Democratic Party Is COLLAPSING, Chaos Erupts As Voters Quit, Turnout TANKS, And DNC CHEATS Bernie
Democratic Party Is COLLAPSING, Chaos Erupts As Voters Quit, Turnout TANKS, And DNC CHEATS Bernie. James Carville appeared on MSNBC and in a now viral clip claims the Democrats are out of their minds, candidates are campaigning on fringe issues, and Trump's approval is higher than its ever been.Panic erupted within the party due to low voter turnout and the only response Bernie Sanders gave as to why he should be chosen as the nominee is that he can drive voter turnout.If that were true why did so few come to caucus for Bernie in Iowa? Bernie Sanders did win the popular vote count but total turnout was still low. If Bernie could attract new voters where were they?But the issue isn't just the failures of the Democrats but also that they are being accused by progressives and the far left of cheating Bernie to boost Buttigieg. Several Democratic precinct captains are complaining that the results posted by the IDP/DNC are just wrong. yet even with this Bernie won't call for a recount.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Recently, in an appearance on MSNBC, longtime Democratic strategist James Carville was talking with the Democratic Party and said, we're losing our minds, in reference to the leftward lurch of their party, fringe issues being campaigned on that Americans don't care about, and the fact that in the Iowa caucus they couldn't even count votes.
Yet in an interview, he then goes on to blame Russia for propping up Jill Stein and the New York Times for writing about Hillary's emails.
And I can only conclude one thing.
The Democratic Party is in complete freefall, and it is breaking apart before our eyes.
Right now, Bernie Sanders leads the popular vote in Iowa, but is losing the delegate count to Buttigieg.
Some people are calling for a recount, Bernie saying, no, everything is in complete chaos.
Yet on the Republican side, Trump just won the impeachment trial.
Trump just won his emoluments case.
He just keeps winning.
I don't know how else to frame this, because I'm looking back at my YouTube channel, seeing all of these stories about Democrats, and I'm getting frustrated.
How many times am I going to talk about the Democrats panicking or freaking out?
But the reality is, they just keep losing.
They're losing their own election because they can't count votes.
But they're also facing a major civil war inside their own party with the far left like Bernie Sanders, the establishment candidates like Biden and Buttigieg, and they have no idea how to deal with it.
Now the progressive sect of the party is literally accusing the Democrats of cheating overtly, full-on conspiracy theory.
I don't know what to tell you, man, but I'm sitting back watching everything go down the drain.
And when I saw this story from James Carville, I'm sitting here thinking, am I really going to make another video about Democrats losing their minds?
I don't know what else to tell you.
What's the other news of the day?
I mean, this is it.
Trump just won the emoluments case.
That's the other big news, but that's part of this.
That's a part of the fact the Democratic Party can't do anything right now.
James Carville even mentions Trump's approval rating is basically higher than it's ever been.
What else is left?
They are fractured down the middle.
They are fighting each other, accusing each other.
They can't count votes.
They are campaigning in foreign countries.
It is over.
I do not see how they recover from this.
Now, keep in mind, if you're a Trump supporter, hubris is what cost Hillary the election in 2016.
And maybe this chaos is just a smokescreen to lull Trump and his supporters into a false sense of security so they swoop down at the last minute and win that 2020 election.
I just really don't think so, man.
Come on, it is complete chaos.
I don't know how else to cover these stories without pointing out that it is the Democrats in complete freakout.
Trump's holding up the newspaper saying Trump acquitted, laughing the whole time.
What are we supposed to talk about other than this?
I just don't know.
Well, let's get started and I will read you the story where James Carville is basically freaking out the worst I have ever seen a Democrat freak out over the panic when they realize voters aren't turning out for them.
Seriously, the Democrats are not seeing a good voter turnout.
It is over!
Man, I don't know what to tell you.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
Perhaps many people just don't want to accept it, but at this point, I don't care.
As I just mentioned earlier, you know, I'm looking back at the past several videos, and this month, it is increasingly just about the Democrats failing and freaking out.
And I kind of felt like maybe I'm going too hard on bringing these stories up or talking about them panicking, but they literally are!
This is panic, okay?
Look at this story.
We are losing our minds.
I'm cutting out the light.
Believe it or not, YouTube considers saying the D word.
I'm sorry, I can't say it.
They consider that a slur or a swear.
James Carville unloads on the Democratic Party.
What else do you call it when a longtime strategist is freaking out that they're gonna lose, they can't beat Trump, and they're all going nuts other than panicking?
I don't know what to tell you.
Check this out.
James Carville is scared to death of the November 2020 election.
In a rant on MSNBC that went viral on Tuesday evening, the longtime Democratic strategist vented his concerns at the party's prospects for beating Donald Trump, taking particular aim at the party's leftward lurch.
Quote, 18% of the population controls 52 Senate seats, Carville said.
We've got to be a majoritarian party.
The urban core is not going to get it done.
What we need is power.
Do you understand?
That's what this is about.
His diatribe took place against the backdrop of an Iowa caucus that had fallen into chaos and amid a rancorous ongoing debate among Democrats over the party's direction.
He took particular aim at Bernie Sanders, whom he fears could lead the party to defeat in November.
Carville's lament distills a concern among the Democratic Party's establishment.
Will ideological purity and playing to the base cost the Democrats victory in November?
For Carville at least, we have one moral imperative and that's to beat Donald Trump.
That his comments went viral speaks to the sense of urgency among Democrats, even as it only fuels the debate over the direction of the party.
I spoke with Carville this week by phone.
We discussed where he, this is, I'm quoting Sean Illing of Vox right here, who says he spoke with Carville, and discussed where he thinks the Democrats went wrong, what it will take to build a majoritarian party in this climate, and why he doesn't have a lot of confidence in the current field of candidates.
A lightly edited transcript of the conversation as follows.
Carville is asked, why are you scared?
And he said, look, the turnout in the Iowa caucus was below what we expected, what we wanted.
Trump's approval rating is probably as high as it's been.
This is very bad.
And now it appears the party can't even count votes.
What am I supposed to think?
I'll just say it this way.
The fate of the world depends on the Democrats getting their ass together and winning in November.
We have to beat Trump.
And so far, I don't like what I see, and a lot of people I talk to feel the same way.
Yes, James Carville is right.
I have seen the exact same thing, but I will tell you this.
It is only among those Democratic voters who are plugged in and paying attention where the real freakout occurs.
What I end up seeing from regular Americans is no concern at all.
Nobody, no regular person I've met is actually concerned the world is going to end because of Donald Trump or that there's a moral imperative to beat him.
They don't know what's going on.
They don't even know who Kavanaugh is.
They're working.
And when I ask them, what do they say?
Hey man, I made a ton of money last year.
Things are going great.
Don't rock the boat.
So who are they going to vote for?
Listen, even among many independents who are paying attention, they're looking at Trump as kind of a jerk.
But one who makes the country's economy function well, especially for them.
And they look at the Democrats and what do they see?
Civil war.
The progressives and the moderates are feuding nonstop, accusing each other of all this, you know, whatever.
Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat, says James Carville.
He says whatever you want to think of him, he's not a Democrat, he's an ideologue.
That's actually a quote from this interview.
The moderates appear to be cheating.
Look, they're cheating in the sense that they're changing the rules for Mike Bloomberg, desperate to get someone who can beat Trump.
But they're actually being accused by Bernie Sanders supporters of manipulating vote counts.
I kid you not.
Now, I'll tell you this.
I recently got a text message from the Yang campaign asking me to help, you know, help in any way, right?
I don't want to be too specific, but they do the campaign email saying, okay, we count on you for Yang.
I donated to Andrew Yang because I really do like the guy, but at this point I'm out.
I am completely out.
I will not do campaigning.
I will not vote in the primary.
I am so over it.
There is nothing but chaos and insanity in the Democratic Party, and I don't see any reason in participating in their corrupt and broken system.
Worst case scenario, they really are rigging the primary to get Boo to judge the win.
Best case scenario, they are so incompetent, they can't count votes.
Why would I give them a vote of confidence by participating?
I won't do it.
Well, James Carville is freaking out.
But he brings up 2018 and he says, in 2018 we did great.
We talked about everything we needed to talk about and we won.
And now it's like we're losing our minds.
Someone's got to step their game up here.
In 2018, Democrats recruited really strong candidates, really qualified candidates.
And the party said, this is what we're going to talk about, and we're going to keep talking about it.
And you know what happened?
We effing won.
We didn't get distracted.
We didn't get deflected.
Now, he goes on to say, we have candidates on the debate stage talking about open borders and decriminalizing illegal immigration.
They're talking about doing away with nuclear energy and fracking.
You've got Bernie Sanders talking about letting criminals vote from jail cells.
It doesn't matter what you think about any of that or if there are good arguments.
Talking about that is not how you win a national election.
It's not how you become a majoritarian party.
For F's sake, we've got Trump at Davos talking about cutting Medicare, and no one in the party has the sense to plaster a picture of him up there, sucking on the global elites, talking about cutting taxes for them, while he's talking about cutting Medicare back home.
Jesus, this is so obvious and so easy, and I don't see any of the candidates taking advantage of it.
The Republicans have destroyed their party and turned it into a personality cult.
But if anyone thinks they can't win, they're out of their minds.
Now, Carville is freaking out, but he's right.
He's right about one thing.
Trump has done a lot of things they could easily campaign on.
Trump talking about cutting Medicare?
Sure, whatever.
The Democrats could easily focus on message.
What will they deliver?
But they don't.
Nancy Pelosi gets up and just gets all angry and tears up Donald Trump's speech because she couldn't think for two seconds about what they need to do to convince Americans they're the right choice.
All they've been saying since they got elected in 2016 is orange man bad.
I'm sorry that's not a campaign position.
That is not a policy position.
Complaining about Trump does not win and why won't you learn?
No matter how many times you've been throwing mud, you've thrown mud at Trump, it doesn't stick.
Why don't you try and change the conversation and talk to the American people?
But they've fallen into his trap.
Jon Stewart mentioned, you know, famous daily show Jon Stewart, that journalists take Trump's attacks personally.
And so do these Democrats.
And because of this, they're easily being blinded by Trump.
And you know what, dare I say, maybe it's all just part of Trump's character and he's lucky.
But it really does feel like Trump knows what he's doing.
I think back to when he changed the rules on asylum at the southern border and he immediately tweeted about the squad going back to where they've come from or wherever and then bringing back those better ways of doing things.
Nobody talked about the asylum changes.
I mean, some people did, but Trump distracted them easily.
And right now, it seems James Carville is being whipped up into a frenzy because, whether on purpose or not, Donald Trump has kept them off message, and it's so bad for the Democrats, they are freaking out.
Now, listen.
