Democrats Voter Turnout In Iowa FLOPPED Paving Way For Trump 2020 Landslide Amid RECORD Approval
Democrats Voter Turnout In Iowa FLOPPED Paving Way For Trump 2020 Landslide Amid RECORD Approval. Democrats were banking on record voter turnout in the primary and a surge in youth vote in order to defeat Donald Trump in 2020.But early data shows that Democratic participation is on par with 2016 levels, which had been reported as very low. In order to defeat Trump, Moody's analytics says Democrats will need maximum turnout in November. Even with that they will only win by about one electoral vote.But with the Iowa caucus being an unmitigated disaster I can only imagine that people are soured on the Democrats and will be less likely to participate or vote in the next elections.While Democrats panic over failed voter turnout Trump is seeing his highest approval rating from Gallup ever even surpassing Barack Obama by 4% for the same time period. Obama went on to easily win reelection in 2012.Voter turnout was the last hope of the Democratic party and with such a large tent including far left, progressive, moderate, centrists, and establishment Democrats you;d think they could muster a large turnout but unfortunately no.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
By now, most of you are probably aware that the Democratic caucus in Iowa was an unmitigated disaster with everyone declaring victory, no one having any idea what was going on.
And as of the recording of this segment, we still don't have the results.
We're expected to get them later today, so maybe by the time you watch this, you'll know what happened.
But we saw basically everybody declaring victory and then turn on each other, accusing Pete Buttigieg of being a cheater or a spy, Joe Biden and the establishment of tanking polls or hiding them so that no one can see Bernie was in the lead.
The Democrats are too busy fighting each other, and no one has any idea what's really happening.
Meanwhile, Donald Trump, yeah, there was a GOP caucus, and he steamrolled right through it.
Of course he did.
But we are learning some very important details from the Iowa caucus, regardless of whether or not we know who won.
You see, the Democrats were betting on two things to defeat Donald Trump in November.
First, record voter turnout.
Surprise, surprise.
There was none.
It was actually down.
Bad news for Democrats.
The other was the youth vote.
And it turns out first-time voters are actually down as well.
Meaning the youth vote probably didn't turn out either.
All of this is extremely bad when you combine it with Gallup's latest poll as of today.
Donald Trump's approval rating is the highest it's ever been based on their tracking.
Now, I don't like to use individual polls, but they show, based on their data, Trump is four points higher than Obama was at the same time period, and Obama easily won.
Moody's Analytics in October said, if there was low voter turnout, Trump would have a record victory, nearly 400 electoral votes.
And there's still a lot to be seen.
This is just the first caucus, and it was a disaster.
But I'll tell you this, with low voter turnout, with Trump's record approval rating, I'd have to imagine people are looking at what the Democrats have to offer, complete and unmitigated failure, next to people cheering for the economy and supporting Trump, and realizing, even the people who went to vote today, Who went, I'm sorry, yesterday and went and voted for the Democrats are probably saying maybe it was a bad idea.
I think not only did we see low enthusiasm for the Democrats, but they actually hurt their case by screwing everything up.
Now on the screen I have this story from McClatchy's, D.C., February 3rd at 5 a.m.
Quote, the largest turnout we've ever had.
Iowa to kick off Trump-fueled voter surge in 2020, and boy was that story wrong.
But what was really bad about it was the headline.
I saw that quote and I was confused.
Wait a minute, the AP and NBC said voter turnout was bad.
Why are they saying the largest turnout we've ever had?
The full quote, which was omitted, is, we're preparing for the largest voter turnout we've ever had.
Unfortunately, it didn't come.
The story is actually making a prediction, but trying to frame it as though something successful happened.
It didn't.
So let's take a look at the real information, which is serious, serious bad news for Democrats.
And boy, am I not exaggerating.
An epic news for Donald Trump.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
Everybody's got their bubble, their echo chamber, and if you share this video, maybe, just maybe, some of them might see some information they didn't consider before.
I know most people don't want to do it, so, you know, whatever.
At the very least, sharing the video really does help support the channel and allow me to grow as YouTube's trying to suppress content like this.
The first thing I want to do is show you the real story as I scroll down.
McClatchy's actually says, Monday's Iowa caucuses are expected to draw near-record Democratic turnout, reaching or even surpassing the historic number set in 2008 amid a clash between Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Well, the polls were wrong.
surge is expected to last well beyond Iowa, deep into the rest of 2020 Democratic primary
and the November general election, where polls already show a record amount of voter interest.
Well, the polls were wrong. They all said Joe Biden was the front runner. And I know
we don't have the full data set as of the recording of this video, but he's in fifth
place in Iowa.
Iowa. Fifth.
Fifth.
Wow.
Who saw that coming?
I mean, I kind of did.
I guess a lot of people did.
You know, I've been saying it over and over again.
Joe Biden's not really running.
He's not raising that much money.
I mean, at least relative to Bernie.
And anybody who's seriously paying attention would not vote for this guy.
He doesn't know where he is.
He can't talk.
We get it.
So it turns out the polls were wrong.
And guess what?
These polls were wrong, too.
Record voter interest, they say.
Let's do this.
The largest voter turnout.
Here's the real quote they didn't want to show you.
What we've been preparing for all along is the largest turnout we've ever had, said Troy Price, chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party.
Now it's always hard to predict caucus turnout, but for us, we've been focused on being more prepared than we were in 2008.
So maybe when I say Trump's approval rating is higher than it's ever been, maybe it doesn't matter.
Because they've been wrong the whole time.
But hold on.
I started thinking about that and I thought, if they're using the same standard for Trump and Obama, then it's aligned at least, right?
They're asking similar people with similar methodology, I'd assume.
So that probably makes more sense so long as the poll is conducted by Gallup.
But I can't tell you, because the polls seem to be totally out of sync with the rest of the country.
The AP.
They say it's on par with 2016.
Let's read a little bit.
Turnout for Monday's Iowa caucus was on pace to match 2016 levels based on early data, a state party official said, even as some sites reported long lines and a record number of people participating as Democrats began choosing a nominee to take on President Donald Trump.
It was too soon to tell what final turnout numbers will be amid delays in reporting results, but Iowa Democratic Party Communications Director Mandy McClure said early indications were turnout was on pace to match 2016 when about 170,000 people participated.
The high-water mark for the contest was the 2008 Iowa Democratic Caucuses, when nearly 240,000 participated, and Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and other candidates.
They thought it was going to be bigger than that.
In fact, it was 30 or so percent less.
That is seriously brutal.
Actually, probably more than that.
But here's why it matters.
Take a look at this story from 2016, November 10th.
The Washington Post.
Why did Trump win?
In part, because voter turnout plunged.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, wait a minute.
If you're saying voter turnout was bad in 2016 and Trump won, and they need record voter turnout to defeat Trump now, but it's the same as it was in 2016, which was bad, that's seriously bad news for Democrats.
It seems like early indicators.
So let me stop, let me stop.
Okay, I gotta say this.
The data hasn't come in yet.
I know I'm kind of jumping the gun, but there's nothing I can really do until the Democrats figure out what's going on with this serious disaster.
But as they stated, early indicators show it's going to be like 2016 when Donald Trump won.
Now, that in and of itself is another early indicator that voter turnout is not going to surpass 2008, is not going to break record levels like they thought.
So, in the end, with the economy, with impeachment bolstering Trump's base, with his approval rating up, I don't think there's a case to state Trump would lose re-election.
But hey, I always reserve judgment because, you know, you know what's gonna happen, the data's gonna come out, and everything I say will be wrong, so it is what it is.
Let me just tell you, I'm reading the news stories as they've come out so far, And by the time you watch this, it will have been a few hours.
They're going to be releasing the results, my understanding, at least some of them, about an hour after this video goes public.
So, you know, we'll see what happens and I'll have updates.
But I still have more bad news for the Democrats.
Check this out.
From NBC News.
Iowa caucuses turnout.
Entrance poll shows dip in first-timers.
This year's level of new participants is well shy of that in 2008, when a whopping 57% of Democrats said they had never caucused before.
First of all, the whole caucus process is absolutely insane.
Wait till I show you what they did to determine who gets to be the nominee.
They're like flipping coins, playing rock-paper-scissors or whatever.
It is nuts.
But hold on.
Now, I'm gonna make an assumption here, but they were bragging about how, you know, when Trump got elected, there were many 17-year-olds who couldn't vote who are now of age.
There were many people who are younger than that who are now old enough to vote.
They said they're gonna come out in droves and vote this president out.
Perhaps.
Maybe in the general.
Maybe no one cares about the primary.
I don't know.
But if first-timers are down, not just on pace with 2016, actually down, well, wouldn't that stand to reason the youth vote didn't come out to participate in the democratic process?
Look man, I've gone over this over and over again over the past several days about the blank or bust voters.
And Yang or bust is huge.
42% of his base saying they're not going to support the candidate.
But basically everyone except for Elizabeth Warren has a percentage of voters who think Donald Trump is the second best option or they just won't vote.
I don't know what's going on but I think it's hilarious how they've been saying over and over again that the youth is all fired up and they're kind of not.
Now I get it.
I'm making an assumption.
Let's read a little bit of the story from NBC.
They say, Iowa's presidential caucuses were expected to draw a record turnout Monday, but early data from the NBC entrance poll show a big dip in participants attending a Democratic caucus for the first time.
The entrance poll showed just about a third of voters caucusing this year are first-timers, a lower level than 2016 when first-timers made up 44% of the Hawkeye State's Democratic caucus-goers.
Now, okay, maybe the people who voted in 2016 came back out.
It's their second caucus.
Sure.
They say.
And this year's level of new participants is well shy of that in 2008, when a whopping 57% of Democrats said they had never caucused before.
In a statement addressing a delay in results, the Iowa Democratic Party said that early data indicate turnout could eventually match that of 2016.
What we know right now is that around 25% of precincts have reported, and early data indicates turnout is on pace for 2016, IDP Communications Director Mandy McClure said.
So we did cover that.
But this adds the fact that first-timers are down.
Now, if it's true that people in 2016 who were first-timers came back to vote, then it stands to reason the number would go down, right?
But if young voters were coming up for the first time when they couldn't caucus last time, wouldn't it stand to reason the number would stay the same or go up?
In my opinion, it looks like even the youth vote isn't there.
But now I'm going to show you the real nail in the coffin for the DNC establishment.
From the Wall Street Journal.
This is extremely preliminary data.
Everything I've been talking about.
So take it all with a grain of salt.
Things have changed.
May have changed by the time you watch this.
