Woke Leftists Go INSANE Over Bernie Campaign Ad Featuring Joe Rogan, Slam Rogan As Far Right
Woke Leftists Go INSANE Over Bernie Campaign Ad Featuring Joe Rogan, Slam Rogan As Far Right. On a recent podcast Joe Rogan passively mentioned he was thinning about voting for Bernie Sanders.The Sanders campaign then took the clip and ran it as a campaign ad promoting Bernie and this sparked massive outrage among woke leftists.While many on the left were quick to praise Rogan's comments, the woke twitterati were furious that Bernie would promote Joe Rogan who they claim is far right and whatever else blah blah they say about everyone.Bernie Supporters and Democrats seem to want to lose to Trump if this is the case. Joe Rogan is wildly popular and his support would do great things for a campaign. But here we can see many on the left would rather lose to Trump then accept a coalition of people they disagree withIdeological purity of the woke far left will ensure theyr sound defeat later this year.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Joe Rogan is being torn up by woke far leftists who are outraged that Bernie Sanders used a recent clip of Joe Rogan explaining why he liked Bernie for a campaign ad.
There is so much to break down here.
I got a million and one tweets from verified blue check woke leftists screeching about how Joe Rogan is a white nationalist and alt-right and platform's bigots and all this insane nonsense.
But then there are also some leftists, Bernie supporters, who are very, very excited that Joe Rogan basically had good words to say about Bernie Sanders.
I'm also going to drag Bernie Sanders.
This all started because Joe Rogan on his podcast, an off-the-cuff comment about how he was thinking about Bernie Sanders and might vote for him.
It wasn't an official endorsement.
Joe Rogan didn't announce a press conference.
He was just having a conversation like he normally does and he passively mentioned he was thinking about voting for Bernie.
Quite literally saying, I think I'll probably vote for Bernie.
So here's my drag of Bernie Sanders.
Bernie then turned it into a commercial and even removed Tulsi Gabbard's name from the clip.
Where Rogan was actually, he mentioned that he liked Tulsi too.
So here's what ends up happening.
Bernie Sanders sees an opportunity to say that Joe Rogan is, like, praising him, turns it into a campaign ad, because, I mean, it's technically true, but it's kind of taking advantage of Joe in a certain sense, and now all these woke lefties who hate Joe are outraged because Joe is apparently in their deluded minds alt-right.
And now you have Joe Rogan trending number one on Twitter, It's actually an old image, so by now, if you go on Twitter, it's probably even more.
But Joe Rogan's number one in the United States, and as of right now, it's over 100,000 tweets talking about Joe Rogan, who has literally nothing to do with this controversy.
Let me stress this one more time for you.
Joe Rogan, chilling with his good buddy Barry Weiss, having a conversation, and in a span of about 20 seconds, he's like, I think I'll vote for Bernie, you know?
He's been really consistent.
That says a lot, you know?
Anyway, you ever try DMT?
And then all of a sudden—I'm joking about the DMT thing—all of a sudden, the Bernie Sanders campaign takes it, runs with it, and everyone's now calling Joe Rogan every name in the book.
They're insulting him.
It is—I kid you not.
When this story first broke, I was actually sitting here like, you know, I don't think it's that big of a story.
I mean, some people are criticizing Joe, but the Bernie supporters on the left are happy about it, you know, and Trump supporters are like, oh, that's unfortunate he's voting for Bernie, but we like Joe anyway, because they tend to be more calm.
And then I started seeing these blue checkies.
You know, you got people like Carlos Maza of Vox calling Joe Rogan weird things that just like, I'm like, this is nuts.
So I got to go through these tweets.
All right, so let's do this.
There's a story from Newsweek about this because apparently this has become a serious controversy.
And yeah, Joe Rogan trending number one.
There's a lot we gotta talk about.
I do wanna throw shade at Bernie Sanders, so we're gonna get to that.
I know, Bernie, people, calm down.
I just think it's not cool that Bernie Sanders took Joe and used it as a campaign ad.
I don't like that.
Right?
I'll explain this in a second, but trust me, I've got a good point to make.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
Maybe you think I have a good perspective on things, and if you do, sharing this really, really helps.
YouTube clearly doesn't like me and many other political commentators, so they've been, you know, changing the algorithm to hurt us.
If you share this video, you basically shut down any attempt by them to shut us down.
So, let's read the story from Newsweek.
They say...
Bernie Sanders' use of Joe Rogan endorsement sparks debate.
The campaign didn't need to amplify it, says the quote.
They say, Comedian Rogan said on his highly successful podcast that he would probably vote for the independent Vermont senator in the Democratic Party's 2020 primary race, in which Sanders is a front-running candidate and by some polls now the front-runner.
I added that part, but it's true.
The Joe Rogan Experience YouTube channel alone has 7.28 million subscribers, and the podcast is downloaded tens of millions of times every month.
Rogan is a popular but controversial figure.
No, he's not, but we'll come back to that.
He is outspoken in his views and does not self-censor, and his choice of guests sometimes reflects this no-holds-barred style.
I want to stop here and talk about why Joe Rogan is, in fact, not controversial.
You can't just take random criticism from Twitter users and claim that sparks controversy.
Joe Rogan has the most successful podcast in the world.
I think that classifies as mainstream and popular, not controversial.
I'll give you an example.
You go on Reddit.
You have the hot tab, the new tab, and the controversial tab.
Controversial is when people on different sides of an issue are complaining or arguing over whether or not this is good or bad, or worthy or unworthy.
Joe Rogan is widely acclaimed by many people.
Just because a few crazy far leftists on Twitter want to insult Rogan does not make him controversial.
And it's insane that literally everyone now is controversial.
What does that even mean?
Well, let's read.
They say, this approach has earned him many fans as well as critics.
Yes, he's got the most successful podcast in the world and a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who listen to him are critics.
Please.
They say on Thursday, the Sanders campaign tweeted a video clip of Rogan giving his endorsement on the podcast with commentator Barry Weiss a few days ago.
He said, I think I'll probably vote for Bernie.
You saw the tweet.
Look, you could dig up dirt on every single human being that's ever existed.
If you catch them in their worst moment, and you magnify those moments, and you cut out everything else, and you only display the worst moments.
That said, you can't find very much with Bernie.
He's been insanely consistent his entire life.
He's basically been saying the same thing, been for the same thing his whole life, and that, in and of itself, is a very powerful structure to operate from.
I'm not going to drag Joe for this because Joe made an off-the-cuff comment.
We all make off-the-cuff comments.
I've got comments every day where I'm like, oh, you know, I think about that.
I probably disagree with that, right?
I will say, on the surface, I disagree with Joe on this one.
I think Bernie has recently changed a lot of his positions.
BuzzFeed News wrote an article about how Bernie's positions have changed a whole lot when it comes to immigration.
So while Bernie has been pretty consistent relative to many other people, it's not perfect.
And that line of thinking that Joe has, I used to have four years ago.
And as Bernie has progressed through the primaries and his expanding political career, I've seen him become a flip-flopper.
He's apologizing to Biden.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no.
I disagree with Joe on this one.
However, I think it's unfair to even bring this up.
I would never do a segment where I'm like, Joe is wrong about Bernie.
Why?
Because it was just a passive comment, right?
Joe might read an article tomorrow and be like, oh, I don't think that anymore.
He didn't come out, he didn't have like a signed statement, notarized, where he's like, the Joe Rogan experience hereby endorses, but they're using it, and the crazy thing about this is that they are dragging Bernie for this, but they're going after Joe as if Joe did something, like, he didn't, he's minding his own business, man.
We'll come to this, I really want to talk about the Joe Rogan podcast too, so stick around, because I got a lot to say about people and, you know, I'll put it this way, man, everybody wants a piece of the pie.
They want what Joe's got, people need to calm down, mind their own business.
They say, the campaign's decision to cut a video of Rogan's endorsement and use it divided Sanders supporters.
Did it really?
Quote, I really like Bernie and I'm disappointed to see the campaign boost Rogan, who has made some very anti-trans comments.
I really hope the campaign reconsiders, wrote activist Alexis Goldstein on Twitter, responding to the video posted by Sanders.
Alright.
They got a bunch of criticism here.
I want to show you the actual tweets.
I hope I don't get in trouble on YouTube because these tweets are nuts, okay?
But I'm gonna show you them.
Here we have, uh, first, I think I've got some people being, like, sane.
Colin Moriarty says, Yeah, and then people pull up Joe Rogan's tweets and try and drag him.
They can't even accept kind words from Joe Rogan, one of the nicest men on the planet.
Yeah, and then people pull up Joe Rogan's tweets and try and drag him.
It doesn't negate Collins' point.
We have this one.
Bernie and Warren are both good.
Joe Rogan is a transphobic bigot who shills for quackery and cuddles up to dangerous racists.
Appearing on his show is bad, but understandable.
Publicizing his endorsement is indefensible.
First of all, Joe never endorsed Bernie.
It's insane to me that Joe's probably, like, sitting in a room with his feet up, like, sipping on a beer or smoothie, I don't know what he drinks, chilling, minding his own business, and all of a sudden he's trending nationally because Bernie decided to take his campaign, take his podcast, and turn it into an ad.
I think that's not cool.
Listen, let me stop right now and make a point.
I've made some political donations, but I have said to those people, are you okay with me donating?
Like, before I do anything, I want to make sure, because I know that people will try and exploit the fact that I have or haven't, you know, I would actively support you.
And I make sure that's cool.
Bernie should have asked Joe.
Bernie should have said, hey, I really appreciate what you said about me.
Would you mind if I put those clips in a commercial?
Because you gotta be, you gotta be real, man.
You know, if you took every single, it's literally what Joe Rogan was saying.
That everyone, you can dig up what anyone has ever said and use it against them.
Now, he said, Bernie doesn't have a lot of those, but let's be real, it's not about context.
They took an off-the-cuff comment that Joe passively made without thinking about it, most likely, he probably was like, yeah, you know, I was thinking about this, and they turned it into a campaign endorsement, right?
They can take anything from you, but let's take a look at some of the insanity on Twitter.
Here's one.
Seconded.
Rogan can vote for whomever he wants, but I don't think the Bernie campaign should be touting a transphobic creep who gives platforms to Nazis.
That's insane.
He doesn't.
Here's this one.
This one's amazing.
Oh, here we go.
Sadie Doyle.
Blue checkmark of Twitter says, Joe Rogan also had friendly interviews with Milo Yiannopoulos and Jordan Peterson.
Oh no!
Yelled, you're an effing man on air about a trans woman, vocally argued against allowing trans kids puberty blockers this year, says, I can't repeat that word, and believes the world is stacked against men, so enjoy.
Those are such extreme, like, you know what I love about this?
Joe literally said in that segment that they're pulling out of context.
You can dig into anyone's past, and if you only focus on those things, you can make them look really, really bad.
It's literally what they're doing in response to Joe talking about cancel culture.
How about that?
Going back to Colin Moriarty's point, they want to lose so badly to Trump, they would actually slam the biggest podcast in the world, championing their candidate.
We live in a very strange time, to say the least.
Check this out, this one's really funny.
