Democrats Accidentally Proved Trump Is INNOCENT With LEAKED Audio Tape, Impeachment Collapsing
Democrats Accidentally Proved Trump Is INNOCENT With LEAKED Audio Tape, Impeachment Collapsing. As the impeachment trial for Donald Trump drones on with no new information the Democrats allies in media seemed to have made a tactical error in bringing on Lev Parnas to give his account of what was going on with Trump in Ukraine.In a recent interview with Rachel Maddow Parnas claimed that Trump ordered the firing of Ambassador Yovanovitch, the only problem? This dinner was in April 2018, a full year before Joe Biden would ever announce he was running for office.We now have direct confirmation of that meeting with leaked audio tapes that not only prove Trump's Ukraine actions had absolutely nothing to do with Biden but that the real reason for firing Yovanovitch was that she was bad mouthing him to officials in Ukraine and undermining his foreign policy.Democrats like Adam Schiff keep asserting without evidence that Trump was trying to dig up dirt on joe Biden, but now we know that timeline makes absolutely no sense as Biden hadn't even announced his plan for the presidency yet. To argue that Trump was predicting the future would be an absurd leap and an attempt at mind reading.The simple solution is that once again Democrats are wrong and impeachment is collapsing in front of our eyes.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Central to the Democrats impeachment case against Donald Trump is their claim that he was trying to dig up dirt on Joe Biden in order to help him win re-election.
Now, they've never asked a single question in any of their hearings as to the motive of Donald Trump.
They've presented no evidence as to the motive of Donald Trump.
They simply argue about the Ukrainian investigations.
Even right now, Trump's defense is arguing about Ukrainian investigations, about FISA warrants, but not once.
Has anyone seemed to ask?
Why don't you ask a witness if Trump ever expressed anything about losing his re-election?
The answer is he probably hasn't.
And this case seems to be flimsy.
But now it gets kind of, well, a bit comical.
Recently, Rachel Maddow did an interview with Lev Parnas, one of these shady figures who is apparently in Trump's circle working in Ukraine.
In the interview, Lev Parnas made a bold claim that at a dinner meeting in 2018, Trump ordered the firing of then Ambassador Yovanovitch.
Well, immediately people started asking, wouldn't that exonerate Trump?
Isn't that exculpatory evidence?
Joe Biden didn't announce he was running for president until April 2019.
And this dinner took place in April 2018, a full year before.
While many people were saying this, we now have absolute confirmation, and we now know why Trump wanted to fire Yovanovitch.
Leaked audio tapes of Trump at this meeting are now going viral, with the number one trend being Trump tapes.
In it, we learn Trump wanted to fire Yovanovitch because she was bad-mouthing him and was a holdover from the Clinton administration, and that Trump was actively engaging in whatever you want to call it, the investigations in Ukraine, a full year before Joe Biden even announced.
I want to go through this stuff.
There's your general opening, you know, lead.
There's a lot more I want to talk about, though.
Because do you think the media is telling people the truth?
Do you think progressive outlets are saying to people, listen, if Trump was investigating corruption or whatever, or Biden's, before Joe even announced, then what is your argument he was trying to win re-election?
That he was investigating someone who might run?
That he wasn't concerned about the people who actually said they were going to run?
Doesn't seem to make sense.
Of course, now we can see the media, how they're treating impeachment, the stories they're writing are keeping Democrats in a delusional state.
I know it's a little harsh.
I know the left is probably already mad at me for saying it like that.
But listen, I've got a series of stories and comments I want to show you where people on the left do not even have any clue as to what's going on because they're being fed lies over and over again by the media, in my opinion, that is trying to convince them they're winning in exchange for clicks.
Let's get started with this quick story.
I'm not really going to dwell too much on the Rachel Maddow intro, because most of you know Rachel Maddow interviewed Lev Parnas.
It was this big, groundbreaking interview.
Tons of accusations, no credibility.
This guy was indicted on a bunch of charges, but now we're supposed to trust him?
Well, one of the claims he made actually is true.
That Trump wanted to fire Marie Yovanovitch, the ambassador to Ukraine.
Now, what they argue is that Marie Yovanovitch was in the way of their scheme to pressure Ukraine to help Trump win re-election, and she must be removed.
When you look at this story from Vox, it's actually really funny, because they dance around how Lev Parnas' claims were true.
They say this.
Then President Trump's voice can be heard on the recording saying, get rid of her.
Get her out tomorrow.
Take her out, okay?
Do it.
This is just what Parnas claimed happened in his interview with MSNBC's Rachel Maddow last week.
He fired her actually at the dinner.
Which is the most surprising thing ever, Parnas continued.
Essentially, Rachel Maddow and the Democrats' desire to get Lev Parnas on the record just provided what appears to be evidence that, while it may help exonerate Donald Trump and prove he wasn't investigating Biden over anything having to do with 2020, it happened a full year before Biden even announced he was running.
Now let's move on, but before we do, Check out TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
I know it's almost impossible to break echo chamber bubbles, but perhaps some people who aren't really paying attention might see this and understand why the Democrats' own claims, Rachel Maddow's own interview, just provided a glimpse into what was really going on.
I can't tell you if Joe Biden really is corrupt.
In my personal opinion, I think he is.
But we would need an investigation for that.
We haven't had one.
But even if Donald Trump thought Biden was, and he was wrong, if Trump wants to see the Department of Justice or a foreign country investigate potential corruption, that's not an impeachable offense.
At the very best case scenario for Democrats, the only thing they've proven is that Trump is stupid, that he believed fake news.
But we won't know that until we get an investigation into what really happened with Hunter Biden.
Now, they've tried saying, oh, Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, he just had this job.
Listen.
At the bare minimum, it was a conflict of interest, okay?
But Hunter Biden was getting paid a lot of money to essentially just be a connection to the Vice President.
I think that's at least grounds for some kind of investigation, right?
But let's read.
I want to show you this.
The real, potentially, well, the evidence in favor of Trump.
They say this, how the recording fits into the timeline of the Ukraine caper.
The date of this dinner with Trump, Parnas and Fruman, April 30th, 2018, is particularly interesting because of how early it is.
For instance, Rudy Giuliani does not appear to have been involved in the scheme yet at that point.
First of all, I think it's particularly funny that they're referring to Trump firing an ambassador as a scheme.
The president can fire any ambassador he wants.
And as it turns out, I'm going to show you this tweet from someone who doesn't like Trump.
This man says, so much dirt and yet he won't burn.
He sounds like a mob boss.
This is how dictators rise.
The weak follow him out of fear of losing re-election.
But hold on.
The clip he shows is from CNN.
Here's a quote from Lev Parnas, April 30th, 2018.
If you take a look, the biggest problem there, I think where we need to start, is we gotta get rid of the ambassador.
He goes on and says, she's still left over from the Clinton administration.
Trump says, uh, what's, what?
The ambassador of the Ukraine, Trump says?
Parnas says, yeah.
She's basically walking around telling everybody, wait, he's gonna get impeached, just wait.
Trump responds, get rid of her.
Get her out tomorrow, I don't care, get her out tomorrow, take her out, okay, do it.
Let's stop for a second.
Is this a scheme?
Let me tell you something.
If you work for Burger King, and a new manager, you get hired by manager Bob.
Manager Bob quits, and Manager Bill comes in.
And if you start walking around saying, I'm not gonna listen to Manager Bill, and neither should you, because he's gonna get fired soon anyway, and then he comes out and says, I'm firing you for bad-mouthing me, don't be surprised.
He's allowed to fire you.
The important point here is this tape actually provides really bad evidence for Democrats because it shows Marie Yovanovitch was actually undermining American foreign policy.
If Donald Trump was trying to weed out corruption in Ukraine, I'm not going to make assumptions here.
The left certainly wants to make the assumption Trump was trying to dig up dirt on Biden.
But as we can see, the date precedes or it was well before a year Joe Biden was ever going to announce.
So here you have Donald Trump, the President of the United States, trying to implement a foreign policy when the ambassador to Ukraine is going around saying, wait, he's going to be impeached.
Just wait.
What does that mean?
I can make a lot of assumptions.
In my personal opinion, it sounds like she was telling people not to listen to Trump or the US foreign policy because Trump would be removed from office, thus undermining Trump's plan.
Trump is the President of the United States.
Even if you don't like him, it's his responsibility and privilege.
He was elected.
He gets to decide foreign policy, not the ambassador.
Upon finding out she was being insubordinate and bad-mouthing him in a foreign country, he said fire her.
Not a scheme, not a scandal.
This is the problem.
Vox is framing it as though this was some kind of nefarious plot to dig up dirt on Biden a year before Biden even announced.
We didn't even know if he was going to run.
Why would Trump want to investigate a potential rival instead of his actual rivals?
People like Bernie Sanders, people who we knew would actually try and run.
Now, perhaps there was speculation, and some people say, oh, please, Trump knew Biden was going to run.
That's why he started early.
So what they're really saying is, Trump was investigating Joe Biden before Biden even announced.
Under that logic, it would say that not only is someone running for the presidential office not allowed to be investigated, that's absurd, of course they can be, but they're also saying someone who might run for the office of the president can't be investigated either.
That's insane.
Now, it sounds like in this meeting, there is no scheme.
It sounds like it has absolutely nothing to do with Joe Biden.
It sounds like it has something to do with enacting foreign policy.
And it sounds like they are trying to connect the firing of Marie Yovanovitch into some bigger scheme that has nothing to do with.
This recording, in my opinion, shows that Trump was sitting at a dinner.
Someone said, hey, you know, your employee is badmouthing you.
And he was like, then fire her, get rid of her.
We can't have her undermining my plans.
I'm the president, right?
That's all we hear.
There's no big scheme, apparently.
But they try and paint it that way.
Why would Vox try and convince people of something that is just completely out of context?
Calling this a scheme is absurd.
It's a boss firing an employee.
They say this.
Rather, at the time of the dinner, Parnes and Fruman were buying access to Trump donor events with large campaign donations.
And it was Parnes who seemed urgently interested in getting Trump to fire Yovanovitch.
It is unclear why or for whom he was pushing for Yovanovitch's ouster.
Evidently.
Trump was happy to order Yovanovitch's firing there and then.
But Parnas told Maddow and aide told Trump it couldn't be done yet because Mike Pompeo hadn't been sworn in as Secretary of State.
Pompeo, in fact, had been sworn in yet, sworn in, but was just taking the reins of the State Department.
After this, in May, Parnas and Fruman met with Rep.
Yada Yada.
Here's the point.
The worst thing we've learned from this is that Trump potentially fired an ambassador because someone badmouthed her.
I'm sorry, not an impeachable offense.
I mean, it would be a bummer, right?
Imagine you're working at Burger King.
We'll go back to the Burger King analogy.
Imagine you work at Burger King and you get a new boss and one day the boss fires you and you don't know why.
And then it turns out another employee was lying about you.
Yeah, guess what?
The boss is still allowed to fire you if he hears you're doing bad things and believes it.
It might not be justice.
Marie Yovanovitch may have been fired in a way that we might think is unfair, but Trump is allowed to do it.
It is not an impeachable offense in any way, nor is it a scheme.
Now you can blame Parnas for sure.
We can absolutely argue that Parnas was trying to manipulate the president, and that's possible.
Maybe the worst thing the Democrats have actually proven is that Trump is stupid, like I said earlier.
