Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 7, 2020 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:45:33

DOJ Has Dropped Criminal Case Against Former Trump Advisor Michael Flynn Citing Improper FBI Actions

DOJ Has Dropped Criminal Case Against Former Trump Advisor Michael Flynn Citing Improper FBI Actions Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:45:01

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Texas has slowly begun reopening its businesses, but not included in their reopening plan are salons.
		You've probably heard the story because it's kind of nuts.
		A salon owner refused to shut down, opened in defiance of the state, and was actually arrested.
		A judge ordered her to apologize, and she said no, that she has kids to feed, that her employees have kids to feed as well.
		And she will not apologize for running her business to feed her family, and she didn't think she did anything wrong.
		While the Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick is defending her, offering to pay her $7,000 fine, we're also hearing that the Texas Attorney General tells the judge he's out of touch and abused his authority, and I completely agree.
		But you want to know the craziest thing about all of this?
		You see, the other night, On the Timcast IRL podcast, we were talking about the absurdity of certain jurisdictions releasing inmates from their jails and prisons, but then arresting a salon owner.
		And you see, we thought, silly us, that Dallas, of all places, wasn't going to be releasing their inmates, and this was clearly not the same jurisdiction that would put a mother into jail for trying to feed her kids while releasing criminals.
		Oh, wait.
		It is.
		Yeah, that's my bad.
		Fox 4 KDFW.
		Officials release 1,000 inmates to ease crowding.
		Slow spread of COVID-19 at Dallas County Jail, April 16th.
		Should've did the Google search.
		That one's on me, I apologize.
		But think about how absolutely insane this story is.
		I kid you not.
		A woman said, My workers, my friends, my family, they need support.
		We are going hungry.
		I will run my business and I won't apologize for that.
		And they decided she should go into the jail.
		Now think about this for a few seconds.
		If their concern is that the people in the jail will contract coronavirus, would it not be cruel and unusual punishment to put someone willfully into that place?
		Maybe not.
		Fine.
		But you think about the severity of the actions she's taken.
		She was opening her business.
		That's it?
		But most of the most shocking thing of all, She didn't go to jail because she opened her business.
		Look at the fine print.
		She went to jail because she told a judge she would not apologize.
		Is that the kind of country we want?
		Where a judge or some authority is going to be like, apologize to me, and then I won't send you to jail.
		But if you refuse to give me, to bend the knee, then we're going to lock you up.
		Welcome to America, man.
		This is what we're becoming.
		And it raises a lot of questions about, you know, how long liberty really lasts.
		Perhaps as societies grow in age, they just start adopting more and more authoritarianism.
		And it's scary, I guess, right?
		Isn't there some quote about, you know, resetting the government every couple hundred years, something like that?
		I don't know for sure.
		But what happens, in my opinion, is that More and more laws go on the books.
		More and more, you know, populations, they become denser and denser.
		People demand for more protections and more security.
		They panic.
		They get scared.
		And then eventually you end up with a judge saying, all right, If you don't apologize to me right now, I'm gonna lock you up and take away your freedom.
		That's not supposed to be a thing we do in this country, but they did.
		Well, there's some cool things about this.
		For one, the Texas Attorney General is calling out the judge for doing this.
		This judge is a tyrannical moron, if you were to ask me.
		I would not be so polite as the salon owner.
		In the video, she says, you know, like, with all due respect, I appreciate blah blah blah, but I'm sorry.
		I need to feed my family.
		I would not have said it like that.
		Now, I wouldn't go on a cussing rampage, but I would have made some, like, I don't know, verbose and grandiose absurd speech.
		Give me liberty, or give me death.
		Come on, bring it on.
		Texas Attorney General tells out-of-touch judge he abused his authority by jailing salon owner who opened her business despite stay-at-home orders so she could feed her kids.
		Texas salon owner Shelly Luther was sentenced to seven days in jail on Tuesday.
		They say Governor Greg Abbott started phase one of Texas reopenings last week, which did not allow salons to resume business, but that didn't stop Luther from opening up.
		Dallas County Judge Eric Moye found Luther in criminal and civil contempt of court and told her she owed local leaders an apology.
	Could you imagine?
	Like, think about that.
	You will be in contempt of court and I will lock you up unless you give us an apology.
	Nah.
	Sorry, man.
	You don't— That's not— I'm not playing that game.
	Sorry.
	You don't deserve my respect.
	There is a bunch of other news as well.
