Tulsi Gabbard Launches $50M Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton For Defamation Over INSANE Russia Theory
Tulsi Gabbard Launches $50M Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton For Defamation Over INSANE Russia Theory. Late last year Hillary Clinton alluded to Tulsi Gabbard in a statement saying she was being groomed by Russians. At least that's how everyone took it considering Clinton's spokesman came out and said "if the nesting doll fits" when confronted by a CNN reporter.For some reason tons of media outlets quickly changed the narrative by claiming Hillary said "republicans" and was not referring to Russians. If that were true why make the nesting doll reference?Well now Tulsi is fighting back with $50M dollar lawsuit against Clinton saying that the claims hurt her and her campaign.What is even more hilarious is that several pro Hillary democrats and far leftists are claiming that Tulsi is in fact an asset of Russia and that Hillary was right. They are quite ironically proving Tulsi's lawsuit has merit by showing they believe the absurd theory of Hillary Clinton that Russians were grooming Gabbard or at the very least thats what they assumed Hillary was saying.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Tulsi Gabbard has launched a $50 million lawsuit against Hillary Clinton for defamation because Hillary Clinton alluded in a podcast that Tulsi Gabbard was an asset of the Russians.
What makes this story so absolutely insane is the weird background to how the media tried to cover up for Hillary Clinton after she insinuated Tulsi Gabbard was a Russian asset.
Right now, the big defense from all the Democrats is, but Hillary never said Tulsi's name.
I think it's really funny.
So many blue checkmark verified resistance members are defending Hillary Clinton.
They didn't actually read Gabbard's press release or lawsuit, which clearly outlines the smear, why it was about her and how you can tell it's about her.
But I'll tell you this, man.
This sets Tulsi Gabbard well apart from Bernie Sanders, who won't even defend his own supporters.
Tulsi Gabbard, she won't back down.
She called Hillary Clinton a very... She called her the personification of rot and a warmonger, among other things.
Hillary Clinton, you know, comes out... Or actually, I think it was Hillary Clinton came out first, insinuated that Tulsi Gabbard was a Russian asset.
Tulsi fired back immediately.
Look at what Bernie Sanders did the other day.
This is the... I know I'm rehashing this, but I just want to go through real quick.
Bernie's own campaign sent out an email calling Joe Biden corrupt.
Bernie's supporters then tweeted in his defense, Bernie then apologized to Joe Biden, basically, like, knifing in the back his own supporters.
But anyway, this story is about Tulsi Gabbard.
So I got a bunch of stuff I want to go through here.
I got Tulsi Gabbard's statement.
But what's really funny about this is that in the lawsuit from Tulsi Gabbard, there are several swipes at Hillary, like, basically poking her over her failures.
It's kind of, Man, Tulsi is brave, brave, brave.
Let's read the story from Fox News.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical ad.
Just the best thing you can do.
However, share this video.
YouTube's algorithm is knocking down my channel.
It's recommending everyone to Fox News, who I'm reading.
Surprise, surprise.
But they're really trying to I don't know what their intention is, but it's negatively impacting my channel, other political commentators.
If you like what I do, sharing this video helps overcome those burdens.
But let's read the news.
Gabbard hits Clinton with $50 million defamation lawsuit over Russian asset remarks.
Fox reports, Democratic presidential candidate rep Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii is accusing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of deliberately spreading false accusations that Gabbard is a Russian asset in a lawsuit seeking upwards of $50 million in damages.
Tulsi's not, doesn't back down, dude.
She's, I don't know what's going on with the Google lawsuit, but after Google, for some reason, removed her from search, or, I'm sorry, that wasn't it.
That was a different case with Crowder.
Google suspended her ad account at one of the most critical times.
That's crazy to me.
I think that's, I mean, this is election rigging, but, but Tulsi sued Google, and that's what I, that's what I think, you know, we really do need.
I gotta be honest.
We need a new president, someone who refuses to back down.
Now, I'll be fair and think Trump, of all people, refuses to back down.
That's obvious.
But look at Bernie, look at all the other Democrats.
No way.
Tulsi, Tulsi's got toughness in spades, they say.
During an October 2019 interview with the podcast Campaign HQ with David Plouffe, Clinton suggested the 2020 presidential candidate was, quote, the favorite of the Russians and a Russian asset.
Gabbard insists these statements have no grounds in reality and that Clinton knew or should have known this at the time.
Quote, rather than facts or reliable evidence, Clinton's basis for the defamatory statements was one or both of A, her own imagination, or B, extremely dubious conspiracy theories that any reasonable person, and especially Clinton, a former U.S.
Senator and Secretary of State, would know to be fanciful, wholly unverified, and inherently and objectively unreliable, said the lawsuit filed Wednesday in Manhattan federal court.
Clinton did not specifically name Gabbard in her remarks, but strongly implied she was referring to her.
The complaint points out that when asked if she was referring to Gabbard, Clinton spokesman Nick Merrill responded, if the nesting doll fits.
He actually went on, they say, a reference to Russian dolls.
So all of these Democrats are popping up, saying, Hillary never mentioned Tulsi Gabbard's name.
That's a huge error.
You know what's crazy to me?
One of these individuals is like a Young Turks personality who's supposed to be working in media.
I'm not going to necessarily call them journalists, but you'd think the first thing you would do is read Tulsi's lawsuit, which specifically outlines how she was identified.
Someone responded with a link to the Student Press Law Center saying, Here's what you need for a libel suit or defamation, and you don't need to say someone's name.
If you can reasonably identify someone, then you will get sued for defamation or libel.
They say Gabbard's complaint states in no uncertain terms that Tulsi is not a Russian asset, and that neither Russia nor anyone else controls her or her presidential campaign.
To the contrary, it plays up her history of public service, from her time in the Army National Guard to her four terms as a U.S.
Congresswoman.
Citing her roles on House committees and in the military, the complaint points out that Gabbard has never had her security clearances challenged or revoked.
and claims that Clinton was aware that if Gabbard was really a Russian asset,
she would not have been able to serve in these positions, which provide her access to highly
sensitive and classified information. Okay, I do have to go over this and I will.
But after Hillary said this, the New York Times, I tweeted about it, subtly, they stealth edited
their article, meaning they made changes without telling anybody and changed Russian to Republican
asset.
And then all of a sudden, a wave of press were saying, no, Hillary was saying she's a favorite of the Republicans, not the Russians.
You know why that's so creepy?
Because Hillary Clinton's spokesperson said, he said, if the nesting doll fits.
That's a reference to Russia.
But all of a sudden, the news outlets were claiming Hillary Clinton was saying Republicans?
Why was all of the media ready to jump at the calls of Hillary Clinton's campaign when they reached out?
So I think it was actually the same spokesman who reached out and said, no, no, no, she said Republican.
And then all of a sudden, all the media outlets were like, okay, and changed the news based on what Hillary Clinton wanted.
That is creepy.
Let's read more.
They say, as for why Clinton would make such statements, Gabbard claims Clinton has a unique personal connection to Tulsi that animates her hostility towards Tulsi and her presidential campaign.
The lawsuit claims that this stems from when Gabbard supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primary.
Gabbard, who was once the vice chair of the Democratic National Committee at the time, was the most high-profile member of Congress to support Sanders as he ran against Clinton.
Gabbard was, like, the up-and-coming golden child of the Democrats.
They wanted her to, like, be a prominent figure in the DNC, and Gabbard said no, resigned her position, and endorsed Bernie Sanders.
Now, for all I've ragged on Bernie for, I believe Tulsi has shown incredible integrity to stick to her principles and do the right thing.
I disagree with her on standing with Bernie at this point, because Bernie won't even stand with his own supporters.
That's a whole other thing.
Quote, Clinton was extremely angry, to put it mildly, that Tulsi endorsed Senator Sanders over her, the lawsuit says, citing communications Gabbard claims she received from Clinton's representative saying that her team, quote, no longer trusts Tulsi's judgment.
Gabbard also alleges that she was told, quote, that the Clinton team would never forget this slight.
The complaint states that agents for Clinton let Gabbard know they would not assist Gabbard in her campaigns.
These agents then forwarded this correspondence to Huma Abedin, Clinton's closest aide, and John Podesta, chairman of Clinton 2016's presidential campaign.
To gloat about the beatdown they felt they delivered on Tulsi, writing, hammer dropped, the complaint says.
One would expect someone of Mrs. Clinton's political background to act with a greater level of maturity and dignity.
But her personal hostility toward Rep.
Gabbard apparently clouded Mrs. Clinton's reason and blinded her to U.S.
defamation laws, Gabbard's attorney Brian Dunn said in a statement.
What's really crazy about this is that right now everyone's saying, vote blue no matter who, except Tulsi, which is the craziest thing.
There was a, I think like Samantha Bee on Full Frontal did a bit where she was like, come on, we gotta stand with all the Democrats unless it's Tulsi Gabbard.
And it's like, whoa, man, whoa.
And I think I know what it is.
Tulsi slighted Hillary Clinton.
Bernie bent the knee and cowered like a pathetic little loser.
Oh yeah, I am dragging Bernie hard over his pathetic endorsement of Hillary Clinton.
Now, I ragged on Bernie for coming out and campaigning for and endorsing Hillary Clinton after so many people stood behind him when Bernie himself said she was unfit.
We had an expectation of integrity from Bernie.
And you know what?
I was willing to forgive that.
But now we can see that he won't even defend his own supporters with Joe Biden, you know, being accused of corruption.
And what happens?
Hillary Clinton is now coming after Bernie saying nobody likes him.
And she's even alluding to the fact that, to the possibility, she would not endorse or campaign for Bernie should he get the nomination.
Hillary Clinton is absolutely not a vote blue no matter who.
You know, that's what the Democrats are saying.
No matter who it is, you just gotta support him.
Hillary Clinton doesn't think so.
She'll go after any progressive who dares slight her.
They say.
Clinton spokesperson Nick Merrill responded to the lawsuit telling Fox News, quote, that's ridiculous.
Gabbard claims that she and her campaign were substantially harmed by Clinton's statements, citing opinion surveys that showed that millions of Americans believed Clinton, including people in key primary states.
The result, the lawsuit says, is that Gabbard has lost potential donors and voters with damages estimated to exceed $50 million.
In addition to those damages, Gabbard is seeking special and punitive damages in view of Clinton's malicious and unrepentant conduct.
She also seeks litigation costs and an injunction against further publication of the defamatory statements.
Gabbard has hovered in the low single digits in national polls since the start of the 2020 presidential race.
So I have the statement pulled up from Tulsi Gabbard.
And it basically rehashes the same thing.
I'm not going to read through it, but she does point out that Nick Merrill said, I believe it's in here, that he said if the nesting doll fits.
I'll just do a quick search to make sure that's in here.
Otherwise, okay, so no, the nesting doll comment is not in the press release, but in the actual
file for the actual document, they actually do point out that Nick Merrill specified.
So this is the big argument from Democrats, and I'll show you in a second.
It says, section 19, the next day, October 18th, Clinton doubled down on the defamatory
statements.
A CNN reporter asked Clinton's official spokesman, Nick Merrill, whether the defamatory statements
were about Tulsi.
Clinton's spokesman responded, quote, if the nesting doll fits.
He continued, this is not some outlandish claim.
This is reality.
Section 20 says Clinton's reference to the nesting doll is a reference to the universally known Russian nesting dolls.
Matryoshka doll.
Matryoshka dolls?
Is that what they're called?
And then they go on to say that it harmed her.
They say Clinton's defamatory statements immediately harmed Tulsi.
Despite reprobation of Clinton by several Democratic 2020 candidates, including Bernie Sanders, Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang, for her baseless conspiracy mongering, Clinton's defamatory statements spread like wildfire across the internet.
Took on a life of their own.
And now, even on Twitter, you know what?
This is really funny.
I think it's hilarious.
How Bernie Sanders supporters, Hillary supporters, don't seem to understand how they prove the points of the critics.
First, to drag Bernie a little bit again.