But that's still an assumption.
The assumption I make from seeing Parnas talk is that he was being asked about what's going on in Ukraine and why aren't we moving forward with, you know, anti-corruption or whatever it is Trump wanted to do, good or bad.
Parnas said, well, it's because your ambassador is telling people not to do it.
It's because you're saying, wait, he's going to be impeached.
So then Trump was like, well, then we're going to get rid of her.
And there we are now.
We are here in a situation with no evidence, speculation, Democrats have not asked a single time.
Go back to the impeachment hearings in the House.
Did one Democrat at any point say, did Trump ever express fear of losing to Joe Biden?
What was Trump thinking about 2020?
Did Trump ever express concern over anyone beating him in the re-election?
Never happened.
They never asked a single question about Trump's motivation.
They assumed his motivation and provided no evidence.
And in the wake of this, when we even have evidence that whatever was going on was going on well before Biden was even running for office, they still try and claim in the media that this is all part of a bigger scheme.
Instead of saying what's shocking about this is how early it was, showing the Democrats may be wrong, they say what's shocking is that it was so early.
And that's it.
Are you going to point out that Biden wasn't even running for office?
In fact, if I was going to make any speculation, it would be that Joe Biden announced his run because he knew he was being investigated.
But that's equally absurd.
For the Democrats to leap from Trump withheld aid to Ukraine to he's trying to cheat in his reelection without evidence is as absurd as saying Biden is running to shield himself.
Neither of which are going to be proven.
The point is Democrats have no evidence.
That brings me to impeachment.
The media will consistently tell people that the Republicans are running scared, that Trump is in serious trouble now, that Adam Schiff just went viral with his impassioned plea.
No, Adam Schiff is not going viral.
Republicans are not scared.
They're bored.
Let me show you how the media is playing this game.
Here's a tweet.
Gabriel Sherman of Vanity Fair tweets, Fear over impeachment grows in Trump world.
Sources close to Trump legal team shocked by how powerful Democrat arguments have been.
My latest.
This is not real.
This is not true, okay?
I know many people who are high-profile Trump-supporting personalities, conservatives.
I have heard from literally no one, anywhere, at any point, that anyone on Trump's team is concerned.
In fact, they're not concerned in the least.
It's the opposite.
They're extremely confident.
So why would Vanity Fair try and tell Democrats that Trump's running scared?
That his team is so worried about the power of Adam Schiff?
Why would we then see this article from the New York Times?
Emotional shift speech goes viral.
Delighting the left and enraging the right.
You know what?
I'll stop.
It's actually technically true.
It did go viral, it did delight the left, and it did enrage the right.
But not for the reasons you'd probably assume.
The reason these videos enrage the right is because Adam Schiff's saying the same thing over and over and over again.
Trust me, I've actually been partially watching impeachment, but it's been very mind-numbing, so I've kept it kind of to a minimum.
But yes, every day, Fox News has been covering the impeachment trial, and Adam Schiff has been literally saying the exact same thing.
I'm not exact- okay, not literally the same thing, but figuratively the same thing.
It's the- it's the same phrases, words are slightly different.
He's not reading a script, for the most part.
I mean, he probably is reading talking points.
But it's basically the same assertions over and over again, without evidence.
Trump did this, you know, Trump pressured Ukraine to win in the election.
The next day, Trump pressured Ukraine to win in an election.
No evidence.
None whatsoever.
Now we see this viral video apparently.
And no, no one on the right is enraged by it, in terms of a good argument.
They might be enraged by Schiff in general because he's extremely annoying.
What's really funny is that, I could be wrong about this, but I believe not only is Donald Trump the first president to be impeached with having violated no statutory crime, but it's the least articles of impeachment for any president ever.
Just two.
No real crimes here.
So it seems to me that because the Democrats don't actually have anything to say, they're pattering, right?
They're padding their speech up with fluff talk to make it seem like there's a lot more going on than there really is.
In reality, this we've now learned thanks to Rachel Maddow and CNN.
And other allies in the Democratic Party who wanted Parnas to speak, we now learned that Trump was doing whatever he was doing a full year before Biden was even running for president.
That seems to undercut everything the Democrats have claimed.
Like, what's your serious argument?
And the argument I've seen is, well, Trump knew Biden was gonna run.
That still doesn't make sense.
There were no polls.
There was no evidence Biden could beat Trump.
There's no reason for Trump to even be thinking about who he'd be running against, and a strategy.
They completely undercutted their entire case.
But I'll tell you this.
The media will do everything in its power to lull Democrats into a false sense of security.
People can be sitting in during this historical impeachment, but the gallery is half-empty?
Nobody's there?
Yep, that's the case.
And I'll do you one better.
Check this story out.
Broadcast network's impeachment viewership falls short of soap operas, study says.
Not only did the Democrats, their allies, Rachel Maddow for instance, just provide evidence that the Democrats' case is completely false, that Trump was doing whatever he was doing well before Biden was around, we now can see that people care so little about impeachment, soap operas are doing better.
In fact, I believe it was day one of the impeachment hearings, CBS, one of the largest networks in the country, Stopped covering the impeachment trial and switched to soap operas, regularly scheduled programming.
Journalists were shocked.
This is a historical moment.
How could one of the biggest networks in the country refuse to cover this?
Democrats were equally shocked when they found out that Republicans were actually walking out of the Senate hearing because, well, for whatever reason, they were walking out.
They were supposed to be impartial jurors.
I can tell you why.
Because Adam Schiff, Nadler, and the other impeachment managers are literally saying the same things over and over and over again.
CBS didn't want to cover it.
They turned it off.
What's the strategy of the Democrats here?
To bore Americans to the point where they beg for mercy?
It's not working.
If the press won't cover it, and they're starting to fall out, and the Republicans don't want to hear the same thing 28 times, what do you think's going to happen in the end of this?
And why would they be doing it?
I honestly have no idea.
The only thing I can say is, I presume it's, uh, incompetence?
Here's the best part.
I'm going to show you some comments from Reddit.
The story about the emotional plea from Adam Schiff they claim is delighting the left.
We can see it on r slash politics on Reddit.
If you're not familiar, this is one of the largest political forums in the world.
And for some reason, it's essentially the mirror image of the Donald.
By mirror image, I don't mean the identical.
I mean it looks very similarly in what it talks about, but it's an inversion.
If you go to the Donald subreddit, you'll see them praising the president and defending him.
If you go to politics, you're supposed to get an impartial political discussion, but instead, it's literally just Trump is awful.
Let's look at some of the comments.
We can see here, this comment says, this was one of the most powerful speeches in American history.
Schiff is an absolute legend and patriot, they say.
Is there a link to it?
Then we see this link here, surely this will have compelled Trump supporters.
And someone responds, one thing that stands out to me, There are so many Trump supporters... Okay, let me try this again.
One thing that stands out to me, there are so many Trump supporters argue from an appeal-to-emotion standpoint.
Very bad grammar, mind you, but I don't understand.
Fine, we'll move on.
To their credit, they only ever said facts don't care about our feelings.
They never said facts don't care about theirs.
Well, I clicked the link.
What we actually get... They weren't responding.
To nine different arguments from a Trump supporter as to why they don't think the speech from Schiff actually mattered.
Basically saying that it's just, first of all, characterizing investigations as political.
Just because someone's running for president doesn't mean they're immune to prosecution.
Says, we all know Trump would do this.
That's not very compelling.
He chose Rudy Giuliani over his own FBI director.
Trump is allowed to trust whoever he wants.
Four, he chose to believe Rudy Giuliani instead of the NSC.
So what?
Trump is allowed to do this.
You can argue he's a bad president, but you can't impeach him for being stupid.
Basically, the point I'm trying to make here is, if you look to how these lefties and anti-Trumpers are being lulled into a false sense of security, they're essentially in an echo chamber telling each other how much they're winning, listening to the press claiming that Trump and his supporters are freaking out.
They're arguing that Trump supporters are acting based on emotion, when in reality, they're presenting actual arguments as to why Schiff has not proven his case, yet still believing it's an appeal to emotion.
It's not.
Adam Schiff presented no real evidence.
Something really funny happened the other day when this guy from CNN tweeted out a fake quote.
He said, The funny thing about the fake quote he made up and later admitted to is that even in his fictional version of reality, Republicans were in a room where Adam Schiff presented no evidence.
That's why they said, if what he said is true.
Because certainly if Schiff presented real evidence, they'd say, wow, it's true, right?
But Schiff has presented no evidence.
I'd like to once again bring you back to reality.
And the reality is, Donald Trump's approval rating is averaging around an all-time high.
His all-time high, I believe, is 45.3, except for right when he got elected, when it reached around 46, I believe.
But then it dropped quickly.
And in the first year or so of his presidency, it was very low.
Today, the aggregate approval for Donald Trump is 44.9.
Not the highest it's ever been or the second highest it's ever been, but still higher than average if you look at the entire duration of his first term.
But more importantly is support and opposition for impeachment.
We are now tied for the largest spread.
No's have it.
There is 48.3% in the aggregate saying no to impeachment and removal.
There's 47.2% saying yes.
This is tied for the largest spread.
The previous, I believe, let me see if I have the date here.
It's not scrolling down.
The previous time was December 25th, when it was also a 1.1 gap.
Again, in reality, Republicans are not scared.
Trump is not scared.
Most of the country, in the aggregate, not a single poll, opposes impeachment and removal of Trump.
Now, he's already been impeached.
Now we're talking about the removal of the president.
The majority, according to the aggregate polling, is no.
Yet for some reason, They all want to believe that Trump is scared.
Their own evidence is coming out.
And instead of telling people, whoa, whoa, whoa, Trump was fired Yovanovitch a year before Biden even announced?
Well, that would totally undermine that Biden was even running.
Because how could Trump have a scheme to dig up dirt on a guy who isn't running for president and know he needs to fire Yovanovitch?
That's just ridiculous conspiracy theory nonsense.
Occam's razor would suggest the simple solution.
Marie Yovanovitch was badmouthing her boss, so her boss fired her.
Trump heard from somebody that she was badmouthing him, so he fired her.
Now, by all means, you can argue that Parnes was involved in some kind of scheme to manipulate the president.
That's fine.
But that doesn't mean Trump did anything wrong.
It means Parnes did something wrong.
The dude's already been indicted on a bunch of things.
So, hey, maybe that's true.
So perhaps Marie Yovanovitch shouldn't have been fired.
Too bad.
Her boss heard she was badmouthing him.
Trump said, I don't care.
Get rid of her.
And now what do we hear?
Shocking!
The scheme was going on longer than we thought!
A sane, rational person would say, doesn't that disprove your entire claim?
Which brings me to the media again.
Because it seems the media's complete desire is to make sure the narrative persists and perhaps for ratings.
Check out this story from The Blaze.
Stephanopoulos caught on air frantically signaling to cut feed of Trump's attorney's presser.
Let me just tell you what happened.
There was an attorney for Donald Trump talking about their case in their defense, explaining why Trump was not guilty of wrongdoing.
And accidentally, it would seem, ABC cut back to George Stephanopoulos, who can be seen drawing a line over his neck.
Essentially, we assume he's saying, you know, end the feed, shut it down.
And it caught him a second early, and then he looked like, oops, I'll tell you this, to be fair, It's possible he was just saying, we've had enough of this, we don't need to hear anymore, it's boring, we're not learning anything, let's bring it back to the host.