There's a brief update in the Donald Trump is winning everything line.
Appeals court tosses Democrats emoluments lawsuit against Trump.
Everything they've tried has failed.
He's still the president.
They couldn't impeach him.
They couldn't accuse him of emoluments.
Every step of the way, it's just been complete and total failure.
But it's not just about what Trump is doing and whether or not he's winning.
It's about the fact the party is fighting itself.
From the Daily Mail, Pete Buttigieg keeps narrow lead in the Iowa caucus as state finally finishes its count with Bernie Sanders declaring he's had enough and will not call for re-canvassing after the fiasco.
This gives Pete Buttigieg a 0.1% lead.
Buttigieg has won on the delegate count, but not the popular vote count.
But here's where it gets interesting.
Scott Santens is a precinct captain.
So he says he's a verified Twitter user.
He's a Yang supporter.
And he tweeted, with 100% of precincts reporting, I can faithfully say the Iowa results are BS.
As a precinct captain in DM-06, I know for a fact the numbers reported for that district for every candidate who got more than zero votes are wrong.
185 people caucused there.
They say only 92 did.
He goes on, I'm not the only precinct captain to know for a fact that the official numbers
are wrong. Here's another. Chet Gaines said, please retweet and share Yang Gang. Our precinct
is reporting inaccurate numbers. Andrew Yang had 15 supporters on the first expression and zero are
being reported. We deserve to be heard. He said, muscatine 09 is also inaccurate,
but the tweet has since been removed.
A local news crew was in my Des Moines precinct filming the entire thing.
I'll try and track down what station it was tomorrow, but you can see the cameraman in this photo I took.
You can also easily count far more people than what the official count says were in the room.
He says, Moscatino 4 is also inaccurate.
We now have four different precincts on Twitter.
This is a verified user saying the numbers aren't correct.
It could be that these four people are, you know, Andrew Yang supporters are just saying this because they refuse to back down, but I really doubt it.
I think they're telling you the truth.
I think the whole fiasco has proven the Democrats can't count votes.
Now, whether or not they're purposefully cheating to give Buttigieg the win, I don't know, but I got to tell you, if four precincts are wrong, then the state delegate equivalent count must be wrong too.
And these people are telling us.
So what do we do?
We recount, I suppose.
Well, Bernie Sanders says he won't call for one.
The Democratic establishment has called for one.
We'll see what happens.
But this says to me, at best, The best-case scenario for us is that the Democrats are just so incompetent and unable to look at a piece of paper and say, here's the number, that they're going to nominate the wrong guy.
The worst-case scenario?
They're actually cheating.
But I guess for everyone else outside of the Democratic Party, or anyone who might want to vote Democrat, because I've been a big fan of Yang, well, what's really happening is the Democrats just don't really exist anymore.
It's something I've been saying over the past few weeks.
I just don't see how you can claim there is a Democratic Party when James Carville is shrieking and freaking out over Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders is nearly tied with Buttigieg.
The split is right down the middle.
So when you ask someone, About what a Democrat is, what do they answer with?
And the answer is so widely chaotic, I can't see there being a party.
And this brings me to Mr. Kyle Kalinske, progressive commentator.
He says, quote, I love the mush brains who think you can explain away 95% of the, quote, mistakes going against Bernie with simple incompetence.
Are you not even mildly curious about Pete's campaign funding the app and former Hillary staffers building it?
And them not even running through basic tests?
We learned that in 2016, the DNC was operating as an arm of the Hillary Clinton campaign while they pretended to be neutral.
They had fundraising agreements.
Hillary got debate questions beforehand.
Now, four years later, if someone looks fishy, you have to shut off your brain.
Preposterous.
There it is.
Kyle Kalinske is straight up saying that they are cheating, and it's obvious.
Now I'll tell you this.
They're definitely cheating with Bloomberg.
We know that they kept Yang out of a debate, Tulsi out of a debate, Cory Booker out of a debate, who all called for rule changes.
And Yang didn't even say, give me special treatment.
He just said, please do more polls, because he thought he would do better in the polls.
They wouldn't do it.
Bloomberg comes around and dumps 100, 100 plus $200 million into the campaign season.
And sure enough, the rules change that allow him To enter the debate, you need to understand what James Carville's outrage really means.
He's a high-profile Democratic strategist.
If he is going on TV and in full-on panic mode freaking out saying we're losing our minds, what do you think the powers that be in the Democratic Party are doing?
Do you think they're sitting on their hands?
No, they're right next to James Carville shrieking and freaking out.
This is the end.
Listen, every single poll was wrong.
Check out this data from FiveThirtyEight, and you see something truly, truly fascinating.
Up until the actual Iowa caucus, Biden was the projected nominee.
Why?
Because the polls claimed it.
But every single poll in Iowa was wrong.
I mean, they were putting Bernie in first place.
Buttigieg, I think, was in, like, third or fourth.
And then he ended up getting first place.
So the polls were dead wrong.
What can we expect moving forward?
All of the polls are wrong, and we have no idea what's going to happen.
Check this out.
They say Biden was in the lead, and then as soon as the Iowa caucus happens, Biden drops down to third.
And they say it's a one in five chance Biden wins the nomination.
That, to me, is absurd.
And they're basing it off of nothing—mostly the polls that we already know are incorrect.
Bernie Sanders immediately jumps to first with a 1 in 46%- I'm sorry, a 1 in 2, a 46% chance of being the nominee.
Interestingly, the second 1 in 4 is no one being the nominee.
But all the polls are completely incorrect.
How is Buttigieg on top?
I honestly have no idea.
But I show you this as well, because Buttigieg was not projected to be doing better than many other people, and now, all of a sudden, he's first place in Iowa.
Which is why many of the progressives think the Democratic establishment is cheating.
I think when you look at the sheer outrage of James Carville, who is Democratic establishment, you see just that.
Look, when Bernie was running in 2016, they probably were not panicked.
They were probably just like, yeah, well, well, you know, we'll deal with him, right?
Well now Bernie's really winning.
He's the projected nominee as of the Iowa caucuses.
Do you think they're panicking now?
Do you think they'll pull out all the stops and play as dirty as they possibly can?
Look, we know they're cheating in the debates.
I'd be willing to bet they go further.
I'm not going to take that leap and claim they're manipulating the vote counts.
I'm not saying Kyle Kulinski isn't necessarily saying that either.
But I think Kyle's made his position clear that as a Bernie supporter, I believe he is, and a progressive, they're absolutely going above and beyond in terms of cheating.
Well, Bernie asked about why his campaign would win while Jeremy Corbyn's had lost.
He answers by saying Trump can only be beaten with the largest voter turnout in the history of the country and notes his ability to reach young and non-traditional voters.
Someone then responded, isn't that the same thing Corbyn said?
Guess what?
The Washington Post writes, the most important Iowa result is in.
Democrats should worry.
Voter turnout was bad, as James Carville said.
It was really bad.
Look, I looked through my past several YouTube videos, and I'm just seeing all these stories like Democrats panic, Democrats are quitting and vowing not to vote ever again, the Democrat voter turnout flops, Democrats are panicking as voters vow to vote Trump in the Never Bernie movement, Democrats are openly cheating, and I'm thinking to myself, man, I'm sick and tired of opening every video with what the Democrats are doing.
But that's really the big news.
Is it big news every single day to say that Donald Trump has won again?
I don't know what you want me to say, man.
A lot of people want me to just rag on the President and the Republicans for the sake of doing so, but they really are winning.
I mean, impeachment dragged Trump and he was really frustrated by it.
They voted no witnesses.
Republican victory.
They vote to acquit.
Republican victory.
Emoluments case dropped today.
Republican victory.
Democrat infighting chaos civil war.
No Democrat victory.
And right now the big story is what's happening with the Democratic primary.
The Republican party is rallying around Trump.
They love the guy.
Joe Walsh.
You know that guy who's going to run against Trump in the primary?
He drops out because nobody cared.
They booed and jeered him when he was like, listen, if you want four more years of Trump and they cut him off and all start cheering and yelling.
His response?
It must be a cult.
Let me tell you something.
I think it's y'all who are in the cult.
Okay?
Because I am not a fan of Trump, but I can certainly recognize why James Carville is right, and why the Bernie supporters are right to question the results.
I was all on board to vote for Andrew Yang, and now I'm not going to participate.
And I am not somebody who relentlessly defends the president's behavior.
I routinely criticize his behavior.
I do it all the time.
Especially his foreign policy.
That's like the main thing I've complained about.
It's why I've been a big fan of Tulsi.
And I want to see someone like Andrew Yang, a moderately progressive individual, left-leaning.
It doesn't exist.
A sane person who's being honest is going to point out the chaos.
They want me to lie and pretend like it's worse for Trump when it just isn't and it hasn't been.
I'm sorry, Democrats.
Your party is completely collapsing.
I don't even know who I'm speaking to when I say Democrats at this point, because I can also say congratulations, Democrats.
You're breaking through and shutting down the establishment.
The word is meaningless.
Establishment.
You are losing.
You will lose.
Nancy Pelosi, when she shredded up that Trump speech, it was basically her shredding up any chance they had to actually come back.
Because you showed regular Americans you're nuts.
You're just as bad as you claim Trump is when it comes to his attitude.
And I'm not interested in that.
At least the crazy guy who you think is bad, the orange man, He's got a good economy behind him.
So what do you think's gonna happen?
Do you think people like me would go and vote for Bernie?
I'm not gonna do it.
Andrew Yang's base is 42% Yang or bust.
They won't support any other candidate if the candidate is not Andrew Yang.
Admittedly, Yang's voter base is not the biggest, but of his base, 42% in a poll that was released, I believe it was ABC News, said no.
If Yang is not the candidate, we won't vote.
I agree with that.
But I'll tell you this.
Based on what we saw in Iowa, why would I even participate?
So James Carville can freak out all day and night, but I think maybe it's time you let go.
I think maybe it's time you just let go and let the raging whitewater rapids carry you downstream and see where you end up.
Because fighting and struggling to swim upstream in a Category 5 rapid is never gonna work.
You're just slowly drifting and spinning out of control.
Change your strategy.
Find something else.
McCarville made a really good point.
The Democrats could have absolutely embraced any talking point about policy and gone with it.
You know Americans really care about their health care.
They're not.
They are obsessed with the orange man.
And they're obsessed with stopping Bernie Sanders facing a fight on two fronts they cannot win.
I think we're seeing the complete breakdown of the Democratic Party.
I know maybe I've said it before.
I've said a million times they're panicking, but this is it.
It just keeps getting worse every single day.
I don't know where we'll be in a week.
Maybe next week everything will be back together and Bernie will win and they'll unify around Bernie.
Maybe that's what needs to happen.
