Ocasio Cortez BACKFIRES On Bernie's Campaign As Her Views "Go Too Far," Sanders Staff Furious
Ocasio Cortez BACKFIRES On Bernie's Campaign As Her Views "Go Too Far," Sanders Staff Furious. Many on the left argued that impeachment was actually designed to hurt Bernie Sanders and not Donald Trump.This argument actually makes some sense considering that Trump raised record funding and his approval rating is way up meanwhile Bernie was pulled off the campaign trail and forced to find a surrogate.Bernie found his sub in Alexandria Ocasio Cortez who not only never said his name at his campaign rally but also claimed that Bernie wants to abolish ICE and CBP.If we got rid of CBP we would effectively have open borders.The Sanders camp was furious as Bernie has never called for such policies and Ocasio Cortez had gone "too far"Now people are calling out Bernie as inconsistent and accusing him of flip flopping on immigration. Meanwhile powerful labor unions are calling out Bernie and he and AOC are forced to admit they may pull away from Medicare For All in favor of a public option.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
It appears that a rift is forming between Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, someone he brought on to campaign with and for him because her positions are just too extreme.
Now, many people on the left argued that the true purpose of Donald Trump's impeachment was not to hurt Trump, but was in fact to hurt Bernie Sanders.
They argue a few things.
One, impeachment really helped Trump.
He raised tons of money.
His approval rating is up.
Everybody hated it.
But it did pull Bernie Sanders off the campaign trail.
And as we can see, there is a strong effort to oppose Senator Sanders.
He's winning the popular vote, basically, for now.
But by getting off of the campaign trail and going and sitting as a juror in the impeachment trial, He needed a surrogate to campaign on his behalf, and that surrogate was Ocasio-Cortez, who made very extreme comments, going beyond her normal rhetoric of abolishing ICE, saying that Bernie Sanders is pledging to get rid of customs and border protection.
This was it.
I commented on it, saying, they are now overtly calling for open borders.
The reason being, The arguments from the left the entire time about open borders was that it's not truly open borders until they say there are no guards and anyone can walk freely across.
When you add all these things together, what do you get?
A moratorium on deportation, decriminalization of border crossings, and now AOC adding to the rhetoric, abolishing customs and border protection.
Apparently the Bernie Sanders camp sent angry texts to AOC, saying that that was too extreme and they're angry about it.
They're also mad she never said his name in the first place.
Now, another interesting fact in this rift is that apparently Ocasio-Cortez was angry that Bernie Sanders' team used the clip from Joe Rogan's podcast, which was essentially an endorsement of Bernie Sanders.
So this rift is growing.
Surprisingly, it's even Bernie Sanders recognizing that too far left exists even for him.
There's a feud going on between James Carville, a famous Democratic strategist, who and him and Bernie are going back and forth.
But now we can see how things are getting truly bad for Senator Sanders.
A powerful union in Nevada is pushing back against him.
And now his supporters are actually harassing, doxing, and targeting members of that union.
There's a lot going on right now.
When you're in front, expect it because people are going to start going after you.
But let's get started and go through all the latest news.
One more tidbit I forgot to say.
They're actually walking back on Medicare for All because of the unions pushing back on them.
But let's get started.
With this story, Rift forms between AOC and Bernie Sanders on the campaign trail.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give.
PayPal, crypto, physical address.
But of course, the best thing you can do is share this video.
And also, I noticed many people haven't subscribed, so I normally don't say this, but if you do like the content, please consider subscribing, hitting the notification bell, because I do make videos every single day.
I actually make like 11 or 12, because I'm a crazy person, but...
I do hope that, at least by sharing the video as well, we can always try to break some echo chambers.
Of course, my content is biased, everybody's biased, and a lot of people just don't want to hear what I have to say.
I can accept that.
Hopefully some people will, though.
But let's read.
From the DC Examiner, Rift forms between AOC and Bernie Sanders on campaign trail.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders and the leader of the Squad are reportedly not seeing eye-to-eye on the campaign trail.
They say Ocasio-Cortez is reportedly frustrating the Sanders campaign during her appearances at the Socialists' campaign rallies.
While Sanders was occupied in the Senate during the impeachment trial of President Trump, AOC subbed in for him.
However, she did not mention the candidate by name during a January rally, though she endorsed him last October.
Vanity Fair reported that Sanders campaign manager Faiz Shakir expressed his frustrations to AOC's campaign manager over texts, saying her immigration stances were too extreme.
Quote, Organizing is about tipping people off if you start to see that ICE and CBP are in communities to try and keep people safe, she said in an Iowa rally.
I'm not here to reform some of these systems when we talk about immigration.
I'm here because Senator Sanders has actually committed To breaking up ICE and CBP.
That's why I'm here.
I want to stop and say...
The Iowa Caucus.
Bernie Sanders lost the delegate count in rural communities.
He won in urban areas.
And I think this statement seriously hurt him.
I believe it's fair to say Bernie would have swept Iowa clean if she didn't say this.
Saying you want to get rid of border protection obviously is going to affect more conservative-leaning areas, not cities who are all about the open borders policy and agree with you.
Bernie Sanders ended up losing most of the rural districts, or precincts, to Pete Buttigieg.
Now, he still did get the popular vote, but that's because he won the cities.
AOC calling for no border guards at all is one of the most extreme things we have ever seen.
It is overt open borders.
And if she really believes that, and that's what she wants, then she is advocating for open borders.
I want to point out, she is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America who believe in open borders.
Bernie Sanders has repeatedly tapped far-left personalities to join his campaign, and it will be his downfall.
They're now learning this lesson.
Medicare for All is getting pushback from unions.
They might actually abandon.
Let's read more.
Some in the Sanders campaign were reportedly frustrated by AOC's comments discouraging cooperation with federal authorities, saying they were off track of Sanders' stance, which opposes open borders.
AOC's team was also reportedly frustrated with Sanders' acceptance of comedian Joe Rogan's endorsement.
Following blowback, Sanders' spokeswoman distanced the campaign from Rogan, but noted that the campaign will need a big tent of supporters to defeat Trump.
Joe Rogan, the most popular podcaster in the world.
I'm telling you right now, you want to accept his endorsement.
And Bernie's campaign understood that.
The problem?
They've aligned themselves with radicals and extremists who demand ideological purity.
You will not win when these people turn their back on you because you say support Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton or whoever ends up winning the nomination.
Bernie Sanders lost a lot of support when he backed Hillary Clinton.
More left-leaning people were upset that he did.
So these radicals who demand purity, they're using Bernie Sanders as a symbol for now, but they are much more extreme than he is.
And he is now reaping the benefits of tapping these people, and he is going to lose because of it.
As I stated before, these comments, these views will appear in campaign ads.
But let's move on.
Quote, The goal of our campaign is to build a multi-racial, multi-generational movement that is huge enough to defeat Donald Trump and the more powerful special interests whose greed and corruption is the root cause of the outrageous inequality in America.
Sharing a big tent requires including those who do not share every one of our beliefs while always making clear that we will never compromise our values, she told The Hill.
That's Bernie's... I believe it's Bernie's spokeswoman.
The truth is that, by standing together in solidarity, we share the values of love and respect that will move us in the direction of a more humane, more equal world.
In addition to AOC's endorsement, Sanders is being supported by Minnesota Rep.
Ilhan Omar and Michigan Rep.
Rashida Tlaib.
People who are wildly unpopular.
The polls from Axios last year show that the average American does not hold favorable views.
In fact, many Democrats don't hold favorable views.
We also saw that when the more information that comes out about the squad, the more people dislike the policies they represent.
For now, it seems a lot of people get behind them because they don't know the policies they plan to implement.
I'd be willing to bet, based on Gallup's survey showing that America is center-right politically, that most of these people supporting Bernie Sanders or AOC don't realize she absolutely is for complete open borders.
Of course, the media always rushes to the defense saying they're not calling for open borders.
They're just saying a moratorium on deportations, decriminalized border crossings, and get rid of the border guards.
Which, come on.
That's open borders.
To me, one of the most insane things is AOC's opposition to Joe Rogan's endorsement.
This is a level of ideological insanity I did not expect to see.
I'd have assumed they would jump on board with Rogan.
Everybody wants to go on Rogan.
Bernie and Tulsi and Yang were on Rogan.
Vanity Fair, who originally reported this, says, AOC's team is said to have had concerns about radio host Joe Rogan's controversial, unofficial endorsement of Sanders.
They go on to mention that, you know, he ended up posting this.
Sanders' embrace of the endorsement quickly drew criticism from some corners of the left over past transphobic, homophobic, and sexist comments by Rogan.
In a statement, Sanders spokesperson Breonna Joy Gray sought to put daylight between the Sanders campaign and Rogan's views and controversial statements.
I read you the quote already, but the reason I highlight this is to make a very, very important point.
There is no light that needs to be drawn between them and Rogan's statements.
Because the comment from Rogan was specifically about, I kid you not, when he said he would consider voting for Sanders, he said, if you highlight only the worst things a person has ever said, and focus on that, then you can make anyone look like a bad person.
That was the point of his endorsement for Bernie Sanders.
And it wasn't even an official endorsement, he said he was thinking he might vote for him.
They took that statement, where he said don't focus on these things, and they only focused on the worst of him, exemplifying exactly what Joe Rogan said.
And I think this is a good example for Rogan as well, who should probably learn that Sanders base hates him, and will do everything he opposes.
Okay, not everything, but that's a bit hyperbolic.
The point is, If Joe wants to be rational and say, don't do this, don't align yourself with people that do.
Now, I get it.
You can say that Bernie himself is separate from his supporters, but Bernie needs to call this out more often.
Instead, what do we get?
A source leaked text messages and a reporter published it?
Where's Bernie Sanders to come out and say, I do not want to get rid of the borders?
Where is Bernie Sanders to come out and say, no, we need CBP.
Ocasio-Cortez was wrong.
He doesn't have the spine.
So this is the story from when she said it.
And there hasn't been any real pushback from Sanders except for this leaked message.
AOC lauds Bernie Sanders' push to break up ICE and customs and border protection.
And I gotta be honest, I don't remember ever hearing Bernie Sanders saying he wants to get rid of all of the border guards.
That seems insane.
But there you have it.
You see, all of these left-wing outlets were writing about how no one's ever talked about getting rid of the border.
They just want laxer laws on immigration.
Well, there you go!
If you get rid of CBP, and you don't want a wall, and Bernie Sanders even said he might consider tearing it down, Beto said he would straight up do it, then what do you think you have?
Anybody can cross the border, there's no crime committed because you've decriminalized it, and you refuse to deport them.
Congratulations!
That's just... That's just open borders with extra steps.
Now Bernie Sanders is reeling from this.
Check this out.
You have not been consistent.
Voter confronts Sanders on immigration flip-flop.
This is incredible.