They probably will.
You can see only certain precincts are actually reporting.
But Joe Biden's in fifth place with just the Sioux City area.
Bernie Sanders is more than double Joe Biden.
Even Elizabeth Warren, surprisingly, Klobuchar is 0.7% above Joe Biden.
You know, they kept trying to make Klobuchar happen, and I kept saying, stop trying to make Klobuchar happen.
Klobuchar's not going to happen.
And she beat Joe Biden!
Okay, okay, hold on, hold on.
She didn't beat him, but as of right now, with a very tiny data set, it looks like she's beating him.
Perhaps more precincts will start reporting, and we'll see that Biden actually did well.
But I gotta say, some of the bigger cities, Des Moines, Iowa City, Cedar Rapids, Davenport, they're not for Biden.
So it looks like, well, dare I say it looks like Biden's flopping hard.
And it makes sense.
Come on, man.
The dude wasn't really running and we all know it.
He was telling people not to vote for him.
What's the point of running?
If someone's going to come up to you, ask you a question and you go, oh, you should go vote for Trump then.
They're going to what?
Oh, OK.
Congratulations, Joe Biden.
Probably drove voters to Donald Trump by doing things like that.
You combine that with the far-left push, and the panic in the Democratic establishment, and the people, the Neverburners, they're saying that they're going to vote for Trump or not vote at all.
I can't predict a future, in good conscience, where I'm thinking Trump loses this one.
I'll tell you what, if you decided to go to Vegas and make a bet against the president, even though it was a dollar and you could win a hundred, you'd be nuts!
You're just going to lose a dollar.
You want to give a dollar away, just give it to a person who needs it to buy some food.
So here's what I want to do next.
I want to show you how absurd and insane the caucus process is.
But then I want to show you the data that is just so good for Donald Trump.
So good.
Check this out.
This is a YouTube video.
I'm not going to play the whole thing.
It just says, Cointos breaks precinct tie.
That, to me, is absolutely nuts.
But it's not the first time we've seen this.
They do this.
Think about that.
Do you think you're looking at a democratic process with the caucuses and the primaries?
You're not!
People show up and they say, who should I support in the caucus?
Who needs a delegate?
Meh, flip a coin for it.
That's your political process.
Now, I think the Founding Fathers made an excellent system, and many warned about political parties, and the Democrats, they're not a government institution, okay?
They're a private organization, and they do insane things like this, and then we gotta vote for one of them.
But it gets better.
Here's this tweet that I think is just so great.
MegaKinnard is, I believe she's with AP, tweets, quote, I'm kind of swinging between Amy and Bernie, a caucus goer told AP.
Ultimately, though, he was convinced to join with Buttigieg.
Quote, I was sitting over by the Amy people, but no one talked to me.
A Pete woman came over.
So I said, well, OK, I'll go with Pete.
And then he added, I just want to beat Trump.
That was the criteria for who was going to get his vote.
Literally someone walking up to him and just saying hello.
What'd he say?
She came over.
In fact, he doesn't even say she said anything, just walked over to him.
And he was like, all right, think about that.
He was thinking about Bernie Sanders, who's far left, and Pete, who's a moderate.
And he went to the moderate simply because someone walked up to him and said, hey, wow, that is a strong democratic process.
Well, As many people may not be aware, that Donald Trump actually did caucus, and I believe he was actually campaigning in Iowa.
Well, he won!
In some districts, with 100% backing the president.
Now, that seems obvious, right?
Everybody knew Trump's approval in the Republican Party was ridiculously high.
But I think I might have this video, I do, right here.
Which shows just how much better it may actually have been.
Check this out.
Alex Plitsis tweeted, former rep Joe Walsh, who is running, concludes by saying that if people want four more years of real Donald Trump show, he is then cut off by the crowd who yell yes and applaud loudly.
The dude tried to make his case, and he was like, if you want four more years of Trump, and then everyone just goes, yes!
That's clapping and cheering.
Trump sweeps through Iowa.
The caucus, the Republican caucus is very different.
So these are private practices, not governmental.
Trump wins.
It's not a big deal because we all knew Trump was going to win.
Now, think about everything I told you in the beginning.
I did highlight Moody's analytics.
We have this story.
This is back in October 15th.
We can now take a look at the early data we have from Iowa and make a better prediction based on past analytics.
CNBC reports, Trump is on his way to an easy win in 2020 according to Moody's accurate election model.
You see, Moody's election model is, I believe it's economic.
And it's historically accurate.
I think the only time they've been wrong is 2016 with Donald Trump.
I could be wrong about that.
But they are extremely, extremely accurate.
And this is what needs to be brought back up.
You see this right here?
Trump cruises if turnout is low.
How states will vote if non-incumbent turnout is historical minimum.
Chart 7.
It comes down to turnout.
With a maximum turnout, the Democrats barely win, with I believe just around like 271 electoral votes.
With average turnout, Trump easily wins with over 300.
With minimum turnout, Trump almost breaks 400 electoral votes.
It's preliminary.
We're looking at early Iowa data.
We don't know for sure.
But look at the first story I showed you from McClatchy, where they say, we're expecting record voter turnout.
It's going to be bigger than 2008.
And then, actually, it's kind of like 2016.
And then we look at the story from 2016.
This is terrible voter turnout.
It's just good news for Trump.
But it's not just good news for Trump.
It's also really good news for the Republican Party.
The Gallup, famed polling institution, says Trump job approval at personal best 49%.
Now, of course, you've seen Rasmussen saying, you know, 51 here and there.
The aggregate was the highest ever been in the past week.
Right now, it's floating around the highest place, so it's definitely above average for Trump in his presidency.
But based on Gallup's own data, it looks like he's doing way better than Obama did around the same time.
So let's actually read a little bit of this.
They say, The new poll finds 50% of Americans disapproving of Trump, leaving just 1% expressing no opinion.
The average percentage not having an opinion on Trump has been 5% throughout his presidency.
Trump's approval rating has risen because of higher ratings among both Republicans and Independents.
His 94% approval rating among Republicans is up 6 percentage points from early January, and is 3 points higher than his previous best among his fellow partisans.
The 42% approval rating among Independents is up 5 points, and ties 3 other polls as his best among that group.
Democratic approval is 7% down slightly from 10%, which I find pretty strange.
They say, uh, they're going to talk about specific reasons as to, you know, why, you know, this may be happening, but we'll move on.
Because what I want to get to here is actually talk about the Democratic and Republican Party.
They say, as Trump's job approval rating has improved, so has the image of the Republican Party.
Now, 51% of Americans view the Republican Party favorably.
Up from 43% in September.
It is the first time GOP favorability has exceeded 50% since 2005.
Full stop.
I don't like using individual polls, but we're talking about Gallup looking at Gallup data.
So, this is relative to their own metrics.
The fair thing to say is not to focus on Republicans being over 51%, But to say, based on Gallup's standards, Republicans today are doing better than they've done since 2005.
I think I have an explanation.
I think it's impeachment.
I think you look at September, before impeachment, and the Republican Party was at 43.
You look at how the Republicans were treated in the House, and how they handled impeachment in the Senate so far, and all of a sudden their favorability jumps 8 points?
Stands to reason many people in this country think similarly to me.
That the Democrats were pushing a partisan impeachment, Jeff Van Drew quit the party, and he made the right move, and Gallup just proved it.
If they tried to launch this impeachment and actually lost support from their own party, you'd think they would have gotten the message it was a bad idea.
They carried on.
They went forward with a Senate trial.
And it seems it was an unmitigated disaster as well.
Tomorrow, we're likely going to see the president acquitted of all wrongdoing.
And they're outraged.
But the American people, for the most part, are not.
Now, many are.
Don't get me wrong.
But most seem to be actually warming to the Republicans and the president.
While the Democrats, their caucus is in shambles.
They're accusing each other of being cheaters and spies.
It is nuts.
They're calling each other conspiracy theorists, and some establishment Democrats are claiming the people cheering for Bernie and smearing Buttigieg are Russians.
That's how insane they've gone.
So what ends up happening, in my opinion, is that the sane moderates and sane liberals center-left Are walking over to the Republican room because the left room is full of screeching and insanity.
And the best case, like the best example, is Jeff Van Drew.
Just in case you don't know, he's a congressman from Jersey.
South Jersey.
He's a Democrat his whole life.
And because of impeachment, he switched parties.
Many people have said he did it just because he wanted to win re-election.
Sure.
And he made the right move.
Y'all are going crazy.
The Republicans are doing better than ever.
So let's take a look at this.
I want to show you the aggregate, because I always think it's fair to point out the aggregate polling for Donald Trump, or anybody.
Everybody always likes to tout a single individual poll.
Look, Trump's worse than he's ever been and he's better.
Well, okay.
I think it's fair to point out, relative, you know, to Gallup's internal data, Trump is doing well, and so are the Republicans, in the aggregate.
Because it does go back, you know, to a couple weeks ago.
We can see Trump, not the best position he's ever been.
That was since his reelection.
It was, I believe the 27th was his high.
And now he's at 44.9, which is much more, much higher than average for the bulk of his presidency.
So he is doing really, really, really well.
There's other good news because not only is his approval rating up, not only is Democratic voter turnout down, but in the impeachment trial, It looks like the moderate Republicans are absolutely siding with Trump, and the worst Trump is getting from some, like Joe Manchin, is that Trump should not be removed, but should be censured.
That means there are going to be Democratic senators who actually vote to acquit Trump.
I mean, he's taken it.
He's won.
That's it.
Look, I mean, I know it's early.
It's only February, and we're waiting until November.
There's a lot that can happen.
The data from Iowa is very preliminary.
Please take it all with a grain of salt.
It's gonna be really funny when, two hours after I publish this video, the data completely flips and all of a sudden it's like, aha, the Democrats are winning.
Yeah, maybe.
It's entirely possible.
One of the things that happened in 2018, Was that I said I don't think the blue wave is going to happen and I predicted Republicans would do well and the initial reporting said basically that.
So I made a presumption based on early data and slowly we learned the blue wave actually kind of did happen and end up taking the house and then impeaching the president because of it.
So I'll leave it there with that final warning.
It very well may be that everything I've said and all of the exuberance and arrogance I've spouted about the failures of Democrats turns out to be completely wrong when the real data comes in and they say, wow, we did better than ever.
But who knows?
There's a lot of conspiracies floating around about what the Democrats are actually doing with this strange data mishap and the weird shadow-incorporated app that was made, but I'm not gonna speculate.
