Democrats Already Planning SECOND Trump Impeachment As Pelosi DEMANDS New Investigation into Trump
Democrats Already Planning SECOND Trump Impeachment As Pelosi DEMANDS New Investigation into Trump. Over the past several months Democrats have repeatedly claimed that they could impeach Trump a second time if need be.Now we have multiple stories either pushing for a new impeachment or explaining why there should be one. In one story they explain that Adam Schiff still has a probe of Trump and his businesses and a former Trump associate is predicting that Trump will be impeached again.But now we have calls from nancy pelosi to investigate Trump and Bill Barr over the sentencing of Roger Stone and the resignation of 4 prosecutors running the case.Democrats are claiming that Trump is retaliating against witnesses, targeting family members, and cutting deals for his friends.But in reality Trump has the ability to pardon anyone he wants and if he wanted Roger Stone to stay out of prison he could just say so, there is no reason to play this weird game with Democrats.In all likelihood this is just another excuse to line up the second Impeachment of Trump as we get close to the 2020 elections in November where most forecasts have them set to lose to a Trump landslide.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Nancy Pelosi is already calling for more investigations into Trump.
And this is significant because it seems like we're gearing up for impeachment round two.
In December, Democrats said we will impeach him again.
In the end of January, beginning of February, we will impeach him again.
Then we saw calls in large newspapers that Donald Trump should be impeached again.
And it seemed like the media and Democrats had been digging for a reason.
And they just got that reason with the reduced sentence recommendation for Roger Stone and the resignation of four prosecutors who are working on the case.
Now, they claim this is proof Trump is a tyrant.
He's he's he's pardoning and getting his friends off who committed crimes.
There is so much wrong with this assessment.
First of all, the president can pardon anybody who is acute, federally.
And Barack Obama, at the same time in his presidency, actually pardoned more people than Donald Trump.
I didn't see anybody freaking out about that.
More importantly, Donald Trump maintains he did not intervene, but Pelosi says by simply tweeting about Roger Stone's case, the president is muddying up the politics full stop, okay?
Donald Trump wanted to commute the sentence or pardon Roger Stone.
He could just do it.
And he maintains he did not tell Barr to do anything.
We don't necessarily know why these four prosecutors resigned.
In fact, some have suggested maybe they were even fired.
Which maybe is why Nancy Pelosi wants the investigation, but we'll dig into that.
More importantly, I want to take a look at some of these stories very quickly before we get into the hard news about Roger Stone, where this story from just the other day, former Trump official predicts the president will be impeached again.
Boy, you thought you could get out of this ride, but you were wrong.
You know, we suffered through Russiagate, Ukrainegate impeachment, and they're going to pull us right back in.
Donald Trump doesn't win.
Or, I'm sorry, if the Republicans don't win back the House.
You can bet it's going to be a wild ride after 2021, as the Democrats do not relent on their insane and inane investigations, which have never borne any fruit.
Let's start with the story.
And then I'll work you towards where I think second impeachment is underway.
And I'm going to preempt their arguments and show you why, in all likelihood, Roger Stone probably should get some kind of reduced sentence.
If not, maybe he should be pardoned because the Russia investigation was bunk.
But let's get started with this story from Ceylon.
Before we do, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several different options, a PayPal option, a crypto option, physical address, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
Maybe there's a lot of people who like that Donald Trump will be impeached again and they want to hear it.
Great.
Hopefully that will be enough to help shatter the echo chambers, but regardless of that, it really does help my channel grow because YouTube has some kind of weird Google search blacklist in which I and many others am on.
You can't search for my channel.
And that seriously does hurt the opportunity for growth.
So if you want to help me out, share the video.
Let's read.
Salon, which I might add is a very kooky website to say the least, says former former Trump official predicts that
president the president will be impeached again.
So they're actually citing the raw story, which is another kooky website, but let's read.
On CNN Monday, JW Verrett, a George Mason University law professor and former member of the Trump transition team, predicted that President Donald Trump will end up impeached again, saying, quote, You say the president feels empowered now, said co-anchor Jim Sciutto.
I wonder if, in your view, this will lead the president to feel he can seek foreign help in the election.
They are vetting information Rudy Giuliani gathered in Ukraine from very questionable sources.
I'm not sorry to see Sondland go.
He didn't acquit himself well.
He participated in a violation of law.
It took two of three times to come forward to Congress.
The Vindman firing isn't acceptable.
The only thing to prevent Trump to collude with a foreign power for a third time looks like frontrunners.
For a third time looks like frontrunners.
Probably Russia doesn't have any dirt on them.
Maybe they can hack the servers.
It's worrisome.
Quote, he will be impeached again.
I don't know what for, and it will be legitimate, added Verrett.
It could be for things personal having to do with his company.
Just to stick on that for a moment, if people missed in the intro when I said you worked for the president on the transition team, said Poppy Harlow, you were a believer, a supporter, and now you're saying he's going to be impeached again.
It doesn't matter if you support the president.
We know he's going to be impeached again.
Okay, let me stop.
I don't want to make the hard predicting because I'm not entirely sure.
But I got to tell you, the dominoes are being lined up and they're getting ready to flick that first domino and send them all crashing down.
They have been talking about second impeachment forever.
Check this out.
What is this?
December 23rd.
House counsel suggests Trump could be impeached again.
That was even before the Senate got the actual impeachment paperwork and there were any managers.
Then we see this.
February 3rd.
Trump impeachment trial.
Democrats warn Trump will do it again if acquitted.
That's right.
They have continually talked about the potential for another impeachment.
And now they're giving it to us.
From the Washington Times.
Impeachment 2.0?
Democrats line up possible new charges against Trump.
This isn't the last story.
So, I certainly want to read it to see what they're insinuating at the Washington Times from February 6.
They say, Democrats already have lined up possible charges if they choose to pursue impeachment 2.0.
Why?
Because the Democrats don't learn.
Record fundraising for Trump, record approval rating, doing better than ever, and you think you want to go through another impeachment?
That was a slogfest.
Americans absolutely hated sitting through that.
The ratings were plummeting and you lost.
Here's the thing though.
If the House is maintained by the Democrats after the 2020 elections in November, they will do it again.
And they'll do everything they can to hurt and remove the president.
So it really does come down to whether or not Trump's base are going to come out in force and win back these moderate districts.
I honestly don't know.
I think they will.
But I was wrong in 2018.
And voter turnout in New Hampshire was up.
Now, in Iowa, it was down.
So we don't know yet what's going to happen.
But I'll tell you this, hubris will be your downfall.
If the Democrats maintain that House, I mean, well, look, Trump could lose in November, sure.
I don't think it's likely, but possible.
But if the Democrats keep the House, get ready for 2.0.
If you thought 1.0 was bad, impeachment to, I don't know, Vindman, Boogaloo, whatever they're going to drum up.
Oh, oh, Roger Stone.
That's what it's going to be.
It's over the Roger Stone stuff.
And I got it.
I'll show you.
They say, still pending is a wide-open probe launched by Adam Schiff, California Democrat.
Mr. Schiff has been investigating President Trump, his family and businesses, the Trump Organization, over the congressman's suspicion of blackmail, money laundering and bribery.
Seems like Schiff just makes things up.
He is one of the most mind-drilling politicians I have ever seen.
He just seriously stands up, literally makes things up, and here we are.
Like, he literally read a fake transcript into congressional record.
And a lot of people believed it was real.
It's sad, I know.
I'm not saying the majority or most, I'm just saying a lot of people did.
That's what he does.
Republican staffers say the inquiry was put on hold last fall, pending the Ukraine impeachment proceedings led by Mr. Schiff, but there's no sign Mr. Schiff has given up on trying to prove Mr. Trump is corrupt.
And if the president is impeached again, the charges would likely come from this probe, informed sources said.
Perhaps.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps.
Because the probe's already underway.
What about what Nancy Pelosi is calling for?
First, I'd like to show you this, what has the Democrats, yes, I'll say it, in panic, fears of more post-impeachment purges, grow as Trump says military should punish Vindman.
Well, Trump's getting rid of the Obama holdovers finally, and naturally they're shrieking, say it's retaliation against family members.
Dude, Obama got rid of a ton of people when he first got in office.
Trump's mistake was not doing the same thing.
But of course, no matter what Trump does, they say, for him, it's a bad thing.
For everyone else, it's fine.
Now I do have the data on pardoning, but I want to get to that in a second because I want to show you now what Nancy Pelosi is saying and go through what's happening with Roger Stone.
I believe that Roger Stone may be the pretext for the next impeachment.
However, with a caveat, they may be going after Bill Barr.
We'll see how this plays out, but it may actually end up with President Trump.
So if it's not Trump, maybe Barr.
A viral trend on Twitter, disbar Barr and impeach Barr.
It's not the first time people have called for this because they say Barr is just working at the behest of Trump and doing everything he wants like the mafia.
Let me tell you something.
Oh, I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
I should have shown you this.
Yes, George Conway already called for impeaching Trump again.
We get it.
We get it.
Nancy Pelosi calls for investigation into Roger Stone's sentencing recommendation.
And here it is.
They're going to do the same thing.
Abuse of power.
Why is it that Trump, in his purview to set foreign policy, was accused of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress?
The Democrats never went to SCOTUS to resolve the issue, but then claimed they had the authority to impeach the president over these things.
Now we have Again, within the president's purview, the right to commute and pardon individuals.
Nothing in the Constitution says, yeah, but don't pardon your friends.
He likes Roger Stone.
He's done it for a long time.
He can.
I do think it's important to point out the Mueller investigation was built upon nonsense and proved to be false.
So I think we've got dangerous precedent of triggering phony investigations that result in people getting charged for things like obstruction or lying.
Now, I get it.
You know, if there is an investigation, you should not be allowed to obstruct this.
But what if the investigation was predicated on lies and misinformation?
Now you have a dangerous precedent to where law enforcement would have the right, or have the ability, I should say, not the right, the ability, to start a phony investigation to set up perjury traps to get people locked up.
It's not going to be good for freedom.
The other funny thing about the whole Roger Stone thing is that people are more concerned about whether or not Trump has the right to pardon anybody and the resignations of these prosecutors instead of whether or not the sentence against Roger Stone was draconian, seeking nine years.
Well, Nancy Pelosi tweeted, By tweet, real Donald Trump engaged in political interference in the sentencing of Roger Stone.
It is outrageous that DOJ has deeply damaged the rule of law by withdrawing its recommendation.
Stepping down of prosecutors should be commended and actions of DOJ should be investigated.
You kidding, dude?
Trump can pardon anybody!
What is this?
It's literally the presidential power to issue federal pardons.
Investigated for what?
And Trump maintains he never told Barr to do anything.
From the Hill, Trump says he didn't order Justice to change sentencing for Roger Stone.