Daily Caller reports a New Hampshire voter confronted Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders on Wednesday about a seemingly evolved immigration platform, pointing out that he used to be opposed to open borders.
While speaking at a campaign event in Derry, New Hampshire, one woman in the crowd accused Sanders of inconsistency regarding his immigration positions.
The woman noted that at one time, he used to refer to open borders as a Koch Brothers-led scheme to import low-wage workers, but now he has turned down his rhetoric against illegal immigration.
One issue that you have not been consistent on is open borders.
When you first ran, you said it was a Koch Brothers scheme, and it seemed to recognize that low-wage workers being dumped into the country does not help low-wage workers.
The woman began, adding that her family stands at 134% of the poverty line.
Can you please explain why you changed on that issue?
Did you have to change, because donors seem to want the low-wage workers?
She added.
I'll point out, Vox noted in 2016, the Democratic Party has become the party of the wealthy.
So that scheme Bernie Sanders talked about?
It's his party now.
These mega-corporations love the idea that they can have some kind of serf class working for below minimum wage behind closed doors that no one knows about, and so they want to get rid of— Listen.
Let me put it this way.
If you get rid of border guards, if you decriminalize and don't deport, these people won't be citizens.
They still have no legal right to work.
It is purgatory for them, and it is worse than open borders, at least.
If you had open borders, these people would still have legal protections.
But as undocumented workers who are not being kicked out, these megacorporations can hire them below minimum wage and never have to get rid of them, never have to pay benefits, not have to abide by any laws.
Okay, that's a little blow over the top.
They do have to abide by many laws, obviously.
If they do really messed up stuff, people will come in.
But if they can't be deported, then what's the punishment?
A fine if they find out they're paying below minimum wage, but they're not citizens, they're not legally working either.
That's a horrifying prospect.
Sanders, who is a top contender for the Democratic presidential nomination, pushed back on the idea that he's changed.
He said, what I believe in absolutely is.
I don't believe in open borders.
Open borders means anybody can come from any place in the world.
There's no country in the history of the world, I think, that has ever had that view.
That is not my view, but my view is that we have 11 million undocumented here.
Many of those workers, by the way, are being exploited right now.
Trump wants to throw everyone out of the country.
If he threw people out of the country, the price of food in this country would skyrocket.
Who do you think is picking the crops and planting all over this country and now Bernie has gone full racist?
I'm sorry.
It's not true.
Okay, it's true to a certain degree.
Fine.
But I know a lot of people who are around my age, who are white, who pick crops.
They actually don't pay low wages like they're trying to claim.
This is a myth, for the most part.
I did a documentary, a short doc series, a mini doc series, where I met with farmers.
This is a myth, okay?
Maybe it's true in the aggregate, I don't know, the places I've been to, and I'll be fair and say, in my experience, in my research, they actually pay something like $14 to $20 an hour for pulling crops.
But Sanders has what I would say is a racist view of this.
He continued.
What we need to do, and I think what the American people want us to do, is rather than demonize the undocumented, what they want is a sensible immigration policy which includes the following.
Now I want to clarify, I'm specifically talking about crops and planting crops.
The point I made earlier, I stand by.
That many of these processing plants and factories that were hiring undocumented workers were paying terrible wages in dangerous conditions.
But when it comes to farming, a lot of these people are regular Americans who do the farming.
But let's move on from here because I gotta mention this before going into the union debacle.
James Carville fired back at Bernie Sanders.
Okay, so if you've been following my videos, you'll know that James Carville has been ringing the alarm bells, panicking the end is near.
And I mean that literally.
He said, this is the end of days.
So he said it.
It's kind of unhinged, but sure, whatever.
Bernie Sanders said, whatever.
Carville is a political hack.
To which James Carville responded with, yes, but at least I'm not a communist.
I'm highlighting this.
Yes, I understand it's funny.
Many of you are probably laughing that this Democrat's doing this, but I wanted to show you the rift within the Democratic Party before moving into the union debacle that Bernie is facing.
Moderate mainstream Democrats do not like Bernie, do not like his plans, and they may have to lose the Medicare for All position, which is funny, considering that's their strong activist position they're now walking back from, including Ocasio-Cortez.
But before we get into that, I want to now show you the real boots-on-the-ground grassroots opposition that Bernie Sanders faces.
Nevada's powerful culinary union declines to endorse a 2020 candidate.
Joe Biden had been in the running for the group's support.
Now, this is important because in Nevada, you've got the food service, the hospitality industry, you've got all the casinos and everything, so these people have significant power.
And they're saying no.
They issued a flyer where they basically said, So here's the story from the Hill.
Sanders faces rare union opposition in Nevada over Medicare for All.
They issued flyers saying that if the union supported Sanders, they would lose their private health insurance.
They would.
Sanders had said it repeatedly, and because of this pushback, lo and behold, Sanders and AOC are talking about backing down.
Ocasio-Cortez admits Bernie Sanders may have to scrap Medicare for All plan.
Even AOC, as soon as she got elected, walked away from some more of her activist-y positions, and it was kind of funny to see all these activists cheering for her to get elected, and then all of a sudden she was moving back closer towards a more mainstream Democratic Party.
Now, of course she's not.
But she used to be much more ideologically driven than she is today.
And that's saying a lot considering how much she already is calling for CBP to be abolished.
Now here's where things get crazy.
In response to this flyer being sent out, Bernie Sanders supporters started targeting the Culinary Union.
Now, what I find funny here is that they say the Bernie Bros attack line is a myth.
And it mostly is.
I will absolutely admit, it is.
Check it out.
All of these journalists complain that whenever they put up bad information about Sanders, they get harassed on the internet.
Oh, heavens me!
Is that it?
Someone sent you some mean tweets?
Please.
That is not a Bernie Bros scenario.
That is ridiculous.
However, when the Culinary Union put out flyers saying Sanders will take your healthcare, they were doxed and harassed.
That means their private information was being published.
Bernie Sanders had to call this out in what I would consider to be a pseudo-apology.
The Hill reports, Sanders on Thursday encouraged supporters of all campaigns to refrain from online attacks following the Nevada Culinary Workers Union allegations of online harassment from Sanders supporters over its disagreement with his health care plan.
Bernie Sanders came out and said to supporters, what did he say?
Supporters of all campaigns.
Oh, because he doesn't want to mention that they called him out specifically.
Let me stop you right there.
The union said it was Sanders supporters doing it.
And Bernie couldn't find a spine somewhere to say, knock it off.
Don't ask me why.
He's got a bunch of crazy supporters doing crazy things, and he needs to tell them to stop.
But he won't do it.
Quote, harassment of all its forms is unacceptable to me, and we urge supporters of all campaigns not to engage in bullying or ugly personal attacks.
He says, our campaign is building a multi-generational, multi-racial movement of love, compassion, and justice.
We can certainly disagree on issues, but we must do it in a respectful manner.
Sanders continued by saying he would not do anything to diminish the health care that the unions and workers have fought for, and promising that Medicare for All would expand all health care.
The union called it disappointing when Sanders supporters went after the organization after it distributed a flyer saying Medicare for All would end culinary health care.
Under Sanders' health care plan, private insurance would no longer exist.
The union has decided not to endorse a Democratic president before Nevada's February 22nd caucuses, instead calling to focus on voting President Trump out of office, expanding health care for its workers, and reforming immigration policy.
So, well, there you go.
I mean, you reap what you sow, buddy.
You brought on Linda Sarsour, you brought on AOC, and now they are dragging you down.
Of course, Medicare for All was always part of Bernie Sanders' plan.
So is, I'm doing air quotes here, free college, because it's not.
The problem is, and I'll tell you this, with those plans, at least for me as a more moderate individual, admittedly, I've recently said I'm not going to vote in the primaries because it's a mess anyway, and I'm not confident they're going to honor my position even if I did, so I'm out.
We'll see what happens.
But the problem with these positions is that they're one-size-fits-all, the government should run it, and it abolishes any competition.
I'm not a competition absolutist.
I don't think the free market works perfectly.
I think we need some oversight and regulation.
But I'll tell you this, taking the very few choices we already have and condensing it into a single choice will just make things worse.
And that's why these unions don't like it.
Unions represent regular Americans.
And it's not the first time there has been pushback to the far left.
When AOC announced the Green New Deal, We saw the AFL-CIO, which is, I believe, the largest organization of labor unions in the world, denounce it, saying that it was going to take their jobs away.
Bernie, you made a serious mistake bringing on Ocasio-Cortez.
And you can see it in the news reporting, in what they're saying to her.
It is too extreme.
Which brings me to the final point.
Ocasio-Cortez is sponsoring a bill to ban fracking across the U.S.
Now, I'll be the first to say, I have serious reservations about fracking.
There have been major complaints and environmental issues around fracking that need to be addressed.
I, for one, am not a big fan.
But, I recognize the economic benefits we receive and that people work in this industry.
Getting around that is a serious political challenge.
I can morally grandstand and say, look man, we gotta figure out better ways than this and improve green technology.
I don't know, cold fusion, figure something out, right?
Whatever it might be, improve our solar capacity, build massive batteries to store this energy, wind power, whatever it is.
But I know this.
One of the biggest mistakes Hillary Clinton made was when she said she wanted to get rid of coal jobs.
It didn't scare the few coal workers we have left.
It scared everyone in the energy sector.
She was talking about a couple hundred jobs because coal mining has kind of gone away.
But everybody who works in any kind of fossil fuel industry felt it.
Ocasio-Cortez Campaigning for Bernie Sanders is too extreme.
And she's sponsoring a bill to ban fracking across the US.
This will resonate much more heavily than anything Hillary Clinton could have ever said.
I wouldn't be surprised if energy sector unions issued a statement rejecting Sanders and his surrogates.
These people represent Bernie.
He brought them on.
Which brings me to the very last point, wrapping it all the way to the beginning.
Impeachment.
Was impeachment really designed to hurt Trump or Sanders?
I can't tell you.
It did not hurt Trump.
It helped him.
He raised record money.
His approval rating is up, and I can say it a million times, but you get it.
Bernie Sanders was taken off the campaign trail, and the person he tapped to campaign for him has hurt him substantially.
So much so, it is now being aired out in the public, and we can see it.
It was bad news.
It was a mistake.
But Bernie had no choice.
He couldn't campaign.
He had to go to this sham trial.
And I call it a sham not because the Republicans didn't vote for witnesses, but because there was no real criminal offense.
It was an opinion.
And he had to sit there for a foregone conclusion.
We knew the Republicans would acquit.
It was a waste of time.
They needed 67.
Two-thirds of the Senate.
That's absurd.
It would never happen.
And Bernie could not campaign.
Lo and behold, AOC comes out and says something absolutely ridiculous.
I'm not going to pretend like the Democratic establishment is playing 4-D chess, but it worked out for them, didn't it?
Hey, man.
I've been warning about the far-left push for a while, and there is a reasonable position for Bernie Sanders to hold, but he's bringing on the most extreme people he can find.
