Former Ukraine Prosecutor DEMANDS Criminal Charges Against Joe Biden, Evidence SUPPORTS Trump's Case
Former Ukraine Prosecutor DEMANDS Criminal Charges Against Joe Biden, Evidence SUPPORTS Trump's Case. The Former prosecutor General of Ukraine Viktor Shokin sent a letter demanding that the Ukrainian authorities begin investigating Joe Biden for criminal interference in law enforcement activity.Biden famously got the prosecutor fired with a quid pro quo over 1 billion dollars in US loan guarantees.Shokin is arguing that Joe Biden intervened in order to stop his investigation into Burisma, a company where Joe Biden's son was a board member. Interestingly the left argues Shokin was removed for NOT investigating Burisma but the new prosecutor who came in after Biden's quid pro quo cleared Burisma's founder of all wrongdoing closing the investigation with no charges filed.Democrats impeachment trial argument seems to be falling apart as Republicans need only prove Trump perceived a potential corruption on Joe Biden's part. So far most evidence suggests Hunter Biden at the very least is corrupt and Joe was acting to protect his son.Trump Lawyer Pam Bondi laid the case that a reasonable person would conclude corruption existed and that Hunter and Joe biden should be investigated. Now with this charge from Shokin there is more evidence to prove Trump's case
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
We have major breaking news coming out of Ukraine that could have a serious impact on the impeachment trial of Donald Trump.
The famous ousted prosecutor, Victor Shokin, has sent a letter demanding criminal charges be filed against Joe Biden for interfering in law enforcement activity.
And this strikes at the heart of the impeachment argument.
In the infamous call with Ukraine, Donald Trump said he wanted them to look into Burisma and potentially Joe Biden.
Democrats argue he did this because he was trying to cheat in an election.
But Republicans argue Trump perceived potential corruption at these companies.
Now, the Democrats haven't presented any evidence as to Trump's motive, and Republicans don't need to prove there was actually corruption, just that there's reason to believe there was corruption and Trump was justified in investigating this.
Now, with the former prosecutor general of Ukraine saying he wants criminal charges against Joe Biden, it certainly adds to the idea that Biden may have been acting in a corrupt manner.
To give you some context, Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, was on the board of a company called Burisma, an energy company that many people, Democrats and Republicans alike, agree is corrupt.
Numerous news stories emerged saying it was a conflict of interest for Joe Biden to be working on weeding out corruption in Ukraine if his son was on the board of a company many people thought was corrupt.
Well, a famous viral video was sent out, or I'm sorry, a famous video was sent out that went viral showing Joe Biden brag about how he threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid unless this prosecutor was fired.
The prosecutor argues it was because he was going to investigate Joe Biden's son.
If this is true, or actually regardless of whether or not it's true or not, it certainly provides evidence that a reasonable person would conclude Joe Biden may have been engaged in corruption and an investigation was warranted.
It doesn't mean Joe Biden is corrupt.
It means perhaps Trump was right or had a real reason to believe Joe Biden may be doing something malicious or nefarious.
But there's a lot to go through now with the impeachment trial currently underway.
And it seems, at least to me, that based on the evidence, I think Joe Biden was actually protecting his son.
I really do.
And I'm going to show you why.
Because one of the arguments brought forth by this prosecutor was that if the reason he was ousted was because he wasn't investigating Burisma, why is it that the new prosecutor also did not investigate Burisma?
It doesn't seem to make sense, but let me present all of this news as we have it so far and talk about what's going on with the latest impeachment trial.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
I have a new address if you want to send stuff, but the best thing you can do is actually just share this video.
There's a lot of people who are never going to hear this.
In fact, I think it's fair to say it might not have an impact on the impeachment trial at all because most people won't report the news and will likely never make it to Trump's legal team.
So if you think it's important to take a look at this information and hear what these people have to say, consider sharing this video so that more people can see it.
And honestly, it just really does help me.
I want to say a few things first.
The story is coming from Interfax Ukraine, a Ukrainian news agency.
And Interfax is owned by a Russian parent company.
Take it for what it is.
Now the documents appear to be legitimate.
The document, the letter sent by Shokin demanding these charges was apparently given by his lawyer to this news agency and we have no reason to believe that's not the case.
Interfax is a legitimate and one of the oldest news agencies in Ukraine.
However, Shokin Could potentially be lying or trying to fan the flames and the chaos in the United States as the impeachment trial is currently underway.
But let's read at least what he has to say and take a look at the evidence so far.
They say, Ukrainian ex-prosecutor general Viktor Shokin has demanded the State Bureau of Investigations open criminal proceedings against former U.S.
Vice President Joe Biden for illegal influence on him as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
I ask you to register a criminal offense against me in the Unified Register of Pretrial Investigations by a U.S.
citizen, Joseph Biden, which happened on the territory of Ukraine and abroad, namely, interference with the activities of a law enforcement officer, the responsibility for which is provided for in Part 2 of Article 343 Of Ukraine's criminal code.
Immediately start a pretrial investigation and give written instructions to SBI investigators Shokin said in a statement to the acting SBI director delivered by Shokin's lawyers.
Shokin said he agreed to resign as Prosecutor General of Ukraine due to Biden pressure.
Quote, During the last months of 2015 and the first of 2016, Joseph Biden, using his official position, personally paid official visits to Ukraine several times with the aim of holding negotiations with the state leaders on my removal from my post.
As a result, he curtailed an objective investigation, criminal proceedings on the facts of unlawful activities of persons associated with the company Burisma Holdings Limited, Cyprus, including the son of the specified high-ranking official, Shokin said.
Shokin said Biden demanded that he be fired in exchange for the unhindered provision of Ukraine with a U.S.
state guarantee in the amount of $1 billion.
Shoken said Biden's actions can be considered as pressure, according to the scientific and legal conclusion of the International Law Association of April 18th, 2017, provided by Doctor of Law, Professor Maris Merezko, currently Vice President of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
They say facts about Biden's illegal influence against Shokin are confirmed by the results of an independent international journalistic investigation named UkraineGate, conducted and published by the French internet publication Les Creases.fr.
Now, I'm not super familiar with Les Creases.fr.
I did look into them.
I'm not trying to smear or defame anybody, but they have been accused of supporting or pushing Russian propaganda, of being conspiracy theorists.
I'm not going to levy judgment against them, and it has very little bearing on the releasement of this document, which we can now see.
Interfax actually published it.
So, this story I'm highlighting is just... A lot of people don't know that Joe Biden actually said at a Council on Foreign Relations meeting that he did do this.
It is a fact.
Joe Biden bragged about getting the prosecutor fired.
But let's see the... This is the document right here, okay?
It was released.
It's where Shokin says he wants criminal charges.
I can't read Ukrainian, but I reached out to someone to translate and to verify.
And this is from the website lesscrisis.fr.
I'm probably pronouncing it wrong.
My understanding, based on an independent individual I know who I asked to translate, that this is an accurate translation of the document.
The website reads, Prosecutor Shokin files a complaint against Joe Biden for interference in Ukraine's legal proceedings.
Now I want to stress, it may be that this is just being put out there I don't know.
None of that really matters to me.
I'm not going to speculate.
What I can say is Shokin is making the accusation and he's demanding these charges.
I won't read too much because I don't want to read the whole thing for you.
But I will read some of his conclusions.
He says... Let me read through a bit.
To the interim director of the National Bureau of Investigation, complained against Joe Biden on the commission of a criminal offense.
He says, during the period of 2014 to 2016, the prosecutor general's office of Ukraine was conducting a preliminary investigation into a series of serious crimes committed by the former minister of ecology of Ukraine, Mykola Zlochevsky, and by managers of the company Burisma Holding Limited, the board of directors of which included, among others, Hunter Biden, son of Joseph Biden, then vice president of the United States of America.
The investigation into the above-mentioned crimes was carried out in strict accordance with criminal law and was under my personal control as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
Owing to my firm position on the above-mentioned cases regarding their prompt and objective investigation, which should have resulted in the arrest and the indictment of the guilty parties, Joseph Biden developed a firmly hostile attitude towards me, which led him to express in private conversations with senior Ukrainian officials As well as in his public speeches, a categorical request for my immediate dismissal from the post of Attorney General of Ukraine in exchange for the sum of U.S.
$1 billion, in as a financial guarantee from the U.S.
for the benefit of Ukraine.
The facts I've described above are confirmed, among other things, by the official interview of Joe Biden published in the media, where he declares that Ukraine will not receive money if I remain in my post as Attorney General.
We read this next part where he says that Joe Biden kept coming throughout 2015 and 2016.
He says, due to the continued pressure from the Vice President of the United States, Joseph Biden, to oust me from the job by blackmailing the allocation of financial assistance, I as the man who places the state interests above my personal interests, I agreed to abandon the post of Prosecutor General of Ukraine.
After my resignation, caused by illegal pressure, no active investigation into the offenses concerning the company Burisma Holding Limited was carried out, and therefore the persons implicated in these offenses were not identified nor arrested or charged.
And that, to me, is very, very serious evidence.
It's true.
As far as we know from all sources, There was no investigation into Burisma after this man left his office.
So I bring you now to an interesting bit of information from CNN and perhaps a serious mistake on the part of Democrats.
Four facts omitted by Pam Bondi in Trump's legal defense pertaining to Burisma and Donald Trump's invest or the desire for an investigation into Ukraine.
I want to show you this.
From Fox News, Jesse Waters praises Trump attorney Bondi's meticulous Hunter Biden argument.
It doesn't look good for Joe.
It's simple.
Trump's legal defense, Pam Bondi, argued very well, I might add, regardless of whether you think it's true, that it does look bad that Hunter Biden was acting in some corrupt capacity.
He was receiving a lot of money.
No one really knows why.
CNN decided to rebut.
And in my opinion, their rebuttal, it's really bad for the Democrats.
Though they're trying to refute Trump's legal defense, they just bolstered it.
And I want to show you why.
CNN says President Donald Trump's lawyer, Pam Bondi, played a video clip of former Vice President Joe Biden recounting at a 2018 event how he had pressured Ukraine to fire its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin.
Bondi claimed that Shokin had been, at the time of the pressure in late 2015 and early 2016, investigating Burisma, the company where Biden's son, Hunter Biden, sat on the board of directors.
Now, here's where the Democrats are actually in trouble.
Though they're trying to add more information to Trump's legal defense, essentially to undermine it, they didn't.
They actually just bolstered it.
Let me explain.
Here are four key facts Bondi omitted.
Number one, Shokin's former deputy, Vitaly Kosko, said the investigation into Burisma and company owner Mykola Zlochevsky was inactive at the time, Of Joe Biden's pressure, in late 2015 and early 2016, a leading Ukrainian anti-corruption activist said the same.
Full stop.
Is it possible that the reason it was inactive is because of the pressure?
