Even CNN SLAMS Democrats Over Insane "Pen Stunt," Pelosi Is Treating Impeachment Like A Game
Even CNN SLAMS Democrats Over Insane "Pen Stunt," Pelosi Is Treating Impeachment Like A Game. Nancy Pelosi has finally appointed impeachment managers and delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate. But she couldn't help but make a spectacle of the event by offering up signed pens on a silver platter. This is not a joke, she literally had silver platters with signed pens she was handing out.The event was so odd and jarring that even CNN slammed Democrats for the weird moment. Pelosi is treating impeachment like a game or something to not be taken seriously.Meanwhile media props up figures with no credibility to be interviewed by tv hosts with no credibility, Rachel Maddow
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Nancy Pelosi has finally delivered the impeachment charges to the Senate, paving the way for a trial.
House impeachment managers walked the articles of impeachment across the Capitol after a long-anticipated vote to start what promises to be a partisan impeachment trial of President Trump.
Now, while this is the big breaking news, it's not what I think is the most important takeaway.
The weirdest thing we've seen so far is that Nancy Pelosi created very strange commemorative pens for the event, smiling and laughing, as people took photos with her Showing off the pens.
Truly a very, very strange day.
Typically, they say that commemorative pens are made when there's a major signing of something important, a bill that will make America better and move things forward.
But for some reason, Pelosi thought it was appropriate to pretend like this was a very serious and somber matter, even shushing Democrats in the House not to cheer, saying, When they started cheering for impeachment.
But she's going to smile, laugh, and give out these strange autographed or whatever, signed commemorative pens that even CNN is calling it unusual and jarring.
At the same time, in this weird cycle that we live in of whatever the Democrats are doing, Senate okays the USMCA finally.
And NPR calls this a much needed win for Trump.
I'm so confused by this.
I mean, I'm trying to figure out what the Democrats are doing, but I truly believe what we're looking at is Nancy Pelosi's sheer incompetence.
On the same day, she announces they're going to be doing the impeachment.
She also says, and yes, the USMCA giving Trump a win and a loss.
They're doing the same thing again today.
I'll tell you what, man.
It's far from a serious matter.
It is truly a... It's a hyper-partisan moment for this country, where Nancy Pelosi... I'm gonna... Look, man, I really gotta drive this home.
This is the focus of the segment.
Because it is absolutely insane, in my opinion, to be looking at the first president to be impeached with no statutory crime, Nancy Pelosi is simultaneously calling it serious and giving out souvenir pens and taking selfies with people.
It is insane.
Or maybe not selfies... Well, some people are taking selfies, that's my understanding.
But we do have a lot of information to go through.
Because today, we're going to get a bit comprehensive.
I know some people have felt like today was pretty boring.
We've got a lot of news.
The other night, we had Lev Parnas give an interview with the Alex Jones of the left, Rachel Maddow.
And we also have a statement from the Government Accountability Office claiming that through the Office of Budget Management, that Trump or Trump's people may have violated the law.
They're saying straight up, this is a violation of the Impoundment Act to withhold aid to Ukraine.
So there's a lot I want to go through.
But I really want to end with, in my opinion, the Democrats being completely nuts.
I know I do this a lot.
I know.
You guys probably like it because it's why you watch.
But listen, we're seeing all of this screeching from the Democrats, from the resistance, from the left, talking about Ukraine investigating potential surveillance of Ambassador Yovanovitch, the GAO ruling.
But all of this is just more of the same.
Bombshell, bombshell, bombshell, fizzle.
And I'm going to explain to you why.
But first, let's talk about the unusual and jarring souvenir pens of Nancy Pelosi.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you would like to support my work.
You'll figure it out.
I trust your intelligence.
Let's just save time and get straight to the news.
Daily Caller reports, CNN's Dana Bash and several others noted the unusual and jarring appearance of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi smiling as she handed out souvenir impeachment signing pens.
What?
Bash, who appeared alongside political reporter Naya Malika Henderson and Wolf Blitzer during Wednesday's coverage of the ongoing impeachment proceedings, did not appear to believe the moment fit the occasion.
Neither do I. I am in a rare agreement with CNN on this one.
Saying, we are used to seeing signing ceremonies, Bash began, noting that pens were often handed out when a momentous piece of legislation was passed, at moments of celebration, when a president is signing legislation, when even sometimes on a rare occasion, but has happened when the House sends over a landmark piece of legislation.
It was unusual to see that kind of ceremony and handing out of the pens and smiling for a picture in this kind of situation where the house speaker has bent over backwards to say publicly and privately, this is a somber, this is somber and no time for celebration.
Understandably, it is history and people want to mark the moment, Bash added, but I did not expect to see it.
Henderson agreed, calling the moment jarring and certainly off-message, specifically for Pelosi, who has done her best from the beginning to set a serious tone for impeachment proceedings.
Bash and Henderson's were not alone.
We have this.
Meredith McGraw says Pelosi sharing pens to sign the articles of impeachment and smiling and posing for pictures seems a little off for the moment.
What are they doing?
What are they doing?
This is nuts!
This is insane.
Is this her like, I'm going out with a bang and I just don't care moment?
I tell you what I see.
You ever see the movie Office Space?
When the dude gets hypnotized, and then just doesn't care about work anymore, so he's walking around in, like, regular clothes, like, whatever, I don't care, smiling?
That's what I see with Pelosi.
She's like, I am so over this, I'm gonna do pens, I'm outta here.
That's what I really think.
Like, of course she's gonna win re-election, for sure, but I think they're gonna lose the majority, so it's her last opportunity to do something.
Now, of course, House Republicans are slamming her, and everybody seems to point out how weird it is.
Even the White House mocked Pelosi's souvenir pen.
Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham tweeting, Nancy Pelosi's souvenir pens served up on silver platters
to sign the sham articles of impeachment.
She was so somber as she gave them away to people like prizes. I kid you not.
Gold and black Nancy Pelosi pens on silver platters.
What is going on?
Listen, man, I understand if you want to rag on Trump for his behavior, but where is the press with this?
Now, that's not fair, I guess.
I got CNN's right here.
Even CNN saying this is insane.
But I'll tell you what, not only.
Did the USMCA pass in the Senate a major victory for Trump?
Trump signed the phase one trade agreement with China.
While all this is going on, Trump is having these major victories with the economy.
What do we get?
We get Nancy Pelosi's weird sideshow.
So I'll tell you this.
Well, actually, I won't tell you anything.
I'll have Daily Caller take it from here.
Nearly all of Pelosi's impeachment managers supported impeachment before Whistleblower complaint was filed.
That's where I want to get to.
This morning, the managers are, you know, the articles are being delivered.
We're moving on.
She's doing her silly little ceremony.
And now I will say this.
Everybody who is being appointed to oversee this, they basically supported impeachment before Trump even did anything.
As Pelosi had stated before, we've been working on this for years.
That's right.
Impeaching the president was their only plan.
That's it.
They don't care why Trump's being impeached.
They don't care if he actually did anything wrong.
He apparently didn't commit any statutory crimes according to the Democrats.
But this was their plan.
Daily Caller reports, six of the seven impeachment managers selected by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi supported the impeachment of Trump before the whistleblower complaint was filed.
House Intelligence Committee Schiff is set to be the lead manager.
The other managers include Gerald Nadler, Hakeem Jeffries, Jason Crow, Val Demings, Sylvia Garcia, and Zoe Lofgren.
Of the seven, there are six who publicly supported impeaching the president before the whistleblower complaint.
We get it.
Regarding the president's phone call with Ukraine, specifically whether Trump asked him to investigate Joe Biden.
You know what they do in impeachment?
I know it's kind of redundant at this point.
I turned on when they're announcing the managers, and they all repeat the same lies.
Trump was pressuring Ukraine to help him smear his political rival, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I get it.
I don't care anymore.
Literally don't.
So many of you may have seen the breaking news that Lev Parnas, crooked Ukrainian whatever, is doing an interview with Rachel Maddow.
And once again, I'll put it like this.
Other people are calling it kind of like a Michael Avenatti moment, where this guy comes and makes a bunch of claims, but who's this guy and why is he credible in any capacity?
Why would anyone believe anything he's saying when he's being indicted for a bunch of crimes?
They show a bunch of photos of this guy Lev Parnas with Trump and all these people, but dude, people come up to me for photos all the time.
And of course, the left tries to claim I know or am friends with people simply because they're like, can I get a picture with you?
It's insane.
They've done it to Jordan Peterson.
So I don't trust any of this.
But I'm going to show you what the left is saying.
I want to show you a bit more of the information.
But the main takeaway from this segment that I want to do now, I want to show you how the media omits the key information and what's going on with the impeachment.
So what happens is if you're someone who's on the internet and you watch my content, you're going to get not an imperfect.
OK, I'm not perfect.
But in a more comprehensive view, because I'm going to show you what the left and the right are saying, and I'm going to show you how the media has omitted groundbreaking information in the impeachment case.
Here's what happens.
These moderate liberal types only follow their trusted Rachel Maddow or whoever.
She ignores the information that's bad for the Democrats and only tells them what's good for them, and so they don't know what's actually happening.
Right now, there's a potential investigation, I believe there was an investigation announced, into whether or not Ambassador Yovanovitch was being surveilled in Ukraine.
That's crazy.
I'm looking forward to seeing if that's the case.
According to some text messages that we've learned of from Lev Parnas, it may be the case.
But what the media fails to deliver when breaking information occurs is that also Ukrainian MPs are calling for an investigation into Hunter Biden for stealing public funds.
Where were all of these resistance journalists?
Where was Rachel Maddow when this happened?
Nowhere to be seen.
In fact, the information was only passively slid through by the Washington Post as they claimed it was a conspiracy.
Instead of just saying members of parliament in Ukraine are concerned Hunter Biden was receiving stolen funds and they want an investigation of this, they said a pro-Russian whatever.
It was a smear.
So you have to imagine, if you're a Democrat, acting in good faith, you are not getting the full picture.
I'm going to show you what the Government Accountability Office said, and what the Trump supporters are saying, and I'm going to show you the news about Ukraine and show you what they omitted, because I'm trying to do my best to actually give you that information.
So first we see this from Salon.
Lev Parnas implicates Mike Pence, Bill Barr, and Devin Nunes in Trump-Ukraine scheme.
Pence was, quote, in the loop.
Barr had to have known.
And Nunes knew very well.
I want to stop right there.
First of all, Parnas claimed this to Rachel Maddow.
Rachel Maddow, who was dragged by many people on the left for claiming that Russia might shut off the electricity to Fargo in the winter, causing people to freeze to death.
Rachel Maddow, who has been smeared by progressives, yes, as the Alex Jones of the left.
And it's funny because a lot of people I see chime up, they're like, hey man, that's unfair to Alex Jones.
I actually agree.
I actually do agree.
