Democrats FINALLY Call For Overt Open Borders, Ocasio Cortez Says Bernie Will END Border Protections
Democrats FINALLY Call For Overt Open Borders, Ocasio Cortez Says Bernie Will END Border Protections. Far left Democrats have proposed radical changes to immigration law going as far as to say no deportations and abolish ICE.But many on the left and many democrats have argued that this doesn't mean we will have open borders. People will still be screened upon entry right?Well not only did they then say they would decriminalize illegal border crossings, Ocasio Cortez has straight up said she wants ICE and CBP to be broken up and that Bernie Sanders has pledged to do it. Bernie was there as she said it as it was his own rally.So there you have it. By their own definition they will get rid of border security, end deportations, and stop enforcing the law. This by any sane metric is open borders.Republicans were already correct in saying they have been for open borders but now with the latest call to end Customs and Border Protection there is literally no defense. No more games, no more semantics, AOC called for open borders.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
At a recent campaign rally for Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez put the final nail in the coffin for the Democrats' call for complete open borders.
Now, for the longest time, conservatives and some moderates have been pointing out the Democrats are for open borders, but the response from the left has always been, that's not true, it's a mischaracterization, nobody wants open borders where people can do whatever they want.
We heard from Democrats they're going to decriminalize border crossings.
We heard they wanted to put a moratorium on all deportations.
We heard they wanted to abolish ICE.
So sane, rational Americans said that sounds like open borders, but they argued not true at all.
Because people still can't just freely come across the border.
I mean, let's be real.
Trump's got a border wall there, and you've got people taking passports and stamping them and checking people as they come in.
Except now.
Ocasio-Cortez has stated, not only does she not want to reform ICE, she also doesn't want to reform Customs and Border Protection.
She wants them broken up, and Bernie Sanders has pledged to do so.
Do you know what CBP does?
Like, when you go to the border at, like, a border station, and you, like, walk up and say, hey, I'm coming to visit America, and they stamp your passport?
That's what they do.
Ocasio-Cortez wants to get rid of that organization.
Okay, so what's left?
Just people walking through the building?
There's no one there to stop you?
Well, that's what happens if you get rid of CBP.
We've also heard from people like Beto O'Rourke.
I know, he's kind of gone.
But he did say he wanted to tear down Donald Trump's wall.
Well, recently Bernie Sanders was asked if he would do that, too, and Bernie Sanders said, you know, maybe.
Now, to be fair, Bernie did say, if it's expensive, we'll put the money to better use.
Let's think about that.
No wall, no criminal penalty, no deportation, not even a customs and border protection.
So let me just say this.
At the end of the day, you can argue anything you want, but the moment Ocasio-Cortez said no customs and border protection, literally no law enforcement personnel at all at the border, okay, yeah, that's open borders.
I'm done playing games, okay?
I'm not gonna play this argument anymore where simply because AOC didn't use the words open borders, she must not really mean that.
Nah, she did.
Here's what we're gonna do.
Let's go through the news and see exactly what happened.
Before we do, however, Make sure you go to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
Grab that link, drop it somewhere, click that share button.
If you really want to help my channel grow, it's really the best way to do it.
And maybe we can break some echo chamber bubbles if you share this with somebody who might actually disagree.
Now, I understand most people just would refuse to watch it because they're going to play the same old argument we hear from the media and Democrats all the time.
The Democrats have never said open borders.
It's a Donald Trump lie.
I'm going to show you definitively why they did.
By their own argument of what open borders really would be, Ocasio-Cortez has now called for it and stated Bernie Sanders is pledging to bring that to us.
The story from Fox News.
AOC bashes ICE.
Sanders bashes Trump during Iowa rally.
They say, U.S.
Rep Ocasio-Cortez urged supporters of 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders on Saturday night to start tipping people off if they see federal immigration authorities taking action against illegal immigrants in their communities.
It was just one of many tips the New York Democrat had for a crowd in Ames, Iowa, as she continued stumping for Sanders ahead of the state's presidential caucuses on February 3rd.
Now, I can stop right now and say, If you've got law enforcement trying to enforce our laws, and a federal politician is telling people to subvert our law enforcement agencies, you've already got a serious problem.
Many people would take that statement alone, saying she must be for open borders if she wants people to come here without consequence, right?
If people cross the border illegally, and then you say, don't let law enforcement come after them, Well, that's open borders, right?
Well, they argue, no.
The Democrats say, no, no, no, no.
Open borders would be no security, no border crossing at all, no fence of any kind.
They say, unlike a front-end event in Iowa City, in which Ocasio-Cortez promoted progressive causes like the Green New Deal, government-funded health care and immigration reform, but never mentioned the name of Sanders, who is absent because of the Senate impeachment trial duties in Washington, The 30-year-old freshman congresswoman on Saturday, with a 78-year-old Sanders now in attendance, reminded the crowd who she supported.
Quote, we need a true green new deal in this country.
She said Senator Sanders has the largest plan in the field to address the climate crisis.
I'm here because we need true immigration justice.
And I'm not here to reform some of these systems when we talk about immigration.
I'm here because Senator Sanders has truly committed to breaking up ICE and Customs and Border Protection.
Let me go back.
They say, 78-year-old Sanders now in attendance.
Bernie Sanders was there with AOC when she said, Bernie has committed to breaking up ICE and CBP.
Breaking them up.
Okay, let's play some semantics games.
What does it mean to really break them up?
Well, at first I was thinking, maybe she means like, turn them into smaller agencies and strip them of their authority.
Yeah, no, she said I'm not here to reform some of these systems when we talk about immigration.
I'm here because Sanders has committed to breaking up ICE and CBP.
If you start that statement by saying you do not want reform, it doesn't sound like she wants to limit their powers or reform the agencies and break them up.
It sounds like she's trying to abolish them outright.
And guess what?
AOC and her allies literally say abolish ICE.
If she is lumping Customs and Border Protection into that same sentence, okay?
What else am I supposed to believe other than she is saying, you know those people at the border who stamp your passport?
We're gonna just get rid of all of them.
She doesn't want to reform that.
She wants people to literally just walk across the border, I guess.
Do you know what CBP does?
They do a lot of things.
They don't just deal with, you know, checking people as they cross the border.
You land in an airplane?
You're like walking up to immigration?
Yeah, CBP's there.
They check your passport.
You want to get rid of all that?
That means people can fly here from any country and they literally just walk in.
We've got a Wuhan coronavirus crisis going on with people freaking out, and you want to get rid of border security?
Sorry, that's open borders.
But you know what?
Let me play the game with y'all.
Check out this story from the Daily Beast back in July of 2019.
Democrats must destroy Trump's open borders myth.
No one wants to just let everyone just walk in.
Now, a few Democrats are finally offering credible ideas about how to move past that fake choice.
I love it.
Now I know this is one article, it's one guy's opinion, but it's, I gotta be honest, I saw a ton of articles all with the same or a very similar opinion that simply because they want immigration reform or amnesty, it's not open borders.
Now, they give us their definition of what open borders really is, and you're gonna love it.
He says, What's the definition of open borders?
It's just a buzz phrase to rile people up who want to get rid of illegal immigrants, cut back on legal immigrants, and make America white again.
It's the new weapon of choice replacing the tired-out zinger of the 1990s, amnesty.
Take the leader who recently called me... I'm not gonna read that part.
Let's go down.
He says, Here's how I define, quote, open borders.
For me, open means open.
There would be no guards, no fencing, and no impediments of any kind.
Anyone who wants to cross the international boundary for any reason, and with whatever intent, could do so.
It would be like it was before May 28, 1924, The date that the U.S.
Border Patrol was formed.
Come one, come all.
That would be insanity.
And that's why no one's calling for it.
You know what, man?
You are so right.
That would be insanity.
No guards and no fencing?
Hey, wait a minute!
Didn't Ocasio-Cortez just say Sanders is committed to breaking up Customs and Border Protection?
Who would be left?
There's not going to be any guards at the border.
Okay, okay, well, hold on.
We still do have fencing.
You know, Trump is building a wall.
So we haven't quite met the criteria for what he's talking about.
All right, well, how about this?
Sanders floats moratorium on 90% of deportations, demolition of border wall.
Oh, well, how about Beto O'Rourke?
Now, I know, I know, I know.
Beto O'Rourke's long gone.
The dude sitting around in sweatpants growing a five o'clock shadow, and he's not particularly relevant.
But how is it that before you claimed... Okay, so let me show you something.
This guy said... Let me show you the date here.
July 15th, 2019.
No fencing, no guards.
Beto O'Rourke, February 14th, 2019.
Beto says he would take the wall down, separating El Paso and Mexico.
Beto O'Rourke called for tearing down Donald Trump's wall.
So now let's check off those boxes, all right?
You've got no guards, thanks AOC and Bernie Sanders.
You've got no fencing, thanks Beto O'Rourke.
And I think it's fair to criticize Bernie on this one, though I do think it's more fair to say Bernie said he'd rather spend the money on childcare and more important things.
That's fair.
But you do have contemplation and discussion about the removal of guards, the removal of impediments, border fencing, or otherwise.
You have the decriminalization of the crossing, meaning people literally could just cross for whatever reason, and a moratorium on deportation.
Congratulations!
You now have anyone from anywhere flying in, walking in.
That's open borders, dude!
I'm sorry!
There's no arguing at this point!
You tried debunking it, Daily Beast, by saying there would be no guards.
What did they say?
Let me get it perfectly again.
He says, here's how I define open borders, no guards, no fencing, no impediments.
Congratulations, we're officially there.
Now I find it really annoying the saying, just because AOC and Bernie didn't use the phrase open borders, that they're not really calling for open borders.
Sorry!
They are.
And, you know, they've tried it over and over, but here's what I want to show you real quick.
Because I do have some other really important things that I want to talk about as it relates to this, and why I think this is the Democrats.
Let me show you this first.
I'm not going to use the Daily Beast definition, okay?
Because now they're going to come back and say, Tim, you're just using one guy's definition, and that's not how I define open borders.
Okay.
Let's go to Wikipedia.
Oh, but you say Wikipedia is not a good... No, no, no, no, stop.
Wikipedia has a consensus.
It's much better than me pulling up 800 articles from all of these liberal writers trying to define what open borders is.
Let's just go to Wikipedia, which should be a more neutral, if in reality kind of left-leaning, but a more neutral assessment.
They say, open border.
An open border is a border that enables free movement of people, and often goods, between jurisdictions with few or no restrictions on movement that is lacking substantive border control.
Okay.
By the actual definition, you could have CBP and still have open borders, because few or no restrictions.
Few restrictions.