Maybe the Democrats, the establishment, should back off, let Bernie take his rightful place, assuming the people want him, and then let the party rally around Bernie.
Maybe the real result of that will be a complete fracturing, and the moderate wing of the Democrats just joins the Republicans.
I honestly don't know.
But it's time to just stop.
The game you're playing isn't working, and it just keeps getting worse.
And that's why I've slowly been like, I'm out.
Man, I got real excited for Yang.
I still am.
I still really like the guy.
But I'll tell you this.
I feel like if I participate in the Democratic primary process, I'm giving them a vote of confidence.
I'm telling them I believe this matters.
I don't believe it matters.
I think you're all nuts.
Now I'm not going to vote for Trump.
I'm just going to sit back and kick my feet up and say, listen, man, it's time to chill.
Trump has won.
I don't know what you want to do, but I'm done kicking my feet and screaming at the Democrats to try and course correct.
Because they don't care.
So I'm gonna ride this rapid down and see where it takes me.
And I'm gonna just... I'm just gonna chill.
No point in getting stressed anymore, right?
I don't know what this means for Democrats.
But I do think it's kind of funny that in 2016 they said the same thing about Trump.
That the Republican Party was destroyed and Carville's claiming it's a cult now.
I really don't... I really don't think so.
I know a lot of reluctant Trump supporters.
It is absolutely not a cult.
I know a lot of people who voted for Trump and don't want to.
I know a lot of people who voted for Trump in 2016 who are now Yang Gang.
And they say Yang is a better alternative.
But guess what?
They wouldn't do it.
They wouldn't try to approach the people in the middle who voted for Trump.
So in the end, you get what you get.
Democrats should worry, says the Washington Post.
You're right.
They should.
Are they?
Oh, you better believe it.
They are freaking out.
And it's not going to help.
So I don't know what else to say.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
And I will see you all then.
Who could have seen this coming?
That the rich white lady who pretended to be a Native American for a very long time, presumably to reap some kind of benefits, turns out to tokenize people of color and may actually be racist.
Because several women of color have departed Elizabeth Warren's campaign because, well, they feel tokenized and it's a hostile work environment.
But it's not just Elizabeth Warren.
There's also some shade being thrown at Pete Buttigieg.
Were you watching the Iowa caucus night when the results didn't come in and Pete Buttigieg, for some reason, still gave his victory speech?
Well, standing behind him was a row of black Pete Buttigieg supporters.
Some of those supporters started complaining.
They were ushered away from their friends, their multi-racial friend group, to create a line of black supporters behind Buttigieg.
Pete Buttigieg has no support in the black community, and everyone thought this was his attempt at trying to make it look like he did.
Lo and behold, Democrats are racist, and they treat people of color like tokens or objects to try and win an election.
I can't say I'm surprised.
Now, obviously Pete Buttigieg wants to win, and this is what politicians do.
They do this all the time.
It's not new.
Warren, on the other hand, well, she's a liar, and we know her history.
But come on, take a look at some of the more radical leftists we've seen throughout, you know, Portland, with these Antifa people.
I swear, I have seen, I've seen in person, these far leftists, mostly upper-class white people who live in, say, Seattle or Portland, wearing all black, yelling racial slurs at right-wing activists, or however you want to describe it, because they were marching too.
We've also seen the video of Antifa yelling racial slurs at, you know, police officers who happen to be not white.
So I can't say I'm surprised by this story, but let's learn just how Elizabeth Warren is being accused of tokenizing, and I'll just put it this way, being racist, I guess.
Politico reports, women of color bolt Warren's Nevada campaign in frustration.
Complaints, comments, advice, and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords, but not much else.
Let me tell you why.
Do you think Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or any of these people actually believe half the nonsense they spit out?
Of course not.
When Bernie Sanders got up on the debate stage in 2016 and said, white people don't know what it's like to be poor, Come on, who in their right mind thinks that?
Most poor people in this country are white.
They're just saying whatever it is was written down by the consultant to try and get those activist votes in the primary.
Why?
Because other progressive, typically white people with college degrees, think the same thing.
You ever see that video from Ami Horowitz, where he goes around and asks people what they think about voter ID?
It's actually kind of a scary video.
He goes to, like, Berkeley or something, and he asks young college students, typically white ones, if voter ID is racist.
And they all say yes, because in their racist little minds, they think that black people don't know how to get a driver's license or find the DMV.
He then goes to a black neighborhood and just asks questions and they all look at him like he's nuts!
He's like, do you know how to get an ID?
And they're like, what do you mean?
And he's like, do you have a driver's license?
And they're like, yeah?
Who doesn't?
Like, who doesn't have an ID?
How do you get a job without an ID?
He has some questions like, do you have the internet?
And they're like, why are you asking this?
And he's like, I'm just, you know, people are saying.
And then this one guy, it's really funny, he's like, what do you mean?
Like, even a 10 year old kid's got the internet, man.
You got it on your phone.
But that's what you hear from these progressive activists.
And that's why Elizabeth Warren says this garbage.
Because all of these people live in their, you know, suburban, upper-class college world, where they never actually interact with any of these communities.
So sure enough, then, when Warren brings some of these people on and treats them like objects, they object to what she's doing.
A half-dozen women of color have departed Warren's Nevada campaign in the run-up to the state's caucuses with complaints of a toxic work environment in which minorities felt tokenized and senior leadership was at loggerheads.
The six staffers have left the roughly 70-person Nevada team since November during a critical stretch of the race.
Three of them said they felt marginalized by the campaign, a situation they said didn't change or worsen after they took their concerns to their superiors or to human resources staff.
During the time I was employed with Nevada for Warren, There was definitely something wrong with the culture, said Megan Lewis, a field organizer who joined the campaign in May and departed in December.
I filed a complaint with HR, but the follow-up I received left me feeling as though I needed to make myself smaller or change who I was to fit into the office culture.
Another recently departed staffer, also a field organizer, granted anonymity because she feared reprisal echoed the sentiment.
I felt like a problem.
Like I was there to literally bring color into the space, but not the knowledge and voice that comes with it, she said in an interview.
She added, We were routinely silenced and not given a meaningful chance in the campaign.
Complaints, comments, advice, and grievances were met with an earnest shake of the head and progressive buzzwords, but not much else.
A third former field organizer, who was also granted anonymity, said those descriptions matched her own experience.
Here's the picture I see being painted.
Faux-wokeness.
They're pretending to care about these issues.
They don't actually care about these issues, and why would they?
They're catering to an activist base on Twitter to try and get an activist vote.
It's not working.
As we saw, the New York Times has written numerous stories about this.
The wokest candidates are the weakest.
Gillibrand flopped.
Warren's trying to play the game now.
She's flopping.
Her own staff, exposed by Project Veritas, ragging on her, on Warren, for her faux-wokeness and embracing these fringe, far-left ideological views that no one in their right mind cares about.
Here's what I see.
I see two potential things.
It's entirely possible that some of these people campaigning for Warren are woke themselves, and are demanding some kind of, you know, oppression or privilege.
Privilege, right?
That because they're a minority woman of color, they should be allowed to speak, and maybe there's a clash here.
That the wokeness is treating Warren like she should step back and let them speak.
Or it's entirely possible, and much more likely in my opinion, that Warren's racist.
Okay, I'm not gonna act like she's an overt, you know, stereotypical racist going around spewing nonsense and hate, but I think it's fair to say, based on, what was that, what was that law card that went viral where she wrote, writes down that she's Native American, and she would do her hair that funny way?
Come on, man.
I don't think Warren is, like, a good...
I think Warren, while not the most racist, certainly is racist.
That's just my opinion.
And look, she's floundering because of all of this.
Let's read a little bit more.
The three other women who recently left the campaign did not respond to requests for comment.
One of the departed staffers declined to be interviewed because she feared professional consequences in an arena
where it's already difficult for women of color to advance, according to another ex-Warren employee
who spoke with her about the situation.
The turmoil in Warren's Nevada operation comes ahead of the state's February 2020 caucuses.
Nevada is important not only because of its early spot on the nominating calendar, but because it's the first chance for candidates to prove that their appeal extends beyond white voters, who dominate the Democratic electorates in Iowa and New Hampshire.
The problem in Warren's Nevada campaign heightened the importance of a rebound in New Hampshire after a third-place finish in the Iowa caucuses.
Of the first four voting states, Nevada is the one Warren has visited the least.
She has spent just 12 days there, another factor that dispirited the state's staff.
This week, her campaign also scaled back its television ads in the state by about 140,000.
I think we all know where this is going.
Speculation running rampant.
Warren is going to bow out and join Bernie as VP, most likely.
The current data suggests that Bernie is going to win.
We'll see.
We'll see.
Who thought Buttigieg was going to win?
I think the forecast predictions are all wrong.
All the polls were wrong.
They were all wrong.
And now Warren is scaling back ads.
She's not appearing in Nevada, which she needs to.
I think she's going to bow out, especially after this.
Warren's campaign did not dispute the women's accounts, but suggested they do not reflect a broader problem within her large 31-state organization.
Quote, We strive for an inclusive environment and work hard to learn and improve, Warren campaign spokesperson Kristen Orthman said in a statement.
We have an organization of more than a thousand people, and whenever we hear concerns, we take them seriously.
It's important that everyone who is part of our team has a voice and can be heard.
That's why we are proud that we have a unionized staff and clear processes for issues to be addressed.
I'm gonna go ahead and say I'm not buying it.
And I'll tell you why I'm not buying it.
Let's take a look at who actually won Iowa.
Well, now, I think it's fair to say Bernie Sanders won, at least by the popular vote.
But the Democrats don't use a popular vote system.
They use a delegate-based system, which is kind of like the Electoral College, not completely the same.
But technically, if you win more rural areas, you will get slightly more delegates.
That's why Pete Buttigieg has a couple more state delegate equivalents than Bernie Sanders.
But here's the story from News 1.
Mayor Pete accused of using black women supporters as props at Iowa caucuses.
Because when this weird thing happened, well maybe we'll talk about it later, this weird thing of Pete Buttigieg giving a victory speech when no one knew what had happened, a lot of people are asking questions about that, you can see that standing behind him is a perfect row of black women.
And then behind him it's a mixed crowd.
Look, man, I get it.
You know, I'm not gonna look at a crowd and judge you based on your race or your gender or even if you're wearing religious garb or anything like that.
Not at all.
But a lot of people pointed out that Pete Buttigieg was propping people up to serve as tokens.
You don't need to do this.
And it's so... It's just so obvious what he's doing.
First of all, the crowd isn't overtly white.
You didn't need to create this row.
But apparently... I saw a tweet.
One of these women claims that they told her to go there.
So let's actually read this story.
I have to scroll down because I really want to talk about the rest.
It's like they don't want to get to the story, actually.
