Democrat Schiff's Corruption WORSE Than We Thought, Republican Vows Legal Action But WONT Play Dirty
Democrat Schiff's Corruption WORSE Than We Thought, Republican Vows Legal Action But WONT Play Dirty. Adam Schiff released private phone records for his Republican rival in the impeachment process Devin Nunes and a private US citizen and journalist John Solomon but worse now is that we are learning not only was his report wrong but that it may be completely fake.Devin Nunes said the logs released don't match his phone records. The records were used to smear Solomon and Nunes of having been engaged in a conspiracy to help president Trump dig up dirt on his political rivals.Nunes responded by threatening legal action against Adam Schiff for the serious breach.Meanwhile Judge Napolitono argued that Adam Schiff could be facing an ethics investigation over his abuse of power.Some Republicans demanded that Lindsey Graham respond in kind by subpoenaing Adam Schiff's records as well as other Democrats but Graham outright refused to play dirty.Graham and Republicans took the high road here but if Democrats like Schiff are willing to break the rules and play dirty it means that Republicans have a huge disadvantage in the Trump impeachment process
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Recently, Democrat Adam Schiff somehow obtained the private phone records of Devin Noon as a Republican, who just so happens to be his chief political rival in the impeachment process, as well as an American journalist who was accused of no wrongdoing.
The shocking thing is he published this information, what some are now calling a major ethics violation.
For me, I think this may be one of the most egregious abuses of power, privacy rights, and civil rights that I've seen.
Maybe ever.
But Devin Nunes, the target of the smear from Adam Schiff, is fighting back.
Not only is he saying that this information isn't even correct, he's threatening legal action.
Now I will add something to the Republicans' credit.
I've stated before that whatever these sides are in the culture war, unfortunately for the side we're on, we're unwilling to play dirty.
Certainly there are many Republicans who play dirty, but there are many moderate individuals, liberal types, libertarians, who don't want to violate someone's rights, who don't want to steal information, lie, cheat, or steal.
And that means people like us are facing a major disadvantage against corrupt individuals like Adam Schiff.
If it's true, Adam Schiff published false information to smear Devin Nunes.
You can clearly see he's playing dirty.
CNN then picks up the records and accuses a journalist of publishing conspiracy theories based off of out-of-context and, in my opinion, information obtained by violating their rights.
I feel, and I'm going to say this, it's my opinion, Adam Schiff knew by releasing these logs, whether they're real or not, Was going to give the press fodder for clickbait, ragebait nonsense that would then defame these individuals.
Devin Nunes is threatening legal action.
Unfortunately though, so here's the pro and the con.
The Republicans, so far, are unwilling to play dirty.
Yes, Jim Banks has asked Lindsey Graham to subpoena Adam Schiff saying, hey, they want to pull our records, why don't you do it?
And Graham said no.
I'll tell you what, we'll read the story.
And while I can respect Lindsey Graham for resisting playing dirty, I gotta point out, if you got someone who's openly cheating and getting away with it, and you stand on principle and refuse, it's respectable, but you are at a major disadvantage.
So Devin Nunes is gonna sue.
We'll see if that works.
Let's read the first story from Fox News.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give.
But the most important thing you can do, share this video.
You know, one of the biggest challenges to my work is trying to explain someone who has only ever watched CNN why this matters.
Because when they hear me talk, they say, hey, wait a minute.
What you're saying doesn't add up with what I've heard from CNN.
There is so much information that you'd have to follow in order to get to a point where you truly know what's going on.
Unfortunately, many people don't.
So, in reality, the best thing that anyone can do, share these videos, because at least it'll start them somewhere, even if they don't want to watch it, which many people don't, it does help, and maybe then we can get people to break out of those bubbles.
Let's read the story and see what Devin Nunes has to say about Adam Schiff, and I want to stress, okay, I know I've said it 50 million times at this point, I, I, I, what Adam Schiff did, Publishing these details is beyond shocking.
It is beyond shocking.
It left me literally speechless.
The video I put together about it, I didn't even know, I couldn't even follow a thread.
I was just sitting here like, whoa, man.
Like Devin Nunes, I'm sorry, how did he get this information on Nunes and a journalist?
And where was CNN to say, do not target the press?
Let's read.
House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Nunes of California said Saturday that he would be pursuing legal action after his phone records were exposed in the release of the committee's impeachment inquiry report.
On Tuesday, the committee voted to adopt and issue a 300-page report on the findings from the panels of the impeachment inquiry accusing President Trump of misusing his office to seek foreign help in the 2020 presidential race.
The report included records of calls from Nunes, Rudy Giuliani, Jay Sekulow, journalist John Solomon, Fox News host Sean Hannity, Giuliani Connection Lev Parnas, and other White House associates.
Appearing on Fox and Friends Weekend with host Pete—we don't need to read the promo for this.
He said—I'm sorry, Nunes said he's been under fire for three years because Republicans continue to expose corruption, citing Democrats unmasking Trump transition officials and funding the dossier.
And then of course, over the two weeks before Thanksgiving, this is a quote now, I think they were embarrassed by their lack of evidence they were able to present through the hearings.
So what happens is, the Friday before Thanksgiving, the fake news story drops about me supposedly being in Vienna.
And then we get back from Thanksgiving, and lo and behold, my name, along with one of my current staff people, and a former staff person, all of a sudden our civil liberties are violated.
Because our phone records show up in this report.
Now I want to stop real quick.
He's saying it's false, the media has smeared Devin Nunes.
This is really, really crazy.
I gotta say, man, the establishment is truly desperate to smear Devin Nunes, the ranking member, a Republican, claiming that a lawyer for a guy overheard from another guy that Devin Nunes met with that guy in Vienna.
It's insane.
It's insane.
Devin Nunes then went on to publish photos of him in Libya and Malta saying it's just demonstrably false.
And he's suing CNN, but I'll tell you what.
CNN is likely protected because they're just reporting the claim from someone else.
It's a joke I often make when it comes to the press.
They say, an anonymous source tells us X. We heard this from so-and-so.
I'll tell you what.
You give me 20 bucks, I'll go in the alley, find some homeless guy who's gonna tell me whatever you want him to say, and then I can say an anonymous source told me Devin Nunes did a backflip.
Tell us who these people are.
Now I have to stop real quick and issue a rare apology, a sincere apology to Devin Nunes and other Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee and in the House because I made a video on my second channel when I found out that Republicans knew that Adam Schiff had filed these subpoenas.
I was furious.
And I said, you know what man, if these people knew Schiff had done this, and they refused to speak up, they knew he was violating the civil rights of a journalist, and they did nothing, well then they deserve some flack as well.
I know that Nunes is the victim in this, but come on man, if you knew, turns out I was wrong.
Later, Devin Nunes stated, they knew of the subpoenas, but had no idea who was being subpoenaed.
So that, that was my bad.
New information came to light.
I was completely wrong.
Apparently, Devin Nunes and other Republicans were aware, Adam Schiff were aware, Schiff was going to be issuing subpoenas for phone records, but he did not know it was his phone records.
In this instance, he was blindsided completely, and my anger was unfounded.
In this case, Devin Nunes is getting smeared and berated, having his private details released.
Look, man, Nunes deserves criticism over his cow Twitter account lawsuit.
Like, he's suing some parody accounts and some critics, and it's dry sound-affecting and fueling a lot of that.
Come on, man.
If somebody's gonna make fun of you, too bad!
Welcome to America!
Anybody who wants to make fun of you can.
But, in this instance, this is serious.
I think it's silly that Nunes is suing over the Cow Twitter account, but this is maybe one of the most terrifying stories I've seen, which is why I've done so many videos about it.
Look, I know some of you may be like, Tim, we get it.
Schiff did this thing.
Come on, man.
I'm not playing around with you guys.
Adam Schiff pulling the private phone details of a journalist is, it's, I'm surprised this isn't the top story on every major news outlet, like, whoa!
Whoa.
Let's read on, because I've got some more criticism, some more flak here from people challenging Schiff.
So the congressman is currently suing CNN for defamation after the network published reporting alleging that he met with Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin last year in Vienna in order to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.
Nunes told the Friends Weekend host that upon review, his phone records do not match what committee chairman Adam Schiff and the House Democrats put in their report.
They asked, so you did not talk to Lev Parnas, for example, as many times as they're alleging?
Nunez responds.
Well, let me tell you what I have.
I can tell you that it doesn't match, okay?
So I have one call with Rudy Giuliani in April, one in May.
Substantive calls.
The rest of the calls were either somebody didn't connect or it was voicemail, right?
Nunez also recognized an incoming call from a woman who he had assumed was Parnas's wife.
I would do what I would normally do in a situation where you don't recognize somebody.
You don't know somebody.
You say, thank you very much, let me get you to the appropriate staff person.
Now, he goes on to say, they asked him again, so did you ever have a substantive conversation with Lev Parnas about information in Ukraine, yes or no?
Nunes responded, I didn't recognize the name until just in this last month when he was indicted.
Because I didn't know who that person was.
I can tell you that there's no way I talked about me being in Vienna meeting with random Ukrainians.
That didn't happen, right?
So I can tell you we didn't talk about that because that didn't happen.
Nunes said that Schiff is in touch with Parnas all the time, and if there's a problem with Parnas, they need to investigate themselves.
And so the truth is, two calls with Rudy Giuliani, and one call with a guy they don't even know, seems pretty odd to say that's a conspiracy.
I believe I am the first member of Congress, ever, to have my phone records exposed like this.
We are definitely going to take legal action.
We need to get to court to stop that from happening again.
And yes, he does.
Absolutely, he does.
Now, I question.
I would prefer if Nunes could come out more definitively and say, no, it didn't happen, no.
But the reality is, and I can respect this, Nunes is going to be challenging them in court, which means he has to be very careful about what he says on TV.
If he misremembers something or says something and they take it out of context, it will be weaponized.
So I can respect that.
You may be familiar with Judge Napolitano.
