Unsealed Documents CONFIRM FBI Plot Against Trump Staff, Michael Flynn, Agents Sought To TRAP Flynn
Unsealed Documents CONFIRM FBI Plot Against Trump Staff, Michael Flynn, Agents Sought To TRAP Flynn. As the investigation into the origins of Russiagate continue a picture emerges that there was serious malintent on the part of the FBI.Bill Barr has said there is more here than just sloppiness.A newly unsealed document shows FBI talking about their strategy to get Michael Flynn to lie in order to prosecute him or to get him fired.The last part is the crazy part. Why would FBI care to get someone fired from their job? That seems to have nothing to do with enforcing the law or going after Trump over the Russia investigation.Democrats rallied with media for years over the false claims and innocent people were hurt because of it.It now seems that Flynn was set up and was innocent of any wrongdoing the whole timeWill John Durham bring indictments soon?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Newly unsealed documents confirm an FBI plot against Donald Trump's staff, notably General Michael Flynn, a former national security advisor to the president.
In 2017, Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, but earlier this year sought to have that guilty plea overturned, citing new evidence.
The new document is a note where an FBI agent asks what their goal is.
To get Flynn to lie so they can get him prosecuted or potentially get him fired.
Now, opponents of the president have said this is just business as usual for the FBI.
They try to get people in a perjury trap where they catch you in a lie and they use that against you and try and flip you to go after someone else.
As we now know, the Russia investigation was bunk.
Nothing came of it.
It was not true.
So it seemed like this may have well been a witch hunt.
But the damning evidence is the effort to get Flynn fired.
Why would the FBI be seeking to get Donald Trump's staff fired?
That has nothing to do with the law or tracking down criminals.
And, at least to me, I can say it shows there was some malintent behind what the FBI was doing.
This was not about uncovering wrongdoing.
More and more, it seems like the Russia investigation is malicious.
Bill Barr, in fact, says that there may be more to this than just sloppiness.
In fact, John Durham's investigation is now a criminal probe.
There have been many abuses, and at the very least we could say there was sloppiness on one of the most important cases in the history of the US, but apparently many now feel that it's gone way beyond that, including Bill Barr.
Now, some have alluded to coming indictments, which have not happened.
But at the least, at the very least, we can say right now, this note shows they were trying to cause harm to Trump's staff, maybe even to Trump.
Getting someone fired has nothing to do with law enforcement.
Maybe I'm wrong about it.
But let's read this news and try and figure out the context.
I must admit there is a lot to the story I will not be able to get to, so I will go through some of the more breaking news, the response from the president, and what we can expect to see in the future.
Before we get started, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give.
The best thing you can do is share this video.
I know many people don't want to believe it.
They want to bury their heads in the sand.
A lot of people want to believe that everyone around Trump was a criminal.
Flynn was held up by many people saying, see, Trump's administration is crooked.
But as it turns out, They were trying, based on the current evidence, to just hurt this man, and he has lost everything.
This guy was a three-star general with a lot of respect.
So, the other thing you can do if you like these videos is hit the subscribe button, hit the like button, hit the notification bell, and hopefully that'll be enough for YouTube, but maybe it won't.
Maybe they'll just give you CNN.
But let's read the story from The Hill.
FBI official discussed trying to get Flynn to lie in interview.
Quote, get him fired, notes show.
A handwritten note penned by an FBI official involved in the investigation into alleged ties between President Trump's campaign and Russia discussed the possibility of getting former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn fired or forcing him to lie during his interrogation.
The newly unsealed note details the strategy against Flynn in his meetings during the early days of this investigation with agents whom he has accused of tricking him into lying about his foreign dealings.
Quote, What's our goal?
Truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired, reads the note, written by the FBI's then director of counterintelligence.
If we get him to admit to breaking the Logan Act, give facts to DOJ and have them decide.
Or, if he initially lies, then we present him, redacted, and he admits it, document for DOJ, and let them decide how to address it.
Flynn's team is expected to argue that the note implicated the agents in harboring a bias against Flynn or Trump, a charge the President and his allies have lobbied for years against the investigators in the now-shuttered Russia investigation.
The former National Security Advisor left the White House and initially pleaded guilty in 2017 to lying to investigators about his contacts with foreign nationals.
In recent months, he has sought to withdraw his plea.
Trump has continued to indicate public support for his ousted advisor, and trashed CNN and others Wednesday evening over the news of the most recent developments.
Trump tweeted, CNN doesn't want to speak about their persecution of General Michael Flynn, and why they got the story so wrong.
They, along with others, should pay a big price for what they have purposefully done to this man and his family.
They won't even cover the big breaking news about this scam.
The question about this.
Was this normal for the FBI?
Bombshell or business as usual, writes the Washington Post.
In fact, many of the president's opponents are arguing just that.
The FBI does this to everybody.
This is not a plot against Trump and his staff.
This is just how they operate.
Let me stop you right there and say, yes, they do this.
It's why you were advised never to speak to law enforcement under any circumstances without a lawyer.
And don't you forget it.
This is how they operate.
But that doesn't change the fact that it is a plot against Donald Trump's staff.
This is not normal for a look.
If somebody was trying to solve a crime and get to the bottom of some scandal or potential corruption.
How is getting someone fired from their job solving that?
That sounds more like malicious intent than anything else.
I can't come to any other conclusion.
You can argue this was just them trying to flip Flynn so they can go after Trump, but I'm sorry.
Getting the man fired doesn't solve any of that.
It seems to be just an effort to hurt the president and to hurt the people around him.
Now, we saw this story back in 2017 to give you some context.
Flynn pleads guilty to lying to FBI is cooperating with Mueller.
This is why many people thought the goal of the FBI was to get him in a trap so they could then use him and get him to say things about other people.
Some others within the Trump administration and realm have argued that the FBI tried to pressure them into lying to implicate the president and they wouldn't do it.
In this instance, we can see with this new evidence Something really, really scandalous is afoot.
Now, earlier this year, Michael Flynn, this is back January 14th, was seeking to withdraw his guilty plea.
Many of the president's opponents then showed, but Flynn admitted to it.
This is the thing people need to realize.
The criminal justice system is not about whether you truly did something wrong.
It's about what they can prove and what you give into.
Many people just plead guilty because of what they're scared of something called the trial tax or the jury tax.
A prosecutor will say, I'll tell you what.
We think you committed this crime.
If you go up against us and go to trial, we're going to give you the harshest possible penalty.
But if you just admit it, all of this will go away.
And it seems that's the mistake that Michael Flynn made.
He thought, OK, it's just one count of lying.
I should just write what they want me to write and get done and be done with it.
But it later turns out there is evidence to suggest he didn't actually do anything wrong.
They tricked the poor man and they took his life away from him.
Well, recently, we've seen more evidence or more assertions that there's a lot more going on.
If we can see evidence that they're trying to get a guy fired, again, they're just going after the guy.
Take a look at this story from April 10th.
Bill Barr on Durham investigation.
Evidence shows that we're not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness.
It stands to reason That there was an intent to go after the President.
And I think most people, many of you probably watching this, probably already think that's the case.
But just bear with me as I go through what we can prove, and what's happening.
This is the most important aspect.
While many people might speculate and say, I've seen more than enough.
I mean, you look at the early AM raid of Roger Stone, where FBI storms his house, compared to the arrests of other individuals, and it makes people think something fishy is going on.
U.S.
Attorney General William Barr implied in an interview Thursday that U.S.
Attorney John Durham is prepared to prosecute former intelligence community officials if evidence shows they illegally surveilled the 2016 Trump campaign over allegations of collusion with Russia.
Allegations, mind you, that turned out to be totally false.
Barr, who tasked Durham last May to review the origins of the Russia investigation, told Fox News' Laura Ingram that the Connecticut U.S.
attorney is looking to bring to justice people who were engaged in abuses if he can show that there were criminal violations.
Quote, My own view is that the evidence shows that we're not dealing with just mistakes or sloppiness.
There was something far more troubling here, and we're going to get to the bottom of it, Barr stated.
And if people broke the law, and we can establish that with evidence, they will be prosecuted.
The National Review goes on to say very little is publicly known of Durham's work, which has since been upgraded to a criminal investigation, with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jim Jordan saying last month that Durham's investigation is due to be completed sometime this summer.
But the probe's scope goes beyond that of DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, who in recent months has detailed how the FBI abused the FISA process in its crossfire hurricane investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign.
Durham's not just looking at the FBI.
He's looking at other agencies and departments, and also private actors.
So it's a much broader investigation, Barr explained in December.
Durham made headlines for issuing a rare statement saying that he did not agree with Horowitz's assertion that the FBI had an authorized purpose for opening Crossfire Hurricane.
While former FBI officials were quick to claim that the IG report had exonerated them of wrongdoing, James Comey attributed the FISA abuse to sloppiness.
Horowitz later clarified that his office did not conclude the FBI was unaffected by political bias because of a lack of evidence to the contrary.
Last week, Horwitz released an update of his ongoing audit into the FBI's transparency protocols, which showed that 29 FISA applications reviewed from 2014 to 2019 all included, quote, apparent errors or inadequately supported facts.
It used to be.
The left, arguing that the intelligence agencies and the FISA courts were abusive, and that they were wrong and non-adversarial.
While some progressives have routinely called out this intelligence apparatus, there have been far too many people quick to jump on the bandwagon and support the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies, even though, for the past decade plus, they have been heavily criticized for mass surveillance, among other abuses, notably the FISA courts.
How we're now at a position where it's surprising to people says to me that we're dealing with bad faith actors.
There is a lot to suggest we are dealing with malicious intent.
They go on to say Durham has spoken to Italian and Australian officials over contacts between former Trump campaign foreign policy advisor George Papadopoulos and Maltese academic and alleged Russian asset Joseph Misfud.
Mifsud, who offered to connect Papadopoulos to Russians in possession of thousands of emails containing damaging information about then-candidate Hillary Clinton.
While Horowitz found the FBI's investigation was sufficiently predicated based on a May 2016 memo from former Australian diplomat Alexander Downer, which relayed Papadopoulos' claim that Russian intelligence had damaging information about Clinton ahead of the election.
Downer has said publicly that Papadopoulos made no suggestion that there was collusion between Donald Trump or Donald Trump's campaign and the Russians.
Now, I want to clarify, this story is from April 10th.
It's a little bit older.
We have another update here.
The FISA scandal is about corruption, not sloppiness.
And this is an earlier story, but once again, the argument being made.
That when 96% of spy warrants reviewed contain serious errors or omissions, that's whole-scale fraud, not a few little slip-ups.
Combine that with what we just learned about Michael Flynn, an effort to get him fired.
Now, bear in mind, we're dealing with just slightly tipping over the edge of what I would consider to be confirmation.
If they simply said we want to catch him in a lie, well, you could argue that's normal law enforcement processes.
But trying to take someone's job away from them makes literally no sense.
Now, maybe there's an argument I'm missing, but I do not see any reason why a legal, why a U.S.
legal law enforcement system in any capacity would just want to take someone's job away from them.
That sounds more like social justice outrage mob action and cancel culture than anything else.
It sounds malicious.
Well, the New York Post, in an article, John Crudel argued on the 20th, the 2016 election scandal waiting to break, noting Bill Barr, saying, as I've been telling you for a long time, there are going to be repercussions from the political scandals of 2016.
The time is coming soon, maybe very soon, when we will find out who will be indicted and what impact these legal actions will have on the 2020 presidential election.