Don't ask me why.
We've seen it in the Project Veritas leaks.
It only gets worse.
And that's what you get when you bring these people on.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all in the next segment.
Blah, blah, blah, breaking news, Antifa guy slapped a kid across the face.
You know, I saw this story, and I'm like, wow, that's interesting that this kid got slapped across the face, literally a kid, 15 years old, slapped across the face by a 34-year-old man who supports communism.
And I'm sitting here thinking, like, but what else is new?
You know, am I even going to read this story?
Because, what, you've heard it a million times already?
What's new about this?
Oh, it happened again?
Oh, the media isn't talking about it?
It's boring.
But it is serious.
And that right there is also extremely serious.
This is becoming normalized.
And we're becoming desensitized to this nonsense.
So let me tell you the story.
15-year-old kid shows up to a Donald Trump campaign tent.
15 years old.
Okay?
Gets his picture taken with Donald Trump Jr.
Must have been a really, really good day.
It's near a polling station in New Hampshire.
He goes and he holds up a sign in favor of Donald Trump when some lunatic guy, some communist, like literally a communist guy, walks out and just slaps him square across the face.
Yes, because something's wrong with this guy.
We get it.
When two adults tried to intervene because he just slapped the kid across the face, he attacked them as well.
Apparently got arrested.
Well, as it turns out, duh, the dude's got ties to Antifa.
I don't know what he was doing voting anyway.
If I had to make a bet, who do you think I would choose as to who this guy voted for?
Come on.
Throw some money down on the table.
You gotta name names.
Who did this man vote for?
Duh, Bernie Sanders?
Yeah.
Come on.
Now, I don't know if he actually did or not, but he's not voting for Biden or Warren.
We've seen the rhetoric from the Veritas videos.
We've seen what Antifa does.
We see the activists post on the internet all about this stuff and praise the violent rhetoric.
And now you get a kid who's just standing there holding up a sign saying, have a nice day to people.
Whacked across the face.
Let's read the story.
But the main reason I want to get to, yes, we're going to learn about another instance of a lunatic Antifa guy smacking a kid of, you know, smacking a person, but a kid of all people.
But Donald Trump Jr.
brings up a really interesting point.
The media doesn't care about this.
Like, obviously, local media does.
I'm reading local news outlets.
But right now, in the national level, when it comes to politics, you have what they call the conservative media and the right-wing media, and then journalists.
Spare me.
As if BuzzFeed News is any different from the Daily Wire.
Now, okay, okay, I'll be fair.
There are some differences.
BuzzFeed News actually has people who source information on the ground, so there is a big difference.
Daily Wire is mostly commentary, I can respect that.
But the problem conservatives have Is that they're not sending people on the ground enough.
Now, I get it.
No matter what they do, they'd be accused of being biased.
But when I look at CNN or MSNBC, they're the exact same thing as what Fox News is, just on the other side.
Though they claim to be legitimate information.
And you get people like Brian Stelter on CNN saying, don't go to the spin, come to us.
Oh, please, dude.
You are the spin machine.
Let's read this story.
Man accused of slapping teen Trump supporter in New Hampshire.
We'll get to this and then I want to talk about the media because the big story I want to talk about...
Look, I feel for this kid, and I think it's really important to highlight.
We can't get desensitized to this, which is why I'm like, it doesn't matter how I feel.
I'm sick of these stories.
But we have to talk about it when it happens.
But now, I want to talk about Jussie Smollett as well.
Dude's being indicted.
Mom's the word.
Where's anybody?
Where's CNN?
Where's MSNBC?
It's a huge news.
They don't care.
Because they're literally the same thing as Fox News, just for the other side.
A Wyndham man was arrested for allegedly slapping a 15-year-old boy who was inside a Trump campaign tent during the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday.
Police said 34-year-old Patrick Bradley exited the voting pole inside Wyndham High School and slapped the boy across the face.
The boy was in a campaign tent for Donald Trump with other supporters and workers.
When two other adults stepped in, Bradley allegedly assaulted them too.
He is accused of throwing Trump campaign signs and attempting to knock over the tent.
Just the day before, President Trump held a rally in Manchester to energize his base.
The boy's father told WBZ-TV that when his son showed up at the polling location, he was excited to have a way to take part in the election process.
He even had his picture taken with Donald Trump Jr.
And Trump Jr.
posted the photo.
Trump Jr.
later tweeted out the photo with a caption saying, in part, Keep in mind, when these lunatics come out and attack people, Donald Trump Jr.
is going to make that phone call and you are strengthening their base.
These people don't understand how this works.
Do you think you've convinced anyone not to support Trump?
Quite the contrary.
Your insane slap across the face of a child only makes more people support Trump that much.
It makes people support Trump that much more.
Because you look like a lunatic.
And I'll tell you what else.
When Project Veritas released that expose showing Bernie Sanders staffers talking about getting violent and putting conservatives in camps.
It was the most engaged-with story on social media, bigger than the Bernie Sanders-Elizabeth Warren comment about a female president.
More people were interested in Bernie Sanders staffers saying these insane things.
Let me tell you something.
You get some middle-of-the-road American.
They see the story pop up on Facebook, and they don't really pay attention.
Most people are not paying attention.
I go out and talk to regular people, and they're on Facebook, and they see that story pop up, and they're like, whoa, that's weird.
Then they see this story pop up, and they go, whoa, that's what that other guy was showing in the video.
These crazy communist, you know, far-lefty Bernie people.
That's what they're going around doing.
Yeah, this backs up, this provides some evidence that what these people are saying on these videos from Veritas, of course they mean it!
Okay, let me tell you something.
They're talking about putting conservatives in camps.
And a lot of people are going to say, oh, but they're whiny, you know, little baby losers.
They would never have the ability, you know, people on the right are armed.
Yeah, okay, sure.
But a lot of Americans who voted for Trump are just regular Americans.
9.4 million Obama voters switched for Trump.
That's how Trump won.
Or partly because.
Partly how he won.
So when these people say they want to do unhinged, insane things, for no reason, it makes no sense, like putting conservatives in camps.
And then some dude walks out of a polling station and just smacks a kid right across the face.
There was no reason for that.
He just wanted to hurt a child.
What do you think they're going to do when they gain real political power and they really want to hurt people?
The teen's father was one of the first responders called to the scene after the attack, and says his son is doing okay, but is nervous about when Bradley is no longer behind bars.
While he wants the attention to go away, the experience has provided a civics lesson.
Bradley was arrested Thursday afternoon and charged with three counts of simple assault and one count of disorderly conduct.
He is being held on $5,000 cash bail and will be arraigned on Friday.
President Trump easily won New Hampshire's Republican primary against minimal opposition.
And now we have the story from the post-millennial.
They decided to do some background digging on this guy, and lo and behold, he is a far-left antifa.
So I'll tell you something.
Who do you think this guy voted for?
Let's just be honest, okay?
I know, I know I said it, but just, but seriously.
It's not, it's not necessarily fair to say we know for a fact this guy's a Bernie supporter, but who else is it?
You think this guy voted for Buttigieg?
Come on.
We know who he's voting for.
A Wyndham, New Hampshire man named Patrick Bradley has been charged with several counts of assault and disorderly conduct after he attacked three people, including a minor, for supporting Trump.
They say, after casting his vote in the Democratic primary at Wyndham High School, the 34-year-old walked by a Trump for President campaign tent and assaulted Trump campaigners.
Police say he slapped a 15-year-old juvenile across the face.
Lo and behold.
So, now they've... Here's several of his posts.
And I know, I know.
I'm just so... I'm kind of over this.
We know.
We know.
It's never... It's not going to stop.
It's going to keep happening.
And I'll tell you what.
If Trump wins in November, these people are going to go absolutely insane.
I will say, if he loses, I don't think this will stop.
Because I don't think Bernie's going to get the nomination.
I don't know what to expect, I'll tell you what.
I don't think if Bernie gets the nomination and actually wins, we're gonna see the rise of, you know, actual gulags for conservatives.
But I certainly don't think Bernie deserves to have any position of power when he refuses to condemn his own staff talking about this stuff.
But then you can see what'll happen if, you know, Buttigieg gets the nomination.
These people are nuts!
There's no rhyme or reason to this.
There's literally no strategic advantage to slapping a child across the face.
So here's one of the posts from this guy from the Appalachian Feminist Coalition.
Not true!
Because Antifa is an ideology, it's not, and not an organization, it is, having it classified
as a terrorist organization gives the government free reign to classify anybody they please
as terrorists, including you.
Not true.
Antifa is not an ideology.
Maybe you could technically argue, but they have a flag and a banner.
They say it's just an ideology, anyone can be Antifa.
No, you guys have a banner, you have meetings under the flag of Antifa.
So it's not about labeling Antifa as an ideology.
Because, okay, I guess technically you could say it is, but it's more of a splinter cell faction of extremists.
But, uh, yes, they can label a terror group, and they go after the cell organizations, like, you know, the bra- You know what's really funny?
There's a branded cell that has merchandise.
Like, I kid you not.
It's in the Pacific Northwest.
They have hoodies with their logo.
It's like, aw, did you get those silkscreens so you can sell them to your buddies?
That's right, they have brands.
Antifa brand.
And you can go on Twitter and see all the various brands.
Each of those individual cells is operating in a certain capacity.
Now, if Antifa is considered a terrorist organization, that, look, they're extremist factions.
Would the argument be that, you know, Al-Qaeda, for instance, they're just adhering to an ideology you can't know?
Of course not.
It's not about the ideology.
It's about that cell of people within that ideology, because they're not the only one who believe the insanity.
So these people don't seem to get it.
They're nuts.
Here's this really funny post.
So, the funny thing about this comic is the only time I've ever seen it is when it's actually saying Republicans are bad.
You've got the school saying Republicans are bad, the movie Republicans are bad, what looks like Chris Hayes, I guess, on MSNBC, and then you've got a musician, and then someone says communism is bad, and he goes, I disagree, and then the guy says you're just not a free thinker like me.
The only time I've ever seen it has been about right-wingers.
This one's about communism.
Let me point something out for you.
In the first panel, communism is bad, says the teacher.
That's not the case at all, actually.
At least not for me.
I didn't go to school and teachers never told me that.
They never said anything good about it either.
But typically in colleges, you see these college kids getting out.
And they're talking on camera, preaching about how everyone misunderstands what was really happening.
Where did they learn that?
They're learning it in college.
Or how about the movies, Communism is Bad?
Now that I'll give a little credit to, because we have a ton of movies where the Russians are the bad guys, right?
So that's fair.
Chris Hay is saying Communism is Bad.
Technically, well I think it's Chris Hay, it's technically no.
I mean they're praising socialism.
Rock stars do not yell communism is bad.
Maybe in like the 70s during the Cold War.