In response to this, Jessica Blankenship says, Rogan sucks a lot, but also his endorsement is a massive
signal about Sanders' potential to attract voters who wouldn't usually go near a Dem candidate.
The refusal to publicly band together with people you don't like for the sake of positive change is just sorry, F that.
This, Sadie Doyle complains, saying that, you know, he's like red-pilling America or something.
And Jessica says, I'm not saying we should invite them to our birthday parties.
She's like, but the same people who are mad about Rogan endorsing Bernie are the same ones who are like, we must band together to beat Trump no matter what.
Like, yes, he's awful, but I'll take the votes wherever they come from.
Joe Rogan's not awful.
He's the most successful podcast in the world.
Can I make this point, man?
Listen.
These people on Twitter, they are a fringe sect of ideological cultists who believe insane things that no one in this country agrees with.
I can't tell you why Joe Rogan is successful.
I can tell you a little bit.
Perseverance, he's been doing the show for a really, really long time.
He's a talented guy, he's funny, people seem to like him.
But I'll tell you this, in my perspective on Rogan, is that he's kind of just a chill, normal dude.
Look, when you watch stuff like mine, you know I'm gonna be oftentimes agitated or irreverent, but you know kind of my political perspective.
Joe's kind of just like a regular guy who's not super involved, but is... You know, people like to act like Joe's not that smart, but he's kind of smart, right?
I'm saying kind of because I don't want to act like he's a super genius scientist, but he knows a lot of things.
That's what makes this show entertaining.
He's witty, he's fast, and he knows a bunch of these little crazy facts that make a really interesting show.
But here's what I think.
Because I went on his show about a year ago.
Well, I went twice about a year ago.
It's like having a conversation with someone you trust, and that's what Joe has.
He has the trust of the people.
They know that regardless of whether they like his opinion or don't, you can believe him when he says the things that he says, and it's kind of like listening to a regular conversation.
I think one of the biggest factors in his success is perseverance.
He's been doing the show consistently, and people have grown to trust his point of view.
Here's my best part, though.
In response, the Sadie Doyle lady says, If there are three people in a Nazi at a dinner party, there are four Nazis at a dinner party.
Rogan isn't a guy you disagree with, like a liberal whose policy positions are different than yours 25% of the time.
He's someone who has actively worked to platform fascism.
This is woke Twitter.
And you know why this is so dangerous?
These are the people who are influencing the Democratic candidates.
They're influencing Bernie Sanders.
So when they go up on the debate stage and the Democrats are asked, how many of you are going to give health care to non-citizens and they all raise their hand, it's because of these lunatics who don't represent America.
I will say, I think Joe's wrong about Bernie, but that's not a big deal.
I'm not gonna make a thing out of it because it was just some stupid passive comment, you know?
Let's take a look.
Oh man, I got so many of these tweets.
I'm not gonna read all of them, okay?
I'm gonna read a little bit more, and I'm gonna read one or two more, and then I'll jump to some of the defense of Joe.
This woman, Jody Jacobson, said, David Sirota.
David Sirota, who is this guy?
He is the Bernie Sanders speechwriter.
Says, is this okay with you?
The campaign video lauding the endorsement of a man known to be a misogynist, a racist, a homophobe, a transphobe, a white nationalist?
This is okay?
I need to know.
I am literally crushed by this.
Is that the I'm literally shaking now?
Uh, no.
Joe is like none of those things.
What's crazy is that Joe's opinions are also, in many ways, tepid.
There's very few things that he, like, goes nuts about and gets really angry about.
So to claim that he's strongly in line with any of these things is completely, completely insane.
Verified.
On Twitter.
Former editor-in-chief of Rewire News.
And then we get Shue on head and Chris Ragon, you may be familiar with.
Shue says, like all of your coverage about Bernie is negative, you are not crushed.
This is very obviously performative outrage.
Agreed.
Chris Ragon with the astute comment, you're out of your gourd, lady.
No, no, 6 or so more insane... So, I know the left is gonna say, oh, it was only a handful of people on the left, and the Bernie supporters are gonna say, we're leftists too, and we defended it.
Look, I'm pointing out that there are many of these woke leftist types, like Carlos Maza, for instance, who are insulting Joe in the most insane ways.
Let's do this.
Let's jump to what's interesting is Ezra Klein.
Ezra Klein said Bernie's strength is that he can win over some voters who are skeptical of Democrats, like Joe Rogan.
If you think getting Trump out of office is actually important, that's a good thing.
But then he says, this will get me ratioed or whatever.
But a lot of Twitter seems to want to enforce a politics where you only work or ally with people you agree with almost totally with.
But that's the typo.
You know, that's his, not mine.
But to get anything done in our system requires working with people you often disagree with.
And Rogan isn't even conservative.
The dude just said he was thinking about voting for Bernie, man.
Not a conservative.
He says, wait till the next Democratic president is back cutting deals with Mitch McConnell or desperately trying to get Lindsey Graham to vote on something.
Right.
How insane that you would throw away an endorsement.
You know what, man?
This is the perfect example of how it's impossible to be on the left.
It really is.
I tweeted about it, right?
If Joe Rogan, the biggest podcast in the world, comes out and praises Bernie and they still attack him, how is anyone supposed to be a supporter of these people?
And so they question why I'm so angry.
Let me tell you something.
You want to know why I make videos about this?
How insane is it that I can come out and be like, here are the things I agree with.
And they're like, we don't care.
Here are the things I disagree with.
Oh, Tim Pool is right when they start screaming and screeching.
Like literally Joe Rogan said, oh, vote for Bernie.
And they were like, no.
What do you mean, no?
You want their vote, don't you?
Apparently not, man.
Apparently not.
But what's really crazy, too, is some of these other tweets.
And then I'll come back to the Joe Rogan thing and the podcast.
I wanna talk about this.
But Ethan Klein even came out in defense of Joe Rogan.
I'm not gonna, you know, get into everything.
But Ethan Klein, H3H3 Productions, another big podcaster, YouTube personality, coming out.
This has clearly become, like, a big mainstream issue.
And I think most people can see that Joe Rogan's a good dude, his endorsement is valuable, and these people are putting on performative outrage, as Schuon had said, because they want woke Twitter points.
Now, to Bernie.
Here's a story from Fox Business.
Obama feels Sanders is unfit to battle Trump, and he has told people he might say so publicly.
We'll go through this just a little bit, but I want to loop back now to Bernie Sanders and throw some shade his way.
Bernie took this clip from Joe without, presumably, presumably, I don't know what actually happened, but I'm assuming it was a passive comment, it was off the cuff, and then Bernie Sanders used that to his advantage.
I really, really detest this.
Let me tell you something.
I went on the Joe Rogan podcast in, I think, February and March of last year.
It was great.
I'm eternally grateful.
You know, Joe has a seriously massive platform.
And that really helped boost my content.
I hear from a lot of people all the time.
They're like, I heard you on Rogan.
It was awesome.
And I'm like, that's really cool, man.
And before this, Joey had invited me on the show before and canceled on me.
And so there was a little roughness.
And we got to talk, and he invited me out.
I had a good time.
Since then, I have had people hit me up.
You have no idea.
Can you connect me with Rogan?
I want to go on his show.
No, dude.
No, I won't do that.
Mind your own business.
Let him mind his own business.
I'll mind my own business.
I am not concerned about what someone else is doing with their business.
Joe Rogan's got the best podcast in the world by metric, probably by revenue.
I don't know what his revenue is.
Good for him, man.
That's his business.
I can't stand that people have this mentality of like, the only way I'll make it or I'm gonna make it is if I go on his show.
I didn't ask to go on the guy's show.
I was minding my own business.
My focus is to do right by myself, to grow, to do better every day, and focus on what I'm doing and doing the best I can.
But too many people are so obsessed with what he's got.
Joe Rogan's been doing a podcast for a long time.
Congratulations, more power to him.
I love the show.
I think he does a great show.
Most people tend to.
It's probably why it's the biggest podcast in the world.
Bernie Sanders wanted a piece of that pie.
When he heard that Biden had said this, his campaign jumped on it.
Man, I do not like that.
Listen, like I said earlier, there are some people I've supported I don't completely agree with, but I always make sure they're okay with me doing it because I understand there's like a PR, you know, issue that goes on.
And if I make a donation, someone might try to be like, aha, look, this person's donating, and they might go crazy.
So Joe Rogan, they're now dragging Bernie Sanders, okay?
They're criticizing Bernie for amplifying Rogan, and Bernie tried using Rogan, and I just, you know what, man?
This is the kind of stuff I really can't stand.
I get people hitting me up like, I got a really great idea.
Like, it would be great if I talked to Joe Rogan about this, that, and this.
And I'm like, that would be great.
Hey, how about you go build your own business?
Do your own show?
Everybody wants to be on TV.
Everybody wants what someone else has got.
Listen, man, nothing's stopping you from getting on YouTube, making your own show, doing your own videos, and guess what?
You're not going to get as many views as Rogan.
Too bad.
He's been doing it for a decade.
It's crazy.
I just don't get it.
Why people are so obsessed with what someone else is doing, with someone else's success, and they want to latch on to it.
So no, don't email me asking me for contacts for anybody.
It's just so insane.
And people do similar things to me, though.
So there are certain limits to where I'm cool with it.
Because I've had people be like, yo, a friend of mine really wants to get on your show.
And I'm like, dude...
It's listen man.
You got to focus on yourself.
You got to do right by yourself, okay?
And so I think I made my point on the Rogan podcast.
I'm not going to sit around begging people to go on their shows because it'll be better for my business.
I'm going to do my thing.
I'm going to mind my own business.
You mind your own business.
If somebody reaches out to you and says, hey, I heard about your work, I want to have you on, awesome.
If someone recommends you and you get invited on, awesome.
But these people who are like, I'm not trying to drag Bernie to say that he's as bad as that, necessarily, but I really, really do not like the idea of him, like, taking... You know, Joe took a photo with Bernie Sanders when Bernie was on the podcast.
He took this clip from Joe Rogan's podcast, and he cut out Tulsi's name.
So that's, like, right away framing.
That is dirty, man.
I don't know.
Maybe Joe doesn't care, but if this were me, I'd be livid.
I would be seriously livid.
Because they're essentially exploiting Joe Rogan's just off-the-cuff comment for personal political gain.
I don't like it.
I don't like it.
Look, I get it.
Joe said he liked Bernie, so he's probably cool with it.
But for me?
Nah, man.
I would not be okay with that.
I digress, however.
Let me wrap this up.
Joe's got an awesome show.
More power to him.
He picks who he wants to have on his show.
Hey, do your thing, man.
I'll do the same thing.
I got a new show.
You can't see it right here, but I got this other setup.
We got some guests.
I'm gonna do my show.
I was inspired partly by Joe and other podcasters, and I'm like, man, I gotta do more.
I gotta do something different.
So instead of complaining about how I really gotta get back on the Rogan podcast, it was so awesome, I'm like, I'm gonna do my own thing.
It's really crazy to me, you know?
How many people want to live through someone else's success instead of finding their own?
That's just something I cannot grasp.
But anyway, these people who are tweeting, complaining about Bernie and Rogan exemplify so much of what I can't stand in politics right now.
A couple things.
So let me just wrap this up.