Where are we at here?
Here we go.
They say, as Democratic candidates running for president were forced to wait until some point on Tuesday to learn the results of the Iowa caucuses, Pete Buttigieg was already claiming victory.
Weird, right?
But it was how the mayor of South Bend, Indiana claimed victory that caught most more people's attention than the fact that he was doing so without any election officials confirming who won.
This guy tweeted, I like Pete Buttigieg, but there's four black people in all
of Iowa, and because of his problem getting black support since he
announced his candidacy, he's got all four of them standing right behind him right
now during his late night speech and rally.
This one, we have another person says, are we going to talk about
the strategically placed black people behind Pete Buttigieg right now in Iowa or not?
Because it looks like a church group or sistas at a black hair salon or crab feed.
That's all 3.4% of black folks in the state of Iowa.
That tweet is from a black person.
Reporters in the capital city of Des Moines noticed something that they said didn't feel familiar in the experience covering Mayor Pete's campaign.
There were a group of black supporters seated prominently and strategically in the front row of a venue where the candidate who was polling the overall lowest with black people was giving his victory speech.
It is so blatant that he was treating these people as an attempt at politicking, as an advertisement, as a token or a tool of his campaign.
And you don't need to do that and you shouldn't do that.
You shouldn't give speeches claiming you're winning before the results come in because then people might accuse you of being a cheater, Pete.
But I like to call him Buttigieb.
Make sure you put the exclamation point at the end.
You see that video where he's like, come on!
Because people wouldn't clap for him.
Tonight, an improbable hope becomes an undeniable reality, Buttigieg told the crowd.
Whatever.
Twitter timelines instantly lit up with suspicions that Mayor Pete had planted black supporters for optics to push back on the narrative that he has no support within the black community.
After all, in a state that is 90% white, where the mayor just last week admitted to the Washington Post that he was humbled by the challenge of connecting with black voters, the showing of black women supporters in that front row rightfully raised some eyebrows, considering that imagery has been absent from his campaign.
How insane do you have to be to create a line?
Just let people come in the crowd and let them do their thing.
This person, Keith Boykin says, Out of the 100 or so supporters standing behind Pete Buttigieg right now, every single one of the black people seem to be strategically positioned directly behind Pete, so they'll all be in camera shot.
Self-bent advocate Gladys Muhammad, who is black, was one of the people in attendance and told the audience not to believe the hype.
Gladys Mohamed is introducing Pete Buttigieg.
I spoke with her ahead of her introduction earlier today, and she says she traveled to Iowa to show that blacks in South Bend do support Mayor Pete, including her.
She's touting his involvement in the black community right now.
We have another tweet.
This is from Abby D. Phillip.
South Bend Democratic Party Chair Gladys Mohamed.
The national me—oh, sorry, we just read that.
Mayor Pete's traveling press secretary also pushed back hard on that narrative after one Washington Post reporter tweeted about his own skepticism over the black supporters' convenient placement in front of the cameras that showed viewers on TV a totally different perspective than the reality that they were swimming in a sea of otherwise white people.
So Eric Fernandez says, Pete Buttigieg, quote, Pete Buttigieg polling at near zero with black people, campaign staff.
Okay, so here's what we're gonna do.
Maybe it was just a coincidence that there are five black women in the front row right behind Pete Buttigieg and they got there early and got very good seats.
I'm a bit more cynical than that though.
Nina Smith then said, and this why the misconceptions about Pete linger.
What about Ms.
Gladys and her story?
What about the several black women I was standing with?
The women behind Pete stood together as they have this entire campaign and once again their voice, their choice is erased, really?
There's no way to not be racist in this.
Because either you're like, hey, that's strange that Pete Buttigieg did this, and even black people are pointing it out, but then other black people are saying, or at least his campaign are saying, that you're erasing their voice.
I can't tell you, man, but come on.
Is anyone really going to believe that it wasn't strategic?
Smith continued, the women behind Pete stood together, their voices being erased.
This person, Franklin Leonard says, my compliments to whomever had the discipline to stage by count six young black women supporters directly behind Buttigieg for his Iowa caucuses speech tonight.
The scene was reminiscent of the time when one Republican North Carolina rep, Mark Meadows, pulled out housing and urban development official Lynn Patton, a black woman, as a prop during Michael Hohen's congressional testimony as apparent proof that the president is not racist.
Much like Monday night at the Pete Buttigieg event, the stunt didn't go over well either.
There was a tweet I saw that I don't have pulled up where apparently someone said that they were asked to leave their group of friends.
I don't know if that's true, maybe it's just a rumor, but let me tell you something.
In the political world, they do this.
Pete Buttigieg's campaign is trying to complain, oh, it's racist to actually question his supporters.
Come on, man.
We know the game they're playing.
Elizabeth Warren has staff who just quit because they felt like they were being tokenized, and all that would happen is buzzwords would be spewed in their face.
And doesn't that sound exactly like what most of us have experienced, especially with woke Twitter?
Someone, you'll see like an anti-antifa type person or a far-left type person complaining about bigotry, and they'll just say a bunch of words that are meaningless.
Buzzword, buzzword, buzzword.
They'll call anyone who disagrees a bigot, far-right, racist.
The media does it all the time.
So what do you think happens when people of color actually say, hey man, like, what you're doing is kind of offensive?
They'll just spew the buzzwords they learned on Twitter back at those people and not actually address any of this.
Now look, I'm not gonna play any games, everybody accuses everybody else of being racist or otherwise, but I will tell you, it doesn't matter if Warren is or isn't racist, or Buttigieg is or isn't racist, it's that this is how the machine works.
The political system will absolutely prop up people because what they care about is getting votes.
They will say whatever they have to say, they will accuse people of whatever they have to accuse, and they will hire the people of the right skin color and gender to make it seem like they deserve, or I'm sorry, you should vote for them.
Vote for me, because I do these things.
And they hire a big consulting company that analyzes all this data to show them what they need to say.
It's why Bernie Sanders flip-flopped so heavily on immigration.
It's why Bernie Sanders said white people don't know what it's like to be poor.
It's why Kirsten Gillibrand did all that weird woke stuff and talked about white privilege.
And it's why Elizabeth Warren talks about transgender children.
Because they're talking to marketing companies and pollsters who are saying, this is what people want to hear.
In reality, they could care less.
I assure you, once they get an office, these things will become backburner issues, and no one will bring them up ever again.
Welcome to political season.
I feel bad for these women who had to quit.
Because, look, politics is a dirty, dirty game.
And no one's going to actually treat you like an individual because they're looking at raw numbers.
Maybe politics worked better 200 years ago when the population was substantially smaller and you actually, you know, even 300 years or further, when communities were smaller and you were able to talk to people more directly to a certain degree.
Today, look, we've got hundreds of millions of people in this country.
Do you honestly believe that Warren's gonna deal with your issues?
She will whisper all the sweet nothings in your ear when you approach her and say, you know, I work at a school and this is happening.
She'll say, I'm gonna do right by you.
You know what used to be easier back in the day?
Have you seen that video where Hillary Clinton puts on a Southern drawl?
She was doing a campaign back in like 2016 in Alabama or Arkansas or something, and she had a little Southern twang to her voice.
And the videos went viral because everyone knows she doesn't talk like that.
Politicians used to be able to go down to these places before the advent of cell phone video.
And Hillary Clinton, being a rather old person, probably played this game back in the day or saw it get played.
So she thinks she can go to these communities and talk like them.
Well, how about when Ocasio-Cortez put on a fake accent?
Or, I should say, she used an accent, because she probably, you know, has or had one.
But she started talking very specifically, and people call her out for it.
This is what politicians do.
They go to your community, they pretend to support you, to be a part of what you're a part of, and then once they get to their office, you don't matter anymore.
But wait!
When re-election's around the corner, all of a sudden you matter again.
Yeah, because they want your vote, so you can give them the keys to the castle, and then go sit in the ivory tower and laugh while drinking wine and ignoring you.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman is currently trending on Twitter.
He's in the news because he's about to lose his job at the White House and be reassigned to the Department of Defense, and boy is everybody freaking out.
I've seen people on the right saying he's a traitor and a spy, and he should be charged and fired or whatever.
People on the left are saying he's a hero!
He stood up for what's right.
Now that's that quote they love, you know, saying, I'm going to do what's right or in America, right matters, whatever that phrase was.
People on the left are saying he should be immediately brought on by Democrats and he should run for office and win because that's the kind of person they need.
Let's just stop everybody.
All right.
Vindman should be removed from his position, period.
It's not retaliation.
It's not because Trump is out for revenge.
It's because Vindman, by his own words and explanation in his testimony, is insubordinate.
If he's unhappy in his position and doesn't want to do what the president wants or is upset the president won't listen, it's fair for everyone to say he should go somewhere else.
He serves at the pleasure of the president.
The president is unhappy with him, and if he was disgruntled and going around complaining, well then wouldn't he be happier going somewhere else?
It's not about Vindman being a traitor.
I'm sure he did what he thought was right.
But I view him more as a narcissist who thinks his opinion is more important than the duly elected president.
Now, I certainly don't trust Trump's opinion on these matters, for the most part.
That's fine.
He's the president.
If the people vote for a man who's stupid, that stupid man gets to make the rules.
I'm not doing that to say Trump is stupid.
I actually think Trump is running circles around the Democrats.
I'm also not saying Trump is the smartest guy in the world.
I'm just essentially playing a kind of devil's advocate that even if the president had no idea what was going on anywhere and had no plan, Too bad.
He got elected, and I'm okay with that.
I don't think the world is ending.
Everyone needs to calm down.
So please, Vindman is not a traitor.
He's just kind of a jerk.
That's the way I see it.
But still, that's a great reason why it's time for Trump to say, we're going to reassign you.
If you don't like being here, then you leave.
Everyone should do this at every job.
It blows my mind that people at these jobs, and they're like, I don't want to leave, but I hate it here.
It's like, dude, go apply other places.
Before I read this, I got to make this point.
I always talk to people and they're like, I hate my job.
Okay, well if you can't quit your job, stay.
But start applying at other places, eventually get an offer, and then you can leave.
I don't understand why anyone is arguing he should stay in a position he's unhappy in.
CNN reporting.
Actually, let me do this.
Before I read this, I'll read you this tweet because CNN is saying it may be in the coming weeks.
It may actually be today.
So, Robert Kost of the Washington Post says, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman will be informed in the coming days, likely on Friday, by administration officials that he is being reassigned to a position at the Department of Defense.
Okay.
Well, there you go.
They're arguing that Trump's retaliating against his critics.
That's so unfair, man.
Look, I think to a certain degree Trump is probably saying, like, I don't like that he did this, you can fire him.
