Project Veritas Expose Could Be THE END For Bernie Sanders, Video Shows INSANE Far Left Rhetoric
Project Veritas Expose Could Be THE END For Bernie Sanders, Video Shows INSANE Far Left Rhetoric. The undercover video from Project Veritas is so shocking that I won't actually be able to tell you what was said by Bernie Sanders campaign staffer in Iowa.I can say however that he called for very bad things for Trump voters and made positive remarks about horrific actions during the Soviet Union.This is just one staffer for one Democratic candidate. But the media is already going after Bernie with insane stories. Just the other day Elizabeth Warren's camp ran with the narrative that Bernie said a woman couldn't win the presidency.This story seems absurd for a far left progressive like Bernie Sanders. The story is obviously a smear designed to boost Warren and hurt Bernie.Considering the lengths they go to manufacture smears you must certainly recognize that while this is just one staffer at one Bernie office the media is going to have a field day with the far left rhetoric of his staff.This kind of language is unprecedented in a US presidential election even if it is one lowly staffer. The media will use this and so will the democratic establishment.While this could actually help Bernie in the primary when it comes to the general 2020 election Trump will go to town with these clips.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In the latest expose from Project Veritas, we get an undercover look at a staffer at Bernie Sanders' campaign office in Iowa.
The statements made by this Bernie Sanders campaign staffer are so shocking, I literally can't show it on YouTube.
I mean it.
Now, I believe Veritas does have their version up on YouTube, but keep in mind, YouTube has taken down their videos in the past and mine in the past, and I seriously do believe this video will be completely shadowbanned if I were to show you the website of Project Veritas.
What this man says, he calls for violence.
He encourages it.
He says cities will burn.
He wants to re-educate certain Trump supporters.
He's praising gulags, saying they weren't really that bad.
Maybe we should go make these people break rocks for 12 hours a day.
Now, many people on social media are poo-pooing this.
I see Bernie Sanders supporters saying, oh, big deal.
One guy said something.
No.
You don't understand.
This is unprecedented in a presidential campaign.
Many people on social media are acting like it's no big deal.
Maybe.
It's entirely possible this doesn't go anywhere.
It's hard to know for sure.
But Bernie Sanders is currently facing down an accusation of sexism.
With a story from the Elizabeth Warren camp where apparently he said to her, a woman can't win.
Now that, as far as I'm concerned, is an outrageous lie.
Anybody who says, who believes Bernie Sanders actually said a woman couldn't win, is nuts.
And anybody claiming that they really do believe he did say it is probably lying.
Bernie Sanders is a woke far-leftist.
He is.
There are videos going back to 87 and 88 where he says women can and should be president and actively encourages it.
If you were to tell me that Bernie Sanders was resigning or cancelling his campaign to make sure a woman would win, I'd believe that.
But if you tell me that Bernie Sanders is saying something like this, I don't believe it.
I want to go through this, but there's a reason I'm highlighting it right now.
If you believe Bernie Sanders will escape the latest Project Veritas expose unscathed, then I believe I've got a bridge to sell you.
It's just not going to happen.
I believe, and I recognize I could be wrong, it's really hard to know for sure, but I believe this will be weaponized to an extreme degree by at least Donald Trump.
If Elizabeth Warren's team are willing to put out this absurd story about Bernie Sanders, What do you think these political operatives will do once they see one of his staff members saying outrageous things about the Soviet Union and gulags and re-educating American voters?
Even going on to say, that's why Bernie wants re-education.
You know, he wants to re-educate these people.
Now, on social media, on YouTube, many of you may say, I don't think it's a big deal because his fans like it.
They're praising it, they're defending it, or they're mocking and saying, who cares?
What you need to realize is that we are the social media bubble.
We tend to skew younger.
This is unprecedented, as far as I can tell.
I've asked some people, have there ever been moments like this, where someone has straight up called for violence and death?
No.
In a presidential campaign, things are insanely delicate.
You can't have these things.
And now we are seeing other Iowa staffers shutting down their social media.
You know why?
James O'Keefe.
He tweeted out, I hope they're saying it's an isolated incident because we've got them right where we want them.
It is entirely possible, nay probable, that James O'Keefe has other Bernie Sanders staffers saying similar things.
Now, there have been some supporters on Twitter saying that, well what about Trump's people who have done things wrong?
You're absolutely right.
What about them?
They've done things that are wrong and that has absolutely been used against Trump.
So it's not an excuse for Bernie Sanders.
Of course they're going to come for Trump.
Of course they're going to smear Trump.
Absolutely.
Do you think that this is going to help Bernie Sanders?
I'm not going to tell you how it gets even worse.
And then we'll dive into these stories.
Every single supporter from Bernie Sanders who defends, mocks, or downplays what we're seeing will be used in these ads as well.
They will say, when Bernie Sanders was pressed for an apology, his supporters doubled down defending violent rhetoric.
If they're going to use lies from Warren's camp, what do you think comes next?
Here's what we're going to do.
Let's walk through all of these stories about Bernie Sanders, Warren, and I'm going to start with Project Veritas.
Before we get started though, head over to TimCast.com if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
I've got to be really careful with what I show because the YouTube algorithm is knocking me and many other political commentators down.
Not just moderates, not just conservatives, it's everybody.
So if you do a good job, share this video.
It really, really does help.
But let's get to the main point.
I'm going to explain to you in this video why I do believe the Project Veritas expose could be the end of Bernie Sanders.
But will it be overnight?
Absolutely not.
Is Bernie going to call up tomorrow and say, I'm out.
They got me.
Oh, the one step forward.
No, of course not.
They'll probably fire him.
But I do want to say a few things.
Bernie Sanders had to fire and apologize for other staffers in the past.
Recently, he had somebody who was posting extremely offensive things on Twitter, apologized, fired the guy.
We saw in 2016, and I can highlight this, I believe I have the source, he had to apologize for the female staffers who were complaining about harassment.
Bernie Sanders, at the very least, has a staffing problem.
At the very worst, this will be a time bomb or a sleeper hit that's going to come up in the general election.
These statements might actually play well with the activist base.
And I don't mean to say that what we're seeing now will literally mean that Bernie Sanders has to end his campaign today.
The debate, I believe, is tonight.
They're not going to ask him about it.
Maybe.
But what will happen is, come the general election, you will see these words plastered in every newspaper, on every TV screen, in every commercial.
This is Bernie Sanders' base.
He has praised the Soviet Union in the past.
It will come back to haunt him.
But let's get to the break to what's actually happening.
Check this out.
James O'Keefe tweeted.
Looks like Kyle Jurek, the man in question, has worked with Iowa co-field director Brooke W. Adams and the Sanders campaign called Kyle a top-tier organizer.
Looks like the Bernie Sanders campaign has already implemented Soviet-style censorship and deleted their praise of this man.
We can see this tweet from Brooke Adams.
This room is about to hit 20,000 phone calls led by our top-tier organizers Hirano Daniel and Kyle Jurek.
And you can see the man in question is in the photo.
Now, Brooke Adams has locked her Twitter account, as have other Bernie Sanders Iowa staffers, which says to me there is likely more information coming out that's going to show it's not an isolated incident.
And therein lies the next big problem for Bernie.
If you think this is the end of what James O'Keefe has, you would be mistaken.
Are the videos being presented by James O'Keefe the most shocking and groundbreaking, you know, soundbites?
Well, for most of us, we've heard Antifa rhetoric, so no.
You know, I've talked to some people and they say, ah, yeah, I've heard this before.
Yes, but the average American hasn't.
Do you know what the real fear is?
Stick, sex, and hammer, I throw it to you.
Sticks tweeted, This is particularly bad for Bernie Sanders, since the shunning of the normally violent rhetoric of socialism is exactly what he publicly disavows, saying he's a nice or democratic socialist.
Why does his campaign then contain communists who have a revisionist view of gulags?
I will expand upon this, but Sticks, 100% correct.
If you're not familiar, Sticks Hexenhammer, very difficult name to spell, 666 on YouTube, I think he does a good job, but he's right.
Bernie has tried to disavow Antifa and this far-left rhetoric.
They've talked about how democratic socialism is better because people vote for it.
It doesn't matter, though.
Whether you're a democratic socialist or not, socialists and communists will join your ranks because they view it as a path to their victory as well.
And Bernie Sanders, you can at least say, has a staff vetting problem.
Because how many times do we need to see this?
More importantly, on social media we are seeing people defend it.
They're saying, oh, it's no big deal.
Oh, it's nothing.
I assure you, these comments are going to reinforce what people are already scared of.
A dismissive, violent base propping up Bernie Sanders.
And though they may get him the win in the primary, It's going to be bad, bad news for him in the general.
But I really do think, you know, look.
I think it's fair to say it's one guy in the Bernie camp, okay?
I don't think Bernie is in favor of much of these things.
I do think he might be, you know, further left and more authoritarian than people realize.
But the real issue is how the media will play the game.
So I'm actually going to do this.
I'm going to provide for Bernie a sort of defense right now.
Because, as I stated earlier, you would have to be insane to think Bernie Sanders actually told Warren a woman can't win.
I don't even believe in the political sense he was saying it.
Some people have said... So here's the story.
Let me tell you the story first.
Bernie Sanders told Elizabeth Warren in a private meeting that a woman can't win, sources say.
Elizabeth Warren has come out confirming the story.
I do not believe it for a second.
Tulsi Gabbard has come out saying that when she met with Bernie about her presidential run, he encouraged her and was very supportive.
Now let me ask you this.
Who are you going to trust?
The lady who pretended to be a Native American for a couple decades to get some public benefits?
The lady who then did a DNA test and no, she's not?
Or Tulsi Gabbard who stepped down from the DNC because she refused to endorse Hillary Clinton?
I'm sorry, my bet is with Tulsi Gabbard.