According to most reporting, The DOJ says they were planning this before Trump even said anything at all.
Now, I talked about this the other day.
Maybe it's because they knew Trump might get mad.
I don't know.
Does it matter?
You're trying to argue one thing and both sides are saying no.
The Hill reports.
President Trump said Tuesday that he didn't instruct the Justice Department to change his longtime associate Roger Stone's prison sentence recommendation, while insisting he would be allowed to do so and calling the recommendation ridiculous.
I stay out of things.
Trump told reporters in the Oval Office when asked whether he asked the department to change the recommendation.
I didn't speak to them.
I thought the recommendation was ridiculous.
I thought the whole prosecution was ridiculous.
I thought it was an insult to our country and it shouldn't happen.
The Justice Department on Tuesday lessened its sentencing recommendation for Stone after prosecutors said in a filing a day prior that he should receive seven to nine years in prison.
The news came after Trump criticized the sentencing recommendation in a tweet early Tuesday morning calling it very unfair and saying that such a miscarriage of justice should not be allowed.
Why would anyone at the DOJ panic over Trump's opinion?
You could argue, as I did.
Maybe they knew Trump would get angry and said we better change this.
They claimed to have delivered the recommendation before Trump even tweeted about it.
But they have nothing to worry about.
They can do their jobs, and if Trump is upset, he'll just issue his pardon or commute the sentence.
Why would they care at all?
Which brings me to the next big story as to why this is gearing up to be impeachment number two.
Four prosecutors quit after a Justice Department takes extraordinary step of lowering recommended prison time for Roger Stone.
Now, here's the challenge.
You have two views of this.
Trump is a mafioso orange dictator who is getting his friends off the hook, who obstructed the Mueller investigation, and got away by the skin of his teeth.
The other side is you've got Mueller's prosecutors, Mueller's bad investigation, which bore no fruit, which turned to be bunk, turned out to be bunk.
And the FISA warrants, some of them turned out to be bunk.
And now Trump is saying this case against Roger Stone should have never happened.
I mean, think about this.
They raided Roger Stone's house at like in the wee hours of the morning with like SWAT gear on.
Dude, how old is this guy, Roger Stone?
It's like in his 70s or something.
It's ridiculous.
They show up to his house for all this, like this raid, with cameras waiting.
I have no idea what they were intending to do.
But as my understanding, these prosecutors worked for Mueller.
Trump recently accused Mueller of lying.
So, some people predict, or suggest, this may have been a firing.
The DOJ may have gone to them and said, the prosecution of Roger Stone, no dice, get out, we want your resignation.
When people are fired, especially in positions like this, they're not told to get out and security comes and escort them out.
They're told to tender their resignation.
We don't know the circumstances in which they left.
I'm also curious if the case can even move forward now that all four prosecutors are gone.
I don't think there's a grand conspiracy or that Trump is pulling mafioso moves because it makes literally no sense.
He could pardon or commute anyone he wants.
Maybe it's like a Jussie Smollett thing where he wants to make sure that Roger Stone never gets convicted in the first place so they can say he's not a felon or whatever.
I don't even, I think it's a felony, maybe not.
The point is, there's too much going on here and too much speculation and bias from everybody.
All I can really say is, it's within the president's purview to pardon or commute anybody he wants.
And if the DOJ wants to reduce prison time, so what?
Barack Obama pardoned tons of people.
Everybody did.
So in the next story...
Trump congratulates Bill Barr for taking charge of Stone Case.
Look, it makes sense.
Bill Barr is a guy Trump likes.
If Trump says he didn't instruct anybody to do anything, well, what are we supposed to do?
I'll tell you what the Democrats are going to do.
They're going to call for an investigation.
And here's the funny thing.
Imagine if Trump literally did nothing.
Imagine he did not go to Bill Barr.
They would investigate anyway.
As we already read, Adam Schiff is still... He's still got an open probe into Trump's personal business dealings.
And he only stopped because Ukrainegate happened.
Yeah, I'm sorry, man.
If I was gonna make a bet...
It's going to be that Trump will be impeached again.
I'm willing to bet it's going to be Adam Schiff.
It's going to be the same trashy nonsense, but it could very well be Bill Barr.
From Newsweek, impeach Barr and disbar Barr trend after Roger Stone's prosecutors resign over DOJ's decision to lower prison sentence.
So they may just go after Bill Barr.
Donald Trump got someone who, you can call him a loyalist, or you can call him a good, you know, attorney general, whatever you want to call him.
Bill Barr, they want him to be removed because he is working at the behest of Trump, I suppose.
What would they expect?
They wanted somebody who was going to reject the orders of the president?
Or are they mad that Trump is exercising the power of the presidency?
It's probably the latter.
They never wanted him to be president in the first place.
But I want to wrap something up, and then we'll talk about whether or not Trump has the right to do it.
The DOJ acknowledges insufficient cause to monitor former Trump aide Carter Page as suspected Russian Russian agent.
And this this is me preempting where we will eventually go.
I want you to remember this.
Russiagate bore no fruit.
I say it for the third time.
The DOJ acknowledges insufficient cause to monitor Carter Page.
Why did the whole probe happen?
I have no idea.
I know what the conspiracy is.
The conspiracy theories suggest that, you know, if you're on the left, they think Trump interfered, is working with Russia.
And by obstructing Mueller, Mueller couldn't do anything, so Trump brings in Barr and Barr fires Mueller, ending the investigation.
But he's a criminal, they say!
They still suggest that Trump is corrupt and working for the Russians.
Not exaggerating.
In the impeachment trial, they suggested he was still working with the Russians and cheated in 2016.
Now, on the other side, the conspiracy theory is that actors with holdovers, people within the Deep State, are secretly plotting against Donald Trump.
The only problem is that there's no evidence Trump was colluding with Russia.
And there is evidence that resistance-type people for years have been talking about getting rid of Trump.
Does that mean there's a grand Deep State conspiracy?
No.
Please, calm down.
Not at all.
It just means that there are people that Obama appointed who are biased and trying to throw a wrench in the spokes.
We read the book.
Remember?
A warning by Anonymous claiming to be in the White House and doing everything to subvert and bring about Donald Trump's downfall?
So, yeah, they kind of admitted there's a group of people tacitly conspiring.
I say tacitly, like, as in, they hate the president.
They're working against him.
It doesn't mean it's a grand, coordinated effort.
It means these people need to go.
So perhaps Trump was right to go about firing many of these holdovers.
He should have done it in the first place.
How can the country function?
I want to show you something.
I want to preempt the investigations and the crying and the shrieking about Donald Trump and Roger Stone.
What you're looking at, as I scroll very, very quickly through, is a list of all of the pardons from Barack Obama going back to December 3rd, 2010.
Now, just before Barack Obama left office, he issued a ton of pardons, as most presidents seem to do.
At the same time in his presidency, Donald Trump issued four less pardons than Barack Obama did.
If Trump really wanted Stone out, he'd have snapped his fingers and said, get it done.
He can.
So they're freaking out over nothing.
It is within the president's purview.
That brings me now to why I think if... Okay, I'll wrap this up.
I believe we are going to see Impeachment 2.0 if the Democrats maintain control of the House, because that's when they get the vote, but also because Adam Schiff is using his position in the House Intelligence Committee not to do intelligence oversight, but to shriek Orange Man bad and investigate Donald Trump.
House Intel Republicans boycott hearing, citing Schiff's failure to hold hearing on FISA abuse.
And there it is.
A court has ruled two of these warrants were bad, as I've just shown you.
And the Republicans want answers.
You know what?
I want answers, too!
I want to know what's going on.
I want public hearings.
You got your hearings on Trump nonstop, over and over again for years.
Please, can we bring in, you know, Hunter Biden?
Can Adam Schiff testify?
But Adam Schiff apparently is doing nothing, and the Republicans are quite angry about it.
And that's probably because Adam Schiff isn't campaigning on bettering his district or doing anything to help the American people.
Adam Schiff is obsessed.
He has a psychotic and unhealthy obsession with Donald Trump.
Dare I say, a severe case of acute Trump derangement syndrome.
Listen, man, the election is coming up.
If you work on bolstering your candidates, you could probably win.
But maybe that's just it.
Adam Schiff doesn't care about his district, doesn't care about the country or the American people.
He just hates Trump.
It is mind-numbingly boring.
You know what, man?
We might actually get a second impeachment before the next election.
You know why?
We're headed towards a strong likelihood, or I'm sorry, we're in.
We have a strong likelihood of a contested Democrat convention.
And the superdelegates will probably swoop in and give it to Buttigieg.
Who knows?
We're only through two states so far, Iowa and New Hampshire.
But what do you think happens when the Democrats start realizing their base is split, they don't have the votes to go up against Trump, and they need hard dirt?
Impeachment 2.0, baby.
With Nancy Pelosi calling for investigations into Trump's actions with Bill Barr.
With activists demanding the impeachment!
The disbarring of Bill Barr, what do you think's going to happen?
They know they're going to lose.
I mean, we're heading for Trump 2020 landslide as far as most of the data shows.
Now, the polls don't, but the polls have been wrong.
Economic forecast models, on the other hand, say Trump gonna win this one.
I think they're going to pull an insane Hail Mary.
Now, I could be wrong.
This is all based off of today's information, which is subject to change.
But it seriously looks like Impeachment 2.0 is going to come, and it's going to come quick.
This is the offensive line.
The Democrats are fighting internally.
They have to choose who's going to represent them in November.
There's going to be chaos.
And that means the frontline Democrats, people like Schiff, who are on the offensive, aren't going to do what they're supposed to do, you know, actually legislate and hold oversight hearings for the intelligence oversight hearings.
No, they're going to go after Trump.
They're going to go after Trump.
Because they want to win.
And they need to make sure they don't lose the House.
So I think we will see some big scandal, some big investigation.
The hearings haven't stopped.
After the Mueller probe, we got the Ukrainegate nonsense, then we got the impeachment trial.
It's gonna happen again.
I'll put money on it.
I'm joking.
I mean that not literally.
I'm saying as a gentleman's bet.
I will say, I hope you're geared up for Impeachment 2.0, a rollercoaster ride I will likely avoid.
But of course, as I talk politics and news, I'm going to get roped into this.
It's not going to be fun.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all there.
Yesterday evening we got news that Jussie Smollett was being indicted again for the hoax, hate crime, false police report shenanigans.
If for some reason you live under a rock and don't know what happened with actor Jussie Smollett, let me give you some quick context.
He claimed that at like three in the morning on a winter's day in Chicago, a couple Trump supporters came up to him yelling, this is MAGA country.
Throwing a small fake noose around his neck and splashing him with bleach.
The story made no sense.
Basically, anybody with a rational mind didn't believe it.
But what did we see?