Listen, Alex Jones, to many people, they watch him and they know a lot of what he does is tongue-in-cheek and absurd.
When he talks about crazy animal hybrids and stuff, a lot of people laugh knowing it's kind of like WWE.
Now, Jones has been right about some things.
Take it from Joe Rogan.
I know a lot of people are going to get mad about that, but I'll tell you this.
Look, you can argue a broken clock is right twice a day, or you can say that the problem with Jones isn't that he's always wrong, but that he takes things too far.
He gets like a morsel of the truth and then goes nuts with it.
But I think it's fair to say a lot of people watch Alex Jones for entertainment reasons.
People watch Rachel Maddow literally thinking they're getting the news.
But in a recent lawsuit with One American News where she claimed they were literally paid Russian propaganda, the argument from her team, as I understand it, was that she's not actually giving out real information.
That it's just like her thoughts and opinions don't take it literally and no one should.
So that, I think, Rachel Maddow right off the bat discredits this.
Sorry.
You know what, man?
I am sick and tired.
They need to take her off the air.
They need to get someone serious to interview this guy.
I don't know what he has to say, but I'll tell you this.
First of all, Salon.
I know, I know, you're probably saying, Tim, Salon's like the Infowars, the left.
Yes, okay.
They say, Lev Parnas implicates Pence, Barr, Nunes.
You're saying it's your understanding that some of them might have known?
Or you think they knew?
Or some did?
More importantly, this guy has no credibility, alright?
Lev Parnas, an indicted associate of Giuliani, alleged on Wednesday that Vice President Pence... Salon is stretching this to the umpteenth, you know, to an absurd degree, to try and make the claim there's a connection.
It's just not the case.
First of all, he's making a ton of assumptions.
Second of all, why would we take his word for it?
And lastly, we saw what happened with Avenatti, and I'll tell you this.
Some people have said to me, Tim, why won't you do a big story, you know, showing what Parnes was saying, the big expose like so many progressives will?
Because The Intercept has an article with like, I think, 38 stories where the media reported something and then a day later retracted it.
But I'll tell you what, I'm going to tell you that and then I'm going to show you what Parnes was saying because you need to understand the context.
But let's move on because it gets worse.
We're bringing it back to Pelosi.
Newsweek reports Lev Parnas says Attorney General Barr was, quote, basically on the team.
Devin Nunes was involved in getting stuff on Biden.
Interesting to read the articles, but did you actually read or watch the interview?
It actually seemed to me in many instances that Bill Barr was investigating criminal activity.
So I'm confused.
You know, the framing is everything.
The Democrats are saying this was a scheme to smear Biden.
But when you actually listen to what Parnas was saying, you're like, so Bill Barr, the attorney general, was investigating criminal activity on the part of the Bidens?
What's going on?
Well, if you only listen to Democrats and the fake news media, you're going to be ignoring many important key stories.
Notably, this one from Interfax.
This is from November 20th.
Biden partners received $16.5 million in payments stolen from Ukraine.
Basically, he's gone on to call for Zelensky, president of Ukraine and Trump to investigate what Biden was doing.
Interesting.
So if you're concerned about criminal activity from Joe Biden, then you're part of a conspiracy plot for Trump to win the election.
But if you're concerned about criminal activity on the part of the president, you're a patriot.
Because if we're to take this timeline as it is, it stands to reason that the investigation into Joe Biden was happening before he was even announcing he was going to run for president.
Right?
If Bill Barr was concerned about this, if they were looking into this, isn't that the case?
Well, I'm not going to say it definitively because I'm not going to pull up the timeline, but take it with a grain of salt.
I will say this, though.
From the raw story, Pelosi blasts Bill Barr as a rogue attorney general who is a puppet of Trump.
Saying, speaking at her weekly news conference on Thursday, Pelosi accused Republicans of being afraid of the truth.
The American people have seen the allegations and their allegations.
We need to see more evidence that would be contained in the documentation.
So this is just another avoiding of the facts and truth on their part.
They don't want to see documents.
They don't want to hear from my witnesses.
They want to ignore anything new that comes up.
Is she basically saying that we must impeach the president to learn why he should be impeached?
Apparently, Pelosi went on to call for a special prosecutor to investigate the links Rudy Giuliani's associate Lev Parnas outlined in his documents and in an MSNBC interview with Rachel Maddow Wednesday night.
Attorney General Bill Barr in particular, Pelosi called a rogue Attorney General.
She then called for the appointment of a special counsel, saying, When I said that the Attorney General was implicated, as I've said, this testimony implicated the rogue Attorney General, who has been the puppet of the, I-don't-know-who-is-the-puppet, Trump, or the Attorney General, but this is not, he says, this is my Attorney General, this is my Department of Justice, really, Pelosi said.
So in any case, it's not a question of, I can't even read this, I don't even know what she's talking about, Pelosi's nuts, alright?
She's calling Barr, like, Listen, I'm sorry.
Pelosi is implying some ridiculous criminal conspiracy.
It's insane.
Parnas is not a credible actor.
His accusations are not confirmations.
But they literally, in the media, say, Les Parnas has confirmed.
Why is he all of a sudden coming out to Rachel Maddow, who has no credibility, and neither does he, and why should I take any of this seriously?
Well, I'll tell you what.
Maybe.
We'll see what happens.
I'm begrudgingly covering this because, like I said, Intercept had, what was it, like 38 stories of information reported and a day later, bunk!
So here I am.
Not legitimate.
We'll see what happens.
I think I'm being fair enough.
Now we have this.
The U.S.
Government Accountability Office claimed, or they're issuing a legal decision That the Office of Management and Budget violated the law when it withheld approximately $214 million appropriated to the DoD for security assistance to Ukraine.
The President has narrow limited authority to withhold appropriations under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
Now, many conservatives have called this out, notably that, in this from warroom.org, Trump broke impoundment law opposed by Jefferson, Lincoln, JFK, Clinton, and Obama.
More importantly, according to lawyer Will Chamberlain, who is a Trump supporter, he said that the Government Accountability Office has no legal authority, and it is a legislative office, essentially, of a legislative branch, and they're issuing their opinion.
It won't really have a big impact.
He says the executive branch has their own.
You can go check out him on Twitter.
He did a big video on it.
The point is, you're going to hear from both sides.
But as I understand it, the Government Accountability Office can't really do anything.
It's just their office's opinion.
Now, they are a governmental organization.
And I think it's important to point out, as warren.org says, even Obama, Clinton, JFK, Lincoln, Jefferson opposed the general impoundment law.
This law was passed, I believe, in 1972.
And regardless of whether or not it is right or wrong, if Trump broke the law, he broke the law.
So I don't think it's a defense to say other presidents have disagreed with it.
The issue at hand, in my opinion, is that whether or not he broke the law doesn't matter if the GAO gives their opinion or not.
It's whether or not actual legislative action will be taken, and I really don't think so.
Now here's the important point.
I don't want to downplay what the GAO is saying.
Certainly, we'll take it, you know, I think it's important to listen to what they have to say and listen to the counterpoints presented by conservatives.
But if Trump broke the law, he broke the law.
No ifs, ands, or buts.
We will see what comes of this.
The problem is, when this news breaks, it's everything we hear.
Ukraine investigates reports of surveillance of Marie Yovanovitch.
Newly released documents suggest that Ms.
Yovanovitch was being watched in Kiev while she was the U.S.
I think it's important we get to the bottom of this.
Some text messages came out through Lev Parnas showing people saying they knew if her computer was off, they knew where she was.
Seems like they were looking into her.
I also believe there's some counterpoints about Yovanovitch spying on other people, but I'll leave that out for now.
The point is, yes, let's look at this story and see what's going on.
The problem when the GAO comes out and issues some statement about Trump, the media runs
rampant.
When the New York Times publishes this story about Ukraine investigating reports of surveillance,
the media goes nuts.
But where were they when members of parliament in Ukraine were saying Biden did wrong?
The underlying premise of the impeachment is that Trump had no real reason other than
benefiting himself in the 2020 election to ask for these investigations into Joe Biden
and Hunter Biden.
But if it's true that even people in Ukraine are saying, one, the New York Times reported a court in Ukraine said what certain individuals were doing was meddling in the 2016 election.
This is the New York Times reporting.
Ukraine meddled in the U.S.
election.
Not as big as Russia, not a top-down thing, but they did.
If Interfax is reporting, members of Parliament are saying, Hunter Biden did wrong, we demand an investigation, where is all of the outrage from the media?
It doesn't come up.
You get half of the picture, you have no idea what's really happening, and now I'll end with this.
One of the most psychotic things I have seen, and I'm going to wrap it all up right now with a nice little bow and tell you why I think the Democrats are psychotic.
They're insane.
Impeachment has helped Trump across the board.
We know it.
I've said it a million times.
You get it.
Fundraising, approval, everything.
Nancy Pelosi is bringing out commemorative silver platter pens for impeachment?
What, is she nuts?
I have to think so.
Now that they're launching the impeachment, because she delayed it, the senators are being pulled off the campaign trail.
Joe Biden might even be pulled off the campaign trail.
She is nuts.
But I bring you this.
Lawrence Tribe, He is a verified Twitter user, I'll give him that, saying people who seem confused about what Lev Parnas hopes to gain from the compelling story he told on Maddow are awfully naive.
Though spilling what he knows won't help him vis-a-vis SDNY, it obviously reduces the incentive of the Russian mob and its Trumpian allies to kill the guy.
Someone then links to the suspicious deaths associated with Donald Trump's campaign.
I kid you not, we live in this world where people make jokes about Hillary Clinton, and they screech all day and night in the media about conspiracies, and they literally push identical conspiracies.
You know, when it comes to Jeffrey Epstein, you have on the left them saying Bill Barr is covering it up, and on the right, Clinton is covering it up.
I don't care, dude.
But I think it's fair to point out the double standard.
That in the media, anybody who says anything about Clinton is a conspiracy theorist.
But they will post these things about Trump, and no one bats an eye.
The double standard is so obvious, it's so palpable, you could cut it with a knife.
So let me wrap this up.
I'm not going to tell you what to think about Yovanovitch's surveillance.
I think it's interesting.
Whether or not the ambassador was being surveilled, this could be serious.
There may be wrongdoing among Parnas Giuliani at the direction of Trump.
I am absolutely willing to entertain it.
But I'll tell you this, after years of Russiagate, scandal after scandal, fake news after fake news, I am less inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt.
So don't be surprised when Lev Parnas comes out and says a bunch of wacky nonsense, and I'm gonna be like, I'll tell you what, I'm gonna sit back and wait for literal confirmation, because I am sick and tired of this game.
Story comes out a day later, retracted.
Story comes out a day later, retracted.
Bombshell, retracted.
Bombshell, retracted.
Not interested in playing that game.
But I will begrudgingly tell you what I know.
