trump met with a NATO member who said these people are corrupt, well, then perhaps Trump's motivation was weeding out corruption.
Their defense to that is that Trump never said corruption, but that's absurd and that doesn't mean anything.
Trump's not going to call them and say, what about the corruption?
No, he's going to say, this company did X. Look into it.
He's specifically talking about Burisma.
From this, the media has then targeted journalists like John Solomon.
And Adam Schiff published John Solomon, a private citizen who has committed no crime and is accused of no wrongdoing.
His private records were published in an attempt to discredit a journalist's reporting.
It's insane.
But let's move on from here.
We now know that, there you go, Nancy Pelosi has called for an official articles of impeachment, and we know this is going this way.
I'm surprised really, but here we are.
All roads lead to Putin, understand that, Nancy Pelosi says.
Again, all roads lead to Putin.
This has nothing to do with Ukraine.
It has to do with the fact that their ace in the hole, after Donald Trump was elected, was the Russia investigation.
And it failed.
And that's all they had.
So they try the Ukraine thing.
Why would Trump want to withhold aid from Ukraine?
Did you know that right now aid is being withheld from other countries?
I believe it's Lebanon.
I could be wrong.
Why isn't that coming up?
You see, it stands to reason, with Donald Trump criticizing NATO, saying these NATO countries aren't paying enough, criticizing Ukraine, and withholding aid from other countries, Ukraine was not a special case.
Donald Trump does not want to give U.S.
funds to foreign countries when they're not taking care of their own defense.
So perhaps that was the real motivation behind Ukraine.
Not that Trump wanted to weed out corruption, not that Trump wanted to investigate Joe Biden, but that Trump doesn't want to give American dollars to our allies.
And you can criticize him for that and we can talk about it, but that seems to be the best I can come up with right now based on what's actually going on with Trump's statements and what's happened with these other NATO countries.
In no way do I find it plausible to believe that Joe Biden, who recently came out talking about little kids grabbing his legs and playing with his hair and sitting on his lap, which is creepy.
A guy who sniffs little girls.
I don't think Trump is all that worried about going up against Biden because Biden can't talk straight.
It's an absurd narrative.
Sure enough.
Here we are.
Dems signal Mueller-related impeachment charges as witnesses assail Trump.
You know that it was two weeks ago, about two and a half weeks ago, three weeks ago, Nancy Pelosi said all roads lead to Putin, and I was shocked to see that, well, you know what, no, let me just, let me go here.
What if I told you RussiaGate never stopped?
What if I told you that UkraineGate 2, you know, Russian Boogaloo, or I'm sorry, RussiaGate 2, Ukrainian Boogaloo, is in fact not a new scandal?
In fact, The Mueller investigation, Russia, none of it has ever ended.
Now, perhaps we weren't seeing it.
And let me show you something.
First, we have this from BuzzFeed.
This is, what's the date on this one?
December 2nd, the Mueller memos.
Yes.
The Mueller investigation, which ended earlier this year, disproving the Russia collusion narrative, BuzzFeed is still publishing documents related to Mueller.
I get it.
Fine.
You want to let people see these documents and see the investigation.
It only really stands to smear and provide out-of-context comments.
But you know what?
I'm actually in favor of transparency, so I can respect BuzzFeed publishing this.
Let's see it all.
Let's see all the documents.
And there hasn't really been anything to, I don't know, no really enlightening information, because we know what the result was.
But the point of this is to show you that these left-wing blogs and news outlets have still carried out the Russia narrative.
To hear Nancy Pelosi say, all roads lead to Putin, not shocking to me.
Let me show you this.
Here's BuzzFeed.
Here are the latest secret memos from the Mueller report.
BuzzFeed News sued the U.S.
government for the right to see all the work that Mueller's team kept secret.
We published the second installment of the FBI's summaries of interviews with key witnesses.
Okay, I'm all for transparency.
But, you know, let's look at this.
Here's an opinion piece from USA Today, December 4th, yesterday.
Republicans have gone soft on Russia to protect Donald Trump.
So much for Reagan's legacy.
Republicans once were committed to the liberation of Russia's captive nations.
Ukraine, now free, should have more credibility than its former captors.
How about this?
From CNN.
This is from November 19th, a couple weeks ago.
25 times Trump was soft on Russia.
Here we go.
Trump today, Trump-Tody-William Barr is still trying to undermine the Russia investigation.
December 3rd, Russiagate has never stopped.
The Russiagate was already undermined by your own investigation.
And yet, in December, Vanity Fair is trying to claim that Bill Barr is undermining Russia?
It's almost as if Russia never stopped.
Let me ask you a question.
How could you undermine Russia if Mueller concluded there was no collusion?
Potentially obstruction, but no definitive statement on it.
Some argue that because Trump can't be indicted, as to the opinion of a sitting president can't be indicted, that's why they're saying there's no obstruction.
And the right argues, no, if there was, he would have said it.
And that Mueller said it doesn't exonerate him, but that's not what investigations do.
They find criminal wrongdoing.
If you want to have an argument about whether or not Trump obstructed, I am absolutely listening.
There is an argument to be had there.
And I will say Trump has played a dangerous game by refusing, by refusing his officials, excuse me, By not allowing or by ordering his officials not to testify.
That's where they're gonna come for him in impeachment.
So Trump, I think, is brazen.
And I think he's too arrogant.
That's gonna be his downfall.
But so far, I don't think they really have anything other than that.
But the problem that arises is you telling Trump supporters, we've levied a conspiracy theory against you that was disproven, we never stopped even though it was disproven, and now we want to impeach you for resisting our attempts to frame you with a conspiracy that was already disproven.
While Trump may be in the legal crosshairs over not allowing his officials to testify, or ordering them not to, because apparently that's what got Nixon, I think you're going to be hard-pressed to convince the American people come 2020 that any of this was justified.
How is it that after months, after the conclusion of the Mueller report, after Rachel Maddow was nearly in tears, as some would say, because the conclusion was Trump did not collude with the Russians to win.
He did not collude with a campaign to interfere in the US election.
In fact, By the rights argument, he's attempting to dig up what actually started the whole investigation with the John Durham investigation.
Trump is actually looking into the interference.
And because of that, they say that's grounds to impeach the president.
But how is it after all of this, they're still arguing?
This article from Vanity Fair may be the most insane thing I've ever heard.
Trump-Tody-William Barr is still trying to undermine the Russia investigation.
Have you all lost your minds?
The Russia investigation is over.
And it showed no collusion.
That's it.
And they're saying this.
Ahead of a new DOJ report demolishing Trump's witch hunt claims, the Attorney General has told people the investigation never should have happened.
Sure, to his opinion.
But they ordered it.
So you can say, haha, they ordered it, but it turns out they were wrong.
But you know what?
They still ordered the investigation, right?
You gotta give them credit for that, even if it does prove them wrong.
We'll see how they handle it.
So far, Bill Barr is disputing some of those claims.
But the narrative about Russia has never stopped.
And I don't think it will.
Nancy Pelosi today is arguing that Russia is the reason.
Nadler is saying Russia and Politico's reporting.
That's the case.
There are a few other things that absolutely need to be highlighted here.
The most important of which I talked about yesterday, I talked about at 1 p.m., and I will not stop talking about it.
Adam Schiff's surveillance state.
The Democrat demands and then discloses the call logs of his opponents.
Let me add to this.
You want to impeach the president for abuse of power.
You believe that Donald Trump used his power to try and dig up dirt on a political opponent.
That he contacted a foreign government and said, I want dirt on my political opponent.
That's your accusation.
It's not been proven.
Fine.
Adam Schiff used the powers of the House to get the private phone details of an American
citizen, a journalist no less, protected under the First Amendment, who committed no crime
and is accused of no wrongdoing.
And even after Schiff obtained the private phone calls of this journalist, John Solomon,
has still not accused him of any wrongdoing.
What gives the US government the right to do this?
And if you think there is grounds for impeachment based on what Trump did, and Adam Schiff literally
subpoenaed phone records for Devin Nunes, who was doing his job, then it stands to reason
Adam Schiff, Nancy Pelosi, and Nadler are facing the same accusations.
Where does this leave us?
Already there are calls for the Republicans to subpoena the private phone records of Schiff, Pelosi, and otherwise.
When do we stop throwing rocks?
I understand Adam Schiff is the one who committed this violation of our norms, of civil rights, of journalists, of the free press.
But what about the Republicans?
When are they going to stand up and call this out?
I do not believe the appropriate response is to weaponize the same abusive powers and start digging into the phone records of their political opponents.
I believe the response should be potentially to censure Adam Schiff, to remove him or to impeach him, not to continually engage in the same civil rights abuses as the Democrats.
But lo and behold we learn from the Wall Street Journal, and I know if you're listening to the podcast you'll hear more about this when I go on an outraged rant about the violations of the free press, but we learn the Republicans knew about the subpoenas and they did nothing.
But that brings me to the next story.
This one is from the blaze.
Obama says he never attacked the press and gets a scathing history lesson.
This story is about Barack Obama spying on a journalist, James Rosen, I believe.
Barack Obama, he prosecuted more whistleblowers who leaked a journalist than all other presidents combined.
They want to scream that Donald Trump calling the press fake news is a violation of democracy.