I have tremendous respect for Judge Napolitano, okay?
And he's been very anti-Trump.
He's the legal expert, and he's said repeatedly on TV that Trump has committed impeachable offenses.
And again, Napolitano's, for the most part, a straight shooter.
I respect this guy.
So I take that seriously when he says these things, but two days ago he said, unseemly, for Schiff to release Nunes' phone records, possible ethics breach.
I defer to the judge.
He certainly knows a lot more about the law than I do, and I think he's a guy who's on the level.
He has no problem challenging Trump if he needs to, and he has no problem calling out Schiff if he needs to.
I think he's being fair here.
They say, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano called it unseemly that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff released the apparent phone records of fellow lawmaker Nunes and suggested Schiff risks a possible congressional ethics case.
More than that.
I mean, it's not only that he released the private phone records of Nunes.
He alleged a conspiracy.
He was saying it's troubling that Nunes may have been conspiring with Trump or whatever, something to that effect, because he selectively chose these phone numbers and made claims.
Well, it turns out, let me show you something.
Turns out, Adam Schiff's committee report wrongly claimed Giuliani phoned Mick Mulvaney and other budget officials.
If that's wrong, what else is wrong?
Devin Nunes says his records don't match up with this.
Stands to reason that not only did Adam Schiff publish the private details of a journalist and a rival in politics, but that he may have lied about the whole thing.
Listen, man, I can't explain how troubling this is enough.
You want to have a conversation about Donald Trump calling Ukraine and all these things?
Oh, you better believe I'm right there.
I am absolutely willing and ready to chant, lock him up, the moment evidence emerges that Donald Trump did something untoward, illegal, high crimes, misdemeanors, etc.
We're not there.
What did Trump say?
Do us a favor, though.
Our country has been through a lot, yada yada.
Sounds reasonable to me that Donald Trump was trying to weed out corruption.
I think Trump's got personal motivations.
I've said it many times.
That's fine.
But is he justified in weeding out corruption?
Look, man.
Everybody has their perspective.
So maybe Trump is angry that the Russiagate thing happened.
He was maligned and accused for years, and he was eventually proven to not have colluded with Russia, and now he wants to get to the bottom of it.
So he asked for an investigation.
Was it inappropriate?
I think it's fair to say he should have left it to the DOJ or to his officials, not take it upon himself to start asking these questions.
Is it a high crime or misdemeanor?
I don't think so.
Now, Trump is in... I think he's going to find some trouble for ordering people not to testify.
However, what Trump did It's an argument.
It's literally an argument.
In fact, the only bipartisan support for impeachment is on the Republican side, when these two Democrats defected, and possibly more.
Moderate Democrats anonymously telling CNN, I don't see evidence for impeachment, and a safe blue Democrat in Michigan saying, we're better off censuring.
Says to me, we got a real argument here.
What Adam Schiff did, took the private details of his rival, of a journalist who was accused of no wrongdoing, violates so much It is pure corruption.
It is pure corruption.
And I tell you this, the judge who said Trump committed impeachable acts is also saying this is a possible congressional ethics case.
And I think so.
Absolutely.
So let's jump over to what Lindsey Graham is on about, because I can respect all this.
Lindsey Graham pours cold water on Trump.
House GOP push to subpoena Schiff.
This is an article from Talking Points Memo.
A left-wing publication.
And I highlighted to show you that the left loves when the right refuses to play dirty.
It's unfortunate.
I don't think every Republican is clean.
In fact, it was a Republican who asked Graham to play dirty.
I also previously mentioned the appropriate thing for Republicans to do is not violate ethics, civil rights, etc.
But that means Republicans face a serious uphill battle.
And it's scary to me to consider that Adam Schiff could actually win by lying in this way.
There are people who truly believe that Devin Nunes met with the Ukrainian prosecutor, is calling these corrupt individuals to dig up dirt, and Schiff is doing this, at least in my opinion, to discredit his chief opposition to getting Trump impeached.
We are talking about a coordinated, corrupt, depraved campaign to smear journalists, politicians, to get power.
Trump supporters call it a coup, man, but I'll tell you what, Adam Schiff is as dirty as they come.
The moment he pub... Listen.
You wanna talk about Devin Nunes maybe wrongdoing?
Man, we got a dangerous political game happening.
Justify John Solomon.
You can't do it.
It cannot be done.
Okay?
You can justify Rudy Giuliani.
Oh, but he's meeting with these people in Ukraine.
Well, he's investigating, but he's not officially a US actor.
So, fine.
They can win on that ground if we wanna see... Say, fine, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Justify the journalist.
You can't do it.
Lindsey Graham.
He's refusing to do anything.
So Graham threw cold water, they say, arguing that the Senate can't start subpoenaing other lawmakers.
Quote, I don't have any desire to subpoena Adam Schiff.
We're not going to do that, Graham said, according to several reporters.
When members start subpoenaing each other as part of oversight, the whole system breaks down.
You've got two different bodies here.
Are we going to start calling House members over here when we don't like what they say or do?
I don't think so.
While Graham remains a staunch Trump defender, the break with Trump and Republicans was significant.
Now I'll tell you what, man.
Talking Points Memo and many other outlets will be quick to falsely frame anything they can to make Trump look bad.
But for some reason, when Lindsey Graham does the right thing and says, I'm not playing this game, their attitude is strict journalism.
It's strict, strict journalism.
Today, Lindsey Graham said X, Y, and Z, breaking with Donald Trump.
But when it comes to, you know, Gordon Sondland or some of these, this testimony, they're like, boom, bombshell, explosion.
Donald Trump has been directly implicated in criminal activities without evidence.
That's the game they play.
I want to read from you a quote very quickly.
This article from the New York Post.
It's an article that says Democrats have embraced the exact surveillance tactics they used to warn about.
Let me tell you why this is so serious.
Quote from the New York Post.
The same people who only a few weeks ago claimed that it was a moral and patriotic imperative to protect the identity of a whistleblower who may bring down the president are now fine with a congressman unmasking the conversation of an adversarial journalist who isn't under criminal investigation.
Then again, these days there's no abuse of power Democrats find problematic, as long as that abuse aids them in their fight against Donald Trump.
And let me read for you one more quote from an article, a statement that was published by the Wall Street Journal.
A former Attorney General saying there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason why they would subpoena the phone records of these individuals.
Now, my understanding is that Adam Schiff and his people said they did not target Nunes and John Solomon, but that they just so happened to get their information.
I don't care.
I don't care how you got their information.
You published it.
But more importantly, you may have published false information in an attempt to smear your rivals.
This warrants an investigation.
Now let me end by saying two big points.
I think Republicans stand a chance of losing a lot of their fights.
As I pointed out, Lindsey Graham is not willing to play dirty the same way Adam Schiff is.
Now that's respectable, absolutely.
But it's funny to see conservatives and Trump supporters say, this is why Republicans lose.
And I'm like, it is!
It is!
Stop.
It's the right thing though.
So there's the challenge.
Do you do the right thing knowing the corrupt are going to win?
Or do you fight fire with fire?
Personally, I think Lindsey Graham did the right thing.
I think you always must stand by your principles.
If these people want to play dirty and be dastardly, corrupt, depraved individuals, the best we can hope to do is shine a light on it.
And that's my position.
So I will tell you about it.
I will make numerous videos talking about it.
I will even highlight people who have criticized Trump pointing it out.
But subpoenaing these people is not the right thing to do.
But let me show you something.
Here's a clip from, this is MSNBC, meet the press, Chuck Todd and Ted Cruz.
And this shows another way in which Republicans are just not good at fighting on enemy territory.
They say, watch, Senator Ted Cruz says he believes Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election.
When Chuck Todd asks Ted Cruz, do you believe Ukraine meddled, he says, I believe there's a lot of evidence.
Chuck Todd says, you do?
Shocked!
He can't believe it!
Here's one tweet.
I've been critical of Chuck Todd, both sides of journalism in the past, but I have to strongly commend him for trying to make ours really explain their ridiculous logic.
The fact is, Ukrainians did meddle in the 2016 election.
It's a fact.
And Ted Cruz does try to point this out.
Unfortunately, this shows that Ted Cruz, I can respect him, you know, to a certain degree.
He's taken up a lot of positions that are principled as of lately.
Not that I'm a big fan of him or any of these other politicians, but I can respect that he's trying to shine some light on the facts here.
Unprepared.
Unprepared for the game they're set to play on their territory.
The way you respond to this is not to claim, I do.
Your response needs to be, how about this?
And you show the report.
Because that's what Ron, I believe it was Ron Johnson who did that.
Actually, I'm sorry, it wasn't Ron Johnson.
I can't remember who it was.
It might have been an MSNBC.
Held up the report from Politico.
When you are challenged, By someone trying to lie and you can see Ted Cruz does a good job of being principled saying you're trying to claim that Russia didn't meddle and Ukraine did but no one's saying that.
Everybody knows Russia had this top-down system of election meddling and Ukraine had various individuals meddling.
They're trying to claim that the Republicans are pushing a fake narrative where Russia didn't meddle.
And this is what I want to show, that when it comes to the manipulation and the underhanded tactics, the lies, the deceit, the corruption, the violation of civil liberties we've seen from Adam Schiff, Republicans just keep thinking they're going to play it straight and they're going to win, and they are not.
It's not going to happen.
What's really scary Some journalists go on CNN earlier and say the exact same thing about Republicans.
And so at one point I sat back and I said, is it possible that we both really just think the exact same things about each other?
That there is a right and a left that views the other as lying and cheating and stealing?
Maybe, maybe, maybe that we're just, maybe we're just wrong on that.
And then I saw Brian Seltzer tell you on his show not to watch the other side.
Don't listen to what they have to say.
I watched, I think it may have been Jack Tapper saying, don't read the WikiLeaks documents.
You're not legally allowed to have it.
And I said, that's really strange.
They're telling you not to read the news or look at other information.