What AOC is proposing, and saying Bernie Sanders has pledged to do, would be the complete removal of any and all restrictions.
Breaking up CBP and no reform.
You know what that means?
It means when someone comes to the border, there's no one there to stop them from doing literally anything.
They can just walk on in.
Now I want to show you something.
I think it's fair to say that, you know... Actually, let me throw it to Andrew Yang.
You know, I like Andrew Yang.
I do.
I do.
Back in August, Yang said it's a mischaracterization to say Democrats are for open borders.
I do believe it is fair to highlight this sentiment from Andrew Yang.
But what we're really seeing here, and I will show you in the next article, is that there's no real Democratic Party anymore.
There are just Democrats.
They have no unifying principles.
They don't believe the same things.
They're arguing such wild positions, abolishing private health care or keeping private health care.
That's a ridiculous choice.
You'd think if there was a Democratic Party, they would be unified around what they wanted to do with health care.
But from abolishing to keeping, that's like a wide extreme.
You know what I mean?
Like, you could say, I think private healthcare should be cheaper.
I think private healthcare should be, you know, more accessible.
That's a difference in a party.
Not, get rid of ICE and CBP or don't.
That's nuts.
But Andrew Yang said, He said, I think it's mischaracterizing the position of
just about every Democrat to say that someone is for open borders. I know I am very cognizant
of the fact that we need to have more resources in place to secure our borders and enforce
our rules as they're written.
The open borders attack to me is simply a mischaracterization, certainly of the point of view of most Democrats I've heard
them express.
Okay, Yang, I think you were perhaps right back then to a certain degree.
I think what we're really seeing is that Yang Democrats are very, very different from what the Democratic Party is actually moving towards.
As I mentioned earlier, Bernie Sanders has become the frontrunner in many polls.
Ocasio-Cortez has six million plus followers on Twitter.
I know Twitter isn't a great metric, but listen, she's certainly one of the most newsworthy Democrats and one of the most influential.
So I'll tell you this.
I'm a big fan of Andrew Yang.
But Yang's wrong on this one.
I agree with Yang when he says we need more resources in place to secure our borders and enforce our rules.
You're spot on, Yang.
It's one of the reasons I like you.
I'm sorry, though.
Bernie Sanders and AOC just said they're pledging to get rid of Customs and Border Protection.
Okay?
Let me be careful.
They want to break them up.
Interpret that however you want.
But when she says, I don't want to reform them, I want to break them up, it sounds to me like she's saying get rid of them because she often says abolish ICE.
So if she's putting them in the same category, you can play semantics, you can play with words, but I think we're all seeing this.
Now let me bring you back to reality.
January 25th, 2020.
Sanders tops another poll just before the Iowa caucus.
And there you have it.
Bernie Sanders is in the front.
And his position is now becoming the majority position, or the largest single faction.
I get it.
You can look at Biden and Buttigieg and Klobuchar and see that even though their support is in lower double digits, together it's much bigger than Bernie Sanders alone.
That's not how the primary is going to work, though.
Bernie Sanders has the largest single voting bloc, the far-left woke identity progressives who want to abolish ICE and want to open borders.
Well, I got bad news for Democrats.
I've seen this.
I've seen how this plays out.
I saw how it played out in Egypt.
I'll tell you what's going to happen.
The Democrats are split between so many different factions.
There's no real the Democrats.
The woke far left are at such odds that Andrew Yang says Democrats don't want what they're clearly saying they do.
Bernie Sanders, getting around 27% in some polls.
Joe Biden, 21.
Buttigieg, you know, in the teens.
Klobuchar in the single digits.
Let me tell you what happens.
Bernie Sanders will win the primary because he has the single largest group of voters.
Even though 30% of the Democratic primary voters would say we like Bernie and 70% would say we don't, Bernie gets the nomination.
What do you think happens then when you have 50 or so percent of the Democratic Party saying we don't want open borders?
They're gonna vote for Donald Trump.
You see how this works?
Because of the way first-past-the-post voting works, it's basically one person, one vote, even in the Democratic primary, Bernie Sanders has a minority support, 27 or so percent.
That is nowhere near the majority of the Democratic voters.
But because there are so many centrists in the field, or I shouldn't say centrists, but more like moderate democrat types like Buttigieg, Biden, Klobuchar, that's it, you get the point.
They're split, meaning Bernie's gonna win.
Bernie will win because of the split, the ideological far left will take the primary, and moderate voters will bow out.
But let's talk about what's really going on.
Do I really, well actually before I do, I want to make sure I show you this.
He has made wild shifts.
How Bernie Sanders has changed his approach to immigration.
This is from BuzzFeed News.
BuzzFeed News wrote an article only about a week ago talking about how Bernie Sanders is very much reformed on immigration.
Because he used to be for border security, now he's not.
And this is just more evidence when BuzzFeed News and other leftist sites are willing to praise Bernie on immigration, and AOC will say with him, at his rally, he wants to get rid of the guards at the border.
That's basically what she said.
Call it hyperbolic.
Call it whatever you want.
That's what she said.
No reform.
Break them up.
I get it.
I get where you're going.
But I want to talk about what we're really seeing.
In this story from Fox News, Dan Crenshaw blasts pandering by Sanders and Warren the definition of buying votes.
Well, let me stop.
What Crenshaw's talking about is student debt forgiveness, for the most part.
You promise to give a millennial voter 50 grand, like Elizabeth Warren is, yeah, they're probably going to vote for you.
Could you see this?
Elizabeth Warren says she's gonna forgive $50,000 in debt?
Yeah, okay.
And I'll throw the same shit at Yang, even though I really do like Yang for a lot of reasons.
Offering up a thousand bucks a month to everybody?
It's like... Well, there was that quote from that, you know, I don't know, guy is an American history guy.
He said that our country is in danger.
We'll face serious danger the moment politicians realize they can just buy votes by essentially promising up public resources, levying taxes, and then giving that money to people.
What Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders are doing with the student debt forgiveness they've proposed, in my opinion, is hardcore pandering to buy votes.
Because let me tell you the real solution.
There is no solution involving just giving people $50,000.
You took out a loan?
Well, we're gonna just wipe that debt clean.
But you got to spend that money.
You got a degree for it.
That degree doesn't go away.
You don't refund the degree.
What we really should do, in my opinion, is eliminate the interest rates and make the college students pay down their principal.
You've got to pay back every penny you spent, but we're not going to let it grow on you and become impossible to pay down.
That's one of the big challenges.
So there's a real compromise there.
I think it makes sense to offer up some kind of alleviation to student debt so we can get millennials back to, say, buying houses or having families.
But what Bernie and Warren are doing is basically telling college students or, you know, now college graduates, hey man, We're gonna give you 50 grand.
It's pandering.
So I looked to the comments about CBP and ICE, and I'll tell you exactly what it's all about.
Let me read you the story from the National Review.
They say, When asked whether he would support tearing down the wall, Sanders responded, I don't know.
Maybe the answer is yes.
If it's going to cost me billions of dollars to tear it down, maybe the money would be better spent on childcare in this country.
That's a really great point, actually.
So I want to be fair to Bernie.
He's saying, eh, we might as well spend the money on other things.
Yeah.
I said the same thing about Beto O'Rourke.
Why would you waste money doing that?
Let's read on.
He says, if someone has been convicted of a terrible, terrible crime, that might be an exception to the rule.
A moratorium on 99% of deportations is nothing to sniff at, and I think the undocumented community would be very proud of that.
The undocumented community would be very proud of that.
This is where things start getting a little weird, in my opinion.
What do you mean the undocumented community?
Like, I understand there are people in this country who are here illegally, without documentation.
But why should the President of the United States be trying to win favor with people who are not here illegally, who are not a part of our system, and can't vote?
You see, a lot of Democrats have actually campaigned in Mexico.
I'm not exaggerating.
Like, Beto O'Rourke went down there.
There's some other people.
Jill Biden was down there.
And I have to wonder why.
What is the point of campaigning in a country that is not America if you want to be the President of the United States?
Look, you want to run for some kind of, like, international, I don't know, figure of some sort, go work for the UN or something like that?
Fine.
You want to be an ambassador to a foreign country?
By all means, go and do it.
You want to earn favor with people who are in a country that's not yours, more power to you.
But why should they be trying to court favor with the undocumented community?
That's weird.
I think it's just another sign of pandering.
But when we can see them offering up cash to college students for debt forgiveness, straight up forgiveness, that's insane, by the way.
We do, like, I'm totally for some kind of debt forgiveness, but not just an outright check for 50 grand.
But then we see this.
If they're trying to pander for votes, as Dan Crenshaw says, what votes are they pandering to by helping the undocumented community?
They would be very proud of that, Bernie Sanders said.
Why are our politicians campaigning for people who aren't citizens of our country?
Why should we as a community be opening up the doors to those who break the rules?
Let me break this down for you.
America is an elite club.
We're very wealthy.
It's very comfortable here.
But you know what?
It's not an elite... It's not a club that's hard to get into.
America lets in more migrants than basically any other country.
That's my understanding.
I could be wrong.
Fact check me.
But I'm pretty sure America has, like, the biggest net immigration for, like, any country.
So we certainly have this open door.
The only problem is you gotta wait in line because everybody wants to come in.
Well, undocumented immigrants are line jumpers.
They're snaking everybody else to get a piece of the pie.
And we're more than willing to offer up that piece of that pie.
You just gotta come in through the doors, okay?
What Bernie is saying right now is if you cheated, We're gonna hook you up.
Cheaters win, right?
What they're saying on college debt is if you saved money and worked hard or worked your way through college, you get nothing.
But if you took out a loan and made someone else pay for it, don't worry, you don't gotta pay it back because cheaters win.
That's what they're offering up.
So here we are.
I'll wrap it up here.
That's it.
They've really crossed that threshold to now beyond any reasonable person's position.
They're calling for open borders.
Let me reiterate.
Ocasio-Cortez said no more CBP.
That means when you walk to the American border, you will see an empty building.
And people will just be walking in and out as if there's nothing there at all.
Customs and Border Protection is the largest federal law enforcement agency of the Department of Homeland Security and is the country's primary border control organization.
It is charged with regulating and facilitating international trade, collecting import duties, enforcing U.S.
regulations including trade, customs, and immigration.
CBP is one of the largest law enforcement agencies in the United States.
It is a workforce of more than 45,600 sworn federal agents and officers headquartered in D.C.
Let me stop.
First, breaking up CBP with no reform.
You're talking about eliminating nearly 50,000 jobs overnight.
That's worrisome for the economy.
But they regulate trade and customs and regulations.
You know what that means?
I don't know.
If someone's trying to smuggle a product that's defective or toxic or poisonous into the U.S., yet they stop them from doing it.