But today, a lot of rock stars are very much on the Bernie socialist camp.
And then someone says communism is bad, you're just not a free thinker like me.
Dude, it's not about propaganda.
It's about literally knowing the history of these communist countries.
Now you want to argue about left-wingers and right-wingers and what they do wrong, we can have an argument about it.
Historically though, every single time there's been some kind of socialist or communist Okay, I don't want to read too much about this guy's stupid post.
We get it.
He's Antifa.
He's praising Antifa.
What I want to show you is Donald Trump tweeted about it.
This is the support you get.
This is what happens when you slap a kid.
The president's son, high profile, will make sure he gets that person's back.
So you are bolstering their support and you are making these people double down.
You are hurting your cause.
You are hurting Bernie.
And Bernie should come out and say something about it.
Because every second he doesn't, every supporter who won't address this, every campaign staffer who locks their account down, is fuel for Trump and his base come the general election.
You are insane if you think it's going to be a McGovern situation.
I know, look, Trump's not going to win California, maybe.
Here's the thing.
When you have these videos go unaddressed, When you have Bernie Sanders, who is a socialist, a 78-year-old socialist who just had a heart attack, who won't condemn this, whose staff won't condemn it, it is just fuel for the fire that is Trump and his base.
And if Bernie does get the nomination, these ads will be plastered everywhere.
And you're going to see, it's going to be a red tint showing the guy's face, the news article saying the kid was slapped, and the voice is going to be like, Bernie Sanders wouldn't condemn the attack!
When Sanders supporters pledged to build gulags for conservatives, Bernie Sanders staff lock their social media account, issuing an official memo.
Say nothing.
That's what's happening.
And that's where we're headed.
But this is what I really want to get to, because I know you're never going to hear this from the New York Times, I guess.
They don't care about this stuff.
Because all we really have at the national level is partisan media.
You've got conservative, and you've got left-wing media.
There is no, like, neutral, sane, you know, news source.
Fox News reports CNN, MSNBC virtually ignore new Justice Smollett indictments offer zero primetime coverage.
Because they don't care.
Because they know their audience doesn't care.
And to be fair, you look at my channels and of course I choose things to cover, right?
Here's the difference.
And here's where my criticism comes in.
I understand that you, as an individual perhaps, have an opinion, and you have something that you care about and want to talk about.
Case in point, me.
I'm one person.
I see a story and say, I want to talk about that.
CNN is supposed to be unbiased news, yet they bring on people like Media Matters, and they ignore big stories like this.
MSNBC is partisan, so they get kind of a pass, kind of.
But you can't claim to be the great truth teller in news media with a biased perspective and a refusal to cover big stories.
I will absolutely point some criticism my way because nobody's perfect.
Yes, I cover mostly, you know, I have my own perspective.
Here's the thing, man.
I'm one person.
And I put Kyle Kalinske and Jimmy Dore in my recommendations when you watch my videos because that's the other side of what makes independent media so great.
You can hear me complain, but I wanna make sure, like, don't forget, here's other people's opinions.
You know, go check out Kyle Klinsky and David Pakman, for instance.
They're gonna tell you something different.
I am one person, not a major news organization, chasing after a narrative to generate money.
So I love it when activists say that people like me, or say, Dave Rubin, are grifting, when in reality, we're individuals who have a point of view.
Everybody does.
Everybody has their bias.
But CNN and these other news outlets, New York Times, Washington Post, they're major news industry, they're major companies.
They have like a thousand plus employees making millions of dollars per month or whatever in subscriptions, some absurd number.
And they should have an editorial department that makes sure they're providing you with relevant information as it pertains to elections.
Look, I know a lot of people say that they only watch me.
You shouldn't.
You absolutely should watch those other people.
Even if they annoy you.
Because then you'll know what they're thinking and why they think it.
So when you come to YouTube, I look at it this way.
For all of the faults they've brought, and all of the blacklisting and everything, I do think it's fair to point out that what they do to my channels, you know, scuttling away all my viewer recommendations to Fox News, they do the same thing to David Pakman.
Scuttling all his viewers to MSNBC, trying to prevent us from growing.
And that's what's nightmarish, in my opinion.
If you're on YouTube, you absolutely can get me, Jimmy Dore, Kyle Kalinske, and David Pakman.
And we're going to wildly disagree on many things and agree on other things, but it's a wide range of opinions because we're all independent individuals running our own kind of perspective on things.
When they then scuttle away the viewers to MSNBC, I'll tell you what, man, I've got my disagreements with David Pakman.
But MSNBC is insane conspiracy psychosis.
David's not perfect, I'm not perfect either, but I'll tell you what, you're gonna do a lot better watching him than MSNBC.
Because if you're on YouTube, and they were legitimate, they were fair in how they did recommendations, you could actually have an opportunity to then see someone like, you know, a different, a conservative, Mark, uh, um...
Steven Crowder, for instance.
You might be able to watch Crowder, and then any one of these other progressives.
It's a mixed bag.
You could watch Jimmy Dore, me, David Pakman.
You get the point.
But people turn on MSNBC, and they sit there in front of the zombie box, hearing about how Russia is taking over the planet.
And it's fake news, nonsense, conspiracy, insanity.
I get it.
When it comes to social media, there are issues with people choosing only to watch one thing, because it makes them feel good.
But before YouTube went insane because of the fake news from these companies claiming there was radicalization, they literally created the radicalization!
It's absolutely nuts!
It used to be that if you were interested in a subject, you could get pro and con information on that subject.
If I talked about immigration and Pacman talked about immigration, his video would come up because the tags are the same.
So the media, New York Times for instance, makes this fake story about YouTube radicalization seriously fake.
They make it up.
So YouTube decides to create literal polarization engines.
So now if you watch Pac-Man, you get sent to MSNBC.
But if you watch Jimmy Dore, you get sent to Fox News.
How does that make sense?
It doesn't.
There lies the big problem.
But I'll wrap it up there.
You get the point.
Kid gets slapped in the face, and the only reason most of us are talking about it is because Trump Jr.
highlights this.
And, you know, if you watch CNN thinking you're going to get legitimate information, you will not.
You'll have no idea what's happening.
The best thing you can do is go on social media and watch as much as possible.
But do your best to break free from these echo chambers, because I will add one thing.
If you watch only my content, you're getting Tim Pool's personal bias of what I think is relevant.
I see stories and I say, whoa, that's crazy, I need to talk about that.
I have no scripts.
I see a story and I say, whoa, I have thoughts I'd like to share.
There are many stories where I'm like, I wouldn't really know what to say about that.
Which means you're gonna get a lot of stories from me that are pointed in one direction.
Or, yeah, for the most part, in one direction.
The same is true for many other content creators on YouTube.
But at least we're just people.
These are news organizations, okay?
They're the ones who are supposed to be giving you the balance, and they pretend they are, and they're not.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
I don't know if you've ever seen Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, but it's kind of like a knockoff version of The Daily Show.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart used to be really good, and I'll give you one really simple example of why they were good.
Jon Stewart had poignant and funny commentary.
You could say that about a lot of people.
But there was one point in which Project Veritas James O'Keefe presented undercover footage which made, I believe it was Acorn, look bad.
Jon Stewart uncritically showed this, criticizing the Democrats and Acorn.
He had no problem throwing punches in any direction.
But since he left and everything's become hyper-polarized, you now end up with crappy knockoffs like Samantha Bee's trashy show.
I gotta say, I personally don't like her because of some things she did during Occupy Wall Street.
Very snooty and elitist and disrespectful, but we'll leave that for another day.
Samantha V tweets about PragerU.
Now, most of you are probably familiar with PragerU because you're on YouTube and PragerU is huge on YouTube.
She did a bunch of stupid things.
She tweeted, while Fox continues its lifelong quest to scare your grandparents into hoarding Franklin mint coins, one growing conservative outlet is using colorful graphics and social media to appeal to a new generation.
That outlet is PragerU.
She goes on.
Ha ha ha?
PragerU's website says, Prager University is not an accredited academic institution,
but it is a place where you are free to learn.
That describes every single place.
The last place Sam learned something for free was in a bra store.
She learned she's been wrong for 35 years.
Ha ha ha, whatever.
PragerU is actually dangerous.
They're reaching a new younger audience with BS conservative propaganda.
They trick kids into thinking their videos are educational even though PragerU is as much of a real college as Monsters University.
We had a lot of thoughts about PragerU.
Check our full story here.
I absolutely despise and detest her, John Oliver, shows like this where they purposefully try to take things out of context for the sole purpose of just Look, man.
Comedy is fine.
But what worries me is when people think they're getting legitimate criticism and commentary.
I don't know if you remember what happened with Jim Jeffries and Avi Jimenez, I think his name is.
Jim Jeffries!
He claims to be doing, like, it's comedic interviews.
We understand this.
But the framing is so... It's changed so much and people think this stuff is real.
Now, I get it.
A lot of people are saying, well, that's their fault for being stupid.
Look, there's a difference between telling a joke and purposefully reframing something and then acting like it's legitimately happening.
There are a lot of people, like Steven Crowder for instance, who will use politics, it's political humor.
But Crowder isn't misrepresenting what people are saying when he makes jokes about it.
He'll show you their context and he'll go after it and then make a joke.
What Samantha Bee does in John Oliver is they falsely frame the argument and set up a straw man and make the joke.
Comedy?
Fine, do what you want.
But there is a certain limit where you're purposefully misleading people.
Now, I'll say this.
That's why I don't like them.
It's the same reason I've never been a big fan of InfoWars.
Not because I think they're intentionally, for the most part, trying to do this.
I think they're just wrong.
But when it comes to Samantha Bee, it's not about her being stupid or wrong.
It's about them doing it on purpose.
And I know, because I've seen her do it first-hand in New York when she was working for the Daily Show.
I'd like to make a few important points about how stupid Full Frontal is with these tweets.
First, I love the myth.
Okay, it's kind of not a myth, but I'll be fair.
Fox News continues its lifelong quest to scare your grandparents.
Uh-oh.
She doesn't seem to realize that Fox News doubles The amount of views she gets in the key demo.
Oh, what was that?
Okay, not entirely doubles, but gets around like 80% more.
That's right.
I have actual numbers to show you.
Here we have full frontal with Samantha Bee.
She got a .32 in the key demographic of 18 to 49.
Now the challenge here is that 18 to 49 isn't the same metric I'm going to show you.
I will however point out, Tucker Carlson tonight, on this list of the same day, got .26.
It's fair to say, in this range, ending at 49, she does do a little bit better than Tucker Carlson.
But come on.
Not by all that much.
More importantly, Tucker's getting 3.27 million.
So okay, I get the joke.
Tucker Carlson has a very large base of people older than the key demo.
But when we look at Wednesday's the 12th, so this is the next week, we can see that Tucker Carlson in the key demo got 629,000.