Bernie Sanders staffers, now two of them, Iowa and South Carolina, exposed by Veritas saying really, really shocking, violent, offensive things.
The response from Bernie's fans on Twitter is to downplay and say, oh, who cares?
Oh, it's nothing.
What they don't realize is that each and every one of those tweets is proof.
Or I shouldn't say proof, but it shows that Sanders supporters don't care about extremist rhetoric.
I assure you, or I should say this, I believe it's possible and likely that should Bernie win the nomination, and he now is the frontrunner, my understanding, at least in one poll, that Republicans are going to show all of these tweets and they're going to say something like, when Bernie Sanders staffers said extremist rhetoric and were called out, Sanders voters and supporters defended the comments.
And they'll show a big wall of tweets.
And all of these people on Twitter don't realize they're contributing.
Now, the reason I bring this up, Tulsi is alleging that by calling her a Russian asset, Hillary Clinton defamed her and caused problems.
And now on Twitter, Tulsi and Gabbard are trending.
And what is everyone saying?
All of these pro-Hillary stans?
They're saying, Gabbard is a Russian asset.
Bravo, fans of Hillary.
You have absolutely just proven Tulsi Gabbard's case.
That when Hillary came out and said this, they all believed it, and now they keep saying it again.
And each and every one of those tweets, I assure you, Okay, I believe it would be probable that Tulsi's legal team will collect them and say, look at all these responses.
This is all the evidence we needed.
That Hillary Clinton, they're saying things like Hillary Clinton was right, Tulsi is a Russian asset, and this lawsuit proves it.
Now Tulsi's gonna say, see, they're specifically citing Hillary Clinton, saying she's an asset.
But check this out.
This is the most mind-numbing thing to me.
This is Emma Vigeland.
I'm sorry if I'm pronouncing your name wrong.
Clinton's accusations were moronic.
But she, uh, didn't mention Gabbard by name.
Might be a problem for Gabbard's case.
What a stupid lawsuit.
An embarrassing attention grab.
Hillary's spokesperson confirmed it, says Michael Tracy.
How hard is it to actually read the lawsuit before reporting on it?
This is what's really crazy to me.
All of these people jumping out and saying things, they didn't actually read Tulsi's argument.
This is the left in a nutshell.
And this is the big problem I see.
I'll tell you this.
We learned, I think it was on the Sam Harris podcast, Jack Dorsey said, left-wing journalists only follow left-wing journalists, but conservative journalists follow both sides.
This is the differentiation between the two narratives you see.
A willingness to read everything and understand what's happening before commenting and those who just jump on the bandwagon without actually doing any actual journalistic work.
Even if they're not journalists, I get it.
So this woman, Emma, is a correspondent and producer.
I believe she has a professional obligation to actually read the argument.
Dude, I pulled up Fox News.
Even Fox News pointed out, the argument is that Hillary Clinton made the accusation and her spokesman confirmed it.
But here's where it gets really, really crazy.
This is where things go conspiracy.
No, no, I'm kidding.
It's not conspiracy.
It's basically the media is willing to bend over backwards for the Democrats.
Check this out from MarketWatch.
Turns out Hillary Clinton said Republicans, not Russians, were grooming Tulsi Gabbard.
Oh, is that what it was?
It was the Republicans!
That's why Hillary Clinton's spokesperson said, if the nesting doll fits.
No, I'll tell you what I think happened.
I could be wrong about my timeline, but I think it was...
They said the next day.
I kind of feel like the moment Hillary said it and it went viral, I remember this, it was a crazy day.
I feel like Nick Merrill immediately said, Republican, I don't care about when or why, but why would he say if the nesting doll fits either before or after, regardless of when he said it?
Why would he make the insinuation about Russians and Tulsi Gabbard?
Doesn't seem to make sense.
But what is crazy is how all these news outlets immediately ran the narrative.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no!
Hillary Clinton clarified to us.
Let me tell you something crazy.
I don't know if you've seen the documentary Hoaxed by Mike Cernovich, but there was this really great segment Where Mike Cernovich is being interviewed by, I think, Scott Pelley of PBS.
Again, could be wrong.
But basically, he's asked, why did you run a story claiming Hillary Clinton was sick?
And Mike says something like, we talked to a doctor who said, based on what he saw, Hillary Clinton was sick.
Scott Pelley says, I believe it's Scott Pelley, no, that's fake news.
And Mike's like, no, it's not.
No, it's not.
And then Mike says, you know, How do you know Hillary Clinton's not sick?
And the journalist says, well, we asked the Clinton campaign and she told us.
And he goes, why would you believe them?
And then the journalist like drops his glasses like, if I say something, and then you just go to the Hillary Clinton campaign and ask her and she tells you, here's what it really is.
And you say, okay, what?
That's not how journalism works.
If you see videos of Hillary Clinton collapsing in the street and being thrown into a van, you know, being dragged into a van, and then someone says, I believe that woman is sick, a reasonable person would conclude, it looks like she's sick.
But then these journalists go to Hillary and say, ma'am, are you sick?
And she goes, no.
And they say, okay, good enough for me.
Did you even ask why she's collapsing on all of- there's so many- there's so much footage of Hillary collapsing!
There's footage of her, like, being lifted upstairs into cars, and the media said, well, but Hillary says she's not sick, therefore she's not.
It's a conspiracy theory.
I'll tell you what, man.
It was absolutely creepy when I saw the New York Times change Russian to Republican.
They didn't... Look, look at this.
Market Watch actually says, it turns out here's what really happened.
No, the New York Times just quietly changed the word without saying anything.
And I'm like, dude, everyone knows what Hillary was talking about.
She was talking about a favorite of the Russians, not the Republicans.
This seemed to be like a quick shift trying to defend Hillary because she sounded like a lunatic claiming that Tulsi was a Russian asset.
So, anyway, you get the point, right?
I've got a bunch of people saying, you know, like, well, that's a good one.
Clinton sparks, Nick Merrill responds.
Okay, I guess I don't have a bunch of the responses I thought I pulled up, but here's a really good take from, this is Razor on Twitter, he says, Hillary is positive that Tulsi Gabbard takes orders from Putin but had no idea about Harvey Weinstein after all that time with him at fundraisers.
That's really funny, isn't it?
I have to point this out too.
But before we get to this next tweet, I just want to mention, Hillary Clinton was surrounded by a bunch of extremely dangerous individuals that are now being exposed.
Tulsi Gabbard is not one of them.
Tulsi Gabbard is a decorated, dare I say, American hero.
She's a major in the National Guard who served as a, I believe she was a combat medic, in the Middle East.
Like, that is extremely estimable.
That is incredible.
I have tremendous respect for Tulsi Gabbard.
And the fact that she's willing to stand up for herself and fight back, 100%.
You know, so of all the seedy, creepy individuals that are in the DNC, Tulsi is, like, not one of them at all.
Of course, now you've got people smearing her, but check this out.
First, Michael Malice, you glorious, glorious troll, I'm sorry, I must do this.
I know you're joking, I know the tweet is hilarious, and I hate to be someone to fact check a joke, but I gotta do it, man.
Michael Malice, you guys might know, check him out, he's a really, really funny guy, I've been on his show before.
He said, the strangest part of the Tulsi v. Hillary filing by far.
Now, Michael is a comedian troll commentator, and in his tweet, there's a section that says, Tulsi Gabbard is a natural person who is a citizen and domiciliary of the state of Hawaii.
She has never experienced, does not currently experience, and does not expect to experience thoughts of, I'm just gonna say self-harm if you get the point.
Gotta be careful about how I speak on YouTube.
This is a joke.
It is not in the actual lawsuit.
I caught that right away.
I saw this.
I started laughing.
I'm like, Michael's a funny guy.
He trolls people.
I'm sorry to fact check a joke, man.
I have to do it, though.
Too many people think it's real.
Too many people think it's real.
And I'm going, no, no, no, no.
See, I'm not going to name anybody, but I've been saying... I sent out some tweets like, hey, just so you know, this is not... It's not real, Michael.
He got you.
He trolled you.
But a lot of people do think it's real because it's funny.
But, you know, I will add, as much as it is a funny joke, it's kind of scary to me how plausible it sounds.
You know why?
There's this guy who's, I believe his name is Richard Epstein.
I could be getting his name wrong.
But he called out Google, saying they were swinging votes for Hillary Clinton.
And he just experienced a serious tragedy.
He said, he tweeted something out similar to this message.
So, people really do have this fear that, you know, if you cross the Clintons... So this is a joke from Michael Malice, but...
People think it's real, man!
So it's not... Michael was joking, okay?
But I gotta hand it to him.
Michael is... Michael, Mike, whatever your name, however I call you.
Really good troll.
He always nails people.
They really fall for this stuff, so...
But I do have one more story.
Well, actually, I have two more stories to go through real quickly.
This one's hilarious.
Trevor Noah.
Excellent, excellent spot here.
Trevor Noah drags Hillary Clinton for slamming Bernie Sanders.
This is not the time to reopen old wounds.
I know this is more about the Bernie thing, but I have to bring this up because Trevor Noah makes an excellent point about how Hillary is going after Democrats.
Okay.
Listen.
I have no problem slamming any and all Democrats.
So, I'll give Hillary a pass on that one.
You know, I sit here claiming, like, I want Andrew Yang.
You know, I want a Democratic candidate.
I like Tulsi Gabbard.
But then I rag on the Democrats all day and night.
So, who am I to criticize Hillary Clinton when she slams Bernie or Tulsi?
Fair.
Fair.
I recognize that.
But here's what Trevor Noah said.
This is hilarious.
He says, Hillary, what are you doing?
This election is just about to begin and you're coming out throwing punches.
This is not the time to reopen old wounds.
You can just say, as Democrats, we always support our nominee and then go home and punch that bag you have with Bernie's face on it.
What does that even mean?
Hillary won't support Bernie.
So if he's the nominee, who else is she going to campaign for?
Trump?
Actually, I'd love to see that.
I won't lie.
That would be amazing.
If Trump was just up there like, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome my friend, Crooked Hillary.
Hillary comes out and goes, hello everybody, lock me up, lock me up.
That was great.
I laughed a lot when I heard that.
Trevor Noah, that's a really great joke.
It's a good point, though.
Like, what's Hillary gonna do?
Is she gonna come out and campaign for Trump?
That's never gonna happen.
Bernie is, in my opinion, gonna get the nomination.
I really do think so.
Things are turning in his favor.
He's raising way more money.
But we will see.
We'll see if the establishment cheats.
But what is Hillary gonna do if Bernie does?
I'm abstaining from an endorsement this time.
Alright, go for it.
But I do have one last story.
I'm not gonna give this one too much credit.
But let me just stress, the Russia narrative will not cease.
This is from the New York Mag, Jonathan Chait, the guy who claimed that Donald Trump may have been an asset of Russia since the 1980s.
Trump and Russia are colluding in Ukraine for profit and political gain.
I kid you not, this article, well, let me refresh it to get the actual date because I opened it yesterday.
I think it's from yesterday.
This is from January 21st, just the other day.
They are still running news stories claiming Trump is colluding with Russia.
Trump and Russia are colluding.
That's the headline!
I can't believe we're still here, man.
Welcome to 2020, where we're going to play 2019 in repeat.
Or as some people have said, 2020 colon 2019 two Russian boogaloo.
Here we go, man.
It's not 2020.
Russian boogaloo. Like, here we go man. It's not 2020, it's actually 2019 part 2.
And then I have this one last tweet from Josh Hawley.
He says, So far in impeachment this much is clear.
Dems are not ready to try their case.
Totally unprepared.
And two, this is still all about the Russia hoax.
Dems repeatedly refer to Trump cheating to win 2016.
Memo to Dems.
He was elected by the people.
That's called democracy.
Here we are.
Tulsi Gabbard is a Russian asset.
Trump is a Russian asset.
That's what they keep saying.
And, of course, it's not true.
It's an insane conspiracy, but... The New York Mag just wrote a story the other day, saying it all over again.
I'm gonna tell you something.
When it comes to voting for somebody, I like Andrew Yang.