Is it possible they knew before Joe Biden arrived what he wanted and why, or at least had a general idea, and so Shokin, acting in the interests of his country, slowed things down?
However, inactive does not mean non-existent.
Is it possible it was inactive because they were awaiting some new evidence?
Just because it's inactive doesn't mean he wasn't actively investigating.
In fact, inactive means there was an open investigation, just wasn't moving forward.
Well, that investigation seems to have ceased the moment he left.
They say, quote, Shokin was not investigating.
He didn't want to investigate Burisma.
Daria Keleniuk, executive director of Ukraine's Anti-Corruption Action Center, told the Washington Post for a July article.
Full stop.
Is it possible he didn't want to investigate because of the pressure?
We don't know.
We can't speculate.
If you were going to argue that the case was inactive and it has nothing to do with Biden, you are also speculating.
We just don't know.
But inactive doesn't mean nonexistent.
In fact, it means the opposite.
It stands to reason there was an investigation into Burisma.
Just because this guy is not a good prosecutor doesn't mean he wasn't actively investigating.
They say.
And Shokin was fired, not because he wanted to do that investigation, quite to the contrary, because he failed that investigation.
And therein lies the biggest mistake that the Democrats or CNN, well, hold on.
Saying it's a mistake operates under the assumption they're trying to hurt the president.
Let me just say this information here provides evidence that Joe Biden was acting in a corrupt capacity.
If it was true that Joe Biden got Shokin fired for not investigating, why then was there no investigation carried out by the new prosecutor?
I'm sorry, that's a leap.
There is a simple solution here.
There was an inactive investigation into Burisma.
Joe Biden's son worked for that company receiving large sums of money and we don't necessarily know why.
Joe Biden intervened to get a man fired and now the new prosecutor comes in and does not investigate.
The reasonable solution is that this prevented or stopped the investigation.
Let me show you.
In the Wikipedia page for Mykola Zlochevsky, the guy who founded and ran Burisma, they say, In 2014, the Serious Fraud Office froze approximately $23 million dollars belonging to companies controlled by Slotchevsky.
At the end of 2014, Slotchevsky fled Ukraine amid allegations of unlawful self-enrichment and legalization of funds during his tenure in public office.
In January 2015, Prosecutor General Vitaly Yerema announced that Zlochevsky had been put on the wanted list for alleged financial corruption.
At the end of January 2015, the Central Criminal Court in London released $23 million that were blocked on accounts of Zlochevsky due to inadequate evidence.
In June 2018, The Serious Fraud Office stated the case was closed.
Zalchevsky returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after investigations into his Burzma holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.
Now we'll stop.
They say the investigation was inactive.
Well, that means there was one.
They say this man was fired for not doing the investigation.
The guy they brought in concluded with no charges filed against the man, which stands to reason at the very worst case for Joe Biden, he got an innocent man fired.
They go on to say, however, On April 18, 2018, an alleged recording of part of a conversation between President of Ukraine Petro Poroshenko and fugitive Ukrainian lawmaker Oleksandr Onyshenko was released, which implicated Zlochevsky in graft.
On June 15, 2018, after the Solomiansky District Court in Kiev had annulled the ruling of the Specialized Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office to close criminal proceedings against him in 2017, Zlochevsky was accused of having illegally issued, while he was ecology minister, oil and gas licenses to the companies that belonged to him.
According to Ukrainian authorities, Zlochevsky is suspected of theft of government funds on an especially large scale.
Authorities said the criminal investigation on suspicion of embezzlement is currently on hold because Zlochevsky's whereabouts cannot presently be determined.
As of 2019, he is reported to live in Monaco.
So here's what I can put together.
There was an inactive investigation.
Joe Biden, according to the Democrats in the left, intervened because he wasn't investigating Burisma, where his son worked.
Seems kind of odd, but potentially right.
The new guy who comes in concludes the investigation with no criminal charges.
And now Zlochevsky returns to Ukraine.
Donald Trump gets elected.
Donald Trump eventually begins looking into Joe Biden and corruption, and now Zlochevsky is on the run, and new charges are being brought against him.
I won't make assumptions.
I don't know why the new charges are being brought against him.
It may have absolutely nothing to do with Trump or Biden.
But all of this lends itself to to prove Donald Trump's position that there is a real reason to believe Joe Biden may have been acting in a corrupt manner.
They say he was engaging in and sanctioned U.S.
foreign policy.
But if that's the case, why is it that well, if that was the case, why was his son on the let me let me rephrase this.
If he was engaging in U.S.
foreign policy, he should have recused himself.
Someone else should have come in because his son was on the board of a company he was potentially investigating.
This man, Zlochevsky, has been accused of a lot of corruption.
I find it strange that Joe Biden's son was making all this money, that Joe Biden says, fire this prosecutor with an inactive investigation.
I'm using theirs, which proves there was one.
And the new guy comes in and clears Biden's colleague, Hunter Biden's colleague, of all wrongdoing.
No charges.
That sounds to me like it's more likely Joe Biden intervened to protect his son.
Now I'll tell you my personal opinion.
First, I don't know.
But all Republicans need to prove is that Trump had a real reason to call for an investigation into potential corruption.
That's it.
I think we have it.
The Democrats have to prove motive, and they've done nothing.
They've asked not a single question.
Did Trump ever express fear in losing to Joe Biden?
Did Trump state a full year before Joe Biden announced that he was worried about Joe Biden running and beating him?
Because now the evidence has come out that while Democrats argued Donald Trump needed to fire Marie Yovanovitch, the ambassador to Ukraine, because she was in the way of their scheme, Trump won it or fired a full year before Biden even announced.
And the argument from the left is that, but Trump knew Biden would be the frontrunner because of speculation.
I'm sorry.
It's all a very big leap.
The real, I think the reality is Donald Trump heard these stories, saw the viral video and asked them to look into it.
And that was it.
The Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump for forever, for everything.
I believe this is the third or fourth time they've actually put a vote up for impeachment.
It's just the first one to actually pass.
So, did Trump perceive corruption?
I think it's fair to say the answer is yes.
And there have been many calls, and there have been many people who believe the corruption was actually worse than we realize.
Let me show you this tweet from Elise Stefanik.
She's a Republican, very much defending Trump.
She tweets, what a stunning turn of events today.
To hear Adam Schiff declare from the well of the United States Senate that it is impeachable for a sitting president to allow the DOJ to investigate a political rival's campaign.
She then says, 2016 crossfire hurricane.
I want to stop and break this down.
Donald Trump was looking into, according to their own argument, Ukraine, well before Joe Biden announced.
Joe Biden does not become immune from prosecution or investigation simply because he decides to run for president.
Joe Biden is not immune from investigation or prosecution simply because some people in media speculate that he may actually run.
But the evidence is actually overwhelming, in my opinion, that Trump was motivated by perceived corruption and nothing else.
I personally do not believe that arrogant Mr. Donald Trump, President Trump, would fear Joe Biden, especially with the Democrats being as fractured as they are.
It makes no sense that he would want to fire Maria Ivanovich a full year before Biden even announced, as if Trump would be panicking about Biden, especially When audio was released with Trump saying Bernie Sanders is the real threat to his campaign, that undermines everything.
In the audio released, we hear Donald Trump say Bernie Sanders worried him because Bernie talked trade, and trade was Trump's key point.
How he was going to win was to talk about the free trade agreements, and so was Bernie.
Why would Donald Trump fear Joe Biden when Joe Biden wasn't running?
We knew Bernie was going to run.
And Bernie is someone Trump actually feared, according to audio released by, I believe, the lawyer of Lev Parnas, someone who was interviewed by Rachel Maddow.
A lot of people have said that this interview and Lev Parnas' testimony is 4D chess.
I'm not going to play any of those games, but I will say, the desire of Democrats to get evidence from Parnas is backfiring to an absurd degree.
Not only did we learn, in all likelihood, Trump wanted to fire Maria Ivanovich because she was bad-mouthing him, or he believed she was, we learned that Trump does not fear Joe Biden.
If Donald Trump was doing anything, it was not against Biden.
It wasn't against Biden out of fear of losing the election.
You heard it from Trump himself in the leaked audio.
He feared Bernie Sanders.
You'd think if Trump had illicit motives, he'd be going after Bernie, but he's not.
He was investigating or wanting to investigate corruption.
And there's a lot of reason to believe this.
Whether or not There is corruption.
I'm not saying Joe Biden is corrupt.
I'm saying Trump just thought there was, and so he wanted an investigation.
Well, it would have cleared Joe Biden, wouldn't it have?
Take a look at this story from last year.
Interfax Ukraine.
Biden partners receive $16.5 million in payments stolen from Ukraine.
If you saw this story, you'd probably think, oh, maybe we should investigate that.
And there was a lot of news coming out accusing the Bidens of corruption for reasons I've laid out.
If the Democrats want to prove Trump's motivation, they need to present evidence, but they haven't.
And now some senators are speculating the impeachment trial could result in an acquittal as soon as this week.
I do not believe the Democrats have proven their case.
I don't know if Joe Biden is corrupt, but let me tell you my personal opinion on what Joe Biden actually did and what happened.
Did you know, with all due respect, Joe Biden lost one of his children.
My understanding now that Hunter Biden is his last remaining son.
And Hunter Biden, by most accounts, is not doing too well.
Accused of drug use, other nefarious, malicious, and even illicit or illegal acts.
And he joins the board of a corrupt company using his father's name.
Joe Biden gets word that his last remaining son is in serious trouble because there is an investigation.
Not only that, it wasn't about the prosecutor general.
It's about the fact that other entities in the UK, for instance, wanted to investigate Burisma.
Joe Biden's son was in trouble.
So he stepped up to the plate and he said, fire the prosecutor.
Not because Shokin was doing anything right or wrong.
Perhaps Joe Biden didn't trust the guy.
The new prosecutor who came in cleared Zlochevsky, the founder of Prisma, of all wrongdoing.
The investigation concluded no criminal charges.
Wow.
What a very convenient, convenient outcome for Joe Biden's son.
The prosecutor, he got appointed.
Maybe indirectly, cleared his son's company of wrongdoing.
I think Joe Biden and everybody knew this company was corrupt.
I think Joe Biden was afraid for his son and did what he had to do.
That's just my opinion.
I don't know.
That's the motive I would make the assumption toward.
I have no proof.
But that's what I feel.
Now if the Democrats want to make assumptions about Trump, please provide evidence.
I'm not going to say definitively Joe Biden did this.
All that matters is people assume that.
But I got to tell you, man, based on my personal human experience, there is very little a father wouldn't do to protect his children.
I believe many parents, many, not all, would give their lives, their careers, and their legacy to make sure their children survive.