So, I don't have last week's, and it's fair to say there's a bit of a back and forth, but the reason I'm bringing this up is, it's a stupid argument to make that Fox News is scaring your grandparents, haha, simply because he gets more viewers than you.
We can clearly see there are nights where Carlson nearly doubles the key demographic views you get.
And perhaps the reason this is higher is because we're now looking at the ages of 50 to 54.
So in 18 to 49, Carlson is a little bit lower than Samantha Bee.
Her audience probably skews a little bit lower, but we're talking about basically the same age.
So Tucker Carlson's audience, and it's also 25, so I guess Carlson doesn't have a whole lot of 18-year-old viewers?
I don't know.
The point is...
It's a silly argument to make, but it's because they don't really have one.
Samantha Bee is getting around, last week, she got about 900,000 viewers.
Okay?
They rank this right now based on key demographic viewers because that's the most important.
But what Samantha Bee is doing here is, there's a couple other things I should point out.
Calling PragerU dangerous, compared to what she does.
Let me explain to you what she did in this segment.
There's a video here, I'm not gonna play it, you can watch it.
Dangerous PragerU conservatives clap back at Samantha Bee.
She purposefully goes into PragerU videos, takes short snippets that you can't understand, possibly even quotes from other people, to make it sound like people are dumb.
It is one of the most frustrating things, and it's why so many people on the left are morons.
People on the right are morons too, but I'm talking specifically about what's making people on the left moronic.
You see, I have this theory.
Here's what I think is happening.
I think that the left used to be a much broader base.
Actually, you know what?
I don't know if you saw the podcast, Timcast IRL episode I did with Jack Murphy, but he talked about how he went from Democrat to deplorable, and it was because a few issues came off the table, like, you know, pot legalization, and it was, you know, cultural issues, gay marriage, for instance, and that made it really easy for him to switch over to the Republican side for Donald Trump.
A lot of people left.
Thought leaders left.
People who are thinking about what they want and why they want it.
You are left now with shows like Samantha Bee getting much less viewership than Tucker Carlson, but, you know, a back and forth in the key demo.
So it is, for younger people, it does have a difference.
I think it's fair to point out older people vote more, so Tucker Carlson probably has more political clout, but anyway, I digress.
Craig or you will make a video and they'll give their argument.
Is it a conservative perspective?
Yes.
Is it a sound, logical argument?
For the most part, yes.
I'm going to say for the most part because I'm not going to act like I've seen every single video they've made and some of them I absolutely can criticize.
But they're making legitimate arguments.
They're not tearing people down or setting up straw man arguments for the most part.
Samantha Bee literally does that.
So this is what you end up getting.
Nobody thought Prager University... Okay, most people don't think PragerU is a legitimate university.
That's silly.
They understand it's a YouTube channel where people create educational videos and political arguments.
Samantha Bee is a comedy show meant to make you laugh, but they trick you.
Jon Stewart didn't do this.
They do it.
John Oliver and Samantha Bee falsely frame things for the sake of their argument because they're trying to prop something up so you can laugh and it's easier.
I'll explain to you.
In a simple analogy, you've probably seen those prank videos on YouTube, where people go out and do something dumb, like throw something at somebody, and then they get into a fight.
I know people who think those are real, and I tell them they're not real.
You know why?
Do you know how much time and money it would take to get a positive reaction that you could use for a video?
It would take forever!
It's so much easier just to hire someone to give you the reaction you want.
So these prankster channels will hire an actor and say, I'm gonna do this, you do this, and they go, okay.
The prankster walks out, does it.
Lo and behold, it took 10 minutes to film the reaction they wanted.
It was easy.
If they were legitimately filming reactions, it'd be boring.
Totally boring.
And therein lies the real problem for people like Samantha Bee.
PragerU is entertaining in the ideas it presents and the arguments it makes, but it's not making you laugh.
I'm sure sometimes there's some humor in there.
Adam Kroll, I believe, has done some segments.
Samantha Bee's goal is to do a comedy news show.
So instead of actually presenting factual information and making a joke about it, it's easier to falsely frame things and then knock on a straw man to get laughs.
The difference between the two shows is that Samantha Bee is a fake news comedy show and people think it's real.
They're allowed to do it.
I just don't watch it.
But hey, they're more than, you know, go ahead and do it.
PragerU, as I stated, just makes YouTube video arguments, and they do cultural commentary.
They're nowhere near the same thing, yet they're calling PragerU dangerous.
Which brings me to the final point on this, and then we can read some of the story.
And Samantha Bee and The Daily Show and these other stupid shows literally produce leftist propaganda.
I mean, I hate to call it propaganda.
It's stupid.
But it is.
It's news information designed to push a point of view.
So both PragerU and Samantha Bee are propaganda.
The only real problem they have, I guess, is that Fox News often reaches substantially more key demographic viewers than they do.
That's why it's dangerous!
Oh no, heavens!
Young people are on YouTube, people are free to express their ideas on YouTube, and you're on a crappy network making a crappy show, and you can't even crack a million viewers on your show in one night.
I'm getting way more views than that on my content.
But you know what?
Fine.
It's hard to compare TV to the internet.
Online, Samantha Bee gets like almost no views.
You know, the videos she did about Prager, a day after it went up, had like 30,000 views.
Okay, Prager gets like millions, but not on all of their segments, so it's, you know, it's hard to compare.
But I can say that when it comes to YouTube, and when it comes to honest, unscripted commentary, these videos do substantially better than your strawman arguments designed to tear down somebody by falsely presenting a quote, which is literally what they do in the show.
Now, in this, they've got some quotes, some pushback.
I've read you the tweets from her already, so let's read, because they have quotes now from some of the personalities who've worked with PragerU.
The Washington Examiner reached out to some of the most watched personalities on PragerU, all of them saying that their goals are to counter groupthink and expose young people to new ideas.
Yes, that threatens Samantha Bee.
I mean, I don't think she has any legitimate opinions anyway.
She's a comedian.
That's always been her bit.
They're trying to go after, like, the female Audience on Comedy Central.
They're trying to get back what Jon Stewart was.
And I'm actually saddened to see Jon Stewart go.
I don't know why.
You know, maybe he was on the show for a really long time.
He retired.
But look what happened to Colbert.
Generic opinion.
Orange man bad.
Drumpf, Drumpf, Drumpf.
John Oliver, Drumpf.
Samantha Bee, Drumpf.
There's no real substance to any of their segments.
And John Oliver's the worst, man.
He really, really is.
Because the amount of lies and misinformation, I mean, in all of these shows, is horrible.
It's horrifying.
At least Trevor Noah sometimes has these great segments.
He did one about Tulsi, where he was actually defending her because the moderators asked stupid questions in a debate.
So I like that.
But Samantha Bee's whole shtick, same with Jim Jefferies, same with John Oliver, is false frame, easy knockdown joke.
It's a repeatable, really stupid meme.
And it got to the point, this is hilarious, Reddit is overwhelmingly biased towards the left, but even they started downvoting John Oliver videos because his whole segment is formula.
It's 2019!
It's current year!
It became a meme!
Where people were mocking how we literally would say the same thing.
Whenever he would talk about some stupid idea someone would do or something someone would do, he would say, Little Timothy over here!
It's like, dude, we get it.
You have one joke.
And you're saying it over and over and over again.
We're bored.
Which is why shows like Joe Rogan, his podcast, are doing so well.
Shows like mine are doing so well.
Unscripted commentary.
We talk about various things.
I don't plan it out.
Joe doesn't plan it out.
Some people do.
But here's what I've noticed.
You look at shows like Vox, right?
Strikethrough, Carl Maza's thing.
It's plastic.
I was watching a BuzzFeed video.
They went to the ski resort that banned plastic.
It's got, like, no views, nobody watches, and I don't know why.
It's the audio equivalent of eating plastic.
It just feels like you're not eating anything real.
It's not food.
And so when I watch this and listen to this stuff, I'm like, you roll this out, there's no sincerity in anything you're saying, it sounds fake.
Same thing with Samantha Bee.
Her show is like hollow plastic.
It's like a chocolate Easter Bunny.
You get this big piece of chocolate.
There's nothing inside of it.
It's a shell.
It's nothing.
Her whole show is... I'll tell you this.
Samantha Bee is the Big Bang Theory of political commentary.
The easiest way to put it.
I hate the Big Bang Theory.
If you like it, well, too bad.
I hate it.
There's no jokes.
It's canned laughter nonsense.
The whole premise of the show is like, I'll say something needlessly convoluted with a weird- and talk in a weird way.
And that's the comedy.
Sorry, not interested in that.
You know, I like watching comedians.
Like George Carlin.
He made real points.
He was telling the truth in funny ways.
And it wasn't always political.
Joe Rogan tells stories when he does his comedy.
He does one bit about cats chirping at birds.
Not political, but it's hilarious.
It's an actual joke with a punchline.
But you get these Big Bang Theory type viewers, who end up watching Samantha Bee and laughing mindlessly at it, having no idea what's really going on in politics, and then thinking like, Fox News is scaring your grandparents.
Fox News has 6-700,000 key demographic viewers, man.
So let me be fair, actually.
Because if we go to full frontal with Samantha Bee, and we look at the hard numbers, and we'll try and compare the actual ratings, so we can see that...
I don't know what these numbers are supposed to represent, because it doesn't quite make sense.
Different episodes, I suppose.
But take a look at this.
We're gonna look at age group 25 to 54.
No matter which number you look at, for whatever reason, it never really breaks.
Maybe this- I don't know what the numbers are supposed to represent.
In age group 25 to 54, Tucker Carlson got 600- around 659,000 viewers.
In age group 25-54, Tucker Carlson got 600, around 659,000 viewers.
His show is more appealing to young people than you are.
Anyway, my problem isn't so much with Samantha Bee.
It's with the... You know what?
I'll put it this way.
Mainstream-type cable TV news is like eating plastic.
For the longest time, it's all we had, and we literally ate that plastic.
But here's the crazy thing.
Jon Stewart was substantially more sincere than all of these plastic personalities.
What happened?
I don't know.
Maybe it's because the internet started to become more popular and more powerful.
People like me left corporate news to do things like this.
And now if you want real commentary on the actual thoughts of a person with no script, you're gonna go on YouTube and hear what someone has to think.
But if you want canned trash, you're gonna stay and watch those TV shows.
What I think is happening is the blockbusterfication of media.
Blockbuster Video had an opportunity to buy Netflix, and they didn't do it.
When I worked for these big media companies, I told them, you need to look at what's happening on YouTube.
I kid you not!
In 2013, I told Vice, and then when I went to Fusion a year later, I told Fusion, you need to get your personalities producing authentic, personality-driven YouTube content on individual channels.
And they all said, interesting, and did nothing.
So now here's what we're seeing.
YouTubers are becoming successful and powerful, independent creators, small businesses, sole proprietors.
These big networks are fading.
And check this out.
I don't know how much money Samantha Bee makes on her show.