It's the craziest thing to me that when they talk about abolishing ICE, they focus on this tiny subset of what the organization actually does.
Immigrations and Customs Enforcement goes after criminals for the most part.
They don't prioritize hunting down like a dude who works at a chicken factory.
Sometimes they do arrest them, but their priority is always egregious offenses, criminals.
Yet for some reason, AOC would have you believe they're like chasing kids down the street.
They do that too, okay?
To be extreme, like they do chase young people who are here illegally, and they'll arrest them for it because they're here illegally.
But that's not the primary, you know, priority of what they're doing.
In the end, what I'm really trying to get at, CBP does so much more than stamp your passport.
They make sure drugs and poison and criminals aren't coming across the border and hurting people and trafficking people.
They want to get rid of all that.
That's open borders.
They've said it.
So by their own definition of what truly constitutes open borders, congratulations AOC, you've brought us there.
Can we stop arguing whether they're for it or not?
They literally are.
Well, whatever, I guess.
You know for sure the left is going to come out and say, no, no, no, eliminating CBP isn't open borders!
There would just be no guards and no fencing!
But we would still track people.
Ah, okay, you know what?
I'm over it.
I'm done playing these games.
We get it.
Y'all want open borders.
I think that's a terrible idea, and most Americans probably do too, because even Andrew Yang was saying, no, no, we don't want that.
Sorry, Yang.
There's a large faction on your side, on our side, saying it's true.
And you've got to point to it and call it out if you want it to, I don't know, not be a thing.
Let's stop pretending that these Democrats are, let's stop acting like they're not calling for it.
They are.
Yang isn't.
I get it.
Though Yang, I believe he was one of the people who raised his hand for giving government health care to non-citizens.
I think it's fair to say it exists.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
If what we're hearing from viral videos is true, and it may not be, the Wuhan coronavirus is extremely dangerous, much more dangerous than anyone actually could predict or know.
A viral video right now shows a nurse saying that there are 90,000 people infected, and they're only reporting like 10 or so thousand.
They have quarantine.
It's the biggest quarantine, I believe, in human history.
And this may be substantially more serious than they're letting on.
And I'll stress it again because I said the other day, you got to remember stories like Chernobyl, okay, like Fukushima, how these governments lie to save face when the problems are much more severe than they really are.
And as I stated in every other video, remain calm, don't freak out, don't panic.
We got a couple stories to go through here on the update of the coronavirus.
The first I want to get to is that the U.S.
warns it can't evacuate all Americans from coronavirus epicenter in Wuhan, and rescue flight won't arrive for two days, and Canada confirms first case after Chicago in Washington.
So now we have, I'm not sure how many we have because, I gotta be honest, I'm gonna drag a Daily Mail right now.
They do this really annoying thing where they use the same link, but they're completely different stories ten minutes later.
So this story is literally the same URL, but like 10 minutes later, they just change it.
They deserve to be dragged for that.
It says, third U.S.
case of coronavirus is confirmed in California, after Chicago and Washington, while Canada confirms its first case.
So, the mortality rate, based on what China has been claiming, I believe is around 2-3%.
And that's fairly significant, right?
I know a lot of people talk about how the flu is always worse, and people are overhyping this.
I think it's fair to say that, too.
The media's gonna overhype this.
But this is what's scary.
If they really do have 90,000 people sick and they're lying, which they probably are, I don't know if they have 90,000 sick, then this may be much more serious than people actually realize.
But also, if they have 90,000 sick, and the amount of deaths are actually the same, then it's actually much less serious.
It may be contagious, you might get sick because it's a novel virus, you know, there's no human immunity for it.
But if the rate, if the mortality rate is ridiculously low, then I think, you know, you're gonna catch a cold, basically.
I know, I know, I'm downplaying it.
But let's do this, let's read this story from the New York Post about this viral video.
And I want to stress, I do not like the New York Post using this.
They're just sourcing some Twitter video of a screen grab.
But I have seen a bunch of videos of Chinese doctors saying similar things.
Here's the problem.
I don't speak Mandarin or Cantonese.
I don't know what they're saying, and it's possible people just took a video of someone saying, everything's fine, we're gonna be okay, and they're making it seem like everything's crazier.
So you really gotta understand.
A lot of people love putting out fake news, love sowing disinformation around because it's fun or funny or for whatever reason.
However, we just don't know yet.
We need confirmation, and the confirmation we're getting is very low numbers of sickness.
But I think it's strange that you're gonna have, like, one of the biggest quarantines, if not the biggest quarantine in history.
It's over 40 million or so people under quarantine, and only, like, 10,000 sick.
I think this is much more serious than it really is.
Plus, there's really scary footage coming out of, like, people falling down in the streets, people convulsing, and again, we don't know what's real.
And it's mostly due to the fact that China restricts access to social media and they're very authoritarian.
So now we're getting these leaked videos that appear to come from China.
It's really difficult to confirm because China is trying to stop people from sharing this information.
Probably, look.
Assuming China's really lying about this and it's really, really dangerous.
Yeah, they don't want to accept responsibility.
Let's read this story from the New York Post.
They say, Coronavirus whistleblower nurse says China has 90,000 sick.
Now I will state, the New York Post tends to be credible.
Okay, they've got their opinionated sections and all that stuff.
They tend to be credible.
So I'm hoping they did their due diligence on this story because if this is legit, man, we might be in serious trouble.
New York Post reports, the coronavirus now has a whistleblower, a nurse in Wuhan who insists in a shocking online video that close to 90,000 people in China have the disease, far more than the 1,975 reported by officials, saying, quote, I am in the area where the coronavirus started.
Her video begins.
Wuhan is the epicenter of the outbreak.
I'm here to tell the truth, the anonymous nurse says in the video, which shows her wearing a full head face mask.
At this moment, Hubei province, including the Wuhan area, even China, 90,000 people have been infected by a coronavirus.
She does not reveal how she arrived at the sobering statistic.
The video has been viewed on YouTube some 2 million times, the Daily Mail reported.
Other horrifying videos have shown dead bodies covered in sheets lying in hospital hallways.
I'm going to show an article now, and you're being warned.
This stuff is serious.
It's not technically graphic, but it is distressing.
So again, you're being warned if you're watching.
I'm going to show this article from the Daily Mail.
Distressing footage of coronavirus patient writhing on hospital trolley in infection-hit Wuhan is shared online as Chinese authorities continue to delete, quote, fake videos of deadly outbreak.
So this story is really, really important for two reasons.
We can see in a video someone on a stretcher.
And they are seizing, okay?
Some people have said, this is a person who's got a 120 degree fever, that the disease is essentially killing them.
Now apparently China is claiming all of these videos where people collapse in the streets, people are wearing gear, they're claiming it's all fake.
And there is a lot of fake information out there.
So it's really hard to know what's true.
I gotta say though, I don't trust China.
We know about what they do with the Uyghur Muslim camps.
I don't trust any of their statements on Hong Kong.
When this happens, I do not believe they are telling the truth because they restrict access to the internet.
They punish, you know, their own citizens for trying to spread information.
I really don't think they're honest, you know, their government is honest.
Let's read the story from the Daily Mail.
They say, Harrowing footage of a patient uncontrollably shaking on a Wuhan bed has been claimed to show a victim of the coronavirus.
The widely shared video shows the patient writhing furiously under the covers while face-masked onlookers watch aghast.
But it is unclear who the bystanders are.
They do not appear to be doctors, who are typically treating victims in full-body hazmat suits.
The brief clip, purported to be captured from the epicenter of the outbreak in eastern China's Hubei province, was circulated on social media as the virus's death toll climbed to 56.
More than 2,000 people worldwide have been infected by the disease.
Which spawned in Wuhan, a city which has now been placed on lockdown.
So once again, you know, they're showing us a bunch of the confirmed cases.
I mean, look, China says they have 1,975, 56 deaths.
And that video from the New York Post is claiming it's substantially higher.
I don't know who you should trust more, the Chinese government or random online video.
And that puts us in a really dangerous position.
But let me tell you a story real quick.
During Hurricane Sandy, I think it was, I was in New York.
And I'm not sure who reported, I think it was one of the major networks, okay, reported that the New York Stock Exchange had flooded.
And I was literally across the street because this guy I knew had a data center in a building.
And so I, yes, there was flooding, you know, in the financial district of Manhattan.
So I walked out of the building, where we were, we were just at the edge of the flood, so I was able to jump over and walk down the street.
There was no flooding anywhere near the Stock Exchange.
And this was because someone on Twitter had put out a tweet that was completely fake, saying, you know, I'm here, it's happening, and people believed it.
I mean, this was a long time ago, right?
This was back in 2012, so I think people were a lot less understanding of the fake information that would go viral.
But I really gotta say, man, You know what?
I'm gonna put the blame on China.
Because if we're in a position where we don't know if the random online videos are more trustworthy than the Chinese government, that's the Chinese government's fault.
They're not trustworthy, okay?
They have the great firewall.
They restrict access, you know, of their people to the internet.
There's no free press.
And we don't believe them when they talk about this stuff.
Especially when we get whistleblowers talking about the camps they have with the Uighur Muslims.
So they've created this own problem, okay?
Or maybe it's on purpose.
Maybe they wanted to make this so that no one will know what's happening because they want to lie about what's happening.
I'll tell you this, man.
I'm almost more inclined to believe random online video from, you know, at Chinese man 734 than the actual Chinese government at this point.
They say, caught, flat, footed in the crisis Beijing has been scrambling to build more hospital beds and import protective suits after admitting a woeful shortage of both.
And there was another viral video where it's like someone was in a bed and secretly filming and the doctor is like frantically talking about how they have like 10,000, you know, sick, that all of the beds are full.
He's in full panic mode.
What are we supposed to do?
People were leaving and going home and he's like, no, no, this is getting out of hand.
I don't know what they're actually saying, right?
Someone could take a clip of a guy saying, no!
Do not deliver my pizza at 5pm, it must come now!
And they can just, you know, put whatever translation they want on it and claim it's something and people will believe it.
That's where things are difficult.
So you gotta take it all with a grain of salt, but...
I think it's fair to say, I really think it's worse than they're letting on.
I really do.
Especially when we're learning that the incubation period is like two weeks, and that it's airborne.
Which means, there was one article they said, one person could infect, you know, 14 people by the time, you know, they realize, they've caught, you know, they're symptomatic, right?
So, this really could start spreading and becoming much more dangerous.
But let's read a little bit.
They say, In the video, the twitching patient lies on a rickety stretcher in a crowded room.
Coronavirus victims are being isolated in quarantine, suggesting the patient may not yet be in a hospital.