I'm not a fan of this.
I do not like the idea of them waiting until the election comes about to drop the hammer in an effort to help Trump or otherwise.
If they have proof and they can publish it, they should.
Now, I'm not accusing them of that.
Perhaps that's what people want to happen, they're expecting to happen.
I don't know why Bill Barr is waiting, why Durham is waiting.
Perhaps they want to be thorough and make sure they dot all their I's and cross all their T's, but it is being laid out.
We know it is coming.
Some people are a little bit more excited than others.
Trump shares post saying John Durham indictments should could come this week more than a week ago.
So no, they didn't come.
But yes, of course, people are very excited.
Apparently, this has to do with a statement made by John Solomon, which he disputed and said he did not make.
So we have not seen indictments.
Everybody hold your horses.
The Durham investigation is ongoing.
We will see how things play out.
John Durham expands investigative team amid coronavirus outbreak.
While most of us are wrapped up in what's going on with the pandemic, the investigation is still underway.
There is a lot to be seen.
We will see what happens.
The Washington Examiner reports U.S.
Attorney John Durham has expanded his team as his review of the Trump-Russia investigators ramps up during the coronavirus pandemic, which has gripped the country and swept the globe.
The top federal prosecutor for Connecticut selected additional team members for his investigative effort in recent weeks, adding agents from the FBI as well as the Chief of the Violent Crimes and Narcotics Trafficking Section for the U.S.
Attorney's Office in Washington.
Anthony Scarpelli, according to sources cited by CNN.
Durham, who has been running the operation out of Connecticut and D.C., drove down to Washington a few weeks ago to keep the investigation moving, even as the COVID-19 virus hampered many law enforcement efforts nationwide.
The CNN report said Durham requested witness information in March and April.
I don't necessarily trust CNN.
We'll see how this plays out.
Time will tell.
But this is a very, very interesting development, if you were to ask me, considering Durham is not backing down, even in the midst of this pandemic.
He's not going to stop.
He's going to get to the, I should say, excuse me, Bill Barr and Durham are not backing down.
Now, Donald Trump went on 1, 2, 3, 4.
Now, Donald Trump went on a Twitter storm about dirty cops in Michael Flynn case during meeting on coronavirus with NJ governor.
And I can't say I'm surprised.
Donald Trump, in my opinion, was slighted by false allegations that held him down for years.
So it's no surprise that he wants to figure out who's doing what and why.
And this does tie into the Ukraine investigation.
Donald Trump wants to know what's going on with the corruption of the previous administration, because he was raked over the coals for things that were later determined to be untrue.
People around him had their lives destroyed.
Personal friends of his had been targeted in an effort to take him down.
All of this, I should say, depending on how far you want to go with it, You can argue it is or isn't true.
But at the very least, we can see some malintent.
We can see there were some individuals working with the DNC to get people like Paul Manafort indicted.
And he was.
And these were efforts to stop and take down Donald Trump.
That doesn't mean the Trump administration is perfect by no means.
But it does mean we're looking at something creepy.
Now, some people call it the deep state.
I don't think... I don't need to play those games or say those words because, listen, What we're seeing now is that there are some people in the intelligence agencies who are never Trumpers, who probably have Trump Derangement Syndrome, and who have abused their power to cause harm to individuals.
Donald Trump naturally is very, very angry about this, and, well, for good reason.
Now, imperiled case against Flynn cost him millions of dollars, his house, his job.
This, to me, is completely shocking.
I mean, the whole situation has been shocking.
Here's a guy who's a three-star, I believe he's a three-star general, who served his country for decades, who was seeking to advise a president on national security, and for some reason they tried to destroy him.
Now, I understand.
Some may argue this is how law enforcement operates.
But if you don't even have loyalty to your own country and those who serve your country, then what are you doing in the first place?
I get it, you want to use certain tactics to catch people, to get them to flip on other people.
But did you really think that going after an honorable man and tricking him to try and get him fired was something honorable?
No, that is...
That's downright insane!
And this guy ends up having his life completely destroyed over this.
Fox says, but whether or not this leads to his vindication, the previous story, legally, the case has come at an enormous cost for the retired three-star Army Lieutenant General and his family, as he racked up millions of dollars in legal bills, was forced to sell his house, lost his job, and saw his reputation sullied.
Flynn's attorney, Sidney Powell, told Fox News on Thursday that in light of the new internal FBI documents, this persecution will have to be thrown out entirely, and that may be the case.
Now, there's more here.
Other people have written it.
It's being brought up by many others, not just Trump supporters.
Something seems rotten in Flynn's case, and maybe others, too.
I think the dominoes are being lined up for us right now.
Maybe the reason Bill Barr hasn't dropped all this information, this proof, this evidence, and is slowly trickling it out, is because the dominoes are being aligned.
And when the time is right, he will flick that first domino, and all of it will come crashing down.
It's not just the Flynn case.
It's other cases as well.
You can argue it's business as usual, but the fact remains, they use these tactics against a sitting president.
Maybe this is why we need reform of the FBI and other law enforcement agencies, but let me just remind you, please, do a Google search.
Never, under any circumstances, should you talk to law enforcement.
Period.
Get a lawyer.
They will handle it for you.
Don't be stupid.
Shut up.
But others have pointed out something more terrifying.
On Twitter, some have said, I believe it was Mike Cernovich who said this, keep in mind now that when you're a witness, when you're in a jury trial and you see an FBI agent speaking, they're probably lying.
Can you really trust them if they're willing to lie about someone who served this country for decades, somebody who didn't do anything wrong and they wanted to get him fired?
Think about the absurdity of this.
Imagine a cop.
Knowing you did nothing wrong says, what can I do to get this guy fired?
Why is that?
Because they hate you?
They would abuse their power to just cause harm to your life?
That is not legal!
That is abuse of power!
We shouldn't stand for this.
In the Hill.
Andrew McCarthy writes, The prosecution of Michael Flynn was rocked last Friday by
the disclosure of new exculpatory information, leading to speculation that the exoneration of President
Trump's first National Security Advisor could be imminent.
That would be an amazing reversal since Flynn pleaded guilty in 2017.
Re-uh, they go on to explain what the case is.
The Department of Justice letter to Sidney Powell, Flynn's current lawyer,
who has persisted for months to pry exculpatory evidence from DOJ,
indicates that further revelations may be forthcoming for now.
The disclosure has two salient aspects.
The first involves the factual basis for the Obama-era FBI investigation of Flynn, or rather the lack of a basis.
Under federal law, a false statement made to investigators is actionable only if it is material To the matter under investigation, if there was no basis to believe Flynn had committed a crime, his counsel could have argued that any false statements allegedly made by Flynn when he was questioned in January 2017 were immaterial.
Ergo, Ms.
Powell contends that the withholding of this information violated the government's duty to disclose exculpatory evidence.
It is the second aspect I want to hone in on, however.
Powell and other champions of Flynn's cause have long claimed he did not lie to investigators, a claim supported by the interviewing FBI agents who concluded that Flynn had not made intentional misstatements, just failures of recollection, which are common.
Instead, they maintain that Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty nearly a year later by special counsel Robert Mueller's team of hyper-aggressive prosecutors.
Prosecutors did this, Powell argues, by threatening that if he refused to plead, they would prosecute his son.
The son, also named Michael Flynn, worked in General Flynn's private intelligence firm, which Team Mueller was scrutinizing over its alleged failure to register with the government as a foreign agent, a dubious allegation that was rarely handled as a criminal offense before Mueller's probe.
After DOJ's revelations last Friday, Powell filed a submission with the court, asserting that the new disclosures demonstrate that Mueller's prosecutors not only pressured Flynn with the possibility of indicting his son, they also secretly assured Flynn's former counsel, the well-connected Washington firm of Covington and Burling, I don't know what else needs to be said.
if Flynn pleaded guilty. This side deal A. was not explicitly memorialized in the formal plea agreement.
B. was not otherwise disclosed to the court as federal law requires.
And C. was designed to enable prosecutors to evade their due process obligations in future cases.
I don't know what else needs to be said. This whole thing is rather terrifying if you ask me.
Look, there's a lot going on here.
A lot that I can't cover.
I don't talk about the issues with the Russiagate and Durham investigations all that often.
Notably, I talk more about mainstream political issues.
And the reason for it is that we are dealing with so much of what-if and a lot of deep Complicated information.
I know, it's complicated, right?
But it really, really is.
To make sure we have this one right, we need hard evidence.
And we keep getting more and more circumstantial evidence.
Some argue that, I believe, that there was some kind of document from the FBI that was altered at a later date.
And that's why I try to be very, very careful about this.
We need to make sure we know for sure.
We need to make sure we wait for Bill Barr's official assessment.
Otherwise, we risk playing the same game that they played with Russiagate, speculating and putting out fake bunk information over and over again.
I'm sorry, I will not do that.
At this time, we have unsealed documents showing what appears to be malicious intent against Michael Flynn to get the man fired.
Come on!
Now that is hard evidence of a plot against the man.
Potentially for bias.
I don't know why.
But that is nothing law enforcement related.
Maybe I'm wrong.
Tell me I'm wrong.
Comment below.
But the issue is, law enforcement should not just be trying to trick people to get them fired.
Where we go from here, I don't know.
Stands to reason there will be indictments at some point, but who knows?
Just like with the Russia investigation.
Rachel Maddow was screeching every night, it's coming, it's coming, they're gonna get him, we got him, we got Trump, for years.
And nothing came of it.
So do not get too excited yet.
This is big.
This is a bombshell.
Listen, even though the Washington Post is arguing bombshell or business as usual, the fact remains that if the FBI uses these tactics against run-of-the-mill people every day, it is very different when it's being used against a three-star general who has done nothing wrong, when it's being used against the President's administration.
We are in serious trouble if partisanship runs this deep.
Some have argued civil war won't be possible because the government is too strong.
I assure you it is not.
There are elements within our own law enforcement apparatus working against the president and his staff, and that has been made very clear.
Now, we have FISA abuse.
At the very least, we can say for the most part it could be sloppiness.
I don't think so.
That's my opinion.
But this latest document we've received It says more than just bias.
It says they're going after these people.
That is cancel culture.
That is not law enforcement.
I'm sorry.
I don't want to rant too much, so I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
The next segment will be coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel.
And I will see you all then.
Actress Rose McGowan has slammed the Democrats, saying she used to think they were the good guys, and the newspapers, the New York Times, the Washington Post, were on their side.
They were good people doing good journalism.
She's calling them out.
Why?
They're defending Joe Biden.
You see, this is a story of the Me Too movement, of Time's Up, women calling for accountability for men who have often gotten away with abusing women.
In this MeToo movement, there have been many really awful people who have been held accountable.
There have been some innocent people who have been thrown under the bus.
But, right now, news organizations, many of them, and activists, are defending Joe Biden, even though he's been accused.
There are multiple corroborating witnesses, and potentially, Evidence that could exonerate Joe Biden, but it's sealed.
And only he has the permission, only he can grant the permission, to actually have those documents released, unless or until he leaves public life, two years after the fact.
Alyssa Milano, a leader in the MeToo movement, has defended Joe Biden.
And boy, did she get slammed for it.
She wrote a story, she wrote an op-ed, saying, This is why I am standing by Joe Biden.
And boy, is it a sloppy, disgusting mess.
She's just desperate to support the machine.