Yet when Adam Schiff violates the free press rights by pulling up the private details from an American journalist who committed no crime and was accused of no wrongdoing, they say nothing.
When Barack Obama spies on the press, they say nothing.
And finally, months after we learned Trump did not collude with Russians, Nancy Pelosi comes out in December and says, all roads lead to Putin, and calls for an impeachment.
It'll never stop.
They refused to accept the results, and here we are today.
We'll see what happens.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
And for those, I'm gonna let you all on a big, I got a big update.
I'm getting a root canal later, which means tomorrow might be interesting.
We'll see if I can talk.
I have not missed a single day in terms of production.
I'm sorry, I did miss one day when I was doing setup for Subverse, but I have not missed a single day of work.
We'll see if I am forced out of producing content due to dental work.
Stick around.
I do have more segments coming up at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
Social media censorship has backfired in one of the most hilariously shocking ways
that even I didn't predict.
I didn't think this is what was going to happen.
You see, one of the things I've often said, and many people on the right and moderates, that first they'll start banning conservatives, then they'll start banning liberals, and the cliff will keep eroding.
And that's what I've said!
I've said my concern over free speech is, yeah, they're gonna ban some conservative guy, and then I know that once they ban him, the cliff is eroding and eventually it's me on the cliff.
It's all falling apart around us.
The idea is, first they'll ban you for saying stupid.
You'll say some word and they'll say, you can't say that word, you're banned.
And then they keep changing the threshold because people are still offended.
That's not what's happening.
TikTok is suppressing videos by disabled, queer, and fat creators.
Yes, this is the desire path outcome of what the left has been asking for.
They are actually banning the marginalized people themselves.
And it's one of the most fascinating things I've seen because wow, I didn't predict this but it makes so much sense.
First, do you know what a desire path is?
You may have seen some of these photos on Reddit or you may have seen this in real life.
There will be grass and there will be sidewalk but there will be a straight line of dirt going through the grass.
Basically a desire path is that The planned route is longer than what people actually want to do, so they cut corners.
And as more and more people walk through the grass, it wears a path into the grass.
That's called a desire path.
It is not the planned path.
It is just the natural progression of what people wanted.
You see, the city says, we'll make this beautiful pathway with flowers.
And the people say, this takes too long, I'm going to cut through the park.
Resulting in the real path.
So let me give you another example of what this looks like before I tell you what's going on here, because this is amazing.
I really do, I'm fascinated by this.
So, a bunch of leftists said it should be illegal to discriminate against, you know, say, trans people and non-binary people.
They should be allowed to use whatever bathroom they want.
In their minds, they imagine a trans man or trans woman walking up to the men's or women's room and just walking with no problem.
In reality, to comply with the law, a desire path law was created.
These businesses said, why have two bathrooms if we have to deal with the controversy?
So instead of saying we will allow anyone to use any bathroom, they started changing the bathrooms from multi-use to single-use.
So you used to have four stalls in the women's room, four stalls in the men's room, or like two stalls and a couple urinals.
Now they just have like two rooms that are single-use.
Lines are longer.
That's what really happens.
They just make two neutral bathrooms that are single-use.
But also, in the UK, we've seen some places just take down the gender distinction.
While you might say anyone can use any bathroom, they say, well, the law actually says we can't discriminate, period.
So now locker rooms and changing rooms have become unisex.
So they're one big room with men and women in them, and this has resulted in an increase in assaults on women.
That's a story from The Independent, a left-wing paper.
Now let's take a look at what's happening with TikTok.
This is one, I kid you not, I really need to stress, it's one of the most fascinating outcomes of social media censorship.
You see, what TikTok realized is that you cannot police 10,000 angry, mean people on the internet, right?
What are you gonna do?
How is Twitter supposed to deal with every single mean person?
You can't.
So TikTok realized there's a much simpler solution.
Ban the people who get harassed.
Seriously.
Disabled, queer, and fat creators.
Basically what TikTok is saying.
Is this person likely to be made fun of?
Yes.
Ban them from the platform.
Because we don't want to create a space where people are mean.
It is much easier to ban the marginalized person than to ban the tens of thousands of people who might be mean to them.
Fascinating.
It is the desire path outcome.
They are ending hate speech by getting rid of those who might be hated.
This is incredible.
I can't believe I couldn't predict this.
Check this out.
Slate Reports.
TikTok, a social network video app with more than 1 billion downloads globally, admitted Tuesday to a set of policies that had suppressed the reach of content created by users assumed to be vulnerable to cyberbullying.
As examples of users susceptible to bullying or harassment, the policy listed people with facial disfigurement, autism, Down syndrome, and disabled people or people with some facial problems, such as birthmark, slight squint, etc.
The admission came after the German site NetzPolitik reported that TikTok asked moderators to watch 15-second videos and decide if the creator looked like the type of person others might want to bully.
If so, moderators were instructed to add flags to the accounts of these vulnerable users.
These flags would stop their videos from being shown to audiences outside their home countries, and in some cases, would even prevent their videos from appearing in other users' feeds.
A list of flagged users obtained by NetsPolitik included people with and without disabilities, whose bios included hashtags like fat woman, disabled, or had rainbow flags and other LGBTQ identifiers.
This may be one of the most profoundly shocking backfires I've ever seen.
And I really thought... So let me try and explain this again, the erosion hypothesis, or the erosion analogy.
Imagine you're standing on an island, you know, with sheer cliffs on all sides.
Moderates and liberals and people like me are somewhat in the center.
We don't say slurs, we're not overly offensive, our opinions are kind of milquetoast and lukewarm.
So, as the cliffs start eroding around us and people fall off the fringes, the space in which we're standing becomes smaller and eventually there's no island left.
So you have the far left and the far right.
The far left does get banned.
The far right gets banned way more often.
So on the far right side, we see that the waves crash into the cliff and tear down that wall, and then those far right people fall into the ocean.
But as that cliff falls, I am now closer and closer to the cliff's edge because there's less and less space.
In my view, I say, I must call out the erosion of this cliff.
Otherwise, in a year or two years, I will be standing on the precipice.
I was wrong.
I was absolutely wrong.
Something different happened.
China, or this company, has now decided, instead of getting rid of all of the mean people, just get rid of those who might be mocked.
It's remarkably simple.
There are substantially less people who are LGBTQ, fat, disabled, or otherwise.
So it's easier just to get rid of them to avoid all controversy.
See, the real problem facing these social media networks is not the harassment.
It's the bad press.
It's the losing of sponsorships.
If TikTok wants to sell space to, say, Pepsi or Coke or something, and they say you've got too much harassment, well, what are you going to do?
If we've got a billion users, and 100 million are likely to harass, but only 1 million are being harassed, ban the smaller number!
You know what's funny about this?
Have you seen Fight Club?
The narrator, aka Jack in Fight Club, it's a movie, you should check it out if you haven't seen it, you probably did, says that he works for a car company, and basically, they do this equation to determine whether or not there should be a recall.
The point of an auto recall is to protect consumers, but what ends up happening is, if the cost of a recall is more than the cost of paying out the lawsuits, they don't recall the car.
It's remarkably intuitive.
It's remarkably simple.
There's something similar we heard in New York City.
There was a big scandal, because some guy came out of the Empire State Building with a gun.
And some cops started firing wildly at the guy, and they missed him!
And they ended up hitting seven other people.
I may be getting the details wrong, so definitely fact-check me on this one.
But one of the things brought up by activists was that police in New York City don't receive what they view as adequate training.
And the reason for it, according to... Again, you'll have to fact-check this one.
This may be apocryphal or urban legend, but it's in line with this idea.
The city knows that the cost of a lawsuit for a police officer accidentally shooting a civilian is cheaper than constantly paying for firearms training for the police department.
Therefore, they don't do it and just pay out lawsuits.
It is nightmarishly dystopian.
Congratulations to the far left.
One of the most obvious outcomes I'll say it again.
It is easier and more lucrative to ban a marginalized community than to ban a large portion of your user base.
It's... I'm just like speechless, but it's amazing.
It's amazing.
They say this.
Among those who found out their content had been suppressed was Annika, or MissAnnie21, a 21-year-old self-described fat woman with 23,000 TikTok followers.
Although Annika's videos have attracted both positive and negative comments, she told NetsPolitics the action was discriminatory and inhuman.
Yeah, maybe.
But it lines up with what you've done.
YouTube faced the adpocalypse.
Think about this.
YouTube had all of these advertisers wanting to pull out because they didn't want their ads to appear on certain content.
And so they decided to remove this content.
That makes sense because the ads were literally appearing on the content.
But what happened when the press found out that users were commenting on family videos with, you know, links and descriptions of really gross things about children?
YouTube suppressed the comments of the family videos.
Because YouTube can't deal with widespread user behavior that way, that doesn't overtly break the rules.
So YouTube punished the families.
And they're doing it now with COPPA.
This is exactly what you can expect.
And the left should be proud, this is what you wanted.
Not all of the left, mind you, I know, there's people on the left that are fine, that don't agree with this kind of stuff, but most of these mainstream leftists have been calling for this.
They say a TikTok spokesperson told NetsPolitik, this approach was never intended to be a long-term solution, and so the policies were no longer in use.