I'm just gonna let you know what I think based off the current preliminary data.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
So who won the Iowa caucuses?
Everybody!
Because basically all of the top contenders gave some kind of victory speech when there are no results.
Apparently this is unprecedented.
The DNC has totally screwed everything up, or I should blame Iowa specifically, but this is an unmitigated, complete And total disaster.
Conspiracies are running wild.
Right now the number two trend in the United States is hashtag Mayor Cheat.
Because people are talking about how Pete Buttigieg contributed to this company called Shadow, which produced an app that was used for the Iowa caucus, which failed.
And so they're acting like it's a big conspiracy.
But let me tell you something.
I don't know.
I'm going to show you a lot of what people are saying and go through some of these theories as to what's really going on.
They're basically saying that this group, I kid you not, the group that made the app to calculate totals is called Shadow, of all names.
How does that make sense?
Why would you name your company?
It's like, we're going to make apps for elections.
Let's call it Shadow.
Yeah, that's weird.
But I'm not going to do so many conspiracies.
I'll tell you this.
The only thing I need to say is the disaster in Iowa has proven the complete and total incompetence of the entire Democratic establishment.
I'll tell you why.
You're still allowed to believe in the conspiracy.
I won't stop you.
Even Marianne Williamson is coming out saying, what is going on?
I'm even seeing journalists saying, look at this, this is nuts.
But if one thing is true, it's that the entire establishment is inept, incompetent, and a complete and total failure.
Two points.
First, Either there's no conspiracy, everything is just, you know, messed up, the Iowa caucus essentially doesn't exist and didn't happen, and that proves they're incompetent, they couldn't even hold their own caucus.
Now, if you believe there was some grand conspiracy with Pete Buttigieg, which I really don't, I think it's hilarious, I think this guy's a spy, come on!
But if you believe that was the case, they also screwed that up!
They screwed up the conspiracy.
If you think that's a conspiracy, they screwed it up.
All that matters is they're completely inept.
So let me tell you something before we start reading some of this and going through some of this data, because I got to tell you, man, this one story.
Let me show you this one first.
Are you a caucus official on hold for over an hour to report results?
They hung up on him on live TV.
That blew my mind.
That to me was like, I felt like we were witnessing the total collapse of the Democratic Party.
This dude, I think he was a precinct captain or whatever, he's on hold because the app, they're trying to send the results through this app.
Didn't work.
He's talking to CNN, and he's like, I've been on hold for over an hour or whatever.
And then finally, he gets off hold, and you hear the woman say like, hello, and he's like, okay, I gotta take this wolf.
And then wolf's like, can we listen?
He goes, yeah.
And then he goes, hello?
They hung up on me.
And that hit me like a ton of bricks.
I was like, whoa, dude.
They hung up on him.
That says a few things.
Some have pointed out, maybe she was just, like, confused, nobody was talking, she didn't know what was going on, and they got a taunt, the phone's ringing off the hook, so she hung up on him, right?
Uh, she didn't know who was calling her?
It was a hotline?
Does that mean literally anyone could have called and been like, yep, that's me, the pre-think captain for, you know, district whatever?
That makes no sense.
There was no security on random people calling in?
Anyone could have just called in and said, yep, here's me.
There's the number.
And that's it?
Or, there's much worse.
They're in full-blown panic mode.
And so she was like, I can't deal with this.
Hang up.
Shut it down.
When I saw that happen, I really did feel like there's no Democratic Party.
Look, I've been saying for the past week or so, with the war, the internal civil war between the progressives and the moderates, the establishment, whatever you want to call it, it feels like Democrat doesn't mean anything.
Here's how I explain it.
I don't want to rehash it for everybody, but we will.
Listen, if I said to you, a Democrat, What would you imagine?
Would you imagine a Pete Buttigieg wearing a, you know, a nice button-up shirt with a tie saying, well, we can't quite get Medicare for all, but I think we can get close.
As America, we must strive.
Or would you imagine Bernie Sanders?
Free college!
Free health care!
Which one?
They're not the same, by no stretch of the imagination.
Even Ocasio-Cortez has said, we wouldn't be the same party.
Congratulations, you're not.
And with the collapse we saw last night with the caucuses, I don't think there is one.
Like, there was no election!
The Democrats held their big election.
Nothing happened!
There are no results.
Okay, so maybe the results will come in, but apparently this is unprecedented incompetence, and I have no idea what happened, but certainly people think it's a grand conspiracy.
Here's where it gets weird.
Now, I am no fan of conspiracies, but at a certain point, you have to at least investigate what seems to be oddities.
A good journalist is gonna say, I don't want to assume what's going on, but there's enough here to say it must be investigated, right?
And that's where they try and get you.
Now look, if you want to come out and claim Pete Buttigieg is a spy who's funding an app that subverted the caucus to give him the win, look, by all means, you can believe whatever you want.
I know people who believe weirder things.
I know people who are flat earthers who just will not listen to reason.
There was such oddities that I think we need to figure out what did happen.
And I'm not saying it's a conspiracy.
I'm saying if it was incompetence, how did the incompetence take place?
If it was a failure of the app, how did the failure take place?
Because they're going to use that app in Nevada, according to CNN.
But here's where it gets really, really strange.
Did you know that the Des Moines... I think it was the Des Moines Register, I'm not sure.
But it was a poll from Des Moines, Iowa, and it was spiked.
They claimed, I think, that a name was omitted, so we can't release the results of this here survey, of this poll.
Mike Cernovich apparently got the data and published it on the 1st at 10pm.
And it showed that Bernie Sanders was in the lead with 22%, followed by Warren, Buttigieg, and Biden in 4th with 13%.
Why was this spiked?
And also, I do find it funny that, you know, Mike Cernovich has broken a lot of these stories, and it's like they get ignored until finally somebody else comes out two days later confirming the exact results.
We can confirm the final result of the unreleased Iowa poll.
And it shows that Biden was in fourth place.
So a lot of people started questioning Did they spike this poll because it shows Biden doing poorly?
I don't know.
I don't want to assume a conspiracy, but I will say, when you have polls being unexpectedly canned, when you have the results of the caucus just not happening, And they're all— Look at this.
BuzzFeed says, without Iowa results, everyone on stage— Everybody's on stage and a winner on caucus night.
Bernie Sanders, Buttigieg, Warren, Klobuchar, and Biden all spoke on live TV in glowing terms without any results.
What is going on, man?
But I'll tell you what's the craziest thing about this.
Do you know who actually won?
Who actually won last night?
It's Mike Bloomberg.
And the DNC was already cheating for Mike Bloomberg.
So I don't believe any conspiracies about Pete Buttigieg.
Because we know for a fact that the DNC was going to change the rules to allow Mike Bloomberg on the debate stage.
They wouldn't do it for Tulsi, Yang, Booker.
And even Tom Steyer complained.
They wouldn't do it for any of them.
But they did it for Mike Bloomberg, and he's given over a million dollars, according to the Daily Caller, to Democratic establishment entities, of which 300,000 went to the DNC itself.
Mike Bloomberg skipped Iowa.
He said, it's not our strategy, we're not going to engage.
But after Iowa, you're going to start seeing trends, and here's what happens.
We know it's true.
People like to vote for who they think is going to win, so polls have a big impact.
So here's what's kind of happening.
First, you have the conspiracy that Pete Buttigieg was funding this shadow organization, literally called Shadow, to make this app that would do something I have no idea what.
What we're actually seeing, though, is a poll came out showing Biden trailing, and it gets canned.
Why?
Because if people think Bernie is going to win, they start voting for Bernie.
We've already seen from the New York Times and other mainstream outlets the Never Bernie movement, the fears of how to stop Bernie Sanders, the establishment is desperate to stop Bernie Sanders.
So I don't know.
But I will tell you this, too.
They cheated for Mike Bloomberg.
That is not even a conspiracy theory.
That's literally a fact.
It's a conspiracy fact.
The Democratic establishment got together, decided to change the rules, and say, OK, here's what we're going to do.
Now, they didn't explicitly say, we're going to get Bloomberg on the stage.
They said, we've decided to change the rules as such.
And then everyone was like, but that's specifically helping Bloomberg, because he's not, you know, you don't need donors anymore.
They're like, oh, but it's fine.
Now that there's chaos in the caucus and there's no clear winner, no one's going to be able to choose who they're going to vote for based on who won.
So maybe they know the results.
I don't know.
But if Bernie Sanders did win this, look, they have Biden here and Biden was in fourth place, but now he's equal with everybody.
If Bernie won, you'd get a ton of voters saying, OK, I'll vote Bernie because he's going to win and we need to unify the party, blah, blah, blah.
Now, Mike Bloomberg is on equal footing.
So I don't know what's going on, but Marianne Williamson, you know, she was running for president, she dropped out, and she had something interesting to say.
Not that I agree with her, but she said, America, something went wrong here tonight and it wasn't just an app.
If an app goes down, there are such things as telephones.
Then a moderate candidate came out and made this weird victory speech, ya booty judge, while MSM started talking about what a good night this was for Mike Bloomberg.
Yeah.
I don't know if she's trying to imply, you know, conspiracy or whatever, but I think she's making an interesting point that these are weird circumstances.
Pete Buttigieg, I watched his victory speech and I was so confused.
I was like, why is he?
He was like, Iowa, you shocked the nation.
Well, yeah, their incompetence shocked the nation.
I shouldn't blame Iowa.
It's not fair.
It was the Democrats in Iowa.
I don't know how anyone shocked anyone if no one knows what happened.
But here we are with the trend, Mayor Cheat.
Check this out.
So, I'm sorry, this is Shadow, but we have Mayor Cheat.
Let's pull up Mayor Cheat.
Everybody seems to think that this is Pete Buttigieg.
Look at this.
Pete Buttigieg managed to spike the most important poll, which showed... So this is Nando, verified Twitter user.
I know him, I haven't talked to him in a long time, but journalist.
Pete Buttigieg managed to spike the most important poll, which showed him in third the day before the caucus.
He seems to have some ties to the company that developed the app that's supposed to count the vote totals.
He is now declaring victory before any results are reported.
Nando did not tweet himself, Mayor Cheat, but people are, you know, using his tweet and highlighting Mayor Cheat.
They think Buttigieg did this.
Let me stop right now.
I'm not going to speculate as to what the conspiracy is.
I know a lot of people are going to... I think the important takeaway here from what we're seeing between, you know, no results, Mike Bloomberg's strategy is going to work swimmingly, the dude on CNN getting hung up on on live TV, Man, I just feel like there's no Democratic party anymore.