That seems like they're trying to protect lies.
Because my position is, and always will be, as many other conservatives, moderates, and politically homeless liberals, is always make sure you know exactly what they're saying.
Because if you don't, how can you know what's true?
I strongly encourage people who watch my content to go watch the content of the left, of the mainstream press, And my political commentary rivals.
I frequently recommend people on the left who disagree and agree to certain degrees.
Because I think it's important.
If we're truly going to get to the bottom of what's going on, you need to read and watch as much as possible.
And don't just take my word for it.
I always say fact check me on this.
I may be wrong.
But what do we get from MSNBC and CNN?
Don't watch the other side.
They're liars.
They'll trick you.
They'll make you think fake news.
Trump believes insane conspiracies that you can't trust.
And I'll tell you what.
I believe Trump doesn't believe some insane conspiracies.
And you know what?
The best thing you can do?
Go read those stories and see what his opponents have to say to figure out if Trump's talking truth or not.
I think Trump doesn't trust the press because they lie about him all the time and he knows it.
Let me tell you something.
The biggest wake-up call for somebody to realize the press is full of it is when they lie about you.
And then you're like, whoa!
That's not true.
Trump gets it every day.
But I will end by saying, while Republicans are trying to fight on principled grounds with legitimate arguments, and it may or may not work, there's at least one guy who's trying to fight back in an also incorrect way, but at least, hey, check this out.
Bryce Mitchell offers to beat up politicians for Donald Trump after UFC win.
I can respect your passion and your righteous indignation, but no!
I don't think he was serious, but it is a funny story.
Maybe I'll check this one out for later in the day, but I'll leave it there.
Look, man.
I have political complaints with conservatives, and that's fine.
You know, I see people arguing on Twitter, you know, some conservatives about family and children and what should or shouldn't be legal, prohibition and things like that, and we have real arguments.
I say, hey man, I believe in freedom.
I think people should be allowed to do what they want to do, just don't mess with the kids.
And we can agree or disagree, and we find a compromise.
No, there's no compromising with someone like Adam Schiff.
He's lying.
He's lied several times before about having evidence.
He's publishing private details.
This is beyond corruption.
I mean, this guy is so desperate and in your face with it.
He only gets by because the media refuses to do anything about it.
I'll leave it there.
I will see you all in the next segment at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all next time.
Remember the day?
The day he endorsed Hillary Clinton.
And that was around the time I was questioning whether or not I thought he was the right person.
Now I can clearly see, based on everything he's done so far in this election, I do not have very much respect for Bernie Sanders anymore.
Take a look at this story.
Bernie Sanders' campaign staffer departs.
After anti-semitic and other offensive tweets surface.
Now, I'll tell you what.
I don't care if somebody made a bunch of offensive tweets in the past.
I really, really don't.
If you want to be a mean jerk who has, you know, mean views, I'm trying to keep my language tone down, then so be it!
That's freedom of speech.
Great.
I don't want to associate with you, though, okay?
I'm not going to be your friend.
We can talk about it.
I can disagree with you.
And I'm not going to hang out.
I'm not going to hire you.
I'm not going to vote for you.
I'm not going to support you.
Bernie Sanders brought on Linda Sarsour, shocking and outrageous, because of her offensive comments.
Like, Linda Sarsour said some pretty darn offensive things.
How is it now that Bernie Sanders has this, this, this, how is this happening?
That he brought in a guy who made anti-Semitic comments and we now have this.
Let me show you this tweet.
It's from the Republican voice in the Jewish community saying they call on Bernie Sanders to fire Darius Khalil Gordon.
I'm not going to zoom in on what he said, because if I did, YouTube would probably strike this video down.
It's not the most offensive thing I've ever heard, but it's a reference to the Jewish people and some anti-Semitic tropes.
How is this?
Bernie's Jewish, right?
But let me tell you something.
I'm not just mad about one guy Bernie hired who had bad tweets that Bernie didn't know about.
No, I get that.
But who are these people that Bernie is consorting with?
Who's telling him to hire these people?
Who told him to bring on Linda Sarsour?
He signed a deal with the devil.
He signed a deal with the devil to win.
It's figurative, I don't mean literally.
What I'm saying is, he is sacrificing what he was supposed to stand for, for that victory.
For one, endorsing Hillary Clinton.
Let's talk about some of the other scandals that Bernie Sanders has had.
To the women on my 2016 campaign who were harassed or mistreated, thank you from the bottom of my heart for speaking out.
I apologize.
We can't just talk about ending sexism and discrimination.
It must be a reality in our daily lives.
That was clearly not the case in 2016.
I can respect the apology, Bernie, and I'm not going to hold it against him that he had bad staffers one time.
I'm not going to hold it against him that the first time he had bad staffers, bad things happened.
But what about when he hires three more bad staffers?
Now I'm going to hold it against you because I'll tell you what, man.
The buck stops with you.
When this story came out about the women who were harassed by his, you know, Bernie bro supporters or whatever, I said, come on, man.
Like Bernie knew these guys were going to do this.
Then Bernie hired Linda Sarsour.
Then Bernie hired this guy who's got anti-Semitic tweets.
But more importantly, let me tell you about the biggest, biggest thing that Bernie has done that says to me, He should not be the frontrunner.
Absolutely not.
He refused to pay his staff $15 an hour.
Okay?
But let me tell you what was worse about it.
You see, his staff were working long hours and weekends and things like that.
And they said the amount of time they were working, they weren't getting the equivalent of $15 an hour.
But they're paid salaries.
So it's not about an hourly wage.
It's not about that buzzword.
It's about Are they getting paid enough to survive?
That's the question.
The amount of hours worked is irrelevant.
Some people take a salaried position knowing they're going to work 80 hours a week.
When they go home, can they pay their rent?
Can they buy food?
Can they pay for their health insurance?
The answer was no.
They said, we can't afford these things.
Bernie's response?
Don't work on the weekends then.
Wait, hold on.
He said, work less.
You work less.
That way, your salary equals $15 an hour.
Because they're actually getting like $13 or something.
But that didn't solve the problem.
The problem was that they couldn't afford things no matter how many hours they were working.
They were getting a salary.
It means they needed a raise.
Bernie only cared about making it look like he was paying his staff $15 an hour.
Let's read the story.
A newly hired community organizer for Bernie Sanders' presidential campaign has left just days after taking the job, reportedly because some of his past tweets allegedly contained anti-Semitic and homophobic statements, as well as derogatory remarks about women and Asians.
Woo!
That's not even a trifecta!
That's four!
Several of the tweets also reportedly included crude, Adult references.
So how are you going to have this scandal where your volunteer supporters are harassing women?
And you're going to bring on this guy who makes derogatory comments about women.
Listen, man.
I know a lot of people have done things in their past.
I've certainly said stupid things in my past.
It's not about, you know, this one person.
Because I can say to Bernie, this one guy, you know, have him apologize for it and keep on doing the good work.
People can change.
But I tell you this is a pattern of behavior that I think Bernie doesn't I don't think he cares!
I really don't.
And I'll tell you what, if you think he does, it is your job to convince me, after every single thing that has happened, that he cares.
You want to allege a conspiracy?
Yeah, sure.
I believe the establishment is anti-Bernie Sanders.
I believe they've targeted him with smears, left him out of polls, tried to make him look bad.
So why wasn't this guy vetted?
If you know they're doing this, and you really believe they're out to get you, then you have another problem.
Ineptitude.
Darius Khalil Gordon had announced Wednesday that he'd been named Deputy Director of Constituency Organizing for Sanders.
But after a report about Gordon's past tweets appeared Thursday in the Free Beacon, a Sanders spokesman told CNN on Friday that Gordon was no longer with Senators' campaign.
He is no longer with the campaign and we wish him the best, Mike Casca, the Sanders campaign spokesman, told CNN on Friday.
No, no, no, no, no.
Come on, man.
What are you doing?
Jewish coalition, said it is outrageous that Bernie Sanders would hire him given
Gordon's history of posting blatantly anti-semitic comments on social media.
No, no, no, no, no, no. Linda Sarsour, come on, man, what are you doing? She recently came out with
some crazy comments about Israel and it's just like, you know what, man?
Gordon's tweets have since been deleted, but screen captures of the messages are
still visible on social media.
Staffing issues have been problematic for Sanders' presidential campaign, both in 2016 and currently.
And then Fox goes on to show the apology about the women who are being harassed, so it's like, it's a pattern of behavior that doesn't exist anywhere else.
Listen.
Pete Buttigieg's not perfect.
Does Pete Buttigieg have, like, Pete Buttigieg's got a lot of problems, man.
He has, like, 0% support in the black community.
And he's refusing to open up his fundraisers to the press.
I mean, Elizabeth Warren doesn't even have, well, Elizabeth, no, no, yeah, Elizabeth Warren doesn't even have this stuff.
Kamala Harris had that one staffer who quit saying they were being mistreated.
But please tell me, why isn't Bernie doing better?
You know why?
I think Bernie doesn't care.
More importantly, I think Bernie knows who he threw his hat in with.
People like Sarsour, and these identitarian leftists, and these anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists.
He threw his hat in with them, I think, because he's hoping the activist base will choose him to be the nominee for the 2020 primary.
I don't think so.
I mean, maybe.
I do believe Bernie is the real frontrunner when it comes to what people actually care about.
Joe Biden.
The only reason anyone says they're going to vote for that guy is because they don't know who anybody else is.
Or, I'll be honest, because Bernie's a socialist.
He's not like a real socialist, but he says he is, so as far as it matters, if he says he is, so be it.
His policy proposals are less relevant than what he says he wants to do.
You know why?
Policy for the democratic socialists is a means to an end.
They don't want to walk in and scream, we're going to seize everything you own, because they know they'll fail.
They want to come in and say, we only take a little bit.
We'll take a little bit and we'll share it.
How's that sound?
And we'll take it from the rich people.
Then they take it from you.