But imagine if you were a boss at a company, and your employees were going around bad-mouthing you to a bunch of other people unjustly, and you were acquitted of whatever they were accusing you of.
You'd be like, look man, we're gonna reassign you to a different factory, or a different unit, or a different company, or a different office, because you're clearly not happy here.
Morale is also a serious issue.
It's also a serious issue that there could be people working in the White House who are really, really mad at Vindman and it won't be safe for him.
I don't mean like anyone's gonna physically harm him, but it's not good for his career to be surrounded by an administration that is frustrated and angry with him.
It's better for everyone he leaves.
Vindman said his departure from the council could come as soon as this month, the source said.
That would be well ahead of the scheduled end of his time at the White House, which was originally slated to last until July.
Vindman was appointed to his post in July 2018 and was asked to stay for two years.
The source did not say whether Vindman's departure was voluntary or at the behest of the White House, though aides inside the West Wing had speculated it could come as soon as the impeachment trial was over.
Trump has continued to fume about Vindman's presence at the National Security Council since he testified, according to people familiar with the matter.
Vindman's duties were significantly curtailed after he testified, as were those of his brother, an attorney for the council, according to sources familiar with the situation.
Here's what I find absolutely funny.
They act like Trump shouldn't be concerned about his testimony.
They act like it is unjust retaliation, that it would be illegal for Donald Trump to come out and say, we're gonna get rid of this guy or fire him or do whatever.
It's not.
Vindman isn't a whistleblower.
Vindman is not even a leaker.
I see people on the right saying he's a leaker.
He's not!
He's a disgruntled employee.
He's a public employee.
He serves, he was upset, and he started going around to other people who had the proper clearances to hear what he had to say, and he was complaining nonstop.
He has no protection, as far as I know, because he's not a whistleblower.
All he did was complain and then was asked to air his grievances in public, which shows he is not legally protected.
Again, as far as I know, maybe I'm wrong, okay?
But he's just a disgruntled guy who's complaining and is unhappy where he is because the president wouldn't take his advice.
He said that he was supposed to be the one drafting the talking points and Trump didn't want to use them.
Yeah, well, too bad, dude!
Sorry, you can leave.
But of course, they're making this out to be like Trump's evil revenge plot to those who defy him.
They want to make it seem like anyone who dare oppose the president will be purged.
Let me just stop you right there, okay?
Let me tell you something.
If you get a job at a company, and you have a boss, and you are disloyal to your boss in ways that hurt the company, firing you is not revenge, okay?
It's just regular job functions.
If you're complaining all day at work, and you're mad that your cupcake recipe isn't being used, so you go and start complaining about private things that you were talking about with the boss, don't be surprised if he fires you.
He's not getting revenge against you.
He's just saying, you can't do this at the company because what you're doing is not conducive to a good working environment, especially when we're dealing with the National Security Council.
He should absolutely 100% be removed.
He's not happy.
It's better for everyone.
But here's Slate.
You gotta love Slate.
Seeking revenge for impeachment testimony, Trump reportedly set to oust Vindman.
I love this framing.
They say, now that the impeachment trial is done, Trump is looking for revenge.
Yeah, revenge.
And Vindman reportedly could be on his way out as early as Friday.
The senior aide was already scheduled to end his stint at the White House early, as the Purple Heart recipient informed the NSC he was planning on leaving his post at the end of the month.
Vindman was appointed for two years, so we know this.
We will read this quote, but let me go back to his testimony.
Here's what I saw.
I have dealt with people like Vindman, okay?
And I respect him for his service.
I always, always talk about how, even if I don't, you know, agree with like Buttigieg, for instance, I get tremendous respect for his service.
Absolutely.
I respect what he's done, what he's done in his mind, in his view, to help the country.
However, I have seen people like him before.
There is a sense of entitlement.
They're smarter than you.
They're better.
They should be in charge.
Why are you in charge?
Vindman was the one who was supposed to be drafting the talking points on Ukraine, and Trump disregarded them.
That was the crux of his testimony.
But for some reason, everyone on the left started saying Trump was refusing to use his talking points.
And so I'm looking at the arguments from the left and the right.
Conservatives are saying, but he serves the pleasure of the president.
Trump has no obligation to use any of his talking points.
And Vindman even testified that he was an advisor to the president.
Okay, it's been a while.
Maybe I'm getting my ideas a little messy, but that was my general understanding of what he testified, that he was bragging that he was an advisor to the president when he wasn't.
He was just a lowly subordinate who was their Ukraine guy.
Who would tell them, hey, check this out.
But poor Vindman.
Donald Trump, for better or for worse, trusted Parnes and Giuliani or whoever more than him.
So you can imagine how this guy got really angry.
I used to work for a company once.
I worked for a fast food place when I was a teenager.
And I was one of the best employees.
Maybe that was just in my mind, but I really felt like I was.
Well, one day they hired a new manager.
And the new manager was disrespectful, would disregard my thoughts and opinions, and I had been there longer than him.
And I got angry, and I complained, and you know what I did?
I quit.
Did I go to a different manager and start saying, he should be listening to me?
Did I complain to corporate?
No, I just quit.
They begged me to come back.
I said, listen, if some new guy is going to come in who has no idea what he's talking about and I'm not happy here, I'm going to leave.
And that's exactly what we're looking at with Vindman.
He's this dude who's been there and thinks he's the expert and people need to listen to him when he's just a lowly subordinate and Donald Trump is the president.
Let's read this quote.
Trump has complained about Vindman in private, mocking the way he spoke, wore his uniform and conducted himself during the impeachment inquiry, the Washington Post reports.
But Trump is eager to make a symbol of the Army officer soon after the Senate acquitted him of the impeachment charges approved by House Democrats.
Vindman will be informed in the coming days, likely on Friday, by administration officials that he is being reassigned to a position at the Defense Department, taking a key figure from the investigation out of the White House.
He was just a guy complaining.
But for that matter, I'd like to bring up Marie Yovanovitch as well.
They argued that it was part of a scheme.
They undermined everything they were saying about Trump.
They undermined themselves.
They argue that Trump was in the secret plot to remove Maria Ivanovich because she was in the way.
That's literally what they argued in the impeachment process.
Trump's been acquitted.
I know it's over.
Then they released audio, and everyone thought it was like 4D chess.
Certainly this audio was bad for Trump, right?
Except, in it, it creates a real justification for why Trump fired Maria Ivanovich.
She was bad-mouthing him.
Or at least, he thought she was.
People on the left are arguing that it was a smear campaign to make her look bad.
Oh, come on!
We know these people are talking bad about Trump.
Trump heard it, he probably heard it more than once, and he said, just get rid of her.
And he didn't fire her until a year later.
So at first, they try to argue it was part of his scheme because they're literally just making it up as they go along.
I'd like to present to you some very wise words from a man who hasn't been alive for a very long time.
First, if you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.
If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained, you will also suffer a defeat.
If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
And I have one more.
Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
Both of those from Sun Tzu, and the Democrats would be wise to heed those words.
You'd think by now they would know who Donald Trump is, what he does, and why.
They don't.
They don't even know who their own party is and who their own witnesses are.
Which brings me to the next quote.
Victorious warriors win first then go to war.
When they claimed Trump fired Marie Yovanovitch because she was blocking his scheme to dig up dirt on Joe Biden, and then later released audio showing that Trump actually wanted to fire her because she was bad-mouthing him, you can see that they did not plan anything ahead.
If they did, they would have won first.
They would have said, here's our game plan all the way to the end, to the goal.
Here's how we win.
They had no win condition.
I think it's really funny as somebody who plays strategy games.
For those that aren't familiar with, say, a game like Magic the Gathering, it's a strategic card game.
You build a deck of 60 cards, depending on the format.
And it's a bit random, but it's a strategy game, kind of like chess.
When you put together a deck with the goal of defeating an opponent, you look for your win conditions.
What are your win conditions?
And there are many in strategy games.
In Magic, you can make your opponent run out of cards.
You can reduce their life total to zero, or there are special win conditions.
But before you begin, the plan you have must have a path to victory.
They clearly don't.
Well now I see with them trying to claim this is a big revenge scheme because Donald Trump is outraged that anyone would break loyalty to him.
It's an extreme exaggeration of what's really happening.
You smack talk your boss, you get fired.
Dude's not even getting fired, he's getting reassigned.
Calm down everybody.
Wouldn't you be happier if you had a chance to flourish in a department that didn't hate his guts?
No, leave him in the White House where everyone's mad at him.
These schemes and these exaggerations are random and chaotic.
And it's very similar to what I've talked about, like, you know, the far-left woke ideology.
Many on the left are simply a chaotic and destructive force.
That's true of the mainstream Democrats, the establishment types.
It's true of the woke insanity we see, like that Barnes & Noble story I did the other day.
You look at what the Democrats have done over the past several years, and let me go back to this story here.
You see what they've done over the past several years.
How many times has Nancy Pelosi stood up and said, here's what I'm fighting for for the American people?
Well, she certainly complained about Trump a whole lot.
What did she do at the State of the Union?
She shredded the copy of his speech.
The Democrats, for the past four years, have been nothing but chaos and destruction.
There's no cohesive message.
There's no plan.
It simply hurt Trump.
Angry and destructive.
Vindman had no right to have his opinion be put above anyone else's.
So what does he do?
He goes and complains.
And I'll say this, too.
We know from his testimony, from questions asked by Devin Nunes, he did, in all likelihood, leak information to the whistleblower.
I say leak in the colloquial context, not the legitimate legal context.
Vindman isn't a leaker because he's allowed to talk to people in the National Security Council and other intelligence agencies.
He's allowed to share this information.
So it's not really leaking, but he's whinging.
He goes and complains, and then this guy weaponizes that to try and hurt Trump and fails because it was ridiculous nonsense.
This is all they've done.
Did Vindman help the country in any way?
No, quite the opposite.
There's no evidence Trump did anything, as the Democrats have claimed, and they didn't even try to charge him with those crimes.
Then they immediately say, but I thought the opinion was that Trump couldn't be indicted as president.
That's what the impeachment is for, you idiots.
That's why Donald Trump is the only president who was impeached without a statutory crime committed.
You didn't accuse him of one!
So the whole thing falls apart.
They complain every step of the way.
But where have they been to talk about creation, benefit, growth, making the country better?
Well, Donald Trump, for better or for worse, has the economy at his back.
He has a lot of good things behind him.
In fact, Kyrsten Sinema stood up and clapped for him at State of the Union because he's pushing forward with bipartisan parental leave.
He did get some Democrats, you know, periodically to clap for him.
He has his victories.
Now, we look to Pelosi.
What's her victories?
Here's what I see.
I see Donald Trump as a complete and total arrogant narcissist, a-hole.