But here's the important thing.
We can talk about all of the scandals and potential conspiracy theories, but I think that doesn't matter.
I think the American voters, I think moderate voters, regular Americans, watched what happened last night and have lost confidence in the Democrats.
I think this is evidence to suggest that November is going to be a Trump blowout.
Now I don't like making these kinds of predictions because of course I've been wrong, and I'm probably got blinders on to a certain degree like everybody else does, but I just can't see.
If you're a middle American, not super politically active, and you watched this happen, you now have to weigh the complete failures of Iowa next to Donald Trump's complete successes with the economy.
And you have to trust that these Democrats who failed miserably either in their conspiracy or in a general caucus, in the regular old caucus, you have to trust that that mismanagement will not leak into their administration, to the office of the White House.
To put it simply, Personally, this scares me.
It really, really does.
I've been talking with people about how I don't like Donald Trump, okay?
I can give him credit for the economy because I'm not a crazy person who's screeching.
But I don't like the guy.
I do think he's funny.
I think he's an entertainer.
But I think he's got character defects and there's foreign policy issues.
And I know most of you probably heard me say this, but this is really important that I reiterate it right now.
Because I'm being confronted with an issue of sheer and complete and total unmitigated disasters Incompetence.
The Democrats are completely worthless.
And there's a real fear now.
It's not about the lesser of two evils.
It's about chaos and collapse and a guy I really don't like who still made the economy better off.
That's what's really scary.
I have not crossed the Rubicon.
I don't plan on voting for Donald Trump.
But I think I can tell you this, as of seeing this, I'm sitting out.
I will not be voting in any primary.
I wanted to vote for Yang.
I've tweeted Yang or bust, because I think Andrew Yang would be a great person to have a debate with Trump.
Not that I think he could really win, but I do like Andrew Yang.
At this point, I refuse to actually involve myself in whatever psychotic nonsense this is.
You've got accusations of cheating, Bernie blaming Biden, Buttigieg.
It's complete chaos in civil war and I want nothing to do with it.
Absolutely nothing to do with it.
I've always considered myself pretty much an independent voter.
People still call me a Democrat because I tended to vote, you know, the couple times that I did for Democrats.
But I have no allegiance to this lunacy.
And at this point, I am out.
Look, I didn't vote in 2016.
If Bernie won the nomination, I probably would have went and voted.
I didn't.
Today, I've supported Tulsi and Yang, and I thought, okay, I'm gonna step up because this is a very serious and important election.
At this point, no way.
Never gonna happen.
And it's not just the total incompetence.
Look, you've got two different psychotic conspiracies that persist.
The Mayor Cheat right now emerging, Bloomberg cheating, which is legitimate.
And now, to my favorite.
David Slack, verified TV writer, person of interest.
He said this on Twitter.
Hi.
While I can't yet prove it, I feel safe in saying that both hashtag Bernie1 and hashtag MayorCheat are trending because Russian propaganda accounts are amplifying them.
Putin's goal is to divide us.
Instead, let's stand together, elect Democrats, and sanction his A out of office.
Oh, but he has proof now.
See, he said, update.
The proof that foreign propaganda accounts are watching these tags closely and harassing anyone who calls out their manipulation attempts is now available in my mentions.
Numerous replies within minutes from anonymous accounts created in the last few years.
I'm sorry, David.
You've lost the plot.
Completely and entirely.
And this, to me, was like a hard nail in the coffin, okay?
It's a full haystack dropped on a camel's back of, these people are so insane.
Adam Schiff still parroting the Russiagate nonsense in the impeachment trial, and I'm just like, what is wrong with these people?
But listen.
As bad as Schiff and the impeachment is, and I've spoken out against it, saying Trump should not be impeached, he should not be removed, I don't even like the guy!
And a lot of people, Dershowitz was a Hillary supporter.
They're the same people saying, we get it.
You don't gotta like the guy to recognize that he's not, you know, committed impeachable offenses or should be removed or whatever.
Here's the thing.
As much as Schiff is nuts and Nadler and the impeachment is just absolute sheer insanity, I can sit back saying, listen guys, I don't care about the stupid people like Schiff.
I want someone like Yang or Tulsi to stand up and let their voice be heard to set to create a course correction.
I can't say that anymore.
Absolutely not.
After Iowa last night, I feel like there's literally nothing that can be done to actually
set this party on the right track.
You know, the far-left candidates are literally at war with the establishment.
They're trying to primary each other.
AOC refused to pay DNC dues.
The Iowa caucus fails completely.
No results.
Like, it didn't even happen.
You know what I thought was going to happen?
I thought they were going to do it.
Come Tuesday morning, I'd be like, it's the State of the Union today, and guess who won the caucus?
Please give us a sane alternative to Donald Trump that can actually have a real conversation.
They won't do it.
Instead, they go for scandal after scandal.
They don't talk about real issues.
And I say, okay, I don't care anymore.
Right?
And for that, the left, across the board, they don't like me for it.
But you know what's really interesting is the Yang supporters, they understand.
And that's another reason why I've been more of a fan of Yang.
I think he's been able to attract sane, rational voters.
Not that his plans all make sense.
I don't think anybody's perfect.
But a lot of people, he's got a huge portion, 42% of his voters are Yang or bust.
And a lot of the people I've talked to who are Yang supporters are like, I watch your videos.
I love what you do.
And I'm like, that's really interesting.
Cause like I rag on the Democrats and they're like, yes, we get it.
That's why they like Yang.
He's an outsider.
He's a different candidate.
And that's hope that you can kind of fix it.
Sorry, I've lost that hope.
I was like, you know what, man, I want to see Yang go.
I don't think he was going to win, but I think, you know, boosting that voice could have an impact.
And then a couple things happened.
The DNC changed the rules so they can get Bloomberg in after having kept Yang and Tulsi out.
And we know they cheat, but man, that brazen and oh, I was just shocked.
I was like, dude, you're taking what little, the dry withering husk Of hope inside me that there could be some salvaging of the Democratic Party.
It's gone!
With that Bloomberg moment, they flicked the sparks upon it, setting it ablaze.
And with last night, it's been withered down to a dry pile of ash.
There's nothing left.
With the failures of Iowa, I really don't feel that there's a party left.
There's nothing to actually salvage or save.
Abandon ship.
That doesn't mean vote Republican.
I don't know what it means.
I'm probably not going to vote.
There's no hope for the Democrats after this, I think.
They pushed the Russia psychosis.
Half of them think Pete Buttigieg is doing this big conspiracy, and I'm like, I don't care.
I don't care about any of this.
I'm so done.
I'm out.
Y'all can fight in the room by yourselves.
It's like, I imagine it like this.
You've got a street and there's two big restaurants.
And in one, you have all the Trump supporters singing songs and cheering and bashing their cups together.
And they're eating like, you know, I don't know, bratwurst or something or whatever, chicken.
And I'm like, well, I'm not, that's not what I want to eat, right?
To my left, you've got this eclectic buffet of all of these different choices, and people are throwing the food at each other, and so I'm like, I don't want food in my face.
I'm not gonna go inside.
So now I'm just standing there in the middle of the street like, what is there to eat?
I don't know.
I don't know.
But I'm not going back in that building.
So, we'll see what happens, but I think last night was wow.
I want to say this one last time.
There are going to be American voters, undecided or leaning Democrat, who saw what happened in Iowa and said, there is no way I am voting for that party.
I'll see you all at 1pm on this channel.
Maybe we'll get some updates and figure out what's going on, but I wouldn't count on it.
I'll see you all there.
The White House has excluded CNN from the annual pre-State of the Union lunch with news anchors.
And this has got people all angry.
And Ilhan Omar is leading the charge for a boycott of the lunch because CNN has been barred from attending.
Now, in my personal opinion, I'm not surprised CNN has been barred because of all the news outlets.
Look, while many may be adversarial and many really don't like Trump, Jim Acosta and CNN and the things they've done have been just insane.
OK, look, I get it.
MSNBC is nuts, but CNN is a different kind of nuts.
So I'm not surprised with their direct antagonism of Trump that he said you can't come.
And I'll go back to Jim Acosta, OK, because he really is, as far as I'm concerned, the big problem they've been having.
Jim Acosta had no intention of actually talking to the president and asking a serious question.
He would just get up and argue for long periods of time, and other journalists have complained about it.
This is what I find funny.
There may be, but I'm not seeing other news organizations who are still going, outraged and shocked that CNN has been banned.
In fact, I'm sure many companies are laughing, saying, less competition for us.
Sorry, CNN.
Maybe you shouldn't have let Jim Acosta milk the stage, the limelight, to try and boost his career and sell a trashy book.
So let's read the story from CNN.
I'm sorry, I'm holding back by laughing.
But I want to show you what's come of this.
Ilhan Omar backs calls for media boycott of State of the Union lunch after CNN banned.
Oh, man.
I just, I want to laugh.
A nice, a nice hearty chortle.
Okay, we'll read this, but I do find it funny that it's the Democrats calling for the media to boycott, not the media.
Several journalists still going.
Don't care!
Look, man, behind the scenes, I know a bunch of journalists, I work with a bunch of these journalists, they go and cover these rallies, and guess what the murmuring is behind the scenes you don't hear from?
Most of these journalists, the real ones, don't want their names out there, they don't want to be on TV, they don't want to be the press, I'm sorry, they don't want to be the center of attention, and they don't like Jim Acosta and CNN for doing this.
And they've openly criticized him.
There have been many stories where journalists who have been anonymously sourced say, you know, he's ruining everything for the rest of us.
I'd be willing to bet many of these journalists are saying, thank you, when they heard Trump was saying no to CNN.
And they're not going to care that the Democrats are saying, but don't do it, don't go.
Let's read the story from CNN.
That's why I love it.
It's from Brian Stelter.
Okay, okay, hold on.
Brian, you work for CNN.
This is the weirdest, like, formality system.
Yet another arena, the annual presidential lunch with television network anchors.
CNN anchors are being excluded from Tuesday's lunch, three sources said on Monday night.
Okay, okay, hold on.
Brian, you work for CNN.
This is the weirdest, like, formality system I've, I don't understand.
Was CNN denied?
Can CNN be like, we're not gonna be there?
You work there, why are you getting sources?
It's just like, when they did the debate, it was the CNN debate, and then we saw Elizabeth Warren walk up to Bernie, and then Anderson Cooper is like, we have exclusively obtained the audio recording.
And everyone's like, what do you mean?
Like, it was your recording, you recorded it, you didn't obtain it from anybody.