He says we shouldn't blame Trump for all of our problems.
Democrats can't blame Trump.
You can't be too focused on impeachment.
I think Yang's doing the right thing.
But I'll tell you this, man.
My vote is based on policy and integrity.
The Democrats have Neither.
They have some of the policies I like, but I'm sitting here staring at lunatics who are taking a debunked conspiracy theory and screeching into the wind.
Where is anyone to tell them to stop?
Yeah, I don't know.
When Republicans go too far, they get destroyed in the press.
When the Democrats go too far, nobody bats an eye.
So now you have insane Democrats like Hillary Clinton screeching about Russian meddling and, you know, Tulsi Gabbard, oh, all that stuff.
Then quickly trying to, you know, her spokesman tries to change the subject.
But you have the New York Mag just the other day claiming Trump is colluding with Russia.
Okay.
Okay.
Look, man.
Here's the thing.
You will never get me to vote for a Republican simply because the Democrats are terrible, alright?
My vote is based on policy and integrity.
But I'll tell you this.
If you expect me to vote Democrat, you would be insane, okay?
However, however, however.
I have to clarify that.
That's a blanket statement.
I would absolutely vote for Andrew Yang.
I would absolutely do so.
And Tulsi Gabbard as well.
Tulsi's fallen to my close second now.
She used to be my number one choice because of foreign policy.
But I think because Trump is going to win and you can't stop him, what we need is Andrew Yang to be debating Donald Trump.
I really do think so.
So I think it would be a great service to America if Yang was on stage having a real conversation about American issues because he seems to be the only one willing to do it.
Tulsi talks about foreign policy, and she's very tough.
But at this point, I think getting Yang on the stage to have that debate.
So I'll tell you this.
I don't care about Democrat or Republican.
I really, really don't.
I care if I agree with you.
So I'll tell you this.
Rand Paul is awesome.
I disagree with him on a lot of policy stuff.
Go figure.
So I disagree with Tulsi on a lot of stuff, too.
I don't care about parties.
I care about integrity.
I like Dan Crenshaw.
I like Rand Paul.
I like Tulsi Gabbard.
And who else do we have on the Democrat side?
I think, basically, Andrew Yang.
But he's not really a Democrat, right?
There's probably some other people I could give a shout out to.
Jeff Van Drew.
Mad props.
I don't care if he's a Republican or a Democrat.
The dude has shown integrity and willingness to stand up for himself.
Bravo.
Bravo.
Good sir.
I actually think there's a few more Republicans I like more personally than Democrats.
I think I just made that clear, right?
But when it comes to policy, I lean left on these issues.
So you're not going to see me go in and vote in red just because I'm like, I don't like Democrats.
It's never going to happen.
So, call me dumb, call me all the names in the book, that's fine.
My policy positions are more about, you know, are more center-left.
But I think it's fair to say, the Democrats at this point are nuts!
Like most of them!
Obviously, Tulsi and Yang are good people.
But man, and there's a couple people running that I'm interested in, some progressives that are running in primaries.
We'll see how that plays out.
I'm really scared that if I support some of these progressive candidates, they're going to turn out insane like AOC.
So I am concerned about that.
But I gotta tell you, man, I think these do-nothing Democrats like Pelosi and Nadler, Schiff, Schumer, it's like, dude, they need to go.
AOC is not better, though, so we'll see what happens.
This is a long video.
I'll wrap it up.
Thanks for hanging out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash TimCastNews.
6 p.m., and I will see you all then.
Impeachment is effectively over.
The Democrats lost on every vote so far.
Nobody cares anymore.
CBS stopped covering impeachment.
I kid you not.
CBS, one of the biggest networks in the country, decided, we're not going to cover the impeachment trial.
We're gonna go back to regularly scheduled programming.
You know what that means?
You got some executive or some producer sitting behind the scenes, looking at their numbers, and they're like, nobody's watching this dude.
This is really, really bad for our ratings and our revenue.
Okay, switch back to Big Bang Theory, or whatever it is airs on CBS.
I don't know, probably Big Bang Theory, right?
Not even news.
It was regularly scheduled programming.
Nobody wants to hear Adam Schiff for the 863rd time explaining the same partisan nonsense over and over again.
So they shut it out.
I was watching and I turned it off.
I had it playing and I'm like, oh yo, the impeachment's starting.
And then I started hearing Adam Schiff do that same drawl like, Donald Trump pressured a country.
I'm like, oh dude, you know what man, I do not, you are not, you have said the same thing literally 800 times.
I'm going to talk about aliens or something stupid.
Anything is more relevant than what's going on right now with impeachment.
But I should get to this story.
Check it out.
CBS's early exit shows decisions networks face on impeachment.
CBS has a distinction in its impeachment coverage.
First major network to break away.
You don't understand.
This is huge.
This is huge, huge, huge.
We are talking about the attempted removal of the duly elected president.
Now you may be on the left, probably not to be honest, but maybe you're a resistance person and you think Trump is guilty, guilty, guilty.
I got bad news for you.
America doesn't care.
When you look at the aggregate polling for impeachment and removal, it's slightly in favor of not removing the president.
But there is a decent amount of people who do want to see Trump impeached and removed.
Even they aren't watching this anymore!
Now don't get me wrong, the diehard resistance folks of woke Twitterati are absolutely, there's a hashtag, it's like Adam Schiff rocks, and I'm thinking like, yes, rocks as in he's sitting there bland and boring, not rocks as in he's playing music.
Ha ha, that was a really bad pun.
But the point is, I gotta read the story, because I seriously can't stress enough how insane it is that one of the biggest, most, like a major network in this country decided impeachment is no longer relevant to the American people.
Check this out.
The New York Post, which is obviously more conservative, has this op-ed, an amazing op-ed, really thought-provoking.
On to the second day of Trump's impeachment trial.
And it reads, is this thing still going on?
That's it.
That's the entire op-ed.
And I saw that and I started laughing.
I'm like, yeah, that's it.
Listen, we knew it was going to happen.
I am completely fed up with the resistance lunatics.
Because I'll tell you this, man.
When they start arguing about Trump and Ukraine and impeachment, I'm listening.
I really am.
And I'm like, dude, show me the evidence, justify your positions, have them based in reality, and I am totally on board with your plan and an impeachment inquiry.
And then something funny happened.
Republicans presented a list of witnesses they wanted to see.
Hunter Biden, in particular.
Now the Democrats say, well, why would we even call Hunter Biden?
That makes no sense.
Oh, it makes tons of sense.
If Hunter Biden did do wrong, and there is reason to believe we should look at the evidence of the Hunter Biden, then it makes sense that Trump would be looking at this investigation on Joe and Hunter Biden, right?
Just because the Democrats don't agree with Trump's presumption of corruption doesn't mean Trump is wrong to try and dig up corruption.
Listen, man.
If I told you the Hamburglar broke into your house and stole a cheeseburger, you can say that's absurd and I don't believe you.
But that doesn't mean, like, my investigation into an absurd idea was illegal in any way.
What they need to prove is that Trump was trying to cheat in the election.
They haven't.
They never even asked a single question about it.
So here's what happens.
Here's why I'm really, really angry and sick and tired of this.
Republicans said, here's the witnesses we want.
Notably, Alexandra Chalupa, I think her name is, the DNC operative who was apparently working with Ukrainian officials to, you know, meddle in the election.
That's what they claim.
They wanted her, and the Democrats rejected those witnesses.
We've now come to the Senate trial, and I'm looking on Twitter, and all of these Trump derangement syndrome Twitterati types are going like, they're covering up!
The Republicans are covering up!
They're rejecting witnesses!
We're talking about the Democrats were the ones who rejected the witnesses first!
So do I think we should have witnesses?
Yes.
However, you expect me to get mad at the Republicans for doing what you started?
Listen, man, I will absolutely say, yes, Republicans, you should have witnesses.
We should move forward.
Bring on Hunter Biden, okay?
Bring on Joe Biden.
But you know what?
I can't complain about hypocrisy of the Republicans without first pointing to Democrats.
So this is the funny thing, right?
This is the perfect example of Of the kind of politics, the position I have on a lot of the content I cover, people are like, Tim, why don't you rag on Republicans?
And I'm like, well, right now, the Senate Republicans are blocking witnesses.
That's right, Tim, you should call them out.
Okay, I can't because the Democrats did it first.
Don't you understand?
They don't seem to get it.
They're like, Tim, why don't you make a video saying Mitch McConnell is obstructing the investigation?
Because it was the Democrats who set the precedent?
So I can make a video about how the Democrats are rejecting witnesses and then explain Republicans have responded in kind?
So you expect Republicans to be condemned for what the Democrats started?
Let me tell you something.
One of the arguments is, but Tim, this is the actual trial.
There wouldn't be a trial if Republicans got their witnesses, or at least presumably.
That's the problem.
If the Republican witnesses were brought forth in the impeachment inquiry, it may have resulted in a no vote when people actually found out there was malfeasance and Donald Trump was looking into it.
It's entirely possible they didn't find that and Trump was just wrong.
I'll put it this way.
Trump heard there was corruption.
Trump said, I want it investigated.
I don't think Trump should have personally called and talked to Zelensky.
I've talked, I said this several times.
It was inappropriate.
I think even Tucker Carlson had a similar opinion.
He should have left it up to Bill Barr and the Justice Department, but Trump, he's this guy, you know what I mean?
Trump is this guy who's like, I gotta do it.
I'm right all the time.
He's very arrogant.
He's very narcissistic.
So he had to make sure that he was putting his, you know, his finger on that button and pressing it saying, go for it.
I don't think he should do that.
First, for several reasons, but also because of what it's created because of it, right?
You could call it tact.
I also think Trump should leave these things up to his, you know, to the Justice Department, stuff like that.
But the point is, that's not impeachable.
Trump being arrogant and narcissistic isn't impeachable.
You can't impeach the guy because he's full of himself.
If Trump thinks there's corruption, It's not impeachable!
Like, listen, man, just because he's wrong doesn't mean he committed a crime.
The Democrats have done nothing to actually prove that.
So I would like to see Biden called forth, and then we can talk about whether or not Trump was justified.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't even matter.
So when it comes to calling witnesses, I also don't think it matters.
Because, you know, for the most part, Democrats have not tried even once to ask the question of whether or not Trump was concerned about losing to Joe Biden.
Never happened.
It never happened.
They didn't ask a single witness they brought forth.
And now you're mad the Republicans are saying no witnesses?
And now the Democrats are shrieking and all the TDS people on Twitter are shrieking.
I'm like, dude, look, man.
I think that, you know, a lot of people are always joking about me and, like, a red pill.
It's like, no, no, you don't understand, man.
First of all, I'm not going to give up what I believe policy-wise simply because the Democrats are falling apart, okay?
It's crazy to me, because I did this segment yesterday on Bernie Sanders, that you either have people who are like, Bernie is right no matter what, and other people are like, Bernie is crazy no matter what, and I'm like, You can call Bernie Sanders spineless while pointing out the media is lying about him and smearing him.
I'm not lying when I say he's got staffing problems.
Where is the sane, regular person?
You know what I mean?
I guess you guys are watching my channel.
And I guess most of us are here on YouTube.
And it's unfortunate that I think because of the media, You tend to only have moderates and conservatives who are actually paying attention to what's going on and understand the actual arguments about how it's insane for Democrats to say no witnesses.
I shouldn't say no witnesses, but to reject the Republican witnesses and then get mad when Republicans do the same thing in the Senate.
It's like, dude, that's your rule.
What do you want me to do?
Complain to the Republicans about what you did?
This is so insane.
I'm sorry I ranted for this long without reading the story.
We got to read this story.
The U.S.
News Reports.
Actually, it's from the Associated Press.
CBS was the first major network to break away from President Donald Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate on Tuesday, allowing its viewers to watch their regular afternoon fair instead of a debate over a proposed amendment to subpoena White House documents.
The decision illustrated the on-the-fly judgments television executives will face every day of the trial juggling concerns over millions of dollars in advertising revenue.