And then 10, 20 years later, they keep doing it until they finally get socialism.
They say, in March, Sanders hired a campaign spokesman who claimed to be an illegal immigrant, as well as two other staffers who are non-American citizens.
You see what I'm talking about?
Here's a guy who said only a few months ago, we cannot open the southern border because there are too many poor people.
I kid you not, Google that!
Look, you know, typically I like to pull up all these sources, but there's just too much.
Bernie Sanders says it was at a rally, and it was the World Socialist website that criticized him, saying he's just a capitalist.
That's all he is.
He's an American nationalist and he's a capitalist reformist.
He said we can't open the border because there's too many poor people.
Then he goes and hires an illegal immigrant, as well as two other staffers who are non-American citizens, in possible violation of federal election rules.
It's because Bernie, who in 2016 campaigned for the American worker, who said no open borders, that's a Koch brothers proposal, is now hiring illegal immigrants or people who claim to be.
Because Bernie He's trying to... You know what, man?
Wow.
Tell you about a deal with the devil, man.
There are real... I don't know.
I think all the Democrats are seriously doing blood oath rituals.
I mean that as a joke.
They're sitting around making sacrifices to the Dark Lord, desperate to win.
That is figurative, not literal, man.
People are gonna go nuts on that one.
But what I mean is impeachment.
Hiring of illegal immigrants.
Hiring anti-Semites.
The desperation is so palpable among these Democrats to just get any edge on Trump, because the reality is Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump shared a lot of their campaign.
The difference?
Donald Trump was more of a center-right populist.
Bernie Sanders was more of a far-left populist.
Bernie wasn't the farthest left he could possibly be, but they were both very nationalistic.
Bernie, even to this day, has many quotes that are a bit nationalistic, talking about trade agreements and such.
But Bernie, seeing his loss, flipped.
I can't trust that, I'm sorry.
What I liked about Bernie Sanders is that his position seemed to be consistent throughout the past 30 years, up until he decides to run for president.
Then he starts hiring Linda Sarsour, anti-Semites, his staff are getting harassed, and with all of these problems, He can't seem to solve it.
So sure, if you want to believe there's a grand conspiracy from the establishment to seed these awful people into his campaign, fine, so be it, but that's nuts.
The reality is, Bernie is hiring these people who are not Americans, so they say, and then flip-flopping on the issue of bringing in refugees and migrants.
When he said, we can't open the southern border because there's just too many poor people and there's not enough resources, he comes out, you know, a month or so ago saying, we're gonna let in 50,000 climate refugees.
I get it.
Not the exact same thing, but come on, man.
You can understand why that seems wishy-washy.
We can't let all these people in, there's too many poor people, but we can let in 50,000!
You can hear him say, in 2015, open borders is a Koch Brothers proposal.
Rejecting it.
Actually throwing it on the right.
Today?
50,000 climate refugees?
Okay.
Okay, man.
It's a big letdown, I gotta say.
And this is why I like Tulsi Gabbard.
So far.
What I like in candidates... I'm not a crazy person, man.
I'm not gonna just blindly follow anybody.
I see a few things I like.
You know, when I first started taking a look at Tulsi's campaign and what she stood for, I don't disagree with a lot of things.
Reparations, nuclear energy, those are big... I disagree.
I also think on gun control, she's a bit too far in the leftist camp than I would be.
So there are concerns there.
However, what I think is more important is a willingness to learn, adapt, communicate, compromise.
And, you know, she was somebody who, for one, challenged the system, stood up for Bernie Sanders, did not endorse Hillary.
I liked Bernie before, but these are all the reasons, you know, and you can just see it.
Tulsi currently serves in the Armed Forces.
She's tough.
She's got these workout videos.
She really does have backbone.
And more importantly, she's actually made an attempt to reach out to people who might disagree with her and have those conversations, and I trust that.
That to me is the most important thing, can I trust you?
So I'll tell you this, you know who I trust?
I trust Ron Paul, I really do.
I disagree with Ron Paul on so much and I think he's very wrong.
But I honestly, I do trust him.
Him and Bernie were two guys I was like, wow, these guys are consistent and I trust them.
Ron Paul though, you know, so I remember back in the day, I've always been pretty lefty, but I had a lot of trust for Ron Paul because he's Dr. No, right?
Rand Paul, his son.
A lot of trust for that guy.
And I've seen what he's done.
And again, I still disagree on a lot of, you know, cultural, political issues.
But it's trust.
So I like the Pauls, you know, Ron and Rand.
I think they're honest, trustworthy people who really do care deeply for this country and want to see the best.
I think Tulsi is similar.
I think Dan Crenshaw is similar.
And they're, you know, they're... Man, when it comes to... I used to think of Bernie that way.
I really don't.
I think Bernie just wants to win.
And there are some things Bernie said that I can still respect, like recently on the debate stage when he just said, we're gonna raise your taxes, accept it.
You know, I was like, I can respect the honesty.
But you look at this, man, and I have to wonder, is there integrity behind someone who would hire these kinds of people?
And I think the answer is no.
I really don't see that.
Now I will also point out, it's entirely possible that Yang and Tulsi have bad staffers as well, and the media just isn't targeting them because they're lesser candidates.
But I will give respect to Bernie, to the same degree I give it to Tulsi, in that I know the media's out for him.
So I know they're coming after him with every possible weaponization of politics they can.
In that regard, I walk back a little bit, because if this was like Joe Biden, I'd be like, you have no excuse.
When you have the media behind you, for the most part, and you have all these scandals, sorry.
And Biden kind of does!
I don't trust Biden, man.
You know, when it comes to Ukraine, I think, I'll tell you this, I'll wrap this up, okay?
Bernie, it's a fall from grace.
It's sad.
But when it comes to Joe Biden, you know what happened in Ukraine?
Let me weave you a tale.
Joe Biden lost his son.
And that's a really, really sad story.
And my heart goes out to him.
And I mean this with the utmost sincerity.
I couldn't imagine what it's like to lose your son.
I couldn't.
I don't even have kids.
But I understand that there's probably no greater pain for a parent to lose their child.
I mean, parents would jump in front of a semi-truck, take a bullet.
I would assume most parents would set themselves on fire if it meant protecting and saving their kid.
And that brings me to the tale.
Hunter Biden is messed up.
Accused of smoking crack, hookers, all the weird stuff.
I don't know.
Strippers.
I don't know about hookers, but probably.
I think that's been accused.
I don't want to be overly exaggerating on the guy.
I don't need to.
Let's just say, they say that he had coke in his system when he got kicked out of the military.
He takes this job at Burisma, on the board, presumably because they want access to the president.
So here's Joe Biden.
I believe it's his last son.
He lost his other son.
And Joe's sweating bullets.
He knows his son's messed up.
He's an F-up.
I would love to swear, right?
Hunter is.
And he's watching now as the prosecutor is bearing down on his last son.
And he's thinking, my son is going to spend the rest of his life in prison.
What do I do?
And you know what he did?
He threw himself in front of that train to save his son's life.
That's what I see happening.
I'm not saying it's definitive.
I approve it.
I'm just saying, you know, that's kind of how I feel.
I wouldn't blame him.
Those prosecutors are coming for his son, and he did what he did to save his son from being locked up for the rest of his life?
I can actually respect that.
I understand why a father would do that for his last child, especially after losing your other son.
It's your last remaining son.
It's your legacy.
It's someone you've created, and someone you love more than anything.
Unfortunately, Joe, that still means you sacrificed the good of this nation, and it means that's corruption.
Putting yourself over the American people and our interests.
I'm not saying that's true.
Okay.
I'm not saying it's literally what he did, but I'll tell you this.
I don't, I'm not talking about whether Trump was right to ask for an investigation or any of that stuff, but let me just say, if you look at all the details, right, you looked at the FOIA emails from the state department that were released by John Solomon, where you have a lobbying group for Burisma asking the state department to chill on investigating Burisma.
And then shortly after Joe Biden comes up with a quid pro quo.
Fire the prosecutor or you're not getting the billion dollars.
Well, son of a B, guy got fired.
Do you want to say that was at the behest of the United States?
Sure.
But let me just talk in plain probability.
First of all, why was Hunter Biden having that job?
We know!
Come on, man!
If I had to make a bet in Vegas on the reason Hunter Biden got that job, access to the president, put it all on red.
You'd be insane to bet against that.
Why then would Joe Biden come and intervene and get a prosecutor fired while at the same time alleging Burisma was corrupt?
They claim it's because the prosecutor wasn't investigating Burisma.
Isn't that a little backwards?
A prosecutor in a country who claims they were investigating, you say, this company isn't being investigated so we're going to get this prosecutor fired.
That's so strange.
The new prosecutor, Joe Biden, ended up, you know, getting in, cleared them of all wrongdoing and his son walked away all the richer.
So I'll tell you what I think.
If I had to make a bet, it's the story of a father who was willing to jump in front of a train to save the life of his son.
And I can't blame him, but I can hold him accountable for, for, you know, betraying the American people for his personal family interests.
Again, I'm not saying that's definitively true.
I'm just saying when I put the pieces together, it sounds like the most obvious thing.
What father would not do that for their kid?
Risk everything?
You betcha!
Joe knows he's old.
He knows that he's had his time.
And now he's going to make sure his kid can survive.
It's what any father would do, wouldn't they?
Not every, but so many.
And so Joe was like, my legacy, you know, my time, I'm gonna save my kid.
That's what I see when I look at all the facts.
Of course, the media wants to impeach Trump, so they ignore these things.
What's, what, it's, it's, you know what, I'll wrap this up.
Think about how insane it is, this idea that Joe Biden wanted Burisma investigated, so he fired a prosecutor and got a new prosecutor hired who cleared Burisma, the founder, of all wrongdoing.
Sounds to me like you brought somebody in to get him off the hook.
Oh, just so happens your kid works there.
We can see the game being played.
Stick around.
Next video's coming up at 1pm.
Apology for the, um, I'm down.
