All Episodes
Feb. 6, 2020 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:36:35
Democrats PANIC As Republicans Launch Formal Investigations Into Biden, Announce MORE To Come

Democrats PANIC As Republicans Launch Formal Investigations Into Biden, Announce MORE To Come. Republicans wasted no time after the acquittal of Donald Trump in the impeachment trial in launching their investigation into Hunter Biden.This comes only a few days after Senator Lindsey Graham announced that FISA abuse, the Ukrainian whistleblower, Burisma, and the Biden family would be facing investigations. The outcome is actually surprising as many thought the Republicans would not seek information as to how these repeated Trump scandals keep emerging. Starting with Russiagate then Ukrainegate it seems like it would not stop.But now the GOP is pushing back against the Democrats and we may actually get to the bottom of how these fake scandals keep getting pushed up.Meanwhile Democrats face another battle as the far left candidates and supporters are seeking to upend the party come the DNC. Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:36:24
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
A couple days ago, Senator Lindsey Graham announced that the Senate will investigate the Ukraine whistleblower, the Bidens and FISA abuse.
And the big news we have right now, the GOP senators waste no time investigating Hunter Biden after impeachment acquittal.
And that is big news.
And we still have more.
The Treasury Department has already complied with a records request from the GOP.
Dare I say, the investigation is underway.
It is moving forward.
And admittedly, I'm kind of impressed.
I didn't think the Republicans would actually do anything.
Many people agreed.
It seems like after all of these scandals from Russia to Ukraine, the Republicans just didn't do anything in response.
And if they don't, it will keep happening.
The argument from the Republicans in the impeachment trial of Trump is basically that he had real probable cause to investigate the Bidens.
But Lindsey Graham and several others said this was not the proper venue, leading people like me and many others to think they just weren't ever going to do anything about it.
I stand corrected.
I was wrong, and I apologize.
They're actually moving forward, and good.
This is not about policy, it's about justice.
Now many of the Democrats want to claim the process was broken, but previously they were arguing the process when it pertained to the House.
I don't care about the political tit-for-tat.
I care about whether or not Joe and Hunter Biden did anything nefarious because there is enough evidence to suggest maybe.
I'm not going to say it definitively, but there's something there, especially with the whistleblower.
So if they're going after Hunter Biden now, it stands to reason Lindsey Graham was telling the truth when he said FISA abuse and the whistleblower on their radar.
There is still a lot more news.
The other big story we have is Bill Barr is changing the rules into how you can actually investigate a presidential candidate.
We'll go through all of that.
I think it's a typically smart move because the complaint is about how Hillary Clinton got damaged in 2016.
Certainly the left won't claim that's bad for them, right?
And the last thing I want to cover today is Nancy Pelosi claimed that Trump would be impeached forever, and Republicans have now announced if they win back the House in November, they will expunge the impeachment of Donald Trump, meaning he will have never really been impeached, sort of.
I know we'll all know it happened, but the records will be expunged.
Dare I say, I think it's going to happen.
The Democrats have handed Trump a massive and major victory with the acquittal, and he is already gloating.
And because of this, they opened the door into the Bidens.
They could have left well enough alone, but they were so desperate.
It just keeps backfiring.
Every single time they try, they just make it worse.
So let's get started on the first story.
But before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's a PayPal option, a crypto option, a physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do, share this video.
A lot of people, echo chambers, you know, they don't want to hear it.
And I say it all the time.
But I think it's really important that people start to look into what's happening with Hunter Biden and where this goes.
Even if you're someone who for some reason likes Hunter Biden, a guy who is getting between $50,000 and $83,000 a month for doing who knows what, it's important you know these things.
Listen, you can hate my guts all day and night, but if you do end up watching this video, at least you'll understand how I think about things.
It's fair, right?
For everybody else, sharing the video just really helps the channel.
Let's read from the Daily Caller.
They report, the Republican chairman of two Senate committees wasted no time after President Donald Trump's impeachment acquittal Wednesday before opening up a new area of inquiry related to Hunter Biden's foreign business activities.
Minutes after the Senate voted to acquit Trump.
Minutes!
Let me repeat that.
Minutes after the Senate voted to acquit Trump.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa and Senate Homeland Security Chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin released a letter they sent to the director of the Secret Service requesting Biden's travel records during the time when his father was vice president.
Quote, We write to request information about whether Hunter Biden used government-sponsored travel to help conduct private business, the Senators wrote to Secret Service Director James M. Murray.
They say they want records indicating whether the younger Biden had Secret Service protective detail while his father Joe Biden was in office.
They also want records of Hunter Biden's travel while he received any protection.
The Republicans focused the inquiry on Hunter Biden's work in China and Ukraine.
They noted that Hunter Biden joined his father on a flight to China on Air Force Two in December 2013 after his firm, Rosemount Seneca, entered a joint venture with China-based Bohai Capital to form BHR.
While in China, Hunter Biden met with Jonathan Lee, the CEO of Bohai Capital.
He also arranged for his father to shake hands with Lee.
After the China trip, BHR's business license was approved, the senators notice in the letter.
So let me just point out conflict of interest.
If Joe Biden was there while he was the vice president, you can see how that is benefiting his son's private business dealings because they have the weight of the United States government behind them, at least implicitly.
Going on, the Daily Caller reports, Republicans have also scrutinized Hunter Biden's business dealings in Ukraine, which factored into the Trump impeachment saga.
Hunter Biden was on the board of Ukrainian energy firm Burisma Holdings at the same time that Joe Biden was in the Obama administration's main liaison to Ukraine following its revolution to overthrow a pro-Russia president.
Trump took an interest in the Biden's relationship to Ukraine after video surfaced from January 2018 of Joe Biden bragging that two years earlier he forced Ukraine's president at the time, Petro Poroshenko, to fire a prosecutor in exchange for receiving $1 billion in U.S.
loan assistance.
Trump's allies have alleged that the fired prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, was removed because he was threatening to investigate Burisma Holdings for corruption.
In a July 25, 2019 phone call, Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate whether Biden intervened to help Burisma.
Democrats allege that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine as a quid pro quo to force open the investigation.
Joe Biden has denied trying to help Burisma, while Trump has denied leveling a quid pro quo.
We know about the impeachment.
Trump was just acquitted.
And before we move on to the big, big breaking news, because there's a lot, I'll tell you what.
Treasury Department sent information on Hunter Biden to expanding GOP Senate inquiry.
Cue the Ron Paul meme.
It's happening.
It's really happening.
But I want to mention one quick point.
Victor Shokin, the fired prosecutor, recently claimed, and he also demanded criminal charges against Biden, that there was an investigation and he was pressured to stop it.
The question I have, because the official account states, there was no investigation technically, it was inactive.
Victor Shokin was fired, apparently for not investigating, but hold on.
The new prosecutor who came in after Joe Biden's quid pro quo cleared Zlochevsky, the founder of Prisma, of wrongdoing, citing a lack of evidence.
If the argument was that there was no investigation when there was, it was just inactive, and the next guy clears him, then at the very least, Joe Biden got an innocent man fired.
At the very worst, he fired a guy who had an existing but inactive investigation into a company his son worked at.
Either way, Joe Biden looks bad.
I think that's more than enough as far as, in my opinion, that we should investigate this.
And look, even if the Democrats wanted to claim they were correct about impeachment, which is now over, Trump won.
At the very worst case, they've just proven he's stupid.
But apparently, there's real reason to think something wrong happened.
Let's read this story from Yahoo News.
They report, the Treasury Department has complied with Republican senators' requests for highly sensitive and closely held financial records about Hunter Biden and his associates, and has turned over evidence of questionable origin to them.
According to a leading Democrat on one of the committees conducting the investigation, this is a leak from Democrats that it's happening, that they sent this evidence to the Republicans.
For months, while the impeachment controversy raged, powerful committee chairmen in the Republic-controlled Senate have been quietly but openly pursuing an inquiry into Hunter Biden's business affairs and Ukrainian officials' alleged interventions in the 2016 elections—the same matters that President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani unsuccessfully tried to coerce.
I'm sorry, the same matters that President Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani unsuccessfully tried to coerce Ukraine's government to investigate.
I'd just like to point out that Donald Trump was acquitted of those charges, Yahoo, and I think you're wrong.
Donald Trump, once again, was acquitted on those charges.
Now, I'll stop to be fair.
A lot of people will say it was, you know, they attacked the process.
Democrats say there were no witnesses.
Let me just stop you right there.
There was no charge, there was no criminal charge for the first time in U.S.
history.
The Democrats refused Republican witnesses, including Hunter Biden and the whistleblower, and a few other people.
Meaning, if you wanted to indict the president, you need reason, a probable cause, and you'll need bipartisan support.
If only the Democrats are allowed to present evidence, you get a one-sided, essentially a grand jury.
Now that's actually how, very often, I think that's actually how grand juries work.
But I'm critical of it for the political process.
I also think the senators should have called witnesses, but so be it.
At least they're now bringing some people in, and we might get justice.
I don't think what Trump did was right on that phone call.
He should have given these tasks to his lieutenants and the people who run the Justice Department.
But it's not impeachable.
Let's read on.
They say, unlike Trump and Giuliani, however, Senators Charles Grassley, Chairman of the Finance Committee, Ron Johnson, Chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, and Lindsey Graham, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, have focused their efforts in Washington seeking to extract politically useful information from agencies of the US government.
They've issued letters requesting records from cabinet departments and agencies, including the State Department, the Treasury, the Justice Department, the FBI, the National Archives, and the Secret Service.
I just gotta stop.
Boy, oh boy, is Yahoo News biased!
Framing this as though they're looking for politically useful information into what?
Joe Biden's in fourth place in Iowa.
You can drop the narrative.
No one believes Joe Biden's the frontrunner.
Buttigieg is winning.
So what are you going to claim?
Trump and his allies are still scared of Joe Biden?
Perhaps they'll say, well, the reason Joe Biden did poorly is because of the investigations, because of the scandal.
How do you keep arguing it?
Why would they keep going after a guy they've already defeated?
Sorry, the reality is, Hunter Biden did shady things.
I mean, the dude's got a long track record of shady things in the press.
So does the Biden family.
Stop trying to push the narrative.
It's over.
Trump was acquitted.
Hunter Biden is questionable.
There is a legitimate reason to track his records.
But to play it like the Republicans are going after politically useful information, try harder, Yahoo News.
They say Grassley and Johnson have sought to obtain some of the most sensitive and closely held documents in all of federal law enforcement.
Highly confidential suspicious activity reports filed by financial institutions with FinCEN, an agency of the Treasury that helps police money laundering.