So when you hear a story about Joe Hunter Biden and the horrible things he's been accused of doing at various nightclubs and the crimes and the fact that he worked for a year on the board of a corrupt company potentially facing investigation.
I think Joe Biden jumped in to save his son from from a bad fate.
Regardless of his own fate.
And now Joe Biden reaps that reward.
I'm sorry.
I can respect you wanting to protect your children, but when you break the law and you act in a corrupt manner to protect your family above others, that's called corruption.
In fact, one of the key roots of corruption is the desire to protect someone's friends and family.
Why would someone take a kickback?
It's not always about buying a yacht.
It's sometimes about taking care of your family, getting your mom a house.
Corruption is about enriching yourself, your friends, and your family.
A lot of the corruption we see is about making the lives of the people around you better.
Seems like Joe Biden to me.
I think Joe Biden was doing just that.
We'll see what happens.
Now I want to add one final note.
Interfax Ukraine.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
The documents seem real.
It's entirely possible Shokin is just trying to use the current impeachment trial and the chaos to clear his name or to make himself look better.
Whether or not there will be criminal charges in an entirely other matter.
But suffice it to say, One of the main arguments that Trump's legal defense has brought is, what was Trump's motivation?
And it seems, based on the evidence, Trump had a real reason to want to investigate Joe Biden.
That's just the way it is.
So, I think Trump should be acquitted.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, my second channel.
And I will see you all then.
Everybody's always trying to convince everybody else that their side is winning.
And the reason is, people tend to want to be on the winning side.
You don't want to choose the loser.
When it comes to voting, when polls show that a certain candidate is likely going to win, they actually get more votes.
And it's kind of dumb and sad that people would vote for someone not based on whether or not they're offering up real solutions or are a good person or would be a good leader, but because they just want to feel like winners.
Now, here's where it gets funny.
Everybody's always trying to convince everybody else.
We know that.
And when it comes to impeachment and when it comes to the 2020 election, the left will be adamant that Bernie Sanders is going to win the election.
I doubt a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack is going to beat Donald Trump.
I'm not trying to be mean, but let's be real here.
Then they say, well, maybe it'll be Joe Biden.
I'm not sure a 77-year-old guy who can't talk straight and doesn't know where he is is gonna beat Donald Trump either.
Now, come on, I get it.
Donald Trump's old, too.
But I'll tell you what.
Ignore everyone.
Because... I'm sorry.
Ignore everybody when they're talking about their political faction.
Ignore the polls, for the most part.
I'll tell you who tends to be right.
The money changers.
Betting odds.
Vegas.
Now, here's the best part.
Washington Examiner says odds of Trump finishing term have grown during impeachment according to a betting website.
Everybody wants to convince you they're going to win because they're hoping you want to be on the winning team.
Well, I got bad news for the left, for the Democrats.
Throughout the entire impeachment process, Donald Trump's betting odds of finishing out his first term have steadily increased.
Okay, there have been a few moments where it's gone down a bit, okay?
But this means that everything they've done in impeachment has either had zero impact or actually helped the president.
Now I'm going to go ahead and say it likely helped the president.
I mean, look, he's been fundraising off this.
His approval ratings are up.
You'd have to be insane.
You know, I feel like Democrats are stuck in a trap, though.
Could you imagine?
Like, they invested so much into this.
What do they do now?
Do they stop the impeachment process and says, OK, OK, we're done?
No.
They move forward, and they got to see it through, and it's hurting them non-stop.
You know, I can only tell you this, for the Trump supporters and conservatives, there must be a bit of schadenfreude knowing that the Democrats walked themselves into an unwinnable situation that's benefited the President, and they have to see it through every day suffering, knowing that they're losing this fight and helping the President.
Unless, of course, dare I say, the conspiracy theory is the Democrats are secret Trump supporters.
I'm kidding, but you get the point.
You would think.
At any point, they could say, you know what?
We're going to censure the president.
We don't got to vote for impeachment.
No, they went for it.
They committed.
Well, here you are.
Let's read the story.
They say a political betting site that allows people to buy and sell shares that reflect the odds of an event occurring shows President Trump's chances of completing his first term in office have grown steadily since impeachment began.
Listen, You would think just on the surface, if an impeachment was beginning, the odds he would finish his term would go down because there is a chance impeachment follows through with removal.
But people have such little confidence in the Democrats That his odds have increased!
How does that make sense?
Like, even the simple fact that impeachment exists is a potential that Trump could be removed from office.
Yet his odds are going up?
Impeachment is helping the guy?
You gotta be insane, man.
They say this.
The trading on the statement that Trump will stay in office until he completes his current term opened at 70 cents on October 31st and closed at 84 cents Wednesday on Predictit, a political betting website that bills itself as a stock market for politics with more than a million shares trading.
A share price of zero would reflect that there's no chance of an event happening.
A $1 price would show the event as certain to occur, in the view of bettors.
Buyers of shares, as in the stock market, make or lose money when they sell based on where the share price has gone since they bought it.
That means...
If initially you bet that Donald Trump would finish his first term, you have just made a fairly decent return of around 20%.
Congratulations.
Trump would have to be convicted in his impeachment trial, die, or quit for those betting against him to win.
Who would bet against Trump?
Like, I say it a million times, but even if you hate the man, like, you look at Michael Moore, you look at these people who just absolutely detest the president, even they're saying Trump's gonna win.
Michael Moore said Trump was gonna win in 2016, and he was right.
Like, even the people who hate him aren't stupid enough to bet against him.
But maybe that's it.
Maybe that's why the odds have gone up.
It's not about whether impeachment really does help or hurt the president.
It's that people think Trump can't lose.
So you'd be stupid to bet against him.
And thus, no matter what happens, the odds of him completing his first term are going up.
It has nothing to do with whether or not the Democrats have a case or don't.
It's that people have confidence in Donald Trump.
Or no confidence in the Democrats.
But I think it has more to do with whether you like the guy or not, people are confident Trump is going to win.
Whatever he... You know what, man?
He made the joke, he said, you're going to get tired of winning.
I'm sorry, man.
Trump hasn't won every single fight, but he is winning.
A lot.
I did a segment a few weeks ago, Trump is winning on every front.
Yeah, man.
The economy, foreign policy, the border, immigration.
I don't know what Democrats have actually gained.
They say, well, we fixed the USMCA.
Congratulations, you helped improve Donald Trump's plans.
I don't know why they're trying to impeach when this just helps Trump too.
They say the House made its impeachment case in November and December across weeks of hearings and depositions by current and former White House officials, with some testifying publicly and others behind closed doors.
October 31st, nearly one month after House Speaker Pelosi began impeachment proceedings against Trump, the price fell to the lowest point in 90 days, $0.69.
Ooh, it went down one penny.
But since then has moved steadily upward, reaching a high of $0.90 on January 2nd and again on January 4th.
It was at $0.89 last Friday before dropping two points to close at $0.87 on Saturday.
As the President's impeachment team began making its case in the Senate at 5 p.m., Wednesday's shares were at $0.84.
Bloomberg Businessweek called Predicted the go-to place to gamble on U.S.
politics.
More than 50 million shares have traded in the market betting who will win in the November general election, with Trump at 5 p.m.
Wednesday trading at $0.47 to Senator Bernie Sanders' $0.27.
I'll tell you something.
The reason why I find this important—let's just jump over here—the reason why I find the betting odds to be very, very important is that, like I said in the beginning, you know, the Democrats are going to be like, Trump is losing, Trump is losing, trying to convince you that you better support Bernie.
Look, he's only got a 47% chance of winning in November.
When it comes to betting odds, nobody is hiding behind any masks.
They don't care what you think.
They literally just want to win money.
So they're not going to place bets they think are bad.
Now, in the political world, they'll lie to you.
They'll tell you only a progressive like Bernie Sanders could defeat Donald Trump.
Joe Biden's camp will say only a moderate like Joe Biden could defeat Donald Trump.
Well, neither will.
I mean, maybe.
I'm not, it's not impossible.
Like Donald Trump's odds were really low and he ended up winning.
So don't be surprised.
You know, Trump could lose.
He really could.
The odds are in his favor.
But again, I'll stress, the odds were really in Hillary's favor, so keep that in mind.
But when it comes to making a bet, nobody's pretending.
They're literally saying, here's what I think is going to happen, and the aggregate then shows you.
Now, I want to be fair.
We can see here over the past 90 days, the odds that Trump stays in office have been increasing.
And there was a dip.
This is 14th of January.
It took a hit.
It went down a bit.
And then it's recovered, gone down a bit again, and slowly started recovering.
It could change.
But for the time being, when you compare today to November 1st, the past 90 days, Donald Trump's odds have increased.
Now, There are other odds that I think are also important.
Because as to whether or not Trump finishes first term, most of us think, of course he will.
I mean, it's not just about impeachment.
It's about just historical odds.
Most finish at least one term, right?
But what about Trump winning in November?
And who could he beat?
Well, now let's do a little game of let's point the finger at the Democrats.
Bernie Sanders is the favorite to win the Democratic nomination.
Warning to the Never Trumpers and Democratic Establishment, the DNC.
My favorite thing here, yesterday I did a segment at 4 p.m.
Never Trumpers are panicking because they realize that a 78-year-old socialist president might actually be worse than a bombastic, boorish conservative president.
A lot of these Never Trumpers talk about how their issue with Trump is that he makes conservatism look bad.
Oh, is that it?
Well, then you can let the Socialists win.
I'll tell you what.
Those never-Trumpers are going to come running back to Donald Trump if Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, helping Donald Trump win.
But here's the next bit of bad news for Democrats.
Joe Biden is actually in second, according to the betting market, to win the nomination.
34 cents.
So that's essentially a percentage chance of likelihood based on betting.
So 41% of people think it's going to be Sanders, 34% think it'll be Biden.
Well, Bernie Sanders, I'll say it again, is a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack.
I'm just being real with you guys.
I know you want me to put the Democratic qualifier in front of socialist.
That won't matter to voters.
And the circumstances of his heart attack won't matter either.
I feel for the guy.
I mean no ill will to him.
I disagree with him.
But we Americans can disagree and still respect one another.
So Bernie Sanders has led a long-storied career.
I disagree with him on a lot of policy issues.
I question his integrity.
But I don't mean to drag him over his, you know, being old and having a heart attack, but that's just a reality in terms of leadership, and it's a reality in terms of how people are going to vote.
The next step, the next person down is Joe Biden.
Well, Joe Biden's 77, okay?
He can't really, he doesn't really know where he is.
He stumbles and mutters, and he trails off, and he's got a touchy problem.
I really don't see him winning either.
So whatever, Joe Biden is a crazy old guy as well, and fine.
Maybe there should be a cutoff, I guess, for a certain age.
I don't know, maybe not, whatever, because technology will improve and people will do better and be healthier.
Next up we have Michael Bloomberg.