Or, perhaps he had a producer in his ear saying, come on, let's bring it back to the news, we've had enough of this guy.
Even if that was the case, and George Stephanopoulos was not being biased, why would they cut off of Trump's attorney's presser anyway?
Why would their opinion be, we shouldn't show this?
In reality, all that matters is he was literally saying, turn off Trump's lawyer defending him.
And that's what happens.
Even if it's about clicks, about traffic, about money, about their interest, the left will not hear from Trump's attorney and they will not hear the evidence.
And then they get roped into this false sense of security.
I bring you now to another story.
I got a long one for you.
I got a lot going on.
Check this out.
Sanders seizes lead in volatile Iowa race.
Time's poll finds.
You see stories like this, and it shows Bernie Sanders leading the pack.
He's going to win in Iowa.
Now, I think it's fair to say that the Democratic primary is the big focus in the news because, you know, Trump's going to—we know Trump's running as the incumbent.
It's fine.
The issue here is that the story in the actual wide view of politics is that Trump is in the lead in Iowa with Bernie Sanders in second.
Again, I understand the New York Times is focusing on the Democratic primary, and that's fair.
But when people hear this news, they incorrectly assume, some of them, that Sanders is leading everyone, including Trump.
I think it would have been better to say, Trump is leading all candidates in Iowa, according to New Poll, with Bernie Sanders leading the Democrats.
Perhaps telling everyone about everything, if you're going to include this.
Where it shows Trump basically beating every single candidate in the Democratic lineup and he beats Bloomberg by a lot.
Perhaps the story needs to be Trump approval rating up, support for impeachment down, support for president in Iowa up.
Trump is leading all Democrats.
The Democrats don't hear that.
They hear about these scandals.
They hear about these crazy interviews that turn out to be nothing.
Turn out to be absolutely nothing.
And then they go around believing that Trump is in trouble, that Trump is scared, that Trump's people are freaking out, that they're worried about losing, oh heavens!
Like Vanity Fair said, fear in Trump land over impeachment.
They're so worried.
They're actually not.
They have public support.
They're prepared to win.
They're raising record amounts of cash.
The Democrats accidentally just presented evidence that exonerates Trump.
Why would anyone on Trump's team be worried about anything?
They look at my content after this.
They see all this fake news.
Then they see my videos and they say, Tim Pool is just lying to defend the president.
Sure.
Believe whatever you want.
But Trump is prepared to win in Iowa.
And that's all that matters.
You can believe whatever you want to believe, but reality still happens.
And while you're sitting there screaming about how you're going to win this impeachment trial, or that the Republicans refuse to hear the evidence, It's just not true.
When Adam Schiff gave his impassioned speech, where these lefties say, wow, the most powerful speech in American history, they wonder, why won't Republicans actually hear it?
And you know what they say in the comment section?
They actually said, it's because Fox won't show them.
It's funny.
I have Fox News on right now.
They absolutely did show Olive Schiff's quite infuriating speech.
And let me clarify about infuriating.
Yeah, the New York Times is correct to say it's enraging the right.
It's enraging because he's saying the same thing over and over again.
Nothing new.
But they did show it.
But as you can see on Reddit, they seem to think Fox isn't showing people when in reality, they are.
What a weird world we live in.
I watch Fox, I watch CNN, I watch MSNBC.
I see what they're talking about.
For some reason, I can point out how Vox is not telling you this is actually good for Trump.
They're not explaining that Trump is winning across the board, yet it's the people on the left in the bubble who think it's the other way around, even though They're wrong.
Fox News did show Schiff's speech.
I was sitting here, and I was really annoyed by it.
Great.
I heard Schiff say the same thing he said every single day for the past several months.
That's why it's annoying.
But Fox certainly showed it.
Fox viewers see it.
Fox viewers got to see a Bernie Sanders town hall.
Yet they believe it's not true.
But I will end with a real dose of reality once again.
A major fear for Democrats.
Will the party come together by November?
From the New York Times.
The sad reality is that they won't.
These are the things the left isn't paying attention to.
While they screech about their tremendous victories over Trump and impeachment, which it's just not happening, we see stories like this.
The Democrats are scared the party is fractured and they can't win.
And according to Newsweek, only 53% of Bernie Sanders voters will definitely support The 2020 Democratic nominee, if he doesn't win, poll.
You know what that means?
47% of Bernie supporters may actually be Bernie or bust.
I think it's fair to say many of them will probably begrudgingly vote for the Democrat, but the Bernie or bust numbers appear to be much greater.
And with Bernie Sanders leading the Democratic PAC in Iowa, this is very, very bad news for Democrats.
But I think I'll save all of this for a 6 p.m.
segment, because I've already gone very long.
But you get the point.
The Democrats and their allies have accidentally just proven Trump's innocence.
As far as I'm concerned, Trump was not investigating Biden or anybody.
He just wanted to fire an employee who was bad-mouthing him, thus undercutting all the claims about this big scheme.
And it stands to reason if Trump was actually digging out corruption and firing people undermining him, it had nothing to do with re-election or Joe Biden.
I think the evidence has just been presented that exonerates Trump.
I'll leave it there.
I will have more on this on Bernie Sanders and Bernie or bust coming up at 6 p.m.
youtube.com slash Tim cast news.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all there.
The Wuhan virus situation is admittedly getting out of hand, and I want to start by saying, a couple days ago I said, everybody remain calm.
You know, we've had stories like this before, we have viruses, you get swine flu, bird flu, and my understanding is the flu is still more dangerous than the Wuhan virus.
That being said, I also pointed out that we don't need to worry about these viruses that are really shocking, that draw attention, because these viruses that make themselves known are bad viruses.
We catch them quickly, we quarantine, and we only need to worry if they have a long incubation period and are airborne, for instance.
Well, as it turns out, it seems that the incubation period is two weeks and the virus is airborne, so... This means that some people are speculating there could be tens of millions of people who are already infected carrying and spreading this virus without knowing.
So actually, it could be a little scary.
But I still will say, you know, in any circumstance, remaining calm is the most important thing you can do.
There is now, I think, another confirmed case.
There's, I think, 63 suspected cases now in the U.S.
It's not that big of a deal so far.
The presumed mortality rate is around like 2%.
So it's... I think it's not even as bad as the flu.
So there is a ton of media hype.
You know, you're gonna get all these stories.
The big story right now, the lead, I don't want to bury it.
U.S.
prepares to evacuate all 1,000 of its citizens and diplomats from Wuhan as coronavirus death toll reaches 41.
Keeping in mind, Wuhan and many other cities are now under a very harsh quarantine.
The past stories we saw, and the photos are getting scary, man, were people, like, fighting over food in supermarkets.
One quote given to the BBC is that it feels like the end of the world.
Well, maybe if you live in Wuhan or the surrounding cities.
But I gotta say, living over here in the Philadelphia suburbs, it kind of feels like everything's fine.
And, you know, we just had... What did we have last night?
We had Chick-fil-A.
Yeah, I actually went and got Chick-fil-A.
Love it.
Everything was fine.
Went to the store.
No big deal.
The worst thing that happened to me was that the people at Lowe's were mean.
So no, the world is not ending.
It doesn't feel like the end of the world.
I can understand why people in Wuhan would feel that way.
But I will say, I gotta express a little concern here that the U.S.
is gonna evacuate a thousand of its citizens from Wuhan, which is under quarantine.
Is that a good idea?
If people have this new disease in Wuhan, you're like, let's get them all and bring them to our country.
Maybe we should just make sure they're safe and comfortable where they're at because they're under a quarantine.
And I was also curious, it's like, how do you violate that quarantine?
I guess US sovereignty supersedes Chinese quarantine?
Doesn't seem like a good idea, does it?
Am I wrong here?
Look, man, I want to save these people's lives.
I want to save everybody's life.
American or otherwise.
And I care for these American citizens.
They're my national brethren, and sisteren, whatever, I don't know what the point is.
Maybe it's not safe to bring people who are in a quarantine to our country.
But far be it from me, I'm not an epidemiologist or a virologist, I don't know how this stuff works.
Maybe it's gonna be fine.
Maybe they can test them.
The problem is, people I think are like asymptomatic for two weeks, so they could be like, this person looks healthy, and then they bring them here, and then all of a sudden, like, everyone on the plane is sick.
So it could be spreading pretty quick.
Let's read a little bit about this evacuation, see what's going on.
And then the bigger, the big big update from yesterday, 35 million people now under quarantine, and I could be wrong about this, so fact check me, but someone, I saw this going around, that it's like the biggest quarantine in the history of the world.
Keeping in mind that if that's true, maybe it's not true.
But, look, we have more and more people every year, so of course the quarantines will be bigger the more people live in a city.
Like, if you only had a million people living in Wuhan, they'd be like, we had a quarantine of a million.
Now Wuhan's 11 million, so it's a bigger quarantine?
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's not like it's the worst disease ever.
It's actually, my understanding, not that big of a deal relative to, like, the flu or whatever, but keeping in mind it could mutate as it spreads.
Let's keep an eye on it.
Let's see what the story says.
The U.S.
government is planning to evacuate citizens from Wuhan.
They're arranging a charter flight on Sunday to bring its citizens and diplomats back.
The city, which has a population of around 11 million, is considered the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak and has been placed to fe- Excuse me.
and has been placed effectively on lockdown since Thursday.
Roughly a thousand Americans are in Wuhan.
Now, we got some crazy photos here, man.
This is not for the faint of heart.
Check this out.
Wuhan is thought to be ground zero of the new disease and has been placed on lockdown by Chinese authorities.
The photos and videos coming out of Wuhan are terrifying.
People collapsed in the street.
See, here's the thing.
China's probably lying.
While I don't want to plant any conspiracy theories and I want to urge calm, I think it's important to look at historical precedent to how a lot of countries deal with major disasters.
Like in Japan with Fukushima, they lied.
Okay?
Well, that's my understanding.
I gotta be careful.
It's, you know... My understanding is that they were lying about the severity of the problem.
Chernobyl.
They... Russia lied.
Okay?
So if there's a massive disaster, these countries don't want to take responsibility for it.
They're gonna... They're gonna lie about it.
So when you see these photos of people collapsing in the street, I gotta tell you, man...
There's a lot of photos and videos of people collapsing in the street.
And I'll be honest, the flu is happening all the time.
How often do you see people collapsing in the street?
How often do you see videos going viral of people walking around in hazmat suits because of the flu?
Nah, man.
I've had the flu before.
You know what I did?
I got under a bunch of blankets and I was shaking and sweating and drinking Gatorade.
And then, like, two days later, I was...
Best as- as good as good can be.
You know, I got over it in a couple days.
I was- I was, you know, young when I- I haven't had the flu in a long time.
I think I was like, uh, 19 or 20.
So, you know, striking young chap of great vigor, no problem.
It looks like, from the stories we're hearing, the people who are dying are- are older, right?
And that kind of makes sense, because people who are older or really young and have weaker immune systems are more likely to be susceptible.
Two viruses and, you know, weaker immune system.
We get it.
But these photos look like middle-aged people wearing suits collapsing in the street.
Now, we're also hearing that the doctor, or a doctor who was working on it, a doctor dies in Wuhan as the number of infected grows.
And we have the bigger story about the 35 million quarantine.