Now, I'm not saying this because I want to praise Bernie Sanders as a good person or as the right choice.
I'm saying the media is going to latch on to everything Veritas publishes.
And I think there's a possibility we see the most hilarious turnaround.
Look, Veritas released that ABC expose on Epstein.
And we saw the Washington Post and others say, Veritas got it.
This one's airtight.
Because when the narrative was popular, they said, we're going to dance on this.
When Veritas comes out with information that makes them look bad, they say, oh, Veritas is fake news.
I'm willing to bet we see people on, like, MSNBC come out and say, well, you know, Veritas, you've got to be careful.
They've been accused of, you know, this, that, and otherwise.
But I got to say, you know, we're hearing these words.
It's legit.
The media, CNN, was so willing to grab an absurd story that, at the very best-case scenario for CNN, it's an out-of-context misquote, but at the very worst, they're out there lying.
They were going to take this from the Warren camp to smear Bernie?
You betcha.
They don't like Bernie, and he will go down with them.
I'll tell you this.
Bernie does need to disavow this.
But no matter what he does, Veritas has him.
I try to keep this family friendly, but they got him.
They got him in a grip, if you know what I mean.
Rock in a hard place.
Bernie comes out and disavows this.
He gives it more attention.
Bernie doesn't disavow it, and people will use that and say he doesn't care.
Let's read the story.
Let's move on from this.
So now to exemplify how bad it's going to get for Bernie, I want to show you what they're saying about Bernie in terms of Elizabeth Warren, and I absolutely think it's important to call this out.
I don't care if Bernie is, you know, I don't care to smear Bernie for the sake of political points.
Bernie wouldn't say this, and I think it's absurd to think so.
I would much rather have an honest win against someone I disagreed with than cheating, claiming that Bernie did something he didn't do.
But let's read.
CNN, of all places, reports.
The stakes were high when Bernie and Warren met at Warren's apartment in D.C.
one evening in December 2018.
The longtime friends knew that they could soon be running against each other for president.
The two agreed that if they ultimately faced each other as presidential candidates, they should remain civil and avoid attacking one another, so as not to hurt the progressive movement.
They also discussed how to best take on Donald Trump.
And Warren laid out two main reasons she believed she would be a strong candidate.
She would make a robust argument about the economy and earn broad support from female voters.
Sanders responded that he did not believe a woman could win.
The description of that meeting is based on the accounts of four people.
Two people Warren spoke with directly soon after the encounter, and two people familiar with the meeting.
Note, In nowhere did they say those people were actually in the meeting.
Now some argue what Bernie was really saying is not that a woman didn't have the strength, but that the American people wouldn't elect a woman.
I do not believe that's the case.
There are multiple videos going back to the 80s of Bernie Sanders saying women should Bernie is far left.
Bernie went on stage and said white people don't know what it's like to be poor or live in a ghetto.
The point I'm making is Bernie is not right.
Look, Bernie has said intersectional nonsense before.
All of these people believe a woman could win.
Why would Bernie be any different?
It makes no sense.
And if it was really Bernie saying a woman didn't have the ability, that is not Bernie.
So here's what you see.
The media absolutely willing to push the establishment line.
And get this.
Warren backing it up.
Complete BS if you were to ask me.
Ed O'Keefe tweets.
A statement from Warren about her meeting with Sanders where she said, Bernie and I met for more than two hours in December 2018 to discuss the 2020 election, our past work together, and our shared goals beating Trump.
Taking back our government from the wealthy and well-connected and building an economy that works for everyone.
Among the topics that came up was what would happen if Democrats nominated a female candidate.
I thought a woman could win.
He disagreed.
I have no interest in discussing this private meeting any further because Bernie and I have far more in common.
Okay, okay, okay.
Look, I don't care too much about Warren and Bernie smearing each other.
People call it Democratic infighting.
They say it's a civil war.
No, no, no.
Let me stop you there.
It's primary season.
This is normal.
But here's the point I'm making.
I care more about the Project Veritas Expose.
I care more about what they have in the pipeline and what's going to come out next.
They are coming for Bernie.
If you are a Sanders supporter, and you are scoffing at what I am saying, prepare to lose.
I am not saying Bernie should lose.
I am not saying Bernie deserves to lose.
I am saying the media will take everything they can, even this absurd story, and they will turn it against him.
They call out the Bernie bros.
They say, oh, Bernie Sanders, you know, his staffers are bigots and harassing women.
And sure enough, that's what they did.
This is from January—seriously?
January 10th, 2019.
Bernie Sanders apologizes to women who were harassed while working on his 2016 presidential campaign.
I gotta be honest.
I thought the source that I was reading was from a few years ago.
The media will do everything in their power to smear him.
And let me prove it.
I got this tweet thread from a Red Rose Twitter account.
You know what that means?
These Red Roses are the Democratic Socialists.
But this Stephanie Voltolin has one of the best threads on Elizabeth Warren.
Why should we reject Elizabeth Warren's claim that Bernie didn't think a woman could get elected president?
Because Warren lies.
In fact, she lies a lot.
Here are some of her most egregious lies.
I love this thread.
For decades, she lied about being Native American to benefit her career, and then lied some more to cover it up.
It wasn't until she was caught that she said sorry.
Her different versions of her career path over the years contradicted herself.
Her most recent iteration was embellished to suggest she was fired for being pregnant.
The BOE minutes show she was given a contract renewal in April, but resigned this summer instead.
Second lie.
She first omitted and then lied about her role in the Dow Chemical lawsuit, which she helped limit the company's liability in compensating breast cancer victims.
So that's, what, the third?
She also omitted her role in the Traveler's Escape liability, compensating asbestos victims.
Another omission of a case where she helped rig the system against little guys.
She lied about her parents' marriage, suggesting they had to elope because of her mother's native heritage.
She attacked Trump's ambassadors as unethical after she voted to approve them.
She lied about her children attending public school.
There are many, many more, but you see the trend here.
Warren tells lies to benefit herself.
She's done it her entire life.
And now that her campaign is tanking, she's doing it to Bernie, too.
Show Elizabeth Warren that we won't let her selfish ambition hurt the progressive movement movement cause by supporting an actual lifelong feminist instead.
And then we see a screenshot of a video where Bernie says that it doesn't matter who you are, you can be president.
Now listen, I'm not showing you this thread as a defense of Bernie Sanders in the sense that I'm here to defend the progressive movement like Stephanie is.
More power to Stephanie, much respect for calling out Warren.
I absolutely will say, though, I think many of these people give Warren a pass up until she targeted Bernie.
Warren has been lying forever, and it's only been the conservatives, for the most part, calling her out.
Now that she's going after Bernie in a primary, here come the progressives to actually stand up to her.
But you know what?
I'm not going to drag someone for doing the right thing.
Stephanie, excellent thread.
Thank you for pointing out Elizabeth Warren is a liar.
One of my favorite tweets is, not this one, but someone called her Hillary Clinton, saying, Clinton dot dot dot, I mean Warren, that's right.
They're finally starting to say it.
My progressive friends told me, Tim, we think Elizabeth Warren is Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie Sanders mask.
She's Clinton, but she puts on that Bernie Sanders leftist populist to try and win and take his base away.
That's why she endorsed Clinton.
Now they're openly saying it.
But here's what's happening to Warren in response to the smear campaign.
Refund Warren is trending.
ActBlue, which is the Democrat donation site, is literally at max capacity from people asking for refunds of their Warren donations on the eve of the last debate before Iowa.
This was early this morning.
She was already in deep trouble, but the desperate and disgusting lying and smearing was unexpected.
Karma works fast sometimes.
There it is.
Warren is reaping what she has sown in her desperation to upend Bernie Sanders because the caucus is coming.
She resorted to an insane smear.
Now, I am not trying to drag Warren on this.
She deserved to be dragged.
I think she's lying.
I do not like it when people lie, cheat, and steal.
If Bernie Sanders is going to lose, he deserves to lose on merit, not ridiculous stories.
But what's going to happen, regardless of what I think, is that Bernie Sanders' staffer is not the first and not the last.
Bernie has had many staffers who have done bad things.
He's already apologized for other staffers.
He's already fired other staffers.
And now here we go again.
If Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, You will see election ads showing all of this.
And they will—I can picture it now.
Bernie Sanders staffers believe in re-education camps and praise gulags calling for violence.
And when pressed, what happened?
Bernie supporters dismissed, mocked, and belittled it.
Many supported it.
Many of the people supporting Bernie on Twitter have a sickle and hammer emoji in their names.
Bernie is trying to get away from the toxic word socialism, although he's embraced it for the most part, as is Ocasio-Cortez.
Many people fear the word socialism is a guaranteed loser.
And Bernie needs to make sure he reforms that image.
Well, his staffers aren't helping him.
And so I'll leave you with one final thought on this main story.
Do you think?
Let me ask you a question.
At work, how many people around you openly talk about extremist policy ideas?
Probably none, right?
But you'd probably say most of the people you work with, you generally agree with on most things, though you might disagree on some strong things.
The point is, most people will agree, I like pizza.
Maybe you're vegan?
Okay, pizza with vegan cheese.
But for the most part, we're all like, we talk about things that we relate upon, right?
This video from Project Veritas, undercover reporters talking to this guy.
Do you think this guy only was secretly saying it to these people?
To these Project Veritas journalists?
No.
In all likelihood, other Bernie Sanders staffers are saying the same thing, are in these meetings, are agreeing with him.
If I'm at work and someone says, did you see that movie Joker or whatever?
It was great, right?
I'm like, well, I didn't think so.
We talk about it.
Or, it's like, yeah, I really did like it, and you talk about it.
In the Bernie Sanders camp, politics reigns supreme.
It's a political campaign.
If this guy is willing to say all of these things to people he doesn't know, what do you think he says to the people he does know?