Most, I think many, many people do.
I don't want to say most, but I think most people do.
I mean, 65 million voted against him.
However, most of those people, the ones who voted for him, don't care.
You know why?
Because his personal attitude and whether you like him has nothing to do with whether or not he's going to get the job done.
You know, the way I posted it to you guys before, or posed it to you guys before, is you have an opportunity to hire two different people.
One guy is cussing and yelling and he's just mean as they come, but boy does he get that job done!
You need your walls painted.
That dude is getting it done fast, his employees are working hard, but he is nasty.
The other guy isn't getting anything done, he's complaining and actually taking the paint off the walls, it's already there!
And you're like, I didn't pay you to do that!
And he just complains all the time about the other guy.
Yeah, who are you gonna hire?
And that's what's happening.
So I'm talking about the Democrats and I say this.
Give me a reasonable, charismatic, alternative to Donald Trump and I will be right there.
But if you refuse to acknowledge anything he's done being good, you're insane!
The economy is great right now and I talk to everybody and they say it.
But you won't acknowledge it, instead you just try to burn it all to the ground.
Then I watch Nancy Pelosi tear up those papers, and I get people saying, but Tim, why do you care about stupid partisan theatrics?
I'll tell you why.
Because one of my biggest complaints about Trump is literally his bad representation of American honor and integrity, because he's kind of a dick.
But he makes the country work, right?
You can't argue against that.
You can argue about his attitude.
Fine.
Then you look at Pelosi and the Democrats, and what do you get?
Chaos, destruction, complaints, whinging, with nothing behind them.
So maybe it's hard for them to accomplish because they don't have those branches of the government.
In the House, what do they do with their majority?
Chaos and destruction.
And I rest my case.
If you want to argue that they're being obstructed and they can't get anything done, then why are they wasting all of this time with impeachment nonsense?
Why don't they use their time in the press to complain about obstruction?
They're not, because all they do is tear things down.
So I have a choice right now between two a-holes and one who's actually making the country work better.
You see the problem?
There are a ton of Americans who are saying, I'd prefer not that guy.
Many of them started looking at Andrew Yang.
Well, Andrew Yang didn't cut it.
Those people are gonna go vote for Trump.
Will you reap what you sow?
No, it's not revenge.
Trump's just kind of a mean dude sometimes.
He's funny, self-deprecating.
He's good to you if you're good to him.
But he does make fun of people a lot.
And you know what?
It shouldn't really, I guess, as much as it's a concern to me.
And of course I'll throw in foreign policy issues are huge for me.
I think we waste so much money.
And one of the problems I have with Democrats is that they want the same thing.
They don't, you know, Obama was doing all this stuff too.
So I get it.
I'd love to see a charismatic, you know, honorable president who admits Trump is doing a good job in many areas and promises not to be, you know, a foul mouth.
I think that would work for a lot of people.
But I'll tell you what's going on right now.
Foulmouth is the least of anyone's concern.
That's a fact, and it was a fact in 2016, and what's also a fact is that many people actually like his foulmouth because he's pushing back on political correctness and standing up for himself how he wants to, and people like seeing that.
Bill Maher talked about it.
Bill Maher and Megyn Kelly together talking about how people like seeing that.
So as much as I can criticize him, I'll end with this.
Vindman was a whiny, insubordinate employee.
Okay?
I know employee is a bit... I'm being a bit hyperbolic.
He's serving the country.
He's working on the National Security Council.
But he serves the pleasure of the President.
It's not revenge.
The President says, I don't like this person.
Make them go away.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
Different channel.
And I will see you all there.
Many of you are probably aware of the feud between Amber Heard and Johnny Depp.
Started a long time ago, they divorced, accused each other of domestic violence.
An audio recording was released showing Amber Heard basically admitting she was the one abusing Johnny Depp.
The latest update in the past couple of days is that in a new audio recording, Amber Heard is bragging about how no one will believe Johnny Depp because he's the man and she's a small, slender woman, or whatever.
Basically highlighting a problem that's existed for a long time for male domestic abuse victims that, for the most part, women know that the courts are going to side with them, the cops are going to side with them.
Well, now we have a recording of it.
But I did talk about this with my buddy on the TimCast IRL podcast, and the reason I'm bringing it back up is that we have another story in a similar vein, but we're seeing something interesting happen with the response from feminists.
It seems to be quite hypocritical.
When it came out that Amber Heard was bragging about how no one will believe Johnny Depp, sure enough, we saw many intersectional feminists and leftists saying, you know, we gotta make sure we always protect the victim, be it a man or a woman, a male or female.
We have another story.
You see, Kesha accused Dr. Luke of abuse, essentially.
I mean, more extreme than that, but I'm keeping the language light.
And she is now being ordered, apparently this was found to be defamatory, She's in trouble.
And sure enough, what's the response from the same intersectional feminists in basically the same day?
Our legal system is broken!
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Here's the thing.
Basically, Kesha accused Dr. Luke that he abused Katy Perry.
And Katy Perry said, that's not true.
The court ruled that was defamation.
Sounds like Kesha was spreading around false accusations.
You would think, once again, with evidence suggesting the man was innocent, the feminists would take the same approach they did with Amber Heard.
But they won't.
You see, with Amber Heard, they have absolutely no choice but to admit.
She was the abuser and she was bragging about it.
With this, Katy Perry denying any wrongdoing, they'll just say, oh, she's internalizing misogyny or whatever.
So let's actually start and let me give you some context and I'll show you the comments from some of these social justice activists and what I would say is their hypocrisy.
Amber Heard dares Johnny Depp to tell the world he was a victim of domestic abuse.
Abuse, see who believes you.
Just days after leaked audiotapes proved that it was Amber Heard who subjected Johnny Depp to domestic abuse during their marriage, in another 30-minute phone recording between the former couple from 2016 released on February 4th, the Aquaman actress is heard daring her ex-husband to tell the world that he was a victim of physical assault and see how many people believe you.
The actor is heard arguing with his then-estranged wife, pleading with him to settle their dispute out of court as airing the dirty laundry in public was ruining his professional reputation.
You're effing killing me, the father of two says.
You've turned me into a, my boy goes to school and has kids go, so you're effing dad's a wife beater.
You don't think about that, Amber.
Heard, in turn, counter argues that she was the one who feared for her life after receiving threats from Depp's bodyguards, and not the other way around.
They then begin discussing an instance in Australia a month into their marriage when the top of Depp's finger was severed.
While she maintained that he did it to himself, while drunk and high on ecstasy, he claimed the injury was caused by her throwing a bottle at him.
I'm sorry, because the last time it got crazy between us, I really did think I was going to lose my life, she said, and I thought you would do it on accident, and I told you that.
He replied, Amber, I lost an effing finger, man.
Come on.
I had an effing mineral can, a jar, a can of mineral spirits thrown at my nose.
That was then she resorted to threatening Depp with playing the victim card.
You can please tell people that it was a fair fight, and see what the jury and judge thinks.
Tell the world, Johnny.
Tell them, Johnny Depp, I, Johnny Depp, a man, I'm a victim too of domestic violence, and I, you know, it's a fair fight, and see how many people believe or side with you.
Wow.
Well, here's what ends up happening.
I frequent this subreddit, who's probably going to get mad at me now for criticizing them, called Gamer Ghazi.
It's one of the culture war social justice subreddits.
They refer to themselves as SJWs.
It's not super big, but they do aggregate a lot of these stories, and you can see some of their opinions.
We have two posts, you can see.
Kesha's claim about Dr. Luke to Lady Gaga were defamatory, judge rules.
And below it, Amber Heard dares Johnny Depp to tell the world he was a victim of domestic abuse.
Here's what I find so darn funny.
When you go to the Amber Heard story, we see comments from people saying, you know, an ex-girlfriend I had who harassed me until 2019 after we broke up did the same sort of thing to me.
I'm sorry you had to go through it.
You did an incredibly hard thing to do.
You should be proud of yourself.
Wishing you all the best.
When the story is so definitively provable, it actually reflects the men's rights activist argument, which I find actually kind of funny.
If you go to the men's rights subreddit and look, you'll see a lot of similar comments.
Women shouldn't do this, it's abuse, yadda yadda yadda.
I think what we're seeing here, and first, I think they had to basically admit it, because the narrative keeps getting worse for Amber Heard.
Many of these feminists and woke intersectional types went after Johnny Depp, targeting his career and trying to smear him, when the proof became basically, you know, undeniable.
I mean, there's still some, you know, there's still some, a lot of missing context, but we basically know what happened to a certain degree.
Well, they have no choice but to say Johnny Depp was the victim.
And by their own argument, they must defend the victim, right?
Believe victims.
So naturally, they come out and say, this happens to us too.
Well, I'll tell you what.
I respect they're making the right choice.
And they're presenting the correct argument.
That we should believe and protect all victims regardless.
Because, you know, before, they just jumped at Johnny Depp and blamed him.
What do you think happened when the Kesha story broke?
Let me read the Kesha story.
They say, Today, New York State Supreme Court Judge Jennifer G. Schechter made a significant ruling in the long-running legal battle between Kesha and producer Lucas Dr. Luke Gottwald.
According to court documents viewed by Pitchfork, the judge ruled that Kesha made a false statement to Lady Gaga about Gottwald, and that was defamatory.
The defamatory remarks mentioned in the court documents refer to text messages that Kesha sent to Lady Gaga in which Kesha claimed that Gottwald raped Katy Perry.
Schechter noted that Perry denied the claim, adding that there's no supporting evidence to back up Kesha's message to Gaga.
Publication of a false statement to even one person here, Lady Gaga, is sufficient to impose liability.
The judge also rejected Kesha's series of defenses, including that Gottwald is a public figure.
Schechter argued that Dr. Luke isn't a household name.
Interestingly, they say this.
The judge also ruled that Kesha was in breach of contract with Gottwald's company, KMI.
Due to late royalty payments, Kesha was ordered by Schechter to pay $374,000 in interest.
Gottwald has been suing Kesha for defamation since 2014 after she accused him of abuse.
In counterclaims filed in 2016, the singer asked the judge to rule in favor of voiding her contracts with Gottwald and his business entities.
The bid was denied.
Let me just stop you for a second.
Apparently it seems Kesha was trying to get out of some contracts.
She accused the guy of doing something she didn't have any proof of, and also claimed that he had raped Katy Perry, which she denied.
Maybe he did, I don't know.
But as it stands, when I look at the evidence...
She was trying to get out of a contract.
She accused this guy of wrongdoing, asked the judge to use that as a basis to terminate a legal contract, which he denied.
And then it turns out Katy Perry said, that didn't even happen, at least to her.
And so she's been ruled against.
Did you think that would be enough for these, you know, woke, outraged feminists to actually understand the evidence is on Dr. Luke's side?