The Hill is concerned it could backfire, saying some health experts worry China's widespread quarantine could make a bad situation worse.
Well, I don't understand how, but let's read and see what they have to say.
The Hill reports, as China has quarantined 35 million people in an effort to contain the deadly coronavirus, health experts worry the lockdown could be ineffective and possibly backfire.
Restrictions were put into place Friday, just one day after China restricted travel in and out of Wuhan.
The city of 11 million people where the virus started, yada yada.
So this is out of date.
This is absolutely out of date information.
I saw some reports the quarantine is now up to 40 million people.
This was actually the latest I could find on the quarantine.
Well, using cursory Google search, to be honest.
But the death toll, my understanding, is actually 41.
And I think we're seeing this here from the Daily Mail.
So the quarantine is probably larger, but I thought this was relevant because there's concern over a backlash, they say.
Health experts tell the Washington Post that locking down a region like China's Hubei province could make things worse.
Quarantining a region locks the infected together with the uninfected.
It increases the burden on authorities, and it is nearly impossible to enforce.
And experts say it can cause citizens to distrust the government, prompting them to refuse to report their symptoms, further exacerbating the outbreak.
Well, I don't know about China.
I do know that when Ebola broke out in, where was it?
Which countries was it?
Ethiopia?
Nigeria?
I can't remember.
But a lot of the people there were superstitious and thought the government agencies were lying to them so they wouldn't report symptoms and they would hide or even break out of medical quarantine.
So yes, distrust in the government or fear, okay, is gonna result in full-on panic.
One of the problems with the quarantine Is that, listen man, there are a lot of people who might be infected and they don't care.
They want to live.
So they're going to be like, screw your quarantine.
I'm not going to risk myself.
I'm going to live.
And so they put everyone else at risk, you know, fleeing.
They say this, China has halted transportation links in and out of Wuhan, as well as 13 other areas across the central part of the country.
Again, there is updated information on this story.
This is from last night.
They're doing it because people who are in political leadership always think that if you do something dramatic and visible, you'll gain popular support.
They couldn't have any sound public health advice.
The Post reports that in the U.S., mandatory limits on movement for residents in cities or regions have received little serious consideration in planning for disease outbreaks.
In a 2007 report, the CDC, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, on responding to a flu pandemic, Experts made no recommendation to use mandatory lockdowns, even in the event of a Category 5 outbreak, one of the most critical, in which 2% of those diagnosed with the infection die.
Wow, that's terrifying, because that actually, that's what it sounds like in, uh, with the Wuhan virus, 2%.
Instead, the report said authorities should rely on voluntary isolation of infected and uninfected people as well as limiting activities in schools, mass gatherings, and encourage people to work from home.
Here's the reason why I think it's better to not quarantine in certain circumstances, agreeing with them on this one, is that You want people to feel like if they're sick, they can come to you for help.
Not to be afraid you're going to lock them up because they're going to die.
So, if someone gets sick, you want to say, come on in, we're going to do our best to keep you alive and protect everyone.
So, you create this quarantine, this panic, and there are going to be people who might be symptomatic, freaking out, thinking they'll be trapped here, and they'll try and run, they'll try and escape.
You do the opposite and say, if you feel symptomatic, feel free to come to us and we'll give you treatment to save your life.
And they're going to be like, we better go to the hospitals to be safe.
You see how it's kind of like a reverse psychology thing.
But over in the U.S., woman in Chicago becomes second confirmed case of coronavirus after she returned from Wuhan.
63 people with symptoms are tested nationwide, including four in New York.
As I stated earlier, airborne, long incubation period, these people were on planes for how long?
You're coming from Wuhan in Chicago, what is that, 12-hour flight?
Coughing?
Breathing?
All those germs circulating through the air in that plane?
It's pretty scary, but all of those people on that plane could be infected.
So here's what's really scary about the virus.
They're saying that it came from, like, a snake in an exotic meat market.
Which means that no humans have an immunity to this because it just recently jumped from animal to human.
There's also fear that because it may be spreading so rapidly that it could mutate and then become even more deadly.
So, apparently this has all the makings for total disaster, I suppose.
Let's get rid of whatever that video is.
They say the second U.S.
case of the deadly coronavirus has been confirmed in Chicago.
On Friday, the CDC announced the patient is a 60-year-old woman who traveled to Wuhan, where the virus originated.
She arrived at O'Hare Airport.
On January 13th, meaning it has been 11 days since she returned to the U.S., but did not begin experiencing symptoms until several days later.
Health officials say the woman appeared to be well and in stable condition.
She is in isolation, but it wasn't revealed which hospital she is in.
Meanwhile, the city of Wuhan is on lockdown, we know.
So here's this image we have.
I wonder if I can make it bigger.
There we go.
So, confirmed case.
These are the tests for the 63 patients.
Suspected in Raleigh, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Patient arrived at Raleigh-Durham on the 23rd and has passed through the city of Wuhan.
You have Tennessee Tech University, student under isolation.
Texas A&M, you've got four suspected cases.
So you get it.
I'm not going to read through all of these, but you can see that in the Bay Area, in LA, If it turns out these people actually have the Wuhan virus, this is actually... I mean, I could be wrong about this.
When SARS happened, I was a young teenager, so I wasn't really... I didn't really care or pay attention.
But this seems pretty serious.
Now, these could just be suspected cases.
It could be nothing.
We only have two confirmed cases.
So we have confirmed in Chicago, and confirmed in Everett, Washington.
But that's a wide range, and if those people were on planes with a bunch of other people with a long incubation period... Man, this is bad news.
So, the report from Daily Mail says... This is nuts!
So here's the thing, here's the big conspiracy theory.
Japan has confirmed its second and fifth patient, second case and a fifth patient diagnosed
in Thailand.
Footage has emerged reportedly showing military personnel guarding a train station.
This is nuts!
So here's the thing, here's the big conspiracy theory.
There's a bio lab in Wuhan.
A lot of speculation.
Take it all to the grain of salt.
We're going to talk about it.
Again, I do not like to speculate beyond what it might mean, but there is reports of a biolab.
In 2017, there was a story.
There was great concern from the international community that the biolab would have a breach and a pathogen would escape.
Other reports say that the biolab is about 15 miles from the epicenter, so it's not super close.
But some people are concerned.
Here's the thing I want to say about that.
It sounds amazing, right?
This crazy story of a biolab breaching, and the government goes nuts, and this deadly virus, they're lying about it.
Come on, man.
How often does stuff like that really happen?
You know what's more likely?
Somebody was eating a diseased snake.
That's the story.
There's other stories about bat soup or something.
You take a bat and you put it in soup.
It's substantially more likely that a bunch of dirty humans were eating dirty food, and a dirty virus jumped from a dirty animal to a dirty human, and that human coughed on a bunch of people, and other people coughed, and everybody's coughing, and everybody's getting sick.
As much as it would be fun to believe that a bunch of Chinese officials are in a room right now going like, We have a level 5 breach!
The disease has escaped!
No!
Our bioweapon is now plaguing the Earth!
And it's like the apocalypse.
It's much more likely that somebody ate a dirty snake, got a bunch of people sick, and it's not going to be the worst thing in the world.
The media is hyping everything up, and then come a month from now, people are going to be like, Oh yeah, remember that Wuhan thing?
Oh, that was funny, wasn't it?
It'll get a Wikipedia entry because the media talked about it, so it's deemed more relevant than other instances of, say, the flu.
But my understanding is that the flu is more deadly, and because the flu happens all the time and there's flu season, we don't get sensational stories about the end of the world.
And because there's no sensational stories, governments don't panic and overreact to try and gain public support, and you don't see major lockdowns over the flu, even though the flu is seriously deadly.
You see how the media plays the game?
However, however, however, I do think it's important to say, you don't want to have an optimism bias, right?
The story I always tell is, there's like this urban legend, it could be apocryphal, where a bank security guard was standing there as he watched three armed men in ski masks come into the bank, and he did nothing.
And they walked up to him and said, give us your weapon, and he was like, oh, and he did.
And then later they asked him, like, why he didn't try and stop them when they came in, and he said, I couldn't believe it was actually happening.
It's the optimism bias.
That you think, it's not gonna happen, it can't happen to me, listen man, Plagues happen all the time.
Epidemics happen all the time.
Catastrophes happen all the time.
And governments sometimes play around with things they shouldn't, and disasters happen, like Chernobyl, okay?
That was a major disaster.
Fukushima was a major disaster.
Granted, Fukushima was, you know, a natural disaster, which exacerbated a big problem.
But it is a serious possibility that China's, you know, made a major blunder, and we're looking at a very serious outbreak.
So I'll tell you this.
You don't want to panic, but you don't want to underestimate the real risks you face.
So here's what I tell people.
This is what I said last time, right?
Don't let anyone shame you into not taking care of yourself and your family.
To me, it is absolutely insane that, like, I jokingly bought some, like, emergency food.
It's, like, dry food good for a couple years and some water supplies.
And then I had friends and, like, people online laughing, saying Tim's prepping and all this other stupid stuff.
And I'm like, don't care.
Literally don't care what you think.
I do not care.
No, I'm not stockpiling a bunker full of canned beans.
I got a little box full of dry food that's good for a couple years, and I got some five-gallon jugs or whatever, some bottled water we put in the closet.
That's about it.
And the way I tell people is like, nobody freaks out when you go buy a first aid kit, but you rarely ever use it, you know what I mean?
I think it's rather terrifying that there's actually a stigma over having emergency supplies.
Isn't that nuts?
So don't let anybody shame you for that.
This could be nothing, and it likely is.
Man, I can't tell you how many times there have been these big media scares about the end is nigh, and then people rush to Walmart to buy bottled water.
I remember something happened in 2014, I can't remember what it was, but it was like some outbreak or something, and then like, you know, family was calling like, did you hear about this?
And so we went and bought bottled water, like, oh man, hey man, I'll tell you what, the media might be overhyping it for clicks, it's always good to have some bottled water stored, okay, or a big thing of water, because, I'll tell you what, If a disaster actually happens, and look, sometimes tornadoes happen, sometimes earthquakes happen, sometimes hurricanes happen, droughts happen, okay?
Civil unrest happens.
It's good to have some supplies.
I'll tell you another funny story.
When Fukushima happened, I was in Los Angeles when the disaster struck.
Potassium iodide was gone from every store in that first day.
So when there's a radiation outbreak, one of the concerns is that radioactive iodine, you'll ingest it, and it will get into your thyroid and cause you problems.
So what people do is you take potassium iodide pills, which basically fills your thyroid's quota of iodine, so that it doesn't take in the radioactive particles.
No one needed it.
There was no need for it, but everybody certainly went out and bought it.
So basically what I'm trying to say is...
I think the conspiracy theories are always fun.
Like, in this instance, I know, there's a serious issue.
But people, you know, look, life is boring, okay?
So when something like this happens, people are looking for something more exciting in life.
But the reality is, somebody ate a snake, and then coughed on somebody else, okay?
It could change, I could be wrong, but Occam's Razor suggests it's a simple solution.
This kind of stuff happens, you have bird flu, you had swine flu, SARS, MERS, whatever.
These things happen, okay?
People eat monkey, and then people get monkey disease, you know?
So, it's probably nothing.
It could be serious.
Take it seriously, but don't panic.
That's the best way I can put it.
We'll see what happens as the story develops.
Stick around.