Okay, I'm sorry.
I'm stopping right there.
Donald Trump's gonna win.
But I'm gonna give you one more thing, because while I can drag Bernie Sanders, I need to point out something else.
This story is actually kind of... it's kind of creepy.
It is funny.
You know, I don't mean to make light of a lot of these things, but I gotta admit, I laughed a lot when I saw this article.
Tucker Carlson claims Joe Biden is first presidential candidate to predict his own death and calls it disturbing.
I'm sorry, man.
I'm holding back laughter, but you gotta admit, that's kind of funny.
Okay, I can't hold it back too much.
Uh, Tucker Carlson would be correct.
Joe Biden, I mentioned this the other day, was at an event and he said he needed a vice president who was capable because, let's face it, I'm an old man, he says.
And then everyone, like, you know, I don't know how they responded, whatever, but he's like, no, no, no, you know, look, I exercise and I keep healthy.
It's like, dude, did you literally just say I could die in my first term to people you're supposed to convince to vote for you?
You wanna know why Donald Trump's odds keep improving?
It's because this guy in second place not only is saying, I might die, but he literally the other day told someone else, told a voter not to vote for him!
Oh jeez, the Democrats, man.
What is this?
Are you kidding me?
If the best you can muster is a 78-year-old man who had a heart attack, and another guy who's literally telling people, don't vote for me?
You expect me to place a bet against Donald Trump if that's what we're looking at?
You know what, man?
Let me say something to these progressives and these Democrats.
If you really want to mount a campaign to win, well, it's not going to be in 2020.
Y'all better start planning for 2024.
And you need to start figuring out who that candidate is going to be.
Now, it may be that Pete Buttigieg's meteoric rise leads him to 2024.
Maybe the real intention with the Buttigieg campaign is that they need to get him that recognition, get him in a better position.
So come 2024, he actually will stand a chance.
Because let's face it, Pete Buttigieg, he's the moderate.
He's a lot younger.
I got bad news, though.
I think we're looking at a Republican decade.
I really do.
I did talk about this on a main segment before, but when we're talking about betting odds, and you take a look at who the Democratic contenders are, Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, what comes next?
What comes 2024?
Four years from now, Bernie and Joe, they're not—they're just—wait, they're gonna be in their 80s?
It's never gonna happen, man.
80-year-old candidates?
It's not gonna happen.
Warren's already 70.
Now, Andrew Yang's a maybe, but, you know, Yang's not—I don't know, he's done really, really well.
Maybe in the next four years, he will see a big surge, and I'd like that.
I really do like Andrew Yang.
I'm looking at it right now.
It feels like the Democrats have hit a dead end.
And I feel this way, right?
Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Warren, even Clinton, they're all really old.
And then they have these minor players, some of whom I like, but for the most part just aren't breaking out and becoming prominent.
So it's hard to predict what will happen.
But with the civil war, the internal civil war, then Democrats, you've got the Bernie-Biden conflict right now, where the moderates won't vote progressive and the progressives won't vote moderate.
Well, what's gonna happen?
Which progressive?
There's no young progressive.
They don't exist.
I guess Yang is the closest you get.
So you've got old progressives and old moderates.
I think just in terms of where the party is right now with the age, I think Pete Buttigieg is the best they have in the next four years.
But I really don't see him going up against, I don't know, who, Trump Jr.
or something?
So it's hard to say.
But when you look at the Republican Party, there are a lot of star players to the Republicans, a lot of people who are prominent, who are rising, who are gaining followers.
Though we don't see someone running today, it could very well be Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and that might make the most sense.
You look at who's running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and you see no real stars after Bernie or Biden, but Bernie really is bringing out AOC and using that star power and propping her up.
I think it's entirely possible AOC will just be old enough.
I believe she's the youngest person ever elected to Congress, maybe someone else later on, but one of at least.
She would be the youngest person, I think, elected to the presidency if she won.
She won't, though.
But I wouldn't be surprised if we saw a few things.
I think the 2024 Republican primary is going to be... It's going to be epic.
And I don't mean epic as in, like, I'm saying I'm going to like who's there.
What I'm saying is, you are going to have a ton of stars.
There are personalities rising up right now that the Democrats just don't have.
You had a lot of B players, okay, in 2016.
And Donald Trump was the clear celebrity.
But now, with the culture war, on the left and the right, there are some star players.
The left doesn't have as many, but they do have AOC, so I think she's, you know, a shoo-in to run in the primary.
We'll see what happens.
A lot of people think she'll go for the Senate first.
That would make more sense.
But who knows?
I think she would absolutely lose.
They'd wet the floor with her in a presidential race.
So I don't know who's there.
That says to me, I think we're looking at a Republican decade.
I think the fracturing of the Democrats, the split between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, they're not the same party.
Even AOC says they're not the same party.
Get this.
Ocasio-Cortez, campaigning with Bernie Sanders, says she shouldn't be in the same party with Joe Biden.
But that's the split.
Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders.
The party is split.
There's three parties today.
So 2024 will still be a civil war for the Democrats.
AOC, whoever, I don't know, they're not going to make it.
The primary for Republicans, though, I think you'll end up seeing, who are some names potentially?
People have floated Matt Gaetz, maybe.
I think Trump Jr.
I think you'll see, or maybe even Ivanka Trump.
Like, how crazy would it be if the first female president was Ivanka?
But I think it would more likely be Trump Jr.
And I really do think Ivanka or Trump really could win.
People are so in love with Donald Trump.
Let me show you.
I'm not even exaggerating.
Trump campaign New Jersey rally attendance was 26.3% Democrats.
10.4% people who didn't vote in 2016.
That to me is mind-blowing.
There was 175,000 people, according to the Trump campaign, who wanted tickets for their event in Wildwood.
Only 7,000 people could actually get in.
I couldn't even get in.
I was trying to get in as press.
I know some high-profile Trump supporters couldn't get in either.
They really did want to prioritize it for locals and local press.
I can respect that.
26.3% of the people there were Democrats?
Yep.
New Jersey's a blue state.
And so people there were Democrats, but they want Donald Trump.
So what happens with the economy booming, with people with unemployment at record lows?
That's what people care about.
Those are the kitchen table issues.
Now, Trump's not perfect.
Health care is a big issue.
We'll see how that plays.
But come 2024, if you get Donald Trump again, and I mean Junior, or you get Ivanka, I think people will absolutely say yes.
I'm not a big fan of dynasties.
Absolutely not.
But it really has to do with, are we going to see a populist leader want to take up the mantle of what Trump has accomplished for his base and bring out the supporters?
Or will we see, you know, or will we see a Trump, you know, another Trump actually run?
I'll tell you what, I'll be fair.
I'll ask you this question.
Can you think of any Democrat who has any enthusiasm behind them that could actually run in 2024?
I kind of feel like, you know, AOC, I guess, with their star power, but there's nobody else.
I mean, look at the leadership in the House and the Senate.
All old people.
Schumer, Pelosi, Nadler.
I mean, I guess people think maybe Schiff is a rising star, but Schiff's too weird.
And this has nothing to do with, you know, Politics.
Schiff doesn't have the X-factor to actually run in any of those capacities.
It would just be a... He gets swept up easily.
But you look at... I don't know.
I think Don Jr.
I really, really do.
Because he's tall.
He's charismatic.
He's... He could be aggressive.
And that's what you need to be a president.
He takes after his dad.
So I think... I don't know what to expect for 2024.
I don't know.
But let me just wrap things up.
Otherwise, I'll just keep prattling on.
I think it's hilarious that people would actually try and bet against Donald Trump at this point.
You know what?
I guess you're hoping that a bet against him pays out really, really well in Vegas because the odds are so bad.
You know, turn a dollar into a hundred dollars.
Sure, that bet makes sense.
I still wouldn't do it.
If you told me I could give you one dollar and if Trump lost, I'd make a hundred, I'd say, no way.
I'm keeping my dollar.
I would bet the one dollar hoping to get a quarterback.
You know, and make, you know, almost no money on that he would win.
I really would.
It's not worth it.
Some people might say, but it's one dollar, so what?
You might get a hundred bucks?
No, you're not!
You're gonna lose a dollar!
You're not gonna win that money!
So I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all there.
Vox.com is gross, if you were to ask me, because they're rejecting the choice of a non-trans individual to be called whatever they want.
Now, I'll get to that.
But the crux of the story.
Why Republicans are suddenly in a rush to regulate every trans kid's puberty.
Vox reports proposals in eight states would ban puberty blockers and hormones for trans minors.
There's one simple reason, and I'll just tell you, and we'll ignore what Vox... No, no, we won't ignore what Vox has to say.
We'll read what they have to say.
But it's simple.
Desistence rates, the rate at which trans kids reject the trans identity and revert back to their biological gender identity, is between 64 and, like, 95 percent, or 65 to 94 percent, depending on your studies.
Now, a lot of people are claiming those studies are not legitimate.
And they say that resistance is actually like 0.3%.
Well, hold on.
I'm going to be fair.
Detransition is actually very, very, very low in adults who transition.
But among kids, it is very, very, very high.
Now, the main reason I said Vox is gross is that you may remember the story of James Younger.
This was a big controversy.
I believe it was in Texas.
Where the mother claimed the child was trans and the father claimed the child wasn't.
So who do you trust?
A court battle ensued and joint conservatorship was granted between both parents.
And according to the father, James chooses to be James.
I'm not going to argue.
Because you've got one side saying, the mother is protecting the child and the doctor said so.
The father is saying, it's essentially, let me make sure I get this right.
I don't think the father is calling this, but Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
We'll read this.
But basically, why, you know, which parent am I supposed to trust?
I don't know, because the father says the child chooses to be James and the mother is lying to him, and the mother says no, he's been diagnosed this way, and James is actually a transgender girl named Luna.
None of that matters.
At the end of this court case, James Younger is now officially James Younger, period.
Any puberty blockers or treatment will have to be confirmed by both parents or, I believe, a third party.
But in the end, a photo emerges of seven-year-old James, and the father says, see?
James is there, smiling, choosing to be James.
If that's the case, I'm not going to pretend there is evidence against the father or the mother to prove either is right.
You can argue the father's biased, that's what the left will say.
The father is just a bigot.
He doesn't want to accept his daughter's true identity.
I have no evidence of that.
I have no evidence of the mother being right or wrong, or the father being right or wrong, except for a picture of a young child, a male, smiling.
In which case, okay.
James is James.
Vox will not extend that.
Vox only chooses to affirm the identity of individuals who agree with them.
That's why I say Vox is gross.
But let's read this story, and I'll get to the point.
But I do want to stress one more time.
When you get a story about someone who says they're trans and their name is Luna, Vox says, then that's their name.
But now if you get a story saying, nope, James didn't want to be called Luna, he wants to be called James, they say, no, it's still Luna.