We may be facing another scandal on par with the Project Veritas Epstein leak.
Newsweek reporter quits, claiming outlet suppressed story on global chemical weapons watchdog.
Now to understand what's going on here, I bring you now to a segment from Tucker Carlson.
Newsweek reports.
Tucker Carlson claims there's no evidence Assad was behind deadly chemical attack in Syria, or that it even happened.
In reality, the story is about a potential cover-up and a manipulation of data.
Let me read you the story from Newsweek, on purpose, because then we can see how a Newsweek reporter quit, claiming that they shut down his reporting, which may have actually backed this up.
This is significant.
Many of you may be saying, why do I care?
Well, because it almost got us into World War III, to be a little hyperbolic.
But it almost got us into war with Syria.
I mean, we actually have ground troops there.
Many people were saying Bashar al-Assad was gassing his own people, using chemical weapons on his own people.
And this presents a little bit of doubt.
Now, Tucker might take it a little bit further than I would.
But for now, I'm not so much concerned with the conclusions about what happened in Syria, though it is rather significant.
But the impact on the media When journalists try reporting the news, and they said, Newsweek said, it's a conspiracy theory.
And so he resigned when they refused to run it.
Take a look at this.
Newsweek reports.
On Tuesday evening's Tucker Carlson Tonight on Fox News, the hosts claim that there's no evidence Syrian President Bashar Assad was behind the 2018 attack on Doma and argued the attack might not not might never have happened.
Carlson has been pushing this narrative since the Syrian suburb was attacked in April 2018, yadda yadda.
During Carlson's show, he replayed a monologue from 2018 during which he urged viewers to be skeptical of the attack because geniuses are making it up, saying, Universal bipartisan agreement on anything is usually the first sign that something deeply unwise is about to happen.
If only because there is nobody left to ask skeptical questions.
And we should be skeptical of this, starting with the poison gas attack itself.
All the geniuses tell us.
Then Assad killed those children.
But do they really know that?
Of course they don't really know that.
They're making it up.
They have no real idea what happened.
Well, I'll walk that back a little bit.
I think Tucker is often a bit bombastic.
In reality, we have investigators took a look and said to the best of our ability, here's what we believe happened by recreating, you know, some of the circumstances by looking for chemicals and evidence and videos.
As it turns out, there was a report about discrepancies and many people are now questioning the results of that investigation.
Fox News host has renewed his skepticism of the DOMA incident in light of an email that WikiLeaks reportedly published from a member of the OPCW who accused the team of covering up discrepancies.
The OPCW was tasked by the UN to investigate the attack and find the responsible parties.
They say like Carlson, Russia and the country's allies have used the email to question the OPCW's conclusions that chlorine was likely dropped from an aircraft in Doma.
Some have also promoted a misinformation campaign that reportedly hopes to discredit the OPCW's findings in an effort to absolve Assad.
So they go on to say that Bellingcat discovered, it was an interim report, that this was before they released their final conclusions, and so that's why I think it's important to walk things back.
There is doubt here.
That's important, though.
Should we be getting into a conflict when you have stories like this?
Well, let me show you something.
Right now, most people are going to say, or actually I'll give you a better example.
Media Matters is smearing Tucker Carlson saying he's pushing conspiracy theories because that was about an interim report.
You've got to look at Bellingcat.
Okay, okay, hold on.
I don't know.
I really don't.
I can say there's some doubt.
I'll defer to Bellingcat.
They seem to be an expert on many of these issues.
Fine.
But what about this?
Newsweek reporter quits claiming the outlet's suppressed story on Global Chemical Weapons Watchdog.
Could it be that following this publication, new information would come to light that would be damaging to that narrative?
And so Newsweek said no.
Keeping in mind, Newsweek ran a story sort of debunking Carlson's claims.
Talking about Bellingcat and pushing back.
Now, it's fair to say, push back on Carlson's claims.
I think he's a bit too... I don't want to say hyperbolic, but I believe he may jump the gun a little bit as an opinion guy as opposed to, say, an investigative reporter, but I can respect that.
He's a guy who's got his opinion, and I feel like, you know, in my role, I'll say, well, hold on, okay?
He's gonna say that, I'll counter.
So I think he'd be more responsible to walk things back, fine.
He deserves some criticism for that.
Here's the big problem.
How can we really know if Newsweek will not even allow a reporter to publish information on this?
Check this out.
Journalist Tarek Haddad said on Saturday that he had resigned from his position at Newsweek because the outlet suppressed details potentially inconvenient to the U.S.
government surrounding a chemical weapons watchdog report on the 2018 attack in Syria.
Quote, Yesterday, I resigned from Newsweek after my attempts to publish newsworthy revelations about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no valid reason.
They say Haddad's tweet came as the OPCW defended itself amid concerns that it's reporting on April 7, 2018, Syria, something that prompted retaliation from the U.S.
and other major powers.
WikiLeaks had published an internal email raising concerns about the organization's findings.
Tarek added, I have collected evidence of how they suppressed the story in addition to evidence
from another case where info inconvenient to the U.S. government was removed,
though it was factually correct. In a statement to Fox News, a Newsweek spokesperson said,
the writer pitched a conspiracy theory rather than an idea for objective reporting.
Newsweek editors rejected the pitch.
Here's the thing. Journalists are supposed to investigate conspiracy theories.
Wasn't it CNN who recently published the claim that the lawyer for Lev Parnas claimed he heard from Viktor Shokin that Devin Nunes traveled to Vienna?
Whoa!
You want to talk about publishing conspiracy theories?
So why is it that when you have a story about Devin Nunes, they will go hearsay, hearsay, hearsay.
And the impeachment trial of Donald Trump?
Hearsay all the way home.
But Newsweek will reject a conspiracy theory when this guy is claiming he's a legitimate reporter with legitimate information.
He says, I plan on publishing these details in full shortly.
However, after asking my editors for comment as is journalistic practice, I received an email reminding me of confidentiality clauses in my contract, i.e.
I was threatened with legal action, he said.
Well, one thing that journalists tend to do in situations like this is just leak the story to someone else and then say, oh no, I have no idea how they got the information.
He added that he was seeking legal advice, at the very least would publish the information he had without divulging the confidential information.
Fox News did not immediately receive a response from an email address found on what appeared to be Haddad's personal website.
Haddad's resignation marked what appeared to be the second controversial departure from Newsweek in recent weeks.
The outlet previously caught the president's criticism when it published an inaccurate story about his Thanksgiving plans.
Newsweek fired the writer, Jessica Kwong, behind that story.
While the details are unclear, Kwong pushed back on the perception that the story was entirely her fault.
It was her fault!
So I'll give you some context here.
She was ta- Important information in media corruption, so let me just preface this.
There's something people do called pre-writing.
Where they have an idea of something that's going to happen, say Trump Thanksgiving.
They write the story before it happens, assuming the likelihood that they're correct will be, you know, high.
She was tasked with writing a story about Donald Trump on Thanksgiving and wrote it the day before.
How do you write news about something that didn't happen yet?
Well, she wrote it's gonna be golfing and tweeting and did the stupid, you know, same old, same old smear against the president.
And it's not the worst smear in the world.
But then it turned out Trump was in Afghanistan, making her story completely false.
So she ends up getting fired for that.
She blamed it on the editor.
Uh, no.
It's your fault.
The editor shouldn't have published a pre-write, but he did.
So, you know, there you go.
Actually, I don't even know if the editor published the pre-write.
The editor may have just received the email at 11am and said, cool, publish, not knowing what was going on.
The writer should have been fired.
And a lot of journalists have tried being like, it's the editor's fault.
No, no, no, no, no.
Journalism today.
Is broken.
and corrupt.
And that's the- and let me read a little bit more here.
They say, uh, well, actually, no, I'm sorry.
It just goes on to talk about Jessica Kwong.
Let's pull up- let's see who this guy, uh, Tarek Haddad.
I'm probably pronouncing his name wrong.
But he is on Twitter.
4,000 followers from the UK.
Journalist for Newsweek.
Let's pull up his page.
And he's got a bunch of articles.
Doesn't seem to be anything out of the ordinary.
But he just resigned because Newsweek is refusing to allow him to publish legitimate information.
This is how it works.
Look at Amy Roback.
Amy Roback, Project Veritas, they exposed that they shut down the Epstein story.
Where is it?
If she was justified in her reporting, where is that story?
If Newsweek is going to write that Bellingcat said X, Tucker Carlson is wrong, and so is Media Matters, I have to question.
Now, I know Newsweek is left-wing biased.
It is what it is.
This may be... You know what, man?
We're going to be brought into wars.
The New York Times, they lied.
Or I should say, they were wrong about WMDs.
And we should have trusted them.
And we got involved in a war that to this day just keeps going.
And now we have this.
They roped us into interfering in Syria.
We don't know exactly what happens.
Perhaps the OPCW report is justified and fine.
Okay.
Trump fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at Syria over stories like this.
And now we have a reporter, Newsweek won't let him tell the story.
They're calling him a conspiracy theorist.
That's what you get when you ask questions.
You cannot do journalism without being, to a certain degree, a conspiracy theorist.
That's a fact.
There was a saying, I can't remember who it's from, but a good journalist starts off as a conspiracy theorist, but then works from point A to figure out what the facts can prove.
A journalist is going to say, these emails were leaked.
I wonder what happened.
And by doubting the official narrative, they will call you a conspiracy.
Why won't you believe the government?
Why would the government lie?
What do you mean the government story isn't true?
Why would you pursue this?
Like with Sweden.
When Donald Trump said last night in Sweden, I said, okay, I'll go there and check it out.
And I was inundated with messages from the press.
People I used to work with saying, don't do it.
What do you mean, don't do it?
I'm gonna go do journalism!
No!
Believe the official narrative.
Don't investigate.
That's what they say.
So he pitches a story, and they shut him down.
And let's see how far back this guy's record goes.
I'm going to scroll down.