It was not that long ago that Rose McGowan called out Alyssa Milano, calling her a fraud, a shill for the Democrats.
And now Rose McGowan, just the other night, she snapped.
And I'm not trying to say that in a disrespectful way, but she went on Twitter, she posted a picture of herself crying, saying, the Democrats are not, basically, they're not the good guys.
You know what, man?
I know a lot of people have gone through this in the past few years.
Some friends of mine have gone through this.
I've never, look, a lot of people like to say, like, Tim is a Democrat, or things like that, or he's a liberal, you can call me whatever you want.
And I'll be, I'll be, I'll be as honest as I can be, right?
I've been enthused by certain Democrats, but I'm not some diehard.
I didn't go around waving D flags and marching around wearing blue and yelling about Republicans and all this other nonsense, but I did grow up in Chicago.
So my sensibilities were always quite liberal.
You grow up in a city like Chicago, that's how you're going to see the world.
But there's something else to growing up in Chicago.
The only party is the Democratic Party.
That means every time you get screwed over by a politician, every time something falls through or a promise isn't kept, It's the Democrats.
You grow up in a place like this, maybe not everybody, but for me, and I'm like, I don't care for these people.
I really, really don't.
They're hypocrites and they're liars, for the most part.
I still, you know, when it comes to policy, I lean in that direction.
That's why I'm hopeful for sane, rational, honest people.
I like Andrew Yang, for instance.
But we don't get that.
Andrew Yang, of course, isn't going to get a chance to win.
They're going to prop up some crony loser like Joe Biden.
Poor old man can't even talk straight, and they're propping him up.
And then when he gets accused, they will run defense for him, as will the mainstream media.
So let me tell you something, man.
I have been lied about in the press.
I have been lied about by activists.
I have seen how this machine works.
And this explains my personal bias, at least to a certain degree.
Let me self-analyze for you.
Rose McGowan lived her life believing the Democrats were the good guys, and she's only now learning that they will abandon you and their supposed principles at a moment's notice if it's politically expedient.
You had Obama for eight years, so you didn't really see this.
It's nearly a decade.
Now that we're entering a new era and Donald Trump is the president, you see what happens.
I remember the protests against Bush, but come on, man, let's be real.
Bush and Cheney was awful!
I'm sure there were some good things, but come on, Halliburton, foreign policy, Iraq, Afghanistan, there's a lot of stuff to go through.
And I'll admit, I was much younger back then and not as active, so I'm sure there are some things I'm missing in this picture.
But now we're all a little bit older, a little bit wiser, and the Democrats are propping up a man who has been, dare I say, credibly accused.
See, for me, when I look at Republicans, what do I see?
I see a bunch of people I disagree with.
I see a loudmouth bragger like Donald Trump, and I'm like, I don't know, whatever, I mean, it's politics, you know what I mean?
Do I see massive cultural influential power?
No.
Alyssa Milano, Rose McGowan, Hollywood celebrities.
Hollywood, one of the most influential industries in the world.
They put it in a movie, boom, propaganda.
That's what I'm concerned about.
And it seems like the media and the Democrats' narrative often align, and they're often lying.
Now, I'll tell you what, I've seen some stupid things said by some Republicans too, but guess what?
As I've pointed out over and over again, we've seen Republicans get thrown under the bus by their own party.
And I think the reason is, the cultural establishment is controlled by the left.
I don't want to, I don't, I'm taking a lot of time up with the rant.
Let's read what Rose McGowan said, and actually get into the story.
She lashes out at Democrats saying, now I know too much.
Actress Rose McGowan posted a teary-eyed selfie along with a missive lamenting the Democratic establishment and the media Wednesday night following the fallout from assault allegations against Vice President Joe Biden.
She said, I used to be a proud Democrat.
I used to be a proud American.
You know what?
I met Rose McGowan once and she talked a lot about this stuff and this was a long time ago, well before the Me Too movement.
Look, I was on... I was at some big event for, like... I don't know exactly what the event was supposed to be, but it was, like, a private retreat for, like, media personalities, high-profile personalities, and she was talking a lot about this stuff.
At least, that's what I remember.
From what I understand, she's been consistent this whole way through.
Now, not perfectly, of course, but she has called out other people in the past, and I know a lot of people... They might respect what she's doing now, but they've criticized her for past, you know, misgivings or whatever.
But I respect this.
And I feel bad for her, I really do.
I couldn't imagine, you know, growing up, being told, you are doing the right thing, only to find out you are a cog in a machine of manipulation and evil.
Here's what she tweeted.
I'm really sad.
I'm really tired.
I normally share thoughts, but tonight it's emotion.
Let's pull up her tweet.
So we actually just get into the Twitter here and see what she actually... She actually released a statement.
You can see she's crying in this photo.
Here's what she said.
I used to be a proud Democrat.
I used to be a proud American.
I would have died for this damned country and its ideals.
I was raised to be a proud Democrat.
When my youngest brother graduated as a fighter pilot at the Air Force Academy, I wore a Vote
John Kerry pin, lol.
Got into verbal altercations with big men who were mad I was a Democrat.
They were twice my size, and I had to listen to George W.
Bush give the keynote address and John Ashcroft sing his terrible Eagle song.
I lost count of GWB saying terrorism at 47 because that's what cult leaders do and it gets boring.
All because I thought democracy meant was I had a right to choose those who lined up with my value system.
But what if there's no one?
And I was always told it was the Democratic Party that were the good guys.
That our papers were the New York Times and the Washington Post.
And we as a family loved listening to All Things Considered.
And we'd talk about how much we loved Ira Glass' voice.
But now I know too much.
And I feel really quite a sense of loss.
I am not a cynical person, but America, goddamn.
Republicans have always been painted as the bad guys, and I've always seen them more as a cult.
But now I realize, so are the Democrats and the media.
Macro and micro.
This is deeper than a cover-up, and I'm sad because there's death round all corners and shadows in the daytime.
It hurts.
Rose, let me tell you something.
I've been watching the news for quite some time, and there are very few honest and good, true Democrats, and it's unfortunate.
I think about what I like in terms of policy, and I gotta say, I know a lot of people... Look, it's Andrew Yang!
I mean, go to the dude's website, look at all the policy positions he got.
He's a very smart guy, and that's what I was really excited for.
I'm like, man, that's like...
A smart, reasonable breakdown.
But it's just him!
I mean, when it came to Tulsi Gabbard, which I'm also a big fan, it's mostly about foreign policy.
Because the Democrats were supposed to be the anti-war faction.
I mean, especially with George W. Bush.
I disagree with Tulsi on some of her policies, like nuclear energy, for instance.
But I look to the rest of them, and what do they offer?
They don't have anything!
Now, I look to the Republicans.
What do I see?
You get people like Steve King, who rightly so was censured and removed from all committees by the Republicans.
They did what they had to do to hold the guy accountable.
Some may have tried to defend the guy, and Republicans have defended some pretty stupid things, for sure.
But look, Devin Nunes was right about the FISA stuff going years back.
You got Rand Paul, who's very, very principled.
You got Dan Crenshaw.
You got a decent amount of principled and legit Republicans in the party fighting for what they think is right.
There are a few Democrats, maybe, but what do we get?
What do we get in the press?
What do we get from the leadership, the Democrats?
Investigations, investigations, Trump, orange man bad.
And I just, I look to that side and I don't see anything that really makes sense.
Look at the moderate Democrats.
You'd think these are the people that I could have been like, these are people I would stand by, right?
Because they agree out that they're fighting for kitchen table issues.
They didn't.
They got into office and then immediately flipped around and then were like, we're going to impeach the president.
You wasted our time.
These people don't fight for their principles.
Now look, the Republicans, like Mitch McConnell, I don't, look, I gotta be honest, I don't like the guy.
It's all professional, I'll be honest.
You know, I don't know most of these people personally.
There's very few people I would actually directly insult and go after in certain ways.
Media people, mostly the people I'm willing to actually slam.
Chris Cuomo, I think, is one of the worst human beings on the planet.
He is a parasite in the news industry.
What he did with faking this whole thing and now lying about it, maybe I'll get into that later.
But the point I'm trying to make is...
I care little for tribal, sports-like, you know, party politics.
What I want is someone to be true to their word.
And I frequently, over the past several years, have seen more Republicans than Democrats doing so.
Now, of course, you had all these Republicans hatin' on Trump and then flippin'.
I don't like people... Look, I'm gonna say it.
I don't like Lindsey Graham.
I don't like Mitch McConnell.
But there are a couple people I do like.
Notably, Rand Paul, I think, is a very principled guy.
I don't agree with him on some of his policy positions.
He's got more conservative positions.
But tremendous respect because I think he's actually standing up for what he believes in.
The same is true for Dan Crenshaw.
I really don't agree with Dan on foreign policy.
I'm more Tulsi on, you know, get out of the Middle East and all this stuff.
And I'm sure, you know, Dan's the expert.
Not me.
But so is Tulsi.
So, you got an interesting argument there.
But there I see two good people.
But guess what?
The Democrats knocked Tulsi out.
They got rid of her.
So what am I supposed to do now?
I see a couple people and I'm like, I like that Yang guy.
I like that Tulsi lady.
Major in the National Guard.
Very respectable.
And I see how they treat her.
What do you think people like me are going to say when we're looking for a principal?
We're going to say the same thing Rose McGowan said.
Now look, I've known this for a long time, that's why I laughed when Donald Trump won.
Policy-wise, I will lean left, but these people are, you know what, they're disingenuous, manipulators, and they'll say whatever they gotta say to get the keys to the castle.
Look at Pelosi.
You know, the leadership of the Democratic Party and the leadership of the Republican Party, I have no interest in.
But, and maybe I'm wrong about this, name me some Democrats in Congress that you think are doing a good job, because I just don't see it in the press.
There are a few people that I saw when it came to the moderate, you know, when it came to the moderate policy positions, but they are being bent by the crooked establishment, and so they deserve nothing from me.
So we read Rose McGowan's statement.
I think, you know, you can see she's crying, right?
I get it.
Her whole life now being flipped on its head because she was abandoned when she said Joe Biden was accused, right?
There's corroborating evidence.
And what did everyone say?
We don't care about the woman in this regard.
We just want to win.
That's the point.
Didn't you know, Rose?
So what do you think happens to a diehard No, you're going to cry.
I don't blame her.
I feel bad.
Now we can see Alyssa Milano's response.
Alyssa Milano on why she still supports Joe Biden and how she would advise him about tar raid allegations.
Alyssa Milano is a hypocrite and a liar.
She is also an extremely bad person, and I've praised her before.
Because I think it was that, um, who was that lady?
Uh, what was her name?
I don't even remember her name.
It was, it was a couple years ago.
She was a Me Too feminist.
Uh, Aja Argento.
There you go.
That was her name.
It came to me.
Uh, Alyssa Milano, uh, called her out.
Because she was accused and I was like, very respectable.
Like, I probably, there you go.
Like, calling out your own side.
But Alyssa Milano is more in the bag for the Democrats.
Team sports!
It doesn't matter who's right or who's wrong.
It doesn't matter if she's actually going to do good and protect people.
All that matters is that we win.
And here's the thing.
That means if she has to throw one of her own MeToo feminists under the bus to win, she'll do it.
Aja Argento got tossed aside like, you know, spoiled meat just right in a dumpster.
Joe Biden, though, he's got to win.
So she won't go that far.
She will sacrifice her own friends so that her tribe can win.
But she will not.
She will not give up the power.