But it's probably a decent amount.
Advertisers love being on TV.
She gets about 900,000, or she did on that Wednesday.
That's fantastic.
I'm getting more cumulative viewers on YouTube than she is.
I can also point to the fact that I get more daily viewers than, like, CNN does.
But on YouTube, CNN and Fox News absolutely trounce me and many other commentators.
That, uh, although it is important to say that YouTube is driving, you know, my viewers there.
Oh, by the way, if you made it this far, you really should subscribe.
You've been watching for 17 minutes, but I gotta be better at that.
Anyway, the point is...
Shows like Samantha Bee have become formulaic trash with no sincere opinion.
You know, Jon Stewart had segments, but you could feel it that he was, like, kinda telling you how he really felt.
This is because their industry is decaying.
They're trying to streamline cut costs.
But the production budget for me in this show is extremely low, my margins are extremely high, and that's why we're going to win.
Not just because we're better at what we do, because it's more sincere, more honest opinion for the most part, cheaper to produce, They are archaic and obsolete.
And they're threatened by it.
So PragerU has really good production value.
You've got the green screen, the fancy graphics and everything.
It's not super cheap to produce those segments, and they do script them.
But interestingly, there is still a little bit of a plastic sheen to what PragerU does in that their videos are presumably scripted.
It's not the same as someone giving an off-the-cuff opinion like I would do, or like Joe Rogan would do.
But it's not as bad as TV, it's actually substantially better.
I'm not trying to disrespect PragerU's content, it's just there's a big difference between scripted content and off-the-cuff commentary.
I happen to like off-the-cuff commentary a lot more because it feels authentic, like you actually know what someone, how someone feels, and they're not writing it down to make sure their opinion lines up perfectly with what they think you want to hear.
PragerU makes arguments, though.
So, it's not necessarily the same as political commentary.
They are giving political commentary, but they're making arguments about why they think their ideas are right.
Shows like Samantha Bee and John Oliver are just complete trash that are for- created a formula to try and figure out what it is that you, the viewer, will laugh at, and that's all you get.
They don't care about real arguments.
And Jim Jefferies, too.
Complete trash.
They have no real argument of substance.
They don't care to have an argument of substance.
They don't have sources backing them up.
Samantha Bee literally goes in, takes a snippet of someone saying something simple like censorship from major corporations is going to get bad.
And then she's like, censorship from corporations?
But only the government!
Did you actually present the real argument?
No.
But they're concerned that their weird machine no longer appeals to young people anymore.
It used to.
It doesn't.
I don't think it matters if you're liberal, conservative, Democrat, Republican.
It matters if you're about free thought, expanding your mind, learning, and you care about freedom in general.
These people don't.
They're the hollow remnant shells that are left behind, the drying, collapsing, decaying husk That is left after thought leaders and people who used to be like George Carlin.
When those people leave, when the George Carlin-inspired individuals, the free thinkers, walk away from your party, you are left with the plastic mannequins who struggle to repeat the successes of those before them.
John Stewart.
was one of these people.
A unique thought leader.
And he retired.
And what was left?
A hollow shell trying to imitate him, but they don't know what they're doing or what they're talking about, and they can't replicate the success of someone like Jon Stewart.
Take a look at Vice, and you can see something similar.
You know exactly when the OG Vice founders left and started leaving it to the corporate minds, because Vice went from edgy and offensive to woke and safe.
And that's what's happening to the left.
Thought leaders are walking away and don't want to be involved anymore.
People like Dave Chappelle are antagonizing the left.
Joe Rogan has no problem talking about his support for certain left-wing individuals, his politics, but then ragging on a bunch of the woke BS.
And it's leaving behind trash.
I'll leave it there.
You get the point.
This one went long.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast and I will see you all there.
Those sneaky Russian pranksters are at it again.
You may have seen the story about Adam Schiff and Maxine Waters, how they got tricked into believing insane nonsense, notably that Greta Thunberg had called.
Not Adam Schiff, but Maxine Waters.
Well, now we have another story.
Russian pranksters.
We tricked Bernie Sanders into KGB sleeper agent activation ritual with Greta Thunberg.
Technically.
I think by the time the pranksters actually got to the point where they accused Bernie Sanders of being hypnotized and having his memory wiped while he was on his honeymoon in Russia, which he was, by the way, I think by the time they got to that point, he had already hung up.
Now, to be fair, Breitbart is not saying it is Bernie Sanders because they haven't been able to confirm it.
So maybe, I'll just say maybe it's not, but it really, really does sound like Bernie Sanders.
I'm not going to play it for the most part.
If you want to listen to the prank thing, go ahead.
I want to read you this, but I do want to talk about Bernie Sanders' honeymoon in the Soviet Union and what they're getting at.
But I got to admit, It is funny.
I'm wondering if the Bernie camp is going to have a sense of humor about it like Trump supporters probably would.
I don't know, though.
A lot of people on the left seem to not laugh at things.
But let's read the story from Breitbart.
They report, a pair of Russian YouTubers claim that they have nabbed Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont in another prank call from a pair posing as Greta Thunberg and her father, according to their latest video.
The video opens with an individual who sounds like and identifies himself as Sanders, one of the frontrunners in the Democrats' presidential primary, asking to speak with Greta Thunberg.
Now, I will say, if this isn't Bernie, it is one of the best impersonations I have ever heard.
They say, uh, Greta Thunberg, the teen climate, uh, so he's asking to speak with Greta Thunberg, the teen climate activist who was named Time Person of the Year.
Oh, okay, so it looks like the reason that they think it's not Bernie is because Bernie asked for Greta, but maybe they called and gave a number saying call back.
Quote.
I just wanted to congratulate you on the extraordinary role you are playing in rallying young people and people throughout the world on this terrible, terrible crisis of climate change.
I'm going to stress this too.
It's possible it's just a prank YouTube video and it's not real.
Please keep that in mind.
We would like to help you in your campaign in some way.
What is the best thing to do?
The woman pretending to be Greta says after a few minutes of general discussion of climate change.
The person identifying himself as Sanders responds, Well, if you would like to help in our campaign, that would be wonderful and would be very appreciative because you have generated so much excitement among young people and all people throughout the world.
You are admired very, very much.
I also want to point out Greta Thunberg is actually despised by a lot of people.
He then asks her if she is planning to be in the U.S.
the next few months.
The father responds they will be there in February.
Well, that'd be great.
But if you want to make a statement of support of our plan and my candidacy, I would be very appreciative.
The person who sounds like Sanders says, we can bring some folks together with you and we can have a wonderful meeting if that's something you're interested in.
He mentions her making a statement in support of his candidacy and his plans on climate change.
The pranksters then suggest that Sanders collaborate with Billie Eilish and Kanye West on a rap video.
Kanye West is a staunch Trump supporter, mind you.
He responded, That would be terrific. Rap music is very popular. We have
a number of rap artists working on our campaign.
They tell him to wear gold chains and jewelry.
I'm not going to read the whole thing.
I want to get to the point.
So the callers then bring up Sanders' 1988 honeymoon in Moscow and unsuccessfully bait him with a question on whether America can be led into communism.
They suggest that he make former South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg's running mate, and he responds with, okay, well, I will take that under advisement.
Toward the end they suggest that Sanders was recruited and programmed to work for Russia during his 1988 trip to the Soviet Union.
Your memory was erased so the CIA wouldn't track you down, she continues.
Is that what you believe?
The man purported to be Sanders responds.
You become a sleeper agent of the KGB.
Yes, the Greta actress says.
Now it's time to wake up and fulfill your mission.
Become president of the United States, build communism in the United States and work for Russia.
I will tell you the code phrase and you'll remember.
They then play some really weird noises where someone keeps saying babushka over and over again, and like Putin.
And then she tells him that Russian hackers will begin an operation to bring you to power in the United States.
Okay, okay.
I'm not intending on just reading you a transcript of the prank phone call.
If you want to listen to the prank phone call, you can go find it.
But I'm pointing this out because I thought of something really funny.
They keep accusing Donald Trump of working for Russia.
I thought the story about the pranksters was an interesting lead because it's kind of hilarious, assuming that really was Bernie.
But let's make one important point because they bring up Russian hackers at the end.
I always wondered, why is it that Donald Trump is accused by at least some people on MSNBC, for instance, accused of potentially, I say potentially, being a Russian asset since the 1980s, when Trump is like an avowed nationalist, capitalist conservative.
Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is a socialist, running on a socialist platform, calling himself a socialist.
who actually went to the Soviet Union in 1988 and praised the Soviet Union.
In this story from the Washington Post, they say, inside Bernie Sanders' 1988 10-day honeymoon in the Soviet Union.
Let me make it clear.
No.
Bernie Sanders was not brainwashed by the KGB and is secretly working for the now-defunct Soviet Union.
It's a silly joke.
But it is true, at least according to the Washington Post, and we've seen the videos, I mean, to be honest, it's true, that Sanders did honeymoon in Moscow and then actually went on to say positive things about the Soviet Union, which was like, I don't know, a nightmarish place to be.
The Washington Post says, so this is a year-old article, but this is kind of what I wanted to get into, right?
Let me use the prankster as an excuse to talk about Bernie and communism.
Bernie Sanders was bare-chested, towel-draped, sitting at a table lined with vodka bottles, as he sang This Land Is Your Land to his hosts in the Soviet Union in the spring of 1988.
The just-married socialist mayor from Vermont was on what he called a very strange honeymoon, an official 10-day visit to the communist country, and he was enthralled with the hospitality and the lessons that he could bring home.
Let's take the strengths of both systems, he said upon completing the trip.
Let's learn from each other.
Yeah, that's kind of scary.
What do you want to learn from a failed system that collapsed and killed like millions of people?
I'm not really interested in figuring that out.
I think we're doing all right.
The Soviet sojourn has long been an extraordinary, if little understood, chapter in Sanders' lore.
He for years used it to help explain his views about foreign policy, citing it as recently as last month.
So this is from 2019.
The trip garnered brief mention in the 2016 presidential campaign, but earlier this year, a video from a Vermont community television station was posted online that showed a few minutes of Sanders' unlikely celebration with the Soviets.
Right-leaning websites suggested Sanders was cozying up to communists, underscoring how the trip might be used against the senator if he becomes a Democratic nominee.
Well, I'll tell you what.
I got no problem with Sanders doing this.
Because they're trying to show Donald Trump meeting with Kim Jong-un and Putin as if it's a bad thing.
Now, my bigger concern is not whether or not Bernie Sanders went to the Soviet Union, it's whether or not he thinks those things are good ideas.
Donald Trump met with Kim Jong-un.
I do not believe Donald Trump thinks what the North Koreans are doing is good ideas.
I just don't think so.
Sorry.
You can have Trump Derangement Syndrome and think whatever you want.
Bernie Sanders, though, does have far-left views.