TikTok also said, while the intention was good, the approach was wrong, and we have long since changed the earlier policy in favor of a more nuanced anti-bullying policies and in-app protection.
So maybe they're flipping around.
Despite TikTok's statement, NetsPolitik has identified the rules were in place as recently as September.
The team at TikTok that developed the video suppression policy may have earnestly believed it was a helpful reaction to the scourge of bullying.
Online harassment remains a da-yayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayayay And they go on to drag Facebook.
There's been a lot of debate about whether social media companies should de-platform bullies.
But the solution is certainly not to de-platform the targets of those attacks.
You're wrong.
It absolutely is.
Think about this from a mathematical point of view.
It is not possible to stop bullying.
It is not sustainable for a platform to ban large portions of its user base because they say things that are mean.
Think about what's going on with Donald Trump.
Imagine if they said, we do not think it's okay for Jimmy Kimmel, for Colbert, and all these people to constantly insult his weight, and his appearance, and his hair.
But imagine if Twitter said, attacking someone's appearance is violating our policy, and started banning millions upon millions of people who hate the President.
You can't.
And you can't ban the president either.
So what ends up happening is, to avoid any and all controversy, get rid of those that are likely to be harassed.
That includes feminists, disabled people, LGBTQ people.
It's really amazing.
And here's the thing.
TikTok wasn't banning them.
They were shadow banning them.
They didn't want these users to know about it.
That's another obvious outcome.
What you need to understand is that what we're talking about here is not someone walking
down a road or a simple algorithm pointing in the direction to say, here's what we should
do and here's what will happen.
What you should imagine is you have a slab of concrete with cracks spiraling through
it and while you may want that water poured in to flow in the right direction, the water
is going to go the fastest way down.
It's going to stop where it stops.
It's the path of least resistance.
It's electricity traveling through the air.
It's a lightning bolt.
You can see the branches where it may have gone in one direction or the other, but it
makes its way to the ground.
So when you say, we don't want people banned, China says, here's the easiest thing to do.
We want to avoid bad PR, and that includes sponsors angry about bullying and these far leftists complaining about it.
So they do two things.
They ban those who could be bullied, but they shadow ban them so that no one knows it happened and no bad PR can come of it.
I gotta say, bravo!
You gotta hand it to the Chinese, man.
They're tactical and smart with their approach.
And that's something people need to realize.
Look, I come from a partly Asian background, and I am familiar with the cultural view of a lot of these systems, and it is... Let me put it this way.
I'll only speak to my family.
We're part Korean, not from China, but there is a similar cultural overlap.
And let me just tell you, my mom tutored me in math.
My brother, my sister, she tutored us in math and she currently makes math tutorials.
Now you can laugh that it's a stereotype for a Korean woman to be doing math tutorials.
I think it's part of, it's a cultural thing.
I think it's a value that was handed down, you know, generation after generation to be strategic and calculating and to plan.
And that's been instilled in me and it goes back through my family.
I think it's fair to say that while you may think it's a positive discrimination or stereotype, I don't think it's race-based.
I think there's a cultural That's brilliant!
that's passed down in in East Asian cultures and what TikTok did here was a
perfect mathematical equation. Don't let the activists know what's going on
and ban those who, shadow ban those who could be bullied so there's no bullying.
That's brilliant! It's horrifying but it's brilliant, right?
So I don't, I don't, look man, China is a communist dictatorship as far as I'm
concerned.
They're nasty, evil people.
And it has nothing to do with their race.
It's their country and it's part of their culture.
And you don't see it in these other countries.
South Korea is beautiful and amazing.
Albeit, South Korea is pretty racist.
It's getting better.
But it is really racist.
It is.
So I think they have cultural things about them.
And they're in it to win it.
They're playing the long game.
China's playing the long game, okay?
And this is part of it.
Social media is a massive tool to gain influence.
And you reap what you sow.
These are the rules you asked for.
And you can't blame TikTok for saying, okay, we'll get rid of bullying, and we'll do it in the easiest way possible.
It is the path of least resistance.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Adam Schiff is corrupt and depraved and abused his power, and I can't say I'm surprised that the media journalists are not saying anything, because it's tribal, because they don't care.
And sure enough, the activists who hate Trump have no problem with the US federal government spying on the private phone records of a US journalist accused of no wrongdoing.
I know I made a video about this yesterday in the main channel, but it has to be repeated.
I'm sorry.
It has to be talked about again.
We have a story from the Wall Street Journal.
Thank you, Wall Street Journal.
Their editorial board.
So I must clarify my previous statement.
There certainly are principled people at news outlets that are willing to stand up to what Adam Schiff has done here.
Schiff's surveillance state by the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
Bravo, and thank you to the real journalists who still exist.
But unsurprisingly, where's CNN?
MSNBC?
Where's any of these journalists who are so concerned about Donald Trump destroying the freedom of the press?
Trump comes out and says, you're fake news, and they go, oh, oh, it's the end of democracy!
Oh, please.
You're surprised that the president is calling you names?
He's supposed to do that.
Well, he's not supposed to.
But of course he is!
Journalists who speak truth to power will make enemies.
Lo and behold, if you write bad things about the president, he insults you.
Grow up!
What Adam Schiff did.
was subpoenaed, presumably, the phone records of a U.S.
citizen, a private citizen, and journalist who was accused of no wrongdoing, and then published them.
And then sure enough, the allies and media, instead of being outraged that the U.S.
government is using their powers to spy on journalists, said, wow, look how bad this journalist looks because of who he spoke to.
It's the same tactic we see from the activists.
Yes, journalists speak to unsavory people.
We don't know what they talked about, necessarily.
John Solomon could have been talking with some individuals, digging into a story.
And I'm sure, when Adam Schiff, you know, he shows these calls between Lev Parnas and Solomon and Giuliani, I'm sure John Solomon spoke to many, many other people.
But guess what?
Not only did Adam Schiff get access to his political rivals who are accused of no wrongdoing, a US citizen accused of no wrongdoing, he selectively published details to insinuate there was wrongdoing.
This is a shocking level of corruption that cannot be left ignored.
And I, you know, I only have so much reach.
I can only speak to so many people.
So I'll tell you this.
Share this video.
I've seen some comments from people and I think, for the most part, it doesn't matter.
There's gonna be people saying, who cares?
Why are you defending Trump?
I'm not.
It's not about Trump.
Don't care.
I can criticize Trump's call about Biden.
I can say that Trump shouldn't be calling for investigations into his political opponents.
Fine.
Absolutely.
Okay?
What Adam Schiff did was use the power of the federal government To force phone companies, who are not completely innocent here, to hand over the details of a journalist because Schiff doesn't like the journalist.
Do you know where this brings us?
This is beyond fascistic authoritarianism.
And for some reason, the people without principle, the tribalists, just say, so what?
So what?
Schiff should do it.
No.
No, he shouldn't.
Let's read what the Wall Street Journal has to say.
Schiff's surveillance state.
The Democrat demands and then discloses the call logs of his opponents.
Democrats are trying to convince Americans that President Trump should be ousted for trying to dig up dirt on a rival.
They'd have more credibility if they didn't abuse their surveillance powers for drive-by smears of Republicans and a free press.
Adam Schiff's 300-page House Intelligence Impeachment Report doesn't include much new about Mr. Trump's Ukrainian interventions.
But it does disclose details of telephone calls between ranking intelligence Republican Devin Nunes, Trump attorneys Rudy Giuliani and Jay Sekulow, reporter John Solomon, former Giuliani associate Lev Parnas, the White House and others.
The details are metadata about the numbers and length of the calls, not the content.
The impeachment press is playing this as if the calls are a new part of the scandal.
But the real outrage here is Mr. Schiff's snooping on political opponents.
The Democrats' motive appears to be an attempt to portray Mr. Nunes, a presidential defender and Mr. Schiff's leading antagonist in Congress, as a part of a conspiracy to commit impeachable offenses.
Quote, It is, I think, deeply concerning that at a time when the President of the United States was using the powers of his office To dig up dirt on a political rival, that there may be evidence that there were members of Congress complicit in that activity.
You are as disgusting, corrupt, monster Adam Schiff.
Disgusting corruption.
This is unprecedented.
I have never seen anything in my short life, 33 years, this insane.
Targeting of journalists.
But it's not just about the fact that he's targeting journalists.
Look at Julian Assange.
You see what happens with Assange?
Assange did nothing out of the ordinary that a journalist would do, as far as we know.
He said, if you have information, you can submit it to us and we'll publish it.
You don't gotta like WikiLeaks, but news organizations do this.
So they accused Assange of trying to help hack, and it's that simple.
Devin Nunes is leading the Republican charge, and you might not like him, but should we allow the Democrats, or just the federal government in general, to subpoena the private phone records of their political rivals in matters of public debate?
No.
No!
It's shocking and unprecedented.
It is Schiff using subpoena power against his political opponents, but fine.
Let's say you hate the Republicans.
By all means, you're welcome to.
I take no issue.
Please, explain and discuss everything you find at fault with Republicans.
Absolutely.
How about a U.S.
journalist?
Please justify why the U.S.
government would have the right to subpoena the private phone records of a journalist accused of no crime, without a warrant, no wrongdoing.