So, you know what?
I'll put it this way.
At this point, there's very little that will convince me that Trump has done wrong in regards to Ukraine because of how many lies the media has published.
How many false or half-stories.
I'm not interested.
Sorry.
I'll leave it there.
We'll see what happens.
I think it's fair to say.
But how many of us gave the benefit of the doubt in Russiagate to now going into Ukrainegate?
CNN actively trying to shut down Bernie Sanders, or that CNN actively... I think it's fair to say CNN really doesn't like Bernie Sanders.
No, I'm kidding about the Grand Conspiracy, but we do have kind of an unethical action from CNN.
Surprise, surprise.
They released the hot mic audio of Warren and Bernie And many people on the left believe it was intentional, the whole thing was staged by the Warren camp, to go after Bernie and exacerbate the scandal where they're trying to accuse Bernie of being a sexist.
Now, I'll tell you this.
Occam's razor suggests the simple solution tends to be the correct one.
We all saw how CNN treated Bernie Sanders.
How they said, so you're saying, Bernie, you didn't tell Warren a woman couldn't win?
And he goes, that's correct.
And they immediately go, Warren, how did you feel when Bernie told you a woman couldn't win?
We know they don't like Bernie.
We know that in 2016, they gave questions in advance to Hillary Clinton.
I would not be surprised if they are doing everything in their power to hurt him.
Now, I don't think that means they're, you know, working or colluding with the Warren camp, but they are certainly loving the controversy, and they are completely unethical in their actions.
You may have seen the bit that went viral, okay?
This is the leaked audio now that CNN's putting out.
I shouldn't say leaked, but it's the hot mic audio they've published, which is an egregious violation of privacy.
It is unethical as far as I'm concerned.
We saw this moment where Warren walked up to Bernie Sanders after the debate, refused to shake his hand.
We now know, thanks to CNN publishing the hot mic audio, what she said.
Warren walked up to Bernie and said, I think you called me a liar on national TV.
And Bernie says, what?
She said, I think you called me a liar on national TV.
Bernie says, he goes on to say, let's not do it right now.
You want to have the discussion?
We'll have the discussion.
Anytime you called me a liar, you told me.
Then he says, all right, let's not do this.
And then Tom Steyer, like a bumbling, I'll just call him a bumbling old man.
Walks up all confused.
I don't want to be involved.
I just want to say hi.
I feel bad.
I'm going to try to dragstire.
He was trying to be polite and professional, shake hands after the debate, and he accidentally stumbled upon this, you know, hot moment.
Aaron Maté is a journalist.
I think he's actually pretty good.
He's a bit of a lefty, but he calls it well.
I believe he's honest.
And he said, CNN just aired the post-debate Sanders-Warren exchange.
Both accused the other of calling the other a liar.
Warren initiated.
The fact that this was done on stage, with camera and audio, and the fact that Warren's camp started this whole thing makes me wonder if they staged this too.
Now, I don't want to act like, you know, I'm not going to assume Sienna and Warren are working together.
It's possible they were just filming the stage, saw Warren walk up, and they're all wearing mics.
It's all being recorded.
But I will say, how convenient for Warren's camp that the camera was just, it just so happened to be tracking Warren.
This clip went viral before the audio came out.
They're showing, look it, they're zooming in on Warren and Bernie!
The camera guy knew what he was filming!
Again, I'm not saying that they're working with Warren, but they saw this, they latched onto it, they got the audio.
Everybody wanted to know what was said.
The CNN staff were asking Tom Steyer, and then sure enough, CNN publishes the audio first.
Disgusting, CNN.
Disgusting, okay?
The microphones are not to be used to publish private conversations.
This was not part of a debate.
It was an after-the-fact moment, and there was a bit of a personal exchange.
Just because you are recording the audio doesn't mean you should be publishing what people say.
You have to realize this now.
If you ever go on CNN, don't say anything.
They put that mic on you, everything you say is going to be recorded, and they'll publish it.
You have no reason to trust it wouldn't do that.
So CNN is trash.
CNN is garbage.
Everybody knows it.
More importantly, Bernie Sanders people know it.
calling her a liar on national TV.
So CNN is trash, CNN is garbage.
Everybody knows it.
More importantly, Bernie Sanders people know it.
Now I do want to point out, there's an ongoing scandal between the Iowa staffer.
Project Veritas is currently releasing a bunch of undercover audio.
I believe this puts Bernie between a rock and a hard place.
I know a lot of people are saying, so what, a staffer?
I don't care.
I don't care.
This is unprecedented for a political campaign, for a presidential staff to be saying things about sending conservatives to gulags.
That's unprecedented.
Should not be happening.
All right?
Bernie needs to figure out what he's going to do, but all of his staff are locking their accounts.
His Iowa staff are locking down their accounts.
So, I mean, you've got a serious problem on this one, Bernie.
However, regardless of whether or not Bernie should or shouldn't, or whatever's going on with this scandal, I do think it's fair to point out that CNN is absolutely acting unethically, and they are doing what it seems to be their best effort to hurt Bernie Sanders.
I'll tell you this, Bernie fans, you combine what CNN is doing, what Warren is doing, and what Veritas has on the Sanders staffers, and it is looking really, really bad for Bernie Sanders.
So I'll also say this to the Veritas people and the conservatives, You are going to make Bernie Sanders people very, very angry.
Now, I'm not saying that it's not for good reason.
I'm not saying that Bernie is innocent here.
The fact is, Veritas got some pretty bad stuff on the Sanders staff in Iowa, and that's on Bernie and that's on his staff.
But don't be surprised when Sanders fans are furious because this is really going to hurt him.
Now, the media isn't really latching on to the Veritas stuff.
I don't know why.
I mean, Fox is.
And I think it is kind of worrying that Sanders has attracted this kind of fringe extremist element.
I'll tell you this, man.
They like to smear Donald Trump for everything, you know, the far-fringe right-wing extremists do, because they like him.
But Trump denounced them several times.
They tried playing the game where they're like, Trump won't denounce these people.
He did!
Several times.
I don't care what you think.
I don't care if you don't pay attention to the media.
Trump did denounce these people.
When Steve King went out and said stupid things on Twitter, they removed him from every committee and they said, we don't want this.
When Ilhan Omar comes out and says offensive things, they say, we're going to do a joint statement on bigotry, and they ignore it.
Rashida Tlaib said something, they ignore it.
Now Bernie Sanders' staff are saying things again, and Bernie is not addressing it.
This is a problem, and it is a double standard.
I'm sorry, it is.
Look, man, I think the media is really, really unfair to Trump and to Bernie.
I think the media is unfair to a couple other Democrats, too.
They lie.
I mean, people like Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, like, they're clearly lying about these people.
I love—I have no problem calling out the media for being deceitful, duplicitous snakes.
I mean, Elizabeth Warren is a dirty, duplicitous snake, too.
So I'll give that to Bernie.
But I'll tell you this, man.
I like the populist message.
I like what Bernie offers.
I like what Trump offers.
I'm concerned in different ways about each of them for different reasons, alright?
I'm not saying I'd vote for either of them.
I'm just saying, you know, when it comes to who should be running, I think— And there's a lot of reasons Bernie is the better choice of the Democrats, except for the fact that he has a fringe element behind him, he is attracting literal communists, Marxists, and violent authoritarians who are calling for extremist things, and he says nothing.
Sorry, I'm not playing it.
I'm not playing it.
Look, man, I know it's bad for Bernie, but he's trying to play this game that I do not agree with.
If Bernie wants to win, he has to be honest.
You know, I don't know though.
I guess not.
I understand if he really wants to win, he just, you know, play the PR game.
Anyway, more to the point.
The Bernie Sanders subreddit is no longer going to allow links from CNN with this moderator post that says, Sanders for president will be removing all content from CNN for the foreseeable future.
They have abandoned their journalistic integrity.
You got 372,000 people feeling the burn on this subreddit.
For those that aren't familiar with Reddit, it's a forum.
I'm assuming most of you are.
But I'll tell you this, man.
Sanders for president, moderators.
Let me ask you a question.
Did you just now realize CNN had no integrity?
Because it was actually quite some time ago I realized that.
And the Trump fans, man, they heard that a long time ago.
Then you get the expose from Project Veritas.
Yeah, okay, we know.
You know, I think it's really funny, because there have been some journalists dragging Veritas, saying that he only targets liberals.
And I'm like, you know, if that were the case, you would be implying that CNN, The Washington Post, Facebook, CNN, all these organizations are liberal institutions.
And I don't think that's what journalists want to be the message.
But that's what they keep saying.
They say, you know, O'Keefe is a conservative and he targets progressives and liberals.
And I'm like, so you're saying CNN is like a liberal organization?
CNN is targeting Bernie Sanders.
No, CNN is crony establishment.
I would say that's what, you know, Project Veritas is targeting.
Now, don't get me wrong.
I think Project Veritas is conservative and does have a bias, 100%.
I'll give you an example.
When they did their exposé on Pinterest, they highlighted that live action was banned by Pinterest, and right above it was anti-media, which is left-wing anti-war.
I'm not saying James or Project Fairchild did anything wrong.
I think they were right to expose what they exposed, and they saw it as they saw it.
I'm just pointing out, when I first saw the list, I saw anti-media because it's a left-wing organization I knew about.
I didn't know what live action was.
And it's probably similar for James.
I'm not saying that Veritas did anything wrong, by no means.
They do a great job, and I'm glad they're doing what they're doing.
I don't care if you have a political bias when you cover the media, if you're exposing corruption, good.
Period.
And if it turns out Bernie Sanders' staff are saying insane things, I'm glad we're learning about it.
I'd like to hear what Trump's staff has to say too.
I'm sure they say things, but guess what?
Where are the journalists who actually do this?
Apparently they don't exist, because on CNN, where they're supposed to be doing it, they hold panels where they complain about the orange man, but they don't actually send investigative reporters to do any work.
So you've got a problem with Project Veritas.
I think it's actually a you problem, okay?
Veritas is doing undercover reporting and they're exposing corruption and malfeasance.
The real issue isn't that he's doing it, it's that you aren't!
Where are the left-wing organizations going investigating big corporations?
I mean, I'll tell you this, man.
There are activist groups that go after factory farms and plants and stuff.
I'm down.
Do undercover work.
You know, expose this corruption.
I am totally down for it regardless of what direction it comes in.
Just because Veritas does it and you don't doesn't mean James did anything wrong.
It means you need to get off your couch and go do the same thing.
Go expose some bad people.
So now you've got Sanders for president just now saying, you know, ten hours ago that they're going to ban CNN links.
Well, I'll tell you this.
I don't think you should ban CNN links.
I think that's a bad idea.
I think you should know what CNN is saying because they're going to keep saying it and you need to be prepared to combat the lies they're putting out.
Let me just say in no uncertain terms, CNN of course is lying about Bernie Sanders.