News purists, cognizant of the weight of history, and angry soap opera fans.
Uncertainty over the Senate schedule from hour to hour, much less day to day, complicates things even further.
The decisions were easier when ABC, CBS, and NBC dominated the landscape and were very cognizant of their public service responsibility.
Now viewers have options.
Cable networks from CNN to C-SPAN and streaming services.
If they want to follow the trial, while Tuesday's session was historic, opening the third impeachment trial ever in the United States, It will still be a while before the meat of the case was examined.
Yet it was noticed when CBS cut off the trial around 3.15!
It went to like 2am!
They cut it off almost 12 hours before it wrapped up!
ABC and NBC stuck with it.
Uncle Walter is crying, tweeted New York Times reporter Jim Ruttenberg, referencing the late legendary CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite.
Tweets of incredulity at CBS for abandoning history, mixed with those from angry daytime TV fans.
Why do you have impeachment on all platforms, tweeted one viewer, who was more interested in watching the young and the restless and the bold and the beautiful.
Listen, this one is for you, resistance anti-Trump people, of which there's probably 10 watching.
The impeachment of Trump is so mindless and boring, no one wants to watch it.
Nothing new is happening.
Here's the way I described it.
I had the impeachment trial on.
Adam Schiff went into his ridiculous... Oh, I can't tell you, man.
It makes me want to punch a hole through the wall.
Hearing him say the same thing every day for months, it's like torture.
It reminded me of that episode of that Family Guy joke where Stewie comes into Lois's bedroom.
I tweeted about this.
You may have saw the clip.
It's hilarious.
Because Lois has this look on her face where she's just like her eyes are half closed and she's super stressed out.
I'm like, that's literally what impeachment feels like.
Adam Schiff saying the exact same thing over And now for some reason, here you all are, gluttons for punishment, listening to me talk about impeachment.
He runs away. I'm like, oh my god. I can't take it. I just hit that mute button
Um, and you know what I did as soon as I wrapped up work I put on cartoons
I'm like, ah, here we go. I didn't put on like kids card. I put on like American Dad American Dad's great
I love that show But it's a good way to like erase all of that stuff and now
for some reason here you all are gluttons for punishment Listening to me talk about impatient, but but at least at
least I feel like this is kind of therapeutic to point out that CBS
shut down historical impeachment coverage because of how
irrelevant it is That's amazing to me.
I mean, it is fair to say that you've got impeachment wall-to-wall coverage on all these different channels.
But wow!
You know, here we are in this historic moment of this country, and nobody cares.
Nobody cares.
Nobody's watching.
Nobody wants to watch.
And we're sick of it.
You know, let's read a little bit more.
They say, um, Rivals.
Oh, okay, here we go.
A CBS representative noted that the network's news streaming service was continuing to carry the trial, and that the network affiliates were given the choice to continue to show the Senate, if that's what their executives preferred.
Rivals at ABC and NBC privately noted that the fact that it was the trial's opening day played into the decisions to stick with it longer.
Fox's broadcast network, which doesn't have its own news division, infrequently breaks away from traditional programming.
All of the broadcast networks had contingency plans in place depending on what was being shown at the time of the day.
There was little interest in making public pronouncements of their plans given the fluidity of the situation.
Here's a quote here, they say, These decisions are difficult, and they're not always solely in the hands of the news divisions, said Mark Lukasiewicz, a former NBC news executive and now dean of Hofstra University's School of Communications.
Network entertainment and corporate executives also weigh in.
Sticking with the news coverage becomes more difficult for the networks in the prime time hours of 8 to 11 PM, because that means a more significant loss of advertising revenue.
That's why network executives were keenly interested in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's decision Tuesday that impeachment managers for the House and President would have three days instead of two to make their cases.
It means fewer hours in prime time are likely to be chewed up.
Can you, can you, can you, like, you know what, man?
It's hilarious.
This is a consideration.
You know what I find really, really funny?
There was this big outrage from, you know, I'm doing air quotes here for journalists and like Brian Stalter, where they were like, this is an unprecedented restriction of our ability to cover the Senate.
Cause apparently the Senate rule was like, they're only going to allow the actual government cameras to film the impeachment trial.
And they're not going to allow journalists with like, they restricted a lot of access.
And I'm like, so what?
This thing is wall-to-wall coverage.
Live-streamed all day and night.
The feed is going out.
You can hear everything being said.
There's no secrets.
We have access.
Why do these news networks need special privy access?
It's all about the ratings, baby.
It's all about the ratings.
I'll tell you what, man.
You should be happy that they restricted you in this way, because now you have an excuse to not dedicate ridiculous amounts of coverage to something no one cares about.
I do have a couple other things that I really want to get to, and I'll probably wrap this one up.
I've been going long in the mornings for whatever reason.
This is significant because basically every amendment the Democrats put forward were shot down.
Duh.
Everybody knows it.
Nobody needs me to tell you this.
Seriously, do you need me to tell you right now?
Hey, guess what, guys?
Did you know that yesterday during the impeachment, Republicans shot down everything the Democrats wanted?
It's literally what happened in the House.
We knew it was going to happen.
We knew it was a waste of time.
Republicans control the Senate.
They're going to control everything.
But I will say, I will, I will, I will say a shame on you to Republicans.
Okay.
I'll tell you why.
John Roberts.
Reprimands both sides in Donald Trump's impeachment trial for calling each other traitors and liars after Senate blows passed midnight as Democrats lose caustic battle to get witnesses and evidence.
Yeah, the Democrats lost.
Surprise, surprise.
Look, if the Democrats allowed witnesses in the House inquiry, they would have a really strong case to say, we gave you the witnesses you wanted.
Why are you blocking our witnesses?
Instead, they're complaining about the precedent they set.
Nah, I'm not interested in that.
I will say though, shame on you to the Republicans.
Why would you play the same game?
John Roberts reprimanded both sides.
Sorry, I don't care if you're a conservative, moderate, liberal, whatever.
John Roberts seems to be like a good dude here who wants to get the job done.
I'm not gonna- I don't know what his leanings are necessarily, but he said, you know, we got to keep things civil.
Civil discourse.
If the Republicans keep their composure, they can continually have the moral high ground, for what it's worth, against the Democrats.
Here's the thing.
Right now, I do think it is absurd there's no witnesses or evidence, right?
But what am I supposed to complain about?
The Democrats are the ones who initiated it.
So am I going to blame them?
Like I said earlier, right?
Therein lies the big challenge.
If the Republicans play the same game as Democrats, it will be harder to justify why the Democrats are actually wrong if both sides do the exact same things.
But I do think it's fair to say Democrats are wrong on this one.
They are reaching.
It is partisan.
They just hate Trump.
You know, it's crazy to me because when everyone's like telling me take the red pill or that joke, I'm just like, dude.
Listen, there are regular rational people who don't like Donald Trump and want to see a strong alternative.
We need it for the health of this country.
You know what I mean?
So I look at Trump and I'm like, not my choice.
I understand why people voted for him.
I can recognize the things he's accomplished, but policy-wise, not my choice.
But I'll be honest, I'm fairly ambivalent.
I just lean slightly to a lot of Democrat positions.
And so that means I'm looking for someone who's sane and rational.
Guess what?
We don't, it don't happen.
We've got Yang and Sulci.
They'll never be allowed to win.
I did this thread earlier, right?
I think Yang has really proven himself.
I think Yang has shown he's the most willing to have a real conversation with Trump on policy issues.
I don't trust any of the Democrats to say anything other than orange man bad.
And that's exactly what we're seeing with impeachment.
And this is why I'm giving a shout out to Yang right now and we'll wrap things up.
Yang said the Democrats need to stop blaming Trump for all their problems.
Trump isn't the cause of their problems.
Yes, thank you!
He's not!
It's ridiculous.
These problems that are happening in this country were happening before Trump and under Obama, but that's the game they play.
So I appreciate Yang coming out and saying that.
I don't think Yang could beat Trump.
I'm not convinced.
I'm also not convinced a lot of his policies would be effective.
I know that there's a lot of things, you know, he's very progressive on a lot of issues.
Medicare for all, gun control stuff.
I don't agree with it for the most part.
But I do think Yang has proven if any one of these people is actually going to talk to Trump on a debate stage about actual economic issues, it's going to be him.
Because I'd be willing to bet you put Biden up there and he's going to be like, you tried to cheat!
Oh, I don't want to hear it.
Don't want to hear it.
You put up Warren, he's going to be like, you're a sexist!
Oh, I don't want to hear it.
Don't want to hear it.
I don't trust Bernie.
I think Bernie's too spineless.
That guy, that guy is so spineless.
So I think for the strength and good of this nation, We need someone who can speak to certain progressive values for many of these people who are not, you know, under the TDS curse, who actually would be willing to listen to an argument.
And if we want to have a real conversation in this country and move forward, then it needs to be, in my opinion, Andrew Yang.
It really does.
And, you know, shout out for Tulsi.
Tulsi has the most integrity.
Uh, out of any of these Democrats, but I think for, you know, as much as I really do respect and appreciate her message, because I think foreign policy comes first for one reason.
It's been a disaster for the United States.
It's a waste of our money.
I think at this point, Yang's policy positions, his strength, his maintaining of his campaign means I think he should be the nominee.
I really, really do.
And then Tulsi is a close second.
The main reason I like Tulsi is not for the most part her policies, it's her willingness to try and bring people together, and it's foreign policy issues.
I think if we can stop wasting all that money overseas and bring it back to this country, we can fix a lot of problems.
But in terms of having a debate with the president, I think Tulsi does play too much into, like, Trump is bad, Trump is bad all the time.
And I'm like, I trust her in the sense that she's going to talk about foreign policy and I really trust her that she's going to bring the troops home and stuff like that.
Because I think Trump is going to win, because I think Trump is going to landslide this and so are the Republicans, I want to see a conversation between Yang and Trump on core fundamental issues.
I want to see a conversation about this from somebody who's not going to screech about why the president should be impeached over a perfect phone call.
Andrew Yang has said we can't be obsessed with impeachment, we can't keep blaming Trump for everything, and so I'd like to see these two guys have a conversation.
Because I think as much as Trump will, you know, call... I don't know what he would call Yang, that's another thing too, like, you know, he likes making up names for people.
Lion Ted, Sleepy Joe, I don't know, Crazy Yang, I don't know.
I don't know what he would call Yang.
But I think Yang would be the most... I think if you put Yang and Trump on a debate stage, you'd actually hear about economic policy.
You'd hear about trade.
It would be really interesting.
So, I don't know.
I went long on that because I did a Twitter thread about it.
But let me just wrap up, man.
I'm sorry you had to watch this segment talking about impeachment.
Please, if you can stomach watching impeachment, more power to you, man.
I wish you luck.
I'm not gonna do it.
But whatever, man.
Stick around.
Let me stress before I wrap up.
The fact that CBS cut off impeachment is profound.
Like, this is a historic moment for this country, and they're like, eh, nobody cares.
Nobody cares!
So here's what I'm saying, man.
I'm not telling you to like Yang.
I'm not telling you to like Trump.
I say this every time, you know, but for some reason, whatever it is, it's only the moderates and the conservatives who understand when I'm talking about a candidate, I'm not telling you to like them.
I'm not saying you must like or not like Trump, you must like or not like Yang.
I'm saying, like, Oh, I'd like to see Yang have a conversation with Trump about economic policy.
I think Trump's done a really good job on the economy.
They don't want to give him credit for it.
You can't deny it, man.
It's ridiculous.
They tried to deny it.
So I'd like to hear what Yang has to say.
I'd like to see a strong Democratic Party propose alternatives and solutions that the Republicans might not see.
We're not getting that.
So it's not about me wanting to vote for a Republican.
It's about me seeing, plain as day, the Democrats have lost their minds.
You know what I mean?
And so here I am, politically homeless.
Impeachment is a waste of time.
Nobody cares.
Let's have a real conversation.
Let's have a real conversation about automation, immigration, economic policy, and I would really love to see Yang's view contrasted with Trump's view.