Celebrities doing these photo shoots saying, like, we stand with Jussie and all this other stupid nonsense.
Sure enough, tons of evidence came out that he basically, in all likelihood, faked everything and he got indicted.
But then for some reason, the state prosecutor decided to drop all of the charges.
Jussie, I understand, would have been a felon.
And that's serious restrictions on his life.
It's like, I don't think you can actually travel outside the country or you can't go to a lot of countries.
There are serious problems for him if he would have been, you know, convicted or even pled guilty.
So the charges got dropped.
It's a huge investigation.
Everybody's freaking out.
Special prosecutor gets in the case and now we have it.
He is being indicted on six counts for lying to police about being the victim of a racist homophobic attack.
A year after similar charges were dropped, but we have an update this morning.
His attorney has issued a statement basically saying, We're gonna read this.
And I think it's very important you see the latest updates because perhaps we will get justice.
But this story was major, major national news with celebrities holding up little signs saying like, oh poor Jesse, oh harumph I say.
As if two dudes in Chicago with MAGA caps on would be yelling about MAGA countries.
It's like the stupidest story I've ever heard.
But did you know that just a few days ago, a man took a van and crashed it through a Republican voter tent?
Fortunately, nobody was hurt.
Jussie wasn't hurt either.
And no one said anything.
It didn't really make the news.
A guy in a van crashed into a Republican voter tent, got out filming, flipped off the people who he nearly, he could have killed, and then he got in his van and took off.
We didn't see a lot of people in the mainstream press talking about it.
Local news definitely covered it.
Conservative news definitely covered it.
A lot of independent news definitely covered it.
But in the mainstream?
No.
Of course, all of these news outlets were like, just see when he faked his attack.
Presumably faked his attack.
See, I'm being careful.
We have an update.
Turns out it was a politically motivated attack.
I mean, we knew it.
But the guy who got arrested said he did it because someone had to take a stand.
So now we know for a fact that this guy was trying to hurt, maim, or kill Trump supporters, or hurt, you know, scare people.
It's overt terror.
And where's the big breaking news?
Where are the celebrities coming out saying, we stand with the American voter, we stand with the people of Florida?
They don't care.
This guy took a van, crashed through a tent.
What did Justice Smollett do?
What happened to him?
Nothing, as far as we can tell.
I've got both stories and I want to show you, but we're going to start with the latest on Justice Smollett's Daily Mail reporting.
Justice Smollett has been indicted by a special prosecutor in Chicago nearly a year after the initial charges against him over an alleged hoax attack were dropped.
A Cook County grand jury hit the Empire actor with six counts of disorderly conduct on Tuesday for allegedly staging a racist and homophobic hate crime and lying to police about it.
Special Prosecutor Dan Webb announced the charges against Smollett and said that the further prosecution of the actor is in the interest of justice.
It is now more than a year since Smollett claimed he was attacked at 2 a.m.
Okay, 2, sorry, not 3.
I gotta do this, okay?
I gotta stop.
I'm from Chicago, okay?
I used to skate at 2 in the morning around this area.
There's a place called... We used to call it The Clock.
I mean, I think it's called The Clock.
It's this giant clock face that you can walk through.
But when you look down from above, you can see it's a clock, so people in the buildings above can look down and actually see.
I don't think it's worked for a really long time, but it's a very, very famous skate spot, okay?
Skateboarders go there to skate and do tricks and hang out.
So I used to go there super early in the morning.
The best time to skate is like 2 a.m.
When I heard this story, I started laughing.
There's no way this is legit.
We would get on the train, like one of the last trains to go downtown, and we would skate around the city in the wee hours of the morning.
There was never anyone there, let alone roving bands of Trump supporters.
Granted, I left Chicago a long time ago, but it's Chicago, man.
It's blue.
There's no MAGA country there.
And besides, this area?
Nobody walks around that early in the morning.
It's ridiculous.
The story just made literally no sense.
So they basically, in the Daily Mail, just rehash everything we already know, but here's the big update.
We have a statement from the attorney for Justice Smollett, and I'm gonna go ahead and say, it is my personal and expert opinion, this statement is garbage, and it's obvious that Smollett staged all of this, but I must say alleged, because it's hard to prove definitively, unless or until he is convicted.
Let's see what happens in trial when they present their evidence.
Let's see how this plays out.
Dave Chappelle called him juicy smooly a we all think he did it but hey hey hey
standards are standards innocent until proven guilty so he got the charges you
know removed or whatever let's see what happens in trial when they present their
evidence let's see how this plays out because you know you might find maybe
maybe he was telling the truth Hey, hey, hey!
I know you're probably laughing right now.
Hey, some people win the lottery, okay?
There's astronomical odds to get that.
It's possible.
And I think it's very important for our constitutional standards that we do at least respect innocent until proven guilty.
So I will say this.
I think the dude done did it!
But he is at least innocent until proven guilty, right?
Let's read.
The indictment raises serious questions about the integrity of the investigation that led to the renewed charges against Mr. Smollett.
Not the least of which is the use of the same CPD detectives who were part of the original investigation into the attack on Mr. Smollett to conduct the current investigation.
Despite Mr. Smollett's pending civil claims against the City of Chicago and CPD officers for malicious prosecution.
Sorry.
Spare me.
And one of the two witnesses who testified before the grand jury is the very same detective Mr. Smollett is currently suing for his role in the initial prosecution of him.
I gotta say, they shouldn't have done that.
I really do think the city should not have done that.
Now, it may be that Jussie's trying to create a conflict of interest, and that's not entirely fair, but I think they could have gotten everything they wanted with independent investigators checking into the claims made by the detectives and verifying whether they were true or not.
You'd have the same evidence, the same statements, but an independent third-party investigator saying, I checked into what he said, here's what he said, I believe it to be true and accurate.
And then they couldn't say this.
Let's read on.
After more than five months of investigation, the Office of the Special Prosecutor has not found any evidence of wrongdoing whatsoever related to the dismissal of the charges against Mr. Smollett.
Rather, the charges were appropriately dismissed the first time because they were not supported by the evidence.
That's, as far as I know, not true because CPD and many local journalists have published some pretty strong evidence.
The attempt to re-prosecute Mr. Smollett one year later, on the eve of the Cook County State's Attorney election, is clearly all about politics and not justice.
Well, you done made a mistake, Mr. Smollett and his attorney and the prosecutors.
You should have given him the slap on the wrist instead of the walk.
You could have given him misdemeanor charges.
Sure, it would have been bad for his career, but now he's going to get felony charges.
If you gave him a slap on the wrist, people would grumble and say, fine, whatever.
Now it seems like it's going to get bad.
Actually, are they felony charges?
I don't know if they actually say that.
Well, we'll see what happens.
I don't think it mentions whether it's a misdemeanor or a felony.
This story from the Daily Mail basically just goes into rehashing all of the stuff we already know, showing the videos and everything.
But here's what I want to contrast this with.
Let me ask you a question.
Why is it that this crazy looking dude right here, with this crazy weird fascist haircut, I'm being somewhat facetious, why isn't he on the front, you know, on the lead of every major news story?
Why aren't celebrities coming out saying, you know, condemn this man?
Oh, because the news never does stuff like this.
Because Jussie Smollett fit their narrative.
Because these people live in strange bubble world and they don't actually care or empathize with people who live in the country outside of their personal space.
So when this guy crashed a van through a voter tent, not only did he nearly kill, hurt, or maim people, and he intended to, but he actually shut down people's right to vote.
So we have a couple stories here that, for some reason, just don't make large mainstream news.
Voter suppression.
How many people now are going to say, I'm too scared to go out and vote?
Because I've seen the videos of the crazies.
I've seen the videos of Antifa.
How many people won't go out to even vote, let alone register, because of people like this?
That's terrorism.
Yet where is the press?
Where are the headlines?
This should be major news, right?
Unfortunately, it's not.
Jussie Smollett, however, with no evidence, can claim that someone yelled MAGA country and it becomes a national story.
I remember, what was it, like the Big Bang Theory where they did that big photo thing where they said, like, we stand with Jussie?
What about this?
The guy admitted it.
And none of you care.
That's what I find funny about this whole thing.
This is what I find funny about America.
It's all tribalism.
It has nothing to do with policy.
You know, whether or not someone is left or right has nothing to do with where they stand politically.
It has to do with whether or not they're on someone's side or in a ill-defined tribe.
So when this happens, the media just doesn't care.
And it's funny when they say, but the media is not really biased.
They're biased not only in how they present facts, but in what they choose to present.
And it's true for a lot of people, right?
You can say that I'm biased because on my main channel, and on this one for the most part, I'm typically angry with, you know, Democrats.
But this is exactly why.
You don't need to come to my channel to hear the same stupid nonsense and ill-made points that the mainstream media and large news organizations make.
And what frustrates me and why I do videos like this, why I do videos about the absurdity of the Democrats, is because I've lived a life where, you know, I've watched the media ignore all of these things.
And I feel like there is a hole in what needs to be presented to create a balanced view of what's really going on.
So people complain.
Why don't you complain and make videos dedicated to ragging on Trump?
Two reasons.
First of all, I do rag on the guy, you know, fairly often.
But more importantly, every single outlet does all day, every day.
I would just be throwing static into it.
You know, I'd be spitting in the wind.
It's just, it doesn't do anything.
Literally adds nothing.
It balances no views.
And that's why I always say, watch other progressive videos too and add mine to your healthy news diet.
Because I'm also biased.
In what I choose to cover.
The problem is, while my channels do get a decent amount of views, and I have tremendous respect for everybody who watches, it makes me feel, you know, thank you for supporting my work, I have nowhere near the reach of Fox, CNN, or MSNBC or these other major outlets.
Now Fox did cover this.
It wasn't a major lead story as far as I can tell, it was one of their Fox News alerts.
So even Fox News isn't propping this up as much as the Justice Smollett thing was.
And I think it's fair to say, yeah, okay, Justice Smollett is a celebrity, and this became a major culture war issue with celebrity doing, you know, this kind of nonsense.
But I feel like we should be having a bigger conversation about all of the times someone has gone after Republicans, Trump supporters, and I understand Fox does.
Naturally, that's their audience.
But most of the media does not.
So what should I do?
Should I say, I'm going to get in line like a good little sheep and just say whatever it is the media already says?
Or am I going to look for under-reported stories the media won't cover and try and present, you know, a different view or highlight stories that are being neglected?
Nobody's perfect.
Not even the big media companies, not even me.
There's not really much you can do about it.
But let's read this because, you know, I'm kind of dragging on.
They say anti-Trump terrorist van attacker.
Quote, someone had to take a stand from the post-millennial.
A Jacksonville man has been accused of assault after allegedly driving a van through a tent that had senior citizen Trump supporters registering to vote.
I don't think it's allegedly.
I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the dude did it and admitted to doing it.