Joe didn't engage in this fight.
He just made a passive opinion on his show.
I will say this, if you end up watching Joe.
I think you gotta recognize that you're one of the most influential people in the world.
And even if you passively said, you know what I really like?
I like Gouda cheese.
You might see the sales in Gouda cheese spike because people are listening to what you have to say.
So to an extent, I understand that people are kind of just taking this off-the-cuff comment, but hey, with great power comes great responsibility, right?
I will say, however, you know, following up from that, These people who are ragging on Bernie and Rogan over this are giving up one of the biggest endorsements you could ever receive, officially or otherwise.
I mean, this is huge!
People trust Rogan, they love his show, and they would crap all over that?
This is why I think Bernie can't win.
So, that's why I brought up the Obama thing.
I'm not gonna read through it, but that's why I brought it up.
Sanders is unfit to go up against Donald Trump.
I will tell you this.
His own supporters are torn because he's got an endorsement from one of those popular guys in the world.
Bernie has apologized to Joe Biden, turned on his own support base when they defended him.
You think Bernie Sanders has what it takes to go up against Trump?
Absolutely not.
Never gonna happen.
So I disagree with you on that one, Joe.
I don't think, I think Bernie has been more inconsistent the past few years than he's ever been.
He's, it's let me down.
He's turned his back on his own supporters, apologized to Joe Biden.
It is not, it is not, I don't know, conducive.
It's, it is not what a president needs to be.
And you know what?
I'm not here, I'm not saying Trump's any better.
Well, Trump's certainly stronger, for better or worse.
You know what I mean?
If Bernie can't even stand up for himself and his fans when they call Biden corrupt, how is he going to stand up for the rest of America?
So I disagree on Bernie being fit, but I will also say, with his support base freaking out this way, I just don't see him winning.
I do not see it happening.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
In what could only be described as the most appropriate response to a journalist asking you for a comment, the Bernie Sanders campaign in South Carolina has called the police on Project Veritas, and I kid you not, well at least according to the story, said that the journalists were threatening them.
Yes, lo and behold, the people who think words are violence are now claiming that a journalist sang things like, The electorate deserves to know.
Will you comment on the undercover footage, yada yada?
They're saying those are threats.
Now obviously they're lying, but we've seen this all before.
It goes in two different directions, okay?
There's this video you may have seen.
Jack Posobiec, renowned Trump supporter.
He's a host for One American News.
He's like standing on a street corner.
I'm pretty sure it was Jack.
And some antifa dude like hits him or something or punches him.
And then all of a sudden the cops pull up.
It's like a convenient cop moment.
You've seen those on Reddit?
And all of a sudden, the endemic people are all like, no one did anything.
He didn't actually hit him.
No, immediately start lying.
Lo and behold, the Bernie Sanders campaign start lying about Project Veritas.
And what's really funny about this is like, dude, Veritas is literally filming what they're doing.
How do you think you're gonna be able to get away with lying to the police when Veritas films every, like, not only do they film undercover, they're filming when you don't know they're filming.
They're walking around with a guy who's got a microphone and a camera.
And you're gonna tell the cops they were threatening you.
I gotta say, man, I don't know if Veritas can get, you know, filing a false police report or something like that, but they really should.
Because if these staffers literally, at least according to the police, it seems like they were claiming they were being threatened, that's a lie.
You can't call the police and lie to them in an attempt to get reporters, I mean anybody really, arrested or something worse.
Like, you know, it's a reference to swatting, if you get my drift.
But let's read the story and see.
James has responded from the Washington Times.
Bernie Sanders' campaign in South Carolina calls cops on Project Veritas.
Quote, it's one of those things they wish he hadn't said that, but they're still standing by him.
So...
This is actually interesting.
It's being covered by a local ABC affiliate.
Project Veritas video reveals comments made by Bernie Sanders campaign staffer.
This guy basically said a bunch of crazy stuff, right?
So we had the first video from Veritas where the Iowa field organizer was like talking about gulags and education camps.
Lo and behold, Veritas gets another staffer, this time in South Carolina.
Now a bunch of Iowa directors locked down their social media.
Where's the press?
Now we've got multiple staff in South Carolina, at least two so far.
Shutting down their accounts.
The man in question... No, no, no.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
Not South Carolina.
We actually have the... My understanding is the National Deputy Communications Director has locked down her account.
This is massive news!
Bernie is the frontrunner!
Trump is tweeting about it.
The frontrunner for the Democratic presidential campaign's national deputy director of communications has shut down her Twitter.
This is major news.
Where's the press on this one?
They're so busy talking about Bernie Sanders' comments from 40 years ago, they're ignoring Project Veritas.
I'm gonna give a big shout out to Veritas, guys.
Listen.
If you want to complain that Veritas is biased or conservative, you're free to do so.
But that says nothing about the fact that they're doing real journalism.
If you've got a problem with the fact that they're exposing staffers in the Sanders campaign, saying insane things, that's Bernie's problem, not the journalists'.
If you think Republicans should be exposed, why don't you start an outfit called, like, the Veritas Project, and then go and do undercover reporting targeting Republicans?
This is what's crazy to me.
You have this media apparatus in this country that ignores tons of information, claims reporting from the New York Times is a conspiracy theory, okay?
Look, I'm giving credit to the New York Times and to The Hill and The Washington Post when they actually reported on the Ukraine stuff, but then you have the biased individuals in the press acting like those things are not true.
If you've got a problem with Veritas, but you don't have a problem with the fact that Vox, for instance, has been accused of stealing people's content and overtly being biased and praising Democrats lying, well, you've got the problem, not Veritas.
You can't blame them for actually going out and doing the journalism just because you don't like the fact that they're exposing your people, right?
So anyway, here's what happens.
These staffers get exposed.
Very few in the press are actually talking about it because they're obsessed with these other weird smears.
But let's read the story.
They say...
A Bernie Sanders field office in South Carolina called police on Project Veritas investigators seeking comment from campaign officials on a staffer caught on hidden camera video expressing radical left-wing views.
In a video posted Thursday, an officer with the North Charleston Police Department told a Project Veritas team that the campaign office for the 2020 Democratic presidential primary candidate would have no comment on the video.
Now, here's what's really amazing.
The Bernie Sanders staffers, I don't know if this is a thing, like, this might be unprecedented, but Project Veritas actually got a comment from the Sanders staff, vicariously, is that the right word?
Like, through a police officer!
So apparently the Sanders staffers called the police, claimed that the Veritas guys were threatening them, that's absurd, that's a lie, and they should not be allowed to do that.
But apparently then the cop was like, here's what they said, providing a comment!
Unless you think the cop is lying.
Here's the quote.
This is what they're telling me, is that all of the people that they work with, and for, and stuff like that, that will have no comment, will have no comment.
That's what you're going to get from them, no comment.
The officer added, if you try to make a comment with them, it's no comment.
They are aware of videos you guys took, the undercover stuff.
It's one of those things where they wish he hadn't said that, but they're still standing by him or whatever.
Hey, whatever.
Dude, this is huge.
Because never, I believe this is unprecedented, do you have a frontrunner for the presidential nomination, his staff, more than one, saying things about I'm executing conservatives!
I know that might be a little hyperbolic, because what they're doing now, the leftists are taking the key portion, where the guy basically says, Nazis need to be re-educated.
But what they're omitting, is the dude literally said, Trump supporters need to be re-educated, just like they did to the Nazis.
He is talking about Trump supporters, so now they're saying, so what, Bernie Sanders staffer is talking about re-educating Nazis?
That's what everyone, that's normal, that's cool, it's like, dude.
He's using that as an analogy to talk about why he wants to send Republicans to gulags, okay?
That's where people died, okay?
So here's what's really funny.
Bernie Sanders tweeted about the free press because Glenn Greenwald has been charged with, they're charging him with some kind of Crimes.
Claiming that his journalism is, you know, is actively participating.
It's the same shtick that, you know, governments try to do all the time to shut down journalists.
They say, you know, Obama did it.
You were an active participant, soliciting, blah, blah, blah.
BS.
I call BS on this.
Glenn Greenwald knows better.
Okay?
I'm not, I think Glenn's been really, really great about some things.
I'm critical of him on some other issues.
But if you're going to try and convince me that Glenn Greenwald, who has been heavily scrutinized since he worked with Snowden to leak those, you know, The NSA files.
You think that dude's not, you know, looking over his shoulder every two seconds?
You're nuts.
There's no way Glenn Greenwald did this.
But anyway, I digress.
Give that shout out to Glenn Greenwald.
Bernie Sanders said the free press is never more important than when it exposes wrongdoing by the powerful.
Is that so, Mr. Sanders?
That is why President Bolsonaro is threatening Glenn Greenwald for the crime of doing journalism.
I call on Brazil to end its authoritarian attack on press freedom and the rule of law.
We can see good ol' Stixx XN Hammer responding with, what about Assange?
For some reason, Stixx always pops up.
Maybe it's because I respond to him on Twitter.
But shout out to Stixx.
He has a great YouTube channel if you haven't followed him.
So here's what James O'Keefe says in response.
You claim a free press is important while at the same time having your campaign call the police
and claim that Project Veritas Action journalists were threatening employees for asking questions
about re-education gulags and violent revolution. The hypocrisy is too much.
And then he then shows this video. The officer said they're going to have to go there.
They said they are going to have no comment.
If you try to make contact with them, then it's no comment.
It's one of those things where they wish he hadn't said that.
We get it.
And then we have this.
They link this to the Times.
Both of the calls were regarding individuals allegedly following employees and allegedly threatening employees, Deputy Chief Deckard said in an email.
That is insane.
So let me talk about Bernie Sanders' hypocrisy.
Let me talk about the media hypocrisy.
I don't get it.
I'll tell you this, I don't get it.
Right now the media's screeching, spitting and yowling about all these bad things Bernie Sanders has done, and they're ignoring Project Veritas' action.
I will point out, too, many of you may be wondering what's the difference between Veritas and Veritas Action.
My understanding, I could be wrong, is that Project Veritas Action is political issues, so it's like Bernie Sanders' campaign, and Project Veritas is like everything else.
I don't know what the distinction is for.
I think it has to do with like legal restrictions or something.
Don't ask me.
But there's two different.
There's Project Veritas and Veritas Action.
So Veritas Action is the one going out and asking what's going on.
My understanding is they're a non-profit.
So you have non-profit journalists Call them activists.
Call them whatever you want.
They're doing journalism.
When a guy walks up with a microphone in public and says, can you comment on this thing?
No one is threatening you.
But of course, that's the game they're playing.
I actually think, I mean, it likely won't happen.
I'd like to see, you know, James and Project Veritas reach out to the police and say, we have proof they lied to the police.
I think any, you know, if you want to lie and try and get someone, you know, falsely accuse someone of committing a crime, threatening someone is a crime.
Well, then they should be held accountable.
If Bernie Sanders' office claimed that they were threatening him, and Veritas has footage of it, I think they should put that footage out.
But we've got a couple more tweets that I want to go through from James.
He says, in this one... Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So this one I already mentioned, and I think this bears heavy repeating.
And then I want to show you something interesting about searching the media for what's going on with Bernie.