You won't accept the identity of the child unless they agree with your ideology that literally makes no sense.
And I gotta say this, it adds to the argument as to why puberty blockers should be banned.
I'm not saying they should be banned.
I'm saying it adds to that argument.
Now, one of the big issues here with the puberty blockers is that it's for, in a lot of cases, under the age of 18.
That I don't agree with.
Because desistance rates in post-puberty individuals is much lower.
It's my understanding.
Look, if you've got someone who's 17 years old and is trans and diagnosed, I think it makes no sense to not offer them what they want.
But I do think it makes sense because puberty blockers don't make sense for someone who's after puberty, right?
But let's read this and get to the gist of it.
And we'll talk about what's going on.
Vox reports.
I'm not going to read that first paragraph.
They say, before his transition, Grayson was on antidepressants, Grayson's a biological female, just to deal with his dysphoria.
Rodriguez said, if I had known what was making my daughter at the time so unhappy, I would have done it at three, which is just a social transition, she said, referring to respecting transgender kids' chosen names, pronouns, and styles of dress without any medical interventions before kids' puberty.
Deciding whether to allow a trans adolescent to go on puberty blockers is a decision most parents don't take lightly.
They often talk to doctors and psychologists, and the general guidelines of most major American medical associations recommend affirming a child's gender exploration in order to improve their mental health.
Transitioning is a slow, deliberative process for minors, and only adolescents who are insistent, persistent, and consistent in their gender identity over long periods are recommended for medical intervention.
However, some conservative politicians want to take the decision out of the hands of doctors and parents, who know these teens best, and put it in the hands of the state.
In fact, in Grayson's home state of Texas, lawmakers have promised to introduce legislation that would essentially ban, midway, his medical transitioning once their next legislative session begins in 2021.
They say there's eight states.
Missouri, Florida, Illinois, Oklahoma, Colorado, South Carolina, Kentucky, and South Dakota have already introduced bills this year that would criminally punish doctors who follow best practices for treating adolescents with gender dysphoria.
In South Dakota, for example, doctors who prescribe puberty blockers or cross-sex hormones could face a $2,000 fine and a year in prison under the proposed law.
South Dakota's version of the bill was even prioritized and became the first bill of the decade to pass out of committee.
On Wednesday, it passed in the House in a 46 to 23 vote.
Now, I'm gonna stop here.
I defer to doctors, man.
I really, really do.
Now, there's concern about a lack of research, and let me tell you one of the most important issues in this debate.
Online, you are not allowed to criticize this stuff.
You're not.
I could get banned for simply saying this, and I know I'm treading on thin ice.
Walk in the razor's edge whenever I do videos about this stuff.
It is actually against the rules to target this marginalized community.
What ends up happening, then, is that stories about the negative results of transition never seem to make light of day.
You end up with almost every story being positive, but no one really tells the stories that are negative because everyone wants to pretend that it's the right thing all the time.
It certainly isn't.
But again, in this instance, I do think it's important to defer to doctors who actually research this, and I do think it's a bit absurd that you would have the government step in to determine whether or not a doctor should or shouldn't be allowed to prescribe a treatment.
That to me doesn't make sense.
I don't think it's fair to point out the principal argument, one of the strongest from conservatives, is that the majority, the overwhelming majority, in some instances 94% or so, of pre-pubescent transgender individuals, trans kids, they desist.
They end up going back to their, you know, biological gender.
There's a big challenge in what the government should or shouldn't be allowed to do, and a question arising over who you trust.
The doctors, or the government?
I don't know, listen.
Doctors aren't always right.
Surprise, surprise.
That we used to, you know, people 100 years ago would, like, drink mercu- Well, they wouldn't drink mercury, but they would rub- 200 years ago, they would rub mercury ointments on their skin to cure certain diseases.
Yeah, we don't do that anymore.
Not a good idea.
But at the time, there was no other cure.
So that was the best they could do.
I think it's funny when people look back at the Founding Fathers and like, why am I gonna trust a group of people who rubbed mercury all over their skin and died from it?
Because there were literally no other cures.
So it was the best they had.
It may be that we look back on this time and talk about how insane it was that we would do radiation therapy for cancer when all I had to do was get the cure.
We don't have a cure right now.
And so, we do the best we can.
That's what I see when I look to a lot of these trans issues.
It's like, is it the perfect solution?
Probably not, but I don't know it is.
And all I can really do is defer to the science.
But here's the thing.
On both sides, right, you have interesting arguments.
But I'm concerned about the ideological pressure from the left to get rid of science, to remove the negative stories, and to refuse to affirm the identity of people who reject their ideology.
In that instance, I would probably side more so with the conservatives on, maybe we should slow down until we can figure out what's really going on here.
Not that I want to punish anybody, not that I think I know better, but I'm concerned about the ideology.
When I see stories about research on rapid-onset gender dysphoria being removed due to activist outrage, I say, these activists should not have a bearing on whether or not we're going to publish research, even if that research isn't very strong.
We should let the scientific community do its thing.
Same is true for climate change.
So now we're in an interesting position.
But let me just jump ahead.
Let me jump ahead.
Because I want to show you what really bothers me and makes me distrust the people advocating against these laws.
Now look, I'm fairly ambivalent.
I'm the milquetoast fence-sitter.
And these are tough issues.
But if you want to convince me, the independent voter, the moderate voter, to side with you, I'm definitely listening.
But when you refuse to affirm the identity of somebody, why would I believe you actually care about affirming someone's identity?
You see, let me read this for you.
Vox writes, The recent conservative push for an outright ban on
transition care for minors grew directly from the social media disinformation campaign surrounding Luna Younger.
A 7-year-old trans girl from Dallas caught in the middle of a bitter custody battle.
This article from Vox was published on the 29th.
Yesterday.
That's really interesting.
Because the latest news on James Younger is the mother lost her appeal.
And, as far as any one of us know, James identifies as a boy named James.
Why would Vox not use the affirmed identity and gender expression of the individual?
Why would they assume the father is lying?
Why would they reject legitimate reporting from the New York Post showing a picture of a little boy wearing a button-up shirt?
Let me tell you something.
If Vox is going to try and come out and say it's the father who's forcing this child, what's the difference between that and saying the mother is forcing the child?
Well, they'll argue, well, what about the doctors, you know, prescribing this?
The kid is seven years old, okay?
Let me show you this.
Munchausen syndrome by proxy.
They basically say the caregiver with Munchausen syndrome by proxy will lie about child symptoms, change test results to make the child appear ill, and physically harm the child to produce symptoms.
I'm not going to argue the mother is doing that either.
I'll actually say it's a really good argument to point out that James Younger was diagnosed, there is a doctor involved, and they're exploring what to do.
The problem is, if a photo pops up showing the kid smiling, who am I supposed to believe?
Maybe the kid just doesn't know enough.
There's another big problem with the transgender child issue, is that kids are impressionable, and that's why desistance is so high, and that's why it probably makes sense not to alter their bodies with life-changing hormones and chemicals until they're a little bit older.
I'm not making it up.
I'm not trying to be biased.
I will show you.
Look at this.
They say it.
This is a Wikipedia aggregate, so take it for what it is.
It is estimated that the number of detransitioners in 2014 ranged from less than 1% to as many as 5.
A 2018 survey of WPATH surgeons found that approximately 0.3% of patients who underwent transition surgery later requested detransitional surgical care.
The 2015 U.S.
Transgender Survey found 8% of respondents who had transitioned reported having ever detransitioned, and 62% of that group had later returned to living in a transgender role.
So it's a very small percent.
However, they say desistance in gender dysphoric adolescents may be higher.
A 2008 study found 61% desisted from their trans identity before reaching the age of 29.
And a 2013 study found 63% desisted before 20.
A 2019 clinical assessment found that 9.4% of patients with adolescent emerging gender dysphoria ceased wishing to pursue medical interventions and or no longer felt their identity was incongruent with their biological sex within an 18-month period.
So many of them, within a year, desisted.
And 61 to 63, by the time they were either 20 or 29, desisted.
Some studies go even further, but I'm just pulling up what I have here.
And I think it's fair to point out, people who transition later in life are less likely to transition back.
That brings me back to the issue of James Younger.
You've got two sides in this.
You've got the left and the right.
You've got the right saying the mother's lying, the left saying the father's lying.
I don't care.
Here's a picture of a kid wearing a shirt.
Fine.
He says he's James.
As far as I know, I'm not going to accuse either parent of lying.
Why then would Vox refuse?
They keep referring to James as Luna, even though there's a photo of James wearing boys' clothes.
They say, seven-year-old trans girl from Dallas, Luna Younger, caught in the middle of a bitter custody battle between parents who disagree over her gender identity.
Her.
Okay.
A Texas judge overruled the jury decision to award full custody of Luna to her mother, Anna Georgulas, in late September.
That means Luna's father, Jeffrey Younger, who insists on dressing his child as a boy and forced her to cut her hair, has an equal say in the future medical decisions for Luna.
Therein lies the big problem.
The bias.
Vox refuses to accept the mother could be lying.
I don't know who is.
I certainly don't.
But I can tell you this.
The way Vox is framing this, they're making it seem like it's the father who's the bad guy when you have no evidence to suggest otherwise, and a court ruled for joint custody, which means we just don't know.
Let the child live as a child and do the child-like things.
But if desistance is as high as it is, it probably doesn't make sense to keep calling this kid by a name that may or may not reflect who the kid really is.
They say this.
this. Driving the conversation about the case were primarily conservative media
outlets. In the week following the initial jury decision, 23 conservative
news sites published 55 stories about Younger and all opposed the trial's
transition. According to data from Media Matters, let me just interject, a site
that just lies all the time, they say those 55 stories earned 3.5 million
Facebook interactions.
Let me stop right there.
That's sure.
I will absolutely accept those numbers.
Can we write about all of the leftist sites that are pushing the inverse narrative?
What is an average person supposed to think?
Let me just stop right now.
I don't care what Vox thinks.
I don't care what the Daily Wire thinks.
I think it's important if the doctors are making a diagnosis that we trust our doctors to the best of our abilities.
I think it's fine if you look to the data which says resistance is very, very high, the majority, sometimes the major majority, and decide for your child what the best course of treatment is.
In the end, If you had a child who did have some kind of illness, let's try and do a different analogy, and the parents were arguing over what the treatment should be because one could result in debilitating side effects over their life, and it's also possible the disease could clear up on its own, I don't know what to tell you, man.
I don't know what the right answer will be.
It's two parents arguing over the right way to raise their child.
And guess what the court said?
Joint custody.
Because there is no clear answer.
So Vox is trying to play the game that, you know, everybody basically plays, where they point the finger at the other side and say, but not me.
Sorry.
In the end, there's a lot of things the court probably heard that we don't know.