That'd be amazing.
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, youtube.com slash timcastnews, and I will see you all then.
I really don't understand why social media, well, Facebook and YouTube, won't allow me to say the whistleblower's name.
If I say it, they'll delete the content.
You can see here, it's on the screen, censored.
Can't say the name.
Basically, people refer to this guy as Voldemort, he who must not be named, because I literally have to censor his name, even though the president's tweeted a story with his name in it.
Most people believe now that he is the whistleblower.
He was even named, they didn't redact his name in the actual transcripts.
Even if I post it on Facebook, About a chiropractor from Dubuque, Iowa, whose name is... Facebook deleted the post.
I made another post.
I said, this is just a random man who happens to be a chiropractor whose name is...
Facebook deleted the post.
You can't say the name, period.
This is beyond Voldemort.
Now, this is a shocking, shocking story from RealClearInvestigations.
If what they're saying is true, and I have no reason to believe that they're wrong, but we'll see what happens.
Sometimes stories are retracted.
They are actually saying sources on the record have provided them what appears to be evidence that the impeachment, the whistleblowing, everything was literally a conspiracy.
So I must say, take it all with a grain of salt.
This story is huge.
Real Clear Investigations is certified as credible by NewsGuard, and what they're basically saying here is that this Voldemort guy, the whistleblower, and this other guy, Sean Misko, had been talking about removing the president just after Trump was, I believe, just after Yes, just after Trump was elected and took office.
And this guy, Sean Misko, went to go join Adam Schiff's team and provided guidance for the whistleblower on how to move forward with the complaint.
So these two people, according to the investigation, were discussing removing the president.
One of them joins Adam Schiff.
And then, sure enough, the other guy has a whistleblower complaint, and now I'm not allowed to say his name.
Something weird is going on.
I'll tell you this.
I'm not a conspiracy guy.
Absolutely not.
I'm very skeptical of this story.
Let's be clear about that.
I've been wronged in the past where Fox News, Fox Business, I'm sorry, put out a story and retracted it later.
Take it out with a grain of salt.
I will say, though, Isn't it strange that I can't say Voldemort's real name?
That I can't actually say this guy's name?
That is unprecedented.
That Facebook would delete multiple posts from me about a random chiropractor with five kids who just, just, uh, you know.
And what's crazy, Facebook deleted them without notice.
No punishment, no penalty.
No, this page is not, you know, there was nothing saying, we have removed this post.
Just erased from the site.
That's weird.
And so is this.
Let's read the story and see what's actually going on.
RealClearInvestigation says, barely two weeks after Donald Trump took office, Voldemort, the CIA analyst whose name was recently linked in a tweet by the president and mentioned by lawmakers as the anonymous whistleblower who touched off Trump's impeachment.
I just want to let you know, I'm substituting the censored name with Voldemort, because I don't know what I'm going to say.
You know, he who must not be... I don't know how to... I'm not going to play a ridiculous game with weird pronouns.
But seriously, if I say his name, YouTube will delete this video.
I am not exaggerating.
They say.
He was overheard in the White House discussing with another staffer how to remove the newly elected president from office, according to former colleagues.
Sources told RealClearInvestigations that staffer with whom Voldemort was speaking was Sean Misko.
Both were Obama administration holdovers working in the Trump White House on foreign policy and national security issues, and both expressed anger over Trump's new America First foreign policy, a sea change from Obama's approach to international affairs.
Just days after he was sworn in, they were already talking about trying to get rid of him, said a White House colleague who overheard their conversation.
They weren't just bent on subverting his agenda.
They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.
Misko left the White House last summer to join House Impeachment Manager Adam Schiff's committee, where sources say he offered guidance to the whistleblower, who has been officially identified only as an intelligence officer in a complaint against Trump filed under whistleblower laws.
Misko then helped run the impeachment inquiry based on that complaint as a top investigator for congressional Democrats.
The probe culminated in Trump's impeachment last month on a party-line vote in the House of Representatives.
Yeah, for the most part, but Democrats defected three.
I believe it was three.
Oh, actually, no, I think it was four, because one split.
Schiff and other Democrats last week delivered the articles of impeachment to the Senate and are now pressing the case for his removal during the trial, which began Tuesday.
The coordination between the official believed to be the whistleblower and a key Democratic staffer, details of which are disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the narrative that impeachment developed spontaneously out of the patriotism of an apolitical civil servant.
There was a recent quote, I can't remember who said it, Some Democrat was saying that, oh, everyone, you know, the Republicans are saying they've been trying to impeach President Trump for years.
It's a conspiracy theory.
And Fox did this really funny segment where they ran over and over again.
You've got Schiff, you've got Nadler saying, and many others, before, like years ago, we need to impeach this president.
This is impeachable.
This is impeachable.
All the way through Russiagate, Russiagate fails.
Now here saying the exact same things.
You had that quote from Pelosi.
Which I could be wrong, but my understanding is that she said something like, we've been working on this for two and a half years.
Yes.
They have been planning to impeach Trump.
There is a tweet from the whistleblower's lawyer from two, almost three years ago now, saying, you know, the coup has begun, you know, we're going to impeach the president.
So this is not legitimate.
They just don't like Trump.
They say.
The two former co-workers said they overheard Voldemort and Misko, close friends and Democrats held over from the Obama administration, discussing how to, quote, take out or remove the new president from office within days of Trump's inauguration.
These co-workers said the president's controversial UK phone call in July 2019 provided the pretext they and their Democratic allies had been looking for.
They didn't like his policies, another former White House official said.
They had a political vendetta against him from day one.
Their efforts were part of a larger pattern of coordination to build a case for impeachment involving Democratic leaders as well as anti-Trump figures both inside and outside of government.
All unnamed sources for this article spoke only on the condition that they not be further identified or described.
Although strong evidence points to Voldemort as the government employee who lodged the whistleblower complaint, He has not been officially identified as such.
As a result, this article makes a distinction between public information released about the unnamed whistleblower, CIA analyst, and specific information about Voldemort.
Democrats based on their impeachment case on the whistleblower complaint, which alleges that President Trump sought to help his re-election campaign by demanding that Ukraine's leader investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son in exchange for aid, yet Schiff, who heads the House Intelligence Committee, and other Democrats have insisted on keeping the identity of the whistleblower secret.
Citing concern for his safety while arguing that his testimony no longer matters because other witnesses and documents have, quote, corroborated what he alleged in his complaint about the Ukraine call.
They didn't.
His whistleblower complaint was wildly inaccurate.
Republicans have fought unsuccessfully to call him as a witness, arguing that his motivations and associations are relevant, and that the President has the same due process rights to confront his accuser as any other American.
The whistleblower's candor is also being called into question.
It turns out that the CIA operative failed to report his contacts with Schiff's office to the Intelligence Community's Inspector General, who fielded his whistleblower complaint.
So let me stop first.
We have to make the assumption, because they have not publicly and officially confirmed that Voldemort is the whistleblower.
I can't say his name.
I'm really sorry.
I can't do it.
I literally can't say the guy's name.
When this story broke, where they actually named the guy, I did a video on it.
Two days later, YouTube forced the video into private mode.
I cannot reverse that.
The video was effectively wiped off YouTube.
On Facebook, they deleted my posts about it.
I tweeted an article, I think, I can't remember who it was from, I think it was the New York Times, or no, it was Politico, arguing the New York Times' right to out the whistleblower, deleted.
So I'm sorry, Voldemort, that's his name, that's all I can say.
They say the whistleblower's candor is also being called into question.
He didn't report it to the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, and in writing, according to Impeachment Committee investigators.
The whistleblower form he filled out required him to disclose whether he had contacted other entities, including members of Congress, but he left that section blank on the disclosure form he signed.
The investigators say that details about how the whistleblower consulted with Schiff's staff and perhaps misled Atkinson about those interactions are contained in the transcript of a closed-door briefing Atkinson gave to the House Intelligence Committee last October.
However, Schiff has sealed the transcript from public view.
It is the only impeachment witness transcript out of 18 that he has not released.
You know what, man?
Regardless of whether or not Voldemort is the whistleblower, we have someone on Schiff's staff, Sean Misko, now they're claiming, was talking about how to get the president out of office years ago.
So ignore the whistleblower part.
This guy was looking for an in, and this was it.
He found it.
And now we have a transcript that Schiff said he was going to release all the transcripts.
He never did.
Isn't that weird?
Maybe this would debunk things.
And now the Democrats are screeching, Republicans want a lot of witnesses.
I'll tell you this, man.
Why the Republicans won't vote to bring in Voldemort and Schiff and whoever else to force them to testify under oath is beyond me.
If this stuff is true, I'll tell you this too, this is why I take this stuff with a grain of salt.
If this story was true, wouldn't Republicans be like, all we have to do is get this one person to testify in the Senate trial and we're done?
We win?
So I don't know what their plan is, why they're doing what they're doing, so don't ask me, I have no idea.
That's why I take this up with a grain of salt.
Because stories like this are always just too big to be true.
You know what I mean?
Like... Hey, look.
Far be it from me to criticize RealClearInvestigations reporting, but I'll tell you this.
When I cited Fox Business on the Seth Rich story, they later retracted it, and then activists take those clips out of context to try and weaponize against me.
So I'll say for now, this is being reported by RealClearInvestigations, and subject to change, this is what we have to go on.
They say, Schiff has classified the document secret, preventing Republicans who attended the Atkinson briefing from quoting from it.
Even impeachment investigators cannot view it outside a highly secured room known as a skiff in the basement of the Capitol.
Members must first get permission from Schiff, and they are forbidden from bringing phones into the skiff or from taking notes from the document.
If there was anything in that transcript and the Republicans knew about it, wouldn't they then say, we need to get this guy to testify?
While the identity of the whistleblower remains unconfirmed, at least officially, Trump recently tweeted out a message naming Voldemort, while Republican Senator Rand Paul and Rep.
Louie Gohmert of the House Judiciary Committee have publicly demanded that Voldemort testify about his role in the whistleblower complaint.
During last year's closed-door house depositions of impeachment witnesses, Voldemort's name was invoked in heated discussions about the whistleblower, as RealClear Investigations first reported on October 30th, and has appeared in at least one testimony transcript.
Congressional Republicans complain Schiff and his staff counsel have redacted his name from other documents.
So listen, I think it's fair to say the dude is clearly the whistleblower.
Why can't I say his name?
I don't know!
No idea.
Lawyers representing the whistleblower have neither confirmed nor denied that Voldemort is their client.
In November, after Donald Trump Jr.
named Voldemort and cited RCI's story in a series of tweets, however, they sent a cease and desist letter to the White House demanding Trump and his surrogates stop attacking him.
And just as whistleblower complaint was made public in September, Voldemort's social media postings and profiles were scrubbed from the internet.
And my videos and posts about Voldemort got removed.
And Obama holdover and registered Democrat Voldemort in early 2017 expressed hostility toward the newly elected president during White House meetings.
His co-workers said in interviews that with real clear investigations, they added that Voldemort sought to have Trump removed from office long before the filing of the whistleblower complaint.
At the time, the CIA operative worked on loan to the White House as a top Ukrainian analyst in the National Security Council, where he had previously served as an advisor on Ukraine to Vice President Biden.
The whistleblower complaint cites Biden, alleging that Trump demanded Ukraine's newly elected leader investigate him and his son to help the president's 2020 re-election bid.
Two NSC co-workers told RCI that they overheard Voldemort and Misko, who was also working at the NSC as an analyst, making anti-Trump remarks to each other while attending a staff-wide meeting, called by then-National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, Where they sat together in the South Auditorium of the Eisenhower Executive Office building, part of the White House complex.
The all-hands meeting held about two weeks into the new administration was attended by hundreds of NSC employees.
They were popping off about how they were going to remove Trump from office, no joke,
said one ex-colleague who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive matters.
A military staffer detailed to NSC, who was seated directly in front of Voldemort and
Misko during the meeting, confirmed hearing them talk about toppling Trump during their
private conversation, which the source said lasted about one minute.