But okay, fine.
I think it's fair to say, constitutionally, innocent until proven guilty.
I didn't see the video.
Let's read on.
According to police, Gregory Tim faces counts of aggravated assault on a victim over the age of 65, one count of criminal mischief, and one count of driving while his license is suspended.
His bond has been set at just over $500,000.
The attack took place at 2.45 Saturday afternoon at a shopping plaza with a Walmart Supercenter.
Police say a group of six others narrowly avoided being struck by the van before driving off and giving what organizers called an obscene gesture towards the crowd.
Tim himself confirmed that the van action was an anti-Trump political attack, which would classify it as a terrorist attack by Florida state law.
According to Chapter 775 of Florida law, 1.
Terrorism is to intimidate, injure, or coerce a civilian population.
Influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
Affect the conduct of government through destruction of property, assassination, murder, kidnapping, or aircraft piracy.
Wow, aircraft piracy!
Tim also, quote, willingly showed police video of himself driving at the stand full of Trump volunteers.
So we have this tweet from Jack Posobiec and it looks like this is a document from police where he said someone had to take a stand.
Against what?
A bunch of 65-year-olds sitting in the Florida heat asking people to register to vote?
That's what you're taking a stand against?
That's what you're scared about?
I've seen it.
When I was in Berkeley, and these people scream that, you know, it was the darndest thing, I might say.
I was told by this Antifa dude, we got to talking actually, he said the park was full of fascists.
And I was like, first of all, there's a bunch of like 60-year-old women in that field, standing around.
And he was like, oh yeah.
I'm like, did you think the old lady that got knocked over in your skirmish is a fascist?
unidentified
And they actually defend it, saying, a lot of them have, you know, really racist and bigoted views.
More importantly, in Berkeley, there was a couple of super hippie-dippie looking guys, kind of tall, wearing like tie-dye shirt kind of things, you know, long hippie-dippie hair.
And I asked them if they were there as Trump supporters, and they were like, nope, just for free speech, you know.
It's Berkeley.
Famous free speech spot.
And that was amazing to me, considering Antifa came out and started beating the crap out of people, and a fight broke out.
Antifa started it.
Full, you know, straight up.
So, you know, so look.
We see these people obsessively accusing everyone of being a fascist, including old people.
I will add as an aside to the funny thing about Berkeley was, I asked this guy, he had a knife on him too, he showed me his knife.
I asked him why he thought they were fascists and he started saying some dumb, stupid, antifa line.
And I was like, here's the thing, you realize these are the people who are so terrified of a fascist government taking over, they demand the right to bear arms against it, right?
And he was like, Well, yeah.
And I'm like, right, right.
Those people over there, right?
They're the ones saying, we don't want a fascist government takeover or a tyrannical government, so we want the right to bear arms.
And he was like, yeah.
I'm like, you see how that's kind of like, doesn't make sense?
You think they're the fascists and they're the ones freaking out about the government becoming tyrannical and them wanting weapons to fight again?
Like, come on, dude.
2 and 2 equals 4, right?
Let's read on.
So, according to the story, Tim said to the police, I want to take a stand.
In response to the attack, the Duval County GOP tweeted the following.
We are outraged by the senseless act of violence towards our great volunteers, said Duval GOP Chairman Dean Black.
The Republican Party of Duval County will not be intimidated by these cowards, and we will not be silenced.
The organization also tweeted.
The Republican Party of Duval County plans to redouble its efforts to register voters and will continue its fight with renewed intensity to re-elect President Donald Trump.
I call on every Republican in our great city to stand up, get involved, and show these radicals that we will not be intimidated from exercising our constitutional rights.
In a tweet, GOP Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel said, these unprovoked, senseless attacks on real Donald Trump supporters need to end.
President Donald Trump retweeted the tweets, adding, I'm going to wrap up with one final thought on this whole thing.
As an aside, because I'm not going to do a whole segment about this, but you may have seen that Donald Trump tweeted about tough guys for Trump.
It was a clip from the Curb Your Enthusiasm episode where apparently Larry David decides to wear a MAGA hat so people leave him alone.
He cuts off a motor, a biker, a motorcyclist, and this guy gets all angry and starts yelling at him.
He pulls over, and then before he rolls down the window, he puts on a MAGA hat, and then the biker just all of a sudden is not angry anymore.
It's just, all of a sudden the biker's not angry and just says, be more careful next time, and drives off.
Trump tweeted that out.
He said, tough guys for Trump.
And everyone started laughing like, oh my, oh no, haha, Trump doesn't realize they're making fun of him.
And I just facepalm.
I'm like, dude, first of all, it was a funny episode.
Second of all, Trump is rather self-deprecating in his humor and Trump supporters love it.
Third of all, Trump supporters love the idea that these jokes kind of give them cultural weight.
They like the jokes.
They love the memes.
Whatever gives Trump attention.
But for some reason, these people don't live in the real world.
And this loops back into exactly what I'm talking about with Smollett and this guy.
And I'll explain.
When you pay attention to what Trump supporters are saying, like, you know, I try and pay attention to everybody to see what's going on culturally, I notice that whenever they do these stupid jokes to mock Trump, the Trump supporters start using those jokes and they think it's funny.
There have been so many memes and pieces of art that mock Trump that become the top post on the Donald subreddit, and they're laughing and cheering about it because they have a sense of humor.
They don't care that, you know, you do this.
They just don't.
And that's really attractive to the average person, and it's why comedians are embracing pushing back on this PC nonsense.
But why then?
How does this relate here?
These people don't pay attention to what Trump supporters are doing or thinking or news about them.
They're in a bubble.
Like we know from 2016, left-wing journalists only follow left-wing journalists.
Conservative journalists follow both.
So you end up with these people seeing all the news about Jesse Smollett, the Covington kids, things like that.
They go nuts without fact-checking.
And these stories never see the light of day in the mainstream press because they're locked in a toilet swirl.
That's why I describe it.
I just call it a whirlpool, but let's call it a toilet.
Because they're sinking down towards the crapper.
They are wrapped up, chasing each other, spinning in circles faster and faster, heading towards the drain.
When they ignore stories like this.
Average Americans in Florida who heard this story probably got freaked out.
The national press didn't talk about it.
The good example of what's going on with our broken press is they still don't understand Trump and his supporters.
They don't.
And maybe it's because a lot of the sane, rational people that were once on the left jumped ship with that 9.4 million former Obama voters who then voted for Trump.
Many other moderates who went to Yang or Tulsi Gabbard, for instance, or people like me, who are paying attention, understand what's happening, condemn it, but we are not the people who work in media.
So it kind of feels like, you used to have a left that was supported by a lot of people, like me, like Mr. Jack Murphy was on my show the other day, but many of those people jumped ship, and now all that's left is the ignorant, inept individual who has no idea what's really going on, and thus, the news is suffering because of it.
But it's gonna come back to haunt him, when Trump wins in November.
But hey, maybe I'm wrong about him winning, we'll see what happens.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all there.
The results of the New Hampshire primaries are in, and the clear winner is Donald J. Trump.
For one reason, he has gotten way more votes than the past three incumbent elections.
In fact, more than two of them combined, more than double Obama.
So let me just clarify this very quickly.
Trump is essentially the only person who's running.
I mean, there are, it's like Bill Weld and Joe Walsh or whatever, but no one really takes them seriously.
So people don't need to come out and vote at all.
Yet, for some reason, people are still coming out.
As of right now, the number's actually a little bit higher.
It's about 128,000 votes for Donald Trump in the GOP primary in New Hampshire, something they really didn't need to do.
On the Democrats' side, no candidate broke 100,000 votes, but it is fair to say voter turnout for Democrats was really high.
And this is where the Democrats have some really, really good news.
Trump supporters, you better be on your toes.
Voter turnout for New Hampshire is set to be higher than 2008.
That's what they need to win in November.
Now, we don't know for sure how this will translate, because there is still really bad news for Democrats, and there's a reason why I say Trump is the clear winner.
Bernie Sanders narrowly, narrowly defeated Pete Buttigieg, but it was one of the thinnest victories, I think the thinnest we've seen in 68 years, and Buttigieg and Sanders tied for the delegate count, meaning Pete Buttigieg is in the lead nationally.
I know we've only had two states, but Nevada's coming up, we'll see how that plays out.
There is no clear victor on the Democrat side.
We can point to the excellent voter turnout, but then there comes the bad news.
Independent voters are down in the Democratic primaries, youth voters are down, and first-time voters are down.
Meaning, what we're likely seeing is that Democrats who are core Democrats are interested in voting for who they care about, but
honestly this is predictable.
The Democrats are in a state of chaos in civil war, so it makes sense that many
core Democrat-based voters are going to come out to support their candidates.
In the end, while Bernie Sanders can declare victory with a popular vote in Iowa,
and he can declare victory with a popular vote in New Hampshire,
unfortunately that's not the way the delegate system works, and Pete Buttigieg is leading.
How many of you remember 2016 Nevada?
Boy, oh boy, go watch those videos if you haven't seen it.
People were screaming, throwing things, like lifting up chairs.
It was nuts!
Apparently, they booted 64 Sanders delegates.
That way Hillary Clinton would win and get the full delegates.
So it was, it was rigged.
And the woman who was running it, Clearly!
She's like, who wants a recount?
And everyone's booing, saying no.
And she goes, the eyes have it.
Bangs the gavel and runs off.
The system was clearly rigged.
So, we're all really excited to see what happens, you know, what is it, next weekend in Nevada.
But we'll see.
Not this, I think the weekend after next.
But so, first.
These numbers for Donald Trump are, admittedly, it's a good reflection on the enthusiasm for the president relative to the past presidents who won re-election.
People are adamant about voting for Trump.
Look at this, Obama won re-election and Trump got more than double what Obama did.
Total vote count for Republicans is like half of what it is for Democrats.
But I think there's an easy way to explain this.
So, here we have the 2020 results for the primary election.
We can see Bernie Sanders, nine delegates with 75,000 votes, Buttigieg with 71,000,
Klobuchar with 58, Warren with 27, Biden 24, etc. This is actually really bad for
the progressives and bad for Bernie Sanders.
And overall, it's really bad for the Democrats.
Now, I'll show you FiveThirtyEight saying something similar, but we may be headed to a contested convention with no clear nominee.
And that means it's going to be bedlam, chaos.
Once again, this is good news for Trump.
He is absolutely loving it as Democrats are in complete disarray.
These numbers show us the complete civil war of the left, and it shows us that the progressives, the far-left Democrats, are poised to lose, at least so far.
Now, I've seen some people say things like, you know, Crystal Ball tweeted, 70% of the Democrats polled wanted Medicare for all.
Interesting.
It's interesting based on who they voted for.
Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden received decent proportions of the vote count, but they're the moderates.