Did you obtain it from the guy who works for you, the sound guy?
What is this?
Okay, let's read.
Trump, like presidents before him, typically invites anchors from all the major networks to dine with him at the White House in advance of his State of the Union address.
The lunch conversation is considered off the record, but gives the anchors a sense of the president's state of mind before they anchor State of the Union coverage.
Despite Trump's persistent attacks on the news media, he's kept up such traditions Politico pointed out last year.
You know what's going to happen if Donald Trump invited Don Lemon or Anderson Cooper?
They would decline.
And they would turn it into a big stank like, in good conscience, this president has attacked the media, we can't go.
So Trump was like, okay, what's our options?
If we invite them, they'll make it a big point to be like, aha, we're moral and principled and reject you, Trump.
So Trump says, so don't invite them.
They can't come.
And I thought, oh, well, I never, why would the president reject our, you know, not allow us to come?
CNN's Anderson Cooper and Wolf Blitzer attended last year's lunch.
Blitzer has been attending these lunches longer than almost any other anchor 20 years in a row.
Journalists from other networks are still planning on attending Tuesday's session, according to sources at those networks.
Seems like there's no real solidarity when you let Jim Acosta go up and do all of those dumb things.
I'll tell you what, man.
I worked in news for a long time.
I still do.
But I mean, like, I actually did on-the-ground reporting.
I actually asked questions to people.
Typically, though, I wasn't doing, you know, in the fray kind of political yelling at politicians.
I'll tell you what.
I think it's fair to say most journalists of ethics and conscience recognize what CNN has been doing is not journalism.
In fact, it gives journalists a bad name.
When Don Lemon goes on his show and makes stupid comments and mocks and belittles and laughs at American voters, nobody thinks he's unbiased.
In fact, the New York Times, there was a point where they issued a policy saying none of their journalists, reporters, can go on Don Lemon's show.
They got all hot and bothered.
Oh, what?
That's not fair.
And they said it was because he was partisan.
It was a biased show and CNN was like, we are just reporting the facts.
Nah, come on, man.
We get it.
Don Lemon is one of the worst people on TV.
Now Trump is very, very much more harsh on Mr. Lemon.
But I'll tell you this.
I've seen Don Lemon's failed false reporting.
I've seen his awful work.
Notably, when he said, you know, I know it's preposterous, but what if a black hole swallowed this airplane?
I love bringing this up, by the way.
And the woman goes, even a small black hole would swallow the whole universe.
That's the caliber of CNN.
Surprise, surprise.
Donald Trump said, you can't come this time.
This is the first time in recent memory that a president has singled out one network and opted not to invite any anchors from there.
White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham did not respond to a request for comment on Monday night.
The president has directed his ire at CNN dozens of times over the past three years.
He has declined all of CNN's requests to sit down with him for an interview and has denigrated both the network as a whole and some of its individual journalists.
His administration also suspended chief White House correspondent Jim Acosta's press pass until a federal court ruled in CNN's favor.
Jim Acosta is not a journalist or a correspondent.
He wrote a book.
He was trying to get TV time and other journalists were calling him out.
OK?
Ilhan Omar now.
Let's see what's going on with these calls for a boycott.
Ilhan Omar backed calls for press outlets to skip President Trump's pre-State of the Union briefing after he blocked CNN's participation in the annual event.
She said, These journalists boycotted the British government's briefing after their colleagues were banned, tweeted Omar.
Solidarity needs to be modeled by news organizations here in the U.S.
for the sake of a free press.
The Minnesota Democrat tweeted an article from The Guardian which highlighted British journalists who boycotted Prime Minister Boris Johnson after he chose to exclude journalists for a press briefing.
I'm going to have to stop you right there, everybody.
Guess what?
Access is a privilege, not a right.
Now one of the big problems we have in media is access journalism.
People who will say whatever needs to be said to get access.
And you know what?
It's true.
It's a reality.
If CNN was kissing the butt of Trump all day and night, of course he'd invite them.
Of course he'd sit down for interviews.
Well that's true for literally everybody though.
Nobody wants to sit down with what they know will be damaging to them.
And guess what?
Trump is under no obligation to do any of this.
So surprise, surprise.
First of all, the press in our country is a free, fair market, competitive press.
And competition is fierce, with layoffs all over the place.
So when CNN gets kicked out, yeah, don't be surprised when there's no solidarity.
Because CNN made their own bed, and other news outlets know it, and they also know this is no time To be, you know, rejecting news coverage, what their job is, because someone's feelings are hurt for causing the problems in the first place.
Let me just stress that.
CNN made their own bed.
Why would any of these news outlets say, I'm gonna take a financial hit because Jim Acosta wanted to sell a book?
Not gonna happen.
Sorry, but of course, anything to say the orange man is bad, right?
That's why Ilhan Omar is coming out and saying, journalists should be in solidarity.
Not how it works.
Although many of them often are, especially ideologically, They say the lunch, which CNN's Wolf Blitzer has attended for 20 straight years, is a tradition that allows journalists to get a feel of the president's state of mind hours before he addresses the nation.
The president revoked an invitation to CNN, which was included in last year's event, on Monday amid his Senate impeachment trial, which he has decried as a hoax.
Omar 38 has clashed with Trump on a host of issues since she won her house seat in 2018.
She is part of, quote, the squad.
I love how they add this.
A four-member group of freshmen housewomen who have championed liberal causes inside the Democratic Party.
The president has repeatedly labeled CNN fake news and rejected polling from the network and he called the suppression.
Okay, so we understand all that.
Listen, man.
I don't think it's a secret to anybody that the media in this country is sick.
Journalists even tweet about it.
Ideology in politics has started infecting everything, and now we are seeing a fracturing of the tribes in this country so severe, people can't even agree on what's really happening anymore.
Now, to me, as somebody who follows both left-wing politicians and media outlets, and right-wing politicians and media outlets, I feel like I at least have a broader view than most of these bubble people, right?
The people who live in these echo chambers.
You end up with people covering impeachment, and it's the craziest thing.
I mean, listen, look at the Iowa caucus, right?
It's been defeat after defeat after defeat.
And for some reason, when Trump comes out and says, the DNC rigged it against Bernie, they'll do it again.
The DNC is cheating.
You still end up with Democrats being like, nope, Trump's wrong.
It's like, dude, I don't understand.
Where are you?
Like, I can see those tweets because I follow everybody, right?
But they can't see outside.
It's like they have their back to me.
I can hear them yelling, but they're not looking over here about what's going on.
And I'm seeing all of it.
Or not all of it.
I don't want to act like I'm perfect, but I try to make sure I'm following a balance.
And many conservatives do the same thing.
But you end up with these people, activists in media, who are shocked right now, and celebrities who are shocked right now about the impeachment process, saying, The Senate, the Republicans have voted no, no witnesses.
Oh, heavens!
The democracy is over.
And it's like, wait, wait, wait, wait.
Were you not reading the news when Schiff and the Democrats rejected witnesses on the Republican side?
Like, and so they get mad that I'm not here sitting here outright saying, oh, harumph, I say, they won't call witnesses.
Well, actually, Lindsey Graham apparently announced they're going to.
They're going to investigate at least their side.
But of course, the Democrats wanted their favorable witnesses.
But this is the problem of the media.
Many of these people choose to live in the CNN bubble.
Well, the good news is, if you want to watch the lunch or learn about it... Okay, no, no, I'm sorry.
If Trump starts restricting CNN, it will do one of two things.
Either the people, it could go bad, the people who normally only watch CNN and listen to this weird bubble world might actually just be confused and not be following anything at all.
Or they might be so hungry they go to a different network.
That could be a good thing.
We need to figure out how to shatter these bubbles because it's mind-blowing to me when people are like, John Bolt, who was it?
Someone tweeted, That Bolton wouldn't testify.
It was Bill Maher, I think.
Bolton wouldn't testify because he wanted to save his own book, and we need to hear what he had to say.
And my issue with this is, I really do blame the media, because there's too much activist nonsense, especially at CNN.
And the reality is, with Bolton, the New York Times said, people familiar with his manuscript said, there was a passage that said, John Bolton experienced this.
And I'm like, that is such an unconfirmed bit of gossip nonsense, it doesn't warrant anything.
Why would you have someone testify when you don't even know anything about it?
Now, there was a fair point.
They wanted to get his manuscript to the senators so they could read it and verify it first.
But this is what they were all freaking out about.
And what was crazy to me is, did you not read the news?
Did you not go and look at the story so you understand why there was a legitimate claim to not bring Bolton to testify?
No.
So I'll tell you what, when CNN gets the boot, I don't care.
I really don't.
It's not the end of the world.
It's not the end of press freedom.
It's not the end of democracy.
There are many other news outs.
And in fact, with the rise of social media, we could say bye bye to CNN.
We don't need them.
We have numerous outlets, independent commentators.
Trump tweets what he needs to tweet.
We don't need the news to report it anymore.
And they hate him for it.
Social media has dramatically changed how the news industry works, for better and for worse.
It's given rise to a bunch of sociopathic narcissists, people like Jim Acosta, who don't care about the truth.
That man had no interest in asking the president a real question.
He was trying to get a rise out of the president, and he's not the only one.
And CNN takes care of him.
They love it!
CNN's desire is not to tell the truth or what's really happening.
It's to rile you up and get clicks.
It's what we've seen.
We know it.
Unfortunately, social media has created this world of hardcore yellow journalism.
And there's been yellow journalism, right?
News organizations competing for selling papers would escalate these crazy stories and try to make them as sensationalized as possible to get people to buy them.
In today's day and age, the supply of information is so insanely large The demand is dramatically outpaced.
That means, if you're a news organization, check this out.
This is the most important thing.
I used to talk about, back when I worked at Fusion, why these companies are freaking out.
Why they're failing.
It's simple.
First, as I talked about the other day, these news organizations want to hire high-profile individuals to help share their stories.
Thus, they attract people who want attention, who want followers, and are sociopathic.
Real journalists don't want to be the center of attention and don't tweak their opinions.
They just write news.
But here's what else is interesting.
YouTube and Facebook and Twitter have created a free media market.
If you work for CNN, okay, you gotta get paid $50,000 a year, maybe $100,000 a year, or more, depending on your job.
If they want to produce a 10-minute segment, I know the costs of this.
I worked at Vice.
You want to hire, you know, a producer, an associate producer slash researcher, a camera operator, guess what?
You're looking at spending $20,000 to $30,000 for a short doc.
That piece, that content that goes up on social media or goes up on your television channel is competing with literally an old lady who filmed her cat slipping off of the TV.