We don't know all the evidence, but if they're saying joint conservatorship, and they know that will result in the child being James, and a photo emerges of James as James, why assume otherwise?
The court ruling basically said, both parents have to agree to treatment.
If the father won't, they won't do the treatment.
They're erring on the side of not having James transition.
I have no issues with anybody.
I don't care if you're, you know, a furry, if you're a trans species or transracial.
Hey man, I'm all about liberty.
You do your thing.
The challenge here is we're talking about kids and we're talking about which parent can decide the medical treatment.
Vox is outraged that people would oppose this.
Sorry, you don't actually have a leg to stand on when you are too biased to see what's actually going on.
All I can say is, trust the courts.
And that's what they've ruled.
Now, if it comes down to the fact that these things get banned, the puberty blockers, I have said I think it's kind of stupid if the government would restrict certain things if a doctor thinks it's medically necessary.
But in the end, that's how our system of government works.
And perhaps, we had, you know, I can point out, you know, doctors used to recommend lobotomies and electrotherapy.
We don't do those things anymore either.
Now you could argue that this research in puberty blockers is new.
Yes, and lobotomies were new at 1.2, and electroshock therapy were new at 1.2.
Okay?
I'm not saying that what they're offering is wrong.
I'm saying we can't just assume doctors will always be correct.
We can't assume all of the treatments we prescribe will always be correct.
We can only defer, to the best of our knowledge, to the experts.
Guess what?
That means I, personally, will be more likely to agree with doctors on this one, knowing they have been wrong in the past.
Now, I know a bunch of people are going to get mad and say, how dare you compare these things like electroshock therapy to transgender treatments?
Yeah, I'm sorry.
They're just medical treatments.
I'm not saying they're the same.
I'm not saying transgender treatment and surgery is the exact same thing.
I'm saying we never know what will change in the future, and you will end up with laws saying, guess what?
You can't lobotomize people anymore.
Is it does that mean transgender surgery is the same thing?
No, it doesn't.
I'm just making analogy to something that has been banned in the past.
The government is now trying to ban these treatments.
In 20 or 30 years, we'll see what happens and people won't think twice.
It just won't be a thing.
But my real problem here is what's making me mistrust the left and the doctors is how the media is pushing a narrative and refusing to accept the results of the courts and of the child's own identity.
If the kid says they're James in a photo, you can't assume conspiracy, I'm sorry.
There's no evidence to suggest that the father forced the kid to do this if the kid's just smiling in a photograph.
In that case, the best thing we can do is say, as far as I know, this kid's identity is James.
Why would Vox reject that identity?
Why would Vox say, I'm not, no, it's the father?
It's very strange.
They're willing to accept a trans identity, but not the kid's birth identity?
Because it's about ideology.
And in that case, I don't trust you.
Because I don't think you actually care about the well-being of the child.
I don't think you care about whether or not the treatments will be safe and effective.
I think you care about winning for your ideology.
But I'll leave it there.
I don't want to make this one super long.
You know, I'll do you this.
I originally started exploring this story because of this story about Elizabeth Warren.
She wants a transgender child to pick her Secretary of Education, saying the child would interview the person on her behalf and let her know if the person would be correct.
It literally makes no sense.
And again, it's why I think ideology is driving the narrative, not sound medical practices and not science.
So you know what?
You want me to argue against the laws from conservatives?
I'm not going to do it if this is what you're saying, because you're not making a real argument.
I did a steel man, okay?
I said, the doctors prescribed James.
I can understand that.
But this shows me ideology is a major driving factor for why you're even saying these things.
So I don't trust you.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash Timcast.
It is a different channel.
It is my main flagship.
It's gonna be political.
So if you're into politics, come check it out.
I will see you all there.
I'm gonna cast aside any arguments related to non-citizens voting.
Because you hear from Trump and from conservatives that there's potentially millions of illegal immigrants and non-citizens voting in our elections, and they shouldn't do it.
You hear from the left, it's just not true, it's not a widespread problem.
Don't care about either, you know why?
Because both of those things ignore the more serious fact that can't be denied.
Our voting security is so lax, Some non-citizens are actually registered to vote.
So let's stop.
Before we get to the point where we're actually complaining about a million non-voters or otherwise, let's just point out, you actually have non-citizens registered to vote.
Why would our election system be so lax?
Don't you think we should take that security very seriously, especially considering all of the claims of foreign interference?
Well, that brings me.
To the topic at hand, Governor of Illinois won't pause automatic voter registration despite over 500 non-citizens vowed on voter rolls.
Now before I read that, I gotta go back in time to 22nd.
Illinois officials say more than 500 non-citizens registered to vote and 19 voted in 2018.
What you often hear, as I say, from conservatives is they're a lot.
The left says it's not a big problem.
It's a problem, period.
I don't care about the number.
I care that it's happening.
That's really bad.
Because think about what else that means.
Eight or nineteen non-citizens actually voted.
Okay.
We've seen stories about this.
Some people have been caught, prosecuted.
But you know what that means?
It means our election systems are so insecure the problem exists.
Now I think it's fair to point out, you will always get some group or some, you know, something slips through the cracks whenever a law is made.
But how about we do this?
How about we actually start working towards repairing the holes in our election system, and I don't see any reason why anyone would disagree, right?
Let's read the story, and then go back to, you know, what the governor's response is, because apparently he don't care!
They say Illinois officials say more than 500 non-citizens registered to vote and 19 voted.
Election board officials in Illinois said that more than 500 non-citizens... We read this already, okay.
They say it 50 million times.
The State Board of Elections says out of the 547 non-citizens, 19 of them voted in 2018, working now to confirm their exact location.
Macon County Sheriff's race was decided by just one vote in 2018.
Seven of the 547 non-citizens were registered in Macon County.
Mark Maxwell, a reporter for WCIA, tweeted Tuesday.
I think it's also fair to point this out, because I should have got to this earlier.
Local elections will be severely impacted by low numbers of non-citizens voting, as they just stated.
If seven people voted, and the guy won by one vote, stands to reason the dude may have won because someone checked a bunch of, you know, across the board.
I'm gonna vote for this person.
Basically, when they go to the voting booth, they might not know who the sheriff is, but if they hit that checkmark, a non-citizen just put this guy in office.
They say, Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White's office admitted fault for the incident but referred to it as isolated and insisted that the error has been fixed.
Really?
We'll get to the next story in a second.
State Republicans are seeking more information about the controversy and five GOP lawmakers have sent a letter to the Democratic House Speaker to express their outrage.
Quote, This is an absurd lack of compliance with state law, surfacing less than three weeks from the opening of early voting for our state's 2020 general primary election, the lawmakers wrote.
Given this, we are requesting an immediate hearing of the House Executive Committee to investigate the situation and to hear testimony directly from Secretary of State Jesse White, officials of the State Board of Elections, representatives from our local election authorities, and others concerned with the situation.
Illinois residents are permitted to receive driver's licenses and photo IDs regardless of their immigration status.
I gotta stop.
I gotta ask this question.
Why is it voter ID is not a thing?
You've never given me a real argument.
I'm sorry left, you haven't.
Okay, I've listened to what the conservatives have said on voter ID and I'm like, okay, I get it.
The left says that it's racist, it's disenfranchisement.
I gotta admit, I grew up on the south side of Chicago.
The area I grew up in was relatively mixed.
We did have like a hard line that separated the mixed area from a more black community.
Chicago was ridiculously segregated, mind you.
I don't know a single person who didn't get an ID.
It was an insane argument to me.
But for some reason at the national level, they say voter ID can't be done.
It's racist.
But you're giving non-citizens IDs?
I don't understand that.
And there's another argument too.
Conservatives make this argument.
You need an ID to buy booze.
You need an ID to go to the movies.
You don't need an ID to vote?
Listen, man.
I don't know if you want to get into all the ID stuff, but I'll tell you this.
It doesn't matter.
I gotta be honest.
Now, it is a problem that, you know, people can just show up and claim to be whoever they want and vote, but as we just saw, non-citizens vote, and the state gives them IDs.
So it's kind of, at this point, it's, you know, look man, I still think it makes sense to have IDs to vote, but as we're seeing, Here's what's happening, okay?
When non-citizens go to get driver's licenses, because a lot of jurisdictions are allowing this, they then be put on this automatic voter roll system.
And that's what this story's about.
Governor won't pause automatic voter registration despite over 500 non-citizens found on voter rolls.
DC Examiner now explains.
Illinois Governor J.B.
Pritzker says he will not pause automatic voter registration in his state despite recently learning that hundreds of non-citizens were registered to vote.
The glitch that was found by the Secretary of State's office and that was investigated has been overcome, it appears.
There's no reason to have an across-the-board pause, especially when the glitch has been fixed.
And we're going to have hearings to make sure that we're ferreting what went wrong with this glitch.
The Illinois State Board of Elections announced earlier this month that at least 547 non-citizens were registered.
We just read that.
Secretary of State Jesse White's office admitted fault but assured the public the programming error was fixed.
Some watchdog groups aren't so sure.
The Public Interest Legal Foundation, a voter integrity watchdog, filed a request for Illinois voting records to determine if the non-citizens were registered via DMV transactions and whether or not the state is taking the necessary steps to identify other registered non-citizens.
States have no business experimenting with automatic voter registration until they can zero out the risk of ineligible non-citizens passing through traditional motor voter.
Logan Churchwell, Communications Director at the Public Interest Legal Foundation said, Voter fraud and illegal voting in general have been a longtime problem in the state.
The Heritage Foundation identified over 40 cases of voter fraud since 2000.
Well, here's the thing.
I'm going to stop you right now.
The left argument is not a big deal.
It's not a real problem.
It is a real problem.
I think you lose the argument a bit when you see people like Trump claiming there's millions of them.
Maybe.
Fine.
There's a bigger concern I have with dead people voting.
That's a whole other issue.
NPR reported last year, about a year ago, some non-citizens do wind up registered to vote, but usually not on purpose.
Well, shucks.
They didn't get registered to vote on purpose.
Everything's okay.
No!
It's even worse!
Listen, man.
If- if there- I- I'd be willing to bet.
There are very few non-citizens with criminal intent to vote.
That's the problem.
This story, you don't get it.
It's worse than that.
Let me break it down for you.
If we tell everybody, in order to register to vote, you have to manually go and fill out this form and do it, and then a non-citizen sneaks in and looks over his shoulder and does it, we can say, hey, you knew you weren't supposed to do that.
They're automatically registering them to vote through these systems because they're giving them driver's licenses, and they don't know!
This is the weird thing.
One of the stories we saw, I think it was in Texas, was this permanent resident, green card holder, received voter information in the mail, and said, okay, and went and voted, and got charged with a felony.
Dude!
I'm sorry, man.
I'm gonna blame the people who automatically registered her to vote.