The Senator's requests to the Treasury have borne fruit, according to the ranking Democratic Senator on the Finance Committee, Ron Wyden of Oregon, who contrasted the cooperation given to the Republican Senators with the pervasive White House-directed stonewall that House Democrats encountered when they subpoenaed documents and witnesses in the impeachment inquiry.
This is a truly remarkable piece of, air quotes, journalism, Yahoo News, but hey, I appreciate it, huh?
The quote says, Applying a blatant double standard, Trump administration agencies like the Treasury Department are rapidly complying with Senate Republicans' requests, no subpoenas necessary, and producing evidence of questionable origin.
Wyden spokesperson Ashley Schapital said in a statement, The administration told House Democrats to go pound sand when their oversight authority was mandatory, while voluntary cooperating with Senate Republican sideshow at lightning speed.
Let me just tell you something very simple.
Donald Trump is the commander-in-chief.
He oversees these departments.
What did you think was going to happen?
He has executive privilege when he wants, and he can instruct his agencies to go after other people when he wants.
If the House Democrats were concerned about obstruction, the Supreme Court was available for restitution.
They opted not to go that route, in which case, That's how it works.
I do not like the idea of political investigations.
What the Democrats did with Russiagate and Ukrainegate.
The FISA abuse.
So I'll tell you what.
You want me to be upset about this?
Actually, yes.
I'll throw a little criticism towards these agencies for just saying it's all good for Trump.
But let me tell you something else.
What do you think happened in 2015 and 2016 with the start of Russiagate?
What do you think happened with the FISA abuse?
It goes both ways.
While I'm no fan of how the political process works in law enforcement, don't be surprised when you push the pendulum in one direction and it swings back with equal force your direction.
Let's read on.
They say, The rapid production of sensitive financial information from the Treasury Department in response to congressional requests is apparently uncommon.
A source familiar with the matter said the Treasury began turning over materials less than two months after Grassley and Johnson wrote to FinCEN on November 15-19 requesting any SARs and related documents filed by financial institutions regarding Hunter Biden, his associates, their business, and clients.
Just a couple of weeks later, Wyden and Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat of Ohio, complained to FinCEN in a letter that information requests from Congress, including legitimate committee oversight requests related to suspicious activity reports, often take months to process.
And we understand that certain such requests have yet to be answered at all.
Senator Wyden's warning was spurred by concern that the agency would prioritize Republican requests over Democratic ones, Chapitol said of the December letter to FinCEN.
Treasury's subsequent actions have made his concerns even more urgent.
With the Senate impeachment trial concluded and the Democratic primaries in full swing, the efforts of the Republican-led investigation may soon appear at the center of the political stage.
The flow of information from the administration to Senate Republicans has prompted concerns among Democrats that any damaging information uncovered may be deployed at a time of maximum political advantage for the Trump campaign.
What do you think the Democrats were doing with Russiagate all throughout the 2016 campaign?
I'm sorry, I have zero sympathy for you at all.
None whatsoever.
But I don't want to make this too long, so I'm going to leave Yahoo News' biased approach and go down to the conclusion of the story.
Suffice it to say, the Yahoo story is biased, but it really does lay out just how serious this is.
Republicans are moving at lightning speed and they're getting the documents they ask for.
Hey, it's like they said about Trump.
If he has nothing to hide, he should have no concern or take no issue with them collecting evidence, right?
No.
It's the same is true for Trump as it's true for everybody else.
You should absolutely be concerned if people jam you up digging into your history because the truth is you can always frame someone and try and, well, jam someone up with something that looks suspicious and make their life miserable.
But the fact remains, most people, I think, agree Hunter Biden should not have taken that job.
It was nepotism.
And there are questions about whether or not Joe Biden flying on Air Force Two with Hunter Biden was a pressure campaign or maybe a quid pro quo with China.
I think it warrants an investigation.
I think we have to investigate all of them, man.
I think senators should have called witnesses in the impeachment trial.
But hey, that's over.
What do you want to do about it?
They end the story mentioning, you know, Chalupa and stuff like that.
They say this.
Grassley and Johnson courted controversy with a letter to the Justice Department seeking to obtain a broad swath of information from Alexander Chalupa, the Democratic Party consultant, who says she voluntarily provided private personal information to the FBI in 2016 when she felt harassed by Russian hacking.
In a January response letter to the Justice Department, Wyden called the request outrageous.
To use Chalupa's voluntary cooperation in order to weaponize her personal information against her in furtherance of a political attack based on unsupported claims and potential Russian propaganda would compromise public trust in our law enforcement, undermine Americans' rights, and damage our national security interests, he wrote.
My oh my, it almost sounds exactly like the Republicans were saying about the Carter-Page FISAs, the investigations into Trump.
Let me play you the world's smallest violin.
You can't spend years going after Trump doing the exact same thing you are now complaining about.
I'm sorry.
You know what, man?
Investigate all of them, as far as I'm concerned.
I have no sympathy for any of these people in office.
But quickly, I just want to highlight this story before I get to Nancy Pelosi's great failure.
From the New York Times, they say investigations into 2020 candidates must be cleared by top Justice Department officials.
The move is intended to help avoid upending the election, as the FBI inadvertently did in 2016, when its campaign inquiries shaped the outcome of the race.
That's the gist of the news you really need about Bill Barr.
I don't really see how the left would get mad about this, considering they claim the FBI's interference cost Hillary Clinton the election, or at least contributed to it.
I would imagine that Bill Barr's actions here would actually be a good thing for everybody.
He needs to be the one who clears investigations into presidential candidates.
Otherwise, you could end up with 2016 all over again, and someone from the FBI comes out, makes one of the Democrats look bad.
Sounds like it makes sense to me.
He's not saying don't do it.
He's just saying we've got to be very, very careful with our elections.
The Democrats have been very concerned about election security.
This sounds like a good thing, right?
We'll see how they respond.
But this brings me to the last little bit of this segment.
On January 15th, Nancy Pelosi gloats.
Trump has been impeached forever, she says.
And just recently, after Donald Trump claims full exoneration, yes, he was acquitted, Pelosi insists he remains impeached forever.
Perhaps this rage in losing the impeachment fight, which is, I mean, honestly, everybody knew she was going to lose.
Perhaps it's why she tore up Donald Trump's speech.
You may have heard, I did a segment earlier, Matt Gaetz claims is a violation of the law.
And I think to the letter of the law, it actually is.
You can't destroy public documents like that.
Perhaps for historical record, even if it was just a copy.
But he also filed an ethics complaint.
Perhaps all of that rage is why she did it.
And she knows the reality is Donald Trump is not impeached forever.
I'm sorry, he's not.
The Republicans have already moved forward.
The story from the New York Post.
Republicans planning to expunge Trump impeachment if they win back the House.
As the Senate is set to vote Wednesday on the removal from office of President Trump, with acquittal all but assured, and now we do know, completed, Republicans are already plotting to expunge his impeachment if they retake the House.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi may have taunted that he's impeached forever, but GOP Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, in line to be Speaker if Republicans gain the majority in the November election, doesn't agree.
This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment in history, McCarthy told the Post on Wednesday.
I don't think it should stay on the books.
If McCarthy does indeed take the gavel from Pelosi in 2021, he will hold immense power to pass legislation, and a vote on expungement almost certainly would yield party-line support.
McCarthy and other Republicans say that investigating how Democrats, led by Pelosi, Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff, and Judiciary Committee Chair Gerald Nadler, pursued the impeachment of Trump could provide the factual basis to underpin an expungement effort.
I think if we take the majority, some of the key priorities for us are infrastructure, lowering prescription drugs and others, but I think when you look at what the Democrats have done, I also think we have to get to the bottom of it.
He's not just talking about expungement.
He seems to be talking about investigations.
And if the Senate is already doing so, dare I say, if Trump supporters really do come out in force and take the House and re-elect Trump in 2020, you will see a wave against the Democrats for all of these scandals.
At first, I didn't want to believe it.
But with Lindsey Graham, Grassley, and, you know, with these investigations actually happening now, I actually think they will.
But there's also another potential.
There's a potential that the Republicans don't come out in droves.
There's a potential that the weak showing in Iowa makes Trump supporters overconfident, and just like Hillary Clinton supporters, they don't come out.
The House is not reclaimed by the Republicans, and the scandals and investigations into Trump never stop.
And there's a slight chance, I would argue, I don't think it's possible, but it's possible Trump loses.
I mean, Moody's Analytics said, with maximum turnout, the Democrats can just squeak by a victory.
So think about that.
Even if Trump wins re-election, if they don't take back the House, it's never going to stop.
And as the Lord of the Rings memes says, well, we've had one impeachment, but what about second impeachment?
And the Democrats have already talked about second impeachment.
Don't be surprised if they launch something similar before the election cycle is over.
Now I will add, when it comes to activist outrage, you will not see people yelling in the streets because Donald Trump was re-elected, technically.
I mean, they will.
I'm not saying they won't.
But you're gonna see massive, massive outrage at the Democratic National Convention if slash when they steal the nomination from Bernie Sanders.
I think that's what, you can count on that one.
Let's read a little bit more.
more. They say there's still an 18th transcript that was never released about
the inspector general. It's interesting to know in there there was 79 page 179
pages. Did Adam Schiff know the whistleblower? Did he meet with the
whistleblower? I think a lot of questions are raised about whether that
individual Adam Schiff was a fact witness. They say Republicans need to
flip 18 seats to retake the house and have the majority needed to passage a
measure along party lines.
With Trump on the ballot in November, they are expecting an enthusiasm boost among voters.
I'm warning the Democrats.
I'll warn the Democrats, man.
The turnout for Iowa's caucuses were not good.
It was moderate turnout.
They needed record turnout to win in November and they have moderate turnout.
This is not good news for them.
Quote, we feel very, very confident that come November voters are going to make the right decision and Speaker Pelosi's term as Speaker of the House will not go beyond this year, said House Republican Conference Chair Rep Liz Cheney.
The notion of expungement is likely to please Trump, who has been stung by being the third president in history to be impeached.
I'm going to leave it there.
We don't need to go on.
You get the point.
But I will, I will add, Trump has used the impeachment to his advantage.
And many people on the left, not the establishment Democrats, know it.
Saying not only did Trump see an acquittal, he's seeing record approval ratings.
He's seeing record donations.
The Democrats handed him everything.
Now he has the stain on his shirt.
He has that stain of being the third president to be impeached.
What do you think's going to happen when he gets re-elected?
Republicans take the House back.
Donald Trump has impeachment expunged, but was still able to fundraise off of it, canvas off of it, and improve his general standing because of it.