Think about every journalistic institution that... I'll put it this way.
If you think Schiff was... it was okay for him to go after a journalist this way, what will you say when Donald Trump and Lindsey Graham do the exact same thing?
Already, we are hearing calls for the Republicans to subpoena the phone records of leftist journalists and their opponents.
And if you stand by and allow Schiff to do this, then you are digging your own grave.
And so be it.
The partisanship needs to stop.
We need to say definitively that you should not be spying on American journalists.
You want to have an argument about Trump's intent, 2020?
I'm absolutely right here.
I disagree with the narrative presented by Schiff and Pelosi, etc.
It's fine.
But at least that's something we can all agree is being debated.
And while we can argue and say, oh, it's baseless or it's merited, fine.
How dare you try to justify the federal government publishing private details of a citizen who's done nothing wrong!
Let's read on.
They say Mr. Schiff told the press Nunes may be complicit.
Complicit in what?
The Wall Street Journal asks.
Doing his job of congressional oversight?
Talking to Mr. Trump's lawyer to get a complete view of the Ukrainian tale?
Apparently Mr. Schiff now wants to impeach members of Congress too.
Let's put it this way.
Let's say that Devin Nunes apparently contacted Lev Parnas and Trump.
You don't know why.
Now, by all means, you can assume wrongdoing, but we don't have any evidence of that, and neither does Schiff.
Why would Schiff publish Devin Nunes' private phone records with no true probable cause?
Let's say you're sitting here right now saying, no, you don't understand.
We know about the meeting and Nunes.
Well, Nunes filed a suit against CNN and published photos proving he did not travel to Vienna.
He was in Libya and Malta.
But by all means, I will respect your right to argue against those points.
Sure.
Now justify why a journalist who has been accused of nothing, who is not involved outside of publishing stories that conservatives have cited, what did the journalist do to warrant the spying?
What legal right does Adam Schiff have to target members of the United States free press who are protected under the First Amendment?
There's nothing.
There is no justification.
This is unprecedented, and it looks like an abuse of government surveillance authority for partisan gain.
Democrats were caught using the Steele dossier to coax the FBI into snooping on the 2016 Trump campaign.
Now we have elected members of Congress using secret subpoenas to obtain and then release to the public the call records of political opponents.
Our sources say Mr. Schiff issued a subpoena in September to AT&T, demanding call logs for five numbers, including Mr. Giuliani's.
Subsequent subpoenas to AT&T and Verizon demanded more details.
Republicans were told of the subpoenas, yet under rules of committee secrecy, couldn't raise public objections.
Shame on you Republicans.
Grow a spine.
Resign.
Stand up and say no to the system.
These people are pathetic.
And I'm speaking to the Republicans right now.
If I knew That where I worked had this kind of violation of civil rights against a private U.S.
journalist, the first thing I would do is go on, I would hold a press conference and say, secrecy be damned, I will step down and refuse to be a part of a system that would abuse its powers targeting the U.S.
press for political gain.
But these people, They want the keys to the castle.
I have no respect for any of them.
And we can see it.
Now certainly, the responsibility lies on those who filed those subpoenas.
And that's Schiff.
But at a certain point, I don't care who you are.
If you sit on this committee, if you sit in Congress, and kick your feet up and say, well, you know, the rules say I can't say it, I don't care.
I don't care what the rules are.
It's about time we got some backbone in our government and people stood up to the abuses of power and defended the American people and the Constitution.
Instead, Nunes and every other Republican who knew about this and did nothing should be ashamed of themselves.
Now I get it.
Nunes is targeted in this, and again, the responsibility falls on Schiff.
But where were they when these subpoenas were filed in September targeting an American journalist who is accused of no crime and no wrongdoing?
Where were they?
Doing nothing.
Protecting themselves.
I would walk out of that building, rip my whatever jacket off, presuming I would ever actually wear a suit.
I'd burn it on the stairs.
And I would say the whole damn system is guilty.
Period.
And I refuse to be a part of it.
But that's why, you know, I'm not in politics.
And I won't run.
Because even when Schiff does something like this, I'm surprised.
Nobody cares.
Some people care, right?
The Wall Street Journal has written this up, bravo.
There have been some journalists, of course.
There's been some op-eds, yeah.
But look at CNN.
They just run with it.
Ooh, this is juicy, we're gonna make money.
It's pathetic.
There's no principle.
And I can say this to the Republicans, man.
Where were you?
You knew about this?
You knew that Adam Schiff filed subpoenas for the private phone records of an American journalist.
And what he published is only his personal choice to frame a narrative.
Certainly, and the Wall Street Journal points out, Schiff has access to literally every call made by these individuals.
Now, you can be upset that he subpoenaed Trump's private lawyer, and I think that's a shocking violation of constitutional protections.
But then you might argue that, well, Giuliani has come up as a potential actor involved in the Ukrainian scandal.
Fine.
We can argue it.
Fine.
I think it's a dangerous precedent to start dragging someone's lawyer in who's investigating certain claims.
And I think we're headed down a dark path, and it's only going to get worse.
Because I assure you...
If the Republicans weren't willing to call this out, I'd be willing to bet they're going to turn around and use those powers just right back at the Democrats, because they control the Senate.
And if they win the House, don't be surprised when they play the exact same game.
And that's bad.
And that's dangerous.
The first thing that should have happened is every Republican who knew about this should have stood up and said no.
But they didn't.
So here we- You know why?
You know why?
I don't like any of these people.
I don't like any of these politicians.
I think they're just waiting for their turn.
They're hoping to get that swing in their direction.
Let me tell you something.
Barack Obama was voted into office.
He was chosen by the American people twice.
Many of the people who chose him went to choose Trump.
Barack Obama had the opportunity to appoint a Supreme Court Justice.
And this was blocked by Republicans who said, no, we're too close to an election.
Yeah?
Well, what's going to happen if Ruth Bader Ginsburg leaves right now?
What do you think the Republicans are going to say?
Personally, you might think they're principled.
But I don't.
I think they'll immediately say, Trump gets to pick another one.
Trump gets—nope, nope, nope.
It's Trump's choice.
If Barack Obama was chosen by the American people, then he has until he leaves office to choose his justice.
We do not need to play games and pretend that either side is better at all.
Because I assure you of this, of one thing.
I'm willing to bet that eventually the tides will flip and what we see from the Republicans will be no different from what we see from Democrats.
It's the same game played back and forth.
And I know from firsthand experience, when I called out the injustices during Occupy Wall Street, I had the left and the media patting me on the back and propping me up.
But as soon as it's the left violating civil rights and norms and making up fake nonsense, now all of a sudden it's the left screeching and the right is here at my back.
And then the left says, Tim's a bootlicker, he'll see for sure.
No, I don't care.
I call it like I see it, and I'll call it out.
And I have no problem pointing to the fact that Republicans were told of the subpoenas, yet under the rules of secrecy did nothing.
Some things are more important than your rules of secrecy.
And you know what?
If I was witnessing the government abuse their power to target a journalist, I will place my hands behind my back and say, this is not a country I would ever pledge allegiance to.
And you can walk me down to that jail for violating your secrecy, assuming it's a criminal act.
No, I would rip my tie off, my shirt, whatever.
And I would say, never.
Absolutely not.
We can see what the U.S.
government has done with foreign policy, with Guantanamo Bay, with enhanced interrogations.
It's just one step after another.
They don't care about civil rights or the Constitution or protecting the will of the people.
It is a game of power.
That's all it is.
And right now, because the House has it, they will abuse it and beat it to death.
And why won't the Republicans come out while it was going on?
Because you know.
They're waiting for their turn.
They'll say, hey, wait, hold on.
Sure enough, it'll be our turn soon and we can do this.
I don't care for any of these people.
I don't.
My biggest criticisms are typically of a corrupt press slowly hiring in former Obama staffers and Clinton staffers.
A corrupt news industry that's supposed to act as a guard.
For the fourth estate to call out the powers that be, to speak truth to power.
They don't.
It's a game of power and politics.
So, unfortunately, it's the Wall Street Journal, which tends to be a more right-leaning, but center-right, calling out Schiff and the Democrats.
And I can respect that because it's the right thing to do.
But where's the rest of the press coming out and saying, we cannot live this way?
Nowhere.
So I'll state it one more time.
I understand in this instance, the Republicans and a journalist who has stories that were beneficial to Republicans are the victims being targeted by this abuse of power.
And they should have stood up the moment it happened and refused to allow it to move forward and made sure the American public knew it was happening.
It would have been the principled play and it would have been the more strategic play.
Instead, they sat back.
They knew about it.
They just sat back and did nothing.
And here we are.
Wall Street Journal goes on to say, Readers may recall that only a few years ago, Democrats were in high dungeon over the executive branch's collection of metadata against terrorists.
They claimed the National Security Agency was spying on Americans.
In 2015, Congress barred NSA from collecting bulk domestic metadata.
Federal investigators must offer legitimate reasons to obtain metadata from telecom companies.
And they are subject to restrictions on divulging it.
Yet here the companies appear to have handed over metadata based on little more than Mr. Schiff say so.
And in AT&T's case, in response to a request that was made before the House began a formal impeachment inquiry, before a formal inquiry, Schiff was subpoenaing private phone details of a journalist.