Now maybe it's speculation, okay?
The point I'm making is, I would place my bet on Veritas having more.
Do I think what Veritas is showing us is the end of the world?
That's not, not really.
Let's be real, it's one stupid staffer saying stupid things and trying to talk big, and these people, come on man, I hate to say the word soy boy, but you think this guy's actually going to do anything?
No, of course not.
That's not the issue though.
The issue is how the media will weaponize it against the Sanders campaign, and mark my words, This will resurface and could be used against him in the general election.
I'm not saying, you know, if it were to me, if I was making a bet, I'd say it would be.
But it's possible I'm wrong, okay?
There's a lot of reasons why they might want to avoid this because Warren might have similar problems or they're scared of legitimizing James O'Keefe.
But I think when it comes to the general against Trump, Trump doesn't care about, you know, legitimizing O'Keefe.
Trump likes O'Keefe!
He had him stand up at the White House and everyone applauded, gave him an applause, cheering for O'Keefe.
So when it comes time to the general election, if Bernie is the nominee, even if it's not Bernie, you're going to hear this stuff.
This, look man, I'm telling you right now, this one's for the Bernie supporters, you don't understand how delicate a presidential election is.
Middle Americans are going to freak out from this.
Regular Americans, I mean your average voter who isn't paying attention is going to hear this and say, whoa!
Not only that, in order to win, you need people who voted for Donald Trump.
What do you think's going to happen when some guy hears this and thinks, well, but I voted for Trump last time.
If I vote for him, is that what they're going to do?
These people are nuts.
You don't get it.
There are millions of votes up for grabs.
A small margin of error could cost Bernie everything.
This may help Bernie in the primary.
This absolutely might.
And Warren is going down in flames.
Bernie is on the rise.
He's number one.
The activists might love hearing this stuff.
But I'll tell you this, the far left has gone so far left, we've seen it in the Democratic primary, and everyone says, yeah, but when it comes to the general, they'll snap back.
I don't know.
Yeah, they'll try, but they've gone so far.
Bernie Sanders does not represent what he did back in 2015, when he said open borders was far right.
It was a Koch brothers proposal, he said.
Now he's like, no, we need climate refugees, 50,000.
We need to stop deportations.
He's playing the game, same as everybody else.
All these Democrats who raised their hand, saying we're going to give health care to non-citizens.
They've gone so far left, they might actually embrace this guy.
Veritas might actually help Bernie win the primary and lose the general election.
I'm telling you this right now.
I will say it for the millionth time.
Bernie supporters, I am not saying Bernie should lose or deserves to lose.
I'm not saying this one guy represents Bernie Sanders.
I'm saying the media will stop at nothing to smear and destroy Bernie.
The game is rigged, just like it was last time, and this is going to get bad for him.
Stick around.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
Leftists are outraged, shocked, and angered by this video of Vince Vaughn.
You see, here's what happened.
Timothy Burke, formerly of the Daily Beast and I believe Deadspin, tweeted, I'm very sorry to have to share this video with you.
All of it.
Every part.
And there it is.
The moment in question.
I was terrified.
I was literally shaking when I saw what Vince Vaughn had done.
He's apparently grasping at the hand of the president for some reason.
Oh, he's shaking Trump's hand.
That's literally it.
That's it.
This thing's got 4,000 retweets.
Now, I think it's fair to point out this dude's getting ratioed like crazy because people are like, dude, you're nuts.
But I kid you not, a whole bunch of lefty blue checks are trying to cancel Vince Vaughn for simply shaking Trump's hand.
First of all, you can't hear what Vince Vaughn is saying.
For all you know, Vince Vaughn is saying something like, I didn't vote for you, and I'm hoping that in the coming election, should you win, you're going to do right.
There's some things that need to be changed in this country.
And maybe that's what he's saying.
Maybe Vince Vaughn was saying, I disagree with you on policy, and I'm going to give you a chance, and I'm shaking your hand now.
You don't know what he said.
For all you know, he said something like, it could have been one of those passive-aggressive handshakes where he's like, I'm coming for you.
You're going down.
Bernie Sanders 2020.
I mean, it's very likely that Vince Vaughn was actually just saying, nice to meet you, Mr. President.
The economy is doing great.
Thank you for your time.
Thanks for coming.
And that's probably it.
Now, I do want to mention, before we get into all the woke Twitter outrage, this dude apparently goes on to make some, like, really annoying Bob Saget-esque version, where he's, like, miming what Vince Vaughn is saying.
This must be, like, this has to be, like, one of the cringiest things I have literally ever seen!
There's a photo.
Donald Trump in a hospital.
And a bunch of the hospital staff are smiling, taking a picture with the president.
You know why?
Because in the real world, outside of the woke Twitterati bubble sphere, the average person is excited to meet the president.
And that includes Vince Vaughn.
But I bring you now to the write-up by the Daily Mail.
Now, because what the Daily Mail has done is they've aggregated many of these tweets.
I want to tell you something.
I'm going to give you the heads up.
Vince Vaughn's conservative.
Vince Vaughn's always been conservative.
Everyone knows he's conservative.
He, like, campaigned for Ron Paul or something.
So all of these people now pretending to be shocked that Vince Vaughn shook Trump's hand, they're lying.
They don't care.
They never cared.
They've never paid attention.
This is one of the biggest screw-ups.
Look, I think everything they do when they get mad about this nonsense is stupid, but let me say, All of these people coming out pretending to be outraged by this never paid attention in the first place.
Their outrage is fake and this story exposes them for being liars.
They're virtue signaling.
They don't care about Vince Vaughn.
They don't care about Trump.
They're pretending to be outraged in exchange for clicks.
Nah, there's something scary.
There's a rumor going around that Twitter's gonna start trialing this feature where you can send money.
Oh, great.
Then we'll never hear the end of it.
Because people are gonna pretend to be angry all the time to try and get tips from people on Twitter.
But let's read the story from the Daily Mail.
Video of Vince Vaughn socializing with Donald and Melania Trump at the NCAA College Football Championship sends social media into a frenzy.
A fake one.
A completely fake one.
And I'm going to prove it.
These people are liars.
These activists are not really activists.
They're tribalists.
They're disgusting.
You know what, man?
I'll try and reserve some of my more foul language for, you know, in private because... But I'm looking at these people as the most deceitful, duplicitous scum on the face of the planet.
They are pretending to be angry because they want retweets.
And that's all it is.
Most people, I would imagine right now, this is my bet, I bet Donald Trump's approval rating is above 50.
It's really, really high.
And I think most people are cheering for the economy.
And then in public, they're going like, orange man bad over and over and over again, because they don't really care.
Nobody cares about what Trump is doing.
Nobody cares about his policy.
Their lives are better.
The economy is good.
So these people go on Twitter and they say, well, we're going to pretend to be mad at Vince Vaughn, even though, look at this.
Look at this story.
Vince Vaughn, Hollywood conservative from 2013.
Anybody who knew anything knew that Vince Vaughn has always been a conservative.
Why am I going to be outraged that a conservative guy who, like, campaigned with Ron Paul would shake the hand of Trump?
It doesn't mean anything to me.
Oh, lo and behold, here's the story.
Conservative meets with conservative president.
So what?
It's not even like Ellen sitting next to George W. Bush because she's a progressive and he's a Republican.
This is literally conservative shakes conservative hand and they're pretending to be angry.
I'm really sorry to share this video with all of you, but Vince Vaughn shook the hand of the president.
So what?
Conservative meets conservative.
There's your news.
They say.
A video of the actor chatting with the President and First Lady in a suite at the Mercedes-Benz Superdome went viral, as some users slammed Vaughn and others mocked his critics.
Yes, mocking his critics is the correct thing to do.
Sweet Caroline by Neil Diamond is heard blaring through the stadium speakers.
Yeah, yeah, you know what, man?
Trump loves that song.
Vaughn then shakes the President's hand before standing up and waving as he walks away.
And?
What?
Who cares?
And that's it.
And there it is.
Trump shaking his hand.
Vince Vaughn was probably like, you know, conservative guy.
Thank you for everything you've done.
Blah, blah, blah.
I'm very sorry I have to share this video.
Florida-based journalist Timothy Burke shared the video on Twitter, writing in the caption, I'm very sorry, someone literally zoomed in, digitally zoomed, because in the background of some video, they saw Vince Vaughn doing this.
How insane do you have to be?
Liberal political blogger Bill Palmer wrote, Vince Vaughn had the chance to stand up to a traitor, a child murderer, and instead he enthusiastically shook Donald Trump's hand.
F'em both.
Another user tweeted, I used to have a massive crush on Vince Vaughn.
Now I just want to barf.
Oh, you had a crush on a guy, huh?
You had a crush on a guy who's been conservative forever?
No, you didn't, you liar.
You don't know anything about Vince Vaughn.
You saw his face in a movie and you were like, I'm gonna go... I was gonna say something, but I'm trying to be family friendly, so I'll leave it there.
I am going to go into the private quarters with a photo of Vince Vaughn.
We'll leave it at that.
Others in the comment thread ridiculed the critics for cancelling Vaughn over one cordial conversation.
Oh my god, the humanity.
This is terrible.
We must all now hate Vince Vaughn.
You'd have done great under Stalin, Washington Post journalist Mark Thiessen wrote.
Oh, that's great.
Mike Stanley tweeted, I'm sorry, but if Vince Vaughn shaking Trump's hand makes you lose your mind, you've got some issues you may want to contact a professional about.
Dude.
This is the way it works.
During Occupy Wall Street, there were some police officers who knew who I was.
Because they watched my coverage, there was one cop who, like, actually really enjoyed my coverage, and, uh, uh, we were out on a march one day, and he yelled my name, and he shook my hand and said, I appreciate that you're trying to be fair, and, and, you know, actual cover, you know, actually cover what's going on, and I'm like, I'm just trying to tell people what I see, that's, I'm not trying to, you know, make any, you know.