I'll have more updates, you know, as this thing happens.
The latest news, to reiterate, the U.S.
is going to evacuate its citizens and diplomats.
I don't know if that's a good idea, but whatever.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Last spring, Democrats proposed a bail reform measure in New York.
The idea was to remove cash bail for nonviolent offenses.
So if you were a poor person, committed an offense, or was accused of one, and you got arrested, they couldn't make you pay money in order to get out of jail.
Now on the surface, it makes a lot of sense.
If you're innocent until proven guilty, how can we hold you in jail and charge money so you can leave?
Right?
You could be in jail for a day or two and lose your job.
So on the surface, again, it makes sense.
But I do want to point out our system is that, well, if you're accused of a crime, we hold you for a short period of time, you go before a judge, and the judge will determine whether or not you should be remanded for that crime.
Now, many Republicans were concerned.
Bail reform would result in known criminals being let loose of their own recognizance, and they'll commit crimes again.
They were concerned that as soon as this law went into effect, you would see crime spike.
Well, that's actually happening.
Whether or not it has anything to do with bail reform, I'm not sure, but it certainly seems to play into exactly what Republicans were saying.
This story from the New York Post.
It looks like New York's getting the crime uptick politicians have been asking for.
Noting that robbery and shootings are actually up around 30%.
Now, hold on.
Shootings are violent crimes.
So, I mean, if you committed that, you're going to get remanded.
They're not going to, you know, if you're suspected of being a shooter, they're going to hold you.
The challenge here is that I think it actually does make sense to do bail reform, but perhaps it just doesn't work in, you know, in terms of practicality, in practice, right?
Let's read this, though, and then I want to talk about Innocent Until Proven Guilty and whether or not what they're doing makes sense.
The New York Post story says, Robbery is up almost 30% in New York City since the first of the year.
Is this a statistical blip, a trend, or a New Year's bail reform gift from Albany?
Robbery now largely being a revolving door offense in the Empire State.
Time will tell.
But consider this as well.
According to the latest NYPD stats, the number of shooting victims in the city is up 31% since New Year's Day.
So at the very least, Gotham appears to be off to a rocky 2020 compared to last year.
I'll stop here and say this.
Bail reform is for nonviolent defenses.
Shootings are absolutely violent offenses.
It could be that if someone is, say, a robber or a burglar or something like that, and they get arrested, and then they are released, the likelihood you see more shootings because they are people who intend to use violence but may not have, will likely go up.
So it actually does line up with releasing people who are committed of crimes without a cash bail.
Let's read on.
He says, which should not surprise.
Not only does the government usually get more of what it encourages when it comes to crime, it also gets more of what it fails to discourage.
Sad to say, New York falls down on both counts.
Albany's bail reform initiative got off to an ominously comical start when the feds had to take custody of alleged serial bank robber Jared Woodbury because local judges had to keep turning him loose.
Well, what else was there to do but laugh?
Consider this.
Robbery in the third degree became a revolving door offense January 1st, and this was followed by a dramatic 29% spike in reported robberies, according to the most recent, albeit very short-term, CompStat numbers.
The crime isn't nearly as amusing as a haplessly compulsive bank heister, Robbery, third, involves the threat of physical force and was devastatingly common in the 80s, but its current threat to the city's streets is clear enough.
Shootings, thank goodness, aren't yet revolving door fences, but nevertheless also were up sharply, according to CompStat, with a 22% hike in incidents and that 31% increase in victims.
A Thursday shootout in Upper Manhattan, one dead, two wounded, suggests the spike is no fluke.
I'm gonna stop here and make a point.
If you arrest 10 people, 9 of whom are innocent and 1 of whom is actually guilty before you can determine it, yes, crime will go down.
This is the inherent challenge of bail reform.
I personally do not believe we should have a system that requires cash before proving guilt.
However, the way the system works today is that you are held for a short and reasonable period of time.
It's getting jammed up.
It's not perfect.
And you go before a judge.
The state will say, do we have probable cause that we believe this person committed this crime?
And if the judge thinks the answer is yes, and you're dangerous, they could remand you and require cash bail.
If, however, the state has no reasonable grounds, they probably wouldn't prosecute.
For the most part, they don't need to prove it.
They just need to say, here's why we think this person should be held.
You can then state your case.
So the point is, even before being presumed innocent or guilty, you're supposed to be released of your own recognizance or whatever the phrase is.
They require cash bail to make sure that you come back.
But poor people often can't afford it.
Do we then remand people?
We don't know if they're innocent or guilty.
Lock them up until they go to court?
I think that's wrong.
So here's what ends up happening.
I don't like this argument one bit.
We are seeing a crime spike.
That's bad.
It may be due to bail reform.
So how do we solve this problem?
I honestly don't know.
But I still lean more towards it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
So if we do have cash bail, and we do have a system that requires poor people to put up cash they probably don't have, otherwise they get locked up for, you know.
They say it's reasonable, but it could be weeks.
Sometimes it could be months before you actually get to go to trial.
Your job is over, you lost your apartment.
So I'll tell you this.
Crime is going up.
That is absolutely correct.
But at what cost?
Honestly, we don't know.
It could be that the Democrats are just letting the criminals go and they go and commit more crimes.
It could be that when they lock up tons of innocent people, you tend to capture some of the guilty ones in that net, keeping crime down.
I lean more towards liberty.
I believe there must be a better solution than cash bail to these problems.
And I honestly don't know what it is.
But I really don't like the idea of locking people up until they get a pay.
Otherwise, they're going to stay in jail until they get a court date.
What happens if you get arrested and they say, you know what?
It's a thousand bucks if you want, you know, to bail you out and you don't have it.
Say, okay, well, your court date's in a month, in two months.
Okay, you've lost your job, you have no income.
Where do you go after you get out?
And then it turns out you were innocent.
You go to trial and they say, oh, looks like he was telling the truth.
Innocent person.
Why should we destroy the lives of the innocent?
Because guilty people exist.
To reiterate, my concern here is that crime is going up because criminals are being let go.
But how many criminals and how many people are being let go?
If we're letting go 100 people and 10 of them are criminals, it is better that 10 guilty persons escape than 100 innocent suffer.
Or, even if it's inverted, if it's 9 out of 10 are criminals, it's better that 1 innocent person be let go, then we lock them all up.
The terrifying result of that is what people who believe in freedom have often understood.
This means those criminals will be let go too!
But it is better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
So I look at these crime numbers and I'm kind of worried, I really am.
I believe in freedom.
I do not want people to be in jail for even one second if they are innocent and not proven to be guilty.
Now, I get it, I get it.
If you're at a scene of a crime, and you're the suspect, they're going to arrest you to process you.
It makes sense.
There is reason, okay?
There is a reasonable action to be taken by those who believe they have probable cause to do so.
I do not believe the cops are overwhelmingly evil people just grabbing random people off the street.
But sometimes they make mistakes, and sometimes there are bad cops.
So what?
What happens if it's you?
There was a story during Occupy Wall Street, where when the protesters were marching down the street, the police took that orange, they call it a kettling net, it's this orange net, and they wrap it around the protest group.
Well, they wrapped it around the door of a convenience store, and some guy in a suit walks out with like an orange soda, and he was in the arrest net, and he was like, what's going on, let me out, and the cops said no.
And the guy's like, I was just buying a soda at the store.
He got arrested.
He couldn't go, he was at, he was like, on break from work.
They arrest him.
He goes to jail.
They had no reason to suspect him of any wrongdoing.
He was just walking out of a convenience store.
So apparently it was big news because he was at court screaming about how the practice of mass arrests are illegal because there's no probable cause.
That's a different issue.
I understand.
I think he was right.
I don't know what happened.
I think it got thrown out.
But think about that.
The cops literally arrested a ton of people without knowing who did what or why and didn't care.
The same thing happened in Washington, D.C.
The challenge here is that it's really easy to be in favor of liberty and freedom when you have a small population.
You know, you see one person and you say, I think he did it, and they say, hey, you can't arrest him because you just see this person here and you think he did it.
You can bring him in for questioning.
You know, there's certain reasonable things we can do to try and stop crime.
But when you get to this massive scale, you end up with a city of 10 million people, you end up with all of these arrests, and the police can make mistakes.
So you get this innocent guy who goes to jail even just for overnight.
They hold him.
Now he's got to explain to work that he got arrested.
You know what's really scary?
Let's say you're walking down the street, and a guy runs out of a liquor store with cash, and you fit a general description, and the cop sees you, and he grabs you, and he's like, you're under arrest, and you're like, I didn't do anything, and they're like, shut up.
You then get arrested.
You miss work because you're in jail over the weekend.
Just the weekend.
You're not convicted of a crime, we're not even at the point of bail, okay, you couldn't afford bail, they say, you'll see a judge on Monday.
You get out of jail, you go back to work on the Monday, you call as soon as you're like, I'm so sorry this happened, I got arrested.
They're gonna say, why did you get arrested?
They accused me of robbing a liquor store.
And they're gonna, and guess what?
Most people aren't gonna believe you.
Yep.
Because culturally, we have this problem of not believing people are innocent.
We presume guilt.
If you got arrested, people will just assume you got arrested for a reason.
Now you missed work for two days.
No call, no show.
You couldn't reach a friend.
It happens.
Hey man, could you tell them I was arrested?
They're gonna be like, why?
Whoa, what happened?
And they're gonna get mad.
And they're gonna replace you.
You did nothing wrong.
You were innocent.
But your life was harmed because of this.
Look, I don't know what the solution to that is.
Because the cops didn't do it intentionally.
They made a mistake, but they were trying to stop crime.
I can respect that.
It's better that ten guilty persons escape than one innocent suffer.
Herein lies the big problem.
And I'll throw it to you because I don't know what the answer is.
I seriously don't.
Do you think anyone's gonna cheer for the crime spiking?
Absolutely not.
And it may very well be because we are saying, if you are arrested, we're gonna let you go.
Don't worry about it.
You'll just come back to court later.
It's not fair that poor people have to pay money to get out.
I think that's true.
And this is the unintended consequence.
But what's the alternative?
Hold potentially innocent people under the presumption that some of them may be guilty?
No way, man.
I will never support that.
It is the authoritarian dictators who say it is better that ten innocent suffer than one guilty person escape.
Look up Blackstone's formulation.
This is a serious, serious challenge.
How we reduce crime, but make sure the innocent aren't being punished or held, you know, in unreasonable circumstances.
I think it's absolutely unfair to require people to pay cash because sometimes people just don't have it.
Not everybody's rich.
Not everybody can afford it.
Herein lies the great conundrum of liberty.
So you know what?
Personally, I think it is better.
I really do.
That crime would go up, but we are less likely to detain the innocent.
I really do.
Now, as to how we prevent crime, perhaps the problem arises with New York's harsh regulations on self-defense, if you know what I mean.
I don't know.
I don't know what would happen, and it seems like we have to recognize that with liberty comes risk, right?
The risk is that the freer we are, you also have bad people who are free as well.
But I'd rather there be an uptick in crime than a bunch of innocent people being locked up.
The presumption from people on the right, I believe, is that the people being arrested by the cops are always going to be the ones who committed the crime, but that's not true.
When I was covering a protest back in 2011, I think it was, the police falsely arrested a photographer and lied about it.
This guy was standing on the sidewalk taking pictures.
He was actually pro-cop.