AT&T released a statement Wednesday night saying it is required by law to provide information to government and law enforcement agencies.
But AT&T can question the validity of subpoenas in court and had grounds to do so given the highly political nature of these requests.
And AT&T could have come out and made a public statement.
The federal government wants us to release information on a U.S.
citizen and journalist who's accused of no wrongdoing.
We refuse!
And they can levy all of their powers against us.
We will never violate the rights of an American free press.
You see, you can't trust these big corporations the same as you can't trust politicians.
You know what?
I can't stand any of them.
The system is corrupt and this is just more proof of it.
They go on, I'm not going to read.
They say Mr. Schiff's extraordinary.
They end by saying, Mr. Schiff's extraordinary and secret plunge into metadata, followed by its gratuitous public disclosure, is one more example of the partisan score settling that motivates this impeachment exercise.
In the cause of impeaching Donald Trump, anything goes.
And I warn you now, you may be a liberty-minded individual.
You may find yourself siding with the Republicans.
But make no mistake, there is absolutely no reason to believe that once they gain power, anything will change.
No reason to believe it.
There are certainly some good people on both sides.
I like Tulsi Gabbard and Dan Crenshaw.
I think Dan Crenshaw's made a big mistake with the red flag laws, for sure.
But I respect them.
I do.
And I think Tulsi's wrong on nuclear energy.
But I do find them to be principled individuals doing the right thing.
I also really respect Rand Paul.
Actually, I have a tweet here from Rand Paul.
He said, by releasing the phone records of GOP members, real Donald Trump lawyers and
journalists he doesn't like, Adam Schiff is doing exactly what he's accusing the president
of, using his power against his opponents for political purposes.
There are some good principled Republicans.
I certainly don't think it's Mitch McConnell or Lindsey Graham, but I do think it is Rand Paul and Dan Crenshaw.
For all of their political positions I disagree with, I do believe that they are, they're acting in good faith, and they're respectable, principled individuals doing the right thing.
I can say the same thing of Tulsi Gabbard.
Not many Democrats, but, you know, it's in the single digits, for the most part, for both parties.
This is why I'm a milquetoast fence-sitter.
It's why I'm politically homeless.
I don't trust any of them.
So I'll say it one more time.
You know, I do respect Matt Gaetz.
Not so much as I do Rand Paul, though.
Rand Paul I really, really respect.
I really trust the guy.
I disagree with him politically, of course, but in terms of freedom and protecting civil rights and an end to these wars, I can respect Rand Paul to a great degree.
But I will remind you, my support is never You know, unshakable.
And it's never 100%.
Right?
Rand Paul's done things I disagree with, of course.
So has Dan Crenshaw.
So has Tulsi Gabbard.
So has Bernie Sanders.
Bernie lost to me.
I like Andrew Yang.
He's not really a politician.
But there are very few Democrats I can look to right now and say they're doing the right thing.
Jeff Van Drew from New Jersey Second, who refused to vote for impeachment.
Much respect.
And he's an area where he might face repercussions for refusing to vote for the impeachment inquiry.
I can respect that.
So I don't know too much about the guys.
I'm not a high-profile guy, but I'll tell you this, man.
I don't care for any of these people.
I think they're playing a game because they just want the keys to the castle.
I think Matt Gaetz has played very, very well, but we'll see.
We'll see what his future holds, but I do respect him for calling out the BS, for standing up, and he's done a really good job.
Though, again, I disagree with a lot of Republicans on political issues.
I think there's, just unfortunately right now, a decent amount more principled and freedom-respecting Republicans than Democrats.
Unfortunately, I can only point to Tulsi Gabbard and then Jeff Van Drew, but I don't know too much about Van Drew.
So we got Rand Paul.
We got Dan Crenshaw.
Is that as far as I can go?
The reason I won't give a shout-out to these House Intelligence Committee Republicans is because they knew about this violation of privacy rights.
The First Amendment?
They knew.
They didn't say anything.
And I question why.
I don't trust them.
I do not.
I will not.
I don't care.
I don't care about tribalism.
I don't care about partisan politics.
I care about those who stand up for freedom, respect the Constitution, understand that Supreme Court rules and sets precedents and things can change and not everybody has all the right answers.
I certainly don't see it with 99% of our politicians.
I don't like any of these Democrats running save Tulsi Gabbard, Andrew Yang.
And I'll admit it, I actually do kind of like Cory Booker as a person.
Professionally, though, I don't think he's got the chops to be president, and I don't agree with his politics.
But I do have some respect for the guy.
I do.
I think I do see him as at least a little bit honest.
Enough.
But not enough.
So you know what?
I'll put it this way.
Tulsi Gabbard and Cory Booker.
Because I've seen some candid stuff from Booker that's made me respect him.
But, um, not enough.
I think he's pandered too much and he's nowhere near the level of Tulsi or Rand Paul or Crenshaw.
And you know what?
You may think I'm wrong about these individual politicians.
That's fine.
I'll tell you what.
I don't care what party you're in.
I care that you stand by what you say.
You defend the rights of the individuals in this country based on the Constitution.
You understand that the law isn't always correct and there is nuance and debate.
I'll leave it there.
This is a dark turn, and Schiff should not be allowed to get away with this.
And the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for saying nothing when they knew it was happening.
And I hope all of you can hold their feet to the fire.
First and foremost, Adam Schiff, for doing it.
And secondly, ask Nunes and others why they did nothing.
Why they stand by and watch this happen.
I would never do that.
Maybe these other people like Gabbard and Paul and Crenshaw have stood by as well.
And again, I'll stress, I think Crenshaw's really wrong with the red flag laws.
Those are scary, man.
I don't know, though.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
I will see you there.
Andrew Yang basically says that all of this impeachment hubbub and the scandals and the investigation are leading to Trump's re-election.
Why, you would be correct, Andrew Yang, saying, on impeachment, this is going to be a loser.
I can respect Andrew Yang because he actually is one of the first people to point out that impeachment is a failing position for the 2020 Democrats.
Now, Yang is not a politician.
He's not currently in office.
But he's running for president, so I think he has a big advantage.
He's less concerned about worrying about re-election, and he can say whatever he thinks is right.
And if he doesn't get elected, you know, we don't really expect him to get the nomination anyway.
I must be real about it.
I donated to him.
I think he's a good dude.
But he's unconstrained by fears of losing his, you know, whatever position.
I mean, Mayor Pete probably has little to worry about because he's a mayor, but you've got some senators, you know, running.
Tulsi Gabbard apparently isn't going to be seeking re-election in Congress, which is also, to an extent, good news for her, meaning she's unconstrained.
Well, let's see exactly what Andrew Yang had to say on why he took the correct position of impeachment being a horrible idea.
Now, mind you, Yang is pro-impeachment.
Probably because he has to be, but I don't want to impugn anyone's honor.
I mean, he's probably for it, but he recognizes it's a waste of time, and he phrases it really interestingly.
Check it out.
The Free Beacon Reports.
Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang on Wednesday said attacks on President Donald Trump have been ineffective and may ultimately increase his re-election chances.
Now, Yang isn't the latest to the party.
I mean, I've been talking about this non-stop, basically since Trump got elected.
The Democrats don't seem to get.
Why Trump won.
But there was a great tweet.
I forget who it was from.
Buck Sexton, I believe.
He said, you know, the Democrats haven't learned anything.
I can't remember exactly what he said, but it's basically this.
If they think that parading in a bunch of Ivy League professors to give their legal opinion on why Donald Trump should be removed, they learned nothing from 2016.
Did you see the debacle yesterday?
Or whatever the day before?
I don't remember what it was.
I tuned it out.
I tuned it out.
It was basically a bunch of anti-Trump activists giving their opinions.
And if I wanted that, I'd turn on MSNBC.
We don't need that in Congress.
But think about it.
Imagine being, I don't know, working class from a dying town, your coal plant shut down, your power plant shut down, your industry is leaving, and you're wondering who you're going to vote for.
Along comes Donald Trump.
Talks kinda bad.
You know, like a mean dude says mean things.
That's not really your concern.
Do I care as an impoverished, you know, working class individual in a dying town that Trump says mean words?
Gotta be honest, not really.
While personally, like I, Tim Pool, I'm like, I think Trump could do better.
I don't think people in these places are worried about Trump saying horse face or whatever.
What they're worried about is Donald Trump saying, I will do what I can to bring the jobs back, to bring, you know, to bolster the economy and spending is up.
It doesn't mean Trump got a clean victory.
There's a lot of problems, but compare that to the suit wearing your president is a bad man who named his son barren.
That's not gonna play well.
You know what I love about this country?
You know what makes America great?
I can walk right up to Donald Trump, to Nancy Pelosi, and I could flip them the bird and laugh the whole time.
Now, I get it.
There's security protocols.
You could service a pod, push me back, and say, get away from the president.
But I can literally say, like, you are allowed to go on TV and say, Orange Man bad 15 million times, and you can't do anything about it.
So this is what makes America great.
Let's talk about the American Dream.
Actually, let me read what Andrew Yang said, because I don't want to bury this.
He said, it's interesting, it seems like all we do is throw ineffective rocks at Donald Trump, and then it ends up leading, unfortunately, toward his re-election.