And her going, hee hee, the kitty fell.
Free to make, free to post.
CNN is competing with that, but these companies have to maintain some kind of, you know, some kind of quality, some kind of level of, here's what we do and why we do it.
If given the choice, an average person is going to see this long-winded speech about the importance of a free press with Jim Acosta wiggling his finger, and they're going to see the silly cat going, woo, and the funny, you know, cartoon sounds that have been added to it, and guess which one they're going to click?
And the problem is, the cat video was free.
Was completely free to make.
And in the end, that old lady might actually get a couple hundred bucks when some of these networks will be like, hey, we want to run this.
Can we, you know, license it from you?
CNN, on the other hand, is burning through cash.
So the media industry is in dire straits.
They're in serious trouble.
I don't care that Trump kicked them out because they're irrelevant and obsolete.
CNN's ratings are such trash.
Who cares?
When I look at Ilhan Omar calling for a boycott, I'll tell you what it's all about.
She just wants to say, orange man bad.
And that's the game they play.
So I'll tell you what.
There are a lot of really great journalists and personalities on social media.
There are a lot of great journalists who still work for a lot of organizations.
But increasingly, what I think we're going to see is the rise of the trusted individual.
The narcissists who lie, cheat, and steal to get attention will always exist.
They're being hired in mass by corporations because the fastest path to monetization is, you know, you lie, cheat, and steal, you get 100,000 followers, you go get hired by one of these companies.
But there's something new.
Twitter has talked about a tipping system.
There's Patreon.
And now many of these grifters on Twitter are posting their PayPal or whatever.
They'll post a tweet saying like, ORANGE MAN BAD!
And then underneath it they'll be like, and here's where you can donate.
Or here's the project I'm working on.
And that's what they're doing.
They're trying to generate attention.
So I'll let you go with this.
CNN, in my opinion, they're grifters.
But they have an existing platform.
Jim Acosta was trying to sell a book for the fifth time, I get it.
But that's what they're doing, it's to make money.
And we know!
That's what it's all about, the clicks, right?
Social media has the problem too, but I think, when you start giving these grifters the opportunity to monetize on their own through Patreon or whatever, why would they go work for CNN if they're like, meh, I'm making money tweeting on my own?
It also shows kind of how bad things can get.
But I will say this.
I never tweet, hey, give me money here.
Hey, I don't.
I just tweet my feelings and sometimes people retweet them.
No, you're on Twitter saying orange man bad and then putting a link to your PayPal.
Okay, whatever.
Everybody's going to accuse everybody of anything.
But all that matters is in the end, Trump Aw, too bad, CNN.
There probably won't be a boycott.
Nobody cares.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel.
And I will see you all there.
Because literally all of the news today is about the Iowa caucus, I absolutely have to talk about what may be the biggest screw-up of the entire process.
Most of you probably know, but I'll just very quickly say, the caucus results didn't come in.
Everybody was panicking.
Everybody was declaring victory.
Everybody was accusing everybody else.
The Democrats are in a full-on state of civil war, and who knows what's happening at this point?
Except it all could have been averted.
You see, the problem with the caucus was the use of this app.
It was developed by a company called Shadow Inc.
Great name, by the way.
And it was supposed to collect the details of the results and then pass them on, I guess.
But what they claimed happened.
Was that the app was correctly recording the data but not, I guess, displaying it or presenting it or whatever the problem was.
And that's kind of a weird thing which has led a lot of people to think that it was taking in the data and then showing different results because they think Pete Buttigieg was cheating.
They're calling him Mayor Cheat because he donated a large sum, apparently, or he bought services from that company, and so did Biden, but many others didn't.
We now know.
The DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, Iowa Dems refused help vetting Caucus App.
I gotta tell ya, they had every opportunity to do it right, and they didn't.
Well, the latest news is that Nevada, which was supposed to use the same process, is apparently abandoning it.
But at the same time, I really want to highlight, it's not, look, I don't care too much about this app.
This is more of an addendum onto the main channel video I did.
I just, I'm looking at the story, and I couldn't help but feel like incompetence doesn't quite encapsule everything about the Democrats.
It's like, is there a word that means incompetence times ten?
Because I feel like it's unfair for me to tell you the Democrats are incompetent.
It's one thing if the app fails.
It's another thing if the DHS said they would vet the app, and they refused.
That's like, Stupid income.
It's like you're bad at your job, but you're also really dumb in general.
On top of this, we now have some of them at least admitting it.
And so the bigger picture here is I just want to kind of add more to the main segment.
Paul Krugman, this is from several days ago, Paul Krugman admits economy doing pretty well after predicting Trump would lead to global recession.
Consider this the addendum.
The Democrats' incompetence went beyond what I initially expected.
They had every chance to solve it.
And Donald Trump's successes, he's now being given credit by the people who hate him the most.
Everything's turning up Trump.
And the Democrats are spiraling out of control in a state of constant civil war.
And it seems like it could be avoided, but I guess it's not.
I kinda just feel like we are witnessing the end of the Democratic Party.
They say, Monday night's Iowa Democratic Caucus debacle stemming from an app tied to ex-Hillary Clinton campaign staffers is concerning.
Acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said Tuesday.
Now let me just stop there.
Big conspiracy is that Hillary Clinton staff were working on it and they were trying to cheat.
Come on, man.
I think it's fair to say Hillary Clinton lost what was called the unlosable election.
And she lost because she's incompetent.
Again, I think it's fair to say we need a better word for this.
It's incompetent doesn't quite encompass just how bad it really was.
But why would anyone need to assume a conspiracy when we realized her staff, you know, ex-staff, worked on the app?
I'm like, oh, that actually makes sense.
The app failed miserably, just like her bid for the presidency did.
There's no conspiracy.
She's just really bad at picking people, and she's really bad at doing what she does.
So it's not just her, it's the people she hired.
If you have a failed candidate who had every poll, everyone cheering, and she couldn't make it work, and then you take the people she hired, when she's a failure, and give them a company, they will make an app that is very much likely to be a failure, too.
So, no, I'm sorry.
I'm not looking at a conspiracy.
I don't think Buttigieg is cheating.
It's just silly.
I mean, maybe, though.
Maybe.
I think the Democrats in general are pulling shady moves, like they did in 2016, giving Bloomberg the stage and all that.
But come on, man.
I think it's fair to say you don't need to believe in conspiracies, because that kind of makes it seem like Hillary's staff are at least somewhat competent.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
This whole thing, even if it was an attempt at cheating, was also incompetent cheating, too, because they failed in that regard, even if that was the case.
Shadow!
Kid you not!
Fox and Friends with co-host Steve Doocy.
Wolf said that the DHS Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency had offered to test the app
from a hacking perspective, but the party had declined.
They declined, and so we are seeing a couple of issues with it, he told Doocy.
The app, which was supposed to help the Iowa Democrats quickly report the caucus results,
instead contributed to confusion and a muddled result as campaigns were in an uproar.
Shadow, kid you not, that's the name of the company.
A tech firm that describes itself as a group that creates a permanent advantage for progressive
campaigns and causes through technology, is the company that created the app, according
to the New York Times.
At least the COO, CEO, CTO, and a senior product manager at Shadow all worked for the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, according to LinkedIn profiles.
Now I understand.
Who in their right mind would hire people from her campaign after losing the unlosable election?
Now look, I get it.
A lot of people are going to say Trump won because he deserved to win and all these other things.
I think it's fair to say Trump won, okay?
He won because he played the game right.
But I honestly believe Trump shouldn't have won for several reasons.
Now look, we know Hillary Clinton and the DNC were cheating Bernie.
They were willing to play dirty and it still wasn't enough.
But Hillary Clinton didn't campaign in certain Rust Belt states.
Why?
How insane.
What I heard was that her campaign was concerned she would win the Electoral College and lose the popular vote.
So she wanted to make sure she campaigned in big urban areas to guarantee winning the popular vote.
Well, you did it!
You lost the Electoral College.
You lost the presidency.
They said it was unlosable.
You still lost it.
Don't hire her staff.
I'm going to say, in addition, some on Twitter noted that according to FEC records, Mayor Pete Buttigieg's campaign paid Shadow over $40,000 last year for software.
However, there was no indication of impropriety from the Buttigieg campaign or bias toward Buttigieg from shadow, as independent consultants and contractors like the firm often work with several different political organizations to provide technology or other services.
On Tuesday morning, the Iowa Democratic Party chair, Tony Price, released a statement confirming that there was not a cybersecurity intrusion and that their systems were tested by independent cybersecurity consultants.
However, Price said that as precinct caucus results started to pour in, it became clear to Iowa Democrats that there were quote, inconsistencies to the reports due to the app reporting only partial data.
Now look, I know, I've talked about it quite a bit, most of you probably heard this, so I want to make sure I can stick to some of the updates.
Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks tweeted that although they've said, I'm paraphrasing him, they said it's not a cyber security intrusion, he doesn't trust them.
I actually agree with Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.
I think they're very selective about when they want to scream Russia, and I think if they really were hacked, they'd definitely be like, oh heavens, we were hacked, oh no.
Unless they were doing something underhanded, they wouldn't admit it, right?
So let's say that Hillary Clinton's staff actually were like, ooh, we're gonna make this happen, do these things.
They wouldn't want anyone to know if there was any data breached because, well at least in my opinion, They wouldn't want people to know what that data was, right?
If they're doing something nefarious.
But I do think it's also fair to say that, to a certain degree, they would be very scared and embarrassed if it turned out the DHS was going to vet their cybersecurity and then a hack happened or something happened.
I think Chang's assessment is actually kind of fair.
Don't trust these people.
Don't trust them at all.
Now, I'm not a big fan of Cenk and his politics, nor do I necessarily trust the guy, but a good point is a good point.
If Hillary Clinton was going to cheat Bernie in 2016, if they're changing the rules for Bloomberg, do you think they're going to be honest about what's going on with their app?
Now I get it, this is Iowa, it's not the establishment to a certain degree, but I don't trust them.
So I think it's possible there could be something going on they won't tell us about.
They don't want to admit it, they don't want to look bad.
Here's a quote.
They say President Trump used the caucus confusion as an opportunity to bash Democrats claiming that he is the only candidate who left Iowa with a win.
It's right.
Trump is the only one who won in Iowa.
Think about that for a second.
Okay.
No, the data is probably out by now.
I'm recording this just before they said they were going to publish it.
Trump said the Democrat caucus is an unmitigated disaster.
Nothing works.