So what you're seeing right now, and I'll explain to you, is Newsweek articles written by this guy, and it appears that he's got six pages so far.
Let's see how far back this guy's tenure at Newsweek goes.
It goes back six pages, his first story from September.
So it doesn't look like he's been there very long, but he's written a lot.
His first story that appears on Newsweek is about Jordan Peterson checking into rehab.
He looks like a lost puppy.
I wouldn't call that particularly a positive thing for Jordan Peterson.
So I don't know too much about who this guy is.
He's followed by some conservatives, some leftists.
He's followed by Tulsi Gabbard.
Surprise, surprise.
A journalist who's actually going to do some reporting on international issues, which may debunk the pro-war narrative, was told by Newsweek, zip it, and he was forced to resign.
The media is corrupt.
I'll end by saying this.
The media establishment and the democratic establishment are essentially the same thing, as far as I'm concerned.
I'll leave it there.
You know, I don't need to go.
The story speaks for itself.
I'll see you all at 4 p.m.
on the main, excuse me, on the main channel, youtube.com slash TimCast.
Thanks for hanging out.
I gotta hand it to Joe Biden.
We're gonna give him a compliment right now.
He was challenged by some activists over deportations during the Obama administration.
The Obama administration is notorious for their immigrant policy.
They called Obama the deporter-in-chief.
He started locking up these kids and separating families.
So he's been challenged, but Joe Biden, No.
He says three million deportations is nothing to apologize for.
You are so close, Joe.
Because I can respect this, but you know what he does then?
He goes around and blames Trump.
You gotta, you gotta, it's a difference between what me and Trump are doing, or what we did and what Trump is doing.
No, no, no, no, no.
If anything, Trump is doing better than you.
You see, they want to point to Trump and say, locking up kids in cages.
Point to Obama.
They want to say, Trump shutting down, shutting down immigration and... Point to Obama.
Obama deported more people.
He really, really did.
Now, across the board, immigration is down 70% under Trump.
That's my understanding.
But how can you look at what Trump is doing and act like he is better or worse than Obama when Obama was locking up kids, deporting millions and millions of people, right?
The fact is, either you praise Obama for deporting more people or criticize him for that and the kids.
Let's read what happened with Joe Biden.
They say, Joe Biden says he has nothing to apologize for when asked about the millions of illegal aliens deported under Obama.
Biden, who served as vice president for eight years under the Obama administration, was again confronted about the high number of deportations that took place during his time in office.
He was explicitly asked if he should apologize For the 3 million people, we get it.
Thank you, Telemundo reporter Jose Diaz-Bellart.
legacy includes more than 3 million people deported in the years you were in power.
And some of the structures that were created during that, during there, during there, have
really been the ones that President Trump built upon to have a zero tolerance family
separation policy.
Thank you, Telemundo reporter, Jose Diaz-Bellart.
It's absolutely true.
Trump didn't get in office and then say, the first thing we need is an impound lot for
babies.
No, Trump got into office and inherited all of this.
I think it's funny how they say, it's not fair to criticize the Obama economy because he inherited it from George W. Bush.
But then when it comes to Trump, they're like, everything's his fault.
And then when the economy does well, they're like, that's not him.
You can't correlate.
Come on, dude.
Under the president, everything is their fault, period.
I don't play games.
Under Obama, military policy, deportations, it's all him.
And under Trump, he's responsible for the things happening under him.
You know, if he doesn't know about it, we'll bring it up and then I think you can be fair.
Let's read.
Do you, should you, be apologizing for anything he asked?
Biden answered, no.
Hey, stop right there.
Mad respect.
Absolutely.
And I mean this sincerely, man.
You know, Joe Biden getting feisty with that 84-year-old guy was a step over the line, but I gotta admire that the dude gets angry.
At least he pushes back.
These other Democrats, their backbones, you know, I think someone, was it about Biden that said his backbone is a wet noodle is what the guy said?
No, I think Joe Biden, of all the people, has a backbone.
Of all the other Democrats, I think Buttigieg isn't bad, but Biden, he pushes back.
Now, here's the problem.
I didn't say he has a big backbone.
Yeah, a little bit.
So I can respect that he said no to this, and he's pushing back on the far-left absurdity, and it's kind of sad he's the last guy that Democrats got is actually doing something.
Actually, I gotta stop, man.
Obviously Tulsi Gabbard has a backbone.
I just, I'm sorry, I have to do this.
When she tweeted about Hillary Clinton, I laughed for like 45 minutes.
You remember that?
She said that Hillary Clinton was the personification of rot in the Democratic Party.
I was screaming and waving my arms.
It was just like one of the most epic and glorious moments of my life.
To finally see someone take a jab, you know what I mean?
So that, that's a mad backbone.
Because everyone started tweeting like, uh-oh Tulsi, like, you know, Clinton's friends don't have, you know what I mean?
I can't say too much because YouTube will punish me.
But man, that was a backbone.
I'll tell you what, man.
It's one of the main reasons I like Tulsi.
Backbone.
Come on.
Who else has got a backbone?
Elizabeth Warren now.
Sorry.
So Joe Biden says no to these people.
That's respectable.
But here's what he does.
He tries to flip it on Trump as though Trump didn't... What are you talking about, man?
Trump didn't create this stuff.
He answered no.
And like other times when confronted about the issue, he said it was improper to compare the Obama administration's immigration record with that of the current occupier of the White House.
No, I think what we should be doing is acknowledging that comparing what President Obama did and what Trump did is night and day.
And Obama was the first guy to come along and say, okay DACA, those undocumented kids, they're going to be able to stay here.
And then he came along in 2014 and said, came up with a program where their families would be able to stay here.
Let me stop you right now.
One of the big challenges right now for Trump is that the Supreme Court is trying to decide if the president had the right to do DACA in the first place and if that means that Trump can undo it or how this plays out.
Barack Obama passed DACA just as an executive order.
I believe the president can do that.
Now, I'm not a constitutional scholar.
The general idea, though, for the executive branch is the president can instruct his agents not to pursue certain things.
So he can say, If somebody's here, they came here at a certain age, leave them alone.
Now, should he have done that?
In my opinion, I think the answer is no.
And it may be the right thing to do to upend DACA.
And I mean this, and I'll tell you this, I am a fan.
I am absolutely a fan of DACA.
My personal political position would be we should naturalize, provide citizenship to these young people.
Yep.
I know a lot of people, it's a contentious issue, but I'll tell you this.
We need to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
But there are a lot of people in this country, they only speak English, they came here when
they were really, really young, have no idea what happened, and I believe their parents
should be held responsible.
But how do we protect these young people now who are 20 years old or so?
Came here at a really young age?
No idea?
And what do we do?
Do we send them back to Mexico or Guatemala or whatever, where they'll just be standing in the middle of the road, confused?
I don't think that makes sense.
And I think these people are members of our economy.
They're paying taxes.
These are people who grew up here, went to school, got jobs.
They're American in every right.
I mean, not in every right.
That's wrong.
I should say they're American in the perceived cultural way.
They grew up here.
They participated in the culture.
They understand it.
In every right.
Actually, no.
It's not your right to come here illegally and then just, you know, try and assert your authority to stay here and consume the resources of American citizens.
But look, I lean a little bit left on this one.
Like most issues, for the most part, I think we've got to control for illegal immigration.
I think Obama was extremely heavy-handed, and I don't even know if I would have gone as far as he did in terms of all the deportations.
But I like DACA.
I do.
And I think we have to understand and recognize, even when you win a war, sometimes it doesn't feel good.
And you don't want to sacrifice, you don't want to cut off your nose and spite your face.
Listen, mistakes were made in the past.
And I think the smart and mature thing to do is to recognize those mistakes, correct those mistakes, and then accept that you've got to concede in some degree.
However, What I'm trying to say here is, DACA might have to go.
Obama, it wasn't passed through Congress, okay?
This wasn't the will of the people to an extent.
It was the president deciding unilaterally, we're just gonna do it.
If that's the case, then why can't Trump do the exact same thing?
And so even though I'm for it, I gotta say, man, I'm a lefty libertarian, okay?
And I know a lot of people are always confused by this.
I was trying to explain it.
I believe in a lot of left-wing issues.
I believe in a lot of social justice and social program issues.
But I believe it must be done through the will of the masses.
The people must agree to these things.
And it's difficult.
It really is.
So I believe if, you know, we have a representative democratic system for our republic, you know, we choose our reps, if they go in and say, we're going to do this, I say, here, here.
That's the will of the people.
Don't like it?
Vote him out.
Change law.
Instead, Obama was voted in.
To an extent I can respect that, but that is not law.
The president should not be passing laws.
I do not see the repealing of DACA as the same as Obama pushing that through.
And I would never accept a country where the president says, you know what?
We are passing a law whether you want it or not.
Even if it benefited me.
Because you gotta think about where that brings you, man.
This is completely in line with everything I've always talked about.
If you let Obama do it, you let Trump do it.
And that means when Obama goes in and does it, it means the next time another president gets in, like Trump, you're going to be sweating bullets.
And this is what you get.
Now they're freaking out, challenging him in the courts.
Oh, Trump can't ban travel from these countries.
Why?
But Obama can do these things?
Sorry, man.
You play this game.
This is what you get.
Why can't people understand that?
Adam Schiff plays dirty.
He's lucky, man.
Republicans don't want to play dirty back.
Let's read, though.
Diaz-Ballart continued to bring the conversation back to whether the former vice president should apologize for the deportations, and contended that the Obama administration built an immigration enforcement structure on which Donald Trump was able to build upon, allowing him to separate migrant families.
The reporter talking over Biden at some point during the exchange asked if he had nothing to apologize for.
Nothing, Biden replied.
What happens is, when we went forward and did the single best, the single best the president was able to do at the moment, and when there was no willingness to work to actually do something serious, they moved in a direction that took it beyond anything else ever done.
Are you talking about Obama?