The crowd was preparing to get up to leave the room at the time.
Dr. Flynn briefed the staff about what America First foreign policy means.
Voldemort turned to Misko and commented, we need to take him out, the staffer recalled,
and Misko replied, yeah, we need to do everything we can to take out the president.
That sounds very, very fake, I gotta be honest.
I don't trust this story at all, I gotta be real, I do not trust this story.
Added the military detailee, who spoke on a condition of anonymity.
By taking him out, they meant removing him from office by any means necessary.
They were triggered by Trump and Flynn's vision of the world.
This was the first all-hands staff meeting where they got to see Trump's national security team, and they were huffing and puffing through the briefing any time Flynn said something they didn't like about America first.
He said he also overheard Voldemort telling Misko, referring to Trump, we can't let him enact this foreign policy.
Alarmed by their conversation, the military staffer immediately reported what he heard to his superiors.
It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion, he recalled.
They weren't shouting it, but they didn't seem to feel the need to hide it.
The co-workers didn't think much more about the incident.
We just thought they were wacky, the first source said.
Little did we know.
Neither Voldemort nor Misko could be reached for comment.
A CIA alumnus, Misko, had previously assisted Biden's top national security aide, Jake Sullivan.
Former NSC staffer said Misko was Voldemort's closest and most trusted ally in the Trump White House.
Eric and Sean were very tight and spent nearly two years together at the NSC, said a former supervisor who requested anonymity.
Both of them were paranoid about Trump.
They were thick as thieves.
At the first NSC source, they sat next to each other and complained about Trump all the time.
They were buddies.
They weren't just colleagues.
They were buddies outside the White House.
So, look, I think we get the point.
This is a really long story that basically says all the same things.
There's a lot to go through here, and I'm already nearing 15 minutes.
So I'm jumping down to the next segment on Outside Help, and I will link this in the description below.
Actually, no, I can't link it.
I'm sorry.
If I link it, YouTube will delete the video.
You can find the story by going to RealClearInvestigations.com.
I'm not exaggerating, okay?
I'm being serious.
If I link this, if I say this guy's name, YouTube will delete this video.
So I'm doing the best I can to make sure you know what's going on.
After providing the outlines of his complaint to shift staff, the CIA analyst was referred to whistleblower attorney Andrew Bakaj by a mutual friend who is an attorney and expert in national security law.
A former CIA officer, Bakaj had worked with Voldemort at the spy agency.
They have even more in common.
Like the 33-year-old Voldemort and the 37-year-old Bakaj is a Connecticut native who has spent time in Ukraine.
He also contributed money to Biden's presidential campaign and once worked for former Senator Hillary Clinton.
He's also briefed the intelligence panel shift chairs.
Bakaj brought in another whistleblower lawyer, Mark Zaid, to help on the case.
A Democratic donor and politically active anti-Trump advocate, Zaid was willing to help represent the CIA analyst on January 30, 2017.
Around the same time, former colleagues say they overheard Voldemort and Misko conspiring to take Trump out.
Zaid tweeted that a coup had started and that impeachment will follow ultimately.
I'm going to stop here.
And move on from this.
The gist of the story you've heard, the most important part, is that other staffers, multiple staffers, according to real clear investigations, overheard Voldemort, I can't say his name, the CIA analyst, and Sean Misko, who then went to work for Schiff, overheard them talking about trying to remove Trump from office.
But I will, I will, I do have to mention one more thing before we wrap this up.
Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show.
Now, I do want to stress, Look, man, I'd love to believe what Real Clear Investigations is saying, but some of those quotes seem so poorly concocted.
Like, would someone really say that?
I mean, I'll tell you what.
Yeah, they might.
They might really say that.
It's possible.
But it is almost too good to be true.
I mean, if we had hard evidence, if this story is real, then we literally have...
Evidence of a conspiracy to subvert the presidency, the executive branch of the United States, by CIA officials.
That fits like so many conspiracy theories.
I'll keep you family friendly.
Wildest dreams.
Wildest dreams.
So I definitely take it with a grain of salt, man.
Look, they're using anonymous sources.
I don't know who these people are.
They're certified.
It's credible.
But still, you got to be very, very careful about this.
So I think we should look at it.
And I will tell you this.
If the Republicans see this, and they know, They absolutely need to subpoena, to dig, you know, find out who these people are.
They're not doing it.
Okay?
I know that they wanted to get Voldemort to testify.
Well, you're in the Senate trial right now.
Why not?
Why not bring him out?
You have the power to do so.
I don't know.
Don't ask me.
No idea.
But I will mention this one story in passing.
It's not the biggest story in the world.
But I think it does show that Schiff is playing games.
The story is actually simple.
Adam Schiff claimed that in a text message from Lev Parnas, Mr. Z referred to the president of Ukraine, Zelensky.
In reality, later texts reveal it was Lachevsky.
So I believe the fact is, and I could be wrong, but Schiff was absolutely incorrect in claiming Mr. Z, in the text messages, was talking about the president of Ukraine.
He was talking about Burisma.
And if that's the case, Politico is saying he may have mischaracterized it.
Maybe it was just an accident.
It's possible Mr. Z means something else, but it seems to me...
Adam Schiff, according to multiple stories, is not on the level.
He's absolutely not on the level.
I think most of you probably agree with me on this one.
It's probably why you're watching this video in the first place.
He's playing games.
He's using manipulative language.
He's doing whatever he can to try and get Trump impeached because he doesn't like the guy.
We know they've been working on it since Trump got elected.
They've tweeted about it.
Keep in mind, outside of any potential conspiracy theory or conspiracy, Mark Zaid, the lawyer for the whistleblower, for the actual whistleblower, not the one who is confirming the whistleblower, tweeted the coup had started and impeachment would follow.
We know they've been planning this.
So when I see Adam Schiff doing these things, I assume the worst.
He does not get the benefit of the doubt from me.
Let me wrap this up.
Assuming the story from RealClearPolitics is legit, They have literally just said they have uncovered a conspiracy between CIA analysts to subvert the President of the United States.
That sounds nuts.
But who am I to say, right?
They're certified as credible.
And if they have multiple sources on the record, RCI, you know, Real Clear Politics is, I believe, the parent.
They're a highly credible site.
So I don't know.
I don't want to tell you.
All I know is we've got to be very, very careful because if you end up latching onto this story and it turns out to be fake, it will absolutely destroy any opportunity you have to actually figure out what's going on.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
Be careful.
But if you want to see the rest of the story, go to RealClearInvestigations.com.
Stick around.
I got another... My next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all there.
Donald Trump has made Mexico racist and immoral, apparently, because Mexico is now enforcing its southern border, restricting access to illegal immigrants, and now officially deporting them back to Honduras.
When Donald Trump started enacting these policies, they said, you know, the wall is immoral, and, you know, Trump is racist, and what he's doing is wrong.
Even though these policies were being enacted under Obama, nobody seemed to bat an eye.
Then as soon as Trump inherits the problem, it's Trump's fault.
I find it quite hilarious.
Not that I'm excusing everything the Trump administration has done, because they have absolutely made it much more difficult to apply for asylum and seek immigration status in the U.S.
Immigration is down, according to I think the New York Times, around 70%.
Trump's getting what he wants.
The fact is, though, Obama was called the deporter-in-chief.
The more important fact is this story here.
Mexico begins flying and busing migrants back to Honduras.
I'm sorry.
If Mexico is enforcing its southern border in much the same way Donald Trump wants to enforce the U.S.
border, is Mexico now acting immorally?
It's actually a really brilliant plan.
I gotta hand it to Donald Trump.
Trump supporters probably rejoice everywhere as they recount the meme that Mexico is the wall.
If Mexico stops migrants at its southern border and deports them back to Central and South America, the U.S.
will not have to worry about it.
That, to me, is actually a really, really clever thing that was part of Trump's policy proposal, was that he went to Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and said, here's what I want you to do.
Alleviating the problem at its source.
And I will say this too, the US provides a lot of aid to these countries.
We need to figure out how to improve their countries.
What really bothers me about the whole like pro-open borders people is like, listen man, if there are serious gang problems in Guatemala, don't you wanna help Guatemala?
Why is your answer, let the gangs run free and then have the people flee thousands of miles through dangerous deserts and they lose their lives?
What really bothers me about this like, remember that dad and a daughter who didn't make it?
That horrifying photo, showing him face down.
I'm like, you know, you realize it's because they embarked on this extremely dangerous journey.
There's literally nothing we can do to stop that.
You understand this, right?
It blows my mind.
Listen.
Even if we let them in the border, they're still going on dangerous journeys through the wilderness and the desert, and they're not going to make it.
If you want to save their lives, we need to figure out how to improve their home countries.
It's not about telling them we don't want them here.
It's not about saying, I refuse to help.
It's about literally saying, how can we help the most?
Man, it's so annoying.
When that photo came out, I'm like, dude, you realize these people go on these journeys regardless of whether or not they make it through the border at all, right?
So the question is what?
If they cross into the 90 square miles of desert New Mexico, we're supposed to just be like, okay, let them do their thing.
More people would lose their lives.
Well, anyway, the actual story, let me read it, otherwise get angry about the hypocrisy.
The bigger issue here is Mexico is now actively taking a harsher stance.
And there's another story I covered a few weeks ago.
The Trump administration will begin deporting asylum seekers from Mexico to Guatemala.
I love how BuzzFeed frames the story.
Asylum seekers.
Okay.
Do you mean to say the U.S.
is going to deport people who are not granted asylum?
You know, they're going to deport them back to their countries?
Actually, oh no, no, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm wrong, I'm wrong.
This story is actually really interesting because the argument is, if you are from Mexico and you need asylum, Trump's administration is basically saying, Guatemala should be safe for you, we'll send you there.
Interesting argument.
What's your argument against that?
If they need to go to a safe country, what's wrong with Guatemala?
Now, ultimately, here's what I think, and we'll read this story.
I think if we're sending aid to these countries, we need to make sure the aid is being put to good use.
We need to figure out how to improve the conditions of those countries and help them become prosperous and successful and weed out the violence that's causing people to flee.
Not just be like, like, you know what, man?
You think about what the argument from the left is.
It's basically, we'll let you win if you can survive the 3,000-mile journey, like it's a game show or something.
No, no, no, no, no.
You should stay in your country, and we should be working with your government to fix those problems to make you safe.
The problem is we've tried, it hasn't worked.
But the solution is certainly not, go on, make that 3,000-mile journey through the wilderness and see if you make it.
You'll win a grand stay in America.
No, no thank you.
They say, Hundreds of Central American migrants who waded across a river into Mexico in hopes of eventually reaching the U.S.
were sent back to their homeland or retreated across the border Tuesday after Mexican troops blocked their way.
Fewer than 100 remained in the no man's land along the river between Guatemala and Mexico.
The caravan of thousands had set out from Honduras last week in hopes Mexico would grant them passage, posing a fresh test for President Donald Trump's effort to reduce the flow of migrants arriving at the U.S.
border by pressuring other governments to stop them.
I will point this out.
My initial segment, I think it was two days ago, was that they tried to breach the border and they failed.
That's what happened at first.
So they stormed the border, the police stopped them.
Pepper spray, push them back.
That's what my first video was, but just an hour or two hours before the video actually went live, because I produced them in the morning...
They actually stormed the river, and many of them made it in, but Mexico said, we're not going to allow this.
And now we're seeing the follow-up to that.
Mexico will start deporting these people back to their home countries, effectively making it so that the U.S.
won't have to deal with it at all.
That's kind of amazing, I got to admit.
They say Mexican Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard said 2,400 of the migrants entered Mexico legally over the weekend.
About 1,000 of them requested Mexico's help in returning to their countries.
Whoa, really?
The rest were being held in immigration centers while they start legal processes that would allow them to seek refuge in Mexico or obtain temporary work permits that would confine them to southern Mexico.
An additional 1,000 had tried to enter illegally Monday, he said, and hundreds of them were apparently detained by Mexican National Guardsmen and immigration agents.