And there was another, uh, really well-known cop, I'm, I'm not gonna say who he is, but, He come to me and he said, he shook my hand.
He reached out his hand to shake.
I shook his hand.
What do you want me to do?
You want me to be like, I hate you.
No, I was like, nice to meet you, sir.
And he said, I appreciate that you're just kind of telling people what's going on.
And I said, listen, man, if the cops step out of the line, out of line and do something wrong, I'm going to say it.
If the protesters throw stuff at the cops, I'm going to say it.
And he's like, fine by, it's all I ask for, fine by me.
And so several people saw me shake the hand of these cops and they, that was it.
Conspiracy proof!
Tim Pool is secretly working with the police.
How does he know who these cops are?
Did you see him shaking their hands?
And then it culminated with one guy attacking me, and then some high-profile account tweeted that I was helping the police arrest people.
They're insane.
They're literally nuts.
They don't live in reality.
In reality, I can walk down the street, and a guy will walk up and be like, excuse me, sir, and I'll shake my hand.
I was at a rally.
And a guy walked up to me and he was like, hey Tim, and he shook my hand and then he
went on to explain that he was a Nazi.
And I was like, dude, man, what are you doing?
Like, come on.
And he went on to say a bunch of crazy stuff.
And I'm like, listen, there's some, there's some hands I won't shake.
Right?
We get it.
Okay.
The point is when the average person goes to shake your hand, you're not going to be
like, what's your political affiliation?
Have you ever donated to Donald Trump?
No, you shake their hand when someone offers their hand.
It's not a big deal.
Even when a nasty person with stupid opinions does it.
I'm not going to sit there and be like, so before I shake your hand, can you tell me what your opinions are?
No, the guy walked up to me, I shook his hand, and then afterwards I was like, come on man, what are you doing?
Get out of here.
Anyway, I digress.
Donald Trump and Vince Vaughn are not in the same field as what I'm describing there, but... Palmer Report says, Vince Vaughn had the chance... Oh, we read that already.
Not sure why people are surprised that Vince Vaughn talks to Donald Trump.
He's been a conservative forever, and this was his face when Meryl Streep laid into Trump during the awards show.
He didn't like hearing the truth.
The truth, they say.
Some pointed out that the exchange should not come as a surprise because Vaughn has been vocal.
Yeah.
It turned out to be a good night for Vaughn, who not only got to meet the president, but also watched his team, the LSU Tigers, handily beat the Clemson Tigers in a 42-25 victory.
Is that about it?
They say, uh, Vaughn has shared conservative opinions on issues such as gun control taxes, limited government on several occasions over the past few years.
He opened up about his views on the Second Amendment in a GQ interview in 2015, telling the magazine, I support people having a gun in public full stop.
Not just in your home.
We don't have the right to bear arms because of burglars.
We have the right to bear arms to resist the supreme power of a corrupt and abusive government.
It's not about duck hunting.
It's about the ability of the individual.
It's the same reason we have freedom of speech.
Asked whether teachers should be allowed to carry it in schools, he said, of course.
You think politicians that run my country and your country don't have guns in the schools their kids go to?
They do.
Oh, you better believe they do.
And this is what I've heard from a lot of my friends and family growing up.
And these are like liberals, mind you.
The complaints.
That in Chicago, for instance, where it was basically illegal for a long time, all the politicians are armed.
Yeah, but not you.
Only the government officials are allowed to arm themselves.
He added, and we should be allowed the same rights.
Banning guns is like banning forks in an attempt to stop making people fat.
Taking away guns, taking away drugs, the booze, it won't rid the world of criminality.
Vaughn reportedly backed two Republican presidential candidates in 2012, Ron Paul and Mitt Romney.
But I guess it's because, you know, although I am slightly to the left, I am the libertarian left quadrant and I have a lot more.
Here's the thing people gotta understand about my political leanings.
I have substantially more in common with right-wing libertarians than I do with establishment politicians of any faction.
So I have a bunch of friends who are right-wing libertarians.
We disagree on how far the free market can and can't go and the solutions to problems, but we always agree, first and foremost, it's about liberty.
So when it comes to the implementation of plans, policy, military, we always end up stopping at, you know, you can't force people to do things.
If you can't effectively convince them and be persuasive enough, then it doesn't go anywhere.
And so for me, I lean left.
Like, I think we need more cooperation.
My right-wing friends say we need more competition.
And that's really the divide.
But at the end of the day, we're all like, so long as we're all free to do what we want to do and no one's forcing each other to do anything, we're happy campers.
So the Mitt Romney thing.
That one I don't get.
Ron Paul I definitely get.
Ron Paul I really, really appreciated when I was younger and I completely disagree.
He's a Christian, he was very, very pro-life, but he's a libertarian across the board and so I was just like, hey man, if at the end of the day your position is kind of like live and let live and people can be free and all that stuff, I don't see the problem.
And I tell people this, you know, here's the thing.
If there was one form of government that I thought would be better than any other form, it is far-right, libertarian, like ANCAP.
And I mean economic far-right, not traditional far-right.
I mean literal, like, anarcho-capitalism.
You know why?
Within a system that is anarcho-capitalist or far-right libertarian, right?
When I say far-right, I'm referring to economics.
Not the colloquial whatever it means.
I'm saying on the political compass, economic libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, within a system that is anarcho-capitalist, the bottom further right you can go, you can create whatever system you want.
In America right now, nothing's stopping you from going and starting your own little socialist commune.
So as much as I disagree and think the system will run amok, there's nothing stopping you from creating your own system within it to create protections for your community.
So ultimately, while I do lean left because I want to see a better world, I fully recognize complete freedom is probably the best route.
So I look at Ron Paul and I'm like, you know what man, for all the presidents we had running, I'll take the guy who wants to pull back the government.
I'll put it this way.
As much as I don't like laissez-faire capitalism and super competitive markets, I do think the free market is extremely important, but I do think regulation must be implemented.
I think regulation only comes through cooperation.
Cooperation requires you to have eager, enthusiastic agreement, right?
So you look at the establishment politicians, and they want everything through enforcement.
We're doing this.
Shut up.
It's happening.
And I disagree with that.
So when it comes to someone like Vince Vaughn or a right-wing libertarian, we all agree on, let's convince people to do something, either through trade and persuasion.
Actually, no, it's always through that.
I think we need markets with a bit of cooperation and a bit of regulation, but I think the only way you do it is if everyone says, OK, we think it's a good idea to tell everyone you can't pollute, you know, in the rivers and stuff like that.
So it's complicated.
But the point is, if you're a libertarian, we're going to get along, OK?
If you're big L libertarian, we'll get along to a certain degree.
They say he also spoke out against big government.
You see, that's a thing.
He was quoted in a 2015 Telegraph article saying, I think that as you get older, you just get less trust in the government running anything.
Completely agree.
I do think government programs... I say this all the time.
Government programs absolutely can be great.
Social programs absolutely can be great.
I think they're important and I think we need them.
I think the fire department's been pretty good about basically everything and that's like a, you know, public works.
The problem is that they don't always work.
And because the government can't collapse under competition, they keep siphoning money away to stack trash on top of trash and it fails.
I would like to see a program to help those in need.
But I think it's fair to say that welfare programs have actually caused a lot of problems in certain communities.
Like, growing up on the South Side, I've seen it.
I've seen my friends, you know, wither away and stop working, and I've seen things fall apart.
So I think we do need a system to help people when they fall on hard times.
You lose your job, what do you do?
Well, we're here for you.
Our community is here for you.
We have unemployment benefits, we have food benefits, and the goal is to make you turn around.
But they're not being implemented properly, and so they're being abused and falling apart, and it's making the argument for the left harder and worse when you refuse to accept the system has gone sour.
So while I think the programs work, they must be cleaned up of bloat and corruption.
And therein lies the big problem.
The only people who would likely agree with me that we should get rid of the programs are people who want to get rid of them and never bring them back.
And the left just says, no, they must be defended at all costs, instead of saying, no, we actually need to get rid of it and then rebuild a new one and keep a check so that every time the system becomes bloated, we can get rid of it, reassess, and realign.
Listen.
College humor went out of business.
You hear about this?
They went out of business because businesses fail.
For 20 plus years they were top tier and now they're gone.
Because times change.
There will come a point at which my business doesn't work anymore.
Adapt or die.
Government can't do that, okay?
Because they just never let it stop.
That doesn't mean college humor should never have existed.
College humor was great.
So these welfare programs, I do think they're great.
But they can't die.
So like, we can all cherish the things that came out of college humor and other, you know, Blockbuster Video, for instance, but we recognize at a certain point the business stops functioning when it doesn't adapt to the new world, new technology, new culture.
Government can't do that.
So while the government program can work to alleviate a serious problem right now, in 20 years, when do we get to say, you are now obsolete?
We can't!
We're not allowed to!
They just keep dumping more money into it and the left refuses to accept it.
So therein lies the big problem as I see it.
Imagine you've got a whole bunch of working class people And they're proud of work.
The factories are leaving.
Yes, government intervention.
What Donald Trump is doing with tariffs, it's bringing factories back.
The government intervened and it restored the jobs to so many people and brought factories back because they were abusing the system.
You see, that's where the government can work.
But at a certain point, we might have to reassess and say automation has taken over.
This no longer makes sense anymore.
The problem is government rarely does.
So, I'll leave it there.
I don't know how I went from a Vince Vaughn video into ranting about the inability of government to collapse properly.
But, you know, in any system, regardless of if it's government, private, whatever, there needs to be a way for us to recognize that not everything will exist forever.
Could you imagine having laws from the year 1200?
Well, they certainly do in the UK.
I think they do.