Because Obama certainly shattered records in terms of civil rights abuses and things like that.
Drone strikes.
They called him Obama.
That was over in the Middle East, I think.
2,500 extrajudicial assassinations.
Look, man.
It's frustrating to me that they sit on their hands the whole time Obama's doing these things.
And then when Trump gets in, they screech like the world is ending.
Now they're throwing that screeching in Biden's face and Biden's gotta, he's gotta, he's gotta pay for, you know, pay penance.
If you want to sit around and screech about Trump, don't be surprised when they come for you and now they call Obama a conservative.
So I'll tell you what.
My respect to Joe Biden for refusing to back down.
My un-respect, my contempt for him to try and pass the buck on Donald Trump.
Nah, man.
You gotta accept responsibility, okay?
Right or wrong, accept responsibility.
Stop playing these stupid games.
I'll leave it there.
I'll keep this one short.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The article I have on my screen right now is fake news.
It reads, Cruz promotes conspiracy that Ukraine, quote, blatantly interfered in U.S.
election.
Senator Ted Cruz said on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday that Ukraine blatantly interfered in the 2016 election, repeating a conspiracy theory that experts warn has been promoted by Russian intelligence services.
Nah, we're not going to let the press gaslight us.
I'm sorry.
So long as I have air in my lungs and blood in my veins, I will resist all of their insane attempts to lie.
Ted Cruz is right.
And he was exactly right.
Unfortunately, as I criticized at the end of my main segment video, he wasn't prepared for this.
And I understand he did a good job, he thought he was gonna come in here and say, here's the truth, but he should have brought harder documents.
You know what?
Maybe it's impossible.
Maybe that's a sad reality.
Check it out.
Here's the quote from Ted Cruz.
He said, because Russia interfered, the media pretends nobody else did.
Ukraine blatantly interfered in our election.
The sitting ambassador from Ukraine wrote an op-ed blasting Donald Trump during the
election season.
It's hysterical.
Two years ago, there was article after article after article in the mainstream media about
Ukrainian interference in the elections.
But now the Democrats have no evidence of a crime.
No evidence of violating the law.
And so suddenly, Ukraine interference is treated as the media clutches their pearls.
Oh my goodness, you can't say that.
Last week, Chuck, you called Senator John Kennedy basically a stage of Putin.
I'm going to debunk the fake news with citing one article.
They claim that the experts are saying Russian intelligence services are trying to push this to discredit Ukraine.
The New York Times reported that a Ukrainian court ruled the actions taken by some Ukrainian officials was election interference, was meddling in the U.S.
election.
So are you trying to argue to me, Axios, that a Ukrainian court is pushing Russian propaganda?
Please explain this.
See, this is how they push the lies.
They don't cite any facts.
They just call it a conspiracy.
Okay, fine.
Let's say the Ukrainian court never said that.
Is the New York Times pushing a Russian conspiracy?
Or do I trust the New York Times?
It's hard to say, I gotta be honest.
But I'll tell you what.
External reporting, statements from within Ukraine in their media backs up the previous reporting from The Hill, Politico, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Examiner, etc.
Cruz is right.
Article after article talked about Ukrainian interference and now, now they're trying to sweep it under the rug because it's discrediting the Russian narrative because they played the same game.
But let me clarify, and Ted Cruz did say this, Russia did a top-down Like high gear, like top-notch interference campaign.
That we know.
Ukraine had a few loose stragglers trying to disrupt the elections and their courts ruled it as such.
Simply by saying that they will claim, they're now trying to claim those Ukrainian officials who did this?
Not real.
You're lying.
Oh, it was just criticism.
It was just people speaking.
Sorry.
We are not going to let the media gaslight.
So I tell you this.
Share this article if you think this is important, because I'm going to show you proof from a reporter breaking down through the timeline exactly what happened.
Let's read Axios.
They say, the Ukrainian election conspiracy is one of the defenses that Trump allies have used to justify his decision to withhold military aid to the country.
White House Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney said at a press conference in October that the aid was frozen until Ukraine investigated the interference allegations before later being forced to walk it back.
Full stop.
Even if Trump is wrong, even if Cruz is wrong, are you saying that Trump isn't allowed to ask for an investigation when he truly believes there was corruption?
If this is a conspiracy theory, that doesn't change anything.
You're saying that Trump doesn't believe it?
All that matters is Trump thinks it's true and wants it investigated.
And if it turns out it's not true, congratulations, that's what investigations are for, no?
In 2014, they say, Russia invaded, occupied, and annexed the territory of Crimea from Ukraine.
In response, the U.S.
and much of the international community denounced Russia and refused to recognize its annexation of the peninsula.
During the 2016 election, Ukraine's ambassador to the U.S., Valery Chaly, wrote an op-ed for The Hill in which he criticized candidate Trump for saying he would consider recognizing Crimea as Russian territory.
That op-ed is one of several actions that Republicans say amount to election interference.
This is gaslighting to a great deal.
Let me tell you what they're really talking about.
Alexander Chalupa, working on behalf of the DNC, digging up dirt on American officials, notably Paul Manafort, Trump's, I believe, worked for the Trump campaign, and getting this information from the Ukrainian embassy.
This is a fact.
It's not disputed.
What Axios is doing is trying to push, like, it's trying to strawman the argument They say, however the scattershot criticisms from Ukrainian officials in the aftermath of Trump's Crimea comments differ greatly from the top-down large-scale interference operation.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Ted Cruz said that.
That's literally what Ted Cruz said.
The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee released an extensive report that found that Russia hacked the DNC and funded a social media misinformation to sow discord in American politics.
That doesn't change the fact that Ukraine did and that Axios and the media right now is lying.
But I bring you now To Mr. Lee Stranahan.
He is a co-host of Fault Lines Radio.
He is a reporter exposing Russia-gate, Ukraine-gate hoax.
Watch revealing Ukraine and Amazon Prime.
Co-host, Fault Lines Radio.
He tweeted.
However, it's worth noting that Alexander Chalupa's sister... Oh, I'm sorry.
It's a very long thread.
The first tweet.
The skeptical person's guide to 2016 Ukrainian election interference.
The media is telling you that the Ukrainian election interference is a debunked conspiracy theory.
In this thread, I'm going to prove to you that's an admitted fact.
I'm the reporter who covered it for years.
It's not just that it's true.
It's that people involved admitted to doing it.
And now that it's bad for Democrats, all of a sudden the media is saying, no, no, no, no, no.
Let's read.
He says a DNC operative named Alexander Chalupa, who was targeting Paul Manafort since 2015, worked with top Ukrainian officials on behalf of Hillary, which led to Manafort being forced out of the Trump campaign in August 2016.
Proof?
Read on.
To start, here's the article from Politico about DNC operative Chalupa working with Ukrainian embassy to dig up dirt on Manafort and Trump.
Politico never followed up on the article, but they didn't retract or correct.
Now, I've said repeatedly, Politico, you need to retract this if you don't like it.
The fact remains.
The story is real.
It really happened.
And Politico did their due diligence and proved it.
But now, almost three years later, it's bad for Democrats, so naturally this media machine is emerging to try and discredit their own reporting.
He says one of the key pieces of evidence in that article is an email that Chalupa sent the DNC detailing other work she was doing to dig up dirt with Ukrainians.
More on this later.
Because I said this is admitted, here's another important reference point.
The June 2019 with Alexander Chalupa by her sister, Andrea, on her podcast, Gaslit Nation.
She admits she sent that email, among other things I'll show you later.
More key admissions come from Kiev Post article interview with Chalupa.
I'll highlight elements from this later in the thread.
It's been interesting to watch how the media has covered for Alexander and the DNC to cover up the story of 2016 Ukrainian election interference for years.
For example, this July 2017 article is part of the CNN cover-up.
Let's go over some of the claims in that article and show you how they're deliberately deceptive or outright lies.
I've numbered the claims from CNN, he says first.
Chalupa admits to working for the DNC in 2016, quote, During the 2016 US election, I was a part-time consultant for the DNC running an ethnic engagement program.
She was working for the DNC, admittedly.
Then in claim two, she denies being an opposition researcher for the DNC.
Her official position may not have been opposition researcher, but the WikiLeaks email clearly shows she was working on oppo research.
He says it's worth noting that Chalupa's sister, Andrea, said that, quote, Alexandra led Trump-Russia research.
And here's a screenshot.
Andrea Chalupa, my sister, led Trump-Russia research at DNC.
U.S.
hackers protecting voting systems believe Russia hacked vote tallies.
You see, back in 2016, it was beneficial for Democrats to say they were doing the research and Russia, Russia, Russia.
Now that Russia's been disproven, they're terrified now that the narrative they created about Ukraine is backfiring on them because they have nothing to use against Trump anymore.
He says, Claim 3 by Chalupa is that the DNC never asked me to go to the Ukrainian embassy to collect information.
She has admitted to going to the embassy, working with officials, and reporting to people at the DNC put into place by the Hillary Clinton campaign.
And he presents evidence from a CNN article.
The DNC admitted to directing Chalupa.
Chalupa lied.
The DNC was being updated by Chalupa while she was working for the DNC.
She was briefing the top people at the DNC in both communications and researched the DNC CEO's request.
The emails prove this.
That's from the same CNN article I linked a few tweets back.
The DNC admitted that Communications Director Louis Miranda directed Chalupa to ask the embassy whether Ukraine's leader would take a question.
So that's claim A admitted to by the DNC and CNN in 2017.
In claim B, I say Chalupa lied to CNN.
In that same article, she admits to meeting with embassy officials, but says it was only to discuss Ukrainian heritage events.
This is clearly contradicted, not just by the DNC request that she delivered that I just mentioned, but by her email.
He says this email was sent out to Lewis Miranda, the communications director at the DNC.
This is important because Miranda got that job via the secret joint fundraising agreement where Hillary Clinton took over the DNC to keep Sanders from getting the nomination.
And this was reported by NPR.