They are an establishment crony institution.
They don't like Trump for very similar reasons.
Trump and Bernie are both populists trying to buck the establishment.
CNN is left to the establishment.
Like, they're the left wing of the establishment media.
Not the furthest, like MSNBC.
But I mean, even MSNBC criticized CNN.
But they don't like Trump, not because of Trump's behavior, because of what he represents.
A challenge to the system.
The elites are being threatened.
There's a peasant revolt at the ivory tower, and Bernie and Trump were both at the base.
Now, Trump was a billionaire, so it's a big difference.
But Bernie, of course they're lying.
Maybe you guys should have called out CNN a long time ago.
A long, long time ago.
But I will say, I do know a ton of Bernie Sanders people who, of course, have been calling out CNN.
I don't think they should be banning the link though, but here's what they say.
CNN has spent the previous four days using all of its media power to try to prevent Senator Sanders from becoming president.
All of their top-line stories have been unsubstantiated, hit-job-style articles against the senator.
The situation came to a head last night when CNN hosted a Democratic primary debate.
CNN's debate has been criticized across the entire ideological spectrum of media today because their moderators spent the entire debate asking slanted questions obviously designed to weaken Americans' confidence in Senator Sanders.
The current frontrunner in the first three primary states, spot on.
I completely agree.
CNN is not going to stop.
At a time when America is embroiled in Middle East conflict, when half a million people a year are going bankrupt due to medical bills, when an entire generation of Americans are drowning... Americans is, they say.
Americans are drowning in student debt.
Or an entire generation of Americans is drowning in student debt.
Whatever.
Argument.
Language argument.
And when we house the largest prison population in the world, CNN's top stories are just new smear articles on Senator Sanders.
This is called the Bernie bump.
You got the Trump bump, you got the Bernie bump.
They know if they make shocking sensationalist boogeyman about the evil socialist Bernie Sanders, they're going to get traffic.
They've been playing the game with Trump for years.
They pushed insane Russiagate psychosis for years.
They push the orange man bad Trump scandal media, which is doing nothing for discourse in this country and solving none of our problems.
It's making things worse.
They will do the same to Bernie Sanders and they are.
I'll tell you this.
I'm not going to drag the Bernie fans for saying the right thing.
I respect and I'm glad they're coming out and calling out CNN.
Trump could fart and they'd be like, Trump farted, offending everyone, and it'd be top news.
They quite literally did a segment about Trump getting two scoops of ice cream.
Now, I'll stop.
It was meant to be facetious.
The woman who does these bits, they're meant to be silly.
But they went on to do, I believe, two stories about how Trump's pepper shaker, salt and pepper shakers, were bigger than everybody else's.
I really don't think Trump cared.
They probably just had a variety of salt shakers and like, here you go.
Or Trump's six foot fives and said give him the bigger salt and pepper because he might use more of it.
Not likely.
But who cares either way?
CNN actually runs this psychotic stuff.
Man, you turn on, you know, Brian Stelter's show, and it's just like the Orange Man Bad Show.
Brian Stelter tweeted out the other day, you might know him for the media guy from CNN, and he's like, Fox News actually ran this headline.
And it was some, like, stupid headline about, I don't even know what, but I'm just like, dude, CNN, their top, their primetime anchor actually asked whether a black hole could swallow a plane, and then the guest says, a small black hole would swallow the whole universe.
A small black hole would swallow the whole universe, he said.
No!
No, it won't!
In fact, there are many black holes!
In fact, we believe there is a supermassive black hole at the center of our own galaxy.
Supermassive!
The universe has not been swallowed, and it will not.
But that's CNN for you.
Let me read what else they say.
They say it's for these reasons that Sanders for President is indefinitely suspending the hosting of all content produced by CNN.
Thank you for your time and passion, SFP, Sanders for President.
Senator Sanders has taken the lead in Iowa because of your relentless advocacy and volunteering.
By ignoring these smears and focusing on the issues that matter to Americans, we are going to win the presidency.
Together, we will transform the United States into a country for all of us, not just the billionaires who control CNN.
Let me tell you something.
I do want to show you this article from Matt Taibbi.
I think Matt Taibbi's pretty great.
Not perfect.
He's done this stupid Michael Moore interview as trash.
But let me tell you, I'm sorry Bernie Sanders fans.
I will absolutely concede that CNN is smearing Bernie because they don't like the guy.
For a lot of reasons.
You know, like I stated.
But I think you gotta say, man, that what Veritas has on Bernie needs to be addressed somehow.
You cannot just have your staff locking up their accounts because it's going to get worse.
What Veritas is producing on Bernie is not a smear.
No, it's legitimate.
If Bernie Sanders' staff believes these things, then Bernie has extremists in his ranks that need to be removed!
I'll say the same for Trump.
If Trump has far-right extremists, he better call them out.
Well, guess what?
He did.
Now, Bernie has condemned antifa in the past.
Respect.
I respect him for doing this.
Noam Chomsky called it out, too.
Much respect.
Bernie needs to address this.
I know it's going to hurt him no matter what, but this is a legitimate complaint.
Bernie Sanders campaigns to have an Iowa's harboring extremists.
This is not what America wants.
Maybe the fringe activists want it, and maybe the people who are fans of Bernie might actually hold a lot of the same views.
Well, too bad.
Bernie will not win if this is the message going out to regular Americans.
Who just want a job, want to see their kid go to college, want to save, buy a house maybe.
They don't want to hear about gulags.
They don't want to hear about violence and antifa and calls for more violence.
That is unprecedented for a political campaign.
It's legit.
It needs to be condemned and called out.
Instead, Bernie's staff are just locking their accounts.
The Iowa staff is shutting down their Twitter accounts.
Well, that just shows me they're scared and it's going to get worse.
It's not going to help.
Now what CNN is doing is complete BS.
You know, asking slanted questions, smearing Bernie, Rolling Stone, Matt Davey, CNN's debate performance was villainous and shameful.
The 24-hour network combines a naked political hit with a cynical ploy for ratings.
I think you get the point.
I'm not going to read through everything Matt Taibbi says.
I don't think Matt's perfect, but I appreciate that he calls out the media the way he does.
I do think, you know, he did this thing with Michael Moore where they smeared white people as, like, dangerous.
It was really bad.
Like, cringe to the max.
But Matt Taibbi's pretty good.
And so I'm glad he's calling out CNN.
I'm glad people are starting to see the establishment for what it is.
So, I'll put it there.
Listen.
In all things, nuance.
When we're talking about Bernie, you have to recognize, look, I'm ambivalent for the most part when it comes to what's going to come happen in 2020.
I recognize the economy is doing really well under Trump.
I personally really don't like him, like his character and his demeanor and his actions.
But I recognize he's got some victories under his belt.
And he's got some really bad things under his belt, too.
His foreign policy has been shaky.
And I'm talking about missile strikes in Syria, commando raids in Yemen, troops in Saudi Arabia.
These are things I'm very critical of.
But I will say, when it comes to the economy, I can't deny it's doing really well.
When it comes to Bernie, I think he's harboring extremists.
I think it's not his intention.
Well, some people might disagree.
I mean, the guy recorded by Veritas says he thinks Bernie's actually a full-on socialist.
And Bernie needs to call it out if he really wants to reach the American people.
The point is, I am not saying these things to help or hurt Bernie Sanders, or help or
hurt anybody for that matter.
I am telling you right now, CNN is smearing him, but Bernie's, the expose from Veritas is legit.
It's not, I'm sorry Bernie Sanders supporters, you're not going to get a perfect free pass on this one.
I have no problem calling it when it's a fact.
CNN is trash.
Veritas has their issues, but you've got to do something about these extremists.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
Let me end by saying, CNN is trash for a million reasons, but wow, publishing this hot mic audio was dirty, dirty, dirty.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Here's the story.
A South Milwaukee dental assistant went to a Donald Trump rally.
She then posted a comment, MAGA 2020.
Somebody then sent a bad review to the place where she worked, the dentist's office or whatever you call it, dentistry organization.
She gets a phone call that she's being let go.
People then start inundating the Facebook page with bad reviews.
According to the Facebook page, only a few moments ago, they were hacked.
The page now no longer exists.
The website for the company is now private and locked.
And yet we still live in a world where people claim cancel culture isn't real.
So let me tell you about cancel culture.
When Kevin Hart gets fired from the Oscars or whatever because of old jokes, yes, that is a part of cancel culture.
Just because Kevin Hart can keep working and make money doesn't mean he wasn't canceled or people didn't come for him.
Many people on the left are now trying to claim it's not in fact a real thing.
We're just talking about consequences.
Okay, please explain to me.
How a private citizen who went to a Trump rally and said MAGA should be fired from her job or explain to me how it's appropriate that somebody would call her workplace accusing her of being a racist and posting racist comments.
That's not true.
That's not true.
And I have firsthand experience with this.
I scheduled an event last year and Antifa threatened the venue.
They canceled on us.
We had a backup venue so everything was okay.
But people We're calling our second venue.
So we actually had three.
We had an after party.
They were calling and saying things like, you're hosting bigots and racists and the worst things you can imagine.
None of it was true.
And these people were saying things like, I will never service your business again.
The only problem, they don't even live in the Philadelphia area.
These were people calling from San Francisco.
That's what cancel culture is at its worst.
Let's read the story about this woman who lost her job from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.
They say, Before Robyn Pollack attended President Donald Trump's January 14 rally in Milwaukee, she expressed her support for him on Facebook by posting a MAGA 2020 comment on a news story about the visit.
She said that comment, and possibly a few others like it, got her fired from her job.
Pollack, a South Milwaukee resident who was the only dental assistant at Precision Dental Milwaukee — they post the address, wow — said someone found out where she worked, went on her employer's Facebook page, and posted a negative review.
The person did not recommend the dental office, saying, employees spouting racist comments on Facebook.
Pollock said she didn't have any interaction with the person who posted the review, but was told they had trolled others before.
Pollock denied she was a racist, saying she has African-American siblings and is partially Native American.
I'm not racist, she said, but I am just kind of speechless about this.
The Precision Dental Milwaukee account responded to the review.
I am so very sorry to have learned that this was posted.
We are handling the situation in-house as we speak.
I assure you that this office does not share those beliefs, the response said.
Pollock said that handling it in-house meant she got fired over the phone.
I was taking my son to speech class, doing errands, and my boss called and said, we need to terminate you.
The office manager said it was for the review they got on their Facebook page, but my name wasn't on there.
They assumed it was me because I'm the only Republican in that office.
Employees at Precision Dental Milwaukee told a reporter who visited the office Wednesday that they couldn't legally discuss the matter.
However, the office did release a statement.
Precision Dental believes in the privacy of an employee's terms of employment, retention, or discharge.
As a matter of course, Precision Dental does not discuss employee personnel matters.