So it's not about where you go and who you meet with.
I'm not going to play silly games like this.
But Bernie Sanders was influenced by this, at least according to the Washington Post.
They say, until now, however, Relatively few details of the trip have emerged and most accounts have relied heavily on Sanders' recollection.
An examination by the Washington Post of the trip, based on interviews with five people who accompanied Sanders, as well as an audio and video of it, provides a fresh look at this formative time for Sanders, foreshadowing much of what animates his presidential bid.
And now I'm going to wrap this up in a nice little bow for you and explain to you why these two segments are coming together.
Perhaps it was just a joke, the KGB brainwashing Bernie Sanders into bringing communism to America.
It's silly.
Of course that never happened.
But the reality is, Bernie Sanders did go to Russia, and he was absolutely influenced by them.
The Washington Post titles the segment, I'm sorry, they say, Or actually, where is it?
Inside Bernie Sanders' 10-day honeymoon in the Soviet Union.
The tagline of it was that a lot of his policy ideas came from this trip.
I don't want to dig through this, but that was basically the point.
The tag of this article, which apparently they don't have anymore because news organizations like to do this, was essentially that Bernie Sanders took inspiration from a lot of what he saw on the left.
A lot of what he saw in the Soviet Union.
So they say, as he campaigns for president a second time, Sanders, an independent who was running in the Democratic primaries, takes credit for moving the party to the left, and he now finds himself competing with candidates who advocate for the kind of activist government positions Sanders touted during his Soviet trip.
such as government-sponsored health care for all.
As he stood on the Soviet soil, Sanders, then 46, criticized the cost of housing and health care in the U.S.
while lauding the lower prices, but not the quality, of that available in the Soviet Union.
Then, at a banquet attended by about 100 people, Sanders blasted the way the United States had intervened in other countries, stunning one of those who had accompanied him.
I got really upset and walked out, said David F. Kelly, who had helped arrange the trip and was the only Republican in Sanders' entourage.
When you're a critic of your country, you can say anything you want on home soil.
At that point, the Cold War wasn't over.
The arms race wasn't over, and I just wasn't comfortable with it.
So I'll wrap it up with this.
We all got a good laugh at the prankster thing, but Sanders didn't, in my opinion, go to the Soviet Union to become a communist.
He actually already believed a lot of these things.
So I'm not super concerned about him meeting with people, but it is true that his foreign policy received some influence, and it may be not that he was actually activated or brainwashed, but that he has held views like this.
These views should be criticized, and he should talk about He should talk about it.
I think it's pretty important for this country, if he's going to run for president, that we do scrutinize not his personal life and his stupid writing, I mean, for the most part, but the fact that he was criticizing America to one of our biggest enemies during the Cold War, and what his positions on the Soviet Union would be.
Now I know Bernie Sanders supporters are going to get mad and say, of course he doesn't like it, of course.
Okay.
Well, this is gonna come up.
It's gonna be in campaign ads.
They're already making prank videos about it, okay?
So how about you bring it up and talk about it?
I don't want to play guilt by association, but I think it's very... I don't know.
I don't like it.
I'll just put it that way.
The Soviet Union was bad.
Bernie should not have praise for them.
It was nightmarish.
But again, I'm not really old enough to know what it was like, so I'll leave it at that.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
This next story is a bit of a doozy.
Three Democrats on the Judiciary Committee have been hit with ethics complaints for misusing campaign funds and soliciting financial contributions on social media to support their own bills.
And one of these women, apparently, I got to be really, really careful.
I'm going to read through the story to avoid any potential legal pitfalls.
They may have been misusing to the tune of millions of dollars.
Some of it coming from Michael Bloomberg.
Okay, I gotta stop.
I'm just gonna read it and be very careful how I comment on this because we're dealing with serious legal issues and corruption.
The Daily Mail reports, Three Democratic members of the House Judiciary Committee were hit with ethics complaints on Wednesday for engaging in suspicious activities, including campaign fundraising violations and soliciting financial contributions for their own legislation on social media.
Reps Madeleine Dean of Pennsylvania, Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Lucy McBath of Georgia were listed in the complaint filed with the Office of Congressional Ethics.
The complaint was filed by the Americans for Public Trust, a non-profit watchdog group formed by former National Republican Congressional Committee Research Director Caitlin Sutherland.
The complaints allege that all three violated federal law and House ethics rules and calls for investigations into their conduct.
We'll see if that happens, but I gotta admit, I'm not gonna hold my breath because people never get held accountable for these things.
Some people have.
Some Republican dudes got indicted.
We'll see what happens.
The complaint against McBeth alleges she accepted millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions from every town for Gun Safety Action Fund, which is largely financed by Michael Bloomberg.
Now, you see why I'm very careful about how I'm saying this, that it is alleged she received millions of dollars from a Michael Bloomberg-funded organization.
It seems to be about, you know, opposing Second Amendment or promoting gun control.
Macbeth was employed by Everytown prior to announcing her run for Congress in March 2018.
The complaint states she remained employed three for two of three she employed wait wait hold on
she remained employed the for what does that mean there I'm sorry uh copy editor guys wow
she remained employed there is no r for two more months and once appeared on tv as a congressional
candidate and a spokesperson for everytown she also allegedly received money from everytown
for her campaign during the time she was employed there.
Everytown reported in an FEC filing that they first began contributing to McBath's campaign on April 24th, 2018.
However, Everytown began spending in the election for Georgia's 6th congressional district while Representative McBath was still serving as the group's national spokesperson, the OCE complaint says.
Quote, It is not publicly known what level of involvement Representative McBath had in Everytown's expenditures against her eventual general election opponent while she was still employed by Everytown.
Everytown spent over $1.2 million in her primary race and over $3 million in her general election campaign, according to the complaint.
If Everytown's spending was coordinated with Rhett McBath, it would constitute millions of dollars in illegal campaign contributions that were unreported, excessive, and prohibited by law.
Dare I say, if these allegations are legit, it sounds like they cheated to win using a loophole.
Corporate contributions to candidates are illegal under federal law unless they are donations that fall under strict rules.
Strict rules, contribution limits, and are reported.
Just yesterday, McBath formally endorsed Michael Bloomberg in the Democratic primary, and there it is.
So let me just walk back for a second.
Again, being careful with how I'm saying this.
It sounds, based on this story, The allegation states, this woman was receiving tons of money through an organization funded by Bloomberg, and is now, and potentially to the tune of millions of dollars in illegal contributions, endorsing Michael Bloomberg.
Who endorses Michael Bloomberg?
Come on!
The dude hasn't even been on the debate stage, not even in a primary, he's just some rich dude dumping money into the election, and now they're endorsing it?
I don't think that sounds legit.
Now moving on to the other woman.
In Dean's case, the complaint claims she used funds from her suspended lieutenant governor campaign in Pennsylvania for her Congress campaign.
Dean announced her candidacy for Congress in February 2018, three months after her campaign for the lieutenant governor position.
With those prior funds, she made a congressional campaign website, paid for software for fundraising, voter contact, and reimbursed staff on her congressional campaign.
Reusing those funds violates federal law, the complaint alleges, because campaigns for federal office must only use funds that were subject to the Federal Election Commission.
Contributions to a state campaign are not subject to the same reporting and contribution limits as federal contributions, which basically means, once again, Potential cheating.
If when she was running at the state level, she received a ton of money that wasn't tracked by the FEC, you could theoretically use that as a loophole for people to give you illegal sums of cash to use in your campaign, and then run for the federal level bypassing FEC laws.
And there you have it.
Now, I believe we go down to the next complaint, which is the last one.
In Jayapal's case, the complaint alleged she violated House rules by posting social media posts and soliciting financial contributions towards a bill she introduced before the House Rules Committee.
On April 30th, 2019, The committee held a hearing on the Medicare for All Act of 2019, a bill she introduced, the same day her campaign solicited financial contributions from the public to keep momentum going for the bill.
I gotta ask though, what would you use that money for?
Is it to run ads telling people to call congressmen?
Is that the point?
These posts linked to C-SPAN broadcast coverage of a hearing for the bill and reference to the hearing, which was a violation of a House rule against using broadcast coverage of official House business for political purposes.
Asking for contributions toward her legislation is another House rule violation.
House members are not allowed to request money or other things of value connected to official duty.
So I want to differentiate between what we're seeing here because it seems like some of these are just straight-up ethics violations.
But it seems like the first two could be legitimate and serious illegal activities.
But now I'm going to bring you to the point at which I am oh so disappointed.
How many times have we heard about potential malfeasance?
And how many times has it actually been dealt with?
The other day when I was doing my story on George McGovern, do you guys know the McGovern story?
Maybe you didn't watch my video.
It's basically about how the Democrats thought a coalition of leftists would defeat Richard Nixon's re-election, and instead, the opposite happened.
That Richard Nixon's wiped the board.
So when I'm reading this, I started reading a little bit about Richard Nixon, things I didn't know.
We were asking, like, how did Gerald Ford become president?
Because when we were looking at presidential elections, there's no Gerald Ford, and he wasn't the vice president to Richard Nixon.
But we found out it was because of Nixon's resignation.
And I found that kind of fascinating.
And maybe it's because I haven't lived through anything like this, that I just don't expect anything to be done about any of these claims.
Now, I'll be fair and say, these are allegations.
We don't know to what extent any of it's true.
Some of it seems very easily to, you know, to verify.
But look, It was recently announced that DOJ wouldn't go after Andrew McCabe.
A lot of people are outraged online.
I'm not surprised, man.
Not that I know too much about what McCabe is accused of or whether or not... Look, I'm not Bill Barr.
I don't know.
But this never happens.
They're not gonna go after these people.
They're gonna get a slap on the wrist.
Ilhan Omar was actually fined.
Like, they were like, yep, you did it.
You committed a campaign finance violation.
That'll be $500.
Oh.
Boo-hoo.
As if that matters to her.
Hillary Clinton was subpoenaed for her servers, she destroyed it, purged something like 33,000 emails, literally smashed a bunch of phones with hammers, and nothing happened.
Meanwhile, you got people like, you know, they'll get Avenatti, that guy just got found guilty.
They'll get Roger Stone, that guy was found guilty.
You have accusations of campaign finance violation.
Fine.
Maybe they're not good enough.
Maybe they're not strong enough.
But recently we had some Republican dude accused of some crime and he actually got indicted.
Apparently he stepped down.
I don't know what happened.
I just have very little faith in the justice system in this country, especially when it comes to politicians.
And it really does seem like there is pervasive and ongoing corruption.
Now, I'll be honest.
I'm happy it's not as bad as it is in many other countries, because there are a lot of countries where it's so bad you cannot even have a legitimate trial unless you grease someone's wheels.
In this circumstance, however, it looks like that one woman literally was being propped up by Bloomberg and then endorsing Bloomberg.
Now, there is a simple solution.
I don't want to assert some grand conspiracy.