Spot on, bro.
That's exactly what's happening.
Apparently a Washington free beacon, or there's an ad for an Eric Swalwell whoopee cushion, which I have to mention because I just noticed.
But let me tell you about America.
Let me tell you about the American Dream.
You know what the American Dream is?
It's not one thing, right?
You seem to have these young millennials who believe the American Dream is that you can be institutionalized in learning facilities, take out massive loans, go to college, get out, and get a comfortable job.
Since when was that ever the American Dream?
When we look back in history at what the American Dream was, it was poor people from foreign countries coming in tired, poor, huddled masses, being given refuge in this country, putting all of their family members in a tiny shoebox apartment, and working tooth and nail, nonstop, with no days off, and eventually, their grandkids were educated elites, the nobility of a country.
You see, before America, in many countries, you didn't move up.
There was no such thing as upward mobility.
If you were born a peasant, you would die a peasant.
If you were a noble, you were a noble.
And I don't know how, but the UK still has a House of Lords.
That is mind-blowing.
They have a House of Commons, too.
I'm not super familiar with British politics, for the most part,
but they have a House of Lords.
We don't have that here.
No.
Granted, our congresspeople are all millionaires, so we do have serious problems with that, but I tell you this.
What makes America great, what makes the American dream, is the fact that I... I'll speak in a fictional setting.
Imagine I am but a lowly shoe polisher, standing on a street corner with a little box offering for just a mere ten cents a nice polish of your shoes.
And along comes big-wig corporate oil tycoon with a cigar in his mouth, smugly saying, these poor peasants.
And I can walk up to him and flick him off and say, welcome to America, buddy.
I can say whatever I want to you.
It doesn't matter how rich, how powerful.
Donald Trump, the President of the United States, could be walking down my, you know, my poor alley as I'm covered in dirt.
And I can say, go to hell.
Screw you and everything you've done.
And guess what?
Can't do nothing about it.
The American dream is that the dictator can't bring you down.
That when you are here, you can say what you want to say.
You can speak your mind.
You can stand up for what you believe in.
So I'll tell you what doesn't play for people who are upset with the status quo.
Parading in a bunch of Harvard, Yale, Ivy League attorneys in their suits to look down upon the peasants and cast condemnation from the ivory tower.
It didn't work in 2016.
It's not going to work again.
What were they thinking doing this?
As Andrew Yang says, it's an ineffective rock being thrown at Donald Trump.
And it unfortunately ends up leading towards his re-election.
Because I tell you this, Donald Trump may be a billionaire.
He may be American royalty or a noble, but he's far from the ivory tower elites looking down on the American people.
In fact, if I could explain it, Donald Trump is a powerful individual smoking a cigar, and he walks by that guy who says, hey, screw you, man.
So now you can imagine what's going on with impeachment.
Why Andrew Yang is correct.
He says you need literally dozens of Republican senators to flip.
It's not going to happen.
I love the analogy of, you know, the peasants in the ivory tower that I gave before where these nobles in the tower are laughing down at us.
You know, Hillary Clinton funneling illegal money.
These people were doing it.
D.O.
Jason invited some guy for indicting, he indicted some guy for funneling 3.5 million to the Clinton campaign.
That's what's reported.
And, you know, Bernie Sanders let his little peasant revolt.
Didn't work.
They didn't let him in.
So the other peasants brought a bull, Donald Trump, and he kicked the door in and he's rampaging around up the tower and we're all down here, the peasants, laughing about it.
But I also think of it like, in terms of the American Dream and why this parading of Harvard-educated elites is ineffective, and it's because...
Well, Donald Trump is a powerful man.
He is not in the ivory tower.
He's been standing down on the ground, minding his own business, talking about how it bothers him, and one day he walked up and was like, you know what?
I'm gonna kick that door in.
And everyone's like, yeah!
Like, this guy's rich, but he's down here talking like we do, living like us.
Not really, but that's how it feels.
And I'll tell you this.
Metaphorically, I get it.
Trump is certainly a rich guy with a golden toilet.
But he does not.
He is at war with the nobility of America, with these millionaire senators and congresspeople who want to uphold the status quo.
Look at all the Republicans who are running away with their tails between their legs.
All the retirees.
They're saying, I'm out, I don't want to be involved anymore.
I never cared in the first place.
They were in the same party, the same nobles laughing at the peasants down on the ground, and Donald Trump came along, kicked the door in, and everyone laughed while he did it.
So I'll tell you what, you know, there's supposed to be a media telling us what's right and what's wrong, in terms of facts, not morality.
They're supposed to say, like, it's not true that Trump did X, it is true that Trump did Y. They don't.
Now they're just playing games.
So for me, I sit back and say, Let the bull rampage.
I don't care.
This is exactly what you get.
A populist rampage from somebody who doesn't like you, and who is supported by people who don't like you, and as Michael Moore said back in 2016, yeah, I kid you not, Michael Moore said this.
I'll paraphrase.
He said that, you know, Joe Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, and all the blows are going to send the biggest F you to the establishment and it will feel good when they go and vote for Donald Trump.
And that's what it is.
So for me, I'm not, I'm not one to play that game.
I vote on principle.
And I know a lot of people voted for Trump based on his policies.
But I tell you this, man, there was at least some people who look at these Harvard educated elites paraded around in front of Congress, the nobility of this country who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths.
Or, as they say in Kingsman, a silver suppository.
These are the people who pretend that they are the mighty fighters for equality, but in reality they're the privileged elites, the nobles, who are shocked at the lowly peasants who dare question their edict.
Michael Bloomberg, taxing your soda because you're too stupid not to drink water.
Michael Bloomberg saying that we should tax the poor.
Yeah, because they're too stupid to decide for themselves how they should live.
Yeah, well, I'll tell you what.
There are a lot of problems with, you know, people spending money poorly, mismanaging their resources.
I get it.
But you know what else I understand?
That there is freedom in this country.
That you are allowed to gorge yourself on Pepsi and drink gallon after gallon if you so choose.
That also means don't expect me to pay your health care.
And therein lies the big conundrum.
The people on the left who want to gorge themselves simultaneously demanding universal health care.
That doesn't work.
So I'll leave it here.
You know, I had this thing planned of talking about the media and Andrew Yang, but I don't know.
I felt like talking about freedom.
But Andrew Yang is right.
He does say he's pro-impeachment.
You know, that's fine.
I think, you know, personally, I actually have no problem with impeaching the president, investigating him, and all these things.
I just think the Democrats don't have anything, and I think they've taken it too far.
So I'll put it this way.
It's like, this is what's going on.
You're at a party, right?
And some dude barges in and he's all loud and obnoxious.
And people are complaining about him, like, yo, you know, he did this, he did that.
And I'm like, wow, if he really did that at my party, you know, I'm probably going to have to ask him to leave.
So I listen.
And then finally, they're like, well, we can't actually prove he damaged anything in your house or did anything wrong.
And I'm like, OK, well, look, the guy's kind of obnoxious, but it's a party.
We're leaving here at midnight.
Just go have fun.
Have a drink.
And they keep coming back to me non-stop complaining about him.
And I'm like, listen man, you've taken it too far.
The joke is done.
Okay?
We all laughed the first time you said it, but now you won't stop saying it and we're over it.
You cried wolf.
So listen, in a year, we're gonna vote!
I'm sorry you're gonna lose because you've spent so much.
This is why you're losing!
As Andrew Yang says, you're throwing ineffective rocks at Trump and it ends up leading toward his re-election!
If only the Democrats could learn.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, I got another segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
I bring you now to a tale of the failures of socialized medicine.
But more importantly, it's proof about everything I've been saying as to why universal healthcare doesn't work, but more importantly, why sometimes you will just not be able to get life-saving medication.
It's a sad story.
I would love to guarantee that everybody afflicted by any ailment was cured.
Unfortunately, cures are finite, same as any resource.
They must be produced, sometimes they're expensive to make, sometimes they're just rare and hard to come by.
Like, you know, like a rare herb in the middle of the jungles of the Amazon rainforest and no one really knows how to get it.
It's just not a guarantee the treatment will be available to you.
So the left likes to believe in this utopia, like the movie Elysium, where the rich people just have the cures but for no reason won't share it.
That's not the case.
Humans try to save other people.
Look, how many times?
Go to humansbeingbros on Reddit.
You can see so many stories of people risking their lives, running full speed into oncoming traffic to drag someone to safety, putting themselves in line.
We have, in almost every major city, a fire department, a police department, EMTs, people who risk their lives every day because they want to save you.
If we could save these people, we would do it.
You can't always.
That doesn't mean our system is perfect.
It's broken in many ways.
Let me read you the story.
Baby denied life-saving drug by Louisiana Medicaid.
Heavens!
Why would government healthcare not provide a life-saving treatment?
Could it be the treatment is too expensive and too rare?
Let's read.
They say the most expensive drug in the world could be a possible cure for a 16-month-old boy.
Axel Dennis was diagnosed with Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 1 at 5 weeks old.
SMA is a genetic disease that affects muscle movement.
Axel's mother, Andrea James, says her son's muscles aren't getting messages from his brain.
We were told one to two years and bring him home and enjoy him the best we could, but there were no guarantees of his lifespan.