He'll have reaped all of the benefits of what we call the Kavanaugh effect, that by going after Trump in this political way, they bolstered his base, and then once his base took the House back, giving him four more years of power and the Republicans, they simply wiped the slate clean, giving Trump a clean victory.
So no, Nancy Pelosi.
It's very likely Donald Trump will not be impeached forever.
In fact, it's very likely you gave him everything he could have wanted, and in a year's time, the impeachment no longer exists.
I'll leave it there.
We'll see where these investigations go, but I gotta say, I'm looking forward to them.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
I seriously hope you already know about what Nancy Pelosi did tearing up Trump's speech because I've made like three videos about it.
No one will shut up about it.
And there's a debate over whether it was right or wrong or good or bad.
Well, you get it.
You know she did it.
And now we're seeing the ramifications.
Rep Matt Gaetz has filed an ethics complaint.
Basically, what Nancy Pelosi did strikes at the heart of tradition and decorum.
And what she did was very inappropriate.
The reason this is dangerous is that when people stop acting in a professional manner,
things start to break down.
We don't want it to escalate from here, where she's basically disrespecting the whole process,
because things can and have been worse.
I certainly don't think it's the worst thing in the world that she did this, but it was
deeply offensive to many people, including Democrats.
You may have seen the video I did yesterday on my main channel, youtube.com slash Timcast.
Democrats are actually quitting the party over this.
They're calling it a c-span, saying I was embarrassed, I will never vote Democrat again.
Yeah, Nancy Pelosi disrespected the House.
And that's an ethics complaint.
But Matt Gaetz, he takes it one step further.
Because perhaps, he says, she broke the law.
I think Matt Gaetz is technically correct.
And as we know, technically correct is the best kind of correct.
The law actually states that anyone who destroys, you know, public records or documents is in violation of the law.
Nancy Pelosi did that.
On TV.
Everybody saw it happen.
In fact, there's a video clip going around where it looks like before Trump finished, she was trying to see if she could rip it.
She, like, pulls the speech down and, you know, tries to tear it a little bit to see if it'll give.
Now, here's the reason why it's technically correct.
I think the spirit of the law was an attempt to stop people from destroying public records in, say, like, I don't know, having a bunch of emails purged from their servers.
We all know how that went.
If someone has information vital to the public interest and they erase it from existence, I think that was the point of the law.
What Nancy Pelosi did, she tore up a copy of a speech everyone already has and still exists today.
It's not like it doesn't exist.
So I don't think that strikes at the spirit of the law.
But Matt Gaetz, as I said, is technically correct, because to the letter of the law, yeah, I think it's fair to say she definitely destroyed public records.
We'll see if a judge actually takes that seriously.
I really, really doubt.
As for the ethics complaint, however...
Yeah, I think that's legitimate.
Absolutely.
Let's read the story.
And then I've got some other updates on what Donald Trump has been doing with his impeachment victory laps.
But let's read.
New York Post says, Republican Matt Gaetz filed an ethics complaint against Nancy Pelosi that said the House Speaker possibly violated numerous House rules and maybe even broke the law.
By tearing up a copy of President Trump's State of the Union speech.
The Florida legislator sent a letter to the House Committee on Ethics requesting they open an investigation and shared the missive on Twitter.
Gates wrote that Speaker Pelosi's gesture was deeply offensive and appears to violate clauses 1 and 2 of House Rules 23, which dictate the House's official code of conduct.
Her behavior does not reflect credibility on the House, nor does it follow the spirit and the letter of the rules of the House.
Gates, in his letter, said Pelosi's unseemly behavior certainly warrants censure.
The lawmaker asked that after conducting the ethics probe, the committee makes referrals to the Department of Justice for further investigation and prosecution.
I don't like these games, man.
I understand that Matt Gaetz has the letter of the law on his side, but come on.
You know, look, Nancy Pelosi is a jerk.
She hurt her own party severely.
I think it's already bad enough, and we don't need to move into this territory simply because she tore up Trump's speech.
Listen, right now you have Democratic voters saying, I will never vote Democrat again.
She hurt herself.
Let her slip on her own banana peel and walk away.
Because if she ends up getting in trouble in terms of like a legal context, it makes the Republicans look petty.
You know, so one of the things they're saying all over Twitter, and it's very annoying for me, is they're like, you're gonna be mad at Nancy Pelosi for tearing up some paper?
Meanwhile, President, you know, Blank Grabber, Pee Grabber if you know, I can't say that on YouTube, technically.
They talk about how bad Trump is.
And I'm like, oh, so that's the morality we're playing with these days.
That just because Trump is bad, it's okay that Nancy Pelosi is bad.
Okay, you're all bad.
Dude, don't excuse anyone's behavior.
I'm allowed to complain about Pelosi the same as I'm allowed to complain about Trump and Andrew Yang.
But this is all we get.
So I'll tell you what.
The ethics violation, yeah, go for it.
She shouldn't be doing this.
Criminal, come on.
Well, let's read.
Pelosi, Gates alleges in the letter, appears to be in violation of a law that prohibits willfully destroying paper or documents filed or deposited in public office.
There is no question that Speaker Pelosi mutilated, obliterated, or destroyed the copy of the president's address provided to her at the beginning of the evening, Gates wrote, quoting language from the law.
After Tuesday night's State of the Union, Pelosi told reporters that she shredded the paper because it was the courteous thing to do.
A point Gates mentions in his letter as evidence to her alleged wrongdoing.
Okay, so let's do this.
This is the actual letter from Gates, and I'm gonna read what the law says.
Now look, maybe it's a good thing that Matt Gates brings this up to a certain degree, in that we'll get some clarity on the law.
You know, Hillary Clinton, what did she destroy?
Like 33,000 emails?
She said that she wiped the servers?
She used BleachBit?
Yeah, that was the destruction of public documents, and no one did anything about that.
I'm not saying that, you know, I'm not gonna start chanting, lock her up, but come on, man.
She destroyed public records and claimed it was about yoga or something.
I don't care what it was about.
If it's public records, it's public records.
There's no excuse there.
Now, what Nancy Pelosi did was a copy of a speech.
It's very different, but let's read anyway.
He writes, furthermore, Speaker Pelosi's appeared to be in violation of 18 U.S.C.
2071, which states, whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or with the intent to do so, takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing filed or deposited with the clerk or officer, Of any court of the United States, or any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years or both.
B. Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
three years or both and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office
under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term office does not include the office
held by any person as a retired officer of the armed forces of the United States. So, you know,
maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the law, I shouldn't be trying to, you know, say what my
interpretation is.
And that's, that's important.
The letter of the law is clear.
I don't think you can actually argue, based on the letter of the law, that Nancy, you'd have to say she did break the law.
It says she was given possession of it, she destroyed it.
It may also be true that there are other reasons why this needed to be kept in public record, because the copies maybe were for the house.
In which case, by destroying it, you could argue, we can't, we have to draw a line somewhere at this kind of behavior.
Did Trump... I know what the left is going to say immediately.
They're going to say that Trump broke the law with the impeachment and all that stuff.
Let me stop you right there.
They never charged Trump with a crime, and yet Chuck Schumer and all of these resistance types keep making the same lie, and it breaks my heart to see how they manipulate people into believing fake BS.
Here's what they say.
If you can't indict the president, like we learned with Russiagate, and then you can't, you know, you can't remove him because no crime is committed, what are we supposed to do?
I guess we have a king.
Let me break this down for you.
Their argument is that When it came to the opinion on sitting presidents not being indicted, that Trump maybe did break the law, but because they can't indict him, how are they supposed to remove him from office?
Because the Republicans are arguing that Donald Trump didn't get charged with any crime.
This is insane, because impeachment is the indictment process.
Please, please stop.
Of course, many of them know what they're doing, and I've seen viral tweets where they're, you know, saying, Republicans think Trump is a king who can't be indicted, and then because he's not indicted, he can't be removed.
No, Trump can't be indicted.
Okay, that's the opinion, you know, that Trump has cited over and over again, you know, and many Republicans have.
But if the House Democrats thought Trump committed a crime, the impeachment is the formal charging of those crimes.
There is a remedy when the president breaks the law.
They're pretending it doesn't exist because they didn't have evidence to actually go up against Trump.
Well, we'll see what happens with Nancy Pelosi, but I must point out there is still a little bit more in the, I guess, gloating section of Trump having won.
First, so again, I don't know what's going to happen.
I don't know if Pelosi should be charged or anything like that.
I think we've got to be very, very careful about how we move forward with this stuff, but the FX complaint, I think, is legitimate.
Bette Midler!
Bette Midler is triggered by Donald Trump's victory lap after having won an impeachment.
Trump was acquitted, alright?
Everybody knows it by now.
The president was found not guilty on both charges, which were not even criminal charges in the first place.
Okay, so Donald Trump posted this tweet.
I'll show you, and then I'll show you what Bette Midler says.
This is a tweet that I believe it's a video made by Carpe Danktum, the master memesmith that most Trump supporters are big fans of, I would assume.
And it's Time Magazine and it says Trump 2028, 2032.
And then, you've probably seen this, it's got 43 million views.
It eventually shows Trump and it's like the gag is that Trump will run forever and he will always be president and it's a silly joke.
It's a meme meant to be funny to trigger these people who think Trump is going to be a king or a dictator.
It's not true.
But when Trump was acquitted and he will not be removed, I guess he thought it would be funny to post this because it's like, ha ha ha, you can't stop me, you know, or whatever.
It's a joke.
Calm down.
Most people don't care.
But of course, Bette Midler with her all caps... She's not a boomer.
She's older than a boomer, but whatever.
I don't even know what generation she is.
But anyway, it's something that older people do that younger people don't for some reason.
You put on caps lock because it's like, for some reason, typing in all caps is supposed to be more I don't know.
Meaningful?
Seriously, lady.
said, he pinned this.
You think this is a joke, don't you?
It's not, he means it.
He will change the rules, and his enablers will let him.
If he wins again, he will rule until he dies, you die or both, then you'll get Ivanka.
Seriously, lady, you need to calm down.
From a distance, it looks like Bette Midler is losing her mind.
I wonder how many of you got that joke.
But there are a lot of people who have fallen into this absolute Trump derangement syndrome world.
I mean, going back to Nancy Pelosi, what was she thinking?
Why did she rip it up?
Now, I'll tell you this.
I mentioned that video that was posted.
She takes the papers off her desk, holds them down, and seems to try and test to see if it can be torn up.
She didn't even know what Trump was going to say.
So all she's proven with this is, it didn't matter what Trump was going to say, she just didn't like the guy.