And you know, a lot of people might say, well, she should have.
It's her responsibility.
Okay, I'll accept that argument.
I really will.
But we have a problem when you automatically register people to vote.
They don't do it on purpose.
Then you send out flyers because they're on voter roll saying, don't forget to vote this coming primary.
And they say, okay, and they go do it.
Here's the thing.
If people in Illinois, I don't live there anymore, think there's a problem that's not been fixed, then I respect them calling for it to be fixed, and I think it should be addressed.
I don't like the argument of the millions of non-citizens voting, but we can cast it aside and say, listen man, if 19 people who weren't citizens voted, we have holes in our election system that should be fixed, especially for local elections, right?
And if you want to argue, but they're not doing it on purpose, I'm gonna say, wow.
You're arguing it's actually worse than I realized.
And I hope you all, you want to make this point, you remember this.
That so long as they expand these programs like they did in New York, where I think in New York there was this video went viral of all these people cheering now they can get licenses, guess what?
You're gonna see a lot more of this.
It's not that anyone's doing it on purpose, it's that the system is insecure.
So I agree.
The immigrants, the non-citizens, they're not bad people.
They didn't do this on purpose.
Hear, hear.
Unfortunately, there's a crack in the system that's compromising our elections, so wouldn't you agree that we should protect these people from accidentally committing a crime?
Great.
How about we do something to secure our elections?
But let me tell you, as I stated earlier, first, I don't think we should give non-citizens IDs.
Apparently, we—well, I'm sorry, not non-citizens, undocumented immigrants, people here illegally.
Like, if you're a green card holder, you get one, right?
But I think it's particularly worrisome if we're going to give IDs to illegal immigrants like they do in New York.
And those people get automatically registered.
You're creating a system in which non-citizens will start voting.
And in local elections, that can swing things heavily.
But of course, I guess, the left will just argue that, I don't know, it's racist.
That's what they usually do.
Listen, man.
I'm fairly ambivalent.
But the left, you need to provide a real argument outside of racism.
Because I don't see it.
I see you putting people in violation of the law with your reckless laws.
These people break the law when they vote.
They didn't know this.
Now a woman's going to jail because you wanted to automatically register her.
Congratulations, you won your election, I guess, and the woman goes to prison for four years.
Stupid.
But anyway, I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
A Democratic Senate candidate is facing their second ethics complaint so far.
I gotta ask, why does this keep happening?
You know, there have been some stories about Republicans, and we'll be fair, there's one guy who got charged with like, you know, improper use of campaign funds, and he actually, I think, I can't remember the guy's name, he actually got criminally indicted.
Like AOC and Ilhan Omar and the weird campaign finance violations.
Now we have this woman, Sarah Gideon, getting two ethics complaints.
Let's read the story.
And I want to go back to the first ethics complaint too.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Color me biased for talking about Democrats and their ethics complaints.
Whatever.
But let's read.
The Free Beacon reports Sarah Gideon, the Democratic challenger to Senator Susan Collins, is finding herself in hot water after being hit with a second ethics complaint stemming from the past operations of her state leadership PAC.
The new complaint filed against Gideon, who is currently the Speaker of Maine's House
of Representatives, was submitted Tuesday to the state's Commission on Governmental
Ethics and Election Practices by the Maine Republican Party.
It alleges that the Gideon leadership PAC failed to disclose thousands in expenditures
for at least six Facebook ad campaigns in the run-up to the 2018 elections.
The complaint further adds that the undisclosed spending appears to fund ads that promoted
Gideon's statehouse re-election efforts, which bypasses the $400 per election income contribution
limit in the state.
Quote, Sarah Gideon continues her pattern of unethical behavior, said Dr. Demi Cousonis.
Sorry, I can't pronounce your name.
Chair of the Maine Republican Party.
First, the Maine Ethics Commission found Gideon broke the law by illegally using her corporate-funded leadership pack to reimburse herself for campaign contributions.
Today, Mainers learn she tried to hide thousands of dollars worth of campaign ads, while also illegally boosting her own political ambitions.
Quote, Mainers know Gideon has long relied on corporate money, shady donors, and now illegally hiding campaign spending to further her political ambitions and give Maine's voice away to Washington's special interests.
This is the second ethics complaint Gideon has faced since announcing her candidacy in what is expected to be one of the most hotly contested Senate races in the country for the 2020 elections.
They say, Gideon was hit with her first ethics complaint last August following a Washington Freebeacon report.
Detailing how Gideon repeatedly violated election laws by reimbursing herself for personal political contributions to federal campaigns with money from her since-dissolved leadership pack.
Whoa!
That seems, like, beyond an ethics complaint.
That sounds criminal.
Wasn't it, like, Dinesh D'Souza who gave someone money to donate?
Like, you know, it's illegal to do this where you basically...
Donate money to somebody, to a politician, then give money to your friend in order to donate.
It's an attempt to bypass federal election laws.
And I think it was Dinesh D'Souza who got in trouble for that.
I'm not entirely sure.
This sounds nuts.
Let me read this again.
They say that she was reimbursing herself for personal political contributions to federal campaigns with money from her since-dissolved PAC.
So to me, that sounds like she makes a donation and then has the PAC give her money I got a question for y'all.
Is it biased of me to point all of this out, or is it something wrong with journalism?
I haven't seen a whole lot of stories from Republicans doing similar things.
I gotta be honest, I haven't.
And I follow a lot of people, so I will contend now.
Perhaps it is I who is biased and just don't have good sources to show me all the Republicans who do things like this.
I can tell you, you got some nasty dudes.
There was that one guy recently.
I talked about him a bit when it happened.
He got, I think, federally charged for improper use of campaign funds.
It's not the only one.
There have been a handful of Republicans who have gotten criminally charged, which is a big difference.
from the ethics complaints.
But now, we're not talking about, you know, the past 10 years.
We're talking about right now.
There's something wrong.
You know what I think is fair to say?
I do think it's fair to point out a lot of these new progressive Justice Democrat types have no idea what they're doing.
But I gotta admit, it does sound shady.
And based on the mentality, a lot of these people, I don't know if Sara Gideon is one of these far lefties, but I look at like Ocasio-Cortez, right?
Basically, she was accused of the PAC she was associated with funneling money from her, sort of, to her boyfriend, who then moved to live in with her.
So why is it that these new progressive Democrats tend to be getting caught up in all this stuff?
Some may argue the establishment is fighting back.
Their rules are hard to understand and they're extreme.
And so when they try and get involved, oh no, here comes the machine to beat them down.
But I'll tell you what.
Based on what I read about AOC, Justice Democrats, and how that money transferred hands, it really does seem to me like they pretended to hire her boyfriend to give him money so that he could take money from her campaign, which you can't legally do, and then he would go and move in with her.
Or, like, basically, they want to make it seem like she was, you know, hiring him for nepotism or something, even though it kind of was.
Whatever.
Anyway.
But let's read a little bit more.
They say the state's ethic watchdog unanimously found that Gideon had violated state laws and fined the committee $500 over its actions.
That's it?
Come on, that's not a punishment.
Bree Kidman, who is challenging Gideon in the Democratic primary, said ethics questions are becoming a liability for the establishment's preferred candidate.
So maybe she's an establishment candidate.
I don't know.
Is there a point at which mainstream Dems start treating the constant trickle of ethics violations like a genuine liability?
Kidman asked on Twitter.
Or is everyone going to keep pretending that it can be covered up by spending millions on advertisements?
Can I point out AOC is not the establishment and neither is Ilhan Omar.
I mean, they're becoming the establishment for sure.
They have certain establishment support.
I don't know who this woman is, but apparently it's an issue.
Let's go back and look at the specifics over Collins' challenger used PAC to reimburse own contributions.
This is really, really important.
Sarah Collins is a Republican, and she's the Democratic contender.
Collins is considered to be a vote that's up for grabs because it's a swing state, and she doesn't want to lose, so she has to play the moderate card.
If she comes off like she's not Taking impeachment seriously, then she will lose support from the independent-leaning Democrats, or the Democratic-leaning Independents.
She will lose their support.
So she's got to be very careful, and it could go either way.
We've got some, you know, red-state Democrats who typically support the Republican side of things because they don't want to lose.
So this is directly going to impact whether or not this trickles up a little bit.
Grains of sand, right?
It could trickle up into how this affects impeachment otherwise.
But let's see this.
Let's read a little bit about this.
They say, Sarah Gideon reimbursed herself for federal contributions, quote, worst campaign finance violation expert says, which is why I'm pretty surprised that this woman only got a $500 fine.
This was back in August when they reported that she repeatedly violated election laws by getting reimbursed for personal political contributions to federal campaigns through a corporate-funded Maine Political Action Committee, a review of both state and federal campaign filings discovered.
Federal election law explicitly prohibits individuals from making contributions in the name of another person or entity.
The prohibition is spelled out on Gideon's own contribution page, which makes donors certify.
This contribution is made from my own funds, funds not being provided to me by another person or entity for the purpose of making this contribution.
Yet Gideon, the Senate candidate anointed by the Democratic establishment to challenge incumbent Senator Susan Collins, appears to have openly violated this prohibition on four occasions.
Now, I could be wrong.
Didn't Dinesh D'Souza do it, like, twice?
I don't know a lot about the guy, so, you know, forgive me if I'm getting the details wrong.
But that's what he got in trouble for.
They call him, like, a felon because of this.
She did it.
She got a $500 fine.
Yeah, whatever, man.
They say...
On September 30th, 2015, for example, Gideon contributed $1,000 to Democratic congressional candidate Emily Kaine's campaign.
According to Kaine for Congress disclosure, they say a month later on October 28th, she received a $1,000 payment from Gideon leadership PAC, a main entity.
The payment was openly described on the main disclosure as a reimbursement for federal contribution.
How stupid do you have to be?
You could have called it reimbursement for, you know, work trip, snacks, provisions, thousand-dollar rental.
You could have called it... You know what?
You could have called it a million and one things.
You could have called it a stipend.
What?
So, I will tell you this.
Maybe the reason she only got a $500 fine is that it wasn't... there was no criminal intent.
Like, she was just dumb, I guess.
But wow, if you wanted to do that, you'd just hire yourself, I guess.
You know, have the company hire you and pay you the $1,000.
I guess she didn't want to pay taxes either?
That sounds worse!
They say she contributed an additional $250 to Kane and was again reimbursed for the $250.
Gideon is listed as a principal officer of the Gideon Leadership Pack and also a decision maker responsible for its spending decisions.
Look, we have federal election limits for a reason.
I don't like the idea of people funneling money in dark money, but I'll tell you what.
Nobody's innocent.
You know, Trump has dark money groups.
He really does.
The Democrats do.
But here's the thing that I will tell you.