In January, he lost his ability to smile.
Earlier this year, the FDA approved Zolgensma for children with SMA under the age of 2.
The infusion halts the disorder in its tracks and doesn't allow it to progress further.
The single-dose drug has been praised by the SMA community, but it's incredibly expensive at more than $2 million.
Yes.
What if I said everybody should have access to, I don't know, jet planes or rocket planes?
You should be able to go to outer space.
Why not?
Why can't everyone go to outer space?
That's not fair.
It's because they're too expensive.
Why can't everybody get the cure for this rare disease?
It's two million dollars.
And we're not talking about price gouging.
We're talking about an extremely rare treatment which doesn't have the industrial mass production to make a cure.
Cures are specific.
Axel's Louisiana Medicaid has refused to cover the cost.
Quote, we've been denied twice now.
We are applying for the state fair hearing, James said.
I think that they just don't want to pay the price.
Well, of course they don't!
It's $2 million!
Think about all of the treatments available for all of the people in your state, in Louisiana.
How many people could be saved with that $2 million?
As much as I want to say, I would try to save every life.
We only have so much to give.
Our resources are finite.
Two million dollars could cover insulin, oxygen tanks, important therapies, surgeries, or one person's drug.
And as much as I'd like to guarantee it to everybody, triage is an important concept in medical treatment.
We apply medical treatment to those who are in the most dire needs first.
And it doesn't always guarantee you get the medication or treatment if that's the case.
And I believe triage specifically refers to, like, first aid.
You know, somebody is bleeding out and somebody's got a broken ankle, you help the guy who's bleeding first.
But this is how it works in hospitals.
If you come in and you're going to die, they'll rush you in to try and save your life.
And if you broke your arm, they're going to say you're going to be sitting for a couple hours before a doctor can see you.
It's the way it is.
So in this case, the sad truth about universal health care is that you will face, essentially, I'm going to be hyperbolic, but a government death panel.
I kid you not.
This child was presented to the government and they said, we have a cure, we can cure it.
And they said, we're not paying that.
You will just have to die.
In his treatment denial letter, it says Axel doesn't meet certain criteria to receive the dose.
James says it's because he has a trach tube, which is used to help expand Axel's lungs.
It's now a race against time.
The family has eight months before Axel turns two.
James has heard and seen what the drug can do and wishes it for everyone.
The money's been spent to prove that it'll benefit these kids.
It will save their lives, as close to a cure as we've come.
As what anything could really be.
I say to the state, save his life.
Give him a chance to walk.
Give him a chance to earn his smile back.
You know, I've been thinking about... We had a pet emergency recently, and we're still dealing with it.
And I've been thinking about what I could do to help families who couldn't afford life-saving treatment for their animals.
And in this process, I thought about the horrifying conundrum that exists in two families coming to you and both telling you, please save our loved one.
And you know you can only save one of them.
That is one of the most troubling and nightmarish choices to make.
Imagine you're holding a rope, Two ropes, and you need both arms to pull people up.
They're hanging, you know, off the side of a cliff.
And in order to pull one up, you gotta let go of the other.
Which choice do you make?
It is very difficult.
I assure you, there are probably people in Louisiana working in the Department of Health who are not feeling good right now, and knew that true leadership requires difficult decisions.
And I wouldn't be surprised if some of those people cried when they went home knowing that
this child will die without this treatment, but it's $2 million and it's just beyond their
capability to do.
They have to think about how many other people will go wanting and put their lives at risk
because they've given up $2 million.
You might argue, why don't we just mandate this medication be cheaper?
We don't know what it costs to make this.
How many people are required, how much time and energy to synthesize a specific cure for
a genetic disease?
Two on your side reached out, which is the news outlet, reached out to the Louisiana
Department of Health regarding Axel's denial.
LDH says its heart goes out to parents who learn their child has a life-threatening disease such as spinal muscular atrophy, or SMA.
Louisiana Medicaid covers all treatments for SMA that have been approved by the FDA, and also reviews cases to make sure that no child is denied care if they meet the medical necessity requirements.
For the newest treatment, Zolgensma, the FDA developed a guideline to make sure the treatment is only used in children where it will be safe and effective.
LDH says in this situation, its medical professionals have extensively reviewed the case using the guidelines.
It says the child's Healthy Louisiana Plan has contacted the parents and informed them of whether this treatment would be safe and effective for their child based on those guidelines.
Well, Axel's family fights for his life.
He continues his treatment with Spinraza.
Spinraza, approved by the FDA in 2016, is given every four months through spinal injections.
Each time, Axel must go under anesthesia to receive the treatment.
It can often be incredibly traumatizing.
James and the rest of Axel's family are hoping someone will listen and get him the best treatment available.
A GoFundMe has been set up for Axel here.
To learn more about Axel and SMA, visit the Facebook page.
I gotta admit, this story is breaking my heart.
Nearly brings me to tears.
I know that there are certain treatments that won't even have a new revolutionary treatment.
That there are certain people who are just condemned to die.
And it is with this emotional pain that we fight every day for cures to make sure that people can survive.
That people with the rarest of genetic disorders, who 100 years ago, there would just be no cure.
That 100 years ago, 150 years ago, people with diabetes were condemned to die.
And we invented a cure.
We've brought those prices down.
And shame on the companies that would price gouge insulin.
But there's also a sad reality.
We cannot and we will not always produce a cure for every ailment.
And so we will be plagued by stories of children who are within arm's reach of a cure they just can't get.
And it brings me no joy to share that reality with people.
It reminds me of that movie with Ricky Gervais, The Invention of Lying.
Where he's sitting there with his mother as she dies, and he makes up the idea of heaven and religion because he didn't want her to be scared.
And that's what I feel we have when it comes to these pipe dreams of universal healthcare that will save everyone's.
It's just a utopian ideal.
The idea that we can create a paradise where our loved ones just won't die, that we can save every life, is just not reality.
And we need adults in the room to say, I know it hurts and you're going to lose someone you love, but the sad truth is there was no way to fix this other than improving our technology and fighting every day to discover new cures and better understand the human body.
The solution is not to implement massive, wide-reaching taxes, because you think money is going to be the cure.
The reality is there are people at universities every day, desperately trying to develop cures, using every ounce of their body, working hour after hour with no sleep, trying to find these cures.
No amount of money is going to change that.
These people are working as hard as they can.
Now we can allocate resources away from nonsense, like foreign war, And that's been my position.
That if we took those trillions and pushed those resources towards developing cures, then we actually would save the lives of these children.
But think back to a hundred plus years ago, when someone was telling you the same story.
This child has diabetes and there's no cure, but a new treatment, insulin, might save their life.
Unfortunately, it's extremely difficult to get Hard to produce.
Nah, I get it.
Insulin, for the most part, we pull it from, you know, pigs, I believe.
So it's not as difficult to synthesize a rare genetic treatment.
But as time goes on, you need to realize that there are a lot of ailments that affect children all day, every day.
And we haven't yet discovered that cure.
To believe that we could just snap our fingers and the government would cover it is just not true.
The cure exists right now for this young child.
The government system has said, no, we can't do it.
And that will be the reality even when we do have the cure.
And there you go.
Maybe somebody watching, you know, is a billionaire or a millionaire and wants to cover the cost to save this child's life, assuming the risks.
I think the government would try to do it if they thought it would work, but it sounds like they're saying they're concerned it won't be safe and effective.
So maybe someone out there is wealthy enough to fund that cure, but for the time being, it's not like evil people twirling their mustaches are kicking you out of Elysium.
It's not like we have a magical cure for every single disease and we just don't want you to have it.
Some people are evil!
But most people want to save you.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
But there are certainly a lot of people who would love to see Star Wars fail, and probably for political or tribal reasons.
Star Wars The Last Jedi was panned by many fans, and some asserted that it had an SJW narrative, Social Justice Warrior, for those that, for some reason, don't know, because you had what they referred to as Admiral Gender Studies, the woman with the purple hair.
I do not agree.
I had no complaints about any social justice.
I think it was just campy, bad, with terrible writing.
And personally, my personal conspiracy theory, I'm kidding, by the way, because I know everyone's going to be like, Tim's a conspirator.
No, no, no.
I think Rian Johnson really did want to destroy that movie.
Kylo Ren even says, let the past die, kill it if you have to.
And then here we are with a movie destroying the entire Star Wars franchise.
Well, there's a new movie coming.
Um, soon.
And it turns out that Star Wars Rise of Skywalker box office tracking for $175 to $200 million But, uh-oh!
That's actually down!
That's less than what I believe the rise of, uh, I'm sorry, the Last Jedi got.
I could be wrong, but at least that's what they're alleging in the story, I believe.
That they're saying that the opening weekend of December 20th to 22nd is, uh, they're speculating $175 to $200 million.
Wow, that's really, really great!
They say the Last Jedi brought in $220 million, and The Force Awakens $248 million.
I hate to say it.
It's been a downtrend.
So that's not good news for the rise of Skywalker.
Now, there have been a bunch of rumors from people that, you know, there were test screenings and people stormed out and they said, oh, it's so awful.
And it turns out, or at least it's being alleged right now, there never were any test screenings.
But let's read about what's going on with the low tracking for Star Wars, and I will say this.