And is that where we really are?
They're not arguing anything about Trump.
Bette Midler, you're saying nothing, okay?
Look, if Trump tried to become a dictator, yeah, I'd be the first one marching down the street saying, no way.
And so would many conservatives and libertarians and Trump supporters saying, no way.
Now another thing about the Trump video is that it's entirely possible Trump 2024 means Trump Jr.
and so on and Ivanka and then you get Barron eventually.
So it doesn't have to be the, you know, the actual Donald Trump Sr.
as much as I am not a big fan of You know, dynasties.
I didn't want to see, you know, they're talking about Michelle Obama, they're talking about Hillary Clinton, you know, running all stuff.
It's like, dude, I don't want to play those games.
Right?
It's already bad enough that they do these things where, like, Bill Clinton is legally allowed to accept a bunch of money, and then... It's a game where, basically, if you as an individual can't do a certain thing, like raise money because you're running for office, but a family member can, and then the family member can use that money to benefit you, yeah, there's a bunch of loopholes that get around this stuff.
But let me just stop you right here, Bette Midler.
Y'all are crazy, okay?
It's a joke.
It's meant to make you do this.
And she's not the only one saying insane things, thinking the world is ending.
It's truly scary.
There was an article from The Atlantic.
That's out right now, that talks about how Trump's campaign is creating this world of disinformation.
And it was really sad because the story opened with the writer talking about how they started following a lot of these channels that were pro-Trump.
And they started talking about how they were now doubting reality.
Maybe what you really experienced was reality.
They basically said that, you know, the Ukraine scandal, Trump was pushing back saying Ukraine, you know, did these things.
And they were like, I started to question every headline.
And I thought I would be resilient.
I thought my media literacy would protect me.
Let me tell you what that really is.
It's not media literacy.
It's indoctrination.
It's lies and deceit.
Okay?
I use a service called NewsGuard, and I mention this all the time.
I'm not necessarily their biggest fans, because I think they're biased, but that's a good thing.
It's basically an extension that gives you a checkmark or an X if they find a source to be credible or not.
I don't always agree with them.
For instance, they say Project Veritas is not credible, and I think for dubious reasons.
But for the most part, they will give, you know, Fox News and the Daily Caller, as well as BuzzFeed and MSNBC, green checkmarks.
And I think that's fair.
The reason I use it is to check on my own bias.
While I think they're wrong on certain things, I typically, for the most part, only use sources they've certified.
So if you want to say I'm biased, you're allowed to, but I'm only using sources certified by them.
These people, who are looking at Trump thinking that he's, like, he's literally doing nothing, he's just a mafioso who's stealing money from the country, which is just, it's in a fringe perspective, they live in this bubble world, where they don't actually know what's going on, and when they actually, finally open the window to let in other information, they panic and say, I thought I was going to be resilient to this, and they slam the window.
I was in San Bernardino for a protest.
Trump protesters and Trump supporters.
I walked up to the Trump protesters and I asked them, like, you know, can you tell me what, you know, what you're here for and what you're doing, yada, yada, blah, blah, blah.
And immediately one of the organizers said, stop talking to them.
Don't talk to them.
Just start chanting.
It's a big contrast between what the Trump supporters do versus what the anti-fascists and the anti-Trump people do.
The Trump supporters are like, debate me!
And it's actually a meme, where it's like, the right will be like, debate me!
And the left will be like, don't debate anyone, and we don't have to debate you, and I won't talk to you, and we'll just start mindlessly clapping and chanting so we don't get exposed to any other perspectives.
Then, when you have that world, and you're someone like Bette Midler, who lives in this paranoid, delusional reality, and you start seeing Trump make jokes, you're like, it's not a joke!
He means it!
He really does!
Alright, man.
Y'all need to calm down.
I got one more for you.
There's a lot of news today, I gotta admit.
I've already got, like, several stories lined up.
I'll probably get today done and record because so much is going on.
But, uh, Vince Coglianese, who is a host, a Daily Caller editor, posts this, uh, the front page of the New York Post, and I think it's hilarious.
The New York Post says, acquitted president gets last laugh on Pelosi, Trump's turn to rip, and it's a graphic that they made showing Trump ripping the articles of impeachment.
Boy, I feel bad for y'all.
What were they really thinking, right?
The Gravel Institute.
Remember Mike Gravel?
That was great.
I was really bummed because they kicked him from the debate stage, which was BS.
He apparently qualified.
They should have let him on, and they didn't.
So, well, I think it's complicated.
I think he didn't qualify in one aspect, but they were letting some people go on the debate stage, even though they didn't poll or anything like that, and Gravel did.
But the Gravel Institute tweeted.
I don't think this is Mike Gravel anymore.
I think it's the young guys who run it.
Democrats impeached Trump and watched his approval rating reach its highest ever.
Bravo.
And of course he just got acquitted.
Yup.
They can't even effing run the Iowa caucus right and just got caught taking away votes from Bernie.
Why the f are we led by these absolute inept dip s's?
Yep, well, there you go.
Man, I've got so much lined up today because it's nuts.
They're absolutely cheating Bernie Sanders.
They apologized because they accidentally gave some of his delegates away and then claimed Buttigieg was gaining when Buttigieg was not gaining.
Oh man, how could anyone be shocked by this?
And yeah, Trump's approval rating is going up and Trump was acquitted.
It seems like, at a certain point, The Democrats are actually on Trump's side.
I'm being somewhat facetious, but come on.
You know, I was talking about this the other day with a friend.
I said, at a certain point, why would you assume incompetence?
Listen, if it was just random failures, you'd think they'd have a track record of some victories, right?
You know, at least 50%.
That's random chance.
But for some reason, literally everything they do backfires.
Maybe they're actually succeeding, and they want to help Trump.
I know, I know, it's silly.
But it reminds me of George Costanza on Seinfeld.
You ever see that episode where he decides to do everything the opposite of what he would normally do and it works out and he ends up becoming very successful?
That's my advice to Democrats.
Whatever you're about to do, stop and think about the opposite of what that is and then do the opposite.
Because so far, everything you've done has been good for Trump.
But I guess I will wrap it up there.
Stick around.
The next segment will be coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel and I will see you all then.
Depending on who you talk to, they'll tell you something different occurred in Iowa.
Some people are saying, why would Pete Buttigieg cheat in an election to withhold the results, showing he won?
It makes no sense.
Except, the question actually is whether or not he altered the results with this Shadow Incorporated app that made everybody suspicious.
Boy, I've seen a ton of conspiracy theories, and I hate to use that phrase, because I'll put it this way.
How is it that we knew something would happen to stop Bernie?
How is it that we knew, after the results got delayed, it would benefit Pete Buttigieg when he gave that victory speech and people immediately started saying, why is Buttigieg doing a victory speech?
How is it we knew, when the results trickled in, it would disproportionately reduce Sanders' votes?
How did we know all of this?
It's because we are humans and we're good at seeing patterns.
Now, I'm not saying there's a grand conspiracy, but at a certain point, what do you believe?
The extreme coincidence that in this case where they cheated Bernie last time, we just happened to win another lottery with all of these weird circumstances?
I'll tell you what.
I don't know what happened.
But we have reason to believe everything is all messed up.
And I've got some news stories for you.
First of all, the New York Times found over a hundred inconsistencies and errors.
And there was a major error that made it seem like Pete Buttigieg was gaining when he was actually losing to Bernie.
But come on!
The DNC's been cheating.
We know they cheat.
Would they go this far?
Yeah, I'd believe it.
But now there's the big split.
Whose fault is it?
What's really happening?
Well, the DNC, the Democrats, the Iowa Democratic Party, they have a new target as to who to blame.
And guess who they're blaming?
Of course, Trump supporters.
Check out this story from Bloomberg, which is unsourced, from a company owned by one of the candidates in the Democratic race that should have never gone out, saying, Trump fans flooded Iowa caucus hotline, Democrats say.
Do they really now?
Okay, let me tell you something.
I don't know if they did or they didn't.
I don't know why many of them would.
Maybe they did.
But this website, Bloomberg, okay?
You know who it's owned by?
Bloomberg!
He's running!
He's a Democrat.
So I know just because he owns it, it's not the worst thing in the world.
But why would a Democratic candidate's news outlet, who's already said in the past they won't investigate him, then come out with a story blaming Trump supporters for jamming up the hotlines, making it harder for them to get the results?
Well, of course they're going to start blaming Trump supporters.
They don't overtly say Trump supporters caused the jam up or anything like that, but they're laying seeds saying, oh, the hotlines were all messed up and the Democrats couldn't get the results in because Trump supporters were calling in and jamming up the lines.
Except there are many posts from precinct captains in the Iowa caucus saying things like, we submitted our results.
They knew what the results were, but they didn't report it for several days.
Why?
I can't tell you why.
I'll tell you what a lot of the Bernie Sanders supporters are thinking.
This gave Pete Buttigieg several days of victory laps as the frontrunner, and his polls are already improving because people want to vote for the winner.
I'll tell you something else, and we'll read this story next, but let me just say, if every—and shout out to Michael Malice.
This was his tweet, if you guys know who he is.
He tweeted something to the effect of, every poll in Iowa was wrong.
Every single poll.
It's 2016 all over again.
Are any of these media companies going to be held to account for being wrong?
No, but they were wrong.
I'm not... I can't believe Pete Buttigieg is actually winning, because I've called him a grey blob.
What I mean by that is, he's just an amorphous nothing.
I don't know what he represents or what he's for.
He gives generic talking points, and he doesn't have particular star power, but here he is!
Narrowly in first place, but not by the popular vote.
Well, okay, let's see why the Democrats are starting to blame Trump supporters for their mess-up.
I want to stress, they didn't say the entire mess-up was caused by Trump supporters, but I think it's silly that when they're talking about the hotlines being jammed up and it's hard for them to calculate results, they were saying, but Trump supporters are flooding the lines.
And that's what I see people tweeting.
Now they've laid the seed where they have plausible deniability.
Well, we never said it was their fault, but everyone else is saying, aha, this is it.
It was Trump.
Let's read.
Bloomberg, with a conflict of interest, reports.
Supporters of President Donald Trump flooded a hotline used by Iowa precinct chairs to report Democratic caucus results after the telephone number was posted online, worsening delays in the statewide tally, a top state Democrat told party leaders on a conference call Wednesday night.
And without confirmation, Bloomberg says, let's roll with the story.
Here's what you do, Bloomberg.
Check the phone records.
See, who was calling in?
Ask them when it happened, what time, and yeah, it's gonna be really hard work, but you gotta confirm what they're saying is true, because of the conflict of interest here.