She wrote this op-ed.
I don't care to read it, but I do want to point out something I find rather hilarious.
She says this.
Donald Trump's alleged assaults were clearly wrong.
Brett Kavanaugh's actions, told consistently over decades by his victim and supported by polygraph results, were clearly wrong.
You know what, Alyssa?
You are a disturbed, evil hypocrite.
Evil.
Because, listen.
I don't care for either accusations against Biden or Kavanaugh.
I know Rose McGowan does.
I disagree with her.
I do.
There's a lot of people who think Biden should not be president because of his allegations and a bunch of other more activist-y things.
I don't agree with those things.
I don't think Joe Biden should have to answer for any of this.
I really mean it.
Joe Biden should not have to come out and answer for a 30-year-old allegation.
I'm sorry, that's just the way it is.
Now, I know there's some corroborating evidence, but I do not like this idea of traveling back decades plus to dig up dirt on someone.
It is ridiculous.
It's, you know, I was watching, listening to the Joe Rogan podcast, and I can't remember who said this, so forgive him for not crediting you, but maybe it was Kurt Metzger saying that it's like the Oil exploration, fossil fuel depletion of outrage culture.
They've run out of things to be mad about, so they've got to go further and further back, and here we are in 1993.
Now, no disrespect to Tara Reade.
She's got an allegation, she's got crowd-burning evidence, I can respect that, but it's beyond the statute of limitations.
So if you're going to levy these claims against Brett Kavanaugh, and you're going to levy them against Joe Biden, I'm going to tell you I disagree.
But if you're Alyssa Milano, and you're Rose McGowan, and you say the allegations against Brett Kavanaugh, which I disagree with and thought were BS, and they are, if you're gonna stand by those, you gotta stand by the ones against Biden, which Rose is doing.
Now, you don't have to like Rose McGowan.
Some people, they call her crazy and stuff like that.
I don't care.
She's standing up for the same principles, and she just is going through this rather shock at the Democrats are not the good guys she thought they were.
Alyssa Milano is doing everything in her power to twist and contort and now try and manipulate to defend Joe Biden.
This here, this comment about Brett Kavanaugh, there's no evidence against Brett Kavanaugh, none, zilch, nada, nothing.
Christine Blasey Ford.
I think 30 plus years ago I was at a party with Brett Kavanaugh.
He threw me on a bed with this guy, Mark Judge or something.
I think that was the guy's name.
And then he held me down, they rolled over, and she ran away.
Her friend said, I don't remember this.
Her friend said, I don't even know if she knew who Brett was.
She said, I don't remember how I got there.
I don't remember how I got home.
She doesn't know where it was.
She doesn't know when it happened.
Nobody else remembers it.
And Brett Kavanaugh isn't even accused of doing anything other than throwing her on a bed.
And then they rolled over and she ran away.
Joe Biden.
Tara Reade knew where they were.
She has corroborating witnesses who said they were told about this.
She was abruptly removed from her position.
She says she filed a complaint.
Her mother called into Larry King Live to complain about this.
There is a lot of circumstantial evidence against Joe Biden.
That's the most pathetic thing about this.
In their desperation, the Democrats and the leftists, it would seem that they've set a standard so low that it can easily and instantly be weaponized against them.
That is the problem with operating without principle and being a deceiver.
You know why you don't lie?
Because it becomes hard to keep track of all the lies.
And now here you are.
You have no idea what you're supposed to say or do.
All you know is you're gonna lose and it's your own fault.
Now, I feel bad for Rose.
What a shock, huh?
I know there's a lot of people probably watching who want something similar.
Brandon Strzok, walk away movement.
How many people in the past few years have realized just what the Democratic Party is or has become?
Look, I remember when Barack Obama was running, and I'm always skeptical of everybody, especially having been from Chicago.
Like what, like the past three governors went to prison or something?
Not Pritzker, but the other ones.
So look, man, it's a game of power.
It's a game of thrones, if you will.
Everybody's trying to get on top, and they're clawing over bodies to get there.
They will lie to you, they will trick you so that you support them.
Right now.
Maybe it's because there's been a flip.
Maybe it's because of Donald Trump.
Maybe it's because the establishment Republicans couldn't keep the populists out.
But the Republican Party has changed.
When I talk to people like Jack Murphy, for instance, you might know him.
I had him on my podcast a couple months ago.
He used to be a regular old Democrat.
Now he's a Trump supporter.
You look at people like Dave Rubin.
You look at... There's... The WalkAway campaign is the best example of it.
People realizing that you were supposed to be fighting for all these things and now you're not anymore.
And I wonder... Let me issue a kind of correction.
Maybe you saw me on the Joe Rogan podcast a couple days ago.
In it, I said something I frequently say, that I think one of the issues affecting, you know, the left and the right is that the left is more likely to be on the internet, and because of this, they're more influenced by this insane social justice stuff.
Joe's response was that, you know, I said it's because rural areas have weaker internet.
This is true, it's true.
But Joe said, what do you mean?
They're on their phones, you know, they're able to do this.
And conservatives dominate on the internet.
And I started thinking about this.
Joe made a really good point that I hadn't considered.
First, it is true that internet is weaker in rural areas.
Right now, I am in a rural area and I have to record this very early because I have no internet.
It's very difficult to make a video.
So that means, perhaps, when it comes to conservative content, they're less likely to be uploading.
So you get a more unified message.
But that's not necessarily the case, actually.
I think that's actually wrong.
I think my analysis was inverted.
What I think actually may be happening, and then I realized this shortly after, I was like, you know, Joe made a good point.
They do have phones.
It's not, it's not, it, it, look, that you, look, rural areas do have dial-up.
I know Joe is like, dial-up?
Who's got dial-up?
No, trust me.
I've been looking at properties in, like, Pennsylvania, and there are places that only have, it's, it's not, it's DSL.
It's, it's phone line internet, but it's ridiculously slow.
That makes it very hard to produce live shows and to do content like this.
You gotta upload really, really early.
But, it is easy to access text-based content.
And that's when I realized, I think it might be the inverse.
It might be that because urban liberals are in big, densely populated cities, they're more likely to telephone with each other, as opposed to being on the internet.
So take a look at it this way.
If you're a Republican, or Conservative, and you go online, you're hearing your opinion from one person.
Let's say you live in the middle of the country.
You don't have very many people surrounding you, relative to a city.
So you turn on Timcast, and you hear me talk, and you say, that's interesting.
Then there are a bunch of other people who hear me say the same thing, and they all have a rather unified view, or a unified argument from me, or a statement.
It doesn't mean everybody agrees with it, but everybody heard something similar.
Now you look at what's going on with liberals in big cities, and one person will watch me go to their friends and play a game of telephone with 500 people, warping and twisting and creating disinformation.
Because they're more likely to be talking to each other and their friends, their message is being muddled and mixed, and they don't know necessarily what is the right mainstream approach.
This is why it's the new way I'm looking at it.
I could be wrong.
It's just an assessment.
I also want to point out the funny thing where people are like, count how many times Tim Pool says he's not an expert in the Joe Rogan podcast, and I'm like, yes, because I'm trying not to, like, assert things that may not be true.
I'm trying to be careful to say, like, here's what I've seen so far, and I could be wrong about things.
It's like, you try to say, nope, here's what I believe and here's what I know, and they'll call you a moron and an arrogant, and you try and say things like, well, I'm not 100% on any of this stuff, but here's what I've assessed so far, and they'll say, you're just not, you're just a moron.
So that's the, that's the game we get to play.
Anyway, back to the point.
I don't know exactly what we can expect moving forward.
I say this a lot because, and I mean in regards to the Me Too stuff, because I'm not a psychic, man.
Everybody wants to assume that what happens right now is static.
It's set in stone.
It's not.
In one week, Alyssa Milano might come out and say I was wrong and I apologize and I will give her credit.
I have no idea.
I don't think so.
She's doubling down and trying to defend herself and her right to protect someone like Joe Biden who's been accused.
Going against their own principles.
But I don't know what to expect.
I'll tell you what I think will happen.
I think many, many more Democrats are going to pull a Rose McGowan.
Maybe it's not fair to say that.
Maybe I should say they're going to pull a Brandon Strock and walk away.
And maybe Rose McGowan should take a look into this stuff.
I'm not going to be a party loyalist for anybody ever, and I've never been.
I don't care for anyone's tribe.
A lot of people are getting behind Trump and the Republican Party.
I'm not playing that game.
You will not see me play that game.
I might vote for him.
We'll see what happens, because Biden's off the rails.
But that doesn't mean I want to be a part of your team.
It means I'm sitting here, we're negotiating, and if you make the right play, I'll buy from you.
Democrats, you've sold me nothing.
In fact, when I look at Rose, it just makes me more sure that I... You know what?
As much as I've supported many Democrats in the past, not this time.
I'm sorry, man.
When it comes to... Look, I live in a... Well, I live in a blue district.
But I'm really close to Jeff Van Drew.
And I'll tell you what, I'm not gonna vote for the blue dudes.
Never gonna happen.
Because I see what they do.
They do not stand up for what they claim.
They're lying.
They said, we're going to get kitchen table issues for all of you.
We're going to fund healthcare and, you know, lowering insurance costs.
Things that matter.
The economy, jobs.
And what do they do?
As soon as they got in, they smirked and said, orange man bad.
You finally have a chance to prove that you can do something.
That you can help the American people.
And what do they do?
Russiagate 2.
Ukrainian boogaloo.
Bravo!
Well, then we got the China stuff.
That fell apart.
And now we're getting another investigation.
Impeachment 2.0.
Eh, whatever, man.
Rose, I'm sorry you had to deal with this, but I'm glad you're kind of waking up to see how things are going on.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment will be coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Right now, Chris Hayes is trending on Twitter.
And the other night, hashtag FireChrisHayes was trending on Twitter.
Now, what could the MSNBC host possibly have done to warrant cries of terminating his job?
Certainly, he must have done something very, very egregious.
Maybe something inappropriate with a woman.
Or, could it be that he actually reported the news?
You can't have that, can you?
These anti-Trump resistance types on Twitter will not be satisfied unless only the lies that make Trump look bad are aired in prime time.
Well, you know MSNBC loves running complete and utter BS, especially with Rachel Maddow talking about Russia.
Coming to get ya!
But see, Chris Hayes, he did a good job.
Now, I haven't seen the full segment, I watched some of it, but apparently he covered the Tara Reid allegations, and for this, he must be fired.
Well, we'll see if he actually gets fired.
Some conservatives have pointed out that MSNBC hasn't uploaded the clip of the Tara Reid story just yet.
I'm not going to allege any conspiracies, maybe it takes time, but certainly people want this man to be removed!
They're not going to fire Chris Hayes.
He's like one of their main dudes over at MSNBC.
But it is surprising to see that even MSNBC now has to report on what's going on.
You have made your bed, and now you will lay in it.
You will reap what you have sown!
And what's the other one?
If you live in a glass house, don't throw stones?
Well, these are the rules they wanted, and the rules they will play by.
So they can spit and yowl and screech all day and night on Twitter about how it's not fair!
The allegations against Biden are not credible!
But the more evidence comes out, if you wanted this really low standard against Brett Kavanaugh, congratulations.
Let's read the story from The Wrap.
MSNBC's Chris Hayes praised and derided for covering Tara Reid's assault accusations against Joe Biden.
The primetime host took on a topic that has been slow to gain traction.