Precision Dental MKE believes dentistry is non-political.
We can confirm, however, that no employee has ever been terminated for their political beliefs or their support or opposition of the President or any political candidate.
So let me stop right now.
I'm a fair person.
I try to be.
It is entirely possible we're not seeing the full picture.
Maybe she really did post something extremely offensive or racist or whatever.
I kind of just lean towards it's not true, right?
So the other day, I'll say this.
Jack, you're getting another shout-out.
The other day I did a segment about cancel culture and Kathy Griffin.
I think it was actually at 1 p.m.
And I noted that when people discuss cancel culture being fake, they're talking about high-profile celebrities who, even if they do get hurt, they can say offensive things and find a rebound.
They're famous.
What doesn't work is if you're a dental assistant and someone lies about you and they fire you for it.
So I'll give another shout out to Jack Murphy.
He was a Little League coach, a teacher, and people started posting lies about him, accusing him of being all of the worst things in the world, and he lost his job because of it.
What was he supposed to do?
Well, in Jackson's instance, he turned it into something, so smart move.
I think that's the appropriate response.
Do what you can to survive, and, you know, when God closes the door, he opens the window, as the saying goes, right?
I hope.
Assuming this woman has done nothing wrong, which I assume.
I assume because I've seen so many stories of people being lied about and smeared.
I hope she can turn this into something.
I hope people will support her.
And we'll see what happens.
We'll see what happens.
Let's read.
They say, since the incident, the official Facebook page for Precision Dental is not accessible.
The company also appears to have been review-bombed on Google, with 15 new reviews posted in under 10 hours.
14 of them one star.
Many comments in the reviews reference the firing, saying it shouldn't have happened.
Additionally, Pollack said many have reached out to her, offering support.
So good.
Again, assuming she's telling the truth.
And, again, I believe she is.
I'm just saying that, please.
Like, I know a lot of people are gonna get mad.
I'm saying it because I'm trying to be as fair and as careful as possible, okay?
I don't always trust everyone 100% and probability in my experience dictates she was likely innocent of any disparaging comments.
They say on her own time.
Pollack said she did not make any posts on the company's page, nor did she post on company time.
Additionally, she said there was no social media policy in the company handbook.
This was totally off hours.
I was sitting on my couch supporting my president.
Pollack has already filed for unemployment, as she also has a three-year-old son to take care of, and is looking for work.
However, she said if Precision Dental offered her job back, she wouldn't take it.
There's too much that happened, she said.
They were arguing with me on the phone saying, we got this review and we can't have that.
I bring you now to this story from the Washington Post from just a couple days ago.
Fox News talks about cancel culture and political correctness a lot more than its competitors.
Heavens!
I wonder why.
Could it be that a woman who posted some pro-Trump comments just got fired from her job so naturally Fox will talk about it?
Sure, when Kathy Griffin, you know, people were going after her, everyone talked about it on the left.
So I'm not surprised Fox News is going to talk about things that are affecting its own viewers and audience.
Sure enough, we're not going to see similar stories by BuzzFeed or by Vox or other left-wing outlets talking about how it's wrong to fire someone under the presumption she said something offensive on the Internet.
If she said something offensive on the Internet, you don't give a bad review to the business who has nothing to do with what she said.
It's the world we live in.
This is what cancel culture really is.
So let's read this, because I think it's quite silly, in fact.
Washington Post says, One of the least useful poll results of the past few years came in a survey conducted in December 2018.
Respondents were asked if they were in favor of the U.S.
becoming more politically correct.
Unsurprisingly, most people said they weren't, since the term politically correct is broadly used at this point as a pejorative.
Labeling something as politically correct is labeling it as neutered, as conscientious, to the point of being milquetoast.
It is seen as a thing against which one works, not something toward which one aspires.
That's not true of efforts that might be labeled as politically correct, of course.
Striving to fairly represent a broad range of viewpoints doesn't by itself engender a default negative response.
Using the term politically correct to describe such efforts, though, is done specifically to disparage them.
Asking... This is one of the... You know what I can't stand about journalists?
I gotta stop.
They try to be overly verbose on purpose, so they sound smart.
You don't need to use the, like, you know, I know I use milquetoast and fence sitter often.
It's because someone called me that.
But come on.
Most people, I tell you this, they spell milquetoast wrong.
They spell it as the literal milk and toast, which is actually where it comes from.
Neutered.
I'm not saying these words are particularly big.
I'm saying I can already tell the intention of this ivory tower type individual is to say, oh, harumph I say.
The good lady doth protest too much, methinks.
That's what it sounds like to me.
Dude, listen.
We can talk like normal human beings.
We can use simple words and expressions to explain the idea.
Let me break this down for you.
What he's really saying, but he's trying to sound smart, again, I know it's not the most verbose.
But I'm telling you simply, he's saying that when people say politically correct, they're using it to imply negativity towards the concept.
But people who are actually fighting for equality and stuff, they don't consider that something to strive for.
He says, Also, unsurprisingly, Republicans were far more likely to oppose increased political correctness than were Democrats.
correctness is like asking people to support increased whining.
Most people will not. We get it. Also unsurprisingly Republicans were
far more likely to oppose increased political correctness than were Democrats.
You know what's funny? Well let me read.
Speaking anecdotally, Republicans are more likely to oppose the concept of political correctness in part because of how the term has been deployed to mute the efforts at inclusion that the term is used broadly to describe.
When President Trump was asked in the first Republican primary debate in 2015 why he'd disparage a number of women online, he replied that he thought the United States was too politically correct.
The crowd applauded loudly, and many of them voted for him.
You see, this is what they don't get.
I just read you a story about a woman who expressed support for the president.
I'm not entirely sure what she said.
I'm sure it's not as bad as people are claiming.
She lost her job.
Perhaps the reason people don't like political correctness if they're Republican is because it tends to be used against them, against Republicans, to hurt them and destroy their lives.
Like many people who have been cancelled by woke outrage mobs.
Like many movies or games or comic books that have had their premises destroyed and characters ruined because of woke outrage.
I've personally experienced it.
They tried to shut my events down with threats of violence and lies.
And they showed up to the final event.
These people are full of lies and deceit.
And they were trying to get us shut down.
So I tell you this.
Perhaps the reason Republicans care is because Republicans tend to be the target of faux social justice.
The point is this, quote, political correctness is a straw man.
No one supports political correctness as such.
The term itself is a pejorative about policing speech.
It's used precisely to cast underlying ideas as ridiculous.
As such, it's not a surprise the term is used a lot more on the Republican-friendly Fox News than on CNN or MSNBC.
Analysis of closed captioning data compiled by the Internet Archive shows that Fox News used the expression almost twice as much as CNN and more than twice as much as MSNBC since 2017.
Have you ever stopped to think about what is causing this?
Have you ever stopped to think about all of these stories?
Quite literally.
This story from two days ago, this op-ed where the guy's saying, Republicans are just saying it, even though it's meaningless.
We're talking about equality, and then you have a woman losing her job.
You have Yashir Ali, journalist, tweeting out, named someone who's been cancelled, and even people on the left pointing out, you know, like Kathy Griffin, for instance.
Yes, everyone recognized cancelling exists.
Political correctness has gone nuts.
Now, Kathy Griffin's instance, I think she stepped over the line, but certainly has gone nuts.
This old poll came to mind with the casual deployment by Fox News on Tuesday of a similar term.
Trump attended the college football championship Monday night and briefly chatted with actor Vince Vaughn.
A clip of the conversation was shared on social media with occasional responses like this one.
Ladies and gentlemen, I regret to inform you that Vince Vaughn is cancelled.
The tweet uses the term cancelled, the verb form of the slang term cancel culture, a descriptor used for occasions in which toxic behavior leads to the ostracizing of a public figure.
The idea then is that Vaughn crossed one of the hyperventilating left's lines and therefore will be set adrift on a cultural ice flow, never to be heard from again.
No, that's a straw man argument.
The issue is that they are trying to take people's jobs away.
There's another story, I don't have it pulled up, forgive me.
It said the one underlying factor of cancel culture is determining whether or not a person has a job.
That's it.
Cancel culture is really about getting someone fired.
That's it.
They don't go beyond that.
They don't get you kicked out of your house.
They don't take the food out of your mouth.
They want to make sure those things might happen afterwards.
They go for your job.
So you get Fox News segments like this one.
Fox News teases liberal cancel culture run amok.
Liberal outrage over Vince Vaughn proves cancel culture has gone too far.
Then they point to, like, one joking tweet, and the person they bring on to discuss this is not actual thing is like, yeah, this isn't actually a thing.
Outnumbered tease, the liberal cancel culture found a new target last night, Vince Vaughn, triggering a harsh backlash from the left.
Yes, the tweet from Burke had like 4,000 retweets, and there were a series of posts, but the Washington Post decided not to actually look for the anger.
Something funny happened.
I tweeted about Ricky Gervais pushing back on woke outrage and the backlash from the left in media.
Someone commented, where's the backlash?
I'm not seeing it.
Everyone agrees with Ricky Gervais.
Cancel culture isn't real.
So I Google searched Ricky Gervais and immediately pulled up five examples of the media saying that Gervais was bad, should be fired, shouldn't be hired, things like that.
And I linked them and said, I'm stopping at five because Google exists.
Just because you're losing doesn't mean it's not happening.
It is.
People said Ricky Gervais is a good example of why we shouldn't have hosts anymore.
People said Ricky Gervais didn't get the message.
Yes, people were slamming Gervais.
The problem is, with Dave Chappelle, with Rogan and Gervais, you are losing woke outrage.
And this is what they're saying now.
Instead of actually looking for the people who were smack-talking Vince Vaughn over this, they say, it was one joke tweet.
Uh-huh.
And the several thousand Twitter accounts that were targeting and smearing him, we ignore those simply because we're losing.
Yeah, sorry.
Homie don't play that.
You'll notice the segment above uses the tweet from Siraj Hashmi as an example of how liberals are demanding that Vaughn be silenced.
What you may not have noticed, though, is that Hashmi writes for the Conservative Examiner, as Vox's Aaron Ruppar noted.
Hashmi himself was making a point about how liberals would react to Vaughn.
Vox, eager to show how liberals were overreacting, seized upon it as one of a smattering of examples of the effect they sought to highlight.
And in my segment talking about Vince Vaughn, I highlighted like four or five tweets.
I don't know how many you want me to pull up.
They always go, this is what's funny, they say, so-and-so said, without evidence.
And then when you actually do have an example where Hashmi is highlighting Burke, see, there you go, Timothy Burke, complaining, they say, it's just one tweet.
And if he didn't show it, you'd say, without evidence.
I showed like five tweets.
Where were you?
The point I made?
Vince Vaughn has always been a conservative.
Everybody knows it.
He, like, campaigned for Ron Paul or something.