But this is major, major news.
You really have to understand.
To see Bernie Sanders' national-level staff shutting their accounts down at a time when Bernie Sanders is taking the lead, it's really... I don't know, man.
It's crazy that the media isn't jumping all over this for two reasons.
This is historical precedent.
A national-level director is shutting down communications in the wake of a scandal, and the media is ignoring it.
That in itself is a scandal.
They're obsessed with an email about Joe Biden or comments Bernie Sanders made in 1976.
I don't care.
Meanwhile, this is going on right now.
Bernie Sanders' staff has serious problems.
Okay, James O'Keefe has already proven two different offices have this kind of rhetoric floating around.
And based on the comments of these two guys undercover, it seems like it's a common thing they talk about.
In Iowa, the dude that Veritas uncovered was talking about all the other staffers who agreed with him and were probably further left than he was.
And when you have, in the South Carolina one, there's actually another person sitting with the guy.
And now you have a national-level director locking down their accounts.
Check this out.
He said, Bernie Sanders, Deputy Digital Communications Director at National Park, actually locked her account down today in response to questions about Expose 2020.
I'll say it slower so even CNN can understand.
The Deputy Digital Communications Director locked her Twitter.
Where's the press?
Where's the press on any of this?
Let me show you something.
We go over to Google.
Check this out.
Here's what happens when you go to Google and search for Bernie Sanders.
This is what I get.
I know Google can be tailored.
The top story is the surge.
Voters like Bernie.
Bernie is rising in the polls.
Bernie's healthcare plan will save money.
It's all decently positive.
Warren's ambush backfired.
Obama feels Sanders is unfit to battle Trump.
And he has told people that he might say so publicly.
That's Fox business!
All the other outlets seem to be fairly positive, even the Washington Examiner, which is a conservative outlet.
Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez hit back.
Bernie's labor supports snowballs.
All of this really, really great stuff.
And you have this, what, the Joe Biden one?
Joe Biden loses cool after a reporter grills him about the feud with Sanders.
I'll tell you this, man.
We can see some press outlets absolutely biased against Bernie, for sure, like CNN, MSNBC, sometimes.
But look at the Google search.
You know, even CNN has got positive stories.
Where's the story about a staff talking about locking up Republicans in re-education camps?
Local news has it.
Look at this.
ABC 3340.
I don't know why it has two numbers.
But it's a local, like, Alabama station.
Check this one out.
When you search for Bernie Sanders staffer on Google, the autofill results will be Gulag pay $15, minimum wage, and union.
These are all referencing scandals.
And these are the autofill.
You can see this.
The remove right here is what I've previously searched, and these are what it's recommending.
When we search for just Bernie, we get polls, Warren fundraising, Iowa Warren donations.
No one, there's nothing about Veritas.
And I'll tell you why I'm showing you this.
According to Axios, actually Axios was citing a Newswhip study.
Bernie Sanders, the story about him and Warren, had less interactions and engagements on social media than the Project Veritas story.
I'm curious as to why, then.
We don't see anything about that popping up.
Technically campaign, I guess?
Why is the second search result Elizabeth Warren?
If you were to ask me, based on what we know about Google, and what we've seen with how they've removed, like Tulsi Gabbard was removed from search on YouTube, her ad account was suspended, she's currently suing them, I think it's fair to say that Google is tailoring what actually comes up, not based on what people search for, because Newswhip said the most engaged with story was about Project Veritas, and I'll tell you this too.
When I go and do the analytics on my videos, so for the most part, I don't do, like, any hard SEO stuff for this channel.
On my main channel, when I type in Project Veritas or Bernie Sanders, you know what comes up?
Because I have a third-party analytics company that helps me, like, choose the appropriate keywords and stuff.
What comes up is Project Veritas.
A little bit Elizabeth Warren, but that shows me that even on Google's own platforms, you can search for the stuff, but it doesn't appear.
Now here's my favorite.
Let's do Hillary Clinton.
Net worth, book height, net worth, wiki, book tour, toilet paper?
That's impressive!
For those that don't know, you can buy politicians' faces that appear on toilet paper, I guess.
Nothing about Bernie.
Nothing about her.
It's all positive.
Nothing negative.
But let's do this.
Let's jump over to the news tab and see what comes up.
Gabbard is suing.
Hillary Clinton hijacks race for presidential nomination from Fox News.
I mean, look.
It's probably not a good one-to-one comparison, bringing up Hillary Clinton in this regard.
But I'm trying to, you know, point out that she recently slammed Bernie.
All of the news that could possibly be negative is, like, old things Bernie said, from outlets that clearly, you know, want to toe the line for the establishment.
But where is anything from Veritas?
And that's what I find particularly strange.
You can't deny the comments were made.
And I guess what I would ask, because I've asked people this, has there ever been a time where the frontrunner of a presidential campaign staff in multiple offices were refusing to take answers from the press, were shutting down, and they were caught actively saying they want the other side to be locked in camps, re-educated, or even executed?
Is that a normal thing?
So, I don't know why.
We can see that the media has smeared and been very bad to Bernie in a lot of ways.
But I think, based on my search, I think at this point I'm going to say it seems like only some of them are bad.
Like, look at this.
Look at this.
This is a story from the Daily Beast, saying that he once compared Vermont workers to black slaves.
It's like a faux-controversy.
They're trying to dig up old things from Bernie to try and smear him, but it's not a big deal.
If they really wanted to cause harm to his campaign, they could go nuts on the Veritas stuff, but they don't do it.
I think it might be because they don't want to legitimize Project Veritas because they're scared.
Veritas does real journalism and they'll come for you.
Again, call them biased, it doesn't matter.
Okay?
You've got a ton of biased media, but Veritas is actually getting there and exposing people.
What I love about Veritas, too, is that when they're accused of manipulation, it's like James' response is, we only ever publish videos showing their lips moving.
Like, what more proof do you need them saying it?
And what's funny is they always try to downplay it, like, It's just one staffer, or he was just being drunk.
One guy from the Washington Post, Dave Weigel, said it was a Bernie volunteer.
They're both paid staffers.
So it's like they're trying really hard to cover up and protect the guy in this regard, and I don't know why!
Because other people in media are trying to smear him.
I will add, I think Bernie is unfit to be president simply because he won't even support his own supporters.
He apologizing to Biden.
But it's the weirdest thing.
That Project Veritas is lied about relentlessly, but so many in the media will be like, I have an anonymous source.
You've never heard them, you'll never know their name, they might not even exist, but that's completely legitimate.
But Veritas publishing someone, even if they're just being a braggart, even if they're just drunk and trying to, you know, woo some chick or something and be like, I can do all these things, they said it.
They did.
And I think it's fair to point out in regards to that, though.
Now, people often talk big, and people often lie.
So, you know, Veritas, I think, one criticism their way is, you probably catch some people lying, or trying to talk big, and trying to sound, you know, like really crazy, and trying to be like, sound tough and confident.
So, and I don't mean a reference to the Bernie Sanders stuff, because those guys literally said, like, maybe we should put Republicans in re-education camps.
That'll help.
Like, dude, what I mean is, like, when they did the expose on the New York Times guy, Nick Dudek, who, by the way, I know that guy.
I know that guy, full disclosure.
But when he did the expose on that guy, it's like, the dude was clearly just trying to brag and, like, sound cool.
You know what I mean?
I think it's fair to say there is truth in, you know, the things they say.
But I think you've got to be careful about some of these people just trying to sound powerful.
In the case of Bernie Sanders, however, I don't think that criticism works in any capacity.
And again, I'm only saying that as a light criticism.
I think for the most part Veritas hits it out of the park.
This is huge.
Project Veritas has uncovered staffers in multiple offices from the front runner for the Democratic nomination talking about locking up their opponents.
So you get the point.
I'm not gonna beat the dead horse anymore.
The main takeaway from this is that while Bernie claims to defend free speech when it comes to Glenn Greenwald, where is he now that his own staff have called the police on journalists for asking questions and lied about it?
Nowhere to be seen.
Why isn't the media talking about this?
I think it's insane.
I think this is huge news.
Where's... I mean, Fox has talked about these staffers.
But you know what, man?
We live in a crazy world.
I'll tell you this.
As somebody who grew up in Chicago, with all liberal friends and all lefties, who has always been critical of Fox News, it is crazy.
To see this massive story, and the press won't cover it, Fox News does.
Fox News gave Bernie Sanders a town hall.
Fox News gave a town hall to a couple Democrats.
They've hired some Democrats.
See?
And even Trump has criticized Fox News.
And what's happening, you know?
I think Fox News realizes that regular Americans are being pushed out, and they want to go a little bit more moderate to attract, you know, former liberal-type people, disaffected liberals like me.
It's probably a better way to put it.
I still consider myself to be liberal, but I'm politically homeless.
I don't even know what's going on anymore.
Fox News is covering this stuff.
And so I'll tell you, I'll tell you what, I'll wrap up with this.
Turn on Fox News right now or at any time.
You'll probably hear some stuff about Trump.
You know, they cover the Senate impeachment trial, so it's pretty, it's dominating right now.
But I do this game all the time with my friends.
You will be, you will have like, they'll be talking about the Wuhan virus.
They'll be talking about Hong Kong or Iran.
Switch to CNN.
What is it?
Trump.
Always Trump.
I had to turn it off.
I literally, I used to, I used to have CNN playing in the background because, not that I like their commentary, but when breaking news happens, I'd be like, they'll pick up the breaking news story and I'll get that alert right away.
Not anymore.
Now I turn it on.
I'm like, dude, there's, there's like Hong Kong is lit, lighting up.
Turn on CNN.
Well, the thing about Donald Trump, you got to understand.
I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
There's breaking news right now, man.
Protesters in Iran.
Well, think about Donald Trump.
I kid you not.
Anyway, I'm not going to prattle on.
I'll stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and we'll see if anyone ever mentions anything.
Look, it's only conservative media that's actually talking about what Bernie Sanders and his staff are doing, and I think it's sheer hypocrisy that he's going to try and defend the free press but not address his own staff calling the police on journalists.
So, I'll leave it there.
See you all at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
ICE is not playing around, threatening jail time to Sanctuary City officials.
This story from the Washington Examiner is actually kind of a funny quote.
Show up to court with a toothbrush.
ICE says Sanctuary City officials should expect jail time if they ignore subpoenas.
I gotta say, man, that feels great.
You know what feels great is that there's kind of some law enforcement going on.
Too often, we see double standards in law enforcement, and I don't appreciate it.
My opinion on this has nothing to do with whether or not Trump is right or wrong in enforcing the law, but I think the law should be enforced.
Now, that being said, I think civil disobedience and defying the law is appropriate in certain circumstances, 100%.
Legality does not equal morality, okay?
But if you have people who are actively saying, we're not going to enforce these laws, but then calling for other national-level policies that they want... So, let me back up.
You have these jurisdictions like California that say, we're not going to cooperate with ICE, but then you have them at the same time saying they want federal laws on, say, gun control and stuff like that.
It doesn't work that way, okay?
Right now, you've got the two-way sanctuary stuff going on in Virginia, and you've got the immigration sanctuary stuff, which has been going on for a long time.