Just like they ran the, uh, just like when they ran the country, just like they ran the country.
Remember the $5 billion Obamacare website that should have cost 2% of that.
The only reason that that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is Trump.
The only person that can claim a very big victory in Iowa last night is Trump.
It's true.
He added, it was not the fault of the state of Iowa, but the do-nothing Democrats.
Well, I like to call them the keys-to-the-castle Democrats.
The people who are like, just give me the power to sit in the ivory tower.
That's all I care about.
They don't care about policy.
And it's unfortunate, because it seems like in the Democratic Party, you have people who don't care, and you have far-left wackos.
Is there a group of, like, moderates who care and want to be honest?
I'd be willing to vote for some of them.
I like Andrew Yang, but I'll repeat this too.
Like I said in my past couple videos, I'm out.
I'm not voting in the primary.
Not after this.
It's rigged.
I'm exaggerating a bit.
What I mean to say is not that I think there's a big nefarious plot.
I think there are crony machines that fund their buddies.
Come on, man.
Hillary Clinton's staff got a cushy contract to make an app from the DNC?
Yup.
How did that happen?
Yeah, it's because somebody knows somebody, and that's nepotism.
It's how these crony games work.
And Buttigieg is paying them for services because they're all in the family together.
Not that it's a grand conspiracy.
But look at the Obamacare website.
Yeah.
You get somebody who's got a big government contract, he calls his buddy and says, why don't you do it?
It's a big contract, five billion dollars.
And then you get chaos and garbage.
Garbage in, garbage out.
So when you get garbage people making garbage apps, paying their garbage buddies, congratulations.
So I'm over it.
I'm completely over it.
But I'll add this.
They say, Wolf added that right now the DHS hasn't detected any malicious cyber activity going on.
No one hacked into it.
So this is more of a stress or load issue as well as a reporting issue we're seeing in Iowa.
Excuse me.
But what I would say is that, given the amount of scrutiny that we have on election security these days, this is a concerning event.
He concluded.
And it really goes to the public confidence on our elections.
Well, I kind of lean towards, if it was an intrusion, they'd scream Russia forever.
And they would say, oh no, look, Russia's doing it again.
Because they're not saying that, I kind of think they just are incompetent.
Or, you know, ten times worse than whatever that could be.
But I don't know.
Yeah, just an addition.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
We're starting to see more of the intersectional left clash within its own ranks, notably the LGBTQ community and the Islamic community.
A young woman apparently went on Instagram and said a bunch of things about Islam, and this resulted in a hate speech investigation.
Even though France has no blasphemy laws, this French teen was dealing with criminal charges.
Here's what happened.
My general understanding is that she is a young lesbian, she was being harassed by some Muslims, and so she made a video complaining about it.
She's gone on to say things that are often parroted by what the media likes to call the far right.
But this is a young lesbian, seemingly progressive individual.
How does this make sense?
She said you can't be racist against a religion.
Oh, I've heard that before.
From the bigots of the far right!
Or is it just true?
And now everything's coming to a head when LGBTQ people, like we saw in the UK, were actually protested by the Muslim community.
I don't care about your religion, man.
I'll tell you this.
When I look at Islam, I look at Christianity, look, I understand they're different, but in terms of what I get to say about what I believe, I do find it absolutely insane that if you go on Reddit, you can find whole subreddits dedicated to insulting Christians, but heaven forbid someone say literally the same thing about Islam.
And that's what we're seeing now.
I grew up in an era where Christians were routinely mocked for their beliefs.
And the progressives were like, here's what we believe and you're nuts.
And now we have this strange paradoxical reality where you can't criticize one Abrahamic religion, but you can the other, even though they're two of the biggest religions in the world.
How does that make sense?
Well, I guess it's because the Muslims tend to be brown and a smaller portion of the religion in this country.
Well, this took place in France.
Let's read the story.
Mila.
No regrets for French teen targeted for criticizing Islam.
They say a teenager has sparked a national debate about blasphemy in France after an Instagram post calling Islam a religion of hate.
Mila, 16, posted her comments online after receiving homophobic abuse from a Muslim commenter.
She received death threats and has not attended school since.
But Mila has refused to back down, saying in her first television interview that she wanted to blaspheme.
She has since deactivated her Instagram account.
The post has sparked a huge debate in France over freedom of speech.
The country has no national blasphemy laws and has a rigidly secular constitution.
Police initially opened two investigations.
The first into whether Mila was guilty of hate speech.
Believe it or not, they don't have free speech.
And the second into her online attackers.
They have since dropped the hate speech case as Mila was expressing a personal opinion on religion and not targeting individuals.
But think about living in a country that would do that to you.
Boy, am I happy every day when I see these stories that we have the Constitution.
Our Founding Fathers saw this coming.
They experienced it.
That the government would use any excuse in the book to shut you up if you criticized their ideas, their policies, or things that might actually... if you say things that could be bad for them.
Well, for whatever reason, France and these other countries are terrified that someone would criticize a religion.
Yeah.
Yeah, it's hate speech.
So then you end up saying, if you criticize this ideology, you can go to jail.
That's how insane these countries are.
They say, on Tuesday, Interior Minister Christopher Kastner told the National Assembly that Mila and her family were under police protection.
So it flipped.
What did Mila say?
Appearing on the quotidian program, I'm probably not pronouncing that right, I don't speak French, On the TMC channel, Mila apologized for insulting people who practice their religion in peace, and said she regretted the vulgarity of her words and their spread online.
But she defended her remarks, quote, I have absolutely no regrets about what I said.
It was really my thought, she told the interviewer.
Mina said her life was clearly on hold amid the controversy.
She had to leave school because of the threats against her, saying she could have been burned with acid, hit, stripped naked in public, or buried alive.
On Monday, Education Minister Jean-Michel Blanquer said that authorities were trying
to return her to school peacefully so that she can have a normal life.
Well, she's under police protection.
I'm sorry, that's not normal life.
She has to skip school because there is a serious threat of getting acid splashed in your face.
It happens in Europe, it happens in the UK.
You have people who believe an ideology, and I'm not talking about the religion, okay?
There are many Muslims I know who practice their religion in peace, as she said, and they're good people.
There are many Christians, there are many Jews, they practice their religions in peace.
But there are also zealots, and zealots can come from any ideology.
So when you criticize the zealots, what happens?
They come for you with threats.
Now here's the problem.
Under the guise of protecting the religion as a whole, the zealots are protected, and no one stops them from spewing this hate.
It's funny to me.
Chick-fil-a makes a donation to the Salvation Army.
Hateful.
Bigoted.
Evil.
And the funny thing is, Chick-fil-a stops.
And what happens?
Just the other day on the front page of Reddit was a post saying it doesn't matter.
Chick-fil-a is still bad.
But literally, Islam threatening this young woman.
I mean the whole religion, you know, these zealots.
I'm trying to refer to the zealots in particular.
Threatening this young woman with the worst possible things and she needs police protection.
Where are the activists?
Who's gonna have her back?
I absolutely will.
I believe in personal freedom.
That means if you practice your religion in peace, if you practice basically anything in peace, you know, to a certain degree, there's varying degrees of what, you know, one might consider peaceful.
But like I always say, if you want to dress up like a clown, if you want to live a certain way and you're not hurting anybody else, or animal abuse or something, do your thing.
Just go do your thing.
That's not what we're seeing though.
If she is somebody who is part of the LGBTQ community, She has every right to express herself and live freely.
And I think it's kind of terrifying, this idea that there could be a world where if someone finds out you prefer living a certain way or doing a certain thing, which is non-violent and doesn't hurt anybody, they would actually try and harm you.
I'm glad we have fought to end that kind of era.
I'm especially glad we have freedom of speech.
Here's the thing, though.
That freedom of speech we have allowed people like Mila to get their rights.
They were able to protest and march through the streets, and they had legal protections within reason.
Now, of course, there was clashes, and some might argue that they used violence, and many probably did.
But the right to protest was guaranteed by the founding fathers and the right to free speech has been used to expand civil rights better than any other country on the planet.
So why can't we call out the zealots who are hiding behind our goodwill?
I don't know.
They said the controversy began on the 18th of January, after Mila did a live broadcast on her Instagram account.
After speaking about her sexuality, she was called a dirty lesbian by a Muslim commenter.
In response, Mila posted an attack on Islam.
She said, I hate religion.
The Quran is a religion of hate, she said, before using stronger words to attack Islam.
I don't agree with that language either.
To a certain degree, I'm critical of religion.
I'm not religious.
I'm not a big fan of them.
But I think she actually did it right.
I do.
I do.
I actually think she hit the nail on the head when she said, I apologize to people who practice their religion peacefully but don't regret what I said.
Then I actually agree with what she said.
I think the apology adds that special caveat.
If you practice hateful aspects of your religion and try to impose authority over others based on your ideology, we've got a problem.
If you are Muslim, Jewish, Christian, or literally any other religion, but you're libertarian, and you practice what you and your friends and your family members and your community agree with and understand, and you peacefully preach those ideas with a smile on your face, I'm totally down.
I think there's been a big push for a kind of, I think it was Ben Shapiro who talked about it, a kind of libertarian religious, you know, thing that's going on where a lot of people on the right who are religious, be it Jewish or Christian, have started moving away from the moral authoritarianism of the past.
Now the left is picking it up and they've approached more of a libertarian view of, you know, let me just practice my religion within reason and kind of leave me alone.
There still is some issue with morality that makes it to the law.
But what we're seeing in France is the rise of authoritarian ideology and moral policing.
They say... She said I'm not racist.
She said that you cannot be racist towards a religion.
I said what I thought.
You're not going to make me regret it.
Critics said her comments were offensive.
Some centered death threats and others posted her personal information online.
The head of the French Council of Muslim Faith, Mohamed Moussaoua, I'm sorry, I can't pronounce last names, said nothing justified death threats no matter how serious her remarks.
Tremendous respect for that.
Absolutely.
Supporters defended her right to attack Islam.
And the hashtag, I am Mila, started trending in France.
Opponents hit back with the hashtag, I am not Mila.
French Justice Minister Nicole Belloubet waded into the controversy saying that death threats against a teenager were unacceptable.
I think that's the line.
Everyone kind of understands.
However, Belloubet herself was criticized after arguing that an attack on religion was an attack on freedom of conscience.
French Senator Lawrence... That's so insane, isn't it?
You know, I can't even tell you what's happening anymore.
It's paradoxical, and it doesn't quite make sense.