	Over in Michigan, the Michigan legislature is taking Governor Gretchen Whitmer to court over lockdown.
	And there's a lot going on right now with defiance of lockdown orders, I gotta admit.
	We got this story about this 77-year-old man.
	Saying cops will have to carry me out in cuffs.
	Michigan Barber 77, ticketed for reopening during lockdown, vows to keep cutting hair and says, I don't need Governor Whitmer to be my mother.
	I can make these adult decisions myself.
	So I want to go back and I want to focus on what's going on with this salon owner because I really do think this is the most shocking and egregious display of abuse of authority we've seen.
	But I bring up this other story in Michigan because, the other stories, It's not working.
	The lockdowns are failing.
	And you can see who the tyrants really are.
	So you have the Attorney General dragging this judge saying, you know, you can't do this, right?
	This is an abuse of power.
	He said something.
	Here's a quote.
	I find it outrageous and out of touch that during this national pandemic, a judge in a county that actually released hardened criminals for fear of contracting COVID-19, would jail a mother for operating her hair salon in an attempt to put food on her family's table.
	That's amazing.
	The trial judge did not need to lock up Shelly Luther.
	His order is a shameful abuse of judicial discretion, which seems like another political stunt in Dallas.
	He should release Miss Luther immediately.
	Luther had said before the judge, I have to disagree with you, sir.
	When you say that I am selfish because feeding my kids is not selfish, I have hairstylists that are going hungry because they'd rather feed their kids.
	So sir, if you think the law is more important than kids being fed, then please go ahead with your decision.
	But I'm not going to shut the salon.
	Woohoo!
	Hear, hear.
	Not quite as impactful as, you know, give me liberty or give me death, but perhaps a rallying cry nonetheless.
	I will not shut my salon!
	Freedom.
	No, I really do respect it.
	You know, maybe in the future we'll look back at stories like this, to the people who said, I have done nothing wrong, rejecting these absurd and ridiculous laws.
	If the salon continues to operate, the judge ordered Luther to pay $500 each day through May 8th, which is when Texas will allow salons and barbershops to reopen.
	The defiance of the court's order was open, flagrant, and intentional, Moyet wrote in his decision.
	The defendants, although having been given an opportunity to do so, have expressed no contrition, remorse, or regret for their contemptuous action.
	Good.
	This is a country founded on defiance of nonsensical and absurd laws.
	And I gotta be honest, there's actually even arguments about the laws the Founding Fathers and the other colonists were defying.
	Whether or not it was right to pay the taxes, whether or not they deserved representation.
	Well, we certainly seem to think they did.
	And that's why we came out, you know, on this side of things.
	There were a lot of people who didn't think so.
	But come on, man.
	Telling a salon owner not to do hair, and you're gonna put him in jail because of it, is one of the most shockingly absurd things that I believe will go down in American history.
	The period in which judges were like, mm, doing someone's hair.
	Lock him up.
	Yeah, sorry, that's ridiculous.
	So it looks like she gave a press conference.
	Luther pictured holding her citation and speaking to the media after she was cited by City of Dallas.
	Now, we have the Texas lieutenant governor offering to pay her fine.
	Now, this one's a little silly because he's like saying he'll take her place, kind of.
	He'll serve her sentence.
	But under house arrest?
	Oh, that's very kind of you.
	If she doesn't go to jail, I'll stay home for a week.
	Bro, you're already staying home.
	We're under lockdown.
	Everybody's basically under house arrest already.
	But I appreciate the sentiment.
	Before we read this, I'm gonna give a shout-out to myself!
	Many people have repeatedly asked me questions about what I mean when I say, go to YouTube.com slash TimCast because it's a different channel.
	The channel you are on right now listening to is YouTube.com slash TimCast News.
	There is another channel, you can see up here in the top, YouTube.com slash TimCast.
	Don't ask me why YouTube did it this way, I honestly have no idea.
	This is just how they've structured the, you know, whatever.
	But it is a different channel, so make sure you check it out and subscribe, because I do put up videos every day at 4 p.m.
	that are, they're basically the same thing, a little different, a little more in-depth.
	But, uh, there is a, there's a huge overlap, uh, I'm sorry, there's a huge gap between the people who watch this and don't even know I have two other channels.
	So, check it out if you'd like, subscribe if you have not.
	Let's read what's going on with this Texas Lieutenant Governor.