Look, I've talked to fans.
Many of them hated The Last Jedi.
They're still gonna go see it.
But I promise you one thing.
I will not be seeing Star Wars.
Unless the fans give it positive reviews.
If the fans come out and say, you know what, J.J.
Abrams redeemed himself, the movie's actually good, I'll go see it.
Because I'm not a crazy person!
I'll tell you what's going on, The Last Jedi was so awful, I don't want to see these movies because I'm worried they're going to be awful too, and so I've just really been demotivated by this.
I've heard Solo was actually pretty good, never really got around to watching it, just, you know, meh, whatever.
And I'm not going to watch The Mandalorian, not necessarily because of The Last Jedi, but Pretty much because of The Last Jedi.
So let's read.
They say, Lucasfilm and Disney are trying to manage expectations for Star Wars The Rise of Skywalker, considering the volatile state of the box office.
And Skywalker also faces competition from Jumanji The Next Level, which hits theaters a week earlier and is showing sizable strength on tracking.
Let me just stop you right there and say, if Star Wars is really worried about Jumanji, Wow!
Boy, have the mighty fallen.
I mean, Jumanji was fun.
It's not the greatest movie in the world.
It's not Star Wars.
And now they're concerned Jumanji is going to eat into the profits of Star Wars?
Woo!
Wow.
That's the worst thing I've heard yet.
They say.
The Rise of Skywalker is the ninth and final installment in the George Lucas-created series that first hit the big screen in 1977, and it's probably, I don't know, it's awful.
Like the original movies, I understand why they were so great.
The prequels were fun, but this?
I mean, it's mostly The Last Jedi, I gotta be honest.
Skywalker's ensemble cast, led by a bunch of names I'm not going to read.
Also slated to open nationwide are Universal's musical Cats, the big-screen adaptation of the iconic stage musical, and Lionsgate's Fox News drama Bombshell.
Oh, man.
Oh, Bombshell.
What a stupid idea for a movie.
Okay, I know we're getting off of Star Wars here, but can I just point out Bombshell is about Roger Ailes and the abuse at Fox News.
You kidding me?
I don't care.
I'm not gonna go see that movie.
He made a movie about Weinstein.
I'd probably go see it.
Matt Lauer.
Or all of them, including Roger Ailes, I might consider it.
What is Ro... You know, Hollywood, I don't know what you... So bad.
So bad.
Um, I ain't going to talk about these other movies, but the main thing I wanted to present here, the main, the main, uh, the lead on the story is that Rise of Skywalker, it's down.
I mean, um, Force Awakens did well, Last Jedi was down, and now, once again, Skywalker is down.
So I'll tell you this, man, the trailers don't look good.
Sorry.
Um, you know, Oscar Isaac, I think, is a cool dude, uh, John Boyega, you know, um, Daisy Ridley, they're all, they're all good in their own respects, but whatever this Star Wars thing is, is just not I don't know.
And you know, let me tell you.
They're bringing back the Emperor, I guess.
They must truly be desperate.
Let me tell you my conspiracy theory.
Outside of Rian Johnson and purposely tanking Star Wars, I think they know how bad it is.
I think they know how bad it is.
And I'll tell you, you know how I know how bad it is?
Look, I'm a political commentator and somewhat cultural guy.
I don't talk about Star Wars all that often, okay?
When I do though, views are amazing.
But I talk about Trump and impeachment.
Who's gonna watch me talk about Star Wars?
Apparently a lot of people.
Which means, I assure you, these companies are not fools.
They track this stuff.
Now, publicly, they say one thing.
You know, J.J.
Abrams is like, Ryan Johnson did a great job, we actually are on track.
It's like, dude, the Knights of Ren weren't even in the second movie.
What are you even doing bringing them back?
It makes no sense.
But he is.
It's very obvious they know how bad things were.
They've made a bunch of changes, they're bringing out Jon Favreau to do Mandalorian, so there's this concern that they've kind of screwed things up.
I think they know.
I think they know how bad it is, and I think they're desperate.
So I think they're bringing back the Emperor, because they're like, what can we do?
We've lost it.
In fact, however, I will add the biggest mistake they could have made, bringing back the Emperor.
Are you kidding me?
They couldn't even finish off... Let me tell you something, okay?
We get the first movies back in the 70s, right?
70s and 80s.
You get A New Hope, Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and it tells you a story.
The first one, A New Hope, I thought was the best of the three.
Return of the Jedi was good, but I do think A New Hope, because A New Hope told a single story.
Empire Strikes Back had like a cliffhanger ending, meh.
And then Return of the Jedi showed the death of the Emperor, so it's good, it was great.
There was a story, there was an arc, there was a narrative, there was a theme.
So they made the prequels.
The prequels were made for the kids of that generation.
People like me.
And we were into Dragon Ball Z and stuff, so what do you get?
unidentified
You get force fights and backflips and whoosh whoosh whoosh whoosh whoosh.
I mean, we learned about the original story when Obi-Wan The origins of the Emperor and the Stormtroopers and the clones.
It was telling you in the same story.
Here's what's happening.
Now what about the next three movies after the, you know, so now Force Awakens, Last Jedi and Rise of Skywalker?
No.
I don't know who Rey is.
Snoke?
I don't know who he is.
We were not told any stories.
Let me tell you something.
Each story in the prequels, each story in the original trilogy, told you something about what was going on.
The Force Awakens?
I got no idea.
I learned nothing.
The Last Jedi?
Don't even get me started on that.
So what, are you gonna wrap up everything in the last film?
That shows you that they're truly desperate to bring back the Emperor, because that means they've also just erased the finale of the original movie.
Why are you destroying the canon of this beloved series?
So, look, I'll put it this way.
It's no surprise to me that there were people claiming, in test screenings, people were walking out saying, oh, the movie's so bad, because they've gotten rid of the extended universe, which people loved.
I haven't followed too much, but I did play Knights of the Old Republic.
That game was amazing.
And I played Battlefront.
That was awesome.
Not the new one.
So now you've got people who are saying, we wish Star Wars, the old canon, was still canon.
So they want this to fail to prove a point.
They need it to fail.
Not everybody.
I'm not talking about like every fan that they might want to claim.
There's a handful of people.
You know what I mean?
It's a decent amount.
And they have a vested interest in saying what they've done to Star Wars has destroyed it.
They want the old Star Wars back.
You could make new stories.
And you could follow up.
So let me ask you a few questions.
Let me give you my thoughts, right?
Let me just give you the story here.
Basically, J.J.
Abrams was saying that there's been no screening, we've never done a test screening, and that's been the big rumor.
Let me ask you a few questions.
What's First Order all about?
No idea.
Who's Snoke?
No idea.
Who's Rey?
Turns out Rey's just a nobody.
Maybe they'll change it and that'll be the big twist.
What if the twist is the Emperor saying, Rey, you are my child, or whatever, but that would just be like, you know, we did that with Vader, right?
That's not... Or she tells him, I'm your daughter, ooh, and she finds out.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, rehash old plots, it's boring.
Let me explain what I meant earlier.
George Lucas had guidelines for the next films are gonna be about but you they
clearly missed the opportunity to tell the same story so let me explain what I
meant earlier in the first three films we got our arc in the prequel films we
got our arc that backed up a lot of these elements and they did stupid
callbacks like so that's how Boba Fett came to be so that's how you know the
lightsaber oh we get it Kind of obvious things they always do with prequels.
Like, that explains it.
But at least that explains it, right?
What they could have done with The Force Awakens, instead of making a shot-for-shot remake of A New Hope, is show the collapse of the Empire after the loss of the Emperor.
Perhaps the movie could have been about a new cast of heroes.
The First Order, the remnants of the Empire.
I know they didn't explain anything.
It doesn't make sense.
None of it made sense to me.
I guess I gotta say The Last Jedi is probably what really ruined everything.
The focus of the first movie should have been substantially more about a desperate grip on the Empire.
Not that the Empire was gone and there's a new Republic.
It should have literally been That there was a fight over power.
The new Sith, you know, Kylo Ren, it should have been him fighting to become the Emperor and the Empire should have still existed.
It should have been, you know, the last movies were like, the Resistance defeated the Emperor, aha!
But the Loyalists still exist.
The first movie should have been that all of these star systems were still under the boot.
Listen, just because the Emperor is gone doesn't mean that every, you know, A soldier, on his other planets or whatever, just stopped and left.
The infrastructure was all still there.
So it should have been, in my opinion, about desperate clawing at that throne.
New emerging force users.
And it could have been 10, 20 years later.
And it could have been that it was the breakdown of the empire.
The second movie could have been the empire truly crumbling.
And the third movie could have been the birth of a new republic.
Instead, I don't even know what's going on!
Whatever, I'm done.
You get the point.
We'll see what happens.
Star Wars is coming up.
It's tracking lower than expected.
Still gonna make a ton of money.
I think I'll be fine.
But I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out.
I will see you all tomorrow, but I must stress, I am going to get a root canal right now.
So maybe tomorrow I won't talk.
I won't be able to actually do my job.
Here's hoping that doesn't happen.
Yep, but hey, I'll tell you what, man.
Everybody's got a deal with dental work in their life, and my teeth are pretty jacked up, so dentist it is.