I wonder why it's slow to gain traction, even with all the corroborating evidence.
Let's read.
They say, Many mainstream news outlets have so far treated pretty gently the allegations.
The accusations against presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden by former staff assistant Tara Reid.
Hayes' decision to cover the details around the accusation in prime time on All In earned him both derision and praise, and sent his name climbing Twitter's trending list overnight into Thursday morning.
Hashtag Fire Chris Hayes, also trended on Twitter, propelled by the sort of high follower resistance accounts that tweet messages of support for the Democratic Party.
Quote, You all must know, if we all stop watching, he'll go away, right?
Tweeted one account with a bio showing support for a list of basic Democratic platforms.
We have the power, it said.
Now, I can't tell you why Chris Hayes decided to do the right thing and talk about the story, and he should have done it a long time ago.
I can't tell you that CNN is now beating MSNBC in the ratings.
That was surprising to me.
CNN has consistently lagged behind, and all of a sudden, we're now seeing CNN get double the numbers, edging out MSNBC.
Could it be, in their desperation, they realize they have to go for the broader base?
I'll tell you what.
You know who doesn't like Joe Biden?
Trump supporters.
You know who else doesn't like Joe Biden?
Bernie supporters!
So guess what?
You got this really, really big pool of voters or individuals to watch your political content That's not the resistance, okay?
It's everyone else.
Nobody likes Biden.
So, on the Democratic Party side, you've got mostly moderates, but it's fractured.
Maybe about a little bit less than half are progressive.
That little bit less than half?
They don't like Joe Biden.
Then you got literally every other Trump supporter.
Perhaps MSNBC thought, you know what?
We can actually get conservatives to watch tonight if we cover this story and the Bernie supporters.
One of the funny tweets I saw in this hashtag ...was that MSNBC is in the bag for Bernie, so they're trying to take down Joe Biden.
Aw, you know what, man?
Come on.
Don't even play that.
That's ridiculous.
MSNBC is not in the bag for Bernie, neither is Chris Hayes.
I can't tell you why they suddenly had a moment of clarity where they decided to actually report news, but he did.
Let's read a little bit more.
There's actually some more news here, too.
Washington Post.
They're all coming out against Biden.
The cards are falling.
The House of Cards is collapsing.
Another ostensibly Democrat-supporting Twitter account lamented the segment, comparing Hayes to a Fox News host.
I love it.
What Chris Hayes did today is no different than what Tucker Carlson does every day.
He gave credibility to a BS story with no legs to stand on.
This is, but her emails, all over again.
Uh-huh.
Those reading these critical tweets might conclude Hayes is a conservative, but in reality he's one of President Donald Trump's harshest critics.
He's editor-at-large of The Nation and was once a writing fellow at In These Times, both of which are very, very much on the left.
So maybe he really is a Bernie bro.
He really is trying to say, you know what, you want to take down Bernie, I will take down Biden.
I really doubt it.
I think it's all about the ratings.
He started the segment on Reid and Biden by highlighting the accusation's newsworthiness, not, as the criticism made it seem, necessarily heralding it in the absolute truth.
There have been moments, I think for many of us, all of us, when we have heard about accusations against someone that we find ourselves desperately wanting not to believe, whether that is because we have some personal admiration for the individual and their work or political admiration for someone on our quote-unquote side.
Part of the difficult lesson of the Me Too era is not that every accusation is true and everything should be believed on its face, but that you do have to fight yourself when you feel that impulse.
Hear, hear, good sir.
Let me add, to anybody who's gloating and laughing, Donald Trump has also been accused.
But hey, it's not even about that, right?
I think for most people, we all know Trump's been accused by a bunch of women.
It's about the double standard.
It's about the media's unwillingness to actually say, okay, we recognize Trump's been accused, what about Joe Biden?
What about the allegations against Kavanaugh?
They want to accuse Kavanaugh to destroy his life, what about Joe Biden?
It's not about whataboutism.
It's this idea that, okay, we're long since passed Brett Kavanaugh, we know what the rules are, we're playing by the rules, and then all of a sudden you break the rules.
That's what it's about.
It's not whataboutism.
The Intercept's Glenn Greenwald gave a virtual eye roll to the controversy, writing,
Chris Hayes has been one of the media's most virulent, relentless, and arguably effective
Trump critics, and all-consuming loathing for the president.
But hashtag fire Chris Hayes was trending because he covered the allegations against Biden.
Shows that shows what MSNBC has cultivated. You know, I love Glenn Greenwald's
criticism of the media. I got to say, I mean, I may disagree with him on a lot of things, but he's spot on.
MSNBC, they have planted the seeds of their garden.
All of these resistance types are what they have created with their psychotic, incessant Russia BS.
You can thank Rachel Maddow for them telling you, you should be fired, Chris.
There was still praise to be found on the left.
Congressional candidate Jason Call, a Democratic Socialist, tweeted a thank you to the House.
Yes, but it's because the Bernie people don't like Biden either.
You know what I want to do?
You know the meme of the two hands coming together?
Yes.
That's everyone.
Just put everyone and everyone.
Except the resistance people.
We're all pointing out that Biden, he can't think straight, he's not fit to be president, and he's been accused by this lady.
I know, I know I've said a million times, I don't think the accusations should be held against him that much because they're 30 years old.
I don't believe that we should be digging this far in the past, blah blah blah, you get the point.
But however, the main point I want to make is, whether or not you agree with the accusations being disqualifying or not, we can all agree that Biden Not good for president.
It's about that.
So if you want to attract the decent amount of people who are in the resistance, who want Biden just to beat Trump, who say things like, stay alive Joe Biden, then by all means you can go for that microscopic demographic.
We'll see how your ratings do.
And perhaps that's what MSNBC realized.
Biden is not popular.
There's not enough people to defend the guy.
And they could get everyone if they come out against him.
I'll tell you what.
There are a lot of people who hate Trump.
But I wonder if there's going to be more people now who hate the Democratic establishment.
People like Trump supporters and Bernie bros.
And that means the market strategy for any media company should be to cater to all of them.
You will get more views, make more money, sell ads for more.
There's your big market pull.
Anti-DNC.
Everybody hates them.
For a while everybody hated Trump.
Now people just hate Biden.
Let's read more.
Young Turk's Emma Vigeland offered a few different tweets of praise, one of which said,
I am consistently impressed with Chris Hayes willingness to do what is right and buck the
undoubtedly weighty influence of network television. It's not close. He is the best
host working within a system that doesn't necessarily incentivize his instinctive truth
telling. Well, I wouldn't go that far.
Certainly not.
I think there's reason for criticism for a lot of people.
I don't think Chris Hayes is the worst person in the world, though.
I don't mind if you're biased.
I really don't.
I care that you're honest about your perspective and what you're trying to do.
So that's why I say this all the time when people are like, Tim Pool's objective.
I'm like, I never said that, I'm biased, man, I rag on Democrats 24-7, okay?
Just, you know when you come to me, I'm not here to claim that I know everything, I'm smarter than anybody else.
It's that you watch me, you watch other people, get different points of view.
That's why I don't like CNN.
So look, I can rag on Rachel Maddow for her conspiracy nonsense, but the big problem there is the double standard.
These social media platforms will ban a conspiracy theorist but let her do her thing?
That's ridiculous.
Now Chris Hayes is allowed to have his bias, his opinions, and say what he wants?
I got no problem with that.
And I appreciate him calling out Joe Biden right now.
I think we all can agree that Joe Biden should have to answer for this if Brett Kavanaugh had to, right?
Last year, Reid told the paper that Biden had done these things.
We get it.
A Biden campaign spokesperson said the accusations were false shortly after the release of the podcast episode last month.
Women have a right to tell their story, and reporters have an obligation to rigorously vet those claims.
Now, here's where it gets good.
They're trying to claim that Biden passed around these talking points, where they tried claiming that The New York Times has found the story to not be credible.
Well, guess what?
The New York Times is now coming out against Biden as well.
Ooh, it's getting spicy.
It's getting spicy.
Let's read a little bit more, and then I'll show you this.
While mainstream reporting on the accusations has been slow to gain traction, numerous outlets have been working to vet them, and publishing has increased, especially after Reed's first corroborator came forward earlier this week.
On Monday, a former neighbor of Reed's recounted The ex-Senate staffer told her about the allegation.
Speaking with Rich McHugh for a piece published Monday for Business Insider, Reid's neighbor said Reid was told around 95 that he did what he did.
I try to keep it family-friendly.
Give me some, tell me some slide.
First, I want to show you this.
We got Chris Hayes trending on Twitter.
You can see it.
And we got some tweets here.
There's the Glenn Greenwald one that I pointed out earlier.
We got June Xu on head saying, Based Chris Hayes, sorry about your sudden decision to quit MSNBC next week.
Hear, hear.
Will Chamberlain says, I went to MSNBC's YouTube channel and I couldn't find a clip of Chris Hayes talking about Tara Reid and Joe Biden.
Almost like MSNBC would like to memory hole that segment for eternity.
Now, take a look at this.
New York Times says Biden camp's talking points inaccurately describe their Tara Reid reporting.
You are losing, Joe Biden!
Now hold your horses, everybody.
Let me tell you something.
There's a lot of people right now, they're cheering, they're saying, woohoo, we've done it!
Here's the good news for the Bernie bros.
I think there may be an effort.
The reason why we're seeing more of this, the reason why the media machine is finally caving, there's a couple reasons.
The simple solution, I think, is just that you can't ignore these allegations.
They set these rules with Brett Kavanaugh and they know it's making them look bad and it's taking away their credibility.
So they have no choice but now to address these things seriously.
And they're gonna get hurt politically for it, but they're between a rock and a hard place.
Now here's the more conspiratorial view.
Joe Biden can't beat Donald Trump.
I mean, you look at any of these progressive subreddits, and they all say it.
They say things like, if by some miracle, you know, Biden actually wins.
And nobody thinks that guy can do it because the dude can't talk.
The Democrats gotta find a way to get rid of the dude.
Well, along comes an accusation.
And they resisted for a while, but all of a sudden now, even MSNBC, the little conspiracy theorist on my shoulder whispering in my ear that I'm always telling to get away is saying, look, they're doing it on purpose.
They're going to use this as an excuse to swap out Biden with somebody else.
That's not my theory.
I didn't make that up.
We've actually seen this from high-profile Bernie staffers who have said they may use this as pretext for swapping out Biden because they know he's bad.
I don't know.
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy.
Let me tell you something, man.
Tara Reid made the accusation.
They tried resisting it.
I think the simple solution is that they have no choice.
It's making them all look bad.
The Washington Post, for instance, they recently ran a segment where they said Trump allies are trying to, you know, push this forward.
Well, what is the... So they get dragged for this, right?
Everyone says it's not Trump allies.
Mother Jones talked about it.
You're just desperate to protect Joe Biden and you can't do it.
So what happens?
Now we can see the Post's view.
The editorial board of the Washington Post says Biden himself should address the Tara Reid allegations and release relevant records.
So now I feel bad that they're trying to take this old man who can't even stand up for extended periods of time, who can't talk, and it's like putting him in front of the stage and being like, ANSWER FOR YOUR CRIMES, OLD MAN!
And he doesn't even know what's going on around him!
It's like, dude, at a certain point, you know, it's like, put the baby in the crib with the diaper and like, let him go to sleep.
This- this man is out of his- his wit is no more.
Can he really answer for this stuff?
Can he even remember what happened yesterday?