I remember when I was, it was 10 years ago, I was driving in my car and a commercial came on for a beer.
It was like, I can't remember which beer it was.
It was European.
And they said, due to like the safe brewing act of like 1212 or something, we've ensured quality for nearly a millennia or something like that.
And I was like, I thought about it.
I was like, wow, I didn't realize that because, you know, we've only been a country for a couple hundred years, just over a couple hundred years.
So our laws go back kind of that far and they're relatively new.
But in Europe, they actually have laws going back hundreds of years, like 800 years.
Man, that's crazy.
Like, sometimes these laws don't make sense anymore, you know?
You know, we have laws where it's like, I think in, like, Rhode Island, you can't take showers on Sunday.
But everyone does.
And it's because the law was at a time when, like, the amount of water they had was limited, so they were like, you can't do this at this time.
Well, maybe we should just get rid of it!
Instead, the law is still in the books.
There's also laws where it's like, you can't make a cherry pie on Tuesday night.
And it had to do with, like, church, and it had to do with, like, a cherry harvest.
So they're like, you know, we need to make sure that on certain days of the week, I don't know, just weird laws.
You can't bring a dog into the bathtub because of, like, it would, the hair would effect plumbing.
None of that makes sense anymore.
But we still have it all on the books.
It's the perfect example.
Seriously, Google this.
Google wacky laws that are no longer enforced.
Why are they there?
Could you imagine a cop showing up and be like, I couldn't help but notice that your dog was wet.
Ma'am, did you put your dog in the bathtub?
Turn around.
You have the right to remain silent.
Why would we ever have the government in power to have these ridiculous laws?
The problem is no one cares to get rid of it after it's been implemented.
But a business can fall apart and everyone just accepts it as normal.
Okay, I'm done.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel and I will see you all there.
A TikTok nurse made a viral video where she explains to her young audience that the best way to prevent STDs is to save your safe until marriage.
A bunch of leftist nurses got really angry and started producing TikTok responses where they're like, you're biased, this is bad information, and you're wrong, and all this other stupid nonsense.
Stop shaming people, they say.
Okay.
You know what the left is right now?
One of the problems I have with it?
They live in a world of candy canes and rainbows.
Everything must be positive all the time.
No one is ever wrong.
Stop shaming people.
Okay.
When someone does something wrong, it's not shaming to say, guess what, that's wrong and it will hurt you.
But the left lives in a world where everything negative must be removed.
I don't mean everyone on the left, but most of them.
See, here's the thing.
Let's be reasonable for a second.
Let's say you want to engage in coitus with someone you are interested in, and you don't want to get an STD.
In fact, the best way to prevent that would be to wait until marriage and be monogamous, because it's just simple math.
If two people have never had relations, they cannot, in most likelihood, there's still possibility they could have an STD or disease that could be transmitted through sex.
For the most part, though, the likelihood is very, very low.
If they get married and they start hooking up, the chance that either of them has an STD and spreads it is close to zero.
It's possible that they got a disease through a medical procedure or inherited it from a parent or something.
The point is, one of the best ways to be active... Yes, monogamy.
We get it.
It's true, though.
It doesn't mean it's the only thing you say.
What we end up seeing here, the nurse actually... So let me show you this, actually.
So there's actually something really, really funny I want to show you right now.
Check this out.
BuzzFeed News writes a story.
They show the TikTok.
The Daily Wire has literally the exact same story.
They don't tell you what to believe, they just show the controversy.
Yet NewsGuard says this one's not safe, and BuzzFeed is safe when they're literally... You know what?
Anyway, here's the point.
Here's what she said.
Wait for sex until marriage.
It's the best way to prevent STDs.
Well, best is an opinion, but it is extremely effective.
Many people responded with stupid things like, if you don't want to get the flu, stay in an isolation chamber.
If you don't want to have STDs, just don't have sex, period.
Okay.
The problem is, what she is telling you If you want to have sex, and you don't want to get an STD, being monogamous is actually one of the best ways to accomplish this.
And she is correct, by simple math.
But for some reason, you get a bunch of these videos from snooty leftists who are like, I'm just gonna pretend it's wrong.
This one is the most annoying one I've seen.
230,000 likes.
Because too many people on the left, they will not call out hedonism.
Ego and gluttony.
Listen, man, I don't care what you do with your life.
You want to dress up like a clown, swing from a ceiling fan, and bang 20 women at once?
You go do it!
I don't care!
But facts exist.
No one is telling you not to be free to do what you want, but the nurse made a legitimate point that was real.
Not only that, this nurse actually goes on to say in a statement to Buzzfeed, In the comments, I acknowledge that of course using protection will help prevent STDs if one is active.
I just wanted to present another option to my young audience.
The fact is, Protection, condoms, are not a guarantee that you prevent STDs.
The concern from the left, I understand.
They say, the kids are going to be active anyway.
And if the kids are going to be active, telling them just to be absent doesn't work.
That doesn't mean you don't tell them the truth.
This video is so annoying because the girl on the left is this typical snooty, like, stop!
What are you doing?
And it's so annoying that it's like, listen, they are mixing issues of opinion and fact and issues of, like, their bias against her.
Okay, let me read it and explain it to you.
People who watched her, oh, I'm sorry.
BuzzFeed says, a woman who goes by Nurse Holly on social media, specifically on TikTok, where she has 1.7 million followers, is facing a backlash for promoting abstinence as the best method for STD prevention in a video.
That's actually not abstinence.
It's her saying monogamy.
You can get married to a high school sweetheart, okay?
Now she is saying until marriage, sure.
But that's not abstinence.
Abstinence is literally don't do it.
They're taking the extreme position on what she's saying, but she is correct.
It doesn't mean it's going to stop teens from doing it.
No one said that.
I can't stand this stuff, man.
Holly, who did not want to disclose her full name or any personal information, told BuzzFeed News she deleted the video due to the backlash.
She also apologized for any offense that was taken.
Oh, you know what?
That's gross.
Holly, you're gross.
And she only wishes to promote positivity and healthy lifestyles.
Here's a tweet, it says, If I go get tested and the nurse tells me I should have waited till marriage, someone is getting knocked TF out.
Right now, we have a culture that is refusing to tell kids to be responsible.
They say, get fat, eat whatever you want, and don't let anybody shame you.
Guess what?
They're STDs, they're real, but so what?
Go bang people, don't let anybody shame you.
You wanna put a condom on?
Doesn't mean anything.
You can still transmit certain STDs.
The fact is, you tell them all of the information.
If you're going to be active, like many teens are, use protection.
However, there is still a likelihood you can contract certain diseases.
Keep that in mind.
Also there are diseases of the mouth.
There's a bunch of things all over the body you can get from physical contact.
And if you want to avoid, in all likelihood, contracting some disease, wait until marriage.
If the other person also did, the likelihood that you'll have diseases is slim to none.
Possible, but that will dramatically reduce the likelihood.
If you, like many young people, are still going to engage in this behavior, we recommend using protection.
That's the truth!
But they're mad because they want to engage in hedonistic gluttony.
They want to engage in all of the vices of the Seven Deadly Sins, I suppose.
Not all of them.
Enough of them.
Well, actually, they're getting through it.
Actually, hold on.
I think we may have all seven deadly sins in one.
Save, literally, gluttony.
No one's eating food or anything like that.
But let's read.
And I'll go through this.
And I think I can point out many of the seven deadly sins.
Now, I'm not religious.
I just think seven deadly sins are interesting.
Though I do think it's weird that pride is a sin.
I think pride's a good thing.
People who watched her video commented that they felt it was irresponsible for her to suggest abstaining from sex as medical advice.
Nurse Holly is wrong.
The only way to ensure you never have any STDs is to never have sex of any kind.
She didn't say that.
She said the best way.
And so the argument is, if you want to engage in this behavior and minimize your risk, then being monogamous, waiting until marriage, is the best way.
That's true!
It's literally true.
She's not saying if you don't want STDs, don't ever have sex.
She's saying if you... You get the point.
The best way to prevent flu is to live in an isolation chamber.
No one's saying that, but they're saying, you know, don't go around hugging and kissing literally everyone if you're worried about getting the flu.
The video has caused other self-identified nurses and medical professionals to respond publicly to Holly's assertion.
One woman, she's in scrubs, said Holly's biased rhetoric regarding public health was so low and so dangerous.
She created a TikTok in response, which has also gone viral.
So tired of nurses acting a fool on their large platforms, promoting irresponsible and biased rhetoric regarding public health, an effort to go viral is so low and so dangerous, Abstinence teaching does not equate to safe sex.
No one said it did.
So here's my response.
The woman on the right clearly said, one of the best ways to prevent STDs, under the assumption you're going to engage in these activities, is to wait until marriage.
That's true.
It is.
It's a fact.
So she goes out and accuses her.
This video, it's really annoying.
Because the girl on the left has, like, okay, the girl on the right The nurse sang, Wait Until Marriage.
Personally, I don't think many young people will.
I think it's important to tell them monogamy really will, you know, reduce the chances.
And if you're with one person, that's a fact.
And if they still plan to protect themselves.
And it was a smiley, positive video.
And she explained in the comments to protect yourself if you're going to be active.
But yes, monogamy is a great way to reduce.
It's a fact.
The girl on the left is calling her biased and being snooty and mean because the whole problem I see with young people on the left is this, uh, it's an endless drift towards self-gratification.
We can do no wrong.
Stop shaming me.
No.
I will.
Irresponsible behavior should be called out.
And young people are being encouraged to go around banging whoever.
No, no, no, no, no.
Now, I certainly don't think necessarily the girl on the left is saying kids should go out and do whatever.
But she's wrong, and she's in a very snooty way targeting this woman who isn't wrong.
I just find the whole thing annoying.
So let me tell you.
First, I would say you've got a little bit of pride in here, right?