So that could explain why the people around are not doctors.
They may be bringing them to the hospital.
Journalist Dmitry Zolotarev tweeted the clip with the caption, patient with heavy seizures caused by coronavirus in Wuhan.
It comes as China is accused of scrubbing the internet of raw footage showcasing the horror crisis.
A nurse battling the outbreak claimed the government is playing down the volume of the infections and said the true figure is 90,000.
Now I'll tell you this, one of the reasons I think that may be true, or at least I'm not willing to trust the Chinese government, is that we've got too many videos of people in these hazmat suits disinfecting streets, carding bodies, picking bodies off the streets of people who collapsed.
I gotta say, unless someone is staging a whole bunch of hazmat videos, it's probably the case that at least, you know, a good portion of these videos are legit.
And if they are, and people really are collapsing in hospitals and in the street and the virus is that bad, it sounds way worse than they're actually letting on.
They say regime authorities batted back accusations of a cover-up and insisted it had followed the principles of openness and transparency.
Yeah, right, since the coronavirus broke out in Wuhan, Hubei province last week.
And in a move to further project transparency, they announced daily press briefings on the threat posed by the virus starting tomorrow.
Beijing's health minister today assured reporters that authorities have cranked up efforts to stop the spread of the disease after conceding their knowledge of how it mutates is limited.
Ma Zhaowei added that the administration will continue to curb transport links and scrap planned public gatherings.
They say that he has maintained close communications with the World Health Organization and invited inspectors to examine the country's response.
He also revealed Beijing is sharing information with other nations after the United States, Thailand, South Korea, Japan, Australia, France and Canada all have confirmed cases.
So I will say It is entirely possible.
Let's do this right now.
China is not known for being very honest.
They do a lot of dishonest things.
They're authoritarian, pseudo-communist, whatever you want to call them.
But I don't know who to criticize more.
The media or China?
I gotta be honest.
The media loves a sensational headline-grabbing story.
So let's go back and reassess this New York Post article.
The New York Post is basically sourcing their claim of a shocking online video in which this woman claims there's 90,000 people to some dude on Twitter.
Now, I'm not trying to drag this dude on Twitter.
I don't know who he is.
His name is Terrence Daniels and he's got 1,400 Retweets on this clip.
It says, in her full productive year, Dr. Genoui announced a grave warning to her friends and families.
This is where she said there's more than 90,000 people.
Look, maybe the New York Post did some hard verification behind this.
I think it's fair to say.
I don't believe they've provided enough evidence to state that as fact.
So, you look at the New York Post and the Daily Mail, and I gotta say, this headline, I'm sure it got a ton of clicks.
Well, actually, can we check?
I don't know.
Maybe not.
I bet they got a ton of clicks from it.
Telling people that it's worse than it really is, 90,000 people infected, and I don't know if they actually checked the translation, if they actually checked, you know, who this doctor is, who the guy who posted it is.
For all we know, it could be one of those, you know, you ever see that meme where it's like the World War II movie and then people put different translations under what Hitler is saying?
For all we know, this is what we're dealing with.
This is a big challenge we face, you know, just in general as a society when these outbreaks happen.
We have people, like regular people, not media, who just want to sow disinformation.
I guess they want attention?
I don't know why they do it, but they do.
I'm not saying he did, I'm saying, but they do it.
They do it.
You know, because I guess they want to have an impact on the world?
I have no idea what they're feeling.
But then we have a media apparatus, or journalistic institutions, who will lie to get clicks because you make money.
Let me tell you something.
Let me tell you a dangerous and terrifying truth.
If I made a video that was completely fake, BREAKING NEWS Hillary Clinton contracts coronavirus.
And then I took a photoshopped image of her all shocking.
You know, shocked like that.
Million hits overnight.
Million hits, make several thousand dollars off of it, and then apologize and issue a retraction.
Our sources were incorrect, but guess what?
I get to keep all that money.
The best part is, the retraction will get some traffic too, get a little bonus on top.
All of these media companies that are sensationalizing what's going on are gonna make tons of money and they know a day later they can say, oh, we were wrong, we were just reporting it as we saw it.
That's why I always want to say, in all instances, urge caution.
Don't freak out.
Don't panic.
But it's tough.
You know why?
Because China is not a trustworthy entity at all.
I guess you could trust the World Health Organization to a certain degree, right?
If they issue a warning, we'll take it seriously.
For the time being, I think it's fair to point out, we had SARS back in, you know, 2002, 2003.
We had MERS.
We had avian flu and swine flu.
I still, I still want to lean towards, this is probably nonsense, okay?
But I'm hearing a lot of rumors, alright?
Some other journalists have told me that they don't believe, so what they're saying is that it was, it originated from like snake soup or something, or like people, or bat soup.
People were eating snakes, and it was an exotic meat market.
Apparently now, there are more rumors circulating that that's not the case.
That they've actually traced it back and found it wasn't originating there.
So, who knows?
There are people, there's memes going around showing that the Wuhan Biolab, which has sparked many, many conspiracy theories, Their logo is an umbrella, like Umbrella Corp from Resident Evil, except theirs is green.
I do not believe that's the case.
The image shows something that says Shanghai.
But a lot of people love playing the game.
They love entertaining the idea that the apocalypse is here or it's World War Z or something.
I really just think the best we can do is take care of ourselves, our friends, and our family, stick to the news, see what we can confirm.
So, I will end this with one final thought, and I've said this in the past several videos, but it bears repeating to those who didn't see the other one.
Don't let anyone shame you into not taking care of yourself and your family.
If you want to go buy some water, buy some canned food, buy some emergency provisions and a first aid kit, don't let anyone make fun of you for doing it.
It's crazy to me that we've created this idea of the prepper, that somebody who's actually going to be like, hey, in a case of emergency, I'm going to have some supplies, and they make fun of it.
I'm sorry if you've heard me say it a million times, but this is serious.
Cases of bottled water I had people like this was years ago I can't remember what it was something that happened
earthquake or something and I people sent like laughing being like
What do you think the world is ending blah blah blah and I'm like dude
I'm gonna have a couple cases of you know bottled water.
You know what I mean. It's a here's the analogy I give and I'm sorry if you've heard me say it a million
times, but this is serious I'm trying to I'm repeating this now because I think it's
an important message to take care of yourself You have band-aids, right?
Yeah, you rarely use them.
You have a first aid kit, you rarely use it.
Take care of yourself, okay?
We don't know what's gonna happen with this coronavirus stuff.
Probably gonna be nothing in my opinion.
If it's true that there's 90,000 people sick, this thing is already worldwide.
And if 90,000 people in China have this, Yeah, I think it's gonna be a massive epidemic.
And the mortality rate, small as it may be, it's gonna take some lives.
So let's take this one seriously, to the best of our abilities.
But look, for the time being, just do your thing.
Have a good time, go out, watch the game, you know, have a beer, pizza, wings, whatever.
You shouldn't be stressing about this, because you gotta remember too, the media loves to freak you out.
The media absolutely loves it.
Because they get those clicks, they can lie, they can say whatever they want, they can put out a sensational headline, make a bunch of money, And you know what the best part is?
I get to do the opposite.
I get to put out the video where I'm telling you to stay calm and also get the benefits.
That's what I don't like about the media.
They absolutely could say in this article about the 90,000 people sick, take it with a grain of salt.
It's hard to verify.
Remain calm.
They don't do it.
They don't.
Because in my opinion, they want to keep you hooked on the story.
Look at this.
The trending now right next to it.
Don't buy the media hype over the new China virus.
Exactly!
Actually, let me pull this up.
Thank you to the New York Post for actually saying the same thing three days before you put out Sensational headlines.
Don't buy the media hype over the new Chinese virus.
They say it's called drama, which is badly needed.
Oh, I'm sorry.
A CNN reporter broadcast from Wuhan, China on the recent viral outbreak.
There is nobody near who could possibly infect him, unless the cameraman has a Guinness Book of Records coughs and sneezes.
So why does he insist on wearing a blue surgical mask while talking?
It's called drama, which is badly needed, because there appears to be nothing very special about this outbreak of the 2019 NCOV or Wuhan virus.
Yeah, so I'm not gonna read through the whole thing, but exactly.
Exactly, okay?
I think everybody's trying to show whatever they can because they're all excited.
The world's boring!
You know, but hey, I'll tell you what.
I'll give you one more bit, and I'm signing off because this video is too long already.
I'm glad I'm not talking about impeachment.
Now I kind of am.
But you get the point.
You know, the media is so desperate for something.
They'll take whatever they can get.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around, stay safe.
The next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Last night, the President of the United States tweeted out a segment from Jesse Watters' show on Fox News talking about how Donald Trump has basically won.
Well, he said, I think he literally said Trump won.
And Trump tweeted, all Democrats should watch this.
Well, that's one way to guarantee they don't watch it, but he's actually right.
Water's segment was actually a really great segment and one of the most important bits was how he starts by showing even the mainstream media admits Trump's legal defense was excellent.
And you know they begrudgingly do that.
They rag on Trump all the time.
You look at these outlets like Vanity Fair the other day highlight this where they're acting like the article was titled Trump you know fear in Trump land as their legal defense breaks down and it's like They want to create this idea among the left and Democrats that Trump is losing when he's not losing.
But that brings me to the actual story.
Now, as an aside, CNN's analyst Jeffrey Toobin was concerned about the all-white male legal team for some reason.
I don't know why.
But this Blaze article says, CNN analyst admits Trump is winning the impeachment trial, but has too many white lawyers.
Well, I don't care about the white lawyers thing.
That's stupid.
We get it.
But there was a funny video going around from the Senate trial showing the Democrat table and the Republican table.
On the Democrat table, our papers strewn about.
And you can see highlighter marks and stuff in yellow.
On the Republican side, it was very, very... It was rather empty.
They each had a few, you know, files or a book in front of them.
What's really funny about that image is the Democrats, the left, were posting that image, highlighting how the Democrats had all of the evidence in those papers, and it was a good thing.
And the Republicans had nothing.
When Republicans posted the same image, they said the Democrats were disorganized and unprepared.
And the tidiness of the Republican side showed they were prepared.
And now we're seeing a very, very funny thing happen.
Even the media is now admitting Trump is winning.
What I find hilarious is when these forums for the resistance type people say, Adam Schiff went on for days with a profound and articulate message, and the Republicans could only muster a couple hours of defense.
As if because the Republicans didn't talk over and over again about the exact same thing, they're in a weaker position.
In reality, Adam Schiff said so much nothing, he just literally repeated himself over and over again, the Republicans had very little to actually address.
So, Jesse Waters' assessment?
In two hours!
In two hours, Donald Trump has won.