I bet the dude doesn't know what he had for breakfast yesterday morning!
I mean that.
I mean, well, for that matter, how many of you can think of what you had for breakfast in the morning?
The point is, with the Washington Post coming out, and even the New York Times now saying, no, no, no, no, no, you're wrong, I think people have realized that they placed themselves in a very, very precarious position.
Resistance Twitter is microscopic.
The average liberal isn't paying attention.
But I'll tell you who is.
The progressives, the populists, the Bernie supporters, and like every Trump supporter.
That means you have the overwhelming majority of social media users and internet users wanting to know what Joe Biden did and believing he should have to answer for it.
Or at least to some degree, Seeing the double standard.
So the New York Times, they tried.
They thought they were gonna get away with it.
You know what I think it really is?
I think they assumed they would be defended relentlessly by everyone on the left.
I bet they thought that every Bernie supporter, every Democrat would get behind them, but no.
Lo and behold, it's resulted in a major rift.
I think Alyssa Milano thought the same thing, too.
They thought team politics was their safe way out.
So Alyssa Milano's like, I believe Joe Biden, and so is Stacey Abrams, and then even Don Lemon of CNN called out Stacey Abrams.
To me, that was like witnessing a supernova or some extremely rare event.
Don Lemon, CNN, actually pushing back and challenging these people who hold these double standards.
I was surprised, to say the least.
But I think they've realized they can't win.
And if they want to look like morons, more so than they already do, because I got another segment coming up for you at 4 p.m.
about CNN being caught in their lies, well, they know that they have to actually address this.
Did you see the New York Times come out?
Here's what they said.
The New York Times rebuked the Biden campaign on Wednesday, telling Fox News that the reported talking points that have been circulated to prominent Democrats inaccurately described the paper's reporting on the candidate's accuser, Tara Reid.
BuzzFeed reported on the existence of talking points being circulated by the Biden campaign.
The New York Times investigation found that Tar Reid's allegation did not happen.
Our investigation made no conclusion either way, a spokesperson said.
As BuzzFeed correctly reported, our story found three former Senate aides,
whom Reid said she complained to contemporaneously, all of whom either
did not remember the incident or said that it did not happen, the spokesperson continued.
The story also included former interns who remembered Reed suddenly changing roles and no longer overseeing them, which took place during the same time period that Reed said she was abruptly reassigned.
The Times also spoke to a friend who said Reed told her the details of the allegation at the time.
Another friend and Reed's brother say she told them of the incident involving Biden.
Now, this is a hilarious and glorious backtracking by the New York Times, because while what they said was true, it is the weaseliest of weasel words.
We know what you wrote, New York Times.
You included that sentence, filing a false police report can result in prison time.
You included a whole section on now Donald Trump was also accused, which has nothing to do with this story.
But you see how they set it up.
They set it up in such a way to where they could defend Biden.
But then when it came down to it, say, no, no, look, we actually corroborated it.
The criticism of you, New York Times, was that you had corroborating evidence, but you still framed it as though the story was not credible.
So don't be surprised then when Biden comes out, or perhaps, as the little conspiracy theorist on my shoulder whispers in my ear, the New York Times set him up.
They wrote this story where they knew they had corroborating evidence, they framed it in such a way to cast doubt, Joe Biden then rolls with their story, and then the New York Times flips and says, aha!
Wrong!
And makes Joe Biden look even worse.
Could there be some kind of coup occurring at the DNC or is this all part of the plan?
I don't know.
The simple solution suggests that big companies, their interests being ratings, are scared that they're looking at their numbers and they're getting thumbs down.
That's what I think it is.
You know, like, you go on YouTube, right?
You make a video, and then you look at your video and you're like, wow, my entire audience hated that video.
I better not do that in the future.
I think that's a terrible way to do things.
I think you gotta be true to yourself.
But these companies don't see it that way.
Big companies will do a segment, they'll make a report, and when they get a backlash, they'll say, uh-oh, we better apologize.
That's why the social justice outrage mobs work.
Because they sock puppet and make it seem like everybody's mad at you.
I can't remember what show it was, I think it was Family Guy, where someone did something on a TV show, they get a phone call, and they're like, we received 13 calls.
According to our math, that means 30 billion people are offended.
So they, like, extrapolate, right?
That's what happens.
So I'm willing to bet the New York Times got a ton of emails saying, why are you doing this?
This is not credible.
And the New York Times then immediately was like, uh-oh, what have we done?
We thought we were doing the right thing.
It's like, you never know exactly when the mob will turn on you.
But apparently there's a line for a lot of people.
I'd be willing to bet a lot of the social justice types are the ones who actually contacted, and a social justice campaign is what's resulting in the media flipping.
Let me remind you, the New York Times defended Biden, and now comes out like, no, no, no, we didn't say that.
The Washington Post said it was Trump allies.
Now they're straight up calling for Biden to answer for this stuff.
And now Chris Hayes of MSNBC is coming out and saying, let's talk about it.
You're not going to get anybody fired.
You've lost this one.
Biden's out.
Trump's going to win 2020, and there's nothing you can do about it.
Okay, that's not true.
I'm exaggerating a little bit.
I don't know what's going to happen.
Maybe Trump will win, maybe he won't.
But I'll tell you what.
If you want to make sure your guy wins, you better go out and vote.
Unfortunately, you know what?
Nah, it doesn't matter.
I really do not see... I don't know what could happen to make Trump lose at this point, I gotta be honest.
We're in a pandemic, the economy's crashed, we've got 30 million unemployed people, and I still don't think Trump can lose because they put Biden up!
Man, Pete Buttigieg could have done a better job, but this is who they chose?
You deserve to lose, man.
I feel bad for this old dude.
Do I like Joe Biden?
Not really.
He's kind of a crony, capitalist, Democrat establishment goon.
He has his kid doing these crazy jobs overseas, getting all his fat cash.
He's been accused of soft corruption over and over again.
I don't like the guy.
But listen, man, he's an old dude.
You don't gotta, you don't gotta act like, you know, he's a hero or anything.
But you can at least be like, let the old man sit in the rocking chair and have some sweet tea.
Stare at the sunset and forget all his woes.
But putting him up in this position, well, you know what?
At a certain point, his friends and family take responsibility for the things he's doing.
Alright, we have this arc in life.
When we're children, we don't know better, and then we become adults, we're responsible for ourselves, but eventually you get really, really old, and you're out of it then.
And now you're in your sunset years.
And while you still have freedom and independence, your friends and family need to help you and guide you because you're on in years.
This dude is almost 80 years old!
I don't get me wrong, Trump's old too, but come on.
Like, is this guy, he's a one-term president.
Even if he got elected, he's not going to win.
I will, I'll tell you what though.
If Joe Biden wins, I will laugh harder than I've ever laughed, especially with this.
But I think we're seeing the dominoes get lined up.
Eventually someone's going to flick it.
Joe Biden's going to be out.
The allegation will knock him down.
We'll see how it plays out.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel and I will see you all there.
When I first got started with news and politics, it was doing on-the-ground live streaming during Occupy Wall Street.
The mobile application that I was using was from a company called Ustream.
I recently learned that the founder of that company, Brad Hunstable, lost his son due to COVID isolation.
It's a very sad story.
I'm sorry to hear this, Brad.
I'm seriously sorry to hear about your loss.
His son was just about to turn 13, and he tweeted, My son took his life from COVID isolation and broken Fortnite monitor.
Hayden was 12, three days before 13.
Empathy is a disaster for policy and decision-making.
Leaders needed rational compassion.
My story, pain, and manifesto helped me save lives.
He tweeted this in response to Elon Musk, who said, Give people their freedom back.
This is hitting pretty close.
I mean, I'm not gonna pretend like I'm friends with the guy, that I'm friends with Brad, but I met him once a very, very long time ago.
But now to see someone that I've crossed paths with experiencing this kind of tragedy really reminds you that there are other risks during this pandemic that have been ignored.
I'm seriously tired of hearing from people that anybody who wants the economy reopened is just trying to cost lives or you don't care about lives.
No, it's quite the opposite.
Too many people don't want to actually understand what's going on.
They're too busy playing team sport politics.
So, again, Brad, you guys, actually, if you want to see his story, make sure to follow him at bhunstable, H-U-N-S-T-A-B-L-E, and you can see more from him and learn more about his story.
I've tried reading everything.
I shouldn't say everything, but I've tried reading as much as I can to understand the perspectives of what's going on.
This is a story from the Scientific American on April 3rd.
COVID-19 is likely to lead to an increase in suicides.
BuzzFeed News reported on March 25th.
That, well, here's what they say, the way Trump spoke about mental health was incredibly irresponsible.
Here's how people in support groups are caring for themselves.
Thank you for that, BuzzFeed.
But I do highlight this, because there is a serious concern over mental health issues.
As much as even BuzzFeed wants to go, you know, frame it against the president, the reality is, if we don't take this seriously, if we don't try to understand the problem, more people, we risk losing more people.
I went and did a Google search for quarantine and suicide after I saw this story from Brad, and sure enough, there's a lot.
So the question becomes, if one person takes their life due to mental health issues amid this isolation and lockdown, have we gone too far?
The argument we often see is, if the lockdown saves one life, isn't it worth it?
But these people don't seem to understand the full scale of what they're asking for.
Right now we can see the data is in.
This is a story from April 22nd.
Stop the panic and end the total isolation.
The UN has warned that 130, I believe 130 more million people face starvation.
Ending the lockdown isn't just because some redneck wants a haircut.
That's extremely reductive.
And I guess because people just want to hate on the president, they keep advocating for things they don't quite understand.
And now we can see its truly devastating impact.
I'm not gonna pretend that we know everything about why people take their lives, but these stories are serious and they keep happening.
I mean, I can just show you some and then I'll read you this next story.
A Melbourne man in his hotel.
I can only imagine being trapped in a hotel room is nightmarish.
And I'm terrified that, you know, these things are happening.
Canyons in quarantine threaten suicide.
Railway employee under quarantine commits suicide.
Quarantine could lead to depression and suicide risk for LGBTQ youth.
These stories, their stories are everywhere.
I think it's about time we realized that we have caused substantially more damage than we thought we would.
I don't know, perhaps it's fair to say we've saved more lives than we thought we would, but the data is in.
It's time to stop the panic and end the isolation.
Now, I don't know, we're going to read the argument here from Dr. Scott W. Atlas, but I think when you see these tragedies surrounding other people from suicide and mental health issues, there's another really good argument why we need to end this now.
But here's what they write for The Hill.
The tragedy of the COVID-19 pandemic appears to be entering the containment phase.
Tens of thousands of Americans have died, and Americans are now desperate for sensible policymakers who have the courage to ignore the panic and rely on facts.
Leaders must examine accumulated data to see what has actually happened.
Rather than keep emphasizing hypothetical projections, combine that empirical evidence with fundamental principles of biology established for decades, And then thoughtfully restore the country to function.
Five key facts are being ignored by those calling for continuing the near total lockdown.
Fact one.
The overwhelming majority of people do not have any significant risk of dying from COVID-19.
And we'll come back to these.
Fact two.
Protecting older at-risk people eliminates hospital overcrowding.
Fact three.
Vital population immunity is prevented by total isolation policies prolonging the problem.
4.
People are dying because other medical care is not getting done due to hypothetical projections.
We have a clearly defined population at risk who can be protected with targeted measures.
And now, I will now go back to the initial story.
6.