Fortunately, no.
When you have an audio recording of Amber Heard say, what are you going to do about it?
They kind of have no choice.
But when it's a court ruling, of course they're going to say, behold how effed up the Western legal system is.
What do you mean?
Katy Perry said it didn't happen.
She was trying to get business contracts voided.
Why would you assume she's telling the truth?
You need evidence.
And look, I'm all about protecting victims.
That's the point of this.
Who is the victim?
We don't know.
And honestly, I don't know a whole lot about Dr. Luke, but she was trying to break a legal business contract and asked the judge to do so.
He said no.
And Katy Perry denies it.
The evidence is against her.
It seems like she made a false accusation, just like Amber Heard did.
Yet you can't put two and two together, can you?
The U.S.
system is very different to the rest of the Western world on libel laws.
It varies hugely country to country, but even if the public figure exemption is weird, it's hard to argue that Dr. Luke was a public figure on matters of assault, not including the assault case as well, no.
I can't get any angrier with how she's being treated.
This is why sexual assault victims don't come forward.
Why?
Because when they make dubious claims, they get held to a legal standard?
When Katy Perry denies that what she said happened, she loses a defamation case?
I'll tell you why people don't come forward, particularly people like Johnny Depp, because you attack him and try to destroy his career when it turns out he was the victim.
These people are bullies.
They're not doing anything for real victims.
Just assuming that abusers are victims and assuming victims are abusers is not a standard for anyone.
I'll tell you what a good standard is.
Innocent until proven guilty.
That way we know.
If someone is accused, we're not going to falsely blame them.
I'm sorry, if someone is a victim, we're not going to destroy their lives and make things worse for them.
Think about how awful this must have been for Johnny Depp.
I don't know, look, we don't have the clear definitive evidence in the Dr. Luke case, but I can say Katy Perry denied it.
Think about how you would feel if someone accused you of some serious, serious offense to a friend, And you knew it wasn't true.
Or the person who apparently you had harmed says it never happened.
You and your friend are like, dude, this never happened, they're lying, don't believe them.
Think about your reputation going around when people accuse you of abusing someone and that person is with you denying it!
So look.
I don't get it, but I think it plays into what I've talked about many times, that there's no real standard for what makes you social justice approved.
If a court rules that you were defamatory and wrong, a witness comes out saying what you said was not true, and you have another case where Amber Heard, you know, basically admits, no one will believe you, Johnny, you'd think you'd at least, in both circumstances, be like, I believe the simple principled thing on both cases.
This is where you can see there are no principles here.
The only reason they care is because they have no choice in the Amber Heard case, but when it comes to the other case, it doesn't even matter if Katy Perry denies it.
They just don't care what Katy Perry has to say, do they?
I wonder what they would say to Katy Perry's face when she's like, it never happened, she's lying, it's not true.
What would they say?
I don't know.
But I'll leave it there!
Stick around, next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
You know, it kind of feels silly that I keep talking about Nancy Pelosi tearing up that
speech.
But I think the fact is, to a lot of people, it symbolized the destruction of her own party, the lack of professionalism, and kind of the chaotic state of our political system today.
Now, as I have talked about it a whole lot, you must seem to care a whole lot about it.
We get something really interesting.
We know the Democrats care about it, at least to a certain degree.
We saw on C-SPAN, if you didn't see this, go check it out at youtube.com slash timcast, Democratic voters are quitting over this, calling it a C-SPAN saying they're embarrassed, how could she do this?
You know, so the context is basically Trump gave a speech, she had a copy of it, she tears it up.
Well, now we have this.
Two Democrats confront Nancy Pelosi over her ripping of Donald Trump's speech, telling Speaker it was disrespectful and inappropriate.
Now, I will add that they're kind of wishy-washy on the whole thing.
They don't want to come out and be too hard, but they had to tell her off.
Because when you see what these voters are saying, these C-SPAN callers, these moderate Democrats, these freshman Democrats know that they have to say something about this because she's hurting all of them.
But let this serve as kind of an addendum to the segment I did on my main channel at four that the Democratic Party is just in free fall.
I mean, look, Nancy Pelosi didn't think about what she was doing when she ripped that up, and it's going to come back to haunt them.
She's even being criticized by her own party.
Now, let's read.
The Daily Mail reports, Two freshman House Democrats confronted Nancy Pelosi on Thursday over her ripping up of the text of President Trump's State of the Union address, telling the Speaker the actions were inappropriate and disrespectful.
Rep.
Joe Cunningham of South Carolina and Ben McAdams of Utah confronted Pelosi on the House floor when lawmakers were voting on a Republican resolution that expressed disapproval of the Speaker's tearing up of the President's remarks.
Democrats easily defended the GOP effort to publicly chastise Pelosi, voting to table the resolution 224-193.
It's unusual for freshman members of Congress to criticize the leader of their party, but McAdams and Cunningham come from more red-leaning districts.
Neither lawmaker voted for Pelosi for Speaker when she ran in January of last year.
McAdams told the Washington Post, he told the Speaker her move was inappropriate and that we deserved better than that.
I thought it was disrespectful, he said.
I found things that I agreed with and things that I didn't agree with in the President's speech, but I thought that that was beneath us.
Cunningham said he found some blame on both sides for the partisanship on display at Tuesday's address.
Republicans chatted for more years when President Trump came into the House chamber to give his address.
A chant heard more often at campaign rallies than in the halls of Congress.
Look, I disapprove of the president snubbing her handshake.
I disapprove of her tearing up the speech.
I didn't come up here to amplify it or fan those flames.
I came here to extinguish them.
But I gotta mention this.
I don't think Trump intentionally snubbed her handshake.
I don't even know if he noticed it.
But everyone's using that as an excuse.
Watch the tape, man.
She reaches out as Trump's already turning and he may have just been like, too late.
I don't know.
What am I supposed to do about it?
Apparently they said it wasn't even intentional.
Pelosi continued criticism of the President's State of the Union address on Thursday, calling it a reality show instead of a national address and explaining her decision to rip up the copy.
I tore up a manifesto of mistruths.
I'm sorry.
When he talked about the servicemen who was returning home to see his family or the servicemen who lost his life or one of the last Tuskegee Airmen, that was part of the mistruths?
That's what you were tearing up?
Set up a trap and you walked right into it.
And that's why your own party members are criticizing you.
That's why your own voters are quitting.
Because what you did was a huge mistake.
She says, I don't need any lessons from anybody, especially the President of the United States, about dignity.
Is it okay to start saying four more years in the House of Representatives?
She questioned, referencing the Republicans' chant.
It's just unheard of.
Is it unheard of for the President to insult people there who don't share his view, as well as to misrepresent present falsehoods?
So, no.
I think it was completely, entirely appropriate, and considering some of the other exuberances within me, the courteous thing to do.
What is that supposed to mean?
What are you gonna do, spit on the guy?
The extraordinary clash between the two started when Trump snubbed Pelosi's outstretched hand after he came into the House chamber Tuesday night.
Full stop!
False.
Nancy Pelosi did not properly introduce Trump.
It is then that she reached out her hand, and Trump didn't shake it.
Maybe he didn't see it, I don't know, he didn't shake it.
But actually, she was supposed to say something like, it is my distinct honor, yadda yadda, and she didn't do that.
So already, the tradition and decorum of the House was not being followed.
So you can't blame Trump for starting it.
More importantly, I think what Pelosi was doing with the handshake was an attempt at a press play and he snubbed her because Trump plays better than they do.
She wanted to shake his hand after just impeaching him, and he won.
And you know what would have happened if he shook her hand?
All of the left-wing outlets and all the press would be running stories saying, Pelosi power move, forcing Trump standing below her to shake her hand after she just tried to impeach him.
And then you'd have all of these Yas Queen comments popping up about how even after he wins the impeachment, or even though he's going to win impeachment, she just showed the world that he's still beneath her.
I can imagine it.
No matter what he does, they're gonna frame it that way so he doesn't shake it.
They then say, he snubbed her.
That's why she tore it up.
She didn't introduce him properly.
Look, I don't want to rant too much about this instance, but it's funny to me how many people downplay it and act like it wasn't a big deal when even Democratic congressmen are coming up and talking to her and saying it was a bad move.
But I would like to add something to this segment about the fracturing and the collapse of the Democratic Party.
Like I said, it's kind of an addendum to the main segment I did.
Hillary Clinton.
Well, you know what?
While I don't disagree with Hillary, what I find truly remarkable is that no matter how much the Democrats beat him down, Bernie, you know, he always gets right back to yelling at Trump.
That's right.
They push him to the ground and Bernie puts his hands on the ground and then as he's about to rise up, he stops, turns around on his back and says, but Donald Trump, No, he doesn't stand back up.
They push him and they kick him and they knock him down and he does nothing.
The party is in chaos.
Complete chaos.
From Nancy Pelosi's shenanigans to Hillary Clinton tearing Bernie apart and Bernie Sanders just sitting there saying, whatever you say, whatever you say.
Rashida Tlaib said she would boo Hillary Clinton, and then later apologize, saying, you deserve better, I shouldn't do that.
And then Hillary Clinton comes out again, slamming and ragging on Bernie Sanders.
There's nothing left in the Democratic Party.
Spinelessness, corruption, chaos.
It's pure insanity.
ABC reports.
Actually, I guess it's from CNN.
Hillary Clinton furthered her comments discrediting Senator Sanders as a viable presidential candidate on Thursday, insinuating that his potential failure to deliver the moon would attract from efforts to rebuild public trust.
When asked by talk show host Ellen DeGeneres if she wanted to address her prior remarks about the Vermont Independent, Clinton noted that while she originally made them about a year and a half ago, I have a pretty clear perspective about what it's going to take to win.
And as I said earlier, that's what I think the key calculation for any voter has to be.
You've got to be responsible for what you say and what you say you're going to do.
Let me tell you something.
Democrats need record voter turnout to win, as I've stated before.
Bernie Sanders claims that he can bring out a massive turnout.
Bernie Sanders voters are not your traditional Democrats.
They're progressives, many who've never voted in the Democratic primaries or party before.
Think about what that means.
It means that not only are the numbers not what the Democrats need to win, it means we actually are seeing that record voter turnout.
Bernie Sanders is currently in second place by like .1% in Iowa.
If Bernie Sanders far left voters are not traditional Democrats, then imagine what the voter turnout would have actually been.
About 50,000 votes less.
So it's around 170.
Bernie Sanders got around 47 or so.
Imagine if all of Bernie's voters didn't come out because he's attracting new people.
Voter turnout is actually worse than 2016 if you factor in the far-left and progressive voters who normally don't vote and the youth vote that was supposed to be coming for the first time.