He said that the media narrative was always anti-cop, so he wanted to film the cops doing their job correctly.
They falsely arrested him and accused him of blocking the street.
I filmed him when I was streaming.
I was doing a live stream.
He was on the sidewalk when he got arrested.
So, they used that in court and got the charges dismissed.
The woman, the female officer who arrested him, didn't see him do anything.
She was just told by her superior to arrest the guy.
So she walked up and said, shut up, you're under arrest.
Totally innocent.
Should that guy have been locked up for, you know, a month or two until his court case, you know, finally came up?
If he couldn't afford it?
Absolutely not.
That happens.
I would rather him and nine other actual criminals be let go to guarantee the innocent don't suffer.
That's Blackstone's formulation.
That's recognizing that you now have criminals back on the street because it's the obligation of the government to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, and look, it's beyond that.
The government should have a very hard time to detain and strip someone's rights away, even for a short period.
I believe in freedom, protecting the innocent, and it's until proven guilty.
I think bail reform makes sense.
Poor people should not be held simply because they're poor.
How do we then deal with this problem?
I honestly don't know.
I don't.
Perhaps we have to have more personal responsibility in defending oneself against criminals.
Perhaps we need more police on patrol to, you know, prevent.
One of the big problems with police, and conservatives totally know this, is that, and that's why this is one of the Second Amendment arguments, they say, when seconds matter, when seconds matter, police will be there within minutes.
That's a Second Amendment argument.
So perhaps we need to be You know what, man?
I don't even know if this is a solution.
If you get a bunch of people going around trying to claim they were acting in self-defense, you just really don't know.
I think the reality is, if we want to respect freedom, we err on the side of actually letting criminals go.
That's literally what the presumption of innocence and Blackstone's formulation is supposed to be about.
So herein lies the big challenge.
Yeah, I can say, crime is spiking in New York City.
Dangerous, violent ones, scary ones, shootings.
And that's really bad.
But authoritarianism isn't the answer.
Allowing the police to just arrest people and lock them up and charge them money isn't the answer.
And I honestly don't know what is.
I think the immediate response from a lot of people on the right would probably be something like gun rights.
Because if everyone was armed, you're less likely to see criminals trying to go around shooting people.
But could that then result in criminals who are armed too, and shootings going up?
Making it more dangerous for police?
Man, I really, really don't know the answers.
I really don't.
It's nice to sit in our comfort, knowing that crime rates are going down.
But it's scary to realize that you could be that guy in a suit, buying a Fanta at a grocery store, and walking out and being arrested for no reason, and they don't care, and they lock you up.
And then you gotta go to work and explain how you got arrested.
That's not cool either.
So what do we want?
Do we want to say it's better just to lock people up under the presumption they might be guilty?
Or do we recognize that crime will go up if we release those who might be innocent, who might be guilty, but we're protecting the innocent?
This is a really, this is a big challenge.
It really is.
But I think the answer is simple.
We always must err on the side of the presumption of innocence.
And if we have to deal with an increase in crime, then we need to solve that after the fact.
The presumption of innocence comes first and foremost.
If crime is spiking, then you need to figure out what you can do to reduce that crime while not imprisoning the innocent.
Even for a short period, okay?
Detaining.
Man, this is a tough one, isn't it?
This is a tough one.
It's fair to say it's tough, right?
I don't think I'm wrong.
I think I can accurately point out protecting the innocent and not wanting crime But I'll be damned.
This is tough, isn't it?
So I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
Stick around and I will see you then.
In addendum to my main segment over at youtube.com slash timcast at 4 p.m., Democrats are in full-on panic mode because their party no longer exists.
Yes, we call many of these people Democrats, but nothing seems to make sense anymore.
I've had friends of mine who are lifelong Democrats complain that when I talk about Democrats, I'm talking about people like, you know, Ocasio-Cortez.
And they're like, she does not represent the Democratic Party.
And I'm like, dude, she's got 6 million followers.
She certainly represents something, right?
Well, we have a story from the New York Times and from Newsweek exemplifying why the Democrats might not ever win.
I gotta be honest, I think this is the end of the Democratic Party.
Now, hold on, that was a bit hyperbolic.
What I mean to say is, they're going to be fractured and weak for a very long time, and Republicans are going to dominate.
It was Frank Luntz who said, if Ocasio-Cortez manages to fracture the center-left and the left into basically two different parties, it will be a gift to the Republicans for the next ten years.
The New York Times reports.
A major fear for Democrats.
Will the party come together by November?
Even the goal of defeating President Trump isn't enough for some voters to commit to
backing the eventual Democratic nominee, expressing a clear aversion to a candidate who is too
I'm looking for a nice, hearty Democrat in which to support.
I like Andrew Yang.
I don't think any of the Democrats can win.
I think any sane, rational person who's tracking the news knows Trump is on track to win.
I'll tell you this.
Even the Democrats who want to impeach Donald Trump know he's going to win.
In fact, they said, if we don't impeach him, he's going to win.
We all know it's going to happen.
But let me tell you something.
I think of all the Democrats.
Andrew Yang has proven he's the only one who actually deserves to stand up on the debate stage with Trump, should it happen, and talk about policy, economics, and his plans.
I don't think he can win.
I think most people are going to say, hey, look, what Trump is doing is working.
I'm not going to rock the boat.
But I'd like to hear Yang's ideas contrasted with Trump's, because you've got both sides talking about jobs.
Trump is talking about trade.
Yang is talking about automation.
That's a great conversation for this country to have.
Unfortunately, you've got too many Democrats who are either woke or socialist.
So let me tell you the real problem.
First, let me show you this story.
Only 53% of Bernie Sanders voters will definitely support the 2020 Democratic nominee.
Let me rephrase that.
47% of Bernie voters are like almost Bernie or bust.
That means if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, they're not going to vote for the Democrat.
They're not going to vote.
Let me tell you a secret.
I'm interested in voting for the Democrats, but if it's not Yang or Tulsi, I'm not going to vote either.
And it's not going to be Yang or Tulsi, let's be honest.
It's going to be Bernie or Biden.
It's probably going to be Bernie.
Here's the problem.
For a while, a lot of moderates said, if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, they would begrudgingly vote for him.
Not that, like, you know, they as individuals, speaking for everybody, but, like, I've talked to moderates, and they've basically said to me, you know, I think most Democrats would be willing to support Bernie to get rid of Trump, but Bernie's voters would not support Biden to get rid of Trump.
That's just not true anymore.
I think at this point, moderate Democrats, looking at Bernie Sanders, are gonna be like, no way.
Never gonna happen.
Because the economy under Trump is just too good, and everyone knows it.
Now, I'll tell you this, I think the Democrats know it, like the resistance-type Democrats, but they're just not willing to accept it, because they don't want to see Trump win.
Sorry.
Trump gon' win.
But if you've got Yang or Bust voters like me, you've got Tulsi or Bust voters like some of my friends, you've got Bernie or Bust voters like some of my friends too, how could any of these candidates actually win?
There is no Democratic Party, let's be honest.
There's just people who are, like, they call themselves Democrats, but what it really means is not Republican.
It doesn't... Look, if you're a Republican right now, you're probably pro-Trump.
It's like, what, 90% of Republicans are pro-Trump.
They are unified around their goal.
If you're a Democrat, what does it even mean?
Are you an AOC-type Democrat?
Are you a socialist?
Are you a dirtbag Democrat, like the Chapo people, where you don't like the woke, far-left ideology, but you're a socialist?
It means a million different things.
It's not about whether or not a Democrat voter or a Bernie supporter is going to support the Democrats.
It's about the fact that there is no other party.
Call it Democrats, fine.
But let's be real.
You've got the Republicans.
The party of Trump.
And you've got Democrats, the party of socialism, intersectionality, labor unions, corporate centrism.
Those are all different things that disagree with each other.
How is that a party?
It's not.
They don't even vote in line with each other.
In fact, Jeff Andrew quit!
Because they're not a party.
It's basically right now, if you call yourself a Democrat, there's no party.
So I really do love it when people are like, commenting, saying to me like, your party is evil.
It's like, dude, if you think Andrew Yang has anything in common with 90% of the Democrats, you're wrong.
He has a lot in common with them.
Right.
But a lot not in common with them.
You look on the debate stage, Biden and Bernie, look, I'll tell you, they're all kind of embracing weird activist lefty stuff to try and win the nomination for sure.
But they don't even agree with each other and their voters don't want to vote for each other.
So here's the thing.
When I look at what a political party is, it's like, who's going to be the nominee?
Well, you eventually support them, right?
Hillary Clinton would not commit to supporting Bernie Sanders.
I love it.
Trevor Noah was like, what are you doing?
Who are you going to campaign for?
Donald Trump?
It was a great joke.
He was like, I'd actually love to see that.
Trump is like, let me introduce you to my good friend, Crooked Hillary.
And then Hillary walks out and goes, lock me up, lock me up.
It's actually a funny joke, but a really good point.
The Democrats won't even campaign.
They won't even commit to campaigning for each other.
There's no Democrats, man.
There's no Democrats.
Democrat basically means anti-Republican.
That's it.
So we get the point about Bernie.
But let's see what the New York Times says.
They say, Where no clear frontrunner has emerged.
represented a cacophonous array of individuals and interests.
But the so-called big tent is now stretching over a constituency so unwieldy
that it's easy to understand why voters remain torn this close to Iowa,
where no clear front runner has emerged.
Well, Bernie kind of has emerged as that.
The party's voters are splintered across generational, racial and ideological lines,
prompting some liberals to express reluctance about rallying behind a moderate
presidential nominee and those closer to the political middle to voice unease
with a progressive standard bearer.
The lack of a united front has many party leaders anxious and for good reason.
In over 50 interviews across three early voting states, Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, a number of Democratic primary voters expressed grave reservations about the current field of candidates, and in some cases, a clear reluctance to vote for a nominee who was too liberal or too centrist for their tastes.
You mean too leftist or too liberal.
The far left does not like liberals.
They call us liberals.
You know what I really appreciate?
I really love this.
The resistance types?
The people who just hate Trump and wanted Hillary?
They will call me right-wing because they don't like the idea that I'm actually a liberal.
But the anarchists in Antifa?
Bless their hearts, they call me a liberal.
I appreciate it.
Because they know what a liberal really is.
Yeah, Tim Pool, liberal reformist.
Aw, too bad.
But as the mainstream gets dominated by the woke far-left, in terms of my generation, the older generation is still the more Bernie, I'm sorry, the more Biden types.
They start to take over that message and criticize liberals, and the New York Times, not getting with the Times, doesn't seem to understand there's a difference between a centrist...
A liberal and a leftist.
Let's read on.
As she walked out of a campaign event for former Vice President Biden in Fort Dodge this week, Barbara Birkett said she was leaning toward caucusing for Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and dismissed the notion of even considering the two progressives in the race, Bernie or Warren.
Warren is not a progressive.
Let me just stop you right there.
She's a crony corporate Hillary Clinton wearing a Bernie mask.
She said, no, I'm more of a Republican and that's just a little bit too far to the left for me.
Uh, said Ms.
Burkett, a retiree.
She said that she'd like to support a Democrat this November because of her disdain for Mr. Trump, but that Mr. Sanders would be a hard one.
Yeah, she probably won't vote.