I don't know where they stand necessarily on Medicare for All.
Maybe they're all fairly progressive on that issue.
But check this out.
Bernie Sanders wins the popular count.
In the top 5, if you were to add Elizabeth Warren's vote total to Bernie Sanders, you're just over 100,000 votes.
We could go down and include Steyer Yang, but look at this.
In the top five, if you were to add Elizabeth Warren's vote total to Bernie Sanders, you're
just over 100,000 votes.
But if you add Buttigieg, Klobuchar, and Biden, you're much closer to about 150,000 votes,
meaning the moderates have it.
So right now, on the surface, what are we hearing?
Progressives are cheering, Sanders supporters are declaring victory, and they're dancing around.
And look, I get it.
They have to.
Because you can't show fear.
You need to lead the charge, be confident, and convince people to vote for you.
But let's be honest about what this means.
It means that when Joe Biden drops out, and he's gonna soon because he's losing bad, Klobuchar drops out because she did nothing in Iowa, and she's barely getting a... Like, I'm surprised she's even here in New Hampshire, but we'll see.
It's gonna go to Buttigieg.
Buttigieg is currently leading the delegate count, and he is likely to absorb the moderate vote, and he will beat Bernie Sanders.
But let's go to 538.
538 breaks this down, so don't take my word for it.
I'll tell you this, one of the most frustrating things ever is that the adamant Bernie Sanders supporters are going to be accusing me of bias for not giving Sanders the victory.
I'm sorry.
I think they're gonna cheat Bernie, sure, but Buttigieg is winning, and the moderates will take the vote count.
No matter what it is you think, the numbers don't lie.
Okay?
Look, the polls were all wrong, so maybe 538 is wrong too.
But I'll tell you this.
I was right about Joe Biden, wasn't I?
I said it basically from the time he started, he's not really running.
He had crappy campaign managers.
He was barely raising money.
Dude can't talk straight.
He's got a lot of problems.
And I said, there's no way this dude's the frontrunner.
Not gonna happen.
I didn't think he's actually running.
I don't know what he's doing.
But sure enough, here we go.
I was right, and it's not just me.
I'm not trying to take credit for everything.
A bunch of the Bernie supporters saw it, Trump supporters saw it.
Nobody thought Joe Biden was actually running.
All of these polls claimed he was leading the charge in the primaries.
I'm not talking about the general.
I'm talking about statewide, they're like, Joe Biden, and then what happens?
Buttigieg and Sanders.
Now, nobody saw Buttigieg coming, but the polls are trash.
So why should I take 538, you know, as fact?
I gotta be honest, probably shouldn't.
The problem is, what can we do?
But I will say this, I was right about Joe Biden, and I say, based on that, I still think I'm gonna be right about, you know, what we're seeing here, the moderates taking it away from the progressives, Bernie getting cheated, and Antifa losing it.
Check this out.
538 says Sanders is the frontrunner after New Hampshire and a contested convention has become more likely.
But the model needs post-New Hampshire polling to make sense of a chaotic race.
Check this out.
The Democratic primary is in a confusing state at the moment.
And our forecast model is a little confused also.
There are a couple of assumptions it's making about how the polls may react to New Hampshire that may not be entirely right.
The model is also limited by the lack of polling in states after New Hampshire, most notably Nevada and South Carolina.
So we encourage you to take the model with a large grain of salt until some of that post-New Hampshire polling comes in.
But the two takeaways that the model feels most confident about are two things I am happy to vouch for, says Nate Silver himself.
First, Bernie Sanders is the most likely person to win the Democratic nomination.
We will see.
We will see.
I'm not entirely convinced.
But, you know, hey, 538, they're the experts, right?
But check this out.
The chance of there being no pledged delegate majority, which could potentially lead to a contested convention, is high and increasing.
I am willing to bet that will be the case.
Now I don't know why they think that'll be the case.
They're looking at polls.
Polls that were all wrong.
I'm not.
So maybe they're right.
Maybe I'm wrong.
But based on my gut feeling... Now I'm being a bit facetious.
I'm talking about the news I've read, the results so far, the vote count so far, the delegate count so far.
I don't care what your polls say in terms of forecasting.
They were all wrong!
So my personal opinion, based on all of this data, these news stories, is that the moderates are going to get behind a moderate candidate as other candidates start dropping out, knowing they're losing.
But here's the thing.
People like Joe Biden are refusing to give up.
Joe Biden should drop out.
He shouldn't have been in the race in the first place.
But he's like, no, we're taking it to South Carolina.
Oh, come on, dude.
I don't even know where Bloomberg is in this.
But if they got out, right, these people are splitting the moderate vote.
If they really wanted to stop Bernie, they would drop out, and so those moderate votes would drift over to Klobuchar or Buttigieg.
I mean, honestly, at this point, I'm surprised a lot of people aren't bowing out and just giving it to Buttigieg, but I'll be honest.
He's got 23 delegates.
It's not like he's guaranteed to win.
What I truly find fascinating about all the cheering from Sanders camps about the popular vote is that it doesn't matter.
First of all, what did any of these Sanders supporters do in 2016 when Nevada was basically stolen?
They did a whole lot of nothing.
And then Bernie Sanders bent down on one knee and kissed the pinky ring of Hillary Clinton.
That's what he did.
And, you know, he should have stood up for himself.
He should have said no.
But he just couldn't do it, could he?
Right now, after these two grand victories of Sanders, they say, Buttigieg is winning!
He got the same delegate count that Sanders did.
Popular vote does not matter.
So what are they going to get?
Honestly, I don't know.
But check this out.
While all of the Democrats are dancing around saying, yes, we got that voter turnout we needed, I will be the first to say, that's good.
Really good news for Democrats.
Really, really good news.
But what about the blank or bust voters?
Yang or bust?
Bernie or bust?
Biden or bust?
Never-Berners?
Never-Bernies?
Whatever they call themselves.
What happens when that voter turnout goes sour?
What happens when those moderate voters defect to Trump?
I'm telling you this right now.
There are never Trumpers who are saying things like, we are all Democrats today.
Excuse me.
No, you're not.
Because pro-life Democrats are basically being told to GTFO.
I don't think Buttigieg's response to the pro-life Democrat was the worst in the world, but Bernie straight up said, it's a requirement to be pro-choice.
You've got 14% of your party that is pro-life, dude.
If you don't want the vote, then tell them to leave, but they'll leave.
So I don't see any good news for the Democrats in the long run with how they're playing this.
If Bernie Sanders is the most likely to win, then I think the most likely person to win the November election is Donald Trump.
Because what people don't realize right now, you gotta understand this, when you are given A poll.
And it says, you know, who would you vote for in this matchup?
A lot of people are saying, I want this person.
He's my person, right?
They say between Bernie and Trump, a new poll came out saying it's the biggest lead, like 18 points, people would support Sanders across the board.
Great.
And what happens when Sanders loses the nomination to some moderate, you know, vanilla yogurt candidate that no one cares about?
Then all of that big activist enthusiasm either turns sour and rejects the system.
Trump wins.
What happens when Bernie Sanders does win, and the never-Trumpers and pro-life Democrats panic and say, Trump is better?
Or the people who don't like socialism, which is like more than half the country?
Donald Trump wins.
The fraction of the Democratic Party goes sour no matter which way you cut it.
Now, again, Moody's Analytics said, with record turnout, Democrats will squeak by with I think like one electoral vote over 270.
Okay, check this out.
He says, there are also some negatives for Sanders.
While he won New Hampshire, although pledge delegates were split evenly between Sanders and Buttigieg, which the model gives Buttigieg a tiny bit of credit for, his 25.7% of the vote there underperformed our projections by two to three percentage points.
New Hampshire is a state that by all rights ought to have been fairly strong for him, as Iowa should also have been.
And although Sanders leads in national polls, he averages only 22% of the vote in them, unusually low for the national leader at this stage of the race.
between the slight underperformance in New Hampshire and a couple of mediocre polls coming in for Sanders while our model was frozen awaiting New Hampshire results, he actually fell slightly in the forecast from where he had been 24 hours earlier.
They expected him to win.
But he didn't win by what they expected him to win by.
Now, check this out.
They say still, Sanders' 38% chance of pledge delegate majority is far better than any other Democrat.
He also has a 52% chance of a pledge delegate plurality.
Even if this isn't the strongest possible version of Sanders, he's come far closer to actualizing his potential than anyone else in the field.
Furthermore, the technical considerations of the race are setting up well for Sanders.
The moderate lane still very crowded and perhaps even getting more crowded.
No longer just Biden and Buttigieg, but also Klobuchar and Bloomberg.
And Sanders is pulled well ahead of Elizabeth Warren in the progressive lane.
They say, but New Hampshire is also good news if you're rooting for chaos.
Our forecast has the chance of no pledge delegate majority up to 33%.
It's highest figure yet and roughly double what it was before Iowa.
Let me be clear with this.
What that means is the second most likely outcome is there is no unity in the party.
Could you imagine the bedlam and chaos at the DNC with protesters outside?
No clear winner inside and in their rage, the Bernie Sanders supporters boo and jeer Buttigieg as he squeaks by with a contested victory.
Do you think Bernie Sanders voters who boo Buttigieg are going to go out and vote for him in the general election?
I don't think so.
In fact, I think many of them will go to Donald Trump.
There's the chaos voters, the people who are accelerationists, who think Trump is the worst thing in the world, want to vote for him because they think it'll make things go faster.
I kid you not.
I know some people like that.
I actually know some far lefties who, when Hillary Clinton took the nomination, they voted for Trump.
Not because they liked him.
Because two reasons.
They wanted to punish Clinton, and they were hoping it would make the downfall come faster.
I think we'll still see some of that.
And I think we're going to see around half of Yang's voters, for instance, going for Donald Trump, saying they would not support a Democratic candidate if it was not Yang.
He goes on to say, almost everything went well from the standpoint of a contested convention.
Sanders won, but with a smaller share of the vote than the model expected.
Moreover, the second and third place candidates Buttigieg and Klobuchar may or may not be poised to take advantage of any post-New Hampshire surge they get, having begun the evening at just 10% and 4% respectively in national polls.
And not having any obvious strength in Nevada or South Carolina.
Meanwhile, the two candidates apart from Sanders, who had seemed to have built the broadest national coalitions, Warren and Biden did terribly in New Hampshire.
They say although the race is so wide open, they can't entirely be counted out either, especially not Biden.
So this is why I'm saying Donald Trump is the clear winner.
He's got a massive victory percentage-wise compared to the other incumbent presidents when they were running.
So that is a clear showing of enthusiasm and support for the president.
It's huge turnout, to my understanding, technically.
Now, technically, you could all say it's bad voter turnout, and many people are trying to play that game, but it is completely absurd.
I don't know if I actually have that pulled up, where somebody's pretending, like, here we go, check this out.