Of course the Democrats have a strong political reason to blame Trump's supporters.
So this should not, this story should not be up.
According to two participants on the call, Ken Sager, a state Democratic Central Committee member, was among those answering the hotline on caucus night and said people called in and expressed support for Trump.
The phone number became public after people posted photos of caucus paperwork that included the hotline number one of the people on the call said.
The phone call Wednesday night between the Iowa Democratic Party staff and state central committee, the party's elected governing body, came as the party was still counting results.
Several glitches, including problems with a new phone application that was supposed to quickly send individual caucus results to the state party, plagued Iowa's troubled caucuses.
Causing the outcome to be delayed for days, more than 48 hours, after caucusing began, the party had reported results from 96% of precincts, and the race was too close to call.
Sager, who is also the president of the Iowa AFL-CIO, declined to comment when reached by Bloomberg News.
Troy Price, the chairman of the Iowa Democratic Party, alluded to interference on the conference call, but did not specifically cite Trump supporters.
You see where this is going?
We were dealing with serious, you know, interference, and the other guy says, and Trump supporters kept calling, and then the people go on Twitter and start pushing the narrative.
It's not the Democrats' fault.
It's the Trump supporters' fault.
We didn't cheat, Bernie.
Why would Pete Buttigieg try and jam up his own victory?
Why would Pete Buttigieg give a ton of money to Shadow, Inc., and then that app is being used by the Democrats to calculate results?
That's called a serious conflict of interest.
I've said it before.
I'll say it again.
I am not a big fan of Bernie Orr's policies.
I was in the past.
But if he is the choice of the people, then so be it.
Those are the rules we all play by.
The Democrats apparently don't.
And I know there's a challenge in saying the Democrats, but I typically don't refer to Bernie Sanders when I say the Democrats.
But it's weird because he's running as one.
AOC is one.
Ilhan Omar.
They're Democrats too.
So what do we call them?
I guess the far-left Democrats?
I tend to do that.
But there's a real battle between external forces and the establishment Democratic Party.
And the establishment Democratic Party is Well, I guess maliciously defending itself?
Like, you know, from an invasive force they don't like?
Sorry.
You're the Democratic Party, and if someone runs and it's popular among Democratic voters, that's the way the rules are made.
But here's the advantage of doing this silly, ridiculous caucus system where they flip coins or play rock, paper, scissor to determine who gets votes.
Tiebreakers can disproportionately benefit someone like Buttigieg, who's now ahead by only three state delegate equivalents.
The whole system is so complicated that there's no way to know for sure if Bernie Sanders is being cheated because the process is so ridiculously convoluted.
So I'll tell you what my prediction is.
My prediction is that we're going to have way more problems in many more primaries.
They're going to be a little bit smaller, maybe not this big.
But that's going to give plausible deniability to the establishment to say, oh, we don't know exactly what's happening.
Oh no, we're just bad at what we do.
I'm not saying they're going to cheat overtly, like, you know, heavy-handed manipulation of votes or anything like that.
But they certainly play dirty when it comes to the press and when it comes to their debates.
And that's what I think is absolutely plausible.
The establishment Democrats played dirty in 2016 against Bernie.
Why would they not do the same today?
And who thought Buttigieg would be in first place?
Come on!
They say Sager—oh, we read that already.
The state party declined to comment, but the Trump campaign weighed in.
Don't know anything about that, but maybe Democrats should consider using an app of some kind next time.
Tim Murdaugh, a spokesman for Trump's campaign, wrote in a text message Wednesday night.
Yes, seemingly trolling the Democrats.
We get it.
When the phone application malfunctioned, precinct chairs turned to the telephone hotline to get the results to the Iowa Democratic Party.
Many were placed on long holds and some gave up.
And I stated the other day, how is it that you can just call in and say, here are the results, you don't have any security at all and just make a phone call and claim that's who you are?
That's ridiculous.
Sean Sebastian, the caucus secretary for a precinct in Story County, was on hold at the state party for an hour trying to report results through the hotline because of app problems.
Party officials came on the phone while he was being interviewed by CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who asked Sebastian to report his precinct's results while he was on the air.
He agreed, but by the time he turned back to the state party, officials had hung up on him.
As you know, this has been a challenging few days for our team and our state party.
Media accounts tell part of the story.
Democratic leaders, the party is taking every step to confirm the accuracy of the results.
On Tuesday, he sent an email to the state central committee, outlining the steps the party has taken.
As you know, this has been a challenging few days for our team and our state party.
Media accounts tell part of the story.
Technical issues and new reporting requirements cause delays and confusion.
What received less attention by the media was the deliberative and cross-functional approach
we brought to preparing for and solving these challenges.
The app's troubles started before caucusing began.
On Monday morning, multiple precinct chairs reported difficulties downloading and logging into the app.
Then, once the results came in, the Iowa Democratic Party said there was a coding error.
I don't believe.
So some people think that Buttigieg's, you know, donation to this was, you know, the app was going to manipulate the vote count.
They said there were inconsistencies.
I've seen some conspiracy theories saying that Bernie Sanders had watchers volunteering at every office, and when they saw the results reported were wrong, they immediately, you know, let Bernie know.
Bernie contacted some lawyers, and the lawyers, you know, started wiggling their finger at DNC, who then said, okay, okay, wait, hold on, it must be a coding problem.
I don't know if any of that is true.
And I don't think it needs to be.
There's a much simpler solution.
The app maybe worked, maybe it didn't.
Or it didn't.
But the Democrats absolutely took advantage of, or actually manipulated, the slow roll of results to give Pete Buttigieg more than enough time to do victory laps and claim to be the winner.
I'll tell you this, man.
I was sitting on my couch.
We're watching the primary results.
We just wrapped up one of our podcast shows.
And then all of a sudden Buttigieg gets up and gives a victory speech that was very definitive.
And I thought it was weird.
I'm like, why is Buttigieg claiming he won and that Iowa shocked the nation?
Nobody knows what happened yet.
There were no results.
And Buttigieg was not polling anywhere near first place.
And Buttigieg was right.
It's really weird, isn't it?
So, look, I get it.
They want to, like, slowly start seeding that, you know, Trump supporters were involved.
The story does include the disclaimer that Bloomberg is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.
He is the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent company of Bloomberg News.
But let me just jump over to these results, which make me absolutely laugh.
The Wall Street Journal shows Bernie Sanders in the lead for one reason.
He has the popular vote count by just over a couple thousand.
But Pete Buttigieg has three more delegates.
And you can see it's because Bernie appeals to more urban voters and Buttigieg appeals to more rural voters.
It's kind of like the Electoral College.
Bernie Sanders' progressive camp are very much about getting rid of the Electoral College.
But will the moderate camp back that call from the Democrats?
Because I don't hear them coming out defending the Electoral College.
No, they've all pretty much been on board with, it's unfair that Trump won.
So they want the popular vote.
All right.
Let's see if Sanders is given the win, considering he has the popular vote.
In the end, what did we see?
Well, my theory, okay, if I was to speculate, is not that there's a grand scheme to use an app to change votes.
It seems like a genuine screw-up, but it really does seem like they took advantage of this so that they could make Buttigieg look like the winner because they really don't want Bernie.
Check out this story from the Daily Caller.
Oh, a minor correction.
And yet the correction did.
It changed the narrative from Pete Buttigieg widens his lead to Bernie Sanders shrinks the lead.
Approaching first place.
Check this out.
Daily Caller reports, the Iowa Democratic Party's caucus woes continued Wednesday when the party made a minor correction to an update of its results that inaccurately showed 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Pete Buttigieg increasing his lead over Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
But my oh my, that narrative emerged and what did everyone report?
Buttigieg is expanding his lead over Sanders.
Looks like he's going to take it though.
It is too close to call.
And then, just wait a little bit, let the stories, you know, bounce around, get in people's minds, and then say, actually, Bernie is closing that lead.
The results have already been delayed.
Because of a glitch, we know that.
On Tuesday, IDP released 62% of results showing that Buttigieg maintained a lead in delegate vote share over Sanders.
The former South Bend, Indiana mayor's lead grew slightly Wednesday after IDP had released the results of 75% of precincts.
IDP identified an error in an update released later Wednesday.
Those results, which brought the total precincts reporting to 85%, showed that Buttigieg's lead grew by another 0.7 percentage points.
But IDP appeared to have inaccurately attributed delegates to businessman Tom Steyer and Deval Patrick.
The corrected results showed that Sanders had actually narrowed Buttigieg's lead by 0.4 percentage points.
With 86% of precincts reporting, Buttigieg... Okay, so that's old news and we don't really care about the rest of them.
Apparently something else really funny happened.
I'll just show you the sign.
Sign placed on the Iowa Democratic Party's building voices frustration over caucus results.
It says, attention DNC slash IDP.
Come out from the shadow.
You cannot hide from the truth.
I'm willing to bet that was the far left, you know, Antifa types who support Bernie who put up that sign.
And I'm willing to bet— Here's what I said on Twitter the other day.
In 2021, there will be riots.
The far left will be out in droves with Antifa smashing windows and doing all their crazy things that Antifa loves to do.
They're not going to be doing it because Donald Trump was re-elected, sort of.
They're mostly going to be doing it because Bernie Sanders had the nomination stolen for the second consecutive election.
But let me stop, right?
I'm being somewhat silly.
Here's what's really going to happen.
When the nomination process at the Democratic National Convention is over and Bernie Sanders is robbed once again, that's when we're going to see chaos.
Now Trump will get re-elected and what they'll likely say is this could have been averted if the DNC just let Bernie run.
They claim that the DNC would rather see Trump win than Bernie because at least Trump is still a capitalist.
Let me tell you a story.
Back in 2016, I was at the Republican National Convention.
We thought there was going to be major protests.
There was not.
Not really.
Small handful of people.
Kind of boring.
No one really cared.
A lot of, like, chicken wings, though, at, like, bars, as people drank and celebrated.
I gotta admit, it was kind of corporate and kind of, you know, whatever.
But what happened at the DNC?
Thousands of protesters tried jumping barricades.
Police came out.
It was a huge and massive protest.
You know why?
This is exactly how I see it with the Democrats.
Now, I am no fan of the far-left ideological nonsense, but I did come from a more freedom-minded, left-leaning group of friends, and that's how I grew up.
And so, there's a big conflict now in that, look, man, Trump is not that bad.
These people are nuts.
And Bernie Sanders' base would be wise to actually embrace Trump's calling out of the DNC.
Trump is saying they're cheating Bernie.