The fact that she thinks she's smarter, you've got a little bit of envy in here.
I'm so tired of nurses acting a fool.
Yes, they have large platforms.
Ah, you are envious.
We can see the wrath.
She's clearly angry in the video.
What else do we have?
Well, I don't want to say lust or gluttony.
But at least a few of the seven deadly sins.
Now the reason I'm bringing that up is not because I'm religious, I just find it kind of funny to point out the sins in the video because this person on the right is clearly traditional.
Anyway, here's the point I want to get to.
I'll keep this one short because I gotta be honest, Project Veritas just released this huge video and my mind is completely absorbed.
I got like 700 tabs open so this one's gonna be short.
But this video really, really, really made me so angry.
It's not this one.
This one really is annoying because it's just a young, stupid person who thinks they're smarter than you and they're dragging someone else when they weren't wrong because they are biased.
Don't get all bent out of shape because someone else made a video where they said you can be safe by doing a thing and then dragging them and getting them, you know, people to target them because you want to live a hedonistic lifestyle.
Go ahead.
This one really annoyed me because he literally says, stop shaming people.
It's like, dude, if I see you pouring, you know, cream into a bowl of Twinkies and then dumping a whole thing of Nutella on top and eating it, I'm going to tell you that's gross.
I'm going to say, dude, that's messed up.
What are you doing?
If you're doing drugs, I'm going to shame you.
If you are endangering yourself, guess what?
I'm going to say that's bad.
I do not respect that.
But what they want is the best way to tell people to avoid getting diseases from sharing needles is to just tell them to buy clean needles.
Or we could tell them to stop doing drugs.
And we can work with alternatives, methadone, and ways to get them to stop.
We can tell them it is not good to do drugs instead of just saying, if you do inject heroin, make sure you use a fresh needle.
Okay, that's true too, okay?
I get that.
But we're not going to tell kids that.
We're going to say to them, don't do it!
But this is different.
There's the risk of diseases, you know, there's some cultural and social ramifications to dating, you know, culture and stuff that are bad.
But if you want to do these things, you know what, man?
I'm all about liberty, so long as what you're doing is legal.
But it doesn't help people by saying, yeah, look, we think you're gonna do it anyway, so we don't care, and we're gonna shame the actual people who are giving you legit information.
Now I'm gonna get all the feminists yelling at me about this video, but the fact is, just because you think kids will do it anyway, doesn't mean you don't tell them the truth.
And it doesn't mean, so here, I'll end with this.
Nurse Holly on the right told people to wait till marriage.
Fine!
You know, many won't.
But she said in the comments, make sure to protect yourself if you're active.
What's wrong with that?
Just because you disagree with her opinion doesn't mean you should be dragging her and getting hundreds of thousands of people to drag her.
But you know what?
It's the internet, so you're free to your opinion.
Fine.
I just think this girl on the left and this guy are worse than her because she didn't say anything wrong.
Telling someone to be abstinent won't stop them Okay, whatever.
I'm over it.
We're gonna talk about Bernie Sanders.
If you want to do an abstinence-only school program where they don't teach kids about
prophylactics, I disagree with that.
If someone makes a video where she says, here's what I think, don't get all bent out of shape
because you're angry that she's got more followers than you.
Okay, whatever, I'm over it.
We're gonna talk about Bernie Sanders.
I'll see y'all in a few minutes.
In what may be the fastest bending of the knee I have ever seen, Stephen King is being
dragged for a series of tweets about diversity, the Oscars, Oscar snubs, and why we must use
quality as our standard and not diversity.
Well, it was only a couple hours after he was completely obliterated by the woke Twitterati
that he immediately tweeted, I actually mean that we must make sure everyone has an access
regardless of race, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
Stephen King thought that he could make a sane, rational argument that what should determine
whether or not you win an award is if you're good at it.
But because he got roasted by woke Twitterati, he immediately, immediately flips.
So let me show you the tweets here real quick.
Here we go.
We can see this.
Eight hours ago.
I would never consider diversity in matters of art.
Only quality.
It seems to me that to do otherwise would be wrong.
And you can see that he got ratioed.
What happens?
Three hours later, he says, the most important thing we can do as artists and creative people is make sure everyone has the same fair shot, regardless of sex, color, orientation.
Right now, such people are badly underrepresented, and not only in the arts.
You can't win awards if you're shut out of the game.
And you can see this one was not ratioed.
Stephen King got the message, and boy did he move quick.
Don't challenge the woke Twitterati, and if you do, you better bend the knee like a pathetic coward.
Well, it's not enough.
You see, Ava DuVernay is not happy with Stephen King's views on diversity.
Because the way they see it, and the viral tweets coming out of this, were saying things like, but how can you have quality if people are being shut out?
Well, I'll tell you this.
I agree, to a certain extent.
But I don't believe that implementing restrictions on people who are good, or foregoing giving awards to people, has anything to do with meritocracy, merit quality, or otherwise.
Let me rephrase.
Whether or not someone wins an award doesn't change whether or not the content, like, okay, let me try this again.
The award is not the access.
There.
That's what I'm trying to say.
The award is not the access.
If he says, when it comes to an award, quality is all that matters, you'd be correct.
Just because you won an award doesn't mean you have more or less access than anyone.
Now these woke leftists will make the argument that most people who win the awards are those who are given the access, to an extent, yes.
But you can also give someone access and they don't win an award.
So the point is, Diversity should be about making sure everyone has an opportunity to produce, not win an award.
But you see how they mix these things up?
And this says to me that what we are looking at is the honorable mention, the loser trophy award generation.
Young people who were given participation awards when they were young, now believing that access is actually the award itself, and not you having the ability to make a movie.
Well, I seem to remember Ava DuVernay made some movies that flopped really poorly, but let's read the CNN article.
They say, Stephen King apparently doesn't believe diversity should override art.
The author weighed in Tuesday on the lack of diversity in this year's Oscar nominations.
King, who has had several of his novels and short stories adapted into films, is an Academy member.
Now, I will point out, it is quite hilarious how woke Hollywood is, but also how white they are.
And yeah, I think it was Ricky Gervais who pointed out, He made a joke in his opening monologue at the Golden Globes how everyone in the room is, like, mostly white.
And then the camera zoomed out to show that these people preach all day and night about diversity, yet here we are in a room full of white people who claim white people are bad.
I love it.
Look, man, I don't care what your race is.
The point I'm making is they're hypocrites.
It's fine if they're white.
Just don't pretend like you're special.
So they show the tweets from King, and then we get to Ava DuVernay.
So they say, his tweets, when he said he wouldn't consider diversity, excuse me, that didn't go over well, especially with director Ava DuVernay, who has championed inclusion in Hollywood.
She retweeted King's thoughts and added her own commentary.
When you wake up, meditate, stretch, reach for your phone to check on the world and see a tweet from someone you admire that is so backward and ignorant, you want to go back to bed.
Ugh, cringe.
Are you saying that you just deserve the award based on the color of your skin?
Now listen, let me tell you something.
It should be true.
That if you want to make a movie, if you want to be involved, your race, gender, etc.
shouldn't matter.
And like Stephen King said, you can't win if you're not allowed in.
We should make sure racists don't hold, you know, the reins.
They do.
And I mean the Hollywood leftist racists.
But, you know, we do want everyone to have equal opportunity.
What they're talking about right now is equal outcome.
We deserve an award simply because of these characteristics.
No, you don't.
You deserve an award if you make something that people vote that they believe deserves an award.
Now, it's true you can't win, but you see the way they're putting it?
He said, I would never consider diversity matters of art, only quality.
He was specifically referring to winning an award, and she says it's backwards.
No, I'll tell you what.
You know what's backwards?
Is assuming you will be rewarded simply because you're not white or a man.
That's insane.
They say, uh, King came back a few hours later after his initial tweets with further thoughts.
Yeah, we read that.
The most important thing we can do as artists and creative people.
All right, well, let's do this.
Let's, uh, let's, let's read some of the epic, the epic ratio.
First, stick, sex, and hammer.
He always appears as the top reply because, and you can see the ratio is even worse now.
Remember, you have to be woke and tribalistic and agree with whatever is said by whoever is furthest into SJW dumb at any time, Steven.
And boy did Steven learn his lesson why only three hours later he said, please, please don't hurt me in my career.
I know I'm really wealthy, but I want to make sure my future books get made into movies too.
Just tell me what to say.
You ever see that episode of Family Guy?
Where Brian Griffin writes that really awful self-help book called Wish It Want It.
What is it?
Wish It Want It something.
I can't remember.
The book is just basically, Brian and Stewie are mocking how dumb these books are, so they make a really crappy book with a ton of blank pages, where you're supposed to fill in your own answer.
What is it?
Wish it, want it, do it, or something like that?
I don't know, whatever.
But Brian, in the family episode, goes on to the Bill Maher show, and Bill Maher drags him for making drivel.
He says, this is stupid self-help drivel.
It's trash.
And then Brian basically says, please, please, Bill, just tell me what to say.
I love you so much.
I just want you to tell me what to say.
That's what it is.
That's what these people are doing.
You know what, man?
Maybe if enough of these people grew spines and said, I stand by what I said, and you can shove it, we would have a much better and more tolerant world.
Yes.
Because people will accept that sometimes people believe things you don't like.
Here's someone with a jiff of popcorn.
Here's Zuby.
You guys know Zuby, right?
At Zuby Music?
Oh boy.
The circular firing squad of wokeness begins.
Only way to win this game is to not play it.
With all due respect, I'm afraid that a meritocracy could work only if the game weren't rigged.
From Laura Lipman.
Who is Laura?
She is the Scronerer Queen of Twitter.
I have no idea what that is.
I don't know who she is.
But no!
The meritocracy game is actually not rigged.
And I can explain it very simply.