So I think it is hypocritical of the left to think they will be free from prosecution for defying the law, but simultaneously they want to impose their own laws.
This is the big problem, right?
We're seeing these two-way sanctuaries pop up in Virginia, but it's the immigration policy of the left that has been enacting these laws in local jurisdictions and statewide, and you also have some local jurisdictions that allow non-citizens to vote.
The Democrats start this process, expand this process, but at the same time want their own national policies to be followed verbatim.
Like, to the T, it's not going to happen.
So now, I will say this.
When they do this, it does feel nice that they're finally going to start holding these people to account.
Let's read the story from the Washington Examiner.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is prepared to go to court in two sanctuary cities, New York and Denver, Colorado, if they fail to provide personal information on illegal immigrants with criminal records released in each city instead of being transferred to ICE.
We expect them to comply with subpoenas for the information, said Acting ICE Director Matt Albence at a press conference in Washington on Thursday.
If they don't comply, we'll be working with DOJ to go to district court to force them to comply with the requirements, Albin said, noting that the rule in the U.S.
Code that he said justified the move.
The individuals that fail to comply can be held in contempt, he said.
They can show up to court with a toothbrush because they might not be going home that night.
Because they could be jailed for failure to comply with a lawful order from a judge, that's the route we're going.
Good.
You know what, man?
I actually think it is messed up that you can have someone, like Joe Biden recently said, you know, he's not going to deport anybody who drives drunk.
And I'm like, that's nuts, man.
Look, if you come to the United States, legal or otherwise, all right, and you're destructive to our community, I think you need to be held accountable.
And you think about the problem of not transferring illegal immigrants who commit crimes to federal authorities, and I don't have any idea how the left actually justifies this.
Listen, I'm not talking about a dude who came here with his family and is working at a chicken shop, okay?
I'm talking about the actual criminals.
What are we supposed to do?
We already have a massive prison population.
If you're on the left, would you propose we expand that prison population?
That doesn't make sense, right?
How about this?
If they enter the country illegally, And they're committing crimes, violent crimes, or otherwise damaging the community, then we should pass it off to ICE and say, we're not going to pay the bills to rehabilitate these people or to lock them up in prison.
We're going to send them back to their own, you know, national origin.
I think that makes sense.
It does not make sense for Americans to be expanding their prison population.
And this is something I see often with the left, where it seems somewhat paradoxical.
You know, they complain about stop and frisk, for instance.
They say it's racist.
Like, dude, that was implemented in one of the most liberal places in the country, New York City.
They complain about, you know, disproportionate policing.
But in Chicago, it's a lot of gun control laws.
That's what stop and frisk was.
They're looking for weapons.
So it's a bit paradoxical, right?
They're angry that we have this massive prison population.
And so what is their response?
If someone breaks the law, but they're not from here, we're going to add to the prison population.
Why wouldn't we be like, if you're from Honduras, we're going to send you back to Honduras?
That's better, right?
We got a problem with the American prison population.
I think you would agree with this.
Ah, it doesn't make sense.
They say, ICE looks at local arrests to see if a person is illegally in the country.
If they appear to be an illegal immigrant, the officer can request that the local law enforcement agency notify ICE before they are released so that ICE can take custody and begin deportation proceedings.
Sanctuary zones release illegal immigrants, including those with criminal convictions, after they make bail or serve jail time without notifying ICE.
Albence said that the subpoenas were a last resort to force sanctuary cities to help federal
officers find people at their homes and jobs if local jails will not turn them over while
in secure settings.
ICE focuses most of its efforts going after people illegally in the country charged or
convicted of criminal offenses.
So you get all these Democrats saying things like, we're going to have a moratorium on
deportations outright.
To me, that makes literally no sense.
Like, you're gonna have somebody who got in a drunk— got in a car, got drunk, and crashed into a bunch of kids, and be like, but they can stay!
Nah, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
Listen.
We shouldn't be adding to the prison population.
It's bad enough already.
And if someone's not from here, we should tell them they can go home, right?
So, uh, well, let's— yeah, let's go on.
You also have people like Joe Biden saying, we're going to focus on the most serious of crimes when it comes to, you know, to illegal immigrants.
And it's like, right, that's literally what they do.
They're not sure, like ICE did raid a bunch of chicken factories for sure, but they do primarily start with looking for criminal convictions.
They say, Hopefully, when some of these other jurisdictions that don't want to cooperate see that we're taking this seriously, maybe they'll come around and try to help us help their own communities, said Albence, who was tapped to lead the 20,000-person agency six months ago.
He did not answer if Denver or New York would face retaliation from the federal government if they do not honor subpoenas.
Last year, ICE asked New York City to notify it before releasing 7,500 illegal immigrants so that it could transfer each person into custody.
None of the requests were honored.
For the first time ever last week, ICE subpoenaed a local law enforcement office, sending four requests to the New York Department of Corrections and four to the Denver Justice Center.
The subpoenas ask for the phone numbers, home address, type of vehicle, employer, and more information that can help ICE's enforcement and removal operations officers go into the person's community and try to arrest them.
Albence said that sanctuary cities force ICE to squander resources, running around trying to find people, and that localities are forced to waste manpower re-arresting criminals who could have been deported.
Quote, how much time could NYPD have dedicated to doing other functions instead Instead of continually arresting people that are here illegally, have no lawful right to be here, and are committing further crimes.
Our goal is to find them before they commit further crimes, right?
We're actually able to prevent crimes if we can get these people off the street.
I do have another story that I want to highlight as well, but I'm going to give a shout out to good old Bernie Sanders on this one.
And here's why.
They like to act like it is a conservative opinion to want to enforce your borders and deport criminals.
While Bernie Sanders said only, what, six, seven months ago, something like, my God, there are too many poor people.
If we opened our borders, you know, they would all rush in and we can't take care of them.
Something like that.
Alright, it was Obama who was called the Deporter-in-Chief.
No, it has traditionally been the Democrats and the left who have also been willing to enforce the borders when they actually cared about, like, labor and unions.
Now they care about this weird leftist ideology, intersectionality, and open borders.
I'll tell you this.
They always say they're not for open borders.
It's a lie.
They're for what I would call tacit open borders.
They won't deport you if you're here.
They're doing decriminalized border crossings.
What do you think you're doing?
Well, These people will not be deported.
They will not be charged with a crime for crossing illegally.
They're going to deprioritize all that.
Congratulations, you've created tacit open borders.
But what's even more horrifying is you've created a serf class.
People who can't legally work, but who are desperate for cash and can work under the table, while the rest of America gets a guaranteed minimum wage.
Yeah, that's what the Democrats are inadvertently proposing.
Or some of them, I guess, outright proposing.
But Donald Trump is stepping things up.
See, a couple days ago I talked about Trump was going to try and block birth tourism.
But no one really knew what his plan was going to be.
Now it seems like he's gonna go after pregnant women who are coming here.
Which is kind of unfortunate, because look, I'll tell you what, man.
There are a lot of people who exploit the birthright citizenship.
These women will, or families, will get visas that are good for like a year or two or something like that.
Then they get pregnant, and just before they're ready to give birth, they'll come for a month or two.
Because visas are good for like up to 90 days in a lot of circumstances.
So one of the challenges here is that the immigration officials and the people who are doing, you know, visas and stuff, they just see a woman who's not pregnant and a guy or a family or whatever, and they have no idea what's about to happen.
So it looks like, to start, we didn't know exactly what Trump was going to do.
Now he's going to target, it seems, pregnant women.
That's kind of unfortunate because I'm sure there are a lot of pregnant women who want to come here who aren't trying to, you know, have a kid to get citizenship.
The New York Times reports the Trump administration granted visa officers more power to block pregnant women from visiting the United States if applicants were believed to be traveling to give birth.
So that's it.
They're primarily going after those specifically targeting birth tourism.
I'd like to ask the left, what's your argument for this one?
This is really specific, you know what I mean?
I really don't understand the argument of why they wouldn't want, you know, a violent criminal or a drunk driver deported.
Just, I really don't understand the argument.
I don't see one.
And this one is a clear exploitation of birthright citizenship.
Traveling here is not a right.
It's a privilege, right?
You come here to try and exploit the system.
How do you defend that?
I don't get it.
New York Times reports.
The State Department on Thursday gave visa officers more power to block pregnant women from visiting the United States.
We read that.
The administration is using the new rule, which takes effect Friday, to push consular officers abroad to reject women when they believe are entering the United States specifically to gain citizenship for their children by giving birth.
The visas covered by the new rule are issued to those seeking to visit for pleasure, medical treatment, or to see friends and family.
Conservatives have long railed against what they call anchor babies, who are born in American soil and used by their parents to bring in other family members.
President Trump has also criticized the constitutional provision that grants citizenship to most babies born in the U.S.
So basically, what people are concerned about.
Someone will come here when they're pregnant.
Birth tourism.
They'll have the kid.
The kid'll be a citizen.
18 years later, that kid can then start sponsoring family members for residency.
There's a big legal process to it, but yeah, you can do it.
That's what people are concerned about.
It seems like a long way off, 18 to 20 years, but you know, these things happen.
They say, it is not clear whether birth tourism is a significant phenomenon or anchor babies lead to substantial immigration.
Whoa, whoa.
The New York Times is unironically using the phrase anchor babies.
But many conservatives believe both are serious issues.
The Trump administration has repeatedly moved to allay conservative immigration concerns, which the president has often stoked.
I don't agree that it's fair to say the president stoked this.
I think the president sees what people are concerned about and then addresses it.
But stoked would mean that he's actually trying to make it seem worse than it is.
State Department officials, holding a briefing for reporters under the condition of anonymity, failed to provide an example of how birth tourism presented a national security risk, though both the State Department and the White House said that it did.
The birth tourism industry is also rife with criminal activity, including international criminal schemes.
That's... What are you... Wait, wait, hold on.
They say they failed to provide an example of how it presented a national security risk?
What do you mean?
You've literally got criminals talking about how to violate our laws to help these people come and break our laws.
That is a threat to our security.
Like, breaking the law is a threat to our security.
I don't understand the point they're trying to make.
They say consular officers were already unlikely to grant visas to women they believed were traveling to the U.S.
solely to give birth.
Those officers will not be required to ask every woman if she is pregnant, but they will be expected to apply additional scrutiny if, through the course of an interview, they come to suspect that a woman is traveling to the U.S.
specifically to give birth.
Now, I did read something that said that it's like in the tens, like low tens of thousands, like 10 to 20,000 every year or something like that.
I could be wrong.
I don't want to oversight numbers, but fact check me.
But the point was that relative to general immigration and illegal immigration, it's a really low number.
So I think the media might be latching onto something the president doesn't care too much about.
He's proposed this rule.
I think they're going to address it.
I don't think it's the biggest deal in the world in terms of what the administration actually cares about.
Okay, that is a step over the line, New York Times.
You know what?
But, you know, we get it.
New York Times is biased.
close to delivering a child should be added to a growing list of immigrants unwelcome
in the United States, in addition to the poor, most refugees, and asylum-seeking migrants.
Okay, that is a step over the line, New York Times. You know what? But, you know, we get it.
New York Times is biased. Listen, Trump is not saying you can't have asylum here.