But guess what?
You know what's really funny about the whole political debate?
is how when I point out the same thing that even someone like Toobin would say, they accuse me of defending the president.
Let me give you a dose of reality.
I don't care what your perspective is, whether the Republicans are more or less organized or prepared based on how many papers they have.
What matters is even the media who hates Trump is saying, yeah, well, you know, Trump got this one.
Let's check out this story.
But I am gonna bring you to reality afterwards, okay?
I'm gonna bring you to what Americans actually think about this.
Because, I gotta be honest, I don't really care what CNN's analyst thinks.
I care about what Americans actually think.
That's why I check polling aggregates.
I look at economic numbers, and I do, to an extent, like to see what the aggregate assessment from the media is.
Though as an individual, I think, look, You see these articles from Vanity Fair, like Trump is scared and losing.
It's like, dude, so far from the truth.
But let's at least entertain what Toobin is saying.
The Blaze reports.
CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin made a surprising admission on Saturday after President Trump's defense lawyers laid out their opening arguments at Trump Senate trial.
Republicans are winning the impeachment case.
Again, this is a quote.
Again, I just think the Republicans are winning here.
The president is winning here.
And as long as they don't completely fall on their faces, which they're all competent lawyers, they're not going to do that.
I think that's fine for them, Toobin argued.
The liberal commentator also acknowledged that Trump's lawyers raised a legitimate point by underscoring the president's long-standing concerns with foreign aid and burden-sharing among nations.
They did make one good point about the transcript, I thought, which was the president did about burden-sharing in that phone call.
And the House managers didn't focus on that or even mention it, and fair is fair.
He continued, according to the Washington Examiner.
Now, we'll mention the weird comments about white people.
Sure, fine.
But Jesse Waters also made an excellent comment, and I'm now going to comment on Waters' comment about Trump's legal defense.
Haha, isn't that funny how the political landscape works?
But anyway, the point is, Trump's legal team said, how can you accuse Trump of obstruction of Congress when Congress never held a vote on subpoenas?
It was an illegitimate subpoena.
They just issued them without voting on them.
You can't do it.
Apparently, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this, that if the House wanted to issue a subpoena, they have to vote.
Individual House members can't just snap their fingers and go subpoena whoever they want.
Not only that, they didn't even try to rectify the executive privilege argument from Trump by going to the Supreme Court.
So there's literally no obstruction of Congress.
Congress never had a legal claim because they never voted.
Even CNN is pointing out, yeah, well, you know, and I'll make one more point on impeachment.
Okay.
Listen, there is this weird mentality among these resistance type people who, who absolutely just hate the president so much, but really don't pay attention to the news.
Where they think there's only one country in the world, or like five countries.
Let me tell you something.
You know how many countries there actually are?
Like, what is like, how many countries?
180 or something?
I don't know, whatever.
The point is, we have a lot of ambassadors.
Trump probably never even knew who this woman was, Yovanovitch.
Okay?
They're all over the place.
So they're acting like Trump is just so focused on Ukraine, when Trump has been withholding aid to tons of other countries.
We don't hear about that.
It's only the Ukraine scandal.
But Trump's legal team pointed that out, too.
Now, let's read about the weird, too-many-white-people comment, I guess.
And then I'll bring you to reality with what Americans actually think about Trump.
Too many white people on Trump's defense team, they say.
However, Tubin noted that Trump's legal team may have a major flaw.
It lacks racial diversity.
Because everyone knows when you're trying to win a legal case, diversity is what's important.
Oh, this is such cringe, man.
See, you know why I want to read this article from The Blaze because they point this out?
Because it shows you that even the cringiest of cringe can still agree Trump's legal team is winning.
When you get someone complaining about the race of Trump's lawyers but still admit Trump is winning, I think it says a lot, doesn't it?
He says it was all white men today.
There are two white women allegedly on the team.
We'll see if they're allowed to argue.
Oh, geez.
CNN, you're so cringy.
Praised racial diversity on House Democrats.
On the other hand, Toobin praised House Democrats for having a racially diverse team of impeachment managers.
Quote, I mean, You know, this is a lesson in the diversity of the two parties, he said.
I mean, you look at the House managers.
It was almost evenly divided between men and women.
It was, you had two African Americans, you had a Hispanic.
It's unclear how the race and genders of either Trump's lawyers or House Democrats impeachment team are relevant to the underlying facts or their respective cases.
But Toobin said that since television is a visual medium, When you have one side that has a very diverse team, and the other is comprised of all white men, it says something in and of itself.
Yeah, only to racists?
If you're one of these far-right racists, you're probably looking at Trump's team like, that's a bunch of white men, I like that.
And if you're one of these far-left racists, you're going, the Democrats have a very diverse team, I like that.
But regular people don't care!
Spoiler alert.
Regular people absolutely do not care.
Most people are just like, show me the facts.
Does it make sense?
Most people are not obsessed with race.
There are a lot of people who are, mind you.
So let's go to reality now.
So you get it.
Trump's winning on impeachment.
Even the media agrees.
And now we have this new Fox poll on the economy.
A Fox News poll says, record economy ratings as voters credit Trump.
You see, one thing Jesse Watters also pointed out, and which I pointed out and everyone points out, the RealClearPolitics average, most people reject the impeachment and removal of Donald Trump.
Now, he's already been impeached.
So, most people at this point, the largest spread yet, are saying no to Trump's removal.
And in the real world, a poll finds, from Fox News, 55% give the economy positive ratings, the highest since January 2001.
Now, I will say, that is good news for the president in that a lot of people are happy with what's going on.
But 55%, I gotta admit, it's kind of scary.
Like, we are a very, very split country, right?
Let's read.
They say, voters give the economy its best rating in nearly two decades.
Okay, okay, so I'll walk that one last, that last bit back a little bit.
I would prefer to see like 70 or 80%, like some real unity, but hey, it's the best we've seen in two decades.
Who's trying to impeach the president?
You know what I mean?
And yet, as his impeachment trial begins, Trump's job approval holds steady, while half say the Senate should remove him from office.
The poll, released Sunday, finds 55% give the economy positive ratings, excellent or good.
It's been 19 years since this many felt as positively, 59% in January 2001.
In addition, a new high of 20% say the economy is in excellent shape up from 14% in October 2019.
It was 3% excellent in the final month of the Obama administration.
Moreover, the bulk of voters credit Trump for the economy.
When asked to say who or what they think is responsible for the current economy, without the aid of a list, the top answer is Trump and the Republicans at 42%.
Next to mention by far fewer is Obama and the Democrats at 9%.
So right now, you know what the biggest threat to the economy is?
It's the Democrats' impeachment trial.
See, one thing that really helps an economy is certainty.
So, when Trump won, it was, to an extent, certainty.
But, admittedly, with Trump, it was a lot of trade policy.
People thought that he was a good bet because he was going to bolster the American economy.
With Brexit, when the conservatives swept last month, certainty helped drive up the value of the pound and bolster their markets.
Now, we have a president who might be impeached.
And that's bad for the economy.
It's bad for the markets.
You know, economies and markets are slightly different.
But if Trump got impeached, I bet you'd see the Dow Jones plummet by double digits.
It'd be ridiculous.
Who's going to want to invest in a country if they remove the... Did I say impeached?
I mean removed.
He's already been impeached.
If Trump actually got removed, people would be in panic mode with their investments in the United States.
The best thing for the economy is not just about whether or not Trump's policies work, which they seem to be, it's about whether or not people will feel confident in investing and working in the United States.
So if Trump wins re-election, that confidence will continue because of the great four years that had already happened before it.
The economy right now is amazing.
Jim Cramer, the best numbers of our lives.
If Trump is removed, people will get scared.
We had this great economy and now what?
You take him out?
What comes next?
If Trump loses re-election, it will also be really bad.
And this is one of the biggest conundrums for basically anybody when it comes to voting.
You might really detest the president.
You might think he's the worst person in the world, but is the economy worth it?
And it's a legitimate question.
I mean, if you really think Trump is doing all these really awful things, you might be willing to take a hit to your pocketbook if you think the world would be better.
Climate change, good example.
Trump's not the best on climate change.
I mean, actually, the people, the climate change people really hate him.
So if you think the environment is extremely important and Trump is deregulating, you know, in a lot of areas, then you're probably willing to, you know, see your salary reduced or lose some jobs in order to protect the planet.
Here's a big problem.
You are the fringe, okay?
The people who really, really care about stuff, any kind of stuff, man, few and far between.
I tell you what, you watch the Joe Rogan podcast, his MMA videos do, like, a lot better than a lot of his political videos.
They really do!
Because what does the average person care about?
Sitting back in their lounge chair with a bowl of Doritos and some Mountain Dew, watching the things they're passionate about.
Be it sports, video games, music, whatever.
They care about their passions, their interests.
Politics?
I'll tell you, you know what one of the greatest gifts in the world is?
Is leadership.
Leaders.
Because I know a lot of people who don't want to deal with the nitty-gritty of whether or not we gotta vote for this and that, whether or not we gotta increase the tariffs by 10%, impose some policy over here.
A lot of people love that.
Now, personally, me?
I'm one of the people who wants to be in the fray, talking about these issues, challenging good and bad ideas.
A lot of people don't want to do that.
So guess what?
They look to Trump and they say, I'll tell you what, man, I don't know.
I don't know if we should build a wall.
I don't know about any of that, dude.
All I know is this guy came in.
I'm making more money.
My job, you know, my company's hiring.
We got more people.
I got a promotion.
I got a raise.
I come home, got a brand new sofa, brand new widescreen TV, and I'm watching the game with my buddies.
We're playing fantasy football.
That's what I care about.
Of course the activists will complain and say that's bad.
That's bad that they don't care.
And I can understand to a certain extent, like it's good for you to pay attention.
But whether or not it's good or bad doesn't matter.
What matters is...
People like Trump.
The best poll ratings in 20 years, okay?
People's lives are better than ever.
You're not going to win this way.
You're going to lose this way.
I believe that impeachment is going to go down in history as one of the worst blunders in American politics.
The Democratic Party, right now, is floundering.
You know what I absolutely love about the Waters segment was when he points out Adam Schiff for like four days or you know it's not four days what was it like two or three days saying the same thing over and over again and you know what?
All the Republicans were pointing it out.
They were like, Adam Schiff, it's like, it's like, what's up, people are calling it Groundhog Day.
I'm not exaggerating, man.
If you watched it, you know what I'm talking about.
If you didn't, you're very lucky, and you made the right move.
Because I've got the TV on right next to me, okay, with Fox News, and they played Schiff, and I had to turn it off.