And people were saying things like, I can't believe Vince Vaughn would do this.
Oh, woe is me.
One tweet was like, I had such a crush on him.
Not anymore.
I'll never see another one of his movies again.
Dude's always been conservative.
You're lying.
You never cared about Vince Vaughn.
You never looked into him.
You are full of it.
You are pretending to be angry for woke outrage points.
But guess what?
They're losing!
I understand Omen just lost her job, okay?
So I'm not saying they've been completely defeated.
But they are losing.
And op-eds like this are an attempt to pretend it doesn't exist simply because they're losing.
But make no mistake.
Do not give them the ground.
The moment they convince people it's gone is the moment they come back tenfold.
This was a huge problem a few years ago.
People were seriously losing their jobs like crazy.
People have been banned.
Websites have been shut down.
Where were they then saying cancel culture wasn't real?
No, they just said nothing.
Once they started losing their defenses, it's not even a real thing.
It's not happening at all.
Don't ignore it.
It's not happening.
Yes.
So while a couple people may have complained about Vince Vaughn, it took one disparaging comment for this woman to lose her job.
Here's what the website looks like now.
Private site.
The site is currently private.
You want to talk about cancel culture?
It exists.
Here's the website used to look like.
This is a Google cache of the site, and now it's gone private.
They say you'll notice segment uses the one tweak, yada yada.
The White House went in, of course, we get it.
Over and over again, over and over we see this pattern of Fox using language it attributes to outraged liberals as fuel for its own outraged segments.
Fox's coverage has used cancel culture five times, blah blah blah.
It used, it's used woke.
It used woke, a term used to describe a heightened awareness of cultural inequalities, more than CNN and MSNBC since 2017.
In the past year, as the world has transitioned into a politically correct style negative, Fox has used the term much more frequently, yes.
Because some people describe themselves as woke, but it is turning into a pejorative because you're losing!
There you go.
I said this several times with Gervais.
The woke outrage is becoming less and less effective.
And it's partly due to Fox calling it out and Fox having a very large base and average people being sick and tired of walking on eggshells.
Look at this.
I don't care if Fox uses it.
It's because Republicans are the ones being targeted.
And you don't care about them losing your jobs because you support them losing their jobs.
Not all of you, but enough of you.
This gets at the heart of much of what Fox News does with its coverage.
It is explicit in positioning itself as a counterweight to culture.
Let me stop you right there, Philip Bump.
You're making this premise based on the fact that you didn't actually look to see if people were angry at Vince Vaughn.
You present your assumption that based on you not actually researching it, no one must actually be mad at Vince Vaughn.
You see, people like Bump are the worst kind of people.
He's a correspondent for the Washington Post based in New York.
He is somebody who has no idea what he's talking about.
He ends by saying Vince Vaughn talked to Trump and people mostly shrugged.
On Fox, though, it powered segment after segment, an example of that cancel culture you've heard so much about on Fox News.
Just another example of how politically correct culture is getting out of hand.
Stay tuned for Tucker Carlson, who will have more on the story.
Meanwhile...
Bernie Sanders has staff being exposed for extremely volatile comments and calling for, like, the death of conservatives.
Philip Bump's not writing about it.
He doesn't care.
He's concerned that Fox News is concerned that Vince Vaughn was getting slammed.
Just because you're losing or never paid attention doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
It's amazing to me that you have so many people in media who have blinders on.
I cannot stand modern journalism for this fact.
Philip Bump clearly has done no research, not even a cursory Google search.
He didn't bother looking at the replies to Timothy Burke at all.
He didn't bother doing a reverse quote search of Timothy Burke.
Yes, you can reverse quote search on Twitter and see everyone who quote tweeted Burke and see all of the people smack talking Vince Vaughn.
And just because more people are calling it out doesn't mean it's not real.
Here's what happens.
A few years ago, this would have been huge.
People would have been like, Vince Vaughn, this is gross, blah blah blah.
Because they're losing, and the smearing, like the slamming of cancel culture outweighs the cancel culture itself, he says, it's not a real thing.
Sorry, it is.
Now, I'm not going to sit here and pretend that literally every single person on the left is a lunatic.
There may be a couple dozen tweets targeting Vince Vaughn, but they are blue, checkmark, high-profile people, and in the past, they have cost people their jobs.
Meanwhile, uh, what's her name?
Uh, Sarah Jung, at the New York Times.
I don't think she's- she's not there anymore, but she posts for years racist content, and New York Times hires her.
You wanna know why Fox News is more likely to talk about it?
That's why!
A dental assistant gets fired for a comment, and Sarah John gets to work at the New York Times.
These people are insane.
I'll leave it there.
See you all at 4 p.m.
on the main channel, youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out.
If you've committed several felonies, it's best wise not to antagonize federal law enforcement agencies.
Now, I will say for now, we don't know exactly what's going on, but the Blaze reports, finally, the feds, including ICE, appear to be investigating Rep.
Ilhan Omar.
At least three departments are reviewing what could be the worst ever crime spree by an elected U.S.
official.
The reason I opened with a statement about crimes is that there is circumstantial evidence that Ilhan Omar may have been involved in or committed immigration fraud.
She goes on and rags about ICE, to abolish ICE, and all of these things, and when you combine this with the accusations and the circumstantial evidence, it sounds like she's saying, abolish the organization that would be enforcing the actions against me.
Well, I don't know if the accusations are true.
We'll see what the investigations pull up, but I will say this.
If you go out of your way to target law enforcement officials, and there's evidence against you, don't be surprised if the investigation comes back to bite you.
Let's read the story from The Blaze, reported by David Steinberg.
Excuse me.
On October 30th, I reported that the Department of Justice had assigned an FBI Special Agent in Charge, or SAC, to review Rep.
Ilhan Omar's apparent astonishing spree of felonies from 2009 to 2017.
Minnesota State Rep.
Steve Drezkowski had previously filed a complaint on the matter with the Minnesota District of the Department of Justice.
That office, headed by U.S.
Attorney Erica McDonald, a 2018 Donald Trump appointee, directed the FBI to review the complaint.
An FBI SAC formally met with Rep.
Drezkowski and others in mid-October to receive a prepared file of evidence and related information.
I can confirm that the FBI has taken additional steps since this October meeting.
In October, the FBI S.A.C., S.A.C.
again, Special Agent in Charge, stated that the wide range of criminal activity suggested by the evidence against Rep.
Omar may lead the FBI to expand the review to other federal departments.
In such situations, the S.A.C.
continued, the FBI often acts as a hub, sharing evidence or coordinating a joint investigation with several other investigative agencies.
Indeed, this has since occurred.
And again, this is the Blaze reporting.
At least the following.
Two federal agencies were contacted by the FBI with information regarding Rep.
Omar.
The FBI then placed the October meeting attendees in touch with selected investigators within these two agencies.
One, the Department of Education Inspector General.
This is related to evidence suggesting that Rep.
Omar's 2009 marriage to a UK citizen may have been an attempt to facilitate federal student loan fraud or other fraud involving higher education.
Shortly after Omar's 2009 marriage, the new couple moved to Fargo, North Dakota.
Omar enrolled at North Dakota State University in August 2009.
Her husband enrolled the following year.
Omar received a degree in June 2011.
According to Omar herself, she and her husband then permanently separated in June 2011.
The marriages start and end coincide with the start and end dates of Omar's NDSU enrollment.
Incredibly, according to Agis records, in a statement from Omar herself, she was also still living with her first husband and their two kids throughout this second marriage.
In 2017, Omar finally filed for divorce under penalty of perjury.
She submitted a nine-question form to the court, attesting to having lost all contact with her NDSU husband in June 2011.
Dozens of verified social media posts, photos, and even a 2016 interview with the NDSU husband indicate otherwise.
It appears Omar perjured herself eight times answering those nine questions.
I gotta stop now, and I want to point out something important to all of you.
She married someone.
He enrolls in school, and then once she leaves, they separate.
Do you have any idea of the amount of scrutiny placed on people when they're trying to marry people for citizenship or benefits?
It is a serious endeavor.
And there are old tropes from TV shows about people who are, you know, an American trying to marry a foreign citizen, convincing immigration it's a legitimate marriage.
There is serious concern in ICE that American citizens will essentially be paid to marry people.
So here's what happens.
You will get...
A phone call or message from someone, a beautiful woman, they'll then have a private meeting with you and say, what if we gave you X amount of dollars and you go and get married?
These things are serious crimes and they happen.
ICE looks for these things.
The reason I bring this up is that don't you think it's kind of suspicious?
That she marries someone, he joins the school, they separate, he leaves the school.
These things kind of make it seem like it's not legitimate, especially when you consider she's living with her new husband and her old husband.
Now I'm not saying it's impossible, but it will raise suspicions.
Let's read on.
Two, ICE, Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
This is related to evidence suggesting a breathtaking number of possible immigration-related felonies, as I stated in an introductory passage within my July 18 article, saying, The following answers to those questions about Rep.
Omar's marriage appear to give probable cause to investigate Omar for eight instances of perjury, immigration fraud, marriage fraud, up to eight years of state and federal tax fraud, two years of federal student loan fraud, and even bigamy.
What?
Really?
To be clear, the facts describe, perhaps, the most extensive spree of illegal misconduct committed by a House member in American history.
The involvement of ICE with a possible criminal investigation could hardly be of greater political import to Omar.
For several years, Omar has vigorously supported the abolishment of ICE.
Her 2020 re-election platform, featured on her campaign website and pictured below, targets ICE agents with vicious rhetoric that simply must be read by interested parties.
States Omar's site, quote, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is an unreformable organization that has become increasingly militarized, brutal, and unaccountable.
She goes on to say, however, we must not simply revert back to the immigration system that preceded ICE.
We must welcome immigrants into our country and provide them simple and accessible means to becoming documented.
They say since August 2016, the remarkable story of Rep Omar's past has produced scarce political law enforcement or media activity, a near perfect inversion of the Trump-Russia collusion yarn with which it is inseparable.
Consider how the Trump investigation was initiated.
As former FBI Director James Comey tells it, recent statements from Attorney General William Barr and his attorney John Durham suggest disagreement.
Comey treated an unverifiable claim from a foreign diplomat of a drunken remark by a low-level Trump staffer as predicate for spying on a presidential campaign.
Comey never did find stronger evidence, yet the Democratic Party and supportive media hardly paused for three years covering this investigation.
Concurrently, in August 2016, Minnesota reporters Scott Johnson and Preya Samsundar were publishing extensive, verified, still unchallenged evidence Implicating Rep.
Omar in multiple felonies.
Their exponentially more substantial evidence was ignored by the Democratic Party and supportive media.
Their evidence was even ignored by law enforcement per an extraordinary public dismissal shortly before Omar's 2016 election to the Minnesota House of Representatives.
FBI guidelines require only, quote, articulable factual basis of possible criminal activity to open an investigation.