You can't be a refugee.
They're trying to reduce the amount of people who are clogging up the system of asylees and refugee seekers.
Right now I think it's, what, 1% that actually get approved in the courts?
So when you have 99 out of 100 blocking that system, that one person can't get through.
A lot of them end up leaving and can't get asylum.
I say this.
If Trump actually puts more scrutiny on those exploiting the system, dare I say, we might be able to bring in more legitimate asylum seekers because now the people clogging the system are being removed.
You know what, man?
It's things like this that lead me to believe what the Democrats tend to do is they know that a lot of liberals are passive and don't really pay attention, so they just say the heat-of-the-moment thing that sounds crazy and then try and convince people that's why they need to vote for him.
You look at impeachment, you look at, like, Adam Schiff saying the same thing over and over again, he knows the Democrats aren't watching impeachment.
He knows they'll tune in for five minutes, hear his spiel, and then an hour later they're gone.
And then, or a few minutes later, they're gone.
But then an hour later, a different person comes back and has got to restart the same line of nonsense over again.
I think we're seeing this right here, because I'll tell you this.
If you really wanted to help asylum seekers, you would get rid of those exploiting the system, right?
Why oppose it?
If you really want to deal with crime and help legitimate immigrants, you would deport the criminals.
Why would you say no to deport?
Like, if you really want to empty the prisons and stop the expanding prison system, you would say the people who aren't American shouldn't be in it.
Whatever, man.
None of it seems to make sense, at least as far as I can tell.
But as always, let me just stress, they always say, Tim rags on the Democrats and then talks about voting for Democrats.
Yeah, it's policy-based.
I like Andrew Yang.
I like Tulsi.
We'll see what happens.
But no, I don't like the Democrats, and I haven't voted.
I voted for Obama in 2008, so calm down.
People want me to vote Republican, but I don't agree with them.
You know what I mean?
What am I supposed to do?
Politically homeless.
How about that?
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast and I will see you all there.
The Title IX system and the fear and backlash over abuses in universities and sexual assault has resulted in a whole bunch of injustice and backwards cases.
This story from the Daily Caller was so shocking, and I mean this, I really do mean it, I had to absolutely do a segment on it.
It's a story about a man who was sexually assaulted, could prove it with audio recordings, and was still found guilty of being responsible for an assault on the woman who actually assaulted him.
The story is quite complicated, as all things are.
But this is, to me, one of the most egregious violations of Title IX.
Okay?
For those that aren't familiar, Title IX is... It does a lot of things.
And so what happened was feminists started arguing that because they weren't taking assault claims seriously, it was gender discrimination.
In response, they started taking them so seriously, they no longer use a general, you know, English common law standard of justice, just a preponderance of evidence.
They don't allow cross-examinations or evidence or witnesses.
So the whole thing is just completely absurd.
It's not real justice.
It's kind of like, okay, for political reasons, we're just going to brush this aside and say the dude's guilty.
In this story, the man was apparently in a room with a girl.
He, for some reason, started recording audio, probably because he knew about this.
This is what's so freaky.
And the girl was saying things like, I want you, and let's do it.
He was saying no, and she forced herself on him.
And then later, like two days later or something like that, she claimed he assaulted her.
They wouldn't even let him admit the evidence.
He has audio recordings, and the Daily Caller covers this.
Let's just read the story and figure out what's going on.
They say this, exclusive.
Columbia University found him guilty, but he's got voice recordings and he's not afraid.
They say, it wasn't the balancing act high above Manhattan atop a water tower, nor her demands that she be effed and effed right this very second, but the moment she suddenly said, we're in my apartment, right?
That made Ben Feebleman glad he hit record.
What you're about to read is based on court filings, a 30-minute recording, and an interview before warned.
It is detailed and explicit.
I'm probably not going to get to everything, okay?
They say, last May, Fiebleman filed a $25 million lawsuit against Columbia University in New York federal court for expulsion and gender discrimination under Title IX.
A female classmate had accused him of sexual assault.
He says she assaulted him, not the other way around.
Despite the evidence, the school decided he was guilty.
His case is now in the discovery phase.
In all court filings, Fiebleman's accuser is called Jane Doe.
But both sides are waiting for former President Obama-appointed judge Valerie Caproni to rule on Columbia University's motion to partially dismiss the suit.
The ruling could come any day.
Defense was no longer enough for Fiebleman.
No, he wanted to bring it all down.
The night in question was fairly routine, they say.
It was a brisk Tuesday night, October 2016, when students gathered in the world room on the third floor of Pulitzer Hall.
Think high ceilings.
Exquisite art.
Huge picture windows overlooking the city's Upper West Side and Harlem.
Beer and wine flowed from an open bar.
Nobody's getting hammered yet, mind you.
This was a graduate reception at a dignified Ivy.
Not exactly ripe for sloppy hookups.
A woman plays a starring role in the space.
Stained glass panel, turquoise... Okay, whatever.
We'll skip over this stuff.
They talk about the cost and everything.
The large group shrank, yadda yadda yadda.
So, eventually, he said this.
He watched, and she did a perfectly backward roll up the side of the water tower.
She taunted him about being a marine who was afraid of heights.
She straddled on top of him, on top of a ladder, and then we're gonna scroll down a little bit more, skip over a lot of the unnecessary parts, in my opinion.
Get to the crux of the story.
She talked to him in a hot, vulgar way back at his apartment.
Don't you wanna F me, she asked multiple times on tape, in clear words.
In fact, she affirmed her desire to have sex with a classmate no less than 29 times!
She wanted him to F her, and she wanted it, in her word, hard.
He wanted it too, but something in his gut told him he'd better protect himself.
What's crazy about this story?
Is that this guy knew to press record.
This is what's truly terrifying.
He didn't want to hook up with her, and he recorded the interaction because he knew this was going to happen.
Isn't that shocking, to say the least?
Now, I tell you this.
How many young men have been accused, the whole thing's been kept quiet, they didn't record it, and then they were expelled, and no one knows about it?
This guy said, I'm gonna press record, and the only reason we know about the story, and we're not accusing him of being a rapist, is because he recorded her assaulting him.
But guess what?
As the story goes, they were messing around, doing a bunch of things.
I'm gonna keep it as... It's not family-friendly, but, you know, I'll avoid the more explicit details.
They say, it was around this time, she attempted to force herself on him, I'll put it that way.
It was around this time, this point, that Fiebleman sensed that things might go sideways, so he pressed record.
Some things made him nervous.
When he first tried to leave, she started to cry.
He couldn't leave a woman in tears.
He wanted to leave on positive terms.
He liked her.
He liked his classmates.
He didn't want to be known as class scum.
Conversation took the form of a nightmarish loop.
She demanded rough sex.
He said no.
She asked why not.
He told her she's too drunk, but later said he didn't believe it.
She had stopped drinking hours earlier, he recalls.
He was just trying to employ what he describes in court filings as the nuclear option, which he believed would make the conversation stop.
Again, he tried to leave.
Again, she demanded he stay.
In the morning, you're going to thank me for not taking advantage of you, Fibelman says in the recording.
She didn't agree.
Or I'm gonna apologize, she replied.
After many of her pleas and more of his denials, she seemed to snap back into consciousness.
O.S.F.S.
Those are swears, by the way.
And this, Jesus Christ, okay, wait, no, no, no, no, no, no, wait, no, what's going on?
He asked if she's okay.
After her confusion, she seemed to ease.
She returned to her refrain, I think you want to F me.
He said he did.
She told him to do it!
He said, you know how bad I want to do it.
I'm gonna cut the more explicit details.
If you're watching on YouTube, you'll see them on the screen, but for those that are listening, at least your kids won't hear, I guess.
They say for the entirety of the 30-minute recording, she forbade him from leaving.
On tape, he can be heard cooing at her cat and tuck- cooing at her cat and tucking her into bed.
He can also be heard declining her relentless demands.
He seems to soothe her by telling her that he wanted to do her at a later date.
Some of his fantasies involved a bunch of fantasies.
At no point did she appreciate him saying no.
After a lot of begging and pleading, she asked why not.
He said, because I'm going to go home and go to sleep, and you're going to go to bed and get sober.
She continued trying to coax him.
We get the point.
So moving on, they say.
He replied, I don't think you're gross at all.
I think you're gorgeous.
Just after 2 a.m., Feebleman left.
It wasn't even a day later when she accused him of assault under the university's Title IX statute.
She didn't seek medical attention or call the police.
She said, Ben tried to have sex with me, she told her roommate after he left.
She also told her boyfriend, who allegedly questioned how drunk she was.
She called him an a-hole, I'm assuming, and hung up.
That morning, she informed the school that female men had assaulted her.
Columbia University allegedly investigated the matter for six months.
In June 2017, a panel of three administrators held a kangaroo-style hearing, in which they never used any evidence he provided or asked Jane Doe a single question about his side of the story.
Neither of the two investigators on the case even showed up.
In the end, the school withheld his degree, effectively ending his career in journalism.
Let me stop you right there.
You were going to school for journalism, buddy?
They did you a favor.
Your career- Well, I get it, look.
He's suing.
So in his claim, not getting his degree was damaging.
I can respect that.
But my personal opinion is that a J-School degree is actually bad for you, and it was a big mistake.
But anyway, moving on.
At one point, they warned him not to utter a word about a medical report he obtained that addressed her level of capacity based on 700 photographs and the 30-minute recording.
According to his legal complaint, a witness, Jane Doe, called to support her in Columbia's case against him, later called Fiebelman and told him that she sometimes mixed pills and alcohol to get over a boyfriend.
If he mentioned the report, Columbia authorities said they'd throw him out of the hearing and proceed without him.
Feebleman had seven minutes to speak in which he said, please, please ask me about it, referring to his allegations against her.
School administrators declined.
He had no voice, literally.
Apparently had laryngitis.
So he sat silently with his lawyer, who also wasn't allowed to speak.
In less than 24 hours, the panel declared him responsible for the assault as the result of consensual non-intercourse sexual contact he had with her prior to her demands for intercourse.
I'm gonna tell you something.
There is a secret.
It's not really a secret, but whoever calls the cops, whoever reports it first, wins.
Period.
I have been in circumstances where I was the victim.
I won't get into great detail about this story.
I think I've told it before.
But I was attacked.
They called the co- I tried calling the police, they grabbed- So, actually I'll get a little bit of detail.
I was attacked by security guards at a mall when I was like 19.
Out of nowhere, they just jumped me and my brother.
Because I guess they had a report about somebody, they mixed him up, they thought it was us.
So they beat us up.
I called 911 because we're being attacked.
The security guard grabs the phone, hangs up.
911, the police try calling back, he hangs up again.
He shows it to me as he does it.
When the cops finally come, it's because they called.
We get arrested.
And when we try explaining to the police that we were the victims, the cop says, I don't care.
We don't file cross-reports.
They said you were disorderly, so we're arresting you.
And that was the end of it.
We ended up getting the case dismissed and winning, but nobody wanted to sue the city or the mall or get involved with it.
The mall had too much money.
Nobody wanted to do anything about it.
No justice served.
In this case, we have a similar story.
This guy seems to be the victim.
She was pressuring him, threatening him, trying to force herself on him.