Because Schiff would stand there and go, this president was trying to cheat an election by pressuring a foreign nation, and I'd be like, okay, I know, and then I'd come back ten minutes later, The exact same line over and over and over and over.
The Republicans step up and say, well, we can address the one thing he said 50 times with one response.
Took him two hours.
So the Democrats are pattering.
They're padding their speech.
They're fluffing up what their argument is because there's no argument.
It's gonna go down in history as a serious blunder, and I'll tell you what, the media will be right alongside it.
Because there are so many outlets that tried claiming that Trump's losing and he's scared, when in reality, in reality, look at the screen!
Fox News poll, record economy ratings, voters credit Trump!
I get it.
Trump's a nasty guy.
He's an arrogant narcissist.
He's always been.
And I was talking to someone recently, a local in my neighborhood, and he said that he was a lifelong Democrat.
He voted for Trump, and I asked him, why?
And I was like, you know, are you not, like, do you take issue with, like, Trump's attitude?
He's an arrogant narcissist.
You know, he's braggart, boastful.
He jumps the gun often.
And the guy was like, hey man, we voted for that guy for a reason.
And I'm like, I get it.
It was a combination of just, like, wanting something new and also, I think, to a lot of people, wanting to punish the system to send in the bull to charge through the ivory tower.
Now they're happier than ever.
I asked this guy, how you feel?
He's like, man, work is great.
You know, we're doing more and more work.
We're hiring more and more people.
It's been fantastic.
Yeah.
I went to a furniture store, and the lady told me she made more money last year than she's ever made.
I think she meant by year, but she said more money than she's ever made.
Maybe she meant it.
Maybe that's what she really meant.
And I laughed, and I was like, hey, it's the economy, right?
It's great.
And she's like, yeah, it's really good.
And I'm like, I'll tell you what, man.
I'll wrap it up with this because you get the point.
Impeachment is meaningless.
They've lost already.
Even CNN, NBC, ABC are all saying Trump's legal team, man, they hit it out of the park.
So you know what comes next?
As most Americans reject impeachment and removal.
I know he was already impeached, right?
They eject the removal of the president.
The trial is nonsense.
And now, Because we're seeing more and more public support for the president, his approval rating remains steady at a near all-time high, people are going to be more and more confident to check that R box come November.
I think we're going to see a lot of people, though, here's how I put it, I love this, a lot of Democrats, you know, they've admitted, there was another study done, I think it was Hill-Harris X, where they were saying that these Democrats were like, we know the economy is better than ever and we're making tons of money, but climate change.
Oh yeah, I heard you.
I think you're concerned about climate change, but I'll tell you this.
Those people are going to go in the voting booth, they're gonna look over their shoulder, make sure nobody can see, and they're gonna check off that Donald Trump box.
You know why?
People are motivated by self-interest and money.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, it can be, but that's just reality.
And I think if you wanna deny reality, you're free to do so, and then you're free to wake up on, you know, November, what was it, November 11th, 9th, I don't know, when's the election, whatever.
You're free to wake up on January 22nd.
Donald Trump is your president still.
And you can get on your knees, look to the sky, and scream no as loud as you want.
Because in America, you have free speech.
So you're free to deny whatever you want, and you're also free to complain about it.
But in the end, if you don't take this stuff seriously, and you keep pretending like Trump is losing and acting like people don't like what's going on, you're going to be in for a rude awakening come November.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It is a different channel on YouTube, and I will see you all there.
We heard that the FBI and ICE may be investigating Ilhan Omar over a series of alleged felonies.
But now we have this story from the New York Post that confirms the FBI is reviewing claims that Ilhan Omar married her brother.
And I don't know if that qualifies as a legitimate investigation.
Call it whatever you want.
It seems like the FBI is actually starting to look into what's going on with these claims.
So let me just say, The left has been calling this a conspiracy theory for a long time.
But it was actually the Star Tribune in Minnesota.
It's a legitimate newspaper.
It's left-leaning.
Even they wrote that Ilhan Omar may have married her brother.
I did a segment on this and Media Matters smeared me as pushing a conspiracy or fake news because I said, the Star Tribune said, That she may have married her brother.
They literally say it.
It's in the first paragraph.
Well, now we know the FBI is actually reviewing it, so, sorry.
I mean, they'll probably try and claim, oh, the FBI is being roped into conspiracy theories now by the far right and la la la.
Whatever.
Let's see what happens.
Now, I gotta admit, as I often say in stories like this, Man, life is boring, you know?
Like, is anything really gonna come of this?
Is there gonna be a grand conspiracy?
Ilhan Omar secretly working for Qatar or something?
I really doubt it.
She's gonna slap, she'll get a slap on the wrist, that'll be some fine, cause life is routine and life is boring, and stuff like this never happens.
But maybe she married her brother, I don't know, the FBI seems to think it's possible, so let's see the story.
The New York Post reports, the Federal Bureau of Investigation is reviewing claims Rep.
Ilhan Omar married her brother, the Post has learned.
Two FBI agents held an hours-long meeting in Minnesota in mid-October with a concerned party who handed over a trove of documents regarding Omar's 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Said Elmi, a source with knowledge of the event said.
Well, in that case, they handed over a ton of documents.
This could actually expand into full-blown investigation.
I mean, maybe you could call this an investigation.
Fine, but it's redone.
Say, at the meeting, first reported by website The Blaze, the agents discussed concerns the Somali-born Democrat married Elmi, a British citizen rumored to be her brother, so he could obtain a green card and study in America, the source said.
Let me stop you right there.
The first problem I have with the brother story is that it's unnecessary.
If it's true, this guy, Nursed Elmi or whatever, married Ilhan Omar to get access to American, you know, To get access to the country, and to go to school.
That's the crime already!
It doesn't matter if she married her brother.
The brother thing is weird salacious nonsense, okay?
If it turns out they're related, fine.
But that distracts from the actual story, and I will tell you this.
If I was working, like, PR defense for the Omar campaign, I would say, do the best you can to make sure people think that's your brother.
Because that's not illegal!
It's just creepy!
I mean, actually, it might be illegal.
But it's creepy, okay?
And is anything really gonna happen?
I don't know.
And people are gonna think it's nuts, and they're gonna think you're crazy, and they're gonna say it's fake news, but...
If you focus on whether or not she committed immigration fraud, that's a serious crime that most people are going to be like, whoa, right?
So maybe they're brothers, mother and sister, whatever.
Let's start with immigration fraud.
How about that?
Let's read on.
They say, Okay, I'm gonna stop right here.
It's kind of weird.
the information with the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the US Department
of Education but did not commit to opening an investigation into the Firebrand Lawmaker."
Okay, I'm going to stop right here.
It's kind of weird.
It's a bad place to be if you're Ilhan Omar and ICE is collecting data on you because
they may launch an investigation and you're simultaneously saying, we should abolish them.
Could you imagine?
Someone who is accused of robbing a bank being like, we should stop policing bank robberies!
It's like, I mean, you know people accused you of robbing a bank, right?
Is it kind of weird that you're now trying to stop the law enforcement against bank robberies?
You get the point, right?
Ilhan Omar is being accused of immigration fraud, and she's trying to abolish the organization that investigates immigration fraud.
I kind of feel like that's weird, right?
Is that just me?
Whatever.
They say.
So it sounds like there's no legit investigation, okay?
But, what we do have from this so far is that there's confirmation now in the Blaze story.
brand lawmaker, the source said. So it sounds like there's no legit investigation. Okay.
But what we do have from this so far is that there's confirmation now in the blaze story
when the blaze first reported it, they said it, it appears, well, now we know for sure
the FBI is looking into this.
Whether it'll turn into a legitimate, you know, on-paper work investigation, we don't know.
All they're saying straight up, they're not committing to it.
So maybe.
They say, if Omar did marry her brother, she could be found guilty of committing marriage fraud, a felony offense punishable with a prison sentence of up to five years and a fine of up to $250,000.
The three government agencies said they would not confirm the existence of any ongoing or potential investigation.
Okay, full stop.
There may actually be one, it seems.
Am I understanding?
I could be wrong.
office did not respond to requests for comment.
But she has repeatedly denied the allegations, calling them disgusting lies.
The only problem is the dude she claimed was her dad had the same name as the guy.
My understanding, I could be wrong.
They say the 38 year old's complicated personal life has been the subject of enduring scrutiny
since she was sent to Congress at the 2018 midterm elections.
In October, the mom of three filed for divorce from husband Ahmed Hirsi after the Post exclusively revealed allegations she was having an affair with DC political consultant Tim Minette.
Omar initially denied the split, but one source in the Minneapolis Somali community said the pair broke up months before and claimed Omar was privately lobbying Hirsi to divorce her.
I gotta be honest, man.
father of her three children remarried just 37 days after the divorce was finalized in November.
And Omar has been repeatedly photographed leaving the same Washington, D.C. apartment as Minette.
At the very least, I guess we get salacious celebrity nonsense. I gotta be honest, man.
I really don't care if she's having an affair to an extent.
There are legal considerations if she's marrying someone, they're getting citizenship benefits, and
then she has an affair with someone But I'm pretty sure her C, the guy she's legally married to, wasn't, you know, I think he's an American citizen.
I don't know, maybe there's something there.
Let's read.
They say...
However, it's Omar's 2009 marriage to Ahmed Nur Sed Elmi, which has raised eyebrows.
Right, so this is the guy from a long time ago.
For those that are unfamiliar, basically, they think that she married him so that he could get access to the United States, get citizenship.
You know what?
I'm not going to rehash the whole thing because most of you probably already know.
Let's just read it.
They say it raised eyebrows and now prompted the involvement of the FBI, with records indicating she lived with both men at the same time.
Omar and Hersi were engaged in 2002 but never legally married, having a Muslim ceremony instead, she claims.
They had two children before splitting in 2008.
The next year, the congresswoman married Elmi, who she described as a British citizen on their marriage license.
Allegations that Elmi is Omar's brother first emerged in a since-deleted post to the Somali Spot message board by a user named Abdi Johnson in 2016.
Conservative blogger Scott Johnson picked up the claims on his Powerline blog, and they were later repeated by President Trump.
No, they weren't.
Donald Trump was asked specifically about Omar and he said, I don't know, you know, people are saying that she married her brother.
I don't know a whole lot about it.
So, you know, let's be fair.
Technically, you could argue Trump repeated the claims.
He's not asserting them.
He said, this is what people are talking about.
And it's true.
The New York Post is talking about this and the FBI is reviewing it.
I think it's fair to say if the FBI is reviewing, potentially, you know, launching an investigation, the president can say, I've heard this without being accused of actually pushing any conspiracy theories.