By September 2016, Johnson and Samsundar had objectively breached that threshold.
Picture Comey applying his crossfire hurricane standards to their work.
Perhaps Omar's trial reaches the sentencing phase before the November election.
I followed up on Johnson and Samsundar's investigation in early 2018, a year later.
The proportions of the verifiable case against Omar resemble that against a Batman villain.
A comical number of likely felonies, all backed by God-smacking evidence.
Certified state and federal documents.
Certified UK government documents.
Archived state public school records, archived US and UK address records, verifiably unmanipulated digital photographs, corroborating statements from Omar herself, corroborating statements from Omar's ex-husband himself, several years of social media posts from Omar's verified accounts, and several years of suddenly deleted social media posts from Omar's verified accounts.
I must stop.
I said circumstantial evidence because I think it's fair to say, and I could be wrong, okay?
Maybe this really does account to a lot of hard evidence.
Perhaps I think it's fair to say there are photos of Omar and her ex-husband, my understanding, when she claimed she didn't have contact with him.
That would be hard evidence of perjury, I'd imagine.
The challenge is she deleted them, some people claim it's manipulated, and we need the investigation to dig this stuff up and see what's going on.
He says that's before we reach the good stuff.
The only man on earth with the same name and birth date as Omar's ex-husband, who appears to have been raised in the London home of Ilhan's verifiable sister, has the same three family names.
Yet media continued to approach the developing story of Omar's background with zero rigor.
Literally zero.
Their distortions were provably deliberate, and their intentions blinking red evident.
Simply, Ilhan Omar's identity struck the Democratic Party and supportive media as being a best-case vehicle for selling progressivism.
Omar's character?
Worst case.
But they preferred the fantasy.
They printed it over and over along with that other one sparked by drunken hearsay.
The rule of law and the safety of Jews were roadblocks.
The Democratic Party and media have not changed.
Consider the coverage of the House Democrats.
And I want to stress that last part.
Ilhan Omar is an overt anti-Semite.
They don't care about the things she's said over and over again.
They keep saying, oh, it's not that big of a deal.
Sorry, I don't see it.
I think she's an overt anti-Semite.
They say Rep.
Omar now appears to be receiving the scrutiny her articulable facts have deserved since August 2016.
Perhaps a criminal investigation is open.
We don't know for sure, but I'm going to wrap it up there.
This reporting comes from David Steinberg.
He deserves all of the credit for all of this stuff, not me.
He and others have done real investigations into this.
I think it's fair to say enough evidence exists with the social media posts alone to dig into what she's been doing.
We don't know if there's an investigation in terms of criminal matters.
I don't know for sure.
David is saying that, you know, the feds appear to be looking into this.
And I will end by saying to all of the angry leftists, this website, theblaze.com, is certified by NewsGuard.
If you've got a problem, take it up with them.
They have certified The Blaze as adhering to basic standards of credibility and transparency, and I can only take their articles at face value.
Is it enough?
I don't know.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Yeah, yeah, I know the lefties are gonna get mad and call me hypocritical or biased for once again doing a story like this, but let me explain.
Here's the headline.
Ocasio-Cortez linked dark money group to spend $500,000 attacking Biden and Buttigieg.
Now you may be asking yourself, Tim, why don't you do a video about the Republican dark money?
Why don't you do a video about Donald Trump attacking progressives?
And how he smears the left?
Let me tell you something.
Donald Trump unabashedly uses PACs and dark money groups and smears the far left.
He's proud of it.
He jokes about it.
He goes to his rallies and he mocks body-slamming reporters.
And yes, I've criticized him for that, but what do you want me to do?
You want me to make a video every time Trump's like, I've done a thing, and his supporters are like, that's an okay thing.
Here's the not OK thing.
First of all, look, man, dark money groups exist.
They're not always super nefarious.
What we're talking about here is a political action group, committee or something.
They spend money on ads.
They're targeting Biden from the left.
The Democrats, civil war.
Yeah, yeah, you get it.
But here's the thing.
AOC said, Dark money is used to manipulate electorates.
It is the enemy to democracy, period.
When politicians and corporations weaved their dark web of campaign finance, they created a ticking time bomb for foreign adversaries.
To make our democracy safer, we need to get big money out here, here.
AOC, we need campaign finance reform all the way.
So weird, then, that there would be a group linked to Ocasio-Cortez, Justice Democrats, that does exactly what they're complaining about.
Oh, lo and behold!
The politicians who complain about things, who then get in office, don't do anything about it, use the same tactics.
Why am I not surprised?
You know what?
Maybe it's because the system is so corrupt.
You can't get into office without playing these games?
I don't know.
But they're targeting Biden and Buttigieg.
It's not going to get Ocasio-Cortez re-elected.
What's their goal?
To get Bernie Sanders or Warren elected?
I don't understand the Warren thing.
Let's read the story from Fox News to get a better picture of what's actually going on.
They say, A dark money organization tied to Rep.
Ocasio-Cortez said Tuesday that it will spend half a million dollars on ads targeting 2020 presidential candidates Pete Buttigieg and Joe Biden.
Ocasio-Cortez has been an outspoken critic of dark money, which refers to the practice of using cash to influence an election by funneling it through non-profit groups that are not obligated to disclose their donor lists.
The group in question, Organized for Justice, a 501c4 nonprofit organization, falls under that same purview.
They've set aside $500,000 for the Democratic primary and will use the funds to purchase Facebook ads to promote stories that question Buttigieg and Biden's progressive political leanings, according to Huffington Post.
Organized for Justice is linked to Ocasio-Cortez through its, quote, sister organization called Justice Democrats.
She served on the board during her 2018 congressional primary campaign, the Daily Caller reported.
Her campaign chair, Sycat Chakrabarty, also served on the three-member board and was named in a Federal Elections Commission complaint last year.
The two have both been delisted from the board since the story became public.
In a tweet from February of last year, Ocasio-Cortez called dark money the enemy to democracy, and we read that.
This was in response to an individual by the name of Baratunde who said, Look how they hid the money.
All these LLCs.
It's like they read the playbook on how to be a New York real estate developer and remain with no accountability for your actions.
Wow!
So funny that Baratunde would tweet about LLCs circling money around and AOC would criticize it.
Because AOC worked with, I believe it was Saiket Chakrabarty.
Chakrabarty, who had brand new Congress, LLC, and brand new campaign or whatever.
I don't remember exactly how it worked.
But money was going from a non-profit to the LLC to her boyfriend.
And many people thought they were giving her boyfriend cash for no reason.
Because as soon as he got paid, apparently doing nothing, he then moved from, I think, New Mexico to New York City.
The point is, this is literally what AOC was being criticized for last year.
Getting elected using a non-profit and an LLC that cycle money between each other so you mix things up and make it hard to track.
And then sure enough, she comes out criticizing it.
Listen, I understand.
Maybe that's the only way you win these days.
Sure.
I'm still going to criticize you for being a hypocrite.
Now, I certainly see Republicans doing this, but how many Republicans are campaigning on it as though they're morally superior to everybody else?
Certainly some.
And they're worthy of being called out.
And you know what?
I'll give you a... There were a couple Republicans One guy just got indicted on some campaign finance violation.
He was using campaign money for personal expenditures or something like that.
I get it.
I will also add, listen, my view is limited to the level of public attention.
AOC has over 6 million followers.
Of course people are paying attention to her when she says things about dark money.
Of course people are going to scrutinize the organization she's involved with and how they're operating behind the scenes.
They all claim to be the saviors, but they're all just as dirty as everyone else.
So get used to it.
Is AOC going to implement term limits?
No.
Is anyone?
No.
They want to get re-elected.
They don't want to go away.
Congressional term limits, please.
I know George Carlin said it wouldn't matter because you've got a selfish, ignorant population.
Maybe he's right.
She denied any wrongdoing in March of last year when she was approached about the FEC complaints by Fox News.
There is no violation.
AOC exclusively told Fox News at the time, after landing at Ronald Reagan National Airport.
When she was asked if the complaint showed any connection to dark money during her 2018 campaign, she replied, no.
Yeah.
Let's play a game with Ocasio-Cortez, with Ilhan Omar, with Rashida Tlaib.
These people, and who am I missing?
I'm forgetting one.
Ayanna Pressley.
The squad.
You know, Ocasio-Cortez has been accused, and there's been circumstantial evidence, of dark money.
Of campaign finance violations.
The fact that some people, apparently she's got, well, I'm not gonna get into her apartment stuff, but her boyfriend basically applies for a job through an LLC, the money gets spent from the non-profit of the LLC, let me explain, let me explain, let me explain to you guys how dark money can be secretly, you can secretly pay for things.
Okay, check it out.
Let's say, I own two different companies.
I personally receive funds through these companies.
So let's say... Let's not use me as an example because people will take this out of context.
You have a non-profit and you have an LLC.
The person behind both organizations is a millionaire.
Let's say his name is Sycat Chakrabarty.
Hypothetically, okay?
Here's what happens.
Sycat wants to give money to AOC's boyfriend so he can move to New York to live with her.
But there are restrictions on who he can give money to.
He can't really just give AOC the money.
She's running for office.
There's limits on what he can do.
You have the non-profit that is publicly, you have to publicly disclose where your money is going and how you're spending it, because it was propping up Ocasio-Cortez, but the LLC is different.
They provide consulting services.
So SCICAT can have one organization pay for something, say AOC receives a donation, it goes to the non-profit.
He can then personally have the LLC hire her boyfriend and say, see, no conflict of interest.
He can then have the nonprofit pay him a consulting fee, thus he gets the donation.
So let me wrap this up again.
I'm not saying it's literally what happened.
I'm saying this is what the idea generally is.
If a donation comes in to a federal candidate, there are restrictions on how they can spend their money.
How do you get that money to, say, your boyfriend?
You have your friend's company hire him, and then your company pays him a consulting fee.
So he doesn't actually spend any money.
The $2,000 donation goes to your campaign, you spend $2,000 in consulting, and then he hires your boyfriend for $2,000.
Congratulations, you've converted a $2,000 public donation into giving your boyfriend money to move across the country to come live with you.
I am not saying that's literally what happened.
It's basically what people are accusing AOC of having done.
We now see that whatever it is behind AOC and Sycat and all these people, they're doing similar things that everyone else is doing.
I'm sorry, man.
Listen, I understand the system is fairly corrupt.
I do not like how these systems work.
And I understand that if you're not playing the game, they are, and you're at a massive disadvantage.
Let me tell you something.
Do you know what side of that fight I'm on?
I recognize that the cheaters, the manipulators, and the liars in media are gaining power by cheating.
I refuse to do so.
They accuse me of lying when every single story I used is certified by a third-party fact-checking organization called NewsGuard.
I find it very funny, you know why?
I have insane scrutiny on every segment I do.
The press?
They don't.