So we recorded it.
And when he says, please, please, please, he wants to address this, they refuse.
They won't take his complaint.
Why?
She went there first.
Let me tell you what happened, in my opinion.
She filed this report against him because she knew she assaulted him.
And to prevent him from filing a report, she filed it first.
There you go.
The problem with the system.
Unless we have a legitimate court of justice at these universities, you will end up with these insane cases where the school doesn't actually adhere to any standard and just says, what's gonna save us the most money?
Fine.
Throw the guy out of the school.
Keep his degree.
Congratulations.
Now you're facing a massive lawsuit and you'll probably lose.
I'm gonna wrap it up here.
It's a really long story and you kind of get the point.
They go into great detail.
They show a lot of what... This is a really long story.
The general thing I wanted to convey, though, is, you know, the gist of the story.
There's lots and lots of details, but I'll give you the final conclusion on this.
The last paragraph.
They say... Never mind.
This is one of the daily callers.
Look, I'm not a fan of this kind of writing.
I absolutely detest this kind of writing.
No dig against the author or anything like that.
I'm just not a fan of narrative news.
I would much prefer a very simple explanation of what happened with details and then links to some of these details.
But they say that apparently the guy is not a choir boy, I guess.
On his personal website, he shares lengthy stories about his life with reckless abandon.
In one story, his idea of a party favor is a bag of dicks.
In another, he cleared the air path of choking, vomiting, or whatever.
Sounds like a really bad guy.
They say his Instagram is a wild ride.
The pictures are artistic snapshots of his life.
Whatever.
I'll tell you this.
I don't care what this guy is.
I don't care if he's just a generally unethical or amoral dude.
If in this particular instance, he has evidence that she was the one forcing herself on him, it is shocking that he was the one who was found guilty of it.
But there's serious problems in our universities.
This story kind of points to that, you know.
But stick around.
I have another segment coming up in just a few minutes.
This story requires a lot more time, so I'll put the link in the description.
And I will see you all in the next segment.
This story is absolutely funny for a really stupid reason, but just bear with me.
First, Vox is accused of stealing intellectual property from a journalist, journalist Danny Gold.
Now, I know Danny, I worked with him at Vice.
Now, I don't know him super well or anything, but I, you know, we've hung out, we work together.
Danny apparently had an idea for a show, Vox turned it down, later, and Vox, not Fox, Vox, V-O-X, later then took basically the entire premise of his pitch, ran with it, and didn't use him.
That's, like, essentially theft of intellectual property.
This happens all the time in journalism.
And I gotta say, it's quite funny when you see these, like, super goody-two-shoes moral policing websites like Vox, who turn out to be, I don't know, corporate fiends, I guess?
This happens all the time.
What happens, a journalist will be told, like, hey, why don't you pitch us some stories and we'll see if we want to hire you.
And you'll say, hey, I got a bunch of stories like this.
And they'll go, no, we don't want to do those stories, thanks for your time.
And then they'll immediately take those ideas to a different producer who they already have on staff and say, you do it.
That's what it seems actually happened here.
What makes this story really funny is another story about Vox stealing intellectual property that I'll get to in a second.
First, let's see what happened.
Journalist accuses Vox of stealing intellectual property for a Netflix show, and he's got the receipts.
They say. Vox Media reportedly stole the IP from documentary producer Danny Gold for an episode of
its Netflix show, Explained. Gold tweeted Wednesday. Explained is a show produced by Vox and aired on Netflix.
It aims to speak about various issues that affect people's lives.
Gold said he pitched an episode idea for the show in 2018, and later discovered the exact same scenario was used for an episode that aired in 2019.
The episode aired after his idea was given a pass by Vox.
I believe this is evidence that Vox stole the intellectual property, and immediately too.
I'll add something else to this, but listen.
When you produce a show, it could take months.
And then to get it to air, it could take months.
So if he pitched in 2018 and it aired in 2019, it sounds like they immediately ran to the bank like, we got it, we got it!
Even though they told him they didn't want it.
Let's move on.
Screenshots tweeted by Gold show his pitch, which was sent to Vox on January 22, 2018.
Gold's idea was to air an episode called The Next Pandemic.
The documentary producer included potential interviewees, such as philanthropist Bill Gates.
We can see this tweet from Danny.
He says, Hi to the staff, I'd love an explanation because it seems like you ripped me off and stole my pitch for Explained.
I sent you this episode treatment in 2018 called The Next Pandemic, you passed, and now I see you did an episode in November called The Next Pandemic.
You know what's really amazing about this story?
Is how brazen Vox is with this.
Because they had to have known Danny would see it.
I mean, Danny's... He works in this industry.
He watches these documentaries.
He pitched his story.
They must have known.
They really did not care.
I'll tell you what.
Vox is, I believe, partially or wholly owned.
I think NBC invested $200 million.
I don't know how much they own.
But yeah, NBC, $200 million stakes.
You know what happens?
These fat cats at companies like Vox pretend to be all about doing right by people, but they screw over the little guy any chance they get.
Any chance they get.
And they know that they have all the money in the world, so that Danny can't do anything about it.
Fortunately for Danny, there is the court of public opinion.
And when Danny posted a link to the email, a screenshot, showing he literally said, check this out, he said, wow, crazy.
My first suggested interview in the treatment was Bill Gates.
The first interview I see mentioned in IMDB for this piece is Bill Gates.
Wild coincidence or Vox.com ripping off a freelancer's work.
In my opinion, they're ripping him off and they don't care.
Now, first and foremost, one of the reasons I'm doing this segment is not about politics or anything like that.
It's about the fact that I will not stand by as these major corporations rip off indies.
Listen, I have faced the brunt of the fake news smears from major corporations that are trying to shut me down.
Vox gets this sweetheart deal with YouTube, and then they get to run their insane stories and accusations that hurt my channel?
Nah, homie, don't play that.
So if Danny Gold is also going to be ripped off by them, I absolutely am going to call him out because Vox is, well, dare I say it, they're evil.
Guess what?
They steal from other people, too.
Let me show you the next story.
This is where it gets funny.
It's a stupid pun, but just bear with me.
They say, after passing on the idea, Vox reportedly used Gold's episode plan and aired it in 2019 without notifying him or giving him any compensation or credit, for that matter.
The episode was titled, The Next Pandemic, which was the name of Gold's pitch.
The episode's description on IMDB includes a note that Gates is one of the people interviewed.
Now, I'll tell you this.
It's entirely possible, and it's really annoying when this happens.
Let's say I have a document.
I want to do an episode called, uh, what do I got here?
I got watermelon brand sparkling water.
Watermelon flavored, not branded.
Watermelon sparkling water right in front of me.
Okay.
Let's say you have, like, here's something I want to do.
Watermelon Sparkling Water.
Then a week later you invite someone in and they say the same thing.
I want to do a show called Watermelon Sparkling Water.
And then you're like, oh, we already have that ready to go.
They could accuse you of saying you're lying, you're stealing my pitch.
In this instance, Danny Gold has not only the email showing that he did pitch them well in advance, but the fact is they named it literally the same thing.
Like, dude, it's one thing if they said it's a good idea, let's do an episode about epidemics and stuff, but to literally use the same title and go after the same people is overt and brazen.
It shows me that Vox doesn't care.
They knew they would get called out for this.
They knew Danny would notice, and they don't care.
Because Vox is one of those which calls evil corporations.
Uh, they say, if you're not wor- Oh, I'm not gonna read the tag for it.
Vox did not respond to a request for comment.
Gold added that he had not heard from the higher-ups at Vox about the situation.
He also clarified in subsequent tweets that the idea was not unsolicited.
Cleo Abraham.
Abram.
One of the people tagged in Gold's original tweet did not respond either.
Gold later wrote that she was just gathering the apps and that no one should send her aggressive messages.
She's a producer for Vox.
It was part of the hiring process for the role of Season 2 producer, which aired on Netflix.
And he says, Netflix CEO Reed Hastings did not respond either.
He said, it's absurd to me how blatant this is and how people think they can get away with it.
Ask for treatments during the hiring process from producers, don't hire those producers, then steal their work, people in charge just assume you'll keep your mouth shut.
Don't ever.
Bravo, good sir, do not keep your mouth shut, and neither will I. Vox is one of these companies that pretends to be all about ethics and morals and social justice, but they are just a money machine.
They are saying these things to manipulate you to generate clicks.
They will steal from underneath you.
They will steal from Danny Gold, a freelance producer who has very little hope of going up against a massive corporation, but he does have the court of public opinion.
We shouldn't sit by and let these big companies just rip people off.
I'm certainly not a fan of that, and I think most people would agree.
Fortunately, he has the ability to tweet.
We have the ability to amplify that.
People on Twitter can retweet.
And that could be enough pressure on the company to make them compensate and credit him for what was clearly his idea.
But that's the game they play.
Ideas can be powerful.
But sometimes, you know, a lot of people underestimate the value of an idea.
Let me tell you a story.
It's kind of a joke.
An office worker.
His printer stops working, right?
And so all of his employees, the office managers, all of his employees are like, hey, the copying machine is broken.
It's a big copying machine.
We need to hire someone to repair it, otherwise we can't work.
So the office manager calls a repairman.
The repairman walks in, takes a look at it, feels around, draws an X on the side, pulls out a hammer, and whacks it.
The machine kicks back on.
The office manager's like, amazing, you fixed it!
The repairman turns to the manager and says, that'll be $500.
And the office manager says, 500 bucks for what?
All you did was hit it with a hammer!
And the man says, no.
Hitting it with the hammer was free.
Knowing where to hit it with the hammer costs 500 bucks.
So that's typically used to explain how sometimes it might seem like something is an easy job or easy to come by, but the idea, the knowledge behind it is particularly valuable.
In this case, Danny had a good idea, they should have paid for it.
But here's where it gets funny, okay?
Vox is not innocent, okay?
Nate Silver to Vox, stop stealing my charts.
From 2015, and it's an old story, but hold on.
Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight tweeted, yovox.com, y'all should probably stop stealing people's charts without proper attribution.
You do this all the time to FiveThirtyEight and others.
Vox apparently, and in the past, has been called out by high profile people for stealing other intellectual property.
But now I bring you to the greatest part of this whole story.
I gotta admit, I really wanted to do this segment because I do not like the idea of these... These are evil companies, man.
You know, when I worked for Fusion, they said, essentially, to lie.
Essentially, okay?
Because they didn't say, Tim, go lie.
They were like, we want to side with the audience.
And we all know what that meant.
And I said, if that means it's a story that would be factually true but offensive, we don't cover it.
And they said, yes.
Essentially.
Right?
They said, yeah, I think that's fair.
And so I was told, however I covered stuff, it had to be framed to side with the audience, regardless of whether it was right or wrong.
So that's why I wanted to cover this, because I can absolutely empathize with how Danny got ripped off here, and I think that's complete BS.
Like, you know, there's a lot of people, there was a website once, that talked about how these big digital companies would hire you, say, oh, send us an invoice and we'll pay you, and they never would.
Okay?
It's a chronic problem with these companies.
But I'm gonna do it.
You're gonna get mad at me.
Danny Gold.
Danny Gold is his name.
Right?