This guy, Dean Obadala, says real numbers in New Hampshire last night.
Total votes for the GOP primary, 133,000.
Democratic votes over 290,000.
That's a massive enthusiasm gap.
Keep in mind Trump had a rally in New Hampshire and has been spending money on ads across the state.
Trump will lose 2020, period.
This dude doesn't seem to understand what every journalist, you know, many of the biased ones seem to understand.
There was no real GOP primary.
Nobody had to come out.
So people are shocked the numbers were this good.
He's ignoring what the data actually shows.
Obama won re-election.
With only 49,000 primary votes in New Hampshire and Trump got more than double that.
That is incredible.
Especially in New Hampshire, which is a northeastern blue state neighboring Bernie Sanders' state of Vermont.
I think this shows that there is chaos and disarray in the Democratic Party.
Bernie is winning the popular vote, but losing the delegate count.
We are headed for a contested convention, and I think it's going to be contested.
I do.
I do not think the Democratic establishment wants to bow out and back up to Bernie Sanders.
James Carville's freaking out.
So I think we can see what's going to happen.
Chaos.
Meaning good news for Trump.
It's going to be good news for the Republicans.
And key turnout from certain groups is down.
Well, based on the preliminary data I had so far, you know, I've got people tweeting about it, saying that youth vote was down slightly, and first-time voters are down slightly.
So it's not an enthusiasm gap.
That guy Dean's wrong.
It's that people are showing up because they like their respective candidates, and there are many of them.
But we don't know exactly what's going to happen yet, other than we are seeing the increasing likelihood of chaos at the DNC.
And let me remind you of 2016, when no one protested the Republican convention, and the left protested the DNC.
I hope you're ready.
It's going to get nuts.
But I could be wrong.
You know, look, I don't think I'm the smartest person in the world.
But I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It's a different channel.
And I will see you all there.
The Democratic primaries are really weird so far.
Okay, the caucus and the primary.
We're through two states, but so far it's been very, very strange.
And I'm not the only one who noticed.
Mr. Van Jones of CNN said basically the same thing.
People are depressed by primary process.
Just want somebody to vote, vote for against Trump.
The problem is, no one can decide on who the right person is.
But I'm gonna make a prediction.
See, I was reading about them, they're superdelegates.
You know what the superdelegates are?
They change the rules so that superdelegates can't vote in the first round.
And I could be getting this wrong, so take it with a grain of salt.
It's my cursory glance.
Here's my prediction.
We're gonna have a very, very close race.
It's going to be a contested convention.
When all the primaries are done, no one's gonna know exactly who's gonna win.
It's going to be so close that in the first round everyone's unsure until the superdelegates step in in round two and throw their weight behind the moderate.
That's the plan, I think.
They're not going to let Bernie Sanders win.
And as much as I can criticize Sanders and a lot of his policies, there's an interesting phenomenon you'll notice when it comes to, say, like Tucker Carlson or people like me.
We're not in agreement over his policy positions or, for me, how he's changed them.
But we can all agree, hey, if the people vote for him, that's what the people wanted to vote for.
I mean, I think most people, you know, expect Sanders to lose except for his own supporters.
And I'm not just saying conservatives, I'm saying literally the Democrats voting for Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg, or Biden are worried Bernie will lose and Americans will not elect a socialist.
But a new poll suggests that's not true.
Democrats absolutely will vote for a socialist, but this says something different to what I think they think it means.
They think it shows the country is ready for socialism.
I think it shows that the party has excised the moderates and independent voters don't have anything to do with them.
So I'll put it this way.
If you have a hundred people And 50 of them are pro-socialist, and 50 of them are not, are anti.
And then the anti-socialist people leave, guess what?
You will have 50 or 100% of your party now being in favor of socialism.
And the percentage makes people really excited, but in reality you lost tons of support.
We'll see.
First, let's read why the Democrats are just so depressed.
From Van Jones, The Hill reports.
CNN analyst Van Jones on Tuesday said he thinks that Democratic voters are depressed and sad over the Democratic primary process, saying that it is a very messy, confusing choice and Democrats just want somebody to vote for against Trump.
I think people are depressed, Joan said, while discussing the large split of Democratic votes.
I think people are sad.
I think people can't figure out which of the people they're supposed to vote for, and people are waiting to come out and vote against Trump.
This is a messy, confusing choice.
The former Obama adviser continued.
People are sad and depressed and people just want someone to vote for against Trump.
How many times are you going to say it?
Jones' comments come following Bernie Sanders winning a tight New Hampshire primary, finishing just ahead of Pete Buttigieg.
It was also a night where top tier candidates Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden struggled, finishing fourth and fifth.
Seeing Biden flop, by the way, was hilarious.
Jones also called Sanders a phenomenon, but noted the media talks about everybody but Bernie for whatever reason.
Bernie Sanders is a phenomenon, he said.
He doesn't get attention.
People don't talk about him.
He's doing stuff we don't talk about.
He appeals to young people, people of color.
He's got an army of donors, Jones continued.
If anybody else had all that, we'd say this guy is our guy, but for whatever reason, we talk about everybody but Bernie.
Let me explain to you why we talk about everybody but Bernie.
First of all, the media is biased against Bernie Sanders and they are active participants in this election process.
That is a big no-no, okay?
Lying about Bernie Sanders and the weird smears against him, omitting him from results and trying to downplay him, yeah, that's not how it works, okay?
We get the game you're playing.
But it's also... So the reason why, in fairness, people don't talk about him as a strong contender is because... You ready for this?
Bernie Sanders is a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack.
I'm not trying to be mean to him over this, as I've stated many times before, but I think this plays a serious role in whether or not people would actually vote for him, and I think the answer is no.
Now of course you're telling me, but Tim, he's winning the primary!
The primary is not a general election.
Independent voters are not there.
It is the Democratic Party.
And though people are claiming Bernie Sanders can bring out the youth, he's not!
The youth isn't coming out to vote in the primary, not even for him!
You think they'll come out in the general?
Nah.
If they can't get behind the guy who needs the support now to stop Buttigieg, where it really matters, why would he beat Trump?
Maybe there's a difference between Buttigieg and Sanders.
Maybe all anyone really cares about is, give me a Democrat and I'll press the D button.
No more Trump, they say.
But here's the bad news.
Bernie Sanders is now the clear Democratic presidential frontrunner, but he could be stopped in his tracks if the party's moderates unite behind a single candidate.
Which is very, very likely to happen.
Now, for whatever reason, FiveThirtyEight is claiming Bernie is, you know, the favorite to win in their forecast model.
I think what that omits, however, is second round voting.
I think what it omits is that get rid of the other moderate candidates and just put in Buttigieg and he beats Bernie Sanders.
That's it.
The moderate vote is bigger than the progressive vote.
Which brings me to the next bad bit of information being touted by Sanders supporters and the far left to act like they're the ones who should win.
76% of Democrats say they'd vote for a socialist for president new poll shows.
Let me break this down for you.
A lot of the moderate voters absolutely will get behind Bernie Sanders because they really want to stop Trump.
However, a lot of those voters, probably 24%, or actually it's more than that because that's all Democrats, probably a large portion of moderates would not get behind Sanders because they wouldn't vote for a socialist, so who will they vote for if it's Bernie Sanders?
Let me break down the horrifying news for Bernie supporters.
Well, actually for Democrats in general.
Bernie Sanders, only 53% of his supporters will get behind the eventual nominee if it is not Bernie Sanders.
Although, around 30% said it depends.
They probably won't get behind Biden, Buttigieg, or Klobuchar.
Then you have the other problem.
24% of Democrats won't vote socialist.
Which means if it is Bernie, the Democrats lose 24% of their actual hard base voters.
I'm not talking about swing voters or independents, I'm talking about their actual party.
So what do you think is going to happen?
This shows us that, well, the Democrats have real reason to be depressed.
Van Jones said it 50 times.
Yeah, they just want someone to vote against Trump, but it's not gonna happen because everybody has a hard line.
These never-Trumpers, you know, they said Trump was the worst thing in the world.
They're not gonna vote socialist.
Some of them have claimed, I would, I would.
No, you won't.
Maybe they will, I don't know, but it's so ridiculous to think you would jump from being center-right all the way to socialist because you don't like Trump's demeanor.
Please.
They're exaggerating about everything wrong with the president, to be honest.
It's not like Trump is perfect.
But seriously, they're screeching about the fact that he's like, he had a phone call with Ukraine.
They say, oh, impeach him.
Didn't accuse him of any crimes.
Yeah, okay, dude.
Y'all are freaking out.
That is, no.
I think it's funny when, I can't remember if it was Bill Kristol or something, he said, we're all Democrats today.
Not me.
Are you nuts?
These people get offended, like, they feel that words are not safe.
Not all of them, but too many of them.
There are a lot of great Bernie supporters, mind you.
Like, I think there's really great people that are clearly in support of Bernie Sanders.
I think Kyle Kulinski's a cool dude.
I don't want to say they are or aren't Bernie supporters, because there's probably nuance in their political opinions.
But I think it appears as though people like Crystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski are Bernie supporters.
And Jimmy Dore, for instance.
And I think they're all fantastic and wonderful people.
So I say these things with all due respect.
I do not believe y'all are correct.
I think what we're looking at, 76% of Democrats would vote for a socialist.
What that says to me is that a decent amount of Democrats would be willing to accept they would take it over Trump.
That I understand.
I do.
I don't think all 76 are enthusiastically socialist.
I think a very small portion are, but they would take it if that's what they got.
But that means 24% of your base wouldn't do it!
And those are your core votes.
45% of independents say they would, which means the majority of independents won't do it either.
You are going to lose significant portions of your voter base if you go this route.
I don't know how to tell you, but I think you should do what you think you need to do.
Hey, Trump supporters should be happy about it, right?
If you think you're right and I'm wrong, with all due respect, then go do it.
Go vote for Sanders, and I seriously do mean it, I want you to vote for who you think is the right choice.
We may disagree, You know what?
I respect your disagreement.
But I think you're gonna lose.
And I think Trump supporters are also defending Bernie Sanders as the media smears him because they know Donald Trump will absolutely wipe the floor with Bernie.
Sanders supporters disagree.
Well, therein lies the big strategic difference.
Can Bernie do it or not?
In my opinion, No.
I honestly don't think any of them can do it.
I think it's the B tier.
Now Bernie Sanders, there's something special about him for sure, but his age, his heart attack, there's a lot of things wrong with him as a candidate.
You know, I don't think he's gonna manage to win.
But the Bernie supporters are convinced only Bernie can win.
I guess we'll see.
Now, I don't think the Democratic establishment will allow Bernie Sanders to actually win, so maybe it won't even matter.