Immigration officials estimated Monday night that 500 had evaded capture by security forces.
So hey, it's not perfect.
Ebrard said Mexico already has begun deporting some back to Honduras, putting 110 on a flight to San Pedro Sula and sending 144 back by bus.
Honduran Deputy Foreign Minister Nelly Jerez said Mexico expected to deport 500 Hondurans a day on buses from Wednesday through Friday.
Most of the hundreds, stranded in the no-man's land on the Mexican side of the river, returned to Guatemala overnight in search of water, food, and a place to sleep.
Mexican authorities distributed no water or food to those who entered illegally, in what appeared to be an attempt by the government to wear out the migrants.
Alejandro Rendon, head of Mexico's Federal Social Welfare Department, said his colleagues were distributing water to those who turned themselves in or were caught by immigration agents, but were not doing the same along the river because it was not safe for workers to do so.
It isn't prudent to come here because we can't put the safety of the colleagues at risk.
Mexico President André Manuel López Obrador said Tuesday that the government is trying to protect the migrants from harm by preventing them from traveling illegally through the country.
He said they need to respect Mexican laws.
Quote, if we don't take care of them, if we don't know who they are, if we don't have a register, they pass and get to the north and the criminal gangs grab them and assault them because that's how it was before.
They disappeared them.
Heavens.
It sounds like Mexico is saying something similar to what Donald Trump has said about the dangers of these journeys and the threats of not coming in legally.
I don't know what the argument's gonna be, but if you got one left, I'd love for the left to argue why Mexico is immoral or racist for stopping these people from going on extremely dangerous journeys where they'll be abused, exploited, and possibly lose their lives.
Now, I know the argument is, but back home it's even more dangerous.
I'm gonna have to argue against that under one simple fact that PBS is reporting They requested to go home.
If your choice was uncertainty in the wilderness or go home, and you choose to go home, I'd have to imagine going home is a safer bet than uncertainty in the wilderness, right?
They say, on the Guatemalan side Tuesday, migrants lined up at a shelter for a breakfast of plantains.
Plantains are awesome, by the way.
Like, you know what's really great?
You know what I love about South and Central America and the Caribbean is fried plantains.
Amazing.
I love those things.
Beans and coffee.
Some asked for dry clothing to replace what was soaked or lost in their dash into Mexico.
Others passed the time playing soccer, and cards besides the river, as they tried to figure out what to do next.
Darlin' Rene Romero, 25, and his wife were among the few who spent the night pinned between the river and the Mexican authorities.
Rumors had circulated through the night that anything could happen, that being there was very dangerous, Romero said.
But the couple from Copan, Honduras spread a blanket on the ground and passed through the night 20 yards in the line of National Guard troops forming a wall with their riot shields.
They remained confident that Mexico would allow them to pass through and were trying to make it to the northern Mexican city of Monterrey, where his sister lives.
They said a return home to the impoverished and gang-plagued Honduras, where most of the migrants are from, was unthinkable.
We are in no man's land, said Alan Mejia.
whose two-year-old son was cradled in his arms, clad only in a diaper, and his wife, Ingrid Vanessa Portillo, and their other son, 12, gazed at the riverbank Monday night.
Mejira joined in five previous migrant caravans, but never made it farther than the Mexican border city of Tijuana.
They are planning how to clear us out.
And here we are without water or food, said a desperate Portillo.
There is no more hope for going forward.
You know what, man?
A lot of people might sympathize with this guy and say, you know, he's got his two-year-old kid with him.
I am shocked that this man would bring his two-year-old with him on such a dangerous journey.
I don't know, man.
Look, I understand that it's dangerous where he comes from, and if the only choice is to flee, then so be it.
But did you see what it said?
About how he tried several times?
What does it say?
That he, uh... He never made it further than the Mexican border.
Let's see, we're in Oman's land.
Twelve days... He joined five previous caravans.
Five caravans!
He goes back every time.
It doesn't seem like it's that bad.
Or maybe it's so bad he's leaving.
I don't know.
I'll tell you what.
I'm worried about these kids.
I'm worried about the conditions in his home country.
What would cause someone to take such a dangerous trek, risking the lives of their 2 and 12-year-old?
I honestly don't know, but I know how bad it is in Honduras.
I think the solution is not to encourage these people to take five different journeys through the wilderness, but to fix the problems at home.
Make their lives better where they live.
I don't understand how the left could argue against that.
Like, you know what I mean?
But I'll leave it there, I guess.
Keep this one short, stick it around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
So, apparently there's this cop who just recently discovered his family is mixed-race.
I can sympathize with this fellow.
For I, as many of you may not know, come from a mixed-race family.
Now, but in all seriousness, this story is funny.
I believe this guy may be claiming to be black.
He's white.
Because he probably will get a promotion under certain affirmative action laws, and I think this is what you get, and this is one of the things we warn about, but I'll tell you this.
Just because some people exploit the law doesn't mean the law is bad.
I think a lot of affirmative action policy is bad for a variety of reasons, but whether or not someone will exploit the law, I don't think it's a really good argument.
People break the law all the time, you know?
But it seems like we got a story now, far be it from me, to impugn the honor and integrity of this law enforcement official.
I just happen to think he's not really black and he wants a promotion, but it's not my place to accuse him of anything.
I think it's entirely fair to say, based on the current climate of this country, if he found out he had ancestry that was in fact black, by the rules set forth in the tenets of social justice, then he's allowed to assert his identity.
So who am I to say he can't?
Miami Cop, who identified as white as a rookie, and has a history of racist complaints, admits changing his race to black when trying for promotion because he learned people in his family are mixed.
Well, you can't accuse the guy of lying, right?
Prove it.
Someone even mentioned, like, can we get a DNA test or something like that?
It's like, no.
No, you can't.
That's not how this works.
But this is the guy in question, apparently, Officer Javier Ortiz, former president of the Fraternal Order of Police in Miami from 2011 to 2017, claimed to be a white Hispanic man when he first applied.
They say.
Well, actually, I'll put it this way.
If he's Hispanic, then there already are some, like, quota benefits or affirmative action.
So I don't know what his motivation would be, other than... telling the truth, I guess?
They say a Hispanic police captain, who first identified himself as white when applying for the Miami-Dade Department, has claimed he is black, using a Jim Crow-era racial tactic, a move the local NAACP chapter is calling downright disturbing.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Nah, nah, nah, nah.
You can't call it disturbing.
Uh, but actually, I'll tell you this.
If the NAACP condemned Shaun King, okay, or Rachel Dolezal, okay.
They probably condemned Dolezal.
But let me tell you something.
Shaun King, by all outward appearances, is a white man.
I'm not saying he is, I'm not trying to disrespect the guy, or impugn his honor, either.
I'm simply stating, Shaun King's defense, when pointed out that his skin is actually- You know Shaun King's got whiter skin than I do?
I'm not even kidding.
When it was pointed out that his skin is white, he said that his mother cheated on his dad.
Basically, he played the same card of someone, you know, like my real dad is actually a light-skinned black man.
I mean, he's been called out a lot by people in the black community, but I'm not gonna play any of these games, okay?
Because these games are all traps.
There's literally no successful way to argue whether someone is or isn't a certain race, so I just say, you know what, man?
You go for it.
The rules about identity are as thus, and you can claim you're whatever you are.
How could they condemn this guy while simultaneously saying Sean King's legitimate?
They both are in the exact same position.
At least Rachel Dolezal claims to be transracial.
They say, Officer Javier Ortiz, former president, we read that.
He said he was Hispanic.
Ortiz, who has long documented history of racist incidents, claimed in a 2014 lieutenant and 2017 captain's application that he was of black and African-American non-Hispanic descent.
The Miami Community Police Benevolent Association, a union for black police officers, demanded that Ortiz be punished for the move and called for Chief George Colina to step down for a series of grievances against black officers, the Miami New Times reports.
A string of complaints have been issued against Ortiz, who is currently under investigation for having worked more off-duty hours than what is allowed under city policy.
So here's him in uniform, I guess.
I mean, I'll tell you this.
If that guy walked up to you in uniform, or otherwise, you're like, that dude's white, right?
But hey, listen.
If you want to make the rules that anybody can identify however they want, then I don't see how you can blame this guy.
You know, like, what if he actually grew up with a great-grandma, you know, who was one-twenty-two... What if he's one-two-thousand-twenty... one-one-thousand-twenty-fourth black?
You get the joke I'm trying to make.
They say, Ortiz has faced countless lawsuits from people claiming he falsely arrested them.
He notably falsely arrested NFL players Jonathan Vilma in 2009, and New York Jets' Robbie Anderson in 2017.
The officer has repeatedly defended the police killings of unarmed black men, and even started a We Support Darren Wilson Facebook page referring to the cop who shot and killed Michael Brown in Ferguson in 2014.
I think it's fair to say, based on his political leanings, and assuming this reporting is true, I think he's asserting his identity to make an example of this system.
If you have a system, like, I can't remember what your university, I think Yale now is doing it, I don't know.
But I know Brown, there was a story about it.
The university said you can identify as a minority if you so choose.
Well, why would a white person choose to disadvantage themselves?
Why wouldn't they say, okay, I guess I'm, you know, Hispanic, or black, or Asian, or whichever one gets me in the school, or gets me a promotion, or gets me more money?
They would.
Would everybody?
Probably not.
But how many people are going to willfully accept poverty and loss?
Not many.
So if you've got somebody who grew up, who's white, who grew up poor, and is struggling to get into an Ivy League school, why should they be kicked out simply because of the assumption of their, you know, about their privilege or race?
I think you'll then see them say, oh, I'm actually this.
I'll tell you what, when I was younger, I was told over and over again never to say I was Asian, not to put that down.
And that's what's truly scary about the left's version of anti-racism.
It's actually racist.
Because of their policies, because they view, you know, right now, even among the intersectional left, Asians are considered essentially white because of their privilege and their class and the money they make and all that stuff.
So it was like, oh, don't let anyone know.
Because then they'll hold it against you.
You might as well say you're Hispanic.
That's what I was told.
I was told that if I put down, don't put that I was mixed or anything like that, don't specify or claim something else, otherwise they will hold it against me.
Because as we've seen with Harvard, you know, discriminating against Asians and the intersectional left, It is absolutely acceptable in this country to mock Asian people, to belittle them, and discriminate against them.
I mean, I think they lost the Harvard lawsuit, like the people fighting for Asians to get better representation.
The school is allowed to discriminate based on your race.
To me, that is shockingly racist.
I'll put it this way.
If you think affirmative action is okay, like what— I say affirmative action, but it's, you know, Harvard's policy was unique to their private institution.
But they were basically saying that Asians needed to score higher to get in because there were too many.
Great.
You see that Asian kid who was born in America, whose parents were born in America?
I want you to look him in the eyes and say, because you look too much like those people, we're not going to let you go to school here.
That's essentially what you're saying.
Otherwise, you're a racist who believes that Asian people have inherent qualities and traits.
Like, you know what, man?
But therein lies the big problem.
These policies, there's no real solution to it other than general meritocracy and alleviating poverty.
Let's read a little bit more.
They say...
Ortiz tried to get cops to boycott Beyonce's shows after she used Black Panther imagery in her Super Bowl halftime show performance in 2016.
In 2017, Ortiz was suspended with pay for doxing a police critic online.
On Friday, Ortiz addressed the complaint and used the one-drop policy to try to argue his defense of being Black.
It was a policy used in the South during the Jim Crow era that classified a person as black even if a small percentage of their ancestry is African American.
He said, well I'm not gonna read it, he said he was a black male, yes I am, I am not Hispanic, that's how I feel, Ortiz said at the city hall meeting in Miami.
Commissioner Keon Hardiman, the sole black commissioner of the city, asked Ortiz what he put on his application when he first started with the department.
I don't see how that's relevant.
I think I put white male, he said.
I know I put white male, but I don't know if I put Hispanic.
When asked to clarify when he had a coming-to-God moment of learning he was black, Ortiz responds that he recently learned that there are people who are mixed and that are black in his family.