Why not say, yes, it's true, and take the support from Trump supporters who are pointing to the Democratic corruption?
Don't ask me why they don't do it, because even the media has been lying about the progressives.
For once, just say, okay, you don't got to like any of these people, but they're right.
And then you have the overwhelming majority of this country pointing to the establishment, saying they are cheating.
They won't do it.
They don't.
So, you know what?
I don't know what else to tell you, man.
We are going to see a lot of rage and anger, but the people who are protesting, they are protesting the Democrats, because the Democrats are the gatekeepers stopping them from getting elected.
The Republicans do what Republicans do, and I get it.
You know, when we had a cohesive left, it was easy to point the finger at the things Republicans were doing we didn't like.
And also, you know, I was very critical of Obama, for sure.
But now you have this left realizing the Republicans are going to do Republican, okay?
They're always going to do that.
That's not the concern of these progressives and far-left activists.
Their concern is whether or not they get a seat at the table at the party that's supposed to represent the working class and their views, which does not.
The establishment is the crony capitalist elite.
It is not the free market, you know, free individual, social justice group of people.
Not that I think AOC and Bernie are good people for the most part.
I think Bernie's been pandering and lying.
I think he's an okay dude.
I'm just, I'm just not into it, okay?
AOC, I think, is celebrity obsessed and narcissistic.
And I can say that, I can say a lot, I say that about Trump, but apparently it's not good enough.
Yeah, they're all the same to me, but I'll tell you this.
The gatekeepers blocking them are the Democrat establishment, which has become the party of the wealthy.
There are going to be massive protests at the DNC, I'd be willing to bet.
I would bet a large sum.
The Democratic National Convention, when they do the nomination process, it's gonna be a huge protest.
And I was there, I was there when Bernie, I was there when Hillary was named, and there were protesters there for Bernie Sanders.
What do you think's gonna happen now, four years later?
Bernie is clearly the frontrunner, raising tons of money, polling really, really well.
They said Biden was the frontrunner?
Biden got fourth place, and they called him the national lead.
If we look at the polls now, looks like it's Bernie.
We'll see what happens with Buttigieg, but I'll tell you this.
Antifa ain't gonna be showing up at the RNC complaining about Donald Trump.
I mean, I don't even know what... They do the Republican National Convention, I guess, right?
Because Trump still is, you know, there still is a caucus, although he's sweeping with like 97 to 100%.
The DNC is going to be nuts.
It is going to be balls-to-the-wall bedlam.
Antifa will be running about, and these are going to be Bernie Sanders people.
I'd make a large bet.
I'd be willing to bet.
Okay, I mean that not literally.
I'm just saying a gentleman's bet that Bernie Sanders is going to get robbed blind by the DNC, and we're watching it in real time, and we all know it.
Now, the establishment, of course, wants to point the finger at Trump supporters.
That's like the key takeaway here.
But what do you think Antifa is going to do?
Do you think they're going to be like, this is Trump's fault?
No.
No, no, no, no, no.
When the establishment comes out and tries pointing the finger at Trump's base so that passive liberals who aren't paying attention get mad and say, orange man bad, or the resistance types shriek, Antifa is going to be saying, no, it's the Democratic establishment that is robbing us and what we want.
Trump is agreeing with you guys, man.
Trump is not the one coming out saying, don't let Bernie run.
No, he's saying the Democrats are stealing it from Bernie.
And we all agree!
So I'll tell you what Antifa, you can despise everything about Trump, you can hate Trump to his core, but you can still agree when he says the Democrats are stealing it from Bernie.
And at least then you'll have that support.
But it doesn't matter if they say it overtly or not, I think they all know it.
They know that they can hate Trump with every ounce of their being, but Trump isn't the one stopping Bernie Sanders from becoming president.
So 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.
Earlier today, we saw a story from Bloomberg where they tried to blame the Iowa caucus disaster partly on Trump supporters who were calling in the hotline that was supposed to be for reporting caucus results and expressing their support for the president, thus clogging up the lines.
Well, NBC News has graduated beyond this, now blaming 4chan.
You know why they love blaming 4chan?
Because they can say anything they want without getting sued.
Look, if I said John Doe did X, then John Doe could be like, I did not, and that's a false statement of fact.
But 4chan is a vague and nebulous non-existent figure, it's just a blah, it's an online forum.
So what they can do is, for one, I'm not going to accuse anybody of anything, but how easy would it be for any one of these journalists to go on 4chan, make a post, screenshot it, and then go, oh look, they did it.
How easy would it be for them to scour any part of the site to find even a tiny sentence, take a screenshot, and say, boom!
There's the proof 4chan done did it.
That's why they love using 4chan.
It's mysterious.
They make it sound crazy like a bunch of hackers.
When in reality, it's anonymous posts.
And often, many of these people probably post there themselves, and then pretend to get outraged.
But let's read this great bit of journalism from NBC News, which probably isn't really confirmed, just like the other story.
Let me tell you something.
They say clog the lines.
Internet trolls deliberately disrupted the Iowa caucus's hotline for reporting results.
Several officials at caucuses attended by NBC News reporters struggled with lengthy hold times that made it impossible for them to report results over the phone.
Welcome to the modern era of journalism.
Where a Democrat can say, my phone's not working, I blame Trump supporters.
And Bloomberg says, you got it.
Where someone on NBC can say, I saw someone post on 4chan, let's do this thing.
And then without confirming anyone actually did anything, they can say, they deliberately did a thing.
Did you prove they did?
Do you have confirmation they did?
Oh, you don't.
Listen, I get it.
It's hard.
How do you confirm an internet troll actually took action?
Well, you can't.
And so what you can say is, they posted about wanting to do this, but still, how do you make the claims that it was deliberate or done without being able to prove it?
Let's read the story.
NBC News reports, the phone number to report Iowa caucus results was posted on a fringe internet message board on Monday night, along with encouragement to clog the lines.
An indication that jammed phone lines that left some caucus managers on hold for hours may have, in part, been due to prank calls.
I'm gonna stop you right there.
I'm not gonna bury the lead for y'all.
At the bottom of the story, guess what they say?
A quote from one of the Democrats says, no, I don't think so, I don't think that played a role, and I wouldn't blame Republicans.
But sure enough, even though they were told that, they still thought, but maybe we should do the story anyway.
Even though the people involved said they don't think that's the case.
Welcome to the world of modern digital journalism.
An Iowa Democratic Party official said the influx of calls to the reporting hotline included supporters of President Trump who called to express their displeasure of the Democratic Party.
The party's official comments were first reported late Wednesday by Bloomberg News.
Users on a politics-focused section of the fringe 4chan message board repeatedly posted the phone number for the Iowa Democratic Party, which was found by a simple Google search, both as screenshots and in plain text alongside instructions.
They have to call in the results now.
Very long hold times being reported.
Phone line being clogged.
One user posted at about 11 p.m.
Eastern Time on Monday.
Three hours after the caucuses began.
Wait.
At 11 p.m.?
The caucuses BEGAN at 11 p.m.?
I think they're wrong there.
Uh oh, how unfortunate it would be for a bunch of mischief makers to start clogging the lines, responded another anonymous user, sarcastically.
Some users chimed in, posting alleged wait times on hold, imploring others to clog the lines and make the call, lads.
Rob Sand, state auditor of Iowa, said he took results calls on Monday night as a volunteer and received an influx of calls that appeared to have been generated by a post on the internet.
A lot of calls came in at a certain point where it was clear somebody had published the hotline number somewhere.
I'm pretty sure Bloomberg said it was like on Twitter or something.
He cautioned that he could not speak for other people who were taking calls and said he did not get any calls that said they were from Trump supporters.
He added that the system prevented people from reporting fake results.
Okay, wait, wait, hold on.
You're saying you don't think this happened?
Why?
What's happening?
It wasn't Trump supporters?
He also said he was able to identify fake calls quickly.
If I picked up the phone and it was clear after the first handful of words that someone was not calling to report results, I just hung up.
Mandy McClura, communications director for the Iowa Democratic Party, confirmed that the hotline received an unusually high volume of inbound phone calls to its caucus hotline, including supporters of President Trump.
The unexplained and at times hostile calls contributed to the delay in the Iowa Democratic Party's collection of results, but in no way affected the integrity of information gathered or the accuracy of data sets reported, McClure said in a statement.
Let me just stop right now.
Let's be real.
Is it possible that people were calling in and making fake calls to this line?
Yeah, of course.
But apparently it was on Google, like anyone could have found it.
So why are they lumping this on to 4chan, making it seem like 4chan's the one who's at fault for this?
I wouldn't be surprised.
It sounds like some kind of prank or mischief they might engage in.
I just think you play a silly game, journalists play a silly game, by framing things in such a way that it makes you think this is definitive when it's not.
They say the unexplained and at times hostile calls contributed to the delay in Iowa Democratic Party's election, but I read that.
The telephone reporting problems added to other issues, notably a smartphone app that did not work.
We know that.
Iowa Democratic Party officials said that party staff members and volunteers flagged and subsequently blocked repeat callers who appeared to be reaching out in an attempt to interfere with their reporting duties.
These included callers who would hang up immediately after being connected and callers who expressed support for Trump It's unclear how many prank calls the party received or how much they contributed to wait times.
Some calls came from Iowans looking to confirm details of their evening's caucus, party officials said.
The party has not responded to requests for information on how many individuals were manning the phone lines on Monday night.
The Trump campaign denied any affiliation with people clogging phone lines on Monday night.
We don't know anything about this, but perhaps Democrats should consider using an app that works.
That's what I read earlier.
It's laughable that they would try to blame Trump for their own incompetence.
Several officials at caucuses attended by NBC news reporters struggled with lengthy hold times that made it impossible for them to report results.
4chan, which hosts an anonymous and often extremist politics board called Poll, whose users have largely supported Trump since 2015, is known for extensive online political trolling and targeted harassment campaigns.
I'm sorry.
I'm not going to blame anyone other than you for not securing your phone lines and not having a better system in place.
Murphy's Law.
What can go wrong will go wrong.
Oh, what is this?
unidentified
Okay.
tim pool
That's literally every forum.
It's Reddit.
It's Twitter.
they go okay on debate nights 4chan users often direct one another to swarm
and manipulate specific online polls that's literally every forum it's reddit
it's Twitter please come on swarms polls on other websites with repeat votes a
practice known as brigading in online communities so let me stop you right
You mean to tell me that there was a public phone number for the Democrats, brigading affects all online communities, and you're for some reason pointing the finger at 4chan?
Was 4chan involved?
If I was going to make a bet, I'd say probably.
But what's really annoying is they use 4chan as a boogeyman.