But if that's the case, then I guess I'll see y'all rioting in the streets in Milwaukee come the DNC, huh?
Don't do that, please.
But hey, you know they're going to, right?
Anyway, I'll wrap it up there.
I hope y'all are feeling better, Democrats.
I guess, actually, I think the ones who are really depressed are, like, the moderates, to be honest.
I think the Bernie Sanders supporters are fired up because he's winning that popular vote.
They won't feel that way come the DNC.
I think Nevada is gonna be pure chaos.
Seriously, Google search Nevada 2016 Democratic Caucus.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Donald Trump Jr.
mocks Jussie Smollett after indictment for allegedly faking hate crime.
By now, most of you have heard the news about Jussie Smollett and the hoax hate crime allegations and all of these things that we pretty much believe are true, but, hey look, innocent until proven guilty, right?
The guy got his indictments washed away and now he's being re-indicted a year later.
It's a complicated process.
But I don't necessarily want to talk about Donald Trump Jr.
or Justice Smollett.
I saw this story and I started thinking about why is it that so many hoax hate crimes happen?
Why is it that so many people associated with the left do these insane things, say insane things, promote insane ideas?
And it turns out, the more left-wing you are, the more likely you are to be insane.
Okay, I'm gonna stop.
I'm exaggerating.
The more likely you are to have been diagnosed with some kind of mental illness.
We can come back and read about Donald Trump Jr.
after we talk about the left and the right, okay?
Because I do think it warrants looking into what happened with Justice Millett and mental illness.
But what I really want to talk about are a series of tweets.
He says he also has a blog where he writes about stuff.
Well, he tweeted this.
in philosophy at Cornell. He says he also has a blog where he writes about stuff. Well,
he tweeted this. According to the data from Slate Star Codex's survey, the more left-wing
you are, the more likely you are to have been diagnosed with a serious mental illness. This
is also what I would have guessed based on anecdotal evidence. Now, upon reading that,
I thought it was quite humorous because it's funny because it's true.
I gotta admit, I would actually make the same assessment.
I mean, think about it.
Look at all of the people who have demanded things that make no sense.
Their plans don't make sense.
They complain about things that make no sense.
You have people, let me give you a good example, and I'll show you the data.
I'll pull this up while I read.
My favorite insanity is Wimixin.
Now you're probably saying, Tim, what does Wimixin mean?
It's not a real English word.
And you would be correct, good sir!
W-O-M-X-N.
It's like my favorite citation on how insane everyone is.
Apparently this word, Wemixin, was designed to be inclusive to all women, or people of the woman identity.
And so the idea was, this word, by replacing the A with an X, I guess gets rid of, gets, you know, they like doing these X things, not English, but...
The idea is that it's inclusive, it includes trans people and women of color.
Well, immediately, an organization that used it saw backlash because Wimixin was offensive.
What?
The word was supposed to be inclusive, but it's exclusive?
They then argued that by changing the word, you're arguing that the regular word woman doesn't classify trans women either, but trans women are women, and hence, Being woke is also simultaneously being not woke.
We saw that too with Barnes & Noble.
They created a bunch of diverse book covers.
I know, not perfect, I would agree.
And everyone got really, really mad, saying, why don't you just write new books?
Well, this is not about writing new books.
It was about taking classical stories And creating art that represented all people, but it wasn't good enough.
Why?
Because these people are nuts!
It is a strange cult.
So when you take someone who doesn't work right, and I mean that with all due respect, I'm not trying to rag on people who are unwell, I'm saying when you take people who are unwell, and are looking for social validation or something, SOMETHING, to tell them what's wrong with them, they get roped into the cult.
Behold, the first survey posted by Mr. Felipe.
Proportion of respondents to Slate's Sarcodex's survey who say they have been formally diagnosed with depression, borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia by self-position on a left-right spectrum.
And lo and behold, before you, you see, people who associated themselves or were, yes, with self-position as far left, all the way, so one is far left, And 10 is far right.
We can see that the far left, 42.5% in this survey, said they had been diagnosed.
Now I want to stop and talk about spurious correlations and say maybe there's a correlation between collectivism and the willingness to seek help.
Maybe individualists just don't get diagnosed because they don't go seek help.
I can't tell you.
It is a factor.
But for the sake of this, we don't have that data.
That would be speculation on my part.
What we know, as of now, is people who are more likely to say they are left, are also more likely to have been diagnosed with some kind of severe... What does he say?
He said severe mental illness, I guess?
You can see as we get closer to the center, it actually drops significantly, with those who are just center-right having the lowest.
Again, perhaps center-right individuals are just less likely to go to a doctor?
I actually don't think so.
I think the center-left and center-right are slightly, are fairly moderate, rational, regular, you know, people.
We can see that even the far-right hasn't been diagnosed.
You'd think that would be strange considering all the crazy phenomenon.
It's also important to note that there is a variability that could bring the far-left up above 50%.
So yeah, they'd be a bit crazy.
Now here's the best part.
Outside of the left-right spectrum, let's talk about severe mental illness by political classification, and lo and behold, Marxists!
Ya crazy.
The Marxists have the highest self-reporting of depression, borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia, and lo and behold, conservatives have the lowest.
And libertarians, I believe, have a third lowest.
Alt-right is the second, with a decent amount of variance.
Liberals have 18.4.
So, what is this one?
Neo-reactionary?
Is that what they meant to say?
Social-democratic is slightly higher.
But I'll tell you what.
It's really, really important.
Social Democratic.
These are people who tend to support the Scandinavian culture, the welfare state with a capitalistic system, and many of Bernie Sanders supporters would actually classify as Social Democrats.
However, A large portion of Bernie Sanders' base are also Marxists.
And Marxists, ya be crazy.
This is actually a really good breakdown of my experiences.
There are a lot of Bernie Sanders supporters who are sane and logical individuals, who in my opinion, Are just looking at the wrong solutions or aren't thinking entirely through.
But for the most part, there are a lot of Bernie supporters I think are pretty good people and I usually give them a shout out.
We'll save it for this, you know, video.
I do it a lot.
But there's a lot of good Bernie people.
Even Steve Bannon said he likes Bernie Sanders, but Bernie, you know, is looking at the wrong solutions.
Take the rational social democratic base and you'll find that they do have just about double the rate of mental illness of conservatives.
And this, again, this is according to a survey, mind you.
Not like some long-standing and massive scientific study.
They do have about double.
And that makes sense.
You'll probably bump into a bunch of Bernie supporters you think are really out there.
But you'll also find that a lot of them are sane, but you disagree.
Now, the Marxists is a whole other story.
Basically, we're talking about one in three, maybe one in two Marxists being nuts.
Yeah, yeah, that fits my anecdotal evidence.
What I've seen, that seems to make a whole lot of sense.
So here we can see that liberals and conservatives are actually really close.
Liberals have slightly higher and libertarians have a little bit higher than conservative.
But these are all like the more rational people when it comes to voting and political positions.
Mind you, I hope this means legit liberal.
But it probably means regular run-of-the-mill liberals.
And I'll tell you this, Bernie Sanders supporters don't call themselves liberals.
They call themselves socialists, for the most part.
Most people I know who are liberal aren't really paying attention.
It's typically conservatives who call the far-left liberals.
So for the sake of this, I think it's fair to say these are self-identified, right?
Self-declared political affiliation.
So I call myself a liberal.
I have not been diagnosed, so I fall in that grand old, what is that, 81.6% of self-identified liberals who haven't had any major diagnoses.
But I think if people are going to call themselves a liberal, they're not calling themselves far-left, and the far-left definitely doesn't call themselves liberal.
They hate liberals!
So you can see social democratic.
I don't know what Neo reactionary is, but you can see they actually have, I think, you know, third highest at 19.5.
And this is where it starts to get interesting because the far right and far left have more serious conditions.
Felipe says, in response to Gabriel Rossman's suggestion, here is the same thing but excluding depression.
Thus, keeping only the most serious conditions, the pattern is the same, but the confidence intervals are much wider, since those conditions are much rarer.
Check this out.
Now we can see, when you remove depression, it shows that depression was one of the leading diagnoses that many people had.
And you can see that the far right actually has a really high instance of what we have.
We have borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, or schizophrenia.
Depression removed, the far left still is the most likely to have these mental illnesses.
You can see then the proportions are actually rather different, although the variance is a lot higher because of the rare- the, you know, the rare- the rareness of the conditions.
But here we have, you can look at from eight, so like the- so right wing, center right, left, and center left, are all relatively undiagnosed.
They're not.
But then you have far right, and you have far left, and they're actually kind of comparable in their mental illness.
Which makes a whole lot of sense.
I think it's fair to say that when you include depression, the left is more likely to have been diagnosed.
And the reason you don't see the same variance, it looks very different when you look with depression included, is because depression is so much more common, it kind of drowns out the other conditions.
But I think we can draw a simple conclusion.
The far left and the far right are almost equally crazy.
It makes sense.
They're extremists.
So the big problem we have is when the passive liberals are not paying attention and they're being led by the far left into believing the moderates and the liberals and the conservatives are the crazy ones, when the crazy ones are all the way over there.
And therein lies the big problem.
So I go back to this story about Jussie Smollett.
Jussie Smollett, as Mr. Chappelle says.
Why did he do what he did?
The fact is, depression could play a serious role in these actions.
Which, when you contribute, when you add it in, you see the left is much more likely to have been diagnosed with depression.
These are people who are maybe nothing left to lose?
Just doing what they're told, trying to figure out whatever it is they could find to make them feel fulfilled or have purpose?
I have no idea.
I'm not gonna act like I'm a psychologist or a psychiatrist.
But I think some of these actions can be motivated by a severe depression, anger, and nothing left to lose, I suppose.
In the end, the data is clear.
The fair thing to say, extremists, y'all be crazy.
But then when we include depression, Leftists, the far left, tend to be the worst off of everyone else.
Is that surprising to anybody?
Probably not.
But I've got another segment coming up for you in a few minutes, so stick around and I will see you all shortly.
I am proud to say I predicted this.
Y'all know I predicted it.
I've been tweeting about it, and here we go.
The New York Times writes a glowing profile of YouTuber Carlos Maza, who has but 14,000 subscribers and one video.
Why?
Why did the New York Times write about a guy who has no prominence on YouTube at all, and so far hasn't even proven he's literally doing anything on YouTube, nor does he have any relevant subscriber count?
There are tons of other leftist YouTubers you could write about, but Carlos Maza?
A profile?
Sending out a New York Times photographer to take these fancy profile photos of the guy?
It's exactly what I predicted would happen.
Left-wing individuals, activists, will use their platform to prop up their allies by giving them glowing reviews like they've done in the past.
Like they've done with ContraPoints.
Now, mind you, I do like ContraPoints.
ContraPoints is cool.
So, fine.