Ortiz was using the one-drop rule.
They already said that.
The NAACP in Miami took to their Instagram on Saturday to condemn Ortiz's remarks.
They said, This is a video of an active City of Miami cop at a commission meeting, where the topic of discussion is on racial equity within the police department.
His comments are disturbing, and in the manner of how he used them, downright disturbing to say the least.
Ortiz took to his Twitter to blast reports of his controversial statements.
People love making stereotypes, he said.
It's actually refreshing to be who you are, like an American.
He tweeted, this isn't news.
Oh, hey, same thing.
Okay, that's basically the story.
Well, you know what, man?
I really don't see what their legal argument will be for the most part.
Is he gonna go to court and they're gonna look him in the face and say, you do not appear to be black, therefore we are going to hold it against you.
The challenge then is, as I stated with a bunch of these laws, at what point does the judge have a sole discretion to determine whether or not you're gay, straight, trans, a woman, a man?
If a man and a woman can look however they want, If a man can dress in drag but still be a man, or also be a woman, like, I'm being serious, we don't know what that delineation is, it's just whenever, the delineation is when someone says they are, at what point does a judge have the right to say, no, I determine you are not really this identity?
In which case, these protections and these laws fall apart if a white person can just say they are whatever identity they want, dress however they want, look however they want, and get all of the protections afforded that were supposed to be afforded by marginalized peoples.
So, far be it from me, again, to impugn the honor of this here police officer, if he feels this way, then by the own rules created by the intersectional left that are being implemented, I don't see an argument against him.
If his family really has his ancestry, you can't compel him to take a DNA test.
Sorry, give the guy the promotion.
I don't know what else you want me to do, but I'll tell you what.
You go take it up with Sean King, and have him do a DNA test.
I don't see how you can tell this guy he's gotta do that, or you don't trust him, but you're gonna go trust Sean King.
And I'm not trying to slam or smear either of them, I'm saying, Sean King gets a pass, why wouldn't this guy?
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment's coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
From the post-millennial, biological male who broke a woman's skull named, quote, bravest athlete in history.
Of course, they are referring to MMA fighter Fallon Fox, who they say twice broke an opponent's skull to win a match.
Has been called the bravest athlete in history.
Fox, a male-to-female transgender athlete, destroyed Erika Newsom in Coral Gables, Florida, a MMA fight during which she secured a grip on Newsom's head with her hands gripping the back of Newsom's skull.
She delivered a massive knee, bringing her leg up while putting her opponent's head down.
The blow landed on Newsom's chin and dropped her, unconscious, face-first on the mat.
That was Newsom's last pro fight.
This tweet here says, I'm gonna stop right now, and I'm just gonna say it.
Fallon Fox, who then identified as a woman and became an MMA women's fighter, during
which time they fractured an opponent's skull as the bravest athlete in history.
I'm going to stop right now, and I'm just going to say it.
Fallon Fox should absolutely be allowed to fight against biological females, so long
as everyone knows and chooses to engage in this sport.
I see this article, and I'm a little bit on the other side of it, but I do ultimately
agree with Post Millennial, mainly because it seems the people that Fallon Fox fought
against were unaware they were going to be fighting a transgender woman.
Whether or not anybody wants to claim otherwise, the science tends to show, at least my understanding as of now, and science changes, that biological males, of course, for obvious reasons, have advantages in physical activity, but it's more than that.
It's that a lot of people are saying with puberty blockers and transition, now it's fair.
Not true.
Pre-natal testosterone plays a huge role in fast twitch muscle development and other factors.
So regardless of whether or not Fallon Fox transitioned before or after puberty, it's moot.
It's pointless.
But the other issue is that Fallon Fox transitioned after puberty anyway.
And as Joe Rogan put it, has more grip, bigger grip, bigger hands, bigger joints, more striking power, broader shoulders, narrower hips, all of those things will confer a massive advantage in a physical fight.
The main point I want to drive home with this as we read this is that a lot of the stories I see about fights between transgender individuals or like sports is that When it comes to, like, fighting, you know, the Postmillennial article really does drag Fallon Fox for beating up women, they say.
But if those women knew and chose, I see no problem.
I see no problem.
But it does seem, and this is the point, it does seem that no one knew Fallon Fox was trans, and so you actually had a biological male getting in the ring and beating up biological females who had no idea.
And that's why they were shocked to find that amount of power.
But the main point I want to drive here, and we'll read more, Is that, in any circumstance, if a biological female chose to... If Ronda Rousey chose to fight Conor McGregor, I'd be like, yeah, go for it.
I think Conor McGregor would wipe the floor with her, you know, for sure.
But I think she's allowed to make that choice.
Conor would probably say, no, I don't know.
You know, maybe he would do it.
It would be a huge fight.
But it would be over very, very quickly, in my opinion.
Fallon Fox has one lost match.
Fallon Fox has lost one match.
Not one lost match.
Fallon Fox has lost a match due to, my understanding is what Joe Rogan was saying, grappling.
A submission.
Which, you know.
But Fallon Fox apparently has incredible striking power.
So let's read more, and I'll get to this point.
My main point, to say for the third time now, is liberty.
Freedom.
Consenting adults can do what they want to do.
If they get injured, they chose to do it.
Mutual comment, they say, To out sports a male-bodied person beating a female-bodied
person unconscious constitutes bravery.
Not only has Fox beat up women in the ring, won every match but one,
but has weathered online attacks from the likes of Joe Rogan.
I think we can all agree that getting back online after Joe Rogan has knocked you down
is far braver than facing another male-bodied of your own muscle mass and size in a fight.
Fox also beat Tamika Brents, giving her a concussion and breaking seven orbital bones.
But that's super brave too, taking an unfair male-bodied advantage and using it to give female-bodied opponents brain injuries.
Alright, here's the thing.
I think it's fair to say Fallon Fox is brave.
If it's true, and it seems to be, that Fallon Fox did not inform other people that she in fact was trans, I do not consider that brave at all.
I do think it's fair to say that if you're someone who is LGBTQ, and you decide to come out and express yourself, that does take bravery.
I mean, there's social stigmas around that, and I can't imagine it would be an easy thing to do.
I much respect people who want to live to their fullest.
You know, I'll tell you this too, man.
I know so many weak, pathetic people.
It breaks my heart.
They won't go out for the job they want.
They won't try to do the new project they want.
You got people who say, I really wish I was a great skateboarder.
I'm like, go out and skate!
Take the risks!
Drop in!
They're too scared.
They won't do it.
But there are a lot of people who say, I feel this in my, you know, in my inner being.
And I gotta say, even someone like Rachel Dolezal, who insists that she's transracial, hey man, it takes a lot of guts to come out and say that because you're gonna get stigmatized.
So I can respect that you are choosing, you know, to come out and put yourself in this position.
But I gotta say, while I can respect that type of bravery, living to your fullest regardless of the social consequences, they say that Fallon Fox was outed, not by choice, which means Fallon Fox was fighting women who didn't know.
That's not cool.
Let's read more.
Vice defended Fox saying a bunch of dumb things I'm not gonna read.
Quote, I've fought a lot of women in my life.
I've fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night, Brent said, recounting her experience fighting Fox.
I can't answer whether it's because she was born a man or not because I'm not a doctor.
I can only say, I've never felt so overpowered in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.
I still disagree with Fox fighting.
Any other job or career, I say have a go at it.
But when it comes to combat sport, I think it just isn't fair.
Weiss said this was just whining.
Weiss is nuts.
Remember when Weiss was like the bad boy of media and now it's just the crony establishment garbage?
And I worked there, that's coming from me.
There has been much debate over what makes a woman.
Since the early poets all the way up to Weiss Magazine.
Whatever.
This is just post-millennial, this is nonsense.
Thanks to the trans movement, we can get back to the original notion that to be a woman is to possess a special kind of soul that makes you want to be oppressed, beaten, bloodied, and cared for.
Ah, progress.
I don't know what that means either.
There is no consensus among sporting organizations as to what gives a man enough of a disadvantage to compete against a woman.
The International Olympic Committee says a male needs to suppress testosterone to be at or below 10 nanomules per liter of blood.
For a period of one year prior to a competition.
Females who take testosterone would need years of hormones to get up to that.
Right.
Like the average woman I think has like a 2.
And a lot of these trans women have a 7.
So they're still getting a massive advantage.
Which should be noted.
They say, muscle mass does not substantially decrease with hormone treatment.
Eradication of genitals did not diminish bone density.
There are no cohesive federal laws in the U.S.
to determine what makes a male eligible to compete against a woman.
And while males have won women's championships, female-bodied athletes have not risen to the upper levels of male competition.
And it will never happen.
Sorry, it won't.
Speaking to Outsports, Fox says, My teammates had no idea I was trans.
They recognized my endurance, my strength, my ability to cut weight in the same category as cisgender women.
There was no idea in their minds that I didn't belong.
They weren't thinking, oh my god, she's going to kill somebody.
That Fox can pass as a woman doesn't negate her male advantages, nothing can.
It actually shows this was wrong.
If her teammates didn't know that she was trans and she was beating these women up, not cool at all.
Informed consent all the way.
If you're going to engage in any kind of professional relationship, people have a right to know certain things within the confines of that relationship.
Okay?
If we're going to be working together, I don't care if you have a hysterectomy, if you have a mastectomy, if you're trans, if you're gay, that doesn't matter.
If we're in a relationship and being intimate, it does matter.
If we're going to make physical contact in a fight or a sports competition, it does matter.
If a biological female wants to play one-on-one hoops with a biological male, Go for it, man!
If she wants to compete in that way, I don't care.
But to position someone's professional career as a sportsman, as a fighter, not knowing you're being put in the ring with a biological male and you get bones fractured?
That's a way step over the line, man.
Fox was outed against her will, which led to her induction into the LGBT Sports Hall of Fame.
This is where Fox's bravery came into play.
When the UFC and MMA promoters like Invicta declined to let her compete against women, Fox determined to keep beating up women anyway.
Time will tell if MMA gives her another chance.
Now I understand the post-millennial is like a rather opinionated outlet.
I think, uh, I think you guys could do a little better because some of these, some of these overly verbose paragraphs with, like, defining what a woman is as, like, a wily charm thing.
It's like, nah, we don't need none of that.
We don't need none of that.
But you know what?
By all means, have your opinion, state it the way you want.
I, I happen to be a, uh, the, the rare lefty libertarian type.
Now, of course, the, the, the authoritarian communist people try to claim they're lefty libertarian.
They're not.
Let me explain something very simply.
I believe if you're a transgender woman, biologically male, wanting to fight a biological female, so long as everyone involved agrees and understands what they're getting into, you do it.
Because that's freedom.
You choose.
If the woman says, I know, and I want to do this, awesome.
I have seen fights between men and women.
Like, there was one woman, an MMA fighter, who, like, some guy challenged her, and then she said, I'll do it, and then the guy backed out, and then she eventually found someone who was willing to do it, and I'm like, cool, man.
Whatever, man.
Contending adults can do their thing.
So, to put it simply, just a really quick little wrap-up to explain what it means to be a lefty libertarian.
I don't care if you want to walk around dressed as a clown, you know, juggling bananas.
Just don't start throwing those bananas at people.
So, there's a very much so, like, not traditional... It's progressive, right?
I don't believe in, for the most part, like, a requirement to be traditional, to hold certain family values or anything.
If you're trans, like, more power to you, much respect for you living your true self.
But I don't believe in authoritarianism.
I believe you have a right to inform people in situations like this.
And for the most part, the easiest way to explain lefty libertarian, if anyone claims they're a center-left libertarian or a lefty libertarian, and they explain it in any way other than hippies living on a farm, they're not telling you the truth.
We saw that video from Veritas where the guy's like, I'm a left libertarian, but he's a total statist communist authoritarian.
Sorry, dude.
Left libertarians are the people who, like, live on a farm, grow watermelon, and then share it with each other.
They're not the ones going around demanding violent action against other people.
People who believe in freedom and liberty don't believe in using violence against other people.