People are losing their lives already because of the lockdown. 7.
130 million people, according to the UN, face starvation due to the lockdown.
There's more than enough reasons why we need to talk about how this has become a problem.
Going back to issue number one, they say, the recent Stanford University antibody study
now estimates that the fatality rate if infected is likely 0.1 to 0.2 percent,
a risk far lower than previous World Health Organization estimates
that were 20 to 30 times higher, and that motivated isolation policies.
Now I want to throw it back to Brad, who talked about his son.
He mentioned that you've got two sides of the same coin.
People who ignore the problem of COVID, and people who ignore the problem of the economy.
He's completely right.
And he's someone directly impacted by the lockdown, still willing to point out we must be prepared for what happens with, you know, opening the lockdown and with this pandemic.
It's the equation.
There's a certain point where locking down can stem the coronavirus deaths.
But at a certain point, economic deaths start to rise, and then you're actually not mitigating any damage, you're actively making it worse.
The economy, as I explained it in a separate video, is like a train, a freight train.
And when you just stop it, dead in its tracks, all the other cars start piling up behind it, and people get hurt by this.
When we're learning now, due to these antibody studies, numerous, now many people have claimed these are bad studies, but we're learning from them that the mortality rate is substantially lower than we previously thought.
There's still a real problem here.
We will see more death.
The reason is, even though the mortality rate is low, this is a novel virus which is going to infect basically everybody.
It's going to infect a lot more people than the flu normally would.
So even with a lower percentage of people who die, you will see more infections resulting in more death.
It's something we absolutely need to consider and will strive to mitigate.
But early on we were panicking.
We saw a new virus.
We saw similarities to the Spanish flu that had a very high mortality rate.
And because of this we said, we have to lock down.
And many other countries did the same.
We all seemed to do this thing.
Projections are now substantially lower than we thought.
In fact, I believe it was Elon Musk who tweeted out a chart showing that the projections for California are substantially lower than they thought.
The hospitalization projections are ridiculously low relative to where they thought we would be even with isolation.
Stands to reason now the projections were wrong.
Not completely.
And it doesn't mean we were wrong to lock down.
It just means it's wrong to continue advocating for locking down for no reason.
Here's what I see on Twitter.
A lot of people who claim that Trump, Musk, and others calling for a sensible reopening of the economy are callous and just want people to die.
And they're saying Elon Musk is only doing it because he's worried about his stock price.
Trump is only doing it because the economy is tanking.
For tribal reasons, they refuse to see what is right in front of them.
New data is emerging.
Old data is now being proven wrong.
And people are still losing their lives.
I know it's very different when you have a suicide versus someone dying of the coronavirus.
Some have pointed out it's an issue of you getting someone else sick and them losing their life versus you taking your own life.
But I'm going to look at this, even in that regard, and say we're at a point now where we're learning it's not as bad as we thought.
We're at a point now where we have to accept that there will be some risk and do what we can, as this Hill article notes, to protect older and at-risk people.
And it won't be too difficult to do so.
Does this mean we may see more coronavirus deaths?
It does, absolutely.
But you can't justify the lives lost to mental health issues and suicide and economic damage, and you can't justify the starvation.
I'm not going to pretend like I know where that line is supposed to be or where it should be, but I can say that for me, we need to get things moving again.
We absolutely do.
We'll have to have sound policy in place protecting people.
That's fair to say, 100%.
We'll do our best.
But the people who think the economy is just some rich person's, you know, ticket to the ball, or a blank check to get them a new yacht, are wrong.
And they do not understand that we're talking about people who are locked in hotel rooms.
We're talking about people who can't work anymore and feel helpless.
We're talking about children Who are panicked, scared, don't understand what's happening, and have increasing pain due to the isolation.
It's resulting in very, very tragic stories.
How about you argue with me?
Let me know why you think we should keep things closed.
But I haven't seen any good arguments other than memes about the economy.
Even Elon Musk himself posted a meme about the dyna- uh, as an astronaut, watching the planet being destroyed by a giant meteor or some astral body, saying, oh no, the economy.
Well, Elon Musk has changed his tune, probably because he started to realize just how bad things are getting.
It's really easy for the people who live in big cities, to an extent, to say, you know what, we'll just keep things the way they are.
They have their friends, you know, even though they're locked in their cubicles.
It's a lot harder for the people who have to make the products and make the food.
Everybody has their own challenges though, so I don't pretend like everybody's got it easy or bad.
I just don't know for sure.
But I do know that I'm seeing more and more tragic stories like this, and I hope you're paying attention.
At a certain point, we have to make a hard choice.
And I think that time has come and gone, and we need to move quickly now to reopen things.
I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
If you follow Mr. Carl Benjamin, aka Sargon of Akkad, or Count Dankula, you may have already seen this story.
But I definitely want to go over this from my perspective and talk about the latest development.
It's a story of a man named Mark D. Stefano, formerly of BuzzFeed News.
I have been very critical of this man.
I have actually spoken with higher-ups at BuzzFeed News about what he's been doing long before this story broke.
I warned them.
This man is not a journalist.
He very well may be a criminal.
For those that aren't familiar with the story, this man, Mark DeStefano, was spying on the private meetings of rival newspapers and then live-tweeting the details.
This very well may be illegal.
If it was in the United States, it would absolutely be illegal.
Now, this man, Mark DeStefano, has published fake news about people like Count Dankula and Sargon of Akkad, Carl Benjamin.
He's an activist working in media that uses false framing to target people they ideologically oppose.
Or it could be that he's a grifter, and he's seeking shock content, and that's why he broke into these Zoom meetings.
Now, many people have said that he hacked these companies, and hack is, you know, I will do air quotes.
He illicitly entered them, tried to hide his identity, and then revealed private information.
Yeah, okay.
You can argue to an extent there's some journalism somewhere in there, but this was actually more like corporate espionage.
The latest development, for those that are already familiar with the story, is that they're calling it the Zoom bomb case, and he may have actually broken the law.
That's the gist of the story.
So, basically, here's what this guy does.
He's a lefty activist.
He smears and slanders.
He's, in fact, one of the dirty, dirty smear merchants Sargon has referred to in the past.
He entered illicitly rival companies' meetings.
Now, he left BuzzFeed News.
He joined the Financial Times.
He illicitly entered these meetings using his work email address.
When they saw him, he apparently jumps out of the chat very quickly and then re-enters using his own mobile phone address.
Spying on these meetings.
It may be a violation of the law.
Now, in the United States, he absolutely would be on the hook for violating the law.
Violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, because he was not permitted to access those servers, and also potentially some corporate espionage stuff.
This is what happens when you don't vet your staff.
This is what happens in a world of crony journalism.
You see, what happens is BuzzFeed News hires this guy.
Why?
Because BuzzFeed News doesn't vet staff, and they are low-brow, low-quality.
Now, I must give a shout-out to former BuzzFeed News editor-in-chief Ben Smith, now of the New York Times, who is doing an absolutely stellar job.
And boy, do I mean that.
If you haven't followed this dude on Twitter, it's BenYT.
He is calling out the media, he is calling out Biden camp.
He is calling out what needs to be called out.
Much, much respect, Ben.
You're doing an amazing job.
But I can't understand why, perhaps because this guy was in the UK, you didn't know about this, but you end up with an activist writing fake news trash.
Then what he does is he uses those credentials, here's what I write about, to get a job at the Financial Times, an actual prestigious paper.
This is laundering activism into high-profile news.
And the big outlets, they keep doing this, hiring activists.
Well, eventually they get fired.
This guy has now been suspended after the scandal broke.
But he basically was breaking the law.
Crony journalism means this guy may actually get hired again.
Now Sargon said he's probably destroyed his journalism career.
That may be the case.
I don't think so.
I think he's gonna get hired again.
Let me show you something.
Alright, this is the gist of the story.
I think we broke it down for you.
In the U.S., it would have absolutely been a serious federal offense or felony.
You can't do what he did.
He may have destroyed his career, but I don't think so.
I want to show you how the news media operates.
And I'm gonna use Trump as an example.
Take a look at this story.
Trump falsely claims he never said U.S.
could test 5 million a day for COVID-19 very soon.
Crony journalism means people like Mark DeStefano can just keep recycling and getting their trash jobs and writing trash fake news.
Let's talk about the truth.
This is what I try to do.
In my line of work, I would argue that I do political commentary, cultural commentary, and then journalism.
The reason why I say 100% it's journalism, sorry naysayers, you can't reject it, is because my goal is to help you understand what's actually happening.
You can certainly disagree with my opinion on things, but I'll give you the truth, or the best understanding of what's happening.
Trump was asked.
Let me read you the story and break it down how they're falsely framing this to make it seem like Trump lies.
Donald Trump on Wednesday backed away from a vow made less than 24 hours earlier that the U.S.
very soon would be able to test up to 5 million people per day for coronavirus, falsely contending he never uttered these words.
He never did.
They're lying.
He never said the word 5 million.
The next day when they were asked, you said 5 million, I said I never said that.
He didn't.
Trump didn't say it.
They're playing games with y'all.
Let me explain what really happened.
Quote, right now they're testing about 200,000 per day.
So that would be a significant increase, the president told reporters in the Oval Office.
The answer may be in the timeline, and ultimately that might be possible, but not in the near term.
He called the question on Tuesday that prompted him to make the $5 million test score remark a media trap, a new phrase he uses to describe reporters' questions that he answers and gets himself into political hot water.
I didn't say it.
Where did it come from?
It's sort of a setup.
It is.
A reporter asked Donald Trump, Could we get to 5 million tests per day?
Oh, that was a trap, all right.
Trump is right.
Are you kidding?
5 million per day?
That's what they do.
Donald, do you think that we could get to 5 million tests per day?
And then what is Trump here?
5 million tests.
You see, we're at around 4 million plus tests.
If you remove the per day, then it sounds like what Trump thought he was being asked was, are we going to test at least 5 million people at some point?
We're very close.
Absolutely very close.
The honest interpretation of this is that Trump just misheard the question and didn't say we're jumping from 200,000 to 5 million tests per day.
Why would a journalist ask such a loaded and ridiculous question about 5 million tests in a single day?
No one is anywhere near 5 million tests per day.
That's how the media sets him up.
And then what they do is this.
They put together a video, seventh time over the past two months, that Trump has denied saying something about the coronavirus that he in fact said.
No, he didn't in fact say it.
Someone asked him about 5 million tests per day.
Trump said, I think we'll get close.
The honest interpretation is that Trump misunderstood what was being asked of him.
In this video from J.M.
Rieger of the Rieger Report, I believe it's a Washington Post video, they show you quotes from Trump and boy do we really see what's going on.
They try framing this as though Donald Trump will say something and then a week later say something totally different.
Does Donald Trump do this?
Yes, he does.
But they highlight it all the time, they claim he's lying about literally everything all the time, and they're tricking you.
It makes it very, very difficult to know what he's actually saying and what actually is true.
Makes it hard for even me, which is why I'm often reticent to make videos saying, Trump lied, Trump lied, because they're lying.
Take a look at my tweet.
Watch this.
Watch it again, then refer back to the claim made by WAPO.
Short clips, out of context or recontextualized by reporters asking questions.
Trump says, quote, some think it goes away in April.
Reporter asks, you said it would go away.
Then they snippet and say he lied.
Let me break that down for you.
They show a clip where Donald Trump goes, you know, some people think that come April it'll go away, and then it freezes.