There are so many other forums that exist.
Reddit, for instance, exists.
Now, if you break the rules, I'll probably ban you.
But there are many other places where a public phone number could turn up.
For one, it doesn't sound like Trump supporters at all.
It sounds like pranksters, and it could have literally come from anywhere.
So, like I said, I'd be willing to make that bet, but my problem here is that I can't stand journalists framing things in such a way.
You want to tell the story?
Fine.
But the caveat should be, in one particular instance, a post was put on 4chan.
Not that 4chan did it.
I do think it's fair to say they literally said internet trolls in the top, but you know the insinuation they're trying to make.
They go on to say users on 4chan are anonymous and usernames are randomly generated with each new thread.
It's so annoying that they want 4chan to be the biggest, baddest, and most powerful entity in the world.
They're going on and on and on and it's like, dude, you don't know.
Okay?
unidentified
Why?
tim pool
You know what?
But they want it.
They really do.
I think people like this love the idea of 4chan being this all-powerful boogeyman because they use it for clicks to make money.
Some users on 4chan pushed back against the users, claiming to spam phone lines on Monday night.
One user said he didn't want other trolls making us the scapegoat for the DNC.
There you go.
That's exactly it.
Because now, as the Democrats are fighting, they're trying to pass the buck off onto 4chan, which is why I don't believe it.
Certainly some people may have, but look what they're already doing.
I can't wait for the news headlines saying nefarious trolls ruined the caucus, another added.
Well, here we are, aren't we?
Two precinct chairs said they were unaware of any interference with the hotline and doubted it made much of an impact.
I wouldn't blame the Republicans, said Tom Courtney, co-chair of Des Moines County Democratic Party and a precinct chair.
I'd love to blame the Republicans and the Trumpers, but I don't know.
Yeah, they'd love to, but you can't!
Mike Carberry, chair of a precinct in Iowa City, also said he doubted prank calls were the primary reason for long wait times.
I'm sure that they got some calls, but those could be sorted through relatively quickly.
Another Hotline staffer who asked to remain anonymous said they were aware of the prank calls, but that they were not the main reason that results were delayed.
It was definitely a problem, but it was definitely not the reason the results were a mess.
And that's what you get at the end of the story!
I cannot stand these journalists!
They intentionally mislead you all throughout the beginning and save for the end, but many of the chairs actually think it didn't play a role, and we don't know it was them, and welcome to modern, air quote, journalism.
Look, man, I don't know.
Internet trolls do a lot of things.
But look at the game they try and play.
It's just nonsense.
I got a big story on nonsense for you coming up.
The Democrats won a do-over because Buttigieg is losing.
Great.
Let's see what happens.
Stick around.
That segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Well, by now most of you know about the chaos at the caucus in Iowa where vote results didn't come in and the app broke and the phone lines weren't working.
And many people on the left, mostly the Bernie Sanders supporters, are accusing the DNC and notably Pete Buttigieg of being cheaters.
Now, here's where the story starts getting funny.
You see, while the results were trickling in, Buttigieg was doing victory laps, because he was in the lead the whole time.
He gave a weird victory speech when no one had any results, so a lot of people were like, I think this dude's cheating, because he apparently gave a bunch of money to Shadow Inc.
What a name, right?
Here's where it gets funny.
As Buttigieg was lauding his great accomplishment and doing his victory laps, he had no problems with what was going on.
Up until Bernie Sanders started getting close to taking the lead.
All of a sudden, then, Buttigieg got angry and said, Hey, you're awarding delegates wrong!
This is unfair!
Harumph, I say!
Well, most of us predicted, or I should say many of us predicted, those of us who don't trust the Democrats, that whatever happened would disproportionately affect Bernie Sanders.
And that, sure enough, the DNC, the cheaters, are calling for a re-canvas because apparently the caucus was botched.
I'll tell you what, man.
A lot of people think there was this grand conspiracy.
I'm not, I'm never a big fan of those things because it implies competence.
Like, think about it.
If Pete Buttigieg was gonna orchestrate this great thing, it implies they knew what they were doing and they had a plan.
I really don't think so.
I think it's fair to say that maybe it's evidence they tried something and everything got messed up, that's why we have this big delay.
Well, I'll tell you what.
If I was actually going to choose which conspiracy, I don't think it was about an app to give Buttigieg the win.
I think it's about making the crisis so they can re-canvas and, you know, never actually concede or have a contested convention.
Although I don't really think that's the case.
I think they're all just whiny losers, and they have no idea what they're doing, and the whole process is screwed up.
People were flipping coins.
Look, man.
There was a funny post I saw, and they said, what do you think is more likely?
The Democrats are, you know, masterminds with this nefarious plot, or that old people don't know how to use smartphones?
And I laughed at that because that's probably the case.
Did you watch the videos from the caucuses?
Stop assuming these people are competent and are part of this grand scheme to manipulate, to keep out, you know, to make sure Buttigieg wins.
While I certainly think there is cheating, it's not at this level.
The cheating is more overt, like, we demand a recount!
That's the cheating.
The cheating is, Bloomberg should be allowed to debate, even though the other people weren't.
That's the cheating.
It's not this big scheme with shadow ink.
I agree, it looks stupid.
But the reality is, they have no idea what they're doing.
And now that Buttigieg may be losing, now they're gonna cheat for him and give him his re-canvas.
And then what's gonna happen is because of the chaos and the re-canvas, later on when they go to the Democratic National Convention, they can be like, well, because of all the problems we had with the past primaries, we're gonna have a contested convention and everyone can vote for whoever they want, and then guess what happens?
Buttigieg wins.
But we'll see.
We'll see.
I always just think, you know, Hanlon's Razor.
Incompetence is more likely than malice.
Sometimes it's both.
Sometimes they take advantage of their incompetence, and then the malice comes.
Like this.
Let's read.
DNC chairs.
DNC chair calls for immediate re-canvas of Iowa after botched caucus.
Enough is enough.
Ah, what's that?
Once Bernie Sanders started winning, we must recount!
Ah, okay.
Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez called on Thursday for an immediate re-canvas of Iowa as concerns mounted about the integrity of the results from Monday's first-in-the-nation nominating contest in the state.
Enough is enough, Perez wrote in a Twitter post, in light of the problems that have emerged in the implementation of the delegate selection plan, and in order to assure Public confidence in the results?
I am calling on the Iowa Democratic Party to immediately begin a re-canvas.
If they were cheating, wouldn't they just cheat?
No, this is their cheating.
This is their desperate attempt.
I don't think they're smart enough to create an app that can actually manipulate all these votes and stop someone like Bernie Sanders.
And what you got to understand, all of the candidates, like most of them, they have volunteers who watch and write down the results in each place and report to the parties.
I'm sorry, not to the candidates, not to the parties.
So Bernie had his internal numbers.
Buttigieg had internal numbers.
What's really happening is that as soon as Buttigieg starts losing, they could have cheated.
They could have changed the results for him.
No!
They're just pulling strings so that they get a re-canvas, and they're going to push it as hard as they can until they get the results they want.
Perez's tweets came hours after the New York Times said that its analysis of the Iowa results revealed inconsistencies in data for more than 100 precincts.
In a follow-up tweet, Perez said, a re-canvas is a review of the worksheets from each caucus site to ensure accuracy.
Now I'll tell you what's going to happen.
At the time of reporting, all of the individual people had the sheets, right?
What happens now if the DNC comes in and says, give us all of your results and they take the sheets?
Now who can tell them they're wrong?
Daniel Wessel, spokesperson for the DNC, referred CNBC to the Iowa Democratic Party's manual, which defines a recanvass as a hand audit of caucus math worksheets and reporting forms to ensure that they were tallied and reported in the telephone intake sheets and caucus reporting application correctly.
The Iowa Democratic Party appeared to rebuff Perez's demand and said in a statement that it is prepared to conduct a recanvass if it is requested by a presidential candidate.
Perez's tweet is sure to inject even more uncertainty into a process that has threatened to upend the public trust in the results from the Iowa caucuses, which historically have shaped the narrative of Democratic presidential primaries.
Monday's caucuses have been plagued with problems, including the failure of an app that was supposed to be used.
Okay, we know about the app, okay?
As of Thursday morning, the party released data from 97% of precincts that showed former South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Senator Bernie Sanders vying for the lead.
But the precinct-level data has come under scrutiny from journalists and public observers, raising questions about the integrity of the election results.
There is no evidence that the errors were intentional or designed to favor any candidate in particular.
Former Vice President Joe Biden, who according to the data lags the two frontrunners as well as Warren, called his performance a gut punch on Wednesday, but vowed to press on.
Biden is holding onto a lead in national polling and is expected to perform well in South Carolina, the fourth state to host an early nominating contest, which is a large minority of black voters.
Republicans, including President Donald Trump, have celebrated the unfolding drama.
When will the Democrats start blaming Russia, Russia, Russia instead of their own incompetence for the voting disaster that just happened in the great state of Iowa?
Trump wrote Tuesday in a post on Twitter.
Meanwhile, the debacle has reignited criticism of Iowa's outsized role in the nominating process.
The news conference on Tuesday, IDP Chairman Troy Price brushed off those concerns as a conversation that happens every four years.
If it happens every four years, perhaps you should do something about it.
How about that?
And said his focus was on making sure that the results of the caucuses got out.
He said the party was taking a number of steps to verify the results were accurate.
We're going to continue to go through our processes, verifying everything, Price said.
But the thing to remember here, folks, is that we have a paper trail.
We have always said that all along, that throughout this process, we have backups to the system, that we have redundancies built in.
And you know what the big problem is?
When those documents were created, tallying votes and delegates, the delegates were standing there.
Many people were sitting under the sign in the gymnasium.
Now they're going to get all those papers so the delegates are all gone.
And they're going to be like, hey, this one says Bernie Sanders had 101 and Booty Jet had 66.
That's actually incorrect.
Based on the math they did, Bernie only had 90.
You see what they can do now?
Now they can go in and say, look at these inaccuracies we found, and the delegates are all gone.
This is their opportunity to actually, you know, screw around.
So I'll give you some advice.
My advice to, like, the Bernie Sanders people or otherwise, you better watch what they do.
Whatever.
Yang's people, you know, Bernie's people, Tulsi's people, whoever's people are there.
Hey, Biden's people.
You don't want to lose, right?
Make sure, because I'll tell you what, their preferred candidate is going to get treatment.
Here's the thing.
It's not always about an overt conspiracy.
It's about bias.
We are dealing with a party, their internal election process, but they are not all unified on which candidate they want.
There was a viral video of a woman criticizing Pete Buttigieg's, you know, homosexual marriage.