They say the Somali community source personally observed Omar, Elmi, and Hirsi all living together in the same family home in Cedar Riverside with the couple's two children.
The trio then decamped to North Carolina, North Dakota, where Omar began studying political science at North Dakota State University in August 2009, the source said.
Elmi also studied there for a period but dropped out, records show.
Omar and Elmi split two years later in 2011, and the freshman lawmaker got together with Hirsi again, Hirsi, and they had a third child.
So here's the big point.
They were all living together.
She's Muslim ceremony married to one guy, not legally.
Then she legally marries another guy, they live together, and then she divorces him, and then gets back with the guy she actually had kids with.
Look, I gotta say, man, on the surface, it sounds like at least immigration fraud, regardless of whether they're brother or sister.
It does sound like some kind of immigration fraud.
And I'll tell you this.
I'm willing to bet, back then, when they were doing all this, she was a nobody.
She never thought she'd be in the U.S.
Congress, and now that she is, welcome to oppo research.
People are digging into her past, they're trying to figure out what she was doing and why she was doing it, and lo and behold, it looks like you got some seedy dealings going on.
She may- I think- I'll say this.
I don't care for the brother stuff, okay?
Cast that aside.
Because at the very least, the whole thing is suspicious and actually looks, in my opinion, like probable cause that she may have committed immigration fraud.
And that's it.
You want to investigate beyond that?
You go ahead and do it.
But you want to actually convince people it should be investigated, don't start by saying she married her brother, because they're just going to think you're smearing her.
Whether it's true or not.
You've got to work people through the facts.
And right now it looks like she was living with two guys.
One guy she was having kids with, one guy she legally married, one guy who's got the same last name as the guy she says is her dad.
I know it's weird, but it sounds like immigration fraud, so...
They basically just rehash a lot of the same story.
They end by saying Omar launched her re-election bid on Thursday after a turbulent term where she was criticized for anti-Semitic remarks, showed reluctance to sanction Turkish leader Erdogan, and was slapped with multiple campaign finance complaints after her alleged lover received... Yeah, yeah, yeah, so we get it.
I'll say this.
Regardless of whether or not she's committed any real crimes, or I should say felonies, because she did commit some offenses, some crimes.
She had to pay fines for them.
But regardless of whether or not she's committed, like, jailable offenses, I think this is going to be really bad for her re-election campaign, but we will see.
How will the people in, you know, in her district, how will they react to this?
I guess for now we can say, New York Post is confirming what we knew from the blaze.
The FBI is reviewing these claims.
We could be facing an investigation, so I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Donald Trump made an off-the-cuff comment on Twitter, as he normally does, where he said that Schiff has not yet paid the price for what he's put America through.
And I think any sane, reasonable person would see that Donald Trump means, like, there's going to be consequences for the sham impeachment process, probably in the election.
But to think anything beyond that would be, I don't know, trying to be a mind reader?
But apparently, the Democrats and people in media love making things up.
Do we know definitively what Trump meant by saying he hasn't paid the price?
No.
Occam's razor would suggest he was talking about elections.
The Democrats are going to get hurt, it's going to be Schiff's fault, whatever your opinion is.
Is it fair to say Trump was sending a threat to Adam Schiff?
No.
You would have to be psychic to assert Trump was sending a threat to Adam Schiff.
But of course, it makes for great television, so Adam Schiff is absolutely going to be like, oh, the president is threatening me, and the Washington Post and all of the orange man bad media is going to play this stupid game.
And it is so infuriating.
The Washington Post writes, Schiff has not yet paid the price for impeachment.
Trump says, in what appears to be veiled threat.
Appears to be to who?
This is what's so annoying.
I don't care what you think it appears to be.
Just say, Schiff has not paid the price for impeachment.
You know, Adam Schiff claims it's a threat or something like that.
It doesn't appear to be anything.
Schiff can claim whatever he wants.
Let's read the story and see if we can tear it apart.
Washington Post reports.
No, no, no, no.
Washington Post asserts.
President Trump escalated his attack on Rep.
Adam Schiff on Sunday, issuing what appears to be a veiled threat.
You know what, man?
It's really tough to read this stuff because it's so infuriating, I gotta be honest.
Against the California Democrat one day before Trump's team is expected to deliver the crux of its defense in the third presidential impeachment trial in U.S.
history.
Shifty Adam Schiff is a corrupt politician and probably a very sick man, Trump tweeted Sunday morning.
He has not paid the price yet for what he has done to our country.
Schiff, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, is the lead impeachment manager in the Senate trial.
Schiff responded in an interview on NBC News' Meet the Press saying he believes Trump's remarks were intended as a threat This is a wrathful and vindictive president.
I don't think there's any doubt about it, Schiff said in the interview.
And if you think there is, look at the president's tweets about me today, saying that I should pay a price.
Do you take that as a threat, host Chuck Todd asked?
I think it's intended to be.
You know what this reminds me of?
You know, like, little kids will do this thing where You know, someone will like push their shoulder and they'll overreact and fall down and start crying.
And then they'll be like, he hit me, he hit me, when it was like a light tap.
That's what Schiff is doing here.
Donald Trump said there's gonna be, essentially said there's gonna be consequences for what Schiff has done with impeachment.
He goes on there and he drones on and on and on.
Saying no new information in months.
Just the same thing over and over again, trying to make us angry.
That's what he's doing.
He's just really trying to annoy people to the point of, you know, to pure fury.
And then Donald Trump says, there's going to be consequences for this.
You know Schiff is going to pay a price.
And Schiff, and Chuck Todd, yes, Chuck Todd of all people, we know what his alignment is, says, do you take us a threat?
It's intended to be.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
You know what, man?
The media loves these games.
Schiff, of course, needs this because he has nothing on Trump.
So he needs to weaponize literally anything and everything Trump does.
I am so sick and tired of this.
I'll tell you what, man.
Maybe their strategy is, like, people get so sick and tired of hearing about Trump, they might vote for somebody else because they're tired of hearing about it.
Like, basically, the Democrats are so annoying, it's like the Democrats are screeching a really loud noise saying, we'll stop making the screeching sound if you vote for somebody else.
Get rid of Donald Trump.
And people are like, fine, fine, I'll vote for somebody else.
Stop screeching at me!
That's what it feels like.
I'll tell you what, though.
I'm willing to bet more people are vindictive and their attitude is going to be like, you want to keep screeching at me?
Then I'm going to go vote twice!
And then Trump's going to get reelected.
I mean, he'll get reelected for the sane, normal reason that the economy is doing really, really well.
Trump's targeting of Schiff comes as the president's attorneys are readying to mount an aggressive defense on Monday.
Democrats are arguing that Trump withheld military aid.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Dude, I don't even want to say it because I got to be honest, I've said it so many times and Schiff has said it so many times.
Seriously.
The House impeached Trump in December on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Related to these allegations and his directive that his administration not cooperate with the House's investigation.
Right.
The House never voted for subpoenas.
They went to the courts to pressure Trump and then backed down.
You know why?
Because SCOTUS would have ruled against them.
So the Democrats were trying to subpoena Trump's administration.
They sent the claim to the courts and then immediately withdrew them.
That's my understanding.
Because if they ruled against them, they'd have no impeachment at all.
So they said, hey, better to have a weak claim than to have a rejected claim, right?
What they're doing is completely insane, if you ask me.
They say in a two-hour presentation on Saturday, members of Trump's legal team argued the president had valid reasons for withholding the aid to Ukraine and like dozens of other countries, and it sought to plant doubts about both the prosecutor's case and Schiff.
But in arguing their case, Trump's attorneys omitted facts, presented claims.
You know what?
I love the Washington Post.
I might as well be reading like Truthout or Common Dreams or some other left-wing activist blog.
You can argue that Trump's attorneys omitted facts, but Trump's team is the defense!
This is so insane, I am so annoyed by this bias in the media.
Listen, the prosecutors need to lay out a case, okay?
That's Schiff.
The defense isn't supposed to go after every single point and give evidence.
Listen, they don't, okay.
One thing to tell you when you're defending yourself is not to volunteer information.
They say that Trump's legal team omitted facts.
Trump's legal team is supposed to mount a defense against the claims made by Schiff, not present all of the evidence whether brought forth by Schiff or not.
They're supposed to target what they think they can defeat and present it.
Could you imagine if we had legal proceedings where the defense was like, we're not going to try and win.
We're going to actually create a graph going through every single point made and then tell people whether they're legit or not.
Yeah, they would all lose.
Now I get it.
A lot of people are probably going to say, but they should do that.
They should... No, no, no, no, no.
The goal is to convince a jury whether or not this person is guilty or not guilty, which means a good defense won't volunteer up information, or they're not going to be like, we believe Schiff's claim about Trump is wrong because Trump had a right to, you know, withhold aid and fire whoever he wanted.
Now, as to, you know, Schiff's claim about the meeting with Parnas and Yovanovitch, we have no response to that.
We really don't know.
Why would they do that?
The defense is going to highlight things they can refute.
So now they're, you know what, Washington Post, fire your activists.
They say Democrats contend that Trump has continued to publicly solicit foreign interference in U.S.
elections and that the integrity of the 2020 race is at risk.
The president fired back Sunday night by leveling the same accusations at his political opponents.
The impeachment hoax is a massive election interference, the likes of which has never been seen before.
Some Republicans on Sunday defended Trump's remarks about Schiff.
In an interview on CNN's State of the Union, Senator James Lankford, a Republican, said he was not troubled by Trump's declaration that Schiff has not paid a price.
I don't think it's a death threat.
I don't think he's encouraging a death threat.
That's insane!
Why is it even coming up?
Why is anyone even acting like it is?
It's not!
Because no matter what Trump does, they have to make it the most extreme and insane thing possible.
My, you know, my God, man.
My God.
And I know people are gonna be like, don't you, you know, there are a few religious people who watch and they get mad when I use the Lord's name.
I get it, man.
But I'll tell you this.
Literally, Trump could, you know, what's the joke?
Trump could save, run into a burning building and save a bag of puppies.
And they would criticize Trump because the puppies inhaled too much smoke.
Trump, you know, he carried those puppies through the smoke.
But come on, man, why are we living in this paranoid, delusional state where you think Trump is this mafia criminal mastermind who planned Joe Biden's ouster two years before he even ran for office?
They're claiming that Donald Trump is so smart, so dastardly, that a full year before Biden even announced, Trump was plotting his ouster.
Never mind Bernie Sanders, who's now the actual frontrunner, it was Biden.
I love how insane all of this is.
You know what, man?
Trump is a lot of things.
A lot of bad things.
But he's not tweeting death threats to Congress.
He's just saying, you're going to lose.
It's going to be bad for the Democrats.