Maybe she was getting paid by a Bloomberg-funded operation.
Not that it was intended to be illegal, but then she went on to endorse him.
I just think There's very little reason for me or anyone to feel like there's going to be real justice in this country, especially when you see what happened with Russiagate, you know, the Mueller probe, Ukrainegate.
I hear stories about this.
Great.
I can talk about it.
Wonderful.
But in the end, will anything happen?
I'm gonna make a hard bet that the answer is no.
Prove me wrong!
Is there something I'm missing?
Is there some other reason I should believe that any of these people will be held accountable?
I gotta admit, I don't think so.
I really, really don't.
Meanwhile, Michael Bloomberg is gonna be dumping tons of money to try and win a presidential election.
He's getting called out for it.
He's essentially buying the nomination, and it's working!
He's going up in the polls.
That's soft corruption.
I think it's sick.
And I'm glad it's actually people on the left who call him out.
I think everybody should call him out.
Certainly some people on the right were calling him out.
Donald Trump didn't dump billions of his own money into this.
He actually didn't spend that much money at all and still ended up winning.
But I'll tell you what, man.
If you want me to have faith in this system and be upset about what Bill Barr is doing, then I'll tell you what.
All throughout the Obama years, when nothing happened?
You expect me to now turn around and be shocked by what the Trump administration is doing?
It's not gonna happen.
And I know this.
When Bill Barr leaves, when Trump leaves, it's gonna go back to business as usual, and something is done about it.
I don't know if these women are guilty.
I'm not gonna say they are.
But I do think we deserve an investigation, right?
How many years of investigations of nonsense into Trump do we get?
Well, maybe we should get an investigation of this.
I'll wrap it up.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
The Border Patrol will deploy elite tactical agents to Sanctuary Cities.
Agents from a special tactical team that normally confronts smugglers on the border are being sent to Sanctuary Cities across the country.
And I think it is unfortunate that this is happening.
But I think it also has to do with the fact that Sanctuary Cities are not telling ICE and federal law enforcement when they have criminals That they release.
Therein lies the big problem.
But before we talk about the elite agents, look at this dude.
He's like a stormtrooper.
We've got this story from a few days ago, which needs to be talked about, in my opinion.
Bill Barr announces sweeping new sanctions, significant escalation against left-wing sanctuary cities.
What's interesting to me about this whole debate is the 2A sanctuary cities in Virginia and what would happen there.
But I gotta admit, In these two battles, you have in Virginia Second Amendment sanctuaries where American citizens are defending a constitutional right, and in these circumstances you have, you know, liberal left-wing cities defending people who are here without documentation who are illegally here, right?
So, The reason I bring that up is that when it comes to the Sanctuary City argument with Virginia, you're dealing with a potential for a serious civil conflict, American citizens on American citizens.
This is American citizens defending non-citizens, so I don't see how that actually escalates into anything too crazy.
But, well let's read a little bit about the sanctions too, just very quickly.
So that I can get to the elite Stormtrooper action.
Is Stormtrooper a pejorative?
Does that mean?
I don't know.
Anyway.
Charging that so-called sanctuary cities that protect illegal immigrants are jeopardizing domestic security.
Attorney General Bill Barr announced a slew of additional sanctions that he called a significant escalation against left-wing local and state governments that obstruct the lawful functioning of our nation's immigration system.
Speaking at the National Sheriff's Association 2020 Winter Legislative and Technology Conference in D.C., Barr said the Justice Department would immediately file multiple lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions for unconstitutionally interfering with federal immigration enforcement and implement unprecedented national reviews of the left-wing sanctuary governments.
The DOJ has now filed a federal complaint with the state of New Jersey, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its laws that forbid state and local law enforcement from sharing vital information about criminal aliens with DHS.
So, okay, I'm not going to read too much into this.
We're going to get into the elite agents heading to sanctuary cities.
But I want to point out something very, very important here.
When Donald Trump was being impeached, the Democrats did not seek court relief.
They just claimed he was obstructing Congress.
Okay, well, we have a checks and balances system.
Here, you're seeing the Department of Justice seeking relief from the courts.
I'm sorry, the executive branch and the DOJ seeking relief from the courts, the way it's supposed to work.
And if the courts rule in their favor, then they win.
But because things have gotten so bad, I gotta say I'm actually worried about this.
These guys, I understand the purpose of these elite special forces, or whatever you want to call it, special tactical team, when they're dealing with smugglers on the border.
But inside cities, we do not want an escalation of a police state.
It's the last thing we need.
And I have warned against this, that it's the far-left policies which will result in Americans begging for security.
That's exactly what we want to avoid.
I don't know if we can, though.
I don't know if we can.
The Times reports, the Trump administration is deploying law enforcement tactical units
from the southern border as part of a supercharged arrest operation in sanctuary cities across the
country. An escalation in the president's battle against localities that refuse to participate in
immigration enforcement. The specially trained officers are being sent to cities, including
Chicago and New York, to boost the enforcement power of local ICE officers, according to two
officials who are familiar with the secret operation.
Additional agents are expected to be sent to San Francisco, LA, Atlanta, Houston, Boston, New Orleans, Detroit, and Newark, New Jersey.
The move reflects President Trump's persistence in cracking down on sanctuary cities, localities that have refused to cooperate in handing over illegal immigrants, or I guess immigrants too, targeted for deportation to federal authorities.
It comes soon after the Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security announced a series of measures that will affect both American citizens and immigrants living in those places.
Please, New York Times, stop with the bias.
What do you expect?
No one is talking about legal immigrants.
They always do this, as if there's only one kind.
Everybody, okay?
Everybody agrees with a legal... Okay, not everybody.
Most people agree with a legal immigration process.
You come in, you get screened.
If you're good, you're good.
We want to make sure that we don't cause an economic imbalance, strain.
We don't want people with diseases, for instance, coming in.
So we have customs and border protection to make sure these things occur properly.
But illegal immigration is different.
These people are not vaccinated.
They have illnesses.
They are poor.
They're wandering through the desert.
They're risking their lives and their children's lives.
It is not a good thing.
Now this, this pisses me off.
The last thing I want to see is the federal government escalating authoritarianism.
Now I know a lot of people are going to say, Tim, it's law enforcement.
Calm down.
Fine, fine.
Authoritarianism is a little bombastic, I will admit.
But this is the path we're trying to avoid.
And it would be wise of Barr and Trump to tread carefully.
This is thin ice.
You want to make sure that you maintain that base of support from the more libertarian, right-leaning individuals.
You better be careful how you go about sending in special forces and tactical units into cities to deal with this.
I can sympathize with the plan to deal with these criminals.
I really can.
But I just say this.
I get it.
Okay.
I'm keeping an eye on it.
They better make sure everything is above board.
They better make sure they adhere to the Constitution because even people here illegally are constitutionally protected.
You cross that line, I'll be the first person to call them out.
So far, sending in an elite team isn't that big of a deal.
But it does, it gives me a little exclamation point above my head like, hey, hey.
My biggest fear with all of the Antifa stuff was that the more the far-left crazies commit crimes and do these things, the more you will see regular Americans begging the federal government to save us.
And then you will see National Guard and Special Forces out on your streets, on your street corners.
That is not a world we want to be building.
And do not give anyone an excuse.
Now, I can understand why they want to go out to these sanctuary cities, because you literally have murderers, drug dealers, and rapists being let go due to these left-wing positions and laws, and that is bad to me, too.
And because of that, you're creating a requirement among law enforcement to escalate.
Police, can we de-escalate things?
Unfortunately, the answer is no, but hopefully court relief comes, like I mentioned earlier, in the form of Bill Barr filing these lawsuits.
Hopefully the courts force the local jurisdictions to enforce these things, because I will tell you this.
You will regret the day we went from officer-friendly, making that arrest, to jackboot thugs storming, you know, breaking down the door with tactical gear on.
Right now.
We have an opportunity to de-escalate everything.
If these sanctuary cities just say, we will abide with the laws of our country, law enforcement should.
Now I'm making a joke about officer-friendly, obviously just regular cops, regular people.
But I'd rather see a dude in blue, doing his normal patrol job, taking somebody in, and then saying, ICE, this guy is wanted federally.
That's what we want.
If you don't do that, things will get worse.
And I can't necessarily blame the federal government for saying we need special enforcement to deal with some of the worst criminals our country has ever seen who are being released by these sanctuary city policies.
This is where things go bad.
It's a conflict, but it results in absolute chaos.
The next step, if the federal government, if ICE, if these special tactics dudes start acting, you know, start crossing that line, then you are going to see more far-left insanity in turn, and we must avoid the escalation.
For now?
I don't know what to say, man.
Because it's dominoes falling over.
I know exactly why they're coming in.
And it's worrying.
Because I've predicted just these types of things.
Not specifically on immigration.
But it's like I said about Antifa.
You will get people saying, bring in the troops.
Because we gotta deal with this.
And I assure you, probably many Trump supporters are saying it.
There is nothing inherently wrong with what these special forces do.
I'm not trying to be disrespectful to them.
They have an important job, they're dealing with law enforcement, and they're trying to stop the bad guys.
I absolutely respect that.
My concern is with a runaway administration.
And I'm not talking about Trump, I'm talking about the office.
We do not want power expanding.
And I've pointed out before, there is some light coming from the end of the tunnel when dealing with the House, the Democrats' attacks on Trump and the White House.
And it's that for once, we have the executive authority in check.
It's honest to say, I think they're nuts and they're taking it way too far.
But hey, I can say it's a little good, you know, in some capacities.
I think it's fair to say most people who back Trump do not want to see armed police SWAT vehicles on every corner.
And that's one of the reasons they criticize Antifa for doing this.
So we need to deal with this problem.
And that requires, I suppose, voting?
And I don't know.
It's one of the biggest conundrums coming from a moderate, I'll tell you this.
Because there are policies I think are really serious on the left that I'm for, but I'm going to cite Jack Murphy again because I don't know if you guys saw that podcast I did with him.
He said when many cultural issues came off the table, he was able to join the Republican Party with ease.
Many people will say the same thing come 2020.
Nobody wants to see this, so I will end by saying this.
I will wrap this all up and try and give you my concise points.
I have no problem with law enforcement like these, you know, special forces coming and doing their jobs.
My respect.
It's a difficult line of work.
And I want to put the blame first and foremost on the people who will not turn over the criminals.
My concern is not with these individuals.
It's with the escalation.
We do not want to get to that point.
Stop and frisk, for instance, in New York, as far as I'm concerned, is a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
And that was Mike Bloomberg.
Taking brown and black kids from Harlem, pushing them up against the wall, searching their pockets, without cause.
That's a violation of search and seizure of our constitutional rights.
I do not want to see that encroachment.
And I'm hoping it doesn't get to that point.
And that means these sanctuary cities need to do the right thing.
If you have a violent criminal, do not just let them go.