So we know for a fact there are some stark contrasts between the people who are voting and, you know, with the people who are voting, right?
Some voters agree, some don't.
Some are religious, some aren't.
You're gonna get some precinct captain who's gonna be, like, filling out a form, and they're gonna have an inherent bias towards someone, whether it's intentional or not.
That's what you need to watch out for.
Maybe a mistake will happen.
That's what you need to watch out for.
But I do have some funny tweets.
Pete Buttigieg apparently said something.
His campaign had a call with the Iowa Democratic Party and raised concerns about how the party was allocating state delegate equivalents from satellite caucuses.
Campaign believes the party has not followed the rules set out by the delegate selection plan and Bernie got more delegates.
Kyle Kalinske said, 5,876 problems with you leading.
Crickets, you start losing, I'd like to talk to the manager.
I love that, absolutely.
Pete Buttigieg did not care until it came down to him losing.
But Matt Gaetz, I like this one from Matt Gaetz, Bernie probably won Iowa.
Republicans have no problem telling the truth over the primary because they have no skin in the game.
Their guy's already in the White House, they're waiting for that sweet re-election.
So when they point from the other side of the Democrats and tell you straight up, hey man, it looks like they're cheating, I think it's at least a more objective view, right?
Gates said Bernie probably won Iowa, so the Democrats are demanding a redo.
No surprise, their impeachment sham was basically an attempt to undo the 2016 election.
And that's a great take as I wrap this up.
They will not accept the results of 2016.
They won't even accept the results of Iowa.
What do you think comes next?
It's gonna be a heck of a rollercoaster ride with whining, whinging, and complaining, and scandals, and botched primaries.
This one's gonna be fun.
Stick around, I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
We have almost come full circle in this glorious culture war.
You see, They talk about the horseshoe theory, right?
Where if you go too far left, you start getting too close to the far right?
Perhaps it's not even a horseshoe, perhaps just like a teardrop shape, or perhaps it's like some kind of interdimensional... Anyway, let me stop.
Barnes and Noble got woke.
But apparently they got too woke, and they got so woke, the woke got mad.
They went all the way around and outlapped the woke, and the woke demanded they take down these books that were supposed to celebrate Black History Month.
We are actually witnessing a get woke, get canceled moment.
Now, I could say get woke, go broke, right?
But typically, when you get woke, the cancel culture people, that's what they want.
No, not now.
Now we've reached the apex, that there is no wokeness anymore.
I've talked about how you don't even, like, there have been instances where everything you do is offensive.
We're here, we're here, baby, this is it.
Barnes & Noble pulls diverse editions of classic novels for Black History Month because they got too woke.
Barnes & Noble suspended its plan to release diverse editions of classic novels for Black History Month after getting slammed on Twitter for literary blackface.
Stop listening to Twitter!
They make up 2% of this country, you lunatics!
Not just that, of those 2%, not even all of them are woke!
What are you doing?
You're overreacting, you crazy people!
The partnership between the company's massive Fifth Avenue store and publisher Penguin Random House featured new jackets for dozens of classic novels showing characters from books including Romeo and Juliet, Moby Dick, and Peter Pan as people of color.
But the bookseller canned the scheme after Twitter users railed against the plan.
Another version of literary blackface.
Let me ask you a question.
How come when they, you know, gender swap or race swap characters, they don't call it that?
How come when you get a character that's supposed to be, like, an Asian... Actually, no, they did do this.
This is funny, with Dr. Strange.
They didn't want to do the Asian stereotype for the ancient one, so they brought in Tilda Swinton, who's a white woman, and they said it was whitewashing.
Guess what?
If they did the Asian ancient one, they would say it's an old stereotype.
There's no winning!
Congratulations!
We've come full circle.
They made woke books, and the woke got mad.
If they take a character and make it a person of color, no one's gonna call it blackface.
When they do it with a book, they call it literary blackface.
What do you want?
Literally, what do you want?
You call the books white supremacy, so they try making them more diverse and you get mad about it.
Here's one tweet, that's what we read.
So they're not retellings by POC and their hashtag ownvoices, they're just new covers?
One Twitter user said.
So instead of paying POC to write new fresh stories, they're hornswoggling people into paying for the same old stories with covers that are heavily stereotyped and have nothing to do with the content?
Man, I've been saying that the whole time.
Why are you giving us hand-me-down characters?
You get these gender swap characters they do in movies and TV shows, comic books and games, and the racial swap stuff, and people complain about it.
And then the woke are like, you're just a bigot.
My question's always been, why not just make a new character?
Why did Iron Man have to become a black teenager?
Why couldn't they make a new superhero?
Man, Static Shock is one of my favorite superheroes.
You need to take an existing hero and just change the race.
You give a new hero.
And yes, in their own voice, I agree with that.
But the problem is, the outrage, in my opinion, is fake.
I wouldn't call for these books to be cancelled.
I don't care.
They get mad at everything.
But let me tell you what the reality is.
It's not just that one person will get mad at everything.
They do.
The priests of this insane cult ideology often get mad at literally everything.
But it's because there is no distinct rule set.
Out of a hundred people, one of them will get mad at this, one of them will get mad if they didn't do it.
So if they didn't do the diverse books for, you know, Black History Month, you'd get the one person saying they don't care about diversity.
If they do it, a different person says they're making literary blackface.
This is why I say stop following Twitter.
You can't please everyone.
Now, how many people are going to get mad they're pulling the books?
How many people are going to go, you're actually going to get rid of these diverse books?
Oh, you bigots.
They're going to accuse the people on Twitter of being secret alt-right.
Because there's no way to please everybody.
There's no set ideology.
And so long as these big businesses bend over backwards for this sheer insanity, this will keep happening.
But you know, I will say, I'm really, I'm actually happy about this.
You know why?
The crazier it gets, the closer we are to the collapse.
Please get crazier.
Please cancel the most absurd things.
Oh, what's that?
Barnes & Noble.
Barnes & Noble made some books for Black History Month that celebrate people of color and you got it cancelled?
Thank you.
Keep doing it because all you're doing is self-sabotaging.
In a statement announcing the suspension Wednesday, the company acknowledged that merely slapping a new cover on the same old tomes is not the same as releasing books about or by writers of color.
We acknowledge.
The voices have expressed concern, Barnes and Noble said in a tweeted statement.
The covers are not a substitute for black voices or writers of color whose work and voices deserve to be heard.
The covers, the retail juggernaut had been planning included Alice in Wonderland, The Count of Monte Crisco, uh, yeah, there's a bunch.
Frankenstein, Moby Dick, Three Musketeers, Treasure Island, Wizard of Oz.
We spent centuries without autonomy over our own bodies.
I could see an amazing, deeply horrific Frankenstein adaptation taking place in the mid-19th century in the American South.
But this?
This ain't it.
There is no solution, I'm sorry.
There's just not one.
Because these people don't want to celebrate American culture because of the racial divide.
This woke ideology sees American culture as white supremacy, and they don't see it as a shared culture.
For me, I see American culture as American, and I see a country that was made mostly by Europeans, who enacted liberty-loving laws, which eventually created some of the best civil rights laws in the world, now allowing people of any race, creed, color, whatever, to partake in our culture.
And I'm proof of it.
That's why I love this country.
I know about the struggles that existed for my family, and the miscegenation laws, and how far we've come.
And guess what?
It wasn't like white people hundreds of years ago were trying to destroy the world.
In fact, they were trying to fix it.
And though they had serious problems back then, we gradually learned to solve those problems.
And though there were a lot of bad things done, there were a lot of good things done as well.
Notably, the literature, the art, and the stories.
And while many of these stories came from the perspective of colonists and settlers who happened to be white, they are now saying this story could be for anyone.
Just because there aren't new stories doesn't mean that the old stories should be completely erased.
And I don't think it's a bad thing that they're saying you, of any race, can also be the characters from the story because we're all American.
I'll tell you what, though.
It is kind of disheartening to see that even honest attempts fail.
But I'll tell you what.
It's not just, you know, getting too woke.
It's also get woke, go broke.
They tried to make this narrative, they tried to play into this culture, and they got eaten alive because of it.
So this is what you get.
When you try to play these games, this is what you get.
Wizard of Oz, black girl having sneakers instead of shoes as well, one user wrote.
Not like I give a D, but this is all so dumb and tokenizing.
Wait, I thought we already had a black version of the Wizard of Oz called The Wiz, another user wrote.
Then why are you so mad?
All right, but BuzzFeed went all in and brought us all of the sweet, sweet, glorious tweets.
Here's one.
Um, just promote diverse authors in your stories.
Promote diverse authors and stop perpetuating the idea that these classics are necessary and required towards becoming well-read.
Giving Dorothy Ruby Jordans does not change the words inside the book.
I actually respect these arguments 100%.
Stop just remaking things!
I don't understand why you have to go back to old IP and just start dismantling it and changing the characters, because nobody asked for that.
authors and writers, comic book makers, video game promoters, or whatever, of color.
I don't understand why you have to go back to old IP and just start dismantling it and
changing the characters, because nobody asked for that. But here's what I will say.
As much as I can respect these arguments, I just don't believe they're genuine.
I really, really don't believe that moving forward in the future, there is anything you will actually be able to do to appease the woke crowd.
Because like I said, there is no set plan or rules.
I have no idea what I or anyone would have to do to actually pull off making something diverse.
Look, these book covers, I really do think it was a cash grab.
They think that because it's the mainstream culture and this is where marketing and whatever is, they can just do these things and it will work.
Well, you should have known better.
There's quite literally nothing you can do.
Nothing.
Did I ever tell you, you guys ever see the video I did about Wimixin?
There was some organization that created, they used the word W-O-M-X-N, Wimixin, because it was supposed to be inclusive, and they got backlash for that.
Then other people claimed, no, the word woman, the regular word with an E or an A, was offensive because it didn't include people who were, you know, not assigned female at birth or whatever.
I'm sorry, man.
There's just no answer.
And this is another really good example.
The funny thing about it is that all of these people are acting like they're doing the right thing.
But what is the right thing?
They're all like BuzzFeed and these lefties, they're all like, this is what Barnes & Noble gets for trying to, you know, rainbow wash or whatever it's called.
Color wash or something.
Then there's no answer for anybody, and your ideology has no plan, but that's the point, I guess.
It's an ideology, it's like a cult.
They don't want you to be right, they want you just to bow.
Bow to them and get permission first.
They tried to make diverse books.
It was offensive.
So what are you going to do about it?
Well, you're going to go and ask permission, right?
Yeah.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 10 a.m.
Export Selection