You can't simultaneously have the Democrats being the ones claiming they're fighting against it while they actively use these tactics, and in this instance overtly break the law.
Again, I can point it at Dinesh D'Souza for whatever he did, I don't know the full details, but the point is, it's AOC who rags on dark money, okay?
It's the progressives, the Justice Democrats who rag on dark money.
Yet, they go out and do it too.
I'll tell you what.
If I see somebody tell me, yeah, we use dark money, I don't care.
I'll be like, well, at least you're being honest.
When I see a Democrat say, we're gonna fight dark money, and then they go and do these things, I'm like, I don't believe you.
Why are you lying to me?
Why?
I didn't care the other guy was doing it.
You know what, man?
But, I don't know, I feel like the story's kind of dumb.
But considering it was the second time, I thought it was at least worth doing something about, so I'll wrap it up.
Stick around, the next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Not that long ago, in the recent history of the culture war, a list was created called the SE... It's the swear, it's the S word, I can't say it, okay?
It's YouTube.
The SE Media Men List.
And on it was a bunch of false accusations, and someone's actually suing the person who created the list.
Here we have a really, really sad story published to Medium by a man named Mike Tunison, who claims he was falsely accused and is innocent.
Why?
The feminist outrage mob slapped his name in a document, no one fact-checked, and it destroyed his life, and now apparently he's a janitor?
This list went around and it destroyed this guy's life because nobody cared if it was true or not.
And then I got to the point where he actually started defending the woman who wrote it, and I'm like, okay, dude, you get what you deserve.
You know what, man?
He basically said he won't go after the woman who created it because it's not fair, you know, to target her because she made a list with the potential.
It's like, no, no, no, no, no, dude.
You circulate slander and libel and defamation and it destroys someone's life.
You're responsible.
So this guy's life is over.
He can't find writing work.
He explains how he got a janitorial job at Dave & Buster's and he's sitting here still saying, but it's not her fault.
I won't sue her.
Wow, dude!
Wow.
Okay, let's be fair.
Let's read what he has to say.
He says, I'm on the media men list, but maybe you already knew that.
Here it says, a picture, Tonison Mike, freelancer, former kissing Susie Kobler?
I don't know who that is.
Stalking, harassment, physical intimidation.
And they say HR file compiled at Washington Post.
Here's what he said.
First, whoever wrote this knew I had no power in the industry.
He's a freelancer.
He doesn't even really have a job.
The next one says this isn't true, and I'll likely never know who made the claim in reference to harassment.
HR file compiled?
Nope.
This doesn't exist.
Let me tell you something, man.
Somebody slanders you, claims something isn't true that you can easily prove, I think you should sue them for defamation.
But here's where it gets sad.
He said, last spring, during my first week on the janitorial staff at Dave & Buster's.
I love Dave & Buster's, by the way.
I have, like, a ridiculous amount of Dave & Buster's points.
It's an arcade, it's fun.
So I'm not gonna rag on them.
Big step down, though, from a Washington Post freelance reporter to a janitor.
He says, I struck up a conversation with a co-worker who had served 17 years in prison.
Swapping life stories, I sheepishly divulged that I used to work for the Washington Post, that I had a book published by HarperCollins, and that I spent years as the top editor of a popular website.
He fixed a look on me.
So what are you doing here, he asks.
For the life of me, I couldn't begin to explain.
How could I describe how I was fortunate enough in 2006 to be able to afford a one-bedroom condo at the age of 24, yet that today I feel trapped in that space with a mortgage still underwater?
Could I adequately explain how I went from having a life and a career I felt proud of to being publicly shamed by my peers and punished for things I didn't do?
This is why we have a constitution which states you have a right to confront your accusers.
You have a right to due process and a speedy trial.
Because of things like this, the Founding Fathers understood the power of an outrage mob of pitchforks and torches, and so they drafted a document that was very, very brilliant, though I wish they could have been a little more specific on the Second Amendment.
We could end all the arguing about what it means to have a well-regulated militia, but I digress!
He says, In October 2017, I was one of roughly 70 men included on that media list, a crowdsourced spreadsheet of anonymous, unvetted allegations of misconduct and assault.
No words can describe my astonishment and horror at finding myself accused of harassment, stalking, and physical intimidation.
Even more agonizing was seeing this supposedly private listing, allegedly intended as a whisper network warning among trusted insiders, swiftly leaked to the public, initially on the website of conservative activist Mike Cernovich, and later on other outlets and social media.
The damage to my career seemed equally swift.
In the decade leading up to the list, my work was regularly published by more than a dozen outlets, and I was frequently offered work.
After the leak, that work screeched to a stop.
Today, I write for only one outlet I previously contributed to, income that covers only a few smaller bills.
I've applied for hundreds of conventional office jobs, ranging from PR to administrative assistant to technical writing, in an effort to avoid a bankruptcy that could hurt my family members whose finances are linked to mine.
Yet employers don't seem to view the four years I spent creating, organizing, and running a popular blog as applicable experience.
Most days, it's difficult to envision a path back to a decent life.
No, it's because they Google search you.
And they see the list and they say, nope, not playing the game, don't want to take any risks.
More than two years later, the media continued to embrace MeToo's powerful personal narratives as a reliable source of content and controversy, now a cornerstone of liberal orthodoxy that few dare to challenge.
There has been surprisingly little effort to dig into complexities, unless the accused is someone powerful and prominent like Al Franken.
Hardline supporters of the movement shrug off its more extreme tactics by noting that some MeTooed celebrities have inched back to prominence or avoided life-shattering consequences.
Non-famous casualties remain under the rug.
They were summarily swept under.
Accordingly, I decided to self-publish this piece only after a handful of prominent news outlets declined, offering mealy-mouthed dismissals and concerns for the sensitivity of the issue.
He says, at the dawn of 2020, there's nothing unique about having been devastated by the housing crash or being a writer down on his luck.
My story is noteworthy only because I'm one of the least powerful men to have been publicly accused in the MeToo era.
What makes this event intolerable isn't just the allegations against me are false, it's that I have no idea who made them.
Yeah, going back to what I said about the Constitution.
He said, A few men on the list were investigated and fired.
Others continued in their careers just fine.
Most as staffers of established news organizations with bosses willing to listen to their sides.
Still, others disappeared from public life, which some have taken as a tacit admission of guilt.
When the list was created, I'd been freelancing exclusively for two years.
Of all media jobs, freelancing may be the least powerful.
It's extremely easy and far from uncommon for the editors of whom freelancers depend for their livelihoods to brush them off without explanation.
Not one editor asked me about the list's allegations.
I just stopped getting work.
He goes on to say there's other factors as well, but let's jump down.
He says, editors and writers I reach out to are either distant or uncommunicative.
What can't be questioned is the psychological toll the list has taken.
Almost immediately after its release, a close friend of 10 years cut me off and hasn't spoken to me since, even after I reached out to him.
Day after day, I'm torched with the thought that even more people will learn of the allegations, or that I'll be unexpectedly attacked for them online.
Too often, I've found myself hanging out with friends as the discussion turned to celebrities being MeToo'd.
He's right.
and been incapable of revealing what happened to me.
Sooner or later I feared they'll know too.
It's been more than a year since I've dated.
Working three low-paying jobs means I'm always busy and broke.
Plus, any woman who does the usual pre-date search online could stumble upon the list.
How could I explain it away in the early stages of a relationship?
He's right. You can't.
The allegations are there.
No one needs proof.
This is ridiculous.
But you know what?
For me?
I wouldn't take them seriously.
Don't care.
I don't care what Google has to say about you.
Prove it or else.
Pixar it didn't happen.
Now here's where it gets kind of sad.
He says, this is the woman, you know, Moira Donegan made the list.
She's being sued by another listed man, Stephen Elliott, for libel.
Perhaps surprisingly, I disagree with the lawsuit.
I see the list as a net positive.
Aw, you know what, dude?
A net positive?
We don't know if any of these stories are true.
Some of the people got investigated, fine.
But you cannot support unfounded, unvetted allegations that destroy lives.
Pathetic.
You got your life destroyed by this, and you're saying it's a net positive?
Sorry, it's not.
Because principles matter.
Or to quote the great impeachment witness, Alexander Vindman, in this country, right matters.
Principles are important.
And our principles state that you have rights.
There's something called the exclusionary rule.
The fruit... What is it?
What is it?
The fruit of the rotten tree or something like that?
If there is evidence against you and it has gotten through illegal means that violate your rights, they throw it away.
I believe this list was a huge net negative for our society.
Period.
Even though it got rid of some really nasty people.
Let's read a little bit more.
Nah.
I think he's trying to crawl back to the good graces of the world by saying, and I'd agree with the list.
the list necessary. Nah, I think he's trying to crawl back to the good graces of the world
by saying, and I'd agree with the list. No, there's nothing to do with the abusers. She
created, she created a system that published lies. She's responsible. He says, additionally,
Donagan had no power to force anyone to take it seriously, and she can't be immune from
So I will say this.
You know what?
I kind of agree with him to a certain degree.
If you make a list, and you tell people to do something, it's kind of your fault.
But you really don't know what people are going to put on it.
Someone's got to be responsible.
Now, this is just online gossip, and the real issue is you can't really sue anybody for it.
I mean, she's being sued.
I think she should be criticized and should be held responsible to a degree, because she created a list and asked for people to do something, and they did, and she helped circulate it.
But the reality is, this is about cancel culture, and our society's willingness to embrace complete nonsense and destroy people's lives on a whim.
It's our willingness to believe unfounded internet rumor.
I don't care.
I've seen videos of people They accuse him of all sorts of things.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
People take my quotes out of context.
I'm not playing these games with you.
I'm not going to read through his entire thing.
I wanted to get that point.
But we'll wrap up with his conclusion.
He says, truth is too large and complex to always fit neatly into a slogan.
However well-intentioned.
Everybody wins when the women who once were summarily dismissed when they called out sexually violent or harassing men are taken seriously, but quote, believe women shouldn't necessarily mean disbelieve men.
Everyone deserves better than to be assumed guilty of unsubstantiated charges from anonymous sources.
Justice and journalism demand more.
Let me just wrap this up for you.
A woman created a list of the S-word men and encouraged people to add to it and circulate it.
And they did.
And many lives were destroyed.
Not just yours.
That's not a net positive.
Innocent people had their lives ruined.
Why?
If someone had a problem with one or two people, send the information somewhere.
File a report.
Do what you're supposed to do.
These were unfunded allegations that apparently destroyed lives, including his.
He went from a freelance writer to a janitor.
You know what, man?
I'll tell you what.
Maybe you should start your own business.
All right?
Let's put it that way.
But whatever.
I'll leave it there.
I'll see you guys tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Actually, no.
Tonight, we're doing a new show.
It's youtube.com slash TimCastIRL every day, Monday through Fridays, around 8 p.m.