They can ignore whatever they want, they can make up whatever they want, they can say an anonymous source told a sex.
And here I am, making sure that only certified sources are used.
They still try to accuse me of being a conspiracy theorist or otherwise.
I get it.
I'm playing at a disadvantage.
But that doesn't excuse you.
Just because they cheat doesn't give you the right to do so either.
If AOC was serious about dark money, she would call out any organization that had anything to do with her at any point and say, this is not acceptable.
You can't play this game.
Let me tell you something.
These far lefties often say the ends justify the means, by any means necessary.
But you will never meet the ends.
The ends do not justify the means because you never meet the ends.
There will never be a point where you sit back happy like you've won.
You will always be in the struggle.
And that's why communism, friends, is so scary.
They say, we'll use this tactic now.
But once we're in power, we can create our utopia.
The only problem is there will always be dissent.
So once these communists get in power, they say, why are the people fighting us?
What do they do?
Gulags?
Executions?
And then they say, why are the people still fighting us?
Because you're killing people.
Therein lies the big problem.
And we can see it perfectly with what AOC is doing.
Not her personally, but she can come out and claim she wants to fight for whatever she wants, and then sure enough, what do you get?
Organizations that worked with her, that propped her up, are, here they go, playing the same game.
What does that mean?
The more power she gets, the more likely she is to keep playing the same game.
She can complain about it all day and night, but I do not trust her.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
We will end on a more silly note, this one I absolutely love.
You may have seen the several stories I've done about the spat between Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
CNN dropped the audio last night I believe, or this morning I did a segment on it.
Where we saw the scene where Warren walked up to Bernie.
She refuses to shake his hand.
Now the audio is out.
CNN released it.
I didn't say in my story, I didn't title it CNN leaks audio.
I said CNN publishes hot mic audio.
You know why?
CNN's the one who recorded it in the first place!
And this is where things get hilarious.
CNN roasted after Anderson Cooper boasts it quote obtained its own audio.
That's right.
CNN has exclusively obtained the audio of Elizabeth Warren.
You mean you just pressed play on the recording you made?
First of all, it's extremely unethical for CNN to do this.
I do not believe that people who have microphones are giving away consent for every moment.
It is understood by the candidates that when the cameras are rolling, your mic is hot.
But afterwards, they're not going to record and publish what you say, but sure enough, they did!
Because the whole thing... Well, I'll say this.
Many leftists think that it was staged.
The cameras just happened to be on Warren and Bernie.
Sound just happened to have been rolling.
And now Anderson Cooper gets to boast about how they've obtained the footage.
Let's read the story.
CNN raised eyebrows Wednesday when it said it had, quote, obtained audio of a post-debate exchange between presidential hopefuls Warren and Bernie Sanders almost 24 hours after the confrontation happened on its own debate stage.
Oh, I'm sorry, man.
I'm trying to be like, you know, I'm trying to be humorous here.
I'm trying to be a bit irreverent.
But man, I hate CNN.
This is just, you know, I'm reading this and I have this budding rage inside me over how disgusting this network is, especially with this Warren moment.
And I gotta say too, okay, I'm trying to laugh and talk about how silly things are, but I am disgusted by Warren.
I am disgusted by CNN.
What CNN did to Bernie in this whole fiasco, how they framed questions, infuriates me to no end.
Because I'll tell you what, Politics aside, you know, the number one thing, actually politics included, the number one thing that bothers me is media manipulation and lies.
Okay, I'm not here to vote for or support a Democrat or Republican.
I'm typically, you'll notice this, most of my videos are mocking the media.
And you know what?
The media often props up Democrats.
In this instance, Elizabeth Warren.
So yeah, this stuff drives me insane.
Good news is I just ordered some pizzas, so once I'm done here I'm gonna enjoy some nice pepperoni and cheese.
But let's read.
The liberal network released the recording almost a full day after it was recorded, after Nancy Pelosi's impeachment ceremony had concluded, and just before rival network MSNBC was set to air a highly anticipated interview with Parnas, we get it.
CNN anchor Anderson Cooper promoted the footage by declaring, CNN is the first to obtain the audio.
What?!
You recorded it!
Did you give it to someone else and then say, but because we recorded it, we obtained it first?
It's ridiculous!
And promised to eventually air it for viewers, but not until the network brought on senior Washington correspondent Jeff Zeleny to hype up the extraordinary moment between Warren and Sanders.
False stop.
I'm sick of it.
You know what Brian Sutherland's concerned about right now?
New statement from CNN PR about McSally's comment to MK Raju.
It is extremely unbecoming of a U.S.
Senator to sink to this level and treat a member of the press this way for simply doing his job.
That's right.
CNN's reporter, what's his name, Manu Raju, asked Martha McSally a question and she called him a liberal hack.
Well, welcome to politics, okay?
Why is this a big deal?
I don't know.
This is what Brian Stelter is concerned about.
I'd love to see a statement from Stelter on him getting dragged by basically everyone.
Check out this clip.
Well, I'm not going to play it, but Daily Caller.
Tucker Carlson attacks CNN for hit on Bernie Sanders.
Can I just stop for a second and point something out?
CNN is roasting Sanders.
They are biased against him.
They are smearing him.
Man, it was so bad!
And now they're putting out this audio where Warren's like, you called me a liar, and it's making him look bad even more.
I mean, Warren's in trouble too, for sure.
But they're hoping that they can play the intersectional route and accuse Bernie of being a sexist.
Of all people, Tucker Carlson to the rescue.
Tucker Carlson very much so fits the populist narrative, the populist worldview.
And it's crazy to me that so many far leftists drag Carlson and they're trying to get him banned.
You know, or pulled off the air.
It's the establishment.
And this is why I'm mad at the progressives.
Okay?
Let me tell you something.
Establishment Democrats tried to get Tucker Carlson pulled from the air.
And I was talking to some Trump supporter, and they asked me what I thought about Fox News, and I said, the reporting is good.
It really is.
The America's Newsroom, I can't remember, you know, the names of the hosts, but it's on after Fox and Friends.
Fox and Friends I find silly.
Fine.
But America's Newsroom is great.
Brett Baier is amazing.
One of the best anchors we actually have in this country.
He's a tremendous job.
Way better than CNN, MSNBC.
I think he might be the best, if you ask me, in terms of national cable TV.
Hannity, I'm not a big fan of.
Ingram, not a big fan of.
No beef.
You know, I just, I think they're a bit too snarky and bombastic.
And I also think Tucker Carlson is as well.
The difference with Carlson is I've criticized him for, you know, referring to Brian Seltzer as a eunuch.
He does it all the time.
I really, really do not appreciate that.
I think it's bad for discourse.
But Tucker Carlson's worldview is quite populist.
Although he himself is rather elite.
He brings on Tulsi and lets Tulsi give her peace.
He brings on Antifa and lets Antifa give their peace.
I have tremendous respect for that because we don't get it from the other side.
So while I may disagree with Tucker Carlson on certain political issues, mostly cultural stuff, probably religious, conservative, and like, you know, pro-choice, pro-life stuff, for the most part, he's honest.
And why?
Where are the progressives when the establishment tries to take him out?
We're the progressives to say, at least he calls out the fake news.
Who's defending Bernie Sanders right now?
CNN came after him.
CNN lied.
The Bernie Sanders subreddit saying, no more CNN articles.
Tucker Carlson's right here, baby.
He's got your back.
He disagrees with you, but he's got your back.
It's funny.
I love it.
Tucker Carlson brought up Rachel Maddow once and he said, he's not going to go after her for her opinions.
Everybody's got opinions.
He's got opinions.
He said he will criticize the fake news, though.
So, I completely agree.
I've got no problem with Rachel Maddow if she thinks we need Medicare for all.
I've got no problem with Bernie if he thinks it.
I disagree for a lot of reasons.
I'm interested in hearing the idea.
But my criticism is always about dishonesty.
Elizabeth Warren is a lying snake.
Bernie has pandered for woke progressivism.
And Rachel Maddow has pushed insane conspiracy theories.
And the media props her up.
Tucker Carlson, for the most part, for the most part, I believe, has been honest.
I do have criticism with him over his position on marijuana legalization.
I think he was not being completely honest because he didn't take the libertarian approach on it, which was surprising to me because Tucker tends to be a freedom-loving, you know, populist.
When I saw his segment, this was months and months ago, last year, about marijuana legalization, I felt like he wasn't being honest.
And it was surprising.
You know, when I watch Hannity, I feel like Hannity tries to make things a bit more sensational and bombastic.
The same is true for Laura Ingram.
Again, you know, I think if I was going to name the hosts I actually like, I'd actually say I like Fox News hosts more than anybody else, even when I'm criticizing Hannity or Ingram.
Don Lemon's insane.
Wolf Blitzer is just so heavily biased.
Anderson Cooper I like.
I really do like Anderson Cooper, although he deserves to be roasted for this.
I really do have respect.
I really do like Anderson Cooper.
A lot of people might be surprised by that.
No, I think he's alright.
Don Lemon's the worst.
MSNBC, they're the bottom of the barrel, okay?
Wolf Blitzer's okay, but he's just so biased.
Don Lemon's nuts.
Anderson Cooper's pretty good.
I'd actually have to say, in terms of honesty and cable TV, Tucker Carlson probably takes the number one spot.
And I disagree with him politically, but I'll tell you this.
When I watch CNN, you know, Brian Stelter—and Brian Stelter's okay too, you know, believe it or not.
I know a lot of people are gonna, you know, really don't like the guy.
He's certainly far from the worst.
Brian Stelter is exponentially better than MSNBC, absolutely.
We had Lawrence O'Donnell, I think it was, saying CNN is pro-Trump.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
I'm sorry.
Brian Stelter is very, very anti-Trump, and so is CNN.
But even Brian Stelter did a bit where he said Trump is right for defending the press in Iran.
And so, as much as I can see the angle that CNN takes in their perspective and think they're biased, at least they're willing to do that!
MSNBC!
Ugh!
Anyway, listen, here's the main point, okay?
I want to have a tangent about cable news.
Where was CNN when this was going on?
They were the ones hosting the knives out for Bernie.
They were the ones coming after him and propping up Warren.
MSNBC did have Michael Brzezinski, I can give her credit for this, saying it was insane what CNN did.
But MSNBC is obsessed with slamming Trump.
And they're biased, too.
Absolutely.
What do they do to Yang?
And lo and behold, who is it calling out the Democrats?
It's Fox News!
It's Tucker Carlson, man!
Listen, I'll take what I can get.
When Yang is getting smeared and slammed in the press and then he gets a fair shake on Fox, when Tulsi is getting slammed and smeared and she gets a fair shake on Fox, who do you think I'm going to be more eager to watch?
It's crazy to me as a lifelong liberal to actually say this, that Fox News is actually being fair to Bernie Sanders and CNN lies.