Dare I say, we look at the numbers and it seems like, well the numbers are like 2016 but you're failing to realize that many people have given up or they're actually supporting Trump now.
I don't care whether or not Bernie Sanders can promise the moon.
The point is, politicians lie all the time and they promise you nonsense and garbage.
Now we have a political party that is rocked to its core, that the foundation is crumbling before our very eyes, and it's just absolute chaos.
Why is Hillary Clinton continually coming out and ragging on one of the major contenders for the nomination?
Have we ever had anything like that?
Maybe I'm not old enough.
But has there ever been a failed presidential candidate for one party coming out and attacking their own party's, one of their frontrunners?
I've never seen it.
Maybe it's happened.
Maybe y'all know better than I and maybe the people who are a little bit older.
But I do think it's absolutely remarkable that at a time where you have people like James Carville saying we absolutely must defeat Donald Trump, they're all more than willing to absolutely tear Bernie Sanders apart because they don't really need to beat Donald Trump.
Now look, they want to beat Trump because they want to be in office, but they don't need to.
If they really thought they needed to, they'd vote for Bernie Sanders, and they wouldn't play games like this.
So I'll give a shout-out to all you progressives.
They're gonna cheat you.
You're gonna lose.
Bernie Sanders will not be allowed to be the nominee.
Now, I could be wrong.
You know, there's only so much they can hold back.
The tidal wave is here, and they're trying to stop it in its tracks.
But I kind of feel like the machine will keep churning.
The polls are wrong.
And even though FiveThirty and these other sites are saying Bernie's the projected nominee, Buttigieg, how did that happen?
He wasn't polling that high, and all of a sudden he pulls forward?
The vote counts are all wrong?
Look, I'm not going to tell you who's doing what, but I will say, let's see New Hampshire.
I'm willing to bet Buttigieg pulls ahead again, Bernie Sanders once again falls, and they're going to keep pushing the narrative that Buttigieg is the guy who's going to win, and the only one who can beat Trump.
He is young, vibrant, moderate.
He's the guy.
And then what happens after the DNC?
Antifa shows up in full force and smashes some windows, throws some bricks and cracks some skulls.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around, next segment's coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
At this point, I think it's fair to say that Trump is unstoppable.
Now, I'm not saying he's going to stay in office after his second term, like the crazy conspiracy theorists seem to think, but everything they've thrown at Donald Trump to defeat him has failed, okay?
They were like, the 25th Amendment, the Emoluments Clause, impeachment, Yorshik Gate, Ukraine Gate, Mueller Report, nothing works.
The latest news, as I mentioned in my main segment, appeals court tosses Democrats' emoluments lawsuit against Trump.
Why?
He even just won again.
Now Pelosi likes to shriek that Trump is impeached forever.
And guess what else is happening?
Trump has recently commented on why the impeachment should be expunged.
And guess what?
It's gonna happen.
The Democratic voter turnout so far was trash.
The projections for them to win are getting worse.
Of course, all the polls show that the average person would vote for anyone other than Trump.
Unfortunately, the average person's not showing up to the voting booth, so why would it even matter?
Let's read about Trump defeating the Democrats once again.
CNN reports, A federal appeals court on Friday dismissed a lawsuit by congressional Democrats alleging President Donald Trump violated the emoluments clause of the Constitution by refusing to allow lawmakers to review and approve his financial interests.
The ruling is a major triumph for the president, who intensely sought to keep his business affairs in private.
Just days after the Republican-held Senate voted to acquit him on impeachment charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, the case's dismissal effectively kneecaps one of several attempts Democrats have made to dig up more information about Trump's business holdings.
Let me just, let me just think about, wait, wait, hold on.
You mean to tell me the Democrats are trying to dig for dirt on Donald Trump to cheat in an election and nobody's screeching about it?
Can we impeach all of these people for the same thing they tried impeaching Trump for?
They are literally doing investigations for the sake of political dirt.
I don't see how we function this way.
I think the Democratic Party is going to collapse.
The Republican Party is not a majority of the country and that's going to result in sheer chaos.
I've seen it before and I think we're heading in that direction.
Unless moderate voters join in with Republicans and we see Trump truly win maybe like 40 states or 400 electoral votes, I'm really worried that there will be a complete destabilization because the Democratic Party is fracturing into so many different parties, different ideologies, they're all going to fight each other.
But the one thing they agree on is they don't like Trump.
They say before Friday's ruling, the lawsuit was paused just as Democrats began subpoenaing the Trump organization.
Excuse me.
This emoluments case was one of three ongoing constitutional challenges to Trump and his business.
Alleging that the President is violating the Anti-Corruption Emoluments Clause, two other emoluments cases attack Trump for his alleged competitive advantage at the Trump-branded real estate empire.
Those cases are still moving through the court system, so we'll see what happens.
The three-judge panel, judges Karen Henderson, David Tatel, and Thomas Griffith, was in unanimous agreement, saying the Democratic lawmakers lacked the standing to challenge the president.
The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled.
The Democrats claim is based entirely on the loss of political power.
The appellate panel wrote in the opinion.
Our conclusion is straightforward because the members, 29 senators and 186 members of the House of Representatives, do not constitute a majority of either body and are therefore powerless to approve or deny the president's acceptance of foreign emoluments.
Trump described Friday's decision, a total win, a total win, as he spoke to reporters
at the White House. It was another phony case, and we won it three to nothing. Trump added,
the challenge to Trump centered around benefits that his companies appear to receive from foreign
governments while he's in office, like government's hotel bookings and regulation approvals abroad.
The emoluments clause of the Constitution, which has faced few judicial interpretation since it
was written almost 250 years ago, says no person holding any office shall, without the consent of
Congress accept gifts or other benefits from foreign states.
The Democratic subpoenas in this lawsuit sought the President's company's tax returns and other financial information about Trump's business assets.
I'm gonna stop you right there.
This is just an attempt to dig up dirt to smear the President.
I don't believe it.
They did this before, okay?
There was a story about Trump's tax returns.
And they said, something strange is happening.
When Trump is renting out his properties, he claims a certain percentage is being rented, but later on tax form says more is being occupied.
That means he's lying on his taxes.
Oh no, what they really said was potential fraud.
You know, it could be a million things.
It could be that rental space allotted for, you know, rental space, that is the data point for investors, is different from total occupied space.
There's a bunch of reasons the numbers could have been different.
The time frame wasn't that large, my understanding.
Maybe he rented some space out, or evicted some people, or more importantly, maybe he used personal offices for himself, and that didn't qualify as rentable space, so the percentages were different.
But when they get the information through underhanded means, they then present smears on Donald Trump, claiming he's doing a bunch of illegal things.
And I will tell you this.
If that were the case, you'd think the IRS, who audited him, and has for a long time, would have found something.
More importantly, if there's a discrepancy on the form, they'll probably just fine him the difference.
People seem to think that like, ah, we gotcha.
Yeah, Ilhan Omar committed some campaign finance violations and they slapped her on the wrist and she paid a fine.
That was it.
What do you think would happen if Trump, you know, did something?
The reality is, they're trying to make him look bad.
I don't think the issue is that Trump actually did anything illegal for the most part.
I think that they're like, well, if we can just show something that attacks his character or makes him look bad, we can frame it however we want.
They lost.
Trump wins again, which seems to be the case.
And now we have this.
They should because it was a hoax.
Donald Trump wants the House to expunge its impeachment vote in the wake of his acquittal.
If the Republicans win, In November, and take the House back, I'd be willing to bet one of the first things they do is expunge the impeachment of Trump.
And then, on paper, it's not that it didn't happen, because we'll never forget the insanity of it.
Trump fundraised off it.
But they all say they expunged it, and that's what Trump wants.
Because then he gets his total exoneration.
When Trump got acquitted, on Twitter we saw these trends where they're like, acquittal is not exoneration.
I mean, it kinda is.
You know, we're in a court of law.
You're innocent until proven guilty.
Another hashtag was, not guilty doesn't mean innocent.
Let me stop you right there.
You're right, technically, but Trump was innocent until proven guilty.
He wasn't proven guilty, therefore, guess what?
He's innocent, as far as we can tell.
You must prove your accusations.
The Daily Mail reports that President Trump on Friday said the House should expunge his impeachment vote on him in the wake of his acquittal.
They should because it was a hoax.
It was a total political hoax, he told reporters on the South Lawn.
Kevin McCarthy, the leader, originally suggested the House should expunge its December vote on the two articles of impeachment, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
McCarthy, a close Trump ally, said the original impeachment vote shouldn't stay on the books since the president has been found not guilty in the Senate trial.
I don't think that's the reason.
I think it shouldn't appear on the books because they need to do a couple things.
For one, we need to state the higher standard of what an impeachment should be.
Right now, it is high crimes and misdemeanors, treason, or bribery.
Trump did none of those things.
They then claimed, but abusive power is a violation of public trust.
I'm sorry, does the Constitution say that impeachment shall be available when the president violates the public trust?
No.
It says treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors.
Trump was accused of no statutory crime.
He didn't obstruct Congress, which is absurd, because they didn't even try to go to the Supreme Court, which checks and balances are supposed to be there for.
So, no.
I don't think they had real standing to impeach the president.
And in reality, it was just partisan.
Not even completely, like... I think partisan's kind of unfair because the rejection of it, the no vote, was actually bipartisan.
And they even lost a Democrat over this.
Apparently now, there's an attempt at a constitutional amendment that will require a supermajority in the House, or a two-thirds majority, in order to launch an impeachment inquiry.
I kind of feel like that's a good idea.
I really, really do.
I don't think it'll happen.
But why should impeachment be a simple majority?
I think that may have been a mistake.
Because now we're seeing a two-party system and partisan impeachment.
If you had Two-thirds of Congress and the president was of the opposing party.
Well, then it stands to reason that most of the country opposes the party the president is in, right?
A two-thirds majority makes the most sense because it would bypass party-line impeachment processes.
Otherwise, I think we're going to see it again.
You know, I'm willing to bet if the Republicans win back the House, I think we'll see that tit-for-tat.
I think the Democrats are going to reap what they have sown.
And a lot of people have been saying it.
Now, I think it's also fair to point out Republicans may have just been reaping what they have sown with Bill Clinton.
Admittedly, I wasn't cognizant of politics at that age.
I think I was like 10 or something, so spare me if I'm not super familiar with what happened.
But it's gonna keep going around.
It's never gonna stop.
And I think it's getting worse, especially with Pelosi ripping up that paper.
I don't see this becoming... I don't think things getting... I don't see things getting better anytime soon.
Come November, it is going to be sheer chaos.
If you thought things were crazy today, just wait.
New Hampshire is coming up, Nevada is coming up, and boy, oh boy, is it going to get nuts.