Elsewhere on the increasingly broad Democratic spectrum, Pete Doyle, who attended a Sanders rally in Manchester, New Hampshire last weekend, had a ready answer when asked about voting for Biden.
Never in a million years.
He said that if Mr. Biden won the nomination, he would either vote for a third-party nominee or sit out the election.
Donald Trump gonna win.
The uncertainty about party unity has been exacerbated in recent days by clashes among Democratic candidates as well as one involving a prominent party leader.
Sanders and Warren, yeah, yeah, yeah, we get that.
Then Hillary Clinton saying, you know, nobody likes him.
The lack of consensus among Democratic voters ten days before the presidential nominating primary began through the Iowa caucuses.
has led some party leaders to make unusually fervent and early pleas for unity.
On Monday alone, a pair of influential Democratic congressmen issued strikingly similar warnings to very different audiences in different states.
Quote, We get down to November, there's only going to be one nominee.
Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat, said at a ceremony for Martin Luther King's birthday at the Statehouse in Columbia, Nobody can afford to get so angry because your first choice did not win.
If you stay home in November, you're going to get Trump back.
No matter who your nominee is, we can't make the mistake that we made in 2016, said Dave Loebsack of Iowa in Cedar Rapids when he introduced Pete Buttigieg.
We all got to get behind that person so we can get Donald Trump out of office.
In interviews, Democratic leaders say they believe the party's fights over such politically fraught issues as treasured entitlement programs, personal integrity and gender, and electability could hand Mr. Trump and foreign actors ammunition with which to depress turnout for their standard-bearer.
I am concerned about facing another disinformation campaign.
Blah blah blah.
I don't care about that.
Listen, let me tell you something.
Wrap this one up.
You get the point.
There's no Democratic Party.
I'm sorry.
You can call it a big tent, but when Joe Rogan says, you know, I'm thinking about Bernie, and then a bunch of these leftists with roses in their accounts start attacking Bernie Sanders for propping up Joe Rogan, and then they attack Joe Rogan and smear him as racist.
You ain't gonna win.
And so let me say one final thing to Joe.
If he ends up watching it.
Probably won't, but you know.
Here's hoping.
Joe.
I get it, man.
You know, you wanna support Bernie.
But are you gonna vote for somebody else?
That's the big question.
And if that's the case, if even Bernie supporters are gonna attack you when you pledge your willingness to vote for him, there's no unity.
The left is so fractured.
I don't see the left winning for the foreseeable future.
2024, what do we got?
Ivanka or Don Jr.?
I think it'll be Don Jr.
It'll be Donald Trump 2024 all over again.
Put a little Jr.
at the end and it makes it, you know, legal.
It's not Trump running for a third term, it's his kid.
But how could the Democrats form a coalition when they refuse to accept me?
I don't want to vote for Trump.
I want to vote for Yang.
I want to vote for a sane, rational, you know, calm, charismatic individual.
I can recognize the things Trump has done that are good, but just because Trump has succeeded and he's done better than all these other Democrats doesn't mean I would vote for him.
I'm looking for someone better than everyone.
I like Yang.
I don't think Yang has the X factor.
I'm not trying to be mean.
I really do think Yang is a great guy.
I think Yang's best position is going to be someone who specializes in a certain role.
You know, I'll put it this way.
I'm thinking about, like, the Megazord and Power Rangers.
Andrew Yang is not Tyrannosaurus Rex.
He's, like, one of the arms.
Definitely a part of something we need to do, but I don't see him being president, okay?
And it's coming from someone who really does appreciate and respect Yang and wants to see him win that nomination.
Trump has something more powerful, something more presidential.
As much as I personally might not like it, and Democrats DEFINITELY don't like it, the Democrats aren't offering up anything presidential.
Obama was presidential.
Okay?
Okay, I gotta wrap this up.
I'm going along.
But Obama really did have that X Factor.
You can see it.
The strength, the anger, the charisma, the power, for all his faults.
And I rag on Obama all the time.
You can see that he had presidential ability.
You can see Trump does too.
As much as the right might not like Obama, the left won't like Trump, The Democrats today have nothing.
They do not have any of those attributes that either Obama, Trump, or even Bush or Clinton had.
Sorry.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Would you be at all shocked if I told you people were leaving states with high taxes to move to states with low taxes?
You'd probably be like, duh.
Especially with the expansion of the digital economy.
One of the things that played a role in my move to South Jersey, basically the Philly area, I lived in New York for a long time.
New York's very expensive, the taxes are really high, and I produce At home, right?
I do my work wherever I want.
So why live in a big city?
Now that a lot of people can work remotely and work online, they can move wherever they want.
So when you're facing massive taxes, you're probably going to say, it's cheaper to live here.
Sounds fun.
Let's go do it.
And that's what we're seeing from the Wall Street Journal.
They say, so long, California.
Goodbye, Texas.
Taxpayers decide some states aren't worth it.
After a new tax law made it costlier to own a house in many high-priced areas, some residents are pulling up stakes.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Texas.
What are you doing, Texas?
California, I get.
But Texas, come on.
Let me tell you something.
One of the big problems we have right now is that young people can't afford to buy houses.
How is it going to help the next generation or help anyone if we are jacking up the taxes, property taxes, on owning a home?
We need to alleviate the stress and pressures and allow young people to actually enter the housing market so that older people can sell property, younger people can buy property, and become homeowners.
If we don't, we're going to have an entire generation of millennials who are I don't know.
Indentured servants with massive debt, no homes, no families.
That's going to be a lost generation, man.
That's really, really dangerous.
But of course, California.
Go figure.
But at least these people do have an alternative.
At least they're leaving and going to try to buy a house somewhere else.
Let's read.
The Wall Street Journal writes, Larry Bilardi and Robbie Laporte are longtime San Francisco residents, but they are planning to leave California for Nevada next year.
A turning point was the federal tax overhaul that Congress passed in late 2017.
The law made it costlier to own a house in many high-price, high-tax areas, reshaping the economics of homeownership in those slices of the U.S.
Now, At first I would say, Trump administration, federal government, what are you doing?
The tax overhaul made it harder to own a house?
Well, actually, it looks like that could be strategic.
Making people leave urban areas and move to rural areas could actually help the Republicans, they say.
Two years after President Trump signed the tax law, its effects are rippling through local economies and housing markets, pushing some people to move from high-tax states where they have long lived.
Parts of Florida, for example, are getting an influx of buyers from states such as New York, New Jersey, and Illinois.
Many people saw their overall taxes go down after the 2017 law was passed.
But the law had two main changes making it tougher to live in high-cost, high-tax states, especially compared with lower tax options.
It essentially curbed how much homeowners can subtract from their federal taxes for paying local property and income taxes by capping the state and local tax deduction at $10,000.
It also lowered the size of mortgages for which new buyers can deduct interest to $750,000 from $1,000,000.
These changes have the biggest impact on a sliver of the population who have high incomes and live in expensive areas.
They tend to have white-collar jobs and the ability to pick up and move.
Many own their own businesses, work remotely, or are nearing retirement.
Could it possibly be?
That Donald Trump knew that his tax laws would tax the rich and alleviate the middle class?
That, to me, is actually kind of a shocking proposition.
I'm never one to assert conspiracy.
But I think it's fair to say that Donald Trump's plan with the tax cuts wasn't necessarily a tax cut on the rich.
It was supposed to be a general tax cut.
That's my understanding.
And the middle class did see a tax cut.
The upper class did see a tax cut.
However, according to the Wall Street Journal, it now seems like the relatively wealthy people from high-class urban areas are being forced to move because it became more expensive.
Isn't that a good thing?
Wouldn't that actually alleviate wealth inequality?
I really, really doubt you are going to see any progressive praise Trump for taxing the wealthiest among us.
who have to worry about property costs nearing a million dollars.
The average person's going to own a house.
It's not going to be nearly that high.
So, I'm not going to say it's a good thing.
This could theoretically move wealthier people into more rural and more conservative neighborhoods, effectively reducing their political power in some sense, but it could also mean they're going to bring their politics from San Francisco to rural Nevada, and they're going to have a ton of money to influence local politics.
That could be good news for Democrats, but at the very least you can say, It ends wealth inequality, I guess?
Let's read.
They say, Critics say the changes have hurt everyone who lives in high-tax states.
I guess bad news for Democrats, right?
By taking a bite out of tax revenue.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, for example, panned the state and local tax cap last year.
It has redistributed wealth in this nation from Democratic states.
We're also called blue states to red states, he said at the time.
Is it possible that Donald Trump passed a law targeting wealthy urban individuals and it's giving wealth power to, well, so it's effectively redistributing wealth, like, you know, many on the left want to happen, but to red states?
Perhaps that's actually what would happen if you did redistribute wealth.
You know why?
Blue urban areas are extremely wealthy, with high costs of living.
Maybe the Democrats didn't plan for this.
Or I shouldn't say the Democrats, but the far left.
That if you were actually going to take money from the wealthy, you'd be disproportionately giving it to rural, urban, white— I'm sorry, rural, working-class, white people.
Perhaps that was the unintended consequences of wealth redistribution.
The average property tax bill in the US in 2018 was about $3,500 according to Adam Data Solutions, a real estate data firm.
But many residents in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and California have been deducting well over $10,000 a year.
In Westchester County, New York, The average property tax bill was more than $17,000, the highest in the country.
Lo and behold, the blue areas are the expensive wealthy areas, and Trump cut the taxes on those wealthy people.
And thus, many of them had to move to red states or red areas.
So, look man, what do you think was going to happen?
This is the paradox of democratic policy.
They complain about racism and racial injustice in the police force.
But are they doing it in like Bumpkinville, Oklahoma?
No, they're doing it in St.
Louis, Chicago, and New York.
Large urban centers.
Isn't that weird?
That many people on the left and these Democrats will be like, police, you know, all cops are, well, ACAB, they say.
I can't say with the words, I can't swear.
But they'll say cops are racist.
But they're not referring to small town sheriffs.
They're referring to the places where they live that enact policies they voted for.
It's like one of the weirdest paradoxes, like with Michael Bloomberg and stop and frisk.
They complain about stop and frisk, but it's literally gun control measures.
They're trying to find weapons on these young people.
It's a policy you voted for!
They complain about.
Now that he's running for president, Bloomberg panics and apologizes.
But look at this.
What this story is telling us is that Donald Trump reduced the amount, or I should say the Trump administration signed a law that reduced the amount you could deduct on your property taxes.
And guess who was hurt by it?
Well, rich people.
And guess where they lived?
In blue states.
And now they're mad about it.
So when you complain about wealth inequality, you're talking about San Francisco and New York.
Dude, those are Democrat threa- like, like, centers.
So I guess maybe it's fair when the left complains about liberals because They're the ones who are in these big ivory towers in these big cities enacting racist policies and then complaining about those policies and voting in more Democrats who enact the same policies and then they keep complaining about it.
I'll tell you this, when you complain about stop and frisk and racist policies in these big cities, it's not Republicans who are doing it.
You're not voting for them.
That's what I don't understand about your arguments.
You see why I have a problem with Democrats but I'm not a Republican?
I grew up in Chicago.
I watched Democrats do this cycle, where they're like, the police are racist in our city.
Dude, you voted for the politicians.
More Democrats to come in and enact those policies in a Democrat city.
You're not complaining about Republicans.
This is what they don't seem to understand.