Gold.
And Nate Silver.
Ah, isn't it funny?
It's such a good story.
So, uh, I, I, I, this is such an old story.
It was never really a big deal.
But Gold and Silver had their intellectual property stolen by Vox.
Isn't that... It's just a stupid pun.
I don't know.
I thought it was funny.
Y'all probably are thinking I'm stupid for bringing it up.
But isn't it, isn't it kind of weird?
But, uh, anyway, let me wrap this up.
Vox should do the right thing.
Vox should absolutely give him a producer credit, and they should absolutely compensate him.
Like, I gotta be honest, whereas Danny's normal fee would apply if they took his story, I think they should pay him three times damages for clearly taking his idea and running with it.
To have someone come in for a job interview is to take their time.
To then say, what's your ideas?
What are your story pitches?
Take your pitch, tell you no, that time you spent going there was work being done.
The time you spent putting together the treatment was work being done.
They brought you in, they took your product, they took your time, and they refused to pay?
They should pay damages.
Gold and silver.
I thought it was funny.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Lindsey Graham has betrayed the Republicans.
He says he will oppose subpoena for Hunter Biden.
I gotta admit, I'm really upset by this.
I'm not like super upset, whatever.
I'm fairly ambivalent most of the time.
But I think it's absurd.
Of all the people I want to see testify, it's Joe and Hunter Biden.
You know, they're impeaching the president based on this idea that they've made up.
What we can prove, so far, with the Democrats, is that Trump was asking for an investigation into Biden.
The issue here is motivation.
Was Trump motivated to win re-election?
Or was he motivated to weed out corruption?
Well, they never even asked.
The Democrats in the impeachment inquiry never asked a single person as to the motive of Donald Trump.
They've made everything up.
They say, Donald Trump asked for an investigation of Joe Biden.
He did it because of these things.
You never proved it.
You've never provided evidence.
You are speculating.
So I'd like to see testimony.
Because if it turns out that Hunter Biden is guilty, and Joe Biden knew about it, or is involved, well, that would add evidence to suggest Donald Trump was correct.
At the very least, though.
All Democrats have proven is that the worst case, Donald Trump's stupid.
And he believed fake news.
That's it.
They have in no way proven Trump actually did anything illegal.
But I will say this.
Lindsey Graham, I'll give him some respect.
It's not easy to buck the party line.
To buck the party line.
To buck the party line.
So if, you know, when it comes to Matt Gaetz defying the Republicans voting with Democrats, if it comes to Lindsey Graham, I gotta be honest, man.
I personally think this is a bad move.
Hunter Biden should testify.
Okay?
He should.
But I can respect that Lindsey is doing this for one reason.
Look, man, the Democrats are nuts when they force all of their members to vote the way they want, as if voting for party is more important than voting for your principles.
Now, I can be disappointed that Lindsey Graham is going to oppose the subpoena of Hunter Biden, for sure, but I can respect his willingness to say, this is what I believe.
I'm not going to defy this.
Look at Jeff Andrew.
They're doing this rally in four days in Wild Vine, which is Jeff Van Drew's district.
Trump is doing this rally in a Democrat's district who now flipped Republican.
I respect Van Drew for saying, no, you can't force me to do this.
I'm going to vote for what I believe is right.
And he switched to the Republican side.
If the Republicans start playing this game of slamming their own because their own are proving to not be cultists, you kind of just make yourselves look like you're as bad as the Democrats.
Matt Gaetz got a ton of flack.
Because he voted in line with Democrats to limit Trump's war powers with Iran.
You know what?
I don't know if it was the right or wrong thing.
I tend to be more constitutionalist, so it sounds like it's the right thing to make sure that the president's powers are limited.
And Matt Gaetz was still willing to assert that.
And a lot of Republicans got mad.
That makes me angry.
If the Republicans are going to play the same tribal nonsense Democrats are, then why would anyone give them any benefit of the doubt in regards to whether or not they're standing on the real moral ground, right?
Republicans like to point out all of the things that Democrats do that are hypocritical, and so do I.
But then when I turn around and see Republicans doing similar things in terms of, you know, slamming Graham or slamming Gates, calling him a traitor and things like that, I'm like, dude, they went to Jeff Andrews office and said, vote for us or we'll remove you.
And that's disgusting.
OK, if you can't secure the votes, that's your problem.
Lindsey Graham is going to oppose it.
I disagree.
I want Hunter Biden to testify.
But hey, I'm glad that he's standing up for himself, and I'll tell you this.
The great opportunity for Republicans, when the Republicans break party lines, is to say, we are not cultists like the Democrats are, and while we disagree, we accept Lindsey Graham, and we're gonna try and talk to him and see if he'll change his mind.
That's about it.
That's about it.
But Matt Gaetz got the worst of it.
Let's read the story.
From the Hill, they say.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham says he will vote against a motion to subpoena Hunter Biden if a majority of colleagues agree next week that additional witnesses and documents need to be summoned for President Trump's impeachment trial.
If Republican colleagues introduce a motion to subpoena former Vice President Joe Biden's son, Graham said, I vote against it.
Graham's opposition essentially kills the threat that Republicans have wielded in recent weeks.
That if Democrats win a motion to hear from additional witnesses, such as former National Security Advisor John Bolton and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, they will retaliate by subpoenaing the Bidens.
Republican lawmakers such as Senators Rand Paul and John Kennedy have threatened to weaponize the debate over witnesses by forcing the Bidens into the impeachment spotlight.
Paul has argued that Trump's defense team should be allowed to call whatever witnesses they want.
They should.
Especially Voldemort.
You know, the whistleblower guy.
I can't say his name.
And Sean Misko, one of Schiff's staff.
And Adam Schiff.
The president gets to call anybody he thinks would be good for his defense.
The prosecution can call who they want.
But I don't think we should selectively call witnesses that don't like the president.
I'm gonna make another point, too.
I want to see Biden testify, you know.
I think Lindsey Graham might be right.
Just because the Democrats played the game doesn't mean Republicans should either.
Republicans should quash the impeachment.
They shouldn't call in Biden.
They should just say, we're dismissing this.
Now I'll tell you what I really want to see.
You know what I really want to see?
Voldemort and Misko testify.
I want to see Schiff and his team and the people who started this testifying and under oath explaining these things, talking about a certain Colonel Vindman, and I want to know what's really going on.
However, I recognize there's a serious problem in that a constant tit-for-tat between the Democrats and the Republicans can destabilize everything.
The best thing for Republicans to do is actually just shut it down and then win in November because they likely are going to anyway.
But if they play this game where they call Hunter Biden, it will never persist.
The ends don't justify the means.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
As much as it will be emotionally satisfying to see this, I really do think for the good of the country, you have to just have these Democrats who are presenting all this fake nonsense be soundly defeated.
But here's the big challenge.
Without exculpatory evidence, a testimony from Hunter Biden, from people associated with Burisma, from Chalupa, We may not get a definitive answer.
And what will happen is if Lindsey Graham does block this, look, I'll tell you this.
It's complicated.
You know, it may be better that Hunter Biden testifies so the nation can have clarity.
Because if they dismiss this, the Democrats are going to say the Republicans never gave it a fair shot, and they're obstructing us.
They're going to call it a cover up.
And you have a lot of people who believe it.
But if Hunter Biden testifies, and he starts saying things that turn out Yeah, it was corruption.
And Donald Trump was right.
Then we can unify this country.
So I'm concerned that there are two really big negative possibilities.
You know, with Lindsey Graham opposing this, it's possible that America will never be unified.
But then on the other end, if he does bring in Biden, and Biden doesn't present any exculpatory evidence, then people will just escalate the tensions.
So I'll tell you what, man, I really don't know what the right answers are.
What I can tell you is that from a PR point of view, Republicans would be wise not to slam Graham too hard over this.
I'll tell you again, man.
The Democrats play this culty game of in-line or else.
You know, we just saw it earlier today with Joe Rogan.
Joe Rogan endorses Bernie and they say, too bad!
Too bad, it's not good enough!
You're never good enough for the weird culties.
So the Republicans should not be playing that game.
You can be mad about Graham.
My response?
You know, look.
There's a lot of things I don't agree with Lindsey Graham on.
He's probably not someone I'd ever vote for.
But I recognize, you know, he's an important figure in the Senate.
And I would like to see Hunter Biden testify.
I'm disappointed he's opposing it.
Perhaps someone should have a conversation with him, talk about the reason why he should be.
They say, Kennedy argued that Trump's lawyers would likely want to cross-examine the Bidens.
I feel pretty confident though, I don't know it for a fact, that the defense team is going to want to call its witnesses, including but not limited to, the Bidens and, as a fact witness, the whistleblower, aka Voldemort.
Senate Majority Leader McConnell has also opened the door to subpoenaing Hunter Biden.
When you get to that issue, I can't imagine that only the witnesses that our Democratic colleagues would want to call would be called.
Graham acknowledged he doesn't yet know of three other Republicans to vote against subpoenaing Hunter Biden, but his opposition to the move all but guarantees that it won't happen.
I need some Republicans who would say as much as I want to, as much as I want to know more about Burisma and the Bidens, this is not the venue.
I've got to find four, he said.
So it's entirely possible.
It doesn't matter what Graham thinks.
It doesn't matter if he votes for or against it.
If the Republicans agree to bring in Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, they're coming.
Republicans control 53 seats.
Democrats have 47.
A motion to subpoena witnesses could deadlock on a 50-50 vote.
If Graham says that hauling Hunter Biden before the Senate would be going down too much of a political rabbit hole, it's extremely hard to imagine moderates such as Senators Susan Collins, Murkowski, and Romney doing so.
I wouldn't call Romney a moderate.
He's more of a never-Trumper.
Graham said there should be an investigation into Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine and what he did as a highly-competitive board member of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian gas company, but he warned the impeachment trial is not the appropriate venue.
I don't want to call Hunter Biden.
I don't want to call Joe Biden.
I want someone to look at this when this is done.
I'm sorry, it doesn't work, Lindsay.
You're wrong.
He says, I don't think it's wrong for us to look at the Biden connection in Ukraine, the $3 million given to the vice president's son by the most corrupt company in Ukraine.
The problem is, was Trump right?
And if Trump is removed from office, he won't be, but he's already been impeached.
Trump deserves to be exonerated if he was right.
And in the worst case, proven that he was wrong.
That's it.
If they say, you know what, we're going to do impeachment first, and a year later they do Hunter Biden, what are they going to do?
Post, you know, after the fact, say, oh, we were wrong about, you know, the trial against Trump.
Turns out, he was actually right to investigate the Bidens, and he shouldn't have been impeached in the first place.
That should be discovered now, before the impeachment trial is concluded.
So Graham said he's going to oppose the subpoenas because it needs to end.
He's not wrong about that.
Republicans should just vote to shut it all down, okay?
Just get rid of it.
Look, man, there's no high crimes or misdemeanors.
I know the left is arguing that high crimes and misdemeanors is an analogy for public trust.
Sorry, it doesn't say that.
Period.
Therefore, Republicans should have walked up and said, The Constitution reads the President can be impeached for treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors.
As the Democrats have accused the President of none of these things, we move to dismiss.