And then it shows a reporter going, you said that in April it would go away.
I never said that.
Trying to make it seem like he was lying.
You know what, man?
There's a video about manspreading by Vox.
In it, this is the most amazing thing.
Liz Plank, the woman who made it, clearly is lying throughout the whole video.
And I've had friends watch this and be like, wow.
And I'm like, did you see where she lied?
In one instance, she's like, these women are forced to stand.
They can't sit down because of this man who is manspreading.
Yet the entire train is like empty.
And like behind them are a bunch of open seats.
Clearly they just chose not to sit down.
It's amazing to me how they can put it in your face, lie to you about what it was, and people believe it.
Or maybe they don't.
Maybe that's why people don't trust the press anymore.
Because they watch the clip and they go, what?
Trump didn't say, I think it will.
He said, some people think it will.
He could have been disagreeing with them in that clip and I wouldn't know because you snipped it out of context and then a reporter a month later recontextualized it.
Let me give you the best example of this.
PolitiFact.
Donald Trump and the fish food dump.
How early reports got it wrong.
Remember this story?
November 6, 2017.
Shinzo Abe of Japan threw all of this fish food into a koi pond.
Donald Trump then followed his lead.
I believe it was ABC, I may be wrong.
They say, initial reports of the food dump, like this earlier video from CNN, suggested that Trump acted on his own.
This pushed the late-night Twitterverse and blogosphere into a tizzy.
The website Jezebel posted a story headlined, Big Stupid Baby Dumps Load of Fish Food on Japanese Koi Pond.
Because the video zoomed in on Trump so you couldn't see that Trump took the lead of Shinzo Abe.
This is how they always pull it off.
Re-contextualize, de-contextualize, and change what's happening.
So, look, I understand the principle, the main point of this story was the Financial Times journalist, and, you know, that's just an example of crony journalism.
Him going from BuzzFeed, writing fake news, then going to the Financial Times, and then getting caught spying on other companies.
I guess he thought the rules didn't apply to him, because often they don't.
Now they do.
Welcome to the big leagues.
We're going to keep seeing more of this and it won't go away.
They'll keep lying about the president, and the president lies too.
I totally think so.
He's also strangely very honest.
Let's be real, he blurts things out, he's got no filter.
Sometimes to his own detriment.
Well, often to his own detriment, but the point is...
It's Trump and the media.
Two sides of the same coin in certain respects.
You know, the issue is Trump's an individual who's got a personal agenda.
He's the president.
He's gonna say things.
That's politics.
That's what people do.
I get that.
Trump's gonna talk big of himself.
The media's not supposed to lie.
The media's not supposed to be targeting people with malicious intent.
I don't know what else to expect, but there you go.
I got another story coming up for you in a few minutes.
Stick around.
I'll see you all shortly.
Chris Cuomo is a parasite on the news industry, an example of the malignant tumor eating away at real journalism.
Chris Cuomo is a man who faked being under quarantine.
No, I'm not saying that he was or wasn't sick.
It's nothing like that.
Some people argue, he was never sick in the first place.
I'm not gonna play that game.
Chris Cuomo was claiming that he was under quarantine, but was seen 30 minutes or so from his house, challenged by someone for being out of quarantine, got in his face, admitted it on his own show, and CNN is trying now to cover it up.
I'm not kidding.
CNN host Chris Cuomo coronavirus quarantine timeline scrutinized.
You see, when challenged over and over again, Chris Cuomo finally gave in, and boy, did he lie.
Fox News says, CNN host Chris Cuomo dug himself into a hole on Wednesday when he tried to combat a Twitter critic by claiming he was past quarantine on the date of the now infamous altercation with a cyclist, which appears to have occurred days before he claimed he was first healthy enough to emerge from his basement, where he said he had been recovering.
Cuomo, the younger brother of Democratic New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, bashed Vice President
Mike Pence for not wearing a mask during a recent trip to the Mayo Clinic when a Twitter
user responded, Can we first talk for a minute about how you broke quarantine while having
coronavirus?
The critic was referring to a widely reported spat Cuomo has with a bicyclist on April 12th.
The CNN host quickly fired back, calling reports a lie.
But his response resulted in questions about his timeline of events, and boy did I bring receipts!
Chris Cuomo is a parasite.
You want to argue about bias?
Bring it on.
You want to call me biased?
Absolutely, by all means.
I'll call you biased, you call me biased.
We'll argue about how news should operate.
Do you have an opinion?
Do you have the facts?
These are challenging questions when it comes to the media.
Some articles are just opinion masquerading as fact.
That's an argument.
Whether or not a journalist is entitled.
You know what's not an argument?
Overt lying.
This is why Chris Cuomo is the absolute worst.
I hope That history remembers you as the parasite you are, Chris Cuomo, the charlatan snake oil salesman.
You can call me biased, you can call them fake news, but Chris Cuomo, you are caught and you keep lying.
I hope that in a hundred years they look back and they talk about the period of fake rage-bait reality TV garbage and the disgusting slime monsters who destroyed the news industry and sullied the good name of the fourth estate.
And I hope they show your picture right next to it.
Take a look at this.
Chris Cuomo was asked.
He said, sure, it's just a lie.
I was past quarantine, was never in public.
My family was cursed at in our own backyard by a guy with an open case for allegedly biting
a man's hand.
Those are facts ignored by Trump grumps.
Well, this man, the fat tire biker that you insulted, said he was looking at a property
No actual house.
About 30 minutes.
It was in the Hamptons.
He also says he filed a police report.
Call him a liar if you must find.
But hold on, Chris.
You brought the story up first.
Now, you know what?
Maybe it's possible that Chris Cuomo brought up the fact that there was a fat tire biker yelling at him.
Why was Chris Cuomo in his own backyard anyway?
The whole thing is a lie!
Even if the Fat Tire Biker lied about where he was, Chris Cuomo said he was in his own backyard?
The guy says he saw Cuomo and said, isn't he supposed to be quarantined?
What's your story?
The Fat Tire Biker went to your random family and said, where's Chris Cuomo?
That makes no sense.
I'm sorry, your story makes no sense.
And you called it out.
Joe Concha.
This is on Twitter.
He is a media reporter for The Hill.
Responded to Chris Cuomo saying, Chris, the question here is if you traveled with the family from your home in Southampton where you were in quarantine and still experiencing a fever to Easthampton to visit a home you also own currently under construction when the confrontation with the bicyclist occurred.
Oh, Cuomo said my family was cursed in her own backyard.
Yes, that's right.
I don't think anyone's disputing that you own the property you were on.
But he's a liar.
Other people have brought up very, very interesting things.
You see, Chris Cuomo's wife on April 12th tweeted that he had a fever in the afternoon and the evening.
That's so strange.
Why are you claiming you were past quarantine?
Why did CNN?
Publish a... Why did CNN publish this video?
Where you emerge from the basement, like a phoenix from the ashes.
Oh, I have returned!
My family, I can finally see them!
Oh, my great suffering.
Nah, man.
You and the rest of the cronies over at CNN are disgusting.
Parasites on this industry.
You masquerade as journalists, but you're not even activists.
An activist, I can respect.
An activist has a mission.
They think they're doing the right thing.
But you, sir, are a reality TV star not even on the level of Donald Trump.
Now, Donald Trump killed it in the ratings.
NBC's apprentice.
The man certainly knew what he was doing, and he became the president.
You, sir, are a wannabe.
You pretend, you lie, you cheat and you steal, and when called out, you lie again.
I hope you're happy with all the money you've made being a snake oil salesman.
I hope you get to enjoy every dollar spent and you smile to yourself laughing, saying, who cares?
I get to be rich!
And I hope with that comes historical record, showing your face as the downfall of journalism.
You know, it's never, it hasn't been this bad.
We've complained about fake news, we've complained about media bias, but there's honestly a real argument there.
You know, if Vice gets woke and goes broke, okay, there's an argument there.
I can say I think it's pathetic that these news organizations have adopted this stance of mission-driven storytelling, they call it, where they say we have to speak truth to power.
I can criticize Brian Stelter who said, we must channel the rage of the people in our news reporting and say that's just a gimmick to get people to watch, performative nonsense.
But there is a whole new level of decrepit, despicable, parasitic sludge and that is fabricating the news.
There is no coming back from something like this.
Well, I take that back.
Cuomo, apologize.
How about this?
How about instead of pretending that it never happened and you get ratioed like crazy on Twitter, how about you apologize and say, you know, we shouldn't have done it.
It's that I wasn't supposed to be out.
Maybe this, maybe CNN didn't even know.
Maybe it's Chris Cuomo who staged the whole thing.
You know what, man?
I don't normally get this.
I don't normally insult people this much, but there's nothing that gets to me more than willful deception.
When I call people out saying they're fake news and saying the media lies, it's often because I think they are.
I try to be very, very careful when I have the facts.
But Chris Cuomo is spitting in the face of everyone in media.
Every single person.
Well, of course, many people on Twitter have come after him.
We got a whole bunch of Twitter responses here.
Stephen L. Miller says, check the dates.
Sure, it's just a lie.
Here's the very moment Chris Como emerged from his basement.
Well, like a week later.
Joe Concha, there's asking the question.
Stephen Miller then points out the blog post.
He then throws it to M. Dornick, clean up on Isle Fredo.
But, uh, CNN's PR people haven't responded.
Oh, oh, you know what?
There was a big story about Larry King having an episode removed in the Tara Reid allegations.
Oh, CNN PR jumped on that one saying, that is not us!
We did not pull this episode!
But boy, did they shut up when we caught them publishing fake news.
Other people have tried to claim CNN's published fake news in the past.
Some of these claims are not true.
Greg Polowitz says, you literally had symptoms the next day.
Then your wife and son tested positive.
Gina says, so the biker was riding in your backyard?
Fact check, false.
Dude, just stop it.
Nice try, Chris, but everyone knows you're lying.
Just apologize for breaking quarantine and move on.
I'll tell you what, Chris.
If you apologize for publishing fake news, I will accept your apology and I will never trust you to produce news again.
There have been other people who I have called out for producing fake news.
I've been very harsh against.
Some of whom I now consider to be lightly friends with.
And the reason is, they don't produce news anymore.
Some people made fake moments and fake videos, got called out, and I said, you know what?
At first I slammed them, but now I'm gonna accept their apology, do better, and move on.
The problem with Chris Cuomo?
He is still going on CNN every night and pretending like he's telling you facts.
You're getting reality TV, performative trash, and CNN takes the cake.
I think journalism is completely over.
I've said it was dead in the past, and I'll say it again.
Journalism is completely dead.
CNN realized this.
And so I think they've decided that the only way to stay alive and keep making money is just roll with it.
And they asked Chris Cuomo to do it.
But this is why I think Chris Cuomo did that Sirius XM thing where he said he hated his job, or whatever he said.
That he didn't find value in it.
I think they went to him and said, news is dead, son.
If you want to stay alive in this business, you've got to fake it to make it.
And so they did.
And that's what he does.
And that's what you are, Chris.
You are just a reality TV star.
You are actually... You're not even as good as Donald Trump is.
At least Trump's funny?
At least Trump makes you laugh.
You, on the other hand, are tricking people and causing more and more problems.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got... Next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
You know what?
I was going to say don't watch CNN, but you should watch them.
But you should watch them and now keep in mind, whenever you see him talking, he's probably lying to you.
But you should know what they're saying because people believe this stuff.
And it's making political discourse harder and harder every single day.