That you can have very... Look, as much as anyone wants to admit it, in terms of the global religions, they're both Abrahamic.
They share similarities.
I don't know enough about Islam, but they do.
And it's crazy to me that you can criticize the one that's actually, to a certain degree, the reformed religion.
I mean, I think it's fair to say, you know, Christianity went through a reform, so did Judaism.
Many people have called on Islam for the same thing, to go through a modernist reform.
But you can't criticize the one with the zealots?
I don't know, man.
I'm totally fine to criticize any religion for the bad things they do.
I do think it's fair to say people are free to practice their religion, and especially Islam.
I also understand, to a certain degree, why people are protective of Muslims.
I've known people who have been abused and attacked for prejudicial reasons.
However, We're now dealing with this ongoing clash.
The LGBT community in the UK with the schools in Birmingham, and now this teenager in France.
I don't know what's going to happen, but you can't have both.
I'm sorry, intersectional feminism can't have both.
They do not mesh.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
You may have heard the news about Johnny Depp.
For a long time, he has been accused of being an abuser to his ex-wife Amber Heard.
Well, if you've been following the story, we just got leaked audio a couple days ago showing that Johnny Depp was in fact the victim.
There's still possible details we don't know about, but at the very least, We know Amber Heard was heard on audio recording saying, I was hitting you, stop being a baby, trying to gaslight Johnny Depp.
And boy, do I sympathize with Mr. Depp.
You know why?
They tried to destroy his life.
They tried to destroy his career.
He lost his role as Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean.
I'll be honest, I don't think we need any more of those movies, but still, if people want to see them and like them, then he should be allowed to have the roles he wants.
But he was cast as Grindelwald in the new Harry Potter franchise movies.
I'm not a fan of the Grindelwald film, but hey, that's Johnny Depp, right?
They tried to get him fired.
J.K.
Rowling apparently came to his defense, and people were outraged, demanding his termination.
Well, here's the latest.
The tides have turned, as evidence has emerged that Amber Heard was the aggressor, or the abuser, or at least, to a certain degree, she's admitted it.
There is now a petition with over 100,000 signatures demanding she be fired from Aquaman 2.
Now look, man, I don't know if cancel culture is the way to go about these things.
It's kind of a challenge because we're not talking about somebody who said naughty words and challenged the moral line.
We're talking about somebody who beat their domestic partner.
That's a whole new level.
There is some degree of canceling that matters, that makes sense.
You know, but Johnny Depp was accused, and everyone, you saw the pictures of Amber Heard.
They still didn't fire him, and it turns out he was innocent.
Maybe we just don't do the cancel culture thing.
Maybe a court of law should handle it, and that's about it.
And following that, if people don't want to work with her, then so be it.
Let's read the story and I'll pull up the petition.
Bounding Into Comics reports Aquaman 2, petitioned to remove Amber Heard from the sequel as Meera, closes in on 100,000 signatures.
It's actually well above that.
So as of the last time I refreshed it.
Okay, it's at 133,656.
I'm just going to refresh it and then we'll come back, but we'll read the story.
There is renewed vigor in the demand to recall Amber Heard from the Aquaman sequel in light of new information regarding abuse during her relationship with actor Johnny Depp.
A Change.org petition by Leanne Larson remove Amber Heard from Aquaman 2, standing currently at around 96,000 signees, is nearing 100,000.
Well, we now know it's well over.
The petition is aimed at Senior Vice President of Publicity and Communications for DC Warner Bros, Courtney Simmons, and Paul McGuire, Corporate Communications of DC Entertainment.
Let's see what we're at right now.
Alright, so we are currently at 139,336 signatures.
139,336 signatures.
So people are taking this seriously, I suppose.
Let me just read the petition for you instead of doing the snippets.
The petition says, Amber Heard has been exposed as a domestic abuser by Johnny Depp.
In his $50 million lawsuit, Johnny Depp describes many incidents of domestic abuse that he suffered
at the hands of his then-wife Amber Heard, including one incident where she punched him
twice in the face and another where she shattered his finger with a vodka bottle and his finger
had to be surgically reattached.
He will bear the scar from that for the rest of his life.
I...
I completely empathize and sympathize.
Also, Amber Heard was arrested in 2009 for abusing a former domestic partner, Tasya Van Ree, demonstrating a repeated pattern of abuse by Amber Heard.
Since Herd's divorce from Johnny Depp, she has systematically crusaded to ruin Depp in Hollywood, repeating multiple accounts of fake incidents in which she had actually abused Johnny Depp, but lied and created false accounts of him being the abuser, about the incident during which she shattered the bones in Johnny Depp's finger and nearly severed it, causing Depp to require surgery to reattach and repair it.
Heard presented a false story, claiming that he cut off his finger himself, dipped it in paint, and scrawled obscenities all over the walls.
That sounds absolutely nuts.
From the audio, we heard Amber Heard say, yeah, yeah, yeah, I was hitting you, yada, yada, and that you're such a baby, you're such a baby.
Why would I believe Jenny Depp would cut off his own finger and paint the wall with it?
Especially when she's on audio tape saying, I abuse you.
Don't believe it.
Likewise, Hurd recounts fabricated incidents of Johnny Depp hitting her in the face when she had in fact punched him.
Though staff and neighbors in the building where she lived reported seeing no marks on her face, in the hours and days after, she says Johnny Depp hit her, yet she appeared in court six days later with bruises on her face, asking for a temporary restraining order, which was granted.
Photos of Heard from the very next day show her full face without makeup and not a single bruise.
As Amber Heard is a known and proven domestic abuser, Warner Brothers and DC Entertainment should and must remove Heard from their Aquaman 2 film project.
They must not ignore the suffering of Heard's victims and must not glamorize a domestic abuser.
I agree with that last bit.
You know, look, going back to cancel culture stuff, I am not a fan of it.
But let me, I'll ask you guys this.
Should a domestic abuser be cancelled?
And she lied and manipulated the press?
This is somebody who used our goodwill and the goodwill of feminism, the people who are going to believe women or believe the victim, and weaponized that against Johnny Depp to destroy him, to punish him, when he was already the victim.
I pointed out in the first video I did on this, you actually have feminists coming out saying maybe we need to reconsider what believe women really means.
Take their claims seriously, but investigate.
And this is why otherwise Johnny Depp, the victim, gets his life ruined.
They say, men are victims of domestic abuse just like women.
This must be recognized, and action must be taken to prevent a known abuser from being celebrated within the entertainment industry.
Do the right thing, remove Amber Heard from Aquaman 2.
I'm still not fully on board with cancel culture, so don't, don't ask me, but I do think this is the most deserving I've seen.
You know, they want to ban someone for making a naughty joke.
We're talking about somebody who abused her husband and then lied about it and tricked all of us.
Recording.
I wasn't punching you.
I was hitting you.
Here's one of the first comments from 11 months ago.
Really, this has been ongoing.
Johnny lost his role as Captain Jack Sparrow because of the lies and smear campaign launched by his ex-wife Amber Heard, and almost lost the role of Grindelwald in Fantastic Beasts 2, Crimes of Grindelwald.
Amber Heard... Oh, there's more.
Yeah.
Amber Heard has gone on to star in Aquaman, which grossed over a billion dollars, an endorsement deal with L'Oreal, and has become an ambassador for the UN, and has not suffered any of the backlash that Johnny has, despite the truth coming out that she was the abuser in the last 15 months of the marriage, and that she was the one using the Me Too movement for her own gain, and was making a mockery out of actual survivors of domestic violence.
Drop Amber Heard as Mira, Mira?
Cast someone else in the role who actually has acting talent.
And let Amber Heard suffer the consequences that she has long gotten away with.
Therein lies the big double standard of how it works in the MeToo era.
I think the people who should be the most angry about this are feminists and supporters of the MeToo movement.
She has caused such harm to the reputation and provided ammunition to those who would say don't believe the woman.
Now, I think we want to take victims' claims seriously.
But if someone comes to me claiming they're a victim, I'll say, well, let's do what we can to verify and prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Right now, you are absolutely going to see a bunch of people saying, aha, see, look, women are lying, oh, this is proof, look what she did.
And perhaps it's true to a certain degree that there are women who lie.
Absolutely, of course there would be, right?
So the people who should be mad are those who were manipulated.
She used the weight of the MeToo movement as leverage to hurt somebody.
To hurt Johnny Depp.
She didn't face the backlash, she did.
Check this story out.
Harry Potter fans protest Johnny Depp's role in Fantastic Beasts sequel from 17 November 2017.
Could you imagine being Johnny Depp, having been abused, nearly lost your finger, beaten by this woman, and then she goes on a crusade to destroy what you have left, to ruin your life, to lose movie roles, and then have people go on Twitter And mock and berate you as the victim and demand more be taken from you.
That must be truly horrifying.
Which is why the outrage mob is a dangerous thing.
Which is why cancel culture is a dangerous thing.
Because we often just don't know.
Many people like to think they're smarter than a court of law but you know when it comes to juries and judges they probably hear more evidence than you realize.
I think in the end the best thing we could actually do is kind of back away and let the courts do what they were designed to do and for good reason.
You know, the laws we have, the Constitution we have, you know, innocent until proven guilty.
I think those are very, very important things.
I don't even want to necessarily say that the recording proves Amber Heard is 100% guilty.
It does prove, to an extent, that she lies.
It proves that she was hitting Johnny Depp.
It proves, to a certain degree, that she was the aggressor.
She was hitting him.
He wasn't hitting back.
And then there are questions about whether or not he actually hit her in the first place, or even if he did, was it self-defense?
But man, I could not imagine being, you know, this is one of the problems of the feminist double standard.
That they say believe women.
But while it may be more rare that men are the victims, how could you blame a victim?
I don't care if you're a man or a woman.
How can you truly believe in equality and claim that you're fighting for equality if you would just assume the man is the bad guy?
It's not about equality then.
You got a chip on your shoulder and you don't like dudes or you mistrust them or you think something's wrong or you think something's bad.
I don't.
I do believe in equality.
That means if a dude comes to me and says, this happened, I'll say, let's see what we can do to prove it.
If a woman comes, I'll say, let's see what we can do to prove it.
That's about it.
You know, they say on the internet, Pixar, it didn't happen.
I'm glad to see that Johnny Depp's life wasn't completely destroyed.
I'm happy to hear that, you know, new information has come out.
I don't think we're gonna, you know, we're gonna see anything necessarily in terms of real punishment.
The report from Bounding into Comics doesn't really talk about any potential, you know, any potential ramifications for Amber Heard, but I'll say this.