But we've also seen them do the same thing with Philosophy Tube and Hbomberguy.
I got no beef.
I got no beef with those people.
Okay?
I actually think Hbomberguy is really funny.
He's got a lot of really good videos.
I think I'm subscribed to him.
I like watching YouTubers and content of varying opinion.
In fact, I gotta be honest, I don't watch a whole lot of YouTube unless it's like skateboarding or like anime or weird science videos.
And typically when I do watch stuff, I kind of watch more left-wing YouTubers because I basically already know what conservatives are gonna say about a lot of things.
But I do watch more of the high-profile right-wing channels periodically.
So, no beef.
I want to make sure that's clear.
My beef is with the media.
And I think these people need to recognize the advantages they're being given.
And I think they need to recognize why they don't do as well in many cases.
Now, of course, ContraPoints is a huge channel, very successful.
And I think that speaks to Contra's content being good, well thought out, and making great arguments.
And Philosophy Tube and Hbomberguy as well.
Though you might be annoyed because you disagree with their arguments, I absolutely love that.
I love watching one of these channels and being like, I disagree, good sir, but as long as it's well made and you got a good argument, I think listening to them, respecting and appreciating the content will make your argument stronger, will help you better understand, and dare I say, if you learn something new, be open to changing your opinion.
It's what a smart, well-rounded individual would do.
But today, we're not here to talk about leftist YouTube necessarily.
We're here to talk about how the media props up their allies.
And sure enough, you can see their channels get big boosts when mainstream media props them up.
Why would they do this?
Well, let me tell you something.
Carlos Maza is a liar.
When last I talked about his YouTube channel, there was a decent many few who were upset that I said, I wish him well.
Nah, I'm sorry, man.
Look, I understand you don't like to hear it because you don't like Carlos Maza, but I got the same flack when I talked about Joey Salads.
I know they're not different.
I know you disagree.
I get it.
But the best I can do is I can say, I'm going to give someone a chance.
That's about it.
You see, I'm hoping that when Carlos Maza experiences the hardships of YouTube, he's forced to recognize that the damage he did affected the left as well.
It's all you could really ask for.
I mean, what do you expect?
You think YouTube's going to ban him?
It's not going to happen.
They're going to welcome him on the platform.
The New York Times is going to write a glowing profile of the guy.
They call, they say the article.
A thorn in YouTube's side digs even deeper.
Carlos Maza, a socialist who calls YouTube deeply unethical and reckless, is trying to bolster the video site's left wing.
Carlos Maza is a liar.
I do not trust him for a second.
Just because I said I wish him well on the platform doesn't mean I think he's a good person or I believe anything he's saying.
In fact, I don't.
I think he's a liar.
And I think he's a manipulator.
And I think everything he's doing is for money.
And I think the New York Times and his allies in media are going to prop him up and help him do that.
And I think it's going to be bad and destructive.
I do not think he is an honest, good person who is arguing in good faith.
And I'll show you exactly why.
First of all, well actually let me just read the story and we'll get to it.
Let me point out, conflict of interest here, sort of.
Well, disclosure.
Kevin Roos, the writer of this article, worked with me at Fusion.
Fusion initially, when I started working there, was not far-left identitarian, and eventually became so.
Kevin and I have had a few clashes internally at Fusion about ethics in journalism and certain practices that I thought were unethical, and we'll leave it at that.
It was not surprising to me that he would engage in unethical behavior, as far as I was concerned, and then he would do something like this and prop up another left-wing activist.
This is the same guy who wrote the fake story about YouTube radicalizing a guy when the narrative was actually a conservative watched YouTube and became progressive.
So what did he write?
A conservative watched YouTube and became progressive, which proves YouTube radicalized him to the right.
I kid you not, that's what he wrote.
He put Philip DeFranco on that list where it's like, it basically calls Philip DeFranco an extremist.
It's ridiculous fake news, meant to prop up an agenda.
Let's read.
He writes, Carlos Maza believes that YouTube is a destructive, unethical, reckless company that amplifies bigots and profits off of fascism.
Now it's also his meal ticket.
Well, at least we can see the hypocrisy of Mr. Mazza there.
Mr. Mazza31 announced several weeks ago that he was leaving Vox, where he had worked as a video journalist since 2017, to become a full-time YouTube creator.
Well, I mean, in reality, I think he was fired, and I think he even admitted it was partly due to the chaos that ensued after he targeted Steven Crowder.
Crowder criticized what he said about, you know, Mazza all you want, but he was doing a rebuttal, and you can argue that as a comedian, he crossed the line.
Dave Chappelle crossed much harder lines than Steven Crowder did.
He really did, and everyone loved it.
So no, you can't selectively be mad at Steven Crowder.
Maza decided to ignite the fight, and he would not relent, and it backfired on him.
He says the move shocked some of Mr. Maza's fans, who have watched him become one of YouTube's most vocal critics for failing to stop a right-wing pile-on against him last year.
We're not gonna read about Crowder, we get it.
Rather than swearing off YouTube, Mr. Maza, who is a New York-based socialist, decided to seize the means of his own video production.
And now we get to the point that I believe is an absolute hilarious lie.
Quote, I'm going to use the master's tools to destroy the master's house.
He said in an interview.
I want to build up an audience and use every chance I get to explain how destructive YouTube is.
Billy Crystal's wife comes out and she goes, liar!
You're a liar!
Okay, that's exactly what's happening here.
Listen.
If Steven Crowder wanted to take down YouTube, there are many a different video hosting platform.
No, the reality is Mazza wants to make hard cash off the sweet, juicy YouTube algorithm.
The same one that he and his cohorts accuse us of manipulating to get those clicks.
Mazza knows, as much as all of us know, if you want to get a big audience, YouTube is your one-stop shop for ad revenue and algorithmic promotion.
And the reality is, if you want to be a purist and stand up against the evil of, you know, of Google, then go on BitChute, Minds, Gab, or any other platform.
I mean, you can post, I think you can post videos on Mastodon probably, maybe not.
But there's Minds, there's Vimeo, and there's seriously a ton of torrent-based video hosting platforms that you could be using, and you could be tweeting those videos out.
There's only one reason why Carlos Maza would be using YouTube, and in my opinion, it's for the algorithmic promotion.
I have no problem saying that's why I use YouTube.
If your content is good and people like it, YouTube is more likely to recommend it, making your channel grow.
It is the easiest place to be successful in terms of podcast and content production.
But Carlos Maza is an ideologue, not running a business, right?
Look, I have no problem as a capitalist saying, everything I do here is a business.
Now, I'll be honest, I think I have, you know, I personally have scruples.
I'm not trying to make unethical products to manipulate people.
I talk about my opinion.
Hey, it works out for me and it works out for many other people.
And you can be honest about it.
Not everybody who runs a successful channel is grifting.
Lo and behold, people have opinions in the world, dare I say.
But when you build your career off of YouTube being evil, and then come out and say, I'm gonna use YouTube and take the master's tools or whatever, yeah, you are grifting, dude!
I have no problem saying, I run a business, YouTube algorithm is great for business, I produce content that entertains a YouTube audience, it's political commentary, I am personally biased, I can say all of those things.
Because they're true!
And I'm trying to do a good job of being fair to the best of my abilities, but of course I have my biases, and of course I'm trying to run a business.
That's why I always say in my videos, you can support my work.
I think YouTube has a lot of problems, but I think YouTube is an excellent resource, and for all of its problems, it's actually helped democratize the media landscape.
Carlos Maza is going to be building up an active user base for YouTube.
This is the big finale.
This is my end point.
Everything I do on this platform results in people more likely to use this platform.
It's great for YouTube.
And they simultaneously take a cut of all that sweet juicy ad revenue.
And I got problems with Google, they're biased.
But as much as I think Google has become an evil giant behemoth, I'm not an ideologue who's preaching about how YouTube must be stopped and destroyed.
I'm using the platform and hoping to improve it So that all of us can have a fair shot at speaking our minds.
And I call it the censorship because the reality is it is the best place.
It's seriously one of the only places to do this.
That's true.
But if my intention was purely ideological and not monetary-based, I wouldn't use it.
Of course, Carl Samaza is claiming both of those things at the same time.
It can't be true.
He can't, or I'm sorry, he's claiming to want to fight the machine while using a platform that makes him a ton of money.
He is going, with every video he makes, more people on the left will join YouTube, and if he and Kevin Roos really believe it's a radicalization machine, congratulations, good sirs!
You will be bringing in your lefty socialist friends, building up that big social media profile, so that they too can be radicalized by the alt-right engine that is YouTube.
Doesn't make sense, does it?
Sorry, dude.
I don't believe you.
I think you're a liar.
I think you want money.
You claim to be a socialist, but you live in New York, and you're probably just trying to make- you're trying to- you're trying to line your pockets with gold.
I'll tell you what.
Be honest.
Oh, what's that?
Your brand doesn't allow it?
You know what I love the most about the grifter class?
I get to say whatever I want, I have no boss, I make money doing it, yet you're the ones who claim we're the ones grifting when you claim to be a socialist and that YouTube is evil, but you're on the platform to take the master's tools to make money, while you simultaneously argue the platform is radicalizing people, but you're going to build up a user base of left-wing individuals to bring them to a platform that radicalizes them?
Sorry!
You're lying!
I'll tell you what I'm going to do.
I'm going to talk about my feelings on the internet.
For some reason, people want to watch me talk about my feelings on the internet, and I'm eternally grateful.
The best part is, I get to make money doing it, and I use that to do things I want to do, like help fund Real Journalism over at Subverse, where they're doing great stuff on the ground.
I used to do more on the ground stuff.
It got dangerous.
Too many people started following me.
It became harder and harder to do.
I'm not going to hire a security detail.
So I got down to just doing kind of this.
And that's where I'm at now.
Three, four different channels, got a new podcast launched, and I have no problem saying it's a business, I love what I do, I'm grateful to YouTube for the opportunity, I complain all day about a lot of things YouTube does because I want to improve.
You, on the other hand, and many people like you, I think are just lying and pretending to be socialists, but what you really want is money and power.
Just admit it.
Maybe it's not money and power.
Maybe it's that you want an easy path.
The path of least resistance.
Because I'll tell you this.
Um, power... Okay, I'm gonna take that back.
I mean, that's a little unfair.
I think these far lefties do want power.
But I'll tell you this.
I would like money.
I like making money.
I like doing a good job and producing something that works well enough to generate revenue so they can hire people, expand, make cool stuff.
That's called a job.
It's called running a business.
And I'm happy to say YouTube allows that.
It's not perfect.
There are better ways to do it, but the promotion really does help.
I guess that's what you really want.
That's what I would say.
I would say drop the act.
Say YouTube is your path to sweet, sweet loot.
You could put your videos anywhere and ask people to fan fund you like you do on Patreon.