Is it true that some people have advantages?
Yes.
Is it true that some people are born into wealth and get loans from their parents or grants or, you know, inherit money?
Absolutely.
Does that mean the game is rigged?
No, it does not.
Some people who are very, very tall have short kids.
Those short kids are disadvantaged.
Some people who are very short have tall kids, and those tall kids are advantaged.
Nobody granted that other than God.
And for those that are atheists, what I mean to say is nature.
Reality.
There's no oppressive system that guaranteed a tall person the right to play basketball.
They just do.
Women aren't actually barred from sports.
They're just not good enough to compete with men at the top level.
You want to talk about meritocracy?
Yes.
Some people will be born with certain advantages and disadvantages.
It implies that diversity and quality cannot be synonymous.
How would they be synonymous?
They mean two different things.
They are not separate things.
They are!
Quality is everywhere, but most industries only believe in quality from one demographic.
That's not true!
And now here you are.
This is insane, you see?
You see how they have this insane worldview?
That they ascribe some cult-like belief on the world.
And I tell you this, there's only one color that matters for this industry, and it's the color green.
Look at, uh, who's the dude making those movies like Us and Get Out?
Jordan Peele?
Yeah, they want money!
They don't care if he's black or white or Mexican or gay or whatever, they're like, can you give me cash?
Because after that money goes in my pocket, I can leave!
So you know what?
You get the point.
I've ranted about, you know, meritocracy before.
But my props to Stephen King, I have never seen a faster, faster turnaround.
Oh, maybe Mark Hamill.
When he tweeted in support of J.K.
Rowling and then realized she was transphobic and then panicked.
Man, these people are losers.
If you believe something, say it.
And if someone's got a problem with it, you can tell them to go screw themselves, alright?
Stick around, I've got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
MSNBC's Lawrence O'Donnell is accusing CNN of helping Trump spread lies.
That's one of the reasons why Trump kind of wants you to watch CNN instead of MSNBC.
No, that's not true.
Trump hates CNN.
He hates Jim Acosta.
And he calls them fake news.
I don't think he likes either of them.
And I think he would want you to watch neither of them.
And he would want you to watch OAN.
But hey, hey, hey, you know what?
Far be it from me to tell you, Mr. Lawrence O'Donnell, who certainly believes that CNN is pro-Trump.
I kid you not.
Supportive of Trump.
Let's read this.
When former Senator Al Franken described CNN as playing it down the middle, except we hate Trump, yeah, on this week's episode of his interview podcast, his guest was quick to correct him.
No they don't, Lawrence O'Donnell said.
One third of the people on their payroll love Trump.
So you're guaranteed on any hour of CNN, to a minimum, one third of programming will be supportive of Trump.
Someone on their payroll saying, here's why Trump is right.
This one-third suggestion may be somewhat of an exaggeration, but the MSNBC host isn't wrong to point out his rival network has a habit of paying Trump-defending pundits who in some cases cannot even publicly criticize him without violating non-disclosure agreements.
That's one of the reasons why Trump kind of wants you to watch CNN.
Where did that insane idea come from?
Okay, no.
Full stop.
He knows on MSNBC there will be no one defending him because we don't bring on liars.
I don't bring on a liar.
I won't do that.
Oh, what do you mean?
Your network employs Chuck Todd, so you won't bring them on, but your network pays them.
Man, these people are gross.
CNN is trash.
MSNBC is trash.
O'Donnell's NBC colleagues appear to have varying opinions on the matter of bringing known liars onto their shows.
When the Daily Beast asked Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd early last year why he continues to book Trump surrogates like Kellyanne Conway, given her proven propensity to mislead, he said, Hey!
I don't have a hard and fast rule about who I put on and who I don't.
I don't think you ban anybody.
She works for the President of the United States.
If she is relevant to a story we're doing, I do think it's important for the country
to hear from a senior aide to the President.
Hey, I agree with that.
The problem I have with Chuck Todd is that he doesn't actually know what he's talking
So I'm not going to call him a liar.
I'm just going to call him stupid.
What's really funny, I love how the people are like, you know, they love to criticize me and say that I push, you know, conspiracies or fake news.
I tell you what, man.
I only use third-party fact-checked verified sources.
There are some pundits on the left who don't have sources at all.
You know, and I find one of the big differences between me and, say, well, I'm not going to name anybody.
I'm not going to name any of these lefties.
But they don't actually source their commentary.
At all.
They will literally just sit there talking about something they heard.
I don't do that.
I have NewsGuard certified, third-party certified sources.
Chuck Todd, what does he do?
He literally goes on his show and says, I heard this.
Isn't that crazy?
And you're like, where are you getting that from?
Well, I'm going to bring on someone to talk about stuff.
No, dude, listen.
These people, they play a game of telephone with each other, they push fake news, and then they convince themselves they're actually telling the truth.
Well, here's where it gets funny.
Media is so broken, Megyn Kelly slams Lawrence O'Donnell for bragging about MSNBC being one-sided.
Lawrence O'Donnell Was technically correct.
CNN does employ some pro-Trump voices.
They've had Rick Santorum on several times, who's defended the president.
Now, I won't say he's defended them like a hardcore Trump supporter, but it's been more of a pushback than MSNBC would ever offer.
But Lawrence O'Donnell is bragging about the fact that their network is biased.
And not only that, you have the OAN lawsuit, where Rachel Maddow's lawyers argued she's not factual information.
You know what?
I just don't even know anymore.
There are a few people on the left that usually shout out on YouTube, and even they don't have sources.
They don't even bother to check what they're talking about.
Did you Google search this?
They don't.
Here's what happens.
They're shocked to learn that conservatives would have an idea of something like, I don't know, Ukrainian election meddling.
How could they believe that Ukraine did this?
I don't know, because the New York Times reported it?
Did you Google search it?
Oh, no.
You heard a talking point from Joe Biden and you rolled with it.
Bravo.
Bravo.
So Megan Kelly is slamming, she says, quite an admission from Lawrence.
And MSNBC, there will be no one defending Trump because you don't bring on liars.
So anyone who defends Trump is a liar.
And MSNBC will never offer any defense of anything Trump does.
Media is so broken.
Guess what?
If you were to go around claiming That every single thing Donald Trump has ever done is wrong?
You would be speaking contradictory nonsense.
Because Trump has done things in, you know, a variety of directions.
Like, he wants to pull troops out of Syria.
They said he was wrong.
So he says, I will leave the troops there.
They said he was wrong.
There's literally nothing he can do.
At a certain point, you have to recognize one of those must be correct, or maybe they're both wrong.
I don't know.
What do you do?
Snap your fingers and Thanos the soldiers because we can't physically remove them, but they must remain.
Turn them into statues.
I don't know what you want us to do.
Okay.
If Trump was always wrong.
But it stands to reason, certainly at some point, someone would say something good about the president.
No.
They say the economy is bad when it's not.
They say pulling the troops out is bad when it's not.
They say Trump putting troops in is bad.
Well, I agree with that, but it doesn't matter because the point is the hypocrisy.
But, uh, I am not done.
Because now as we move on to this, we learn that MSNBC is in talks to sign ex-Fox News host Shepard Smith, as the network considers bumping Chuck Todd from his primetime slot.
Well, please bump Chuck Todd, and Shep Smith, I am disappointed.
Shep Smith was a more liberal lefty voice on Fox News.
That was a really good thing.
And he was mad at Tucker Carlson and Hannity.
So what?
Your network was balanced so you complained and left?
For shame.
To go join MSNBC?
That's disgusting.
Trading one extreme for the other, when in reality, Shep Smith, as the outlier on Fox News, provided balance.
Everybody would drag them, but they had Shep Smith.
Shep Smith, who would say Trump is wrong about this, Trump is wrong about that, he would push back.
And he got into a fight with Tucker Carlson.
That was good.
That was healthy.
You should have gone on Tucker's show.
Tucker should have gone on your show.
And you could have talked about it and argued.
And there was a network that was willing to employ Shep Smith.
Well, Shep got mad.
He said, they're liars, so I'm going to go join a network so we can all line up our opinions in a straight line and no one can ever, we don't want to hear what you have to say, I can't hear you.
Is that what you want?
You want to join a network where everyone's opinion is identical and they quite literally think every single thing that Trump has ever done is bad, even if it contradicts what they're saying?
Daily Mail reports MSNBC is reportedly in talks to sign a former Fox News host, Shep Smith, Who could take Chuck Todd's 5 p.m.
daily slot from the network?
It's unclear what slot he would take, but we want him in prime time.
The Insider claimed that CNN 5 p.m.
Oh, MTP, so I think they're saying, I don't know what MTP is.
Are they talking about Greenwich Mean?
I don't know.
I don't know what MTP is.
So isn't this British?
Let's just say 9 or 10 p.m.
I don't know.
The Insider claimed that CNN President Jeff Zucker is also pursuing Smith as well as a number of networks.
Sources revealed that MSNBC may be bracing for a major shakeup this year.
Ooh, good.
They're gonna do bad?
Todd has been hosting MTP Daily at 5 p.m.
since 2015.
I don't know what M... Oh, is that the name of the show?
I have no idea.
The host is said to be resisting the possible move of the network.
Yeah!
They're giving you the bump, bro!
You're out!
Meet the press.
That's what it is.
Meet the press.
Sorry, everybody.
So yeah, 5 p.m., meet the press.
Smith, who was a midday anchor for Fox News, quit in October.
The host, who had been with the network since its inception in 1996, stepped down from his role as chief news anchor and managing editor of the network's breaking news unit and anchor of Shep Smith Reporting.
The decision to exit Fox was made by Smith and only Smith, publicists for both the anchor networks that Friday.
Multiple sources told Daily Mail at the time that Smith's departure came as a total shock to the network.
In the past few years, he has come under fire while at the same time being praised for his coverage of Donald Trump.