But they live in paranoid, you know, psycholand.
Let me give you my favorite.
I really want to end this as soon as I can.
In the debate in 2016, when Trump said Hillary Clinton acid-washed her server, and NBC News said, fact check, false.
Hillary Clinton did not use a corrosive substance on her server.
As if that's what Trump meant.
These people have brains the size of peanuts.
Or it's on purpose.
They're trying to manipulate the information to scare regular Americans into believing complete and utter nonsense.
And that's probably the case.
Donald Trump's not threatening anybody.
Can we all go home, please, and just chill?
Look, I got a big ol' box of Sour Patch Kids.
I just want to sit back and, you know, burn my tongue off with sweet, sour-y goodness, not listen to Adam Schiff's psychotic lies all day.
Well, what can I say?
That's the media, right?
The media is going to take literally everything he does.
It's the game they play.
I'm wrapping this up.
I'll see you all in the next segment in a few minutes where I'm now going to talk about the same thing.
Because I have another segment on a similar issue and it's brain melting.
But let's look at some facts!
In the next segment we're going to talk about the media and the two spheres, the bubbles that everyone lives in.
So stick around and I will see you all in a few minutes.
Twitter has made the left and Democrats completely insane, and I think I know why, right?
I was thinking about it the other day, and it's kind of like, you know, for Republicans who are active on Twitter and YouTube and Facebook, they're spread out all over the country.
So after they see something online, they don't immediately rush to the water cooler or to a big office or broadcast network and start saying what they heard, thus, you know, accelerating the rate at which fake news disinformation can spread.
You also have the fact that conservatives tend to be banned for their opinions more so than liberals.
Let me show you this tweet from Dan Rather and then I'll explain like the urban effect of the rapid spread of disinformation.
Dan Rather tweeted.
Here's a test for Republican Senators.
If you think it's unfair to suggest the President gleefully seeks scorched earth retribution against his critics, go on Fox News and say you want to see the documents and hear from witnesses.
Then go check Twitter.
That's my favorite part of this whole thing.
Why?
Why check Twitter?
Because you want to see what 2% of the population thinks?
Yes.
You see, most people are not on Twitter.
About 78% of America does not use Twitter.
Of that 22% who does use Twitter, 80% produce majority... I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
10% of those users produce 80% of those tweets.
What that leaves you with is around 2 or so percent of the U.S.
My math's probably wrong, but it's a ridiculously tiny fraction.
It's about 2% of the U.S.
population that actually tweets actively.
No, don't go on Twitter.
Now here, now let me go back to the urbanization effect of fake news.
For the blue states, the, as we've seen with those maps where they call it like Trump country and the Clinton, you know, islands or whatever.
Blue states are actually just cities.
The big dense urban areas are all blue, and then actually around them tends to be red.
So here's what happens.
You don't have a neighbor.
You go on Twitter, you go on YouTube, you see a tweet, you see a comment, you see a story, you see Donald Trump tweet about Schiff, and you go, huh, and you chuckle, and then you turn around and you go back to doing your thing at your house.
Your neighbors might live a little further away on average than in a city.
Now for the people who live in New York City, people like Dan Rather, he tweets this.
Other people see it.
He immediately then turns to his neighbor because of the population density and says, hey, look at my tweet.
And they say, oh, I see your tweet.
And then you have all of these urban liberals rapidly spreading disinformation to each other, driving each other insane.
And this is one, I think, reason we see that graph where the left goes nuts and the Republicans don't.
Another reason, of course, being that Republicans will Get banned if they go nuts, and the Democrats won't, because they let them just say anything they want.
For the most part, not always.
The anti-war left does get purged.
But I think it's also fair to point out, too, the Democrats are completely fractured in a million ways, so it's not, you know, literally everyone, it just tends to be establishment and woke leftists who will say insanity, insane nonsense, and they're fine.
Dan Rather wants you to go check Twitter to see what Twitter has to say.
Why?
Who cares what a fringe faction of the population thinks?
I don't!
I don't check responses anymore!
So I'll tell you this, all of you weirdo socialist people who complain all the time whenever I tweet, I don't read what you say!
I know you tweet because it was last year or so I would read my mentions, and I eventually said, these are fringe wackos I don't care about.
I have no reason to waste time reading your stupid opinions, so I don't.
So by all means, comment as much as you want on my tweets, I'm not gonna read it, I don't care.
I've had people ask me, Tim, you have a lot of Twitter followers.
How do you make that happen?
And you know what I say?
I don't know.
I use Twitter as like a news feed, okay?
I follow a bunch of accounts, and when I tweet, I don't interact.
I don't look at what people are saying to me.
I just don't care.
Twitter's not real life.
I follow the New York Times and Reuters and some journalists to see what they're talking about.
But for the most part, I mostly ignore the responses.
Unfortunately, Dan Rather doesn't.
These left-wing journalists do not.
They encourage you to go and check Twitter and see what's being said.
And then we get insane opinions like this.
Oliver Darcy says, it's ease of CNN.
It's not just Fox's opinion hosts who are skewing the playing field for Trump.
It's also the network's straight news programs, which are doing so as well.
And you know what his point was?
That Fox didn't bring on the right person to comment on why Trump is in the right.
Oh heavens, when CNN brings their people out to rag on Trump all day and night, they're okay.
But heavens, if Fox News actually has someone come out who has an alternate opinion to what CNN has.
You know what I think happens?
I think Fox News says, we already heard from you guys, CNN.
We need an opinion on the other side.
How about that?
Now I do think it's fair to point out, Fox News is conservative.
They're biased.
Of course, they've got Hannity, Carlson, and Ingram.
Fine, whatever.
But CNN is not some, like, great objective source.
They're literally the same thing.
Except at least, when it came to Russiagate, Fox was skeptical and ended up being on the right side of that one.
So no, I'm not gonna blame Fox's straight news hosts like Brett Baier or Bill Hammer, who actually do a really good job of just reporting the news.
I'm gonna point the finger at you guys, who claim to be doing a media analysis, but all you ever do is bring on Orange Man bad talking points, and you actually had media matters come on, and they lie all the time.
So congratulations.
It's everyone else who's the problem.
You guys are nuts.
Here's some data.
Neiman Lab says Republicans and Democrats live in nearly inverse news media environments.
That is absolutely a fair point.
100% a fair point.
I'm not super concerned to, like, dig into this, because we get it.
But the one thing they say that I find truly hilarious is that Democrats trust CNN to, like, an absurd degree.
I should say liberals.
Actually, let me just look at the chart.
It says, ideology adds another layer to party line divides of most trusted and distrusted sources.
So we can see here, percent who distrust each source for political information.
And we can see liberals distrust Fox News more than conservatives distrust CNN.
This is more data which proves that which we already know.
Now, conservatives don't trust CNN.
They don't trust MSNBC.
That's fine.
But conservatives, according to most of the data we've seen, are more likely to actually watch CNN and his other outlets.
In fact, by 10 points, conservatives are more trusting of CNN than liberals are of Fox News.
So you will more likely see conservatives who have watched Fox and CNN, who have an understanding of the broader picture, and you have the liberals who only watch CNN for the most part, Or MSNBC, who don't have a broad view of the picture.
So they don't know what conservatives think, but conservatives know what they think, and lo and behold, the data from researchers like Jonathan Haidt backs that up.
Conservatives and moderates were able to predict how a Democrat would vote or behave.
Democrats were not able to predict how a conservative would vote or behave.
And it's because they live in a bubble.
And you know what's crazy, man?
Vox.com has an article up right now asking us like, it's a conversation around whether or not Trump supporters are in a cult.
It's like, dude, have you ever like talked to a Trump supporter?
Or are you talking about like a caricature of one?
Because I've talked to the woke far left and yeah, they're pretty culty.
And I've talked to the resistance people, and yeah, they're pretty culty.
By all means, you can call Trump's hardcore base a cult, fine.
But are you acting like you're not?
That's insane.
I fully recognize, you got zealots on both sides for sure.
I'm not gonna play games of who I think's got it worse, but I'll tell you what really bothers me.
Is that the media establishment, the cultural establishment often talks about how the right is nuts, the right is bad.
You know, CNN only fact checks Republicans or Washington Post says it appears Trump is threatening Schiff.
Uh huh.
We know what the cultural establishment is trying to claim, and it's just not true.
It's absurd to think they're innocent on this one.
So I love it when Oliver Darcy says, even the straight news of Fox is skewing things for Trump.
Or maybe it's that while the opinion people for Fox News are absolutely biased in favor of Trump, and your opinion people like Don Lemon are absolutely biased against Trump, the straight news of Fox News is doing a pretty good job, and you are not.
This show with Oliver Darcy, Brian Seltzer's show, is not a news show.
It's analysis and opinion.
It's opinion hosts on Sunday morning complaining mostly about the right, about the Trump ecosystem, about digital media.
And they don't bring on people with dissenting voices who can explain how, say, YouTube or Twitter actually works.
They don't bring on people who have a moderate or sane opinion.
For the most part, they bring on people who act like they know what they're talking about, but it's always orange man bad.
Always, always, always.
And I will tell you this, they bring on media matters.
Okay, if you don't know what that is, they're just an activist organization that complains about non-left-wing opinion.
They claimed that I was a conspiracy theorist because I said once that the Star Tribune in Minneapolis claimed Ilhan Omar may have married her brother.
In the article, plain as day, I read it.
In my video, you can see it.
In quotes.
A man who may be her brother.
And I read that.
And they said it's a conspiracy theory.
That's what they do.
They lie even when the proof is sitting in your face.
Brian Seltzer brings them on because their opinion matters.
And then they complain about Fox News not having the right people to come on and complain about Trump.
You know what, man?
The media is nuts.
And so let me go back to the main point.
I'll write this up.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that I think, you know, people like Darcy and Stelter are insane when it comes to this information because they're trapped in this bubble and they don't realize it.
Here's the proof.
I'm literally watching Oliver Darcy's comments and I have Fox News on.
I read it all.
I watch it all.
I sometimes pull up articles from Vox and BuzzFeed.
I pull up sources from the New York Times.
I'm reading literally everything.
But how often do you see people on Brian Stelter's show who would argue against their position?
You never do.
But I'll tell you what you do see.
Brian Stelter standing up and saying, tune out the spin.
Don't watch Fox News.
Just come to us.
Yeah, I would never tell you to do that.
And anybody who's being honest would tell you, make sure you watch what they have to say.
But you know what?
We already get it.
Conservatives are more likely to do so than liberals.
So be it.
It has nothing to do with whether you agree with a conservative position or not.
It has to do with what's real.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up tomorrow at 10am, podcast at 6.30.