I'm not going to go into great detail, right?
Let me just tell you.
Stranahan on Twitter.
It's S-T-R-A-N-A-H-A-N.
Has a much longer thread.
There's only several more tweets where he backs all this off with sources from left-wing
outlets, from CNN, from The Atlantic.
So I will just leave you with this.
It has been documented.
It has been proven.
But boy are they trying to gaslight us.
Don't believe it.
Check the sources for yourself, and don't let them cover it up.
For years, they wrote about this.
They claimed this.
And now that it's bad for them, they're trying to claim it's fake news.
I refuse.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The media isn't even trying to hide their bias anymore.
They've given up.
Now, I get it.
That's a bit hyperbolic.
Obviously, many of them will still claim to be objective journalists.
Take a look at this story.
Bloomberg on employees of his news organization complaining.
Quote, with your paycheck come some restrictions and responsibilities, Bloomberg says.
For those that don't know, Michael Bloomberg, running for president, instructed his newsroom not to investigate himself.
At first, I think it's fair to say conflict of interests can be bad for journalists, and to an extent, maybe they shouldn't.
However, there's a much simpler answer.
Bloomberg should be completely uninvolved from the editorial process, and they should absolutely investigate him.
The media is corrupt.
Bloomberg running for office proves it.
I'm going to read you this story.
Before I do, though, I want to make sure I highlight this article.
Now, I mean no disrespect to Paolo Ramos and Jesse Angelo of Vice News, but let me just tell you something.
This story I highlighted before.
Vice News adds Paolo Ramos as correspondent in the first major Jesse Angelo hire.
The reason I say they're not trying to hide it anymore, they say this.
A regular contributor to Telemundo and MSNBC, Ramos is the former deputy director of Hispanic media for Hillary Clinton and a former political appointee in the Obama White House.
And there you go.
They're not even hiring journalists anymore.
They're literally hiring White House staffers for the Democrats.
Then Michael Bloomberg.
New York billionaire leverages his wealth and power to go after Trump and says do not talk bad about me to his staff.
Let's read.
Daily Wire reports.
Approximately halfway into an interview on CBS, Gail King brought up a tweet from President Trump which reads, many Mike Bloomberg has instructed his third-rate news organization not to investigate him or any Democrat, but to go after Trump only.
The host asked, what's your response?
Quote, I think people have said to me, how can you investigate yourself?
And I said, I don't think you can.
But if you take a look at the Bloomberg News Organization, we carry news from lots of different places like New York, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post.
There's plenty of ways for people to get news about the candidates if they look at Bloomberg News.
King asked Bloomberg about his employees, some of whom complained that, quote, they're not allowed to investigate other Democratic candidates because their boss is in the race.
To that, Bloomberg was rather blunt, stating, You just have to learn to live with some things.
They get a paycheck, and when it comes to the company, and from the company that I started, not running at the moment, turns it over to somebody else to do that, but with your paycheck comes some restrictions and responsibilities.
Bravo.
That's exactly why I don't want to work for these companies.
That's exactly why I left.
Journalists should be independent.
Now, listen.
I've been critical of Gizmodo and these other gawker properties because all they wanted to do was smear their bosses.
Fine.
I understand why you'd be fired for that.
So, at the same time, I do understand what Bloomberg is saying.
But I will tell you this.
If you are running for the president, it's very different from you just being the boss of a company.
As the proprietor of a news outlet, if all they're going to do is write bad about me, it's like, dude, our mission isn't to do that.
However, if you're running for the president and you tell your reporters they can't investigate you or other Democrats, now you've crossed the line cutting into their editorial independence, right?
So when it comes to Subverse, for instance, it is editorially independent for me.
I don't control what they cover.
They're out doing, you know, whatever around the world.
That's the point.
People will look at me and say, Tim's politically biased.
Absolutely okay to say that.
I think everybody is.
I think I am.
But I try to do my best to be rational and try to understand people to the best of my abilities.
But of course I have my bias.
Who doesn't?
I'm like the Milk Toast Fence-sitter centrist pundit, right?
That's fine.
I'm cool with that.
I enjoy what I do.
But I do believe in real reporting.
And that means other people are going to go out and choose to cover stories they think are important.
Not what we think will necessarily make tons of money.
There absolutely are conversations around sustainability.
A business needs to be able to survive.
But for the most part, they do their thing.
I do not think it would make sense for them to turn around and start doing investigations into me and wasting resources on a story like that.
Why would you do that?
I'm not telling you what to report on, but that's, to me, kind of stupid.
But, if I was running for office, I would say, go for it.
I think it's fair for Bloomberg's news outlet to say, it's a conflict of interest if we investigate Bloomberg himself, but we're going to go after Democrats.
I also think they could still do it.
I do.
I think it is, there is a fine line between a conflict of interest, because what might happen is, If Subverse did an investigation into me if I was running for office, would you trust it, really?
Probably not.
Even if it was kinda bad, you'd still be like, yeah, but what are they hiding, right?
So that I understand.
You can't really investigate yourself.
It's like that joke.
The police said, we investigated ourselves and we found we did nothing wrong.
Like, no, come on.
That's what internal affairs is for.
You're different.
And even that's not perfect.
But I will say, if a journalist comes out and says, I want to do this, then I got a problem, okay?
On the same day Bloomberg announces candidacy, Bloomberg News editor-in-chief John McIthwait sent out a memo that reads, and I'll read this a little bit, but I will mention too, some of the Bloomberg staff joined his campaign.
Like, dude, we get it, man.
You are in this race to hurt the president, and you don't want anybody coming after you because you don't actually intend to win.
Memo reads, no previous presidential candidate has owned a journalistic organization of this size.
We have electoral laws to follow to deal with both balance and opinion.
We will certainly obey them.
But I think we need to do more than just that.
And I believe we can.
So this is how we will proceed.
The place where Mike has the most contact with editorial is Bloomberg Opinion.
Our editorials have reflected his views.
David Shibley, Tim O'Brien, and some members of the board responsible for those editorials will take a leave of absence to join Mike's campaign.
That's what I want to read.
I don't want to stop.
Let me take you back to deadline.
Hillary Clinton's staffer and White House appointee to the Obama administration is now working for Vice News.
Bloomberg takes his editorial people and they join his political campaign.
These people are not journalists.
They're political operatives.
Anybody who's going to join a political campaign because they hate Donald Trump, you can imagine the kind of work they would do in the office.
They're there to support Michael Bloomberg, his opinions, and he's very anti-Trump.
They're working for him.
They always have been.
Think about that.
Just because he's running for office now doesn't mean that these people who worked in the news outlet didn't, like, weren't, didn't have his back.
The point is, they've taken off the mask.
They are no longer trying to hide that the whole time they were political operatives.
Blazingly hiring these people and just saying, look who we hired, an Obama staffer.
That's news!
Or saying, I'm going to run for office because Orange Man is bad and these people are going to come support me in my efforts because they reflect my opinions.
I can appreciate their willingness to just finally be honest.
Tell us straight up, you're not news outlets, okay?
You're political organizations.
Now I'll tell you this.
I work for myself.
Technically, I work for you guys, because you guys are donating through my website, tipguys.com slash donate.
But the reality is, there's no centralized figure lording over me, telling me what I can or can't think.
And in my opinion, I'm fairly ambivalent, because I try to be... You know, I think one of the most important things that makes a true journalist is uncertainty.
For me, I'm kind of like, I absolutely can tell you I personally don't like Trump's behavior and attitude in some of his policies.
Objectively, when it comes to what he's implementing policy-wise, I can say that the trade war with China, the economy, I don't know, seems to be working out to a certain degree, the economy especially.
When it comes to foreign policy, I have ethical concerns about, you know, taking lives and things like that.
But that's a thing.
I don't know if it matters too much that I don't like the president's attitude.
That's my personal opinion.
So I try to just tell you what we know and what we don't.
And we often can see that the media does not want to do that.
Right now there are people trying to claim these left-wing outlets saying Ocasio-Cortez won the Amazon fight because Amazon came back.
Oh, it's just not true, man.
They're lying to make AOC look good.
Listen, let me try and reiterate this.
If somebody, Michael Bloomberg says, his staffers reflect his opinions, and he hates the president, and he's spending all his money to stop the president, and then when he starts a campaign, they join him to support him, it's safe to say they've always felt this way, and their work would always reflect what they were doing.
You know, we're in trouble, because it's important to know what's really happening, if we're going to make the correct decisions.
You have two choices.
You can choose to know the truth and vote based on what will be the best outcome for everyone, or you can blindly follow those who would manipulate and lie to you so they can take the keys to the castle without you fighting back.
For a long time, I thought Bernie was the guy who was gonna lead that revolt, but I think he's totally flipped.
He just wants to win.
I don't trust that.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say, Later in the interview, Bloomberg was asked about accusations that he hadn't apologized swiftly enough for the stop-and-frisk policy.
He went on to say that no one asked him.
He said, no one ever asked me about it until I ran for president.
He's lying.
He is just a liar.
These people don't care about you.
They don't care about the people.
I remember, back during the Occupy era, there were many people protesting Stop and Frisk.
Bloomberg knew about it.
Police responded to it.
And yes, the press reported on it.
But he ignored it because he does not care about you.
And now that he's running, oh, oh, it was a mistake.
I'm so sorry.
And he was challenged.
They said, isn't it politically expedient that you're doing this now?
And he goes, well, no one asked me about it until I ran for president.
Lies.
These are people who will lie, cheat, and steal.
But I tell you this now.
The one important thing we're seeing from this?
They've taken off the mask.
They're bragging about hiring White House appointees.
They're bragging about their staff reflecting their opinions and joining their electoral campaigns.
Never forget this.
Never forget these two stories.
When you look to the press, it doesn't mean every journalist is bad.
Subverse has found many great journalists.
We've got some great reporting coming.
There are many news organizations that have many great journalists, but there is an infection of political operatives tainting the media to push their agenda.