Why would someone from a city like Chicago, who claims to have left-wing policy views, not like the Democrats?
Because the Democrats do this circle thing.
Like, it's so weird.
When we hear about this national-level, you know, police issues in Black Lives Matter, and it's like, how often do we hear about stories in, like, you know, a red state about police, you know, targeting minorities?
It's always the Democrat cities.
So here's the main point.
You know what?
This was supposed to be about taxes, but here we go.
It's a broader issue.
Trump just technically raised taxes for the rich people.
Who's complaining?
The rich people who lived in these places!
So I say, among the people who are uprooting, many say they had long considered a change, but they saw the tax law as a reason to finally undertake the potentially difficult task of changing their state residency.
They say, uh, there's a quote here.
It was another bucket of straw on the back of the camel, said John Lee, a wealth management executive and longtime resident of Sacramento.
Mr. Lee and his wife Tracy moved their primary residence last winter to Incline Village, a resort community on the Nevada side of Lake Tahoe.
Let me play you the world's smallest violin.
Sorry, dude.
Oh, heavens!
You had to move out of Sacramento to a resort community.
Look, man, I get it.
It sucks when your taxes go up.
But what we're talking about is a small sliver of the population who tend to be wealthy.
Trump apparently cut the taxes for the poor people, reduced wealth inequality, and guess what?
It targeted the Democrats.
Why?
Because the wealthy people with high taxes are the ones who live in these blue cities.
It's paradoxical, ain't it?
Perhaps that's why... You know what?
I'll tell you this, too.
I'll wrap this up, okay?
I'll keep it short.
Vox.com wrote a story in 2016.
The Democratic Party has become the party of the wealthy.
And they showed the flip.
Here you go.
Here's your example.
So I'd love to see these, you know, far leftist types and these Democrats really unite around the idea that it was bad for Trump to raise taxes or to reduce the deductions wealthier people have in their wealthy urban districts.
But let me wrap up by saying this.
Here's a point I really want to drive home.
Why is it that Democrats vote for policies they get mad about?
It's true.
Look, I can't speak to what the Republicans think.
I didn't grow up or live in a Republican area, so I don't know what they're voting for and what they're doing.
I can tell you.
I lived in Chicago, where you've got complaints about racist cops, but the cops, you know, are targeting people based on, like, weapons and gun violence, and it's the policies of the Democratic politicians they voted for that are then doing it.
Isn't that a weird paradox?
Whatever, man.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Bye now.
Okay, that's an initial public offering.
For those that aren't familiar, it basically means if you have a company that has shares or whatever and you want to open it up to public purchase or put it on the stock market, that's an initial public offering.
And Goldman Sachs apparently isn't interested in working with companies that have boards that are just white men.
I think that might actually be illegal racial and gender discrimination.
I'm pretty sure you can't do that.
Just like the argument over the bakery, which was actually misconstrued by many on the left, the general argument is, if you're a business, you can't deny service to someone based on those characteristics.
So I don't know what Goldman Sachs thinks they're doing, but, well, it certainly must be to them the most important issue when dealing with whether a company is successful, right?
No, let's be real.
No.
I don't care what your race, gender, nationality, religion, whatever is.
Do you make a good product?
Are you acting within the law?
Is your company great?
Let's do an IPO.
Goldman Sachs, what are you doing?
Let's find out.
CBS News reports, Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has a plan to end the era of all-male, all-white corporate boards.
The investment bank will refuse to take a company public unless it has at least one woman or non-white board member.
The move could make a big difference with male-dominated startups, experts say, and I think that might violate gender discrimination laws.
Like, how can you look at a board and say, we won't work with you because of the racial makeup of your company?
Pretty sure that violates the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Under Solomon's new rule, which goes into effect on July 1st in the U.S.
and Europe.
Well, I guess you can do it in Europe.
I don't know about the U.S.
Actually, no.
Europe has stricter rules on this stuff, don't they?
Goldman Sachs wouldn't have signed on as an underwriter for WeWork, which had a mail-only board when it filed to go public last year.
Soon after, WeWork ended up pulling its IPO following investors' questions about its financial losses in corporate governance.
The push toward greater diversity comes as lawmakers and policy experts are questioning the lack of progress of women inside the boardroom and the C-suite, even though women hold about 1 in 5 board seats in S&P 500 companies.
The majority of businesses still have boards that are mostly composed of men, according to the MIT Sloan School of Management.
Well, let me stop right now and tell you why.
Did you know, according to current understanding of science and trends, there are more male geniuses and more male morons than women?
There tend to be more women of average capacity, and men make up slightly less on average.
Well, the average is around the same.
Let's be clear.
But when we're looking at grade scores, I actually pulled up corroborating evidence to this IQ study.
They did SAT scores and grade averages and found that women have a tighter bell curve, men have a wider bell curve.
Meaning you'll find a ton of really dumb guys, but more really, really smart guys.
So I don't know what the exact numbers are, but let's put it this way.
If you have 10,000 human beings and men are maybe 1,000 of them, let's say 10,000 people, then you have 1,000 geniuses.
Women make up only 400 geniuses.
Again, I don't know what the actual proportion would be.
And it stands to reason if there's only 500 Fortune 500 companies, And you have more than double the male geniuses, stands to reason you'll have a lot less female CEOs.
Not because of gender discrimination, because of a lack of opportunity for all of the geniuses, period.
The problem that ends up happening then, when they do policies like this, they're basically saying, we want you to bring on, you know, people who might not fit, or dig into a smaller, you know, pool of skill, to justify some kind of ideological desire.
When it comes to meritocracy, don't be surprised when you find particularly one gender.
I think it's fair to say race is a bit different, but I also think it's silly to damage a company or a product or a practice because you want someone to look a certain way.
And therein lies the big problem I have with these policies.
The way I always describe it is, imagine if You went to, you know, Goldman Sachs did this great invention.
Maybe it's going to cure cancer.
Yeah, look at that.
Let's say a company came to cure cancer.
And they said, we want to do an initial public offering on our universal cancer cure.
And they said, we don't like the way your staff looks.
Your board looks too much like those people.
What does that have to do with anything?
Who cares what I look like?
Did I make a good product?
Is it working?
Well, I want to make sure that people on your board look different.
Think about where this goes.
Are we going to end up with like a policy of we got to have certain people with bigger noses and smaller teeth?
No, I don't care what you look like.
And they say it's about race.
But for me, it's just an issue of you looking different.
Culture, knowledge, whatever we do as Americans, we're all Americans regardless of these traits.
So how dumb is it?
Imagine if Goldman Sachs was like, Unfortunately, too many of your board members are thin.
We need more fat board members.
Yeah, that wouldn't make sense either.
Neither does this.
They say, academic research backs up the benefits of a diverse board, with studies showing such companies make better investment decisions and scale back on aggressive risk-taking.
What's wrong with aggressive risk-taking?
Yet, there remains a glaring lack of board diversity among venture-backed private businesses, which have provided the U.S.
with some of its biggest IPOs in recent years.
About 60% of the most heavily venture-backed companies lack a single woman on the board, according to a study published last month from CrunchBase, HIM4HER, and Northwestern University, Kellogg's School of Management.
Let me play the diversity game for you real quick.
Diversity is actually a good thing, lo and behold.
But diversity is supposed to represent perspective, not appearance.
I think it's fair to say that appearance can't affect perspective.
But the problem with the left and policies like this Is that they would punish a company for not having a potential benefit?
No, that's silly, right?
If your argument is that a company with a woman or a person of color would make a better decision, that's a great argument.
But what does it have to do with whether or not a company is successful or not?
If you have a company and everyone on the board is all white and male, And they're doing well.
You could say to them, listen, did you know that companies with a woman on their board potentially do better?
Well, that's their decision.
If they want to hobble themselves by not taking this great advantage you're offering, why punish them for it?
That makes no sense, right?
You get my point?
Let's say you had a company that was, you know, let's say you had two companies.
They both had all white male boards.
And you say, the data shows companies do better if they, you know, have a woman or a person of color.
Does the company meet your statistical criteria for an initial public offering?
If the answer is yes, then it's their choice whether or not they want the advantage you've proposed.
So let's say one company says, we're fine the way we are, and the other company says, you know what, you're right, let's bring on a woman and person of color.
Congratulations!
That company will now do better, so what?
The other company will still do well, right?
Now I will say this.
I think it's true.
I think it's absolutely true.
I think a company would absolutely benefit by having a woman or a person of color or an immigrant on their board, because that will bring a unique perspective.
But a unique perspective could also be determined based on where you grew up in this country, and you could be white and from a foreign country, and you could be a white woman, or you could be a trans person.
I just ultimately don't think it matters that much.
I think it would be great if companies recognized a diversity of opinion can really benefit you because some people might be able to see outside the box in a way you can't.
They might be able to break your echo chamber.
The problem is, this version of whatever diversity is supposed to be is based on what you look like.
So you don't actually get a diversity of opinion.
If you get a bunch of woke leftists in a room who all agree with each other, you have no diversity.
They just look like different people.
So what?
Is the implication then that every one of every race looks the same?
We need to make a rainbow in the boardroom?
It doesn't make sense.
What matters is the mind of people, the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
If you bring in two people who grew up in identical circumstances, but one was a white male and one was a woman of color, What does it matter?
They're going to think the exact same things and behave in the exact same ways.
Now granted, I think being a woman would provide a different experience and different requirements to life, because, you know, women do.
And perhaps that would have an impact.
But this to me seems like ideology.
It's like pushing a religion.
For no reason.
To the detriment of your company, you are enacting a policy that will see no real benefit to any of the companies you work with.
You can make all the arguments you want, but it just doesn't make sense.
These companies founded in the last 16 years, and with at least $100 million in venture funding, provide a pipeline for underwriters like Goldman Sachs, which reap profitable fees and also offer coveted shares in the IPO to their clients.
You have mostly male founders and mostly male VCs in Silicon Valley, noted Lorraine Harriton, the chief executive of Catalyst, a nonprofit that focuses on women in the workplace.
The typical early-stage board has five members, and they'll have two founders and two VCs, and maybe one outside board member, and most of them are men.
Harriton added, they come into being public with an all-male, all-white board.
And?
Why should I care?
Literally, why does it matter?
Should I expect a bigger return?
Are you going to give me a discount?
What's the point?
She believes the Goldman Sachs decision could help change the all-male bias.
This is a big deal, she noted.
Private companies will check the list of things they need to do, and one is to get a diverse, independent director, which will do nothing for the company and might actually hurt the company, but literally makes no difference.
Man, I think it's absolutely ridiculous.
I understand their utopian vision, what they want to do, but why hobble someone?
Why punish someone because they don't look a certain way?
It's completely ridiculous.
Well, we'll see what happens, but I'll tell you what.
Do you know what you get when you make policies like this?
You get stories like this.
I'm a black male.
Miami police captain admits changing race designation from white to black.
Apparently this guy initially applied as a white Hispanic.
Then when he went for a promotion, he claimed that he was a black male because he found out some people in his family were mixed.
This is what you get.
So what happens if you have an all-white male board, and they say, Goldman Sachs won't work with us.
And one guy goes, I'll just tell them I'm a trans person of color.
Boom!
Just say, you're done.
Congratulations.
What's Goldman Sachs gonna do?
Say, no, you're lying!
No.
You'll get people who just say, fine, what's the bare minimum we have to do to skirt the rules?