It all kicked off in 2016 when he said that Trump trades in racism during the primary, and Smith has remained one of the network's few critics of the president ever since.
And it would have been great if he remained.
Because even if you don't like the guy, you're smart- most- well, I say most people who probably watch me are smart enough to recognize why you want to hear what Shep has to say.
You might not like it.
That's the point.
Hear what people are criticizing him for so you understand their point of view.
Even if they're wrong.
Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong.
That's fair.
They say, Comments like those are why Trump never appeared on Smith's show, despite the anchor reaching out to his campaign for an interview.
I would like to have some time with him, said Shep back in 2016.
For me, at least, it would be interesting to go through the things he said— OK, we get the point.
I'm going to keep this one short, because here's what I want to tell you.
Bringing on Shep would be a major mistake.
It would solidify MSNBC as the true Orange Man Bad Network.
And that's probably why they're gonna do it.
They're gonna bring them on because they want to be the Orange Man Bad Network.
Rachel Maddow can say the most insane, nonsense, conspiracy, fake news in the world over and over and over again, and they love it.
Makes money.
Like I was saying in the last segment about Stephen King.
There's only one color that matters in entertainment, and it's the color green.
Money.
Do you think they care if they're lying to you?
No.
They care if you keep watching.
So as long as you keep watching, they'll keep lying.
And that means Shep Smith is perfect.
But this shows us something else.
A lot of people seem to think that when it comes to network news, they make the hosts say these things.
They're told to.
No.
MSNBC knows what they are, and they want to hire Shep Smith because they know who he is.
They know he will rag on the president.
They know he will push the same nonsense they do.
That's why they hire him.
They don't need to tell him what to do.
He's gonna do it if they hire him!
So they don't have to say, here's your mandate, rag on Trump.
They say, hey, you do you, Shep!
Companies hire people who already believe what they want them to believe.
Welcome to How the Media Works.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
One more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The breaking story, which many presume to be a preemptive strike against incoming really bad news for Biden.
Russians reportedly hacked Burisma, the Ukrainian gas company tied to Hunter Biden.
The hacking suggests the Russian government might want to interfere in the U.S.
presidential election again.
Could it be that Hunter Biden did wrong?
Somebody hacked the company and the information may be leaked soon.
So now we're seeing the media claim Russians did it?
I'm sorry, I'm gonna have to tell you, I don't believe you when you scream Russia anymore, media.
I don't.
But you know what I can tell you?
The media is... I'm not gonna argue conspiracy, I'm not a fan, right?
I don't like, you know, speculating.
It may just be Russia did this.
But I will say the media is in defense mode.
Noah Schachtman of the Daily Beast, the editor-in-chief, says, I hope my fellow editors will think hard, really hard, a lot harder than they did in 2016 before publishing any material hacked by the Russians.
Really interesting to see who freaked the F out over a call for editorial caution.
What were you really trying to say, Noah?
Is that, we get it.
You shouldn't publish what the Russians are sending out, even though the Russians didn't publish any false information for the most part.
Now it's true.
Russian groups on social media were running sock puppets and spreading disinformation.
But the leaked documents we got were real.
The DNC cheated Bernie Sanders.
We learned this.
Sorry.
If information about Burisma exists that proves Hunter or Joe or both did something wrong, the American people have a right to know.
And could you imagine a world where the press says, well, This is evidence of wrongdoing from Joe and Hunter Biden, but because of the Russians, we won't tell anyone.
Certainly hoping the corrupt evil people get elected.
That's insane.
So far, we don't have any information out from Burisma.
We'll see what happens.
I'll tell you this, if Russia did hack it, and they do leak the information, I don't care.
I really don't.
Sure, it's a bad precedent that Russia is trying to screw with our country and all that, but isn't it a worse precedent if Joe and Hunter Biden are criminals?
Come on, man.
No free passes.
Let's read the story from Vox.
They say, is the Russian government trying to help President... Oh, you know what, man?
I'm ready to turn this off.
Help President Trump's electoral chances yet again, please.
Oh, really?
Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company whose board Hunter Biden served on, was hacked
by the Russian military late last year.
The New York Times, Nicole Perloth, and Matthew Rosenberg reported Monday, citing a security
firm that attributed the hack.
Oh, really?
So now we have reporters tell us that a security firm believes that Burisma was hacked by the
Great.
Yeah, I'm gonna believe that.
Sorry, not after Russiagate, not after Mueller, not after years of it, and not after Pelosi is still dragging it.
You guys are nuts.
Trump has long been obsessed with the idea that there is some sort of corruption involving Burisma and the Bidens.
It's not Trump!
It's literally the American people.
Find me one American who's gonna be like, I thought it was great that Joe's son was getting paid 83 grand per month for seemingly no reason in a foreign country, while Joe Biden was tasked with weeding out corruption.
That makes sense!
The only people who would claim it's okay are Joe Biden's stans, who want him to win.
Or, you know, liars.
No sane person would- Like, I imagine it like, Imagine someone buys a house, and then the house burns down right after they get an insurance policy.
You'd be like, uh, a day after you got this specific insurance policy, it burned down.
I don't trust that.
What person would think, that's totally fine?
Joe Biden is the vice president.
He's tasked with weeding out corruption in Ukraine.
His son gets a job at a corrupt company, making tons of money.
He doesn't speak the language, nor does he know anything about energy.
He's a lawyer or something, so fine.
That's suspicious.
I'm sorry.
At the very least, it's a conflict of interest, and most people think it's dirty.
Even the left used to call it soft corruption.
The media ran article after article about Joe Biden's soft corruption.
Now, where are we now?
Oh, because Trump has the idea.
So you mean to tell me you write an article calling it soft corruption, What was it, like, Newsweek did this, or like, Politico did this?
And then when Trump says, I read that in Politico, that's interesting, they say, Trump is insane and pushes conspiracy theories.
That's literally what they do.
The New York Times said Ukraine meddled in the election.
New York Times said it.
Now what do they say?
Conspiracy theory.
Chuck Todd on MSNBC laughing.
Ha ha ha ha, this is fake news.
Noah Schachtman, or what's his name?
Shachtman, I hope people don't publish this.
Great.
Just like CNN saying, you know these WikiLeaks documents are illegal.
You can't have them.
But we can.
Not true at all.
They say, though he has no evidence to prove it.
Okay, hold on.
There is corruption involving the Bidens.
The evidence is the fact that his son worked for the company.
You know what?
These people are sick.
But lo and behold, Vox is NBC, so.
And he tried to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the topic earlier this year, a request that spurred a whistleblower complaint from a government, officially and eventually, blah, blah, blah, impeachment, yet with no crime committed.
You people are insane.
The security firm Area One found that the hacking attempts began in early November, around when public testimony in the impeachment inquiry was beginning.
How much you want to bet information will drop just before next week when the Senate trial on impeachment is supposed to come out, and it's going to really make the Bidens look bad?
As a spokesperson for the Biden campaign, Andrew Bates said in an emailed statement that the news shows that Russian President Vladimir Putin sees Joe Biden as a threat.
He added any American president who had not repeatedly encouraged foreign interventions of this kind would immediately condemn this attack on the sovereignty of our elections.
Well, nothing's happened yet.
No information has been released.
So what was the attack on our election that Burisma got hacked?
I would say that that's an attack on the Ukrainian government and their country, not us.
This isn't the first time Moscow has hacked organizations in a way designed to affect American elections.
During 2016, hackers for the GRU, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, they hacked the DNC, emails got leaked, they said it went to WikiLeaks, WikiLeaks denied it.
Foreign hackings targeting top political players is nothing new.
But what the Russians did with the information was surprising and innovative.
They strategically released stolen emails and documents, having many given to WikiLeaks and posting others through their own online persona, Guccifer 2.0, and on a site called DCLeaks.
The US media then covered the releases and Trump touted them on the campaign trail.
Much of the information released wasn't particularly scandalous, but some caused controversy.
For instance, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned after some DNC staffers' private comments criticizing Bernie Sanders were posted on Wikileaks.
Let me rephrase that for you.
The DNC cheated in the 2016 election to prop up Hillary Clinton.
And it was the leaks that revealed that.
Yes, I would call that scandalous, Vox.
Special Counsel Robert Mueller eventually indicted 12 GRU officials for crimes related to the hacks, but since all of them reside in Russia, none were ever arrested or brought into custody.
Trump and his campaign associates were never accused of any involvement in the hacks or any conspiracy with the Russian government.
Though questions still remain about whether some Trump associates coordinated with Wikileaks.
I believe the answer is no, considering what Julian Assange has said.
But hey, far be it from me to know everything about what everyone did everywhere.
The Burisma hack poses the prospect that, once again, the Russians may have obtained unflattering information about someone close to the presidential... blah blah blah blah.
Okay, you know what, man?
Russia does Russia stuff.
Whatever happens in Ukraine doesn't mean it's related to this.
Information may come out.
We'll see what happens.
But for all you know, the Russians were hacking a ton of different systems in Ukraine.
It would make sense.
They're in a conflict.
There's Crimea.
Russia and Ukraine are in a conflict.
So why are we implying this is about the election?
Look at the game they're playing.
Does Russia want to help Trump win the election?
Oh, please, man.
Is it ever going to stop?
The Democrats have nothing.
And I'm so sick and tired of this.
I got a headache.
It's like every day.
Impeachment.
I don't care, man.
I'm so sick and tired of this.
I want to talk about the candidates.
I want to talk about their policies and what's going to happen.
The cultural issues surrounding this stuff.
But you know what?
These people love dumping in each other's mouths fake, disgusting nonsense.
In no way is there any evidence right now to suggest any of this has anything to do with 2016.
That's what the media does.
You ever watch Family Guy?
I think I made a Family Guy point in the other video.