	Fox News says, a judge in Texas was vindictive and showed no mercy and no compassion when he gave Dallas salon owner a choice between closing her business or spending seven days in jail for violating COVID lockdown.
	Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick shared his views during an appearance on Fox News at night.
	Earlier Wednesday, Patrick tweeted he was willing to pay salon owner Shelly Luther a $7,000 fine and be placed under house arrest to serve her sentence so she can go to work and feed her kids.
	And Luther decided to serve time behind bars rather than comply with the shutdown order.
	I know it sounds silly because she's just a salon owner, but man do I got mad respect for her standing up to this.
	There are so many people in this country every day that are locked up or punished by the state who broke no laws.
	I wonder how many people are truly innocent, but they're pressured due to something called a jury tax or a trial tax, where the prosecutors will actually say, you know what, it's a slap on the wrist offense, but if you take this to trial to try and prove your innocence, which is your constitutional right, we're going to slap you in the face with a book as hard as we can.
	And I've experienced this, being threatened with months in jail for something I didn't do, and they said, just plead guilty.
	And I said, No.
unidentified		Uh-uh.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Nope.
		Sorry.
		I'll take my chances on the jury.
		I don't care.
		I stand up for what I believe in.
		And guess what happened when I said no?
		Boy, were they pissed off.
		Oh, they were angry.
		One of the prosecutors actually shouted upon hearing from my lawyer that I was refusing.
		Sure enough, because I said no, they dismissed the charges.
		And it was, it was a slap on the wrist offense. It was disorderly conduct, which I did not do.
		They lied, false arrest and all that stuff. So they were angry, just plead guilty. Nope,
		not going to happen. And so sure enough, because I said, no, they dismissed the charges. But how
		many people every day are scared? They say, listen, man, if you go to trial and try and
		prove your innocence, you know, your constitutional right, we are going to make you suffer.
		And then your lawyer says to you, I don't know, man, it's a big risk.
		You might actually go to jail for a long time.
		They're offering you a sweet deal and people just say yes.
		And then you end up with a mark on your record and you said you did it.
		You said you were guilty.
		Never!
		Never do it.
		I mean, you can look at what happened with Michael Flynn.
		They forced him to plead guilty on something he didn't do.
		At least that's what the evidence suggests.
		They tricked him, they manipulated the whole thing, and they threatened his family.
		I can understand, man, going after a man's kid to get him to plead guilty and it worked.
		I don't know.
		I'd never do it.
		No, sorry.
		You know in Chicago there was this big scandal where they were apparently like electrocuting people to force confessions?
		Man, this country's got problems, I'll tell you what.
		So over in Michigan, however, so again, moving on from there because this story is much bigger than just, you know, this salon owner.
		My respect to the salon owner, uh, uh, Shelly, what's her name?
		Let's get her name right.
		Uh, Shelly?
		What did they say?
		Do they have her name here?
		Why, why, Shelly Luther.
		Much respect, Shelly Luther, for standing up for what you believe in and refusing to back down because you've done nothing wrong.
		The governor can't just decree things.
		Our governments aren't supposed to work that way, especially in Texas, of all places.
		Now we're seeing what's happening when the Michigan governor tries to defy the law.
		These people are breaking the law.
		And this is the really annoying thing to me about how the law works in this country, is that if someone does something that's like, I don't know, they slap you in the face.
		The cops come and just arrest you.
		No indictment, no grand jury.
		They're like, you're under arrest.
		We saw that.
		But when a governor, when a politician, when a corrupt corporate officer, when they break these more complicated laws, what happens?
		Long, circuitous arguments.
		Indictments and grand juries.
		Show up to the dude's place, put him in cuffs.
		This woman has broken the law.
		You can't do this.
		And all of the police, who are just abiding by a decree, are breaking the law as well.
		Now, they're going about it the appropriate way.
		The Michigan State Legislature is going to court.
		This is kind of how the country is supposed to work.
		Checks and balances.
		So I can respect how the legislature is taking action on this.
		But man, we really can't live in a society where executive authority just goes around arresting people, locking them up, and violating their constitutional rights.
		And yes, I understand Donald Trump and illegal immigrants and all that stuff and all those arguments.
		Yeah, sorry, we're not playing that game.
	The point is, take them to court, fight over it.
	This I actually respect.
	The Daily Caller says, Republican Michigan House Speaker Lee Chetfield announced Wednesday that the state legislator is taking Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer to court over her lockdown in response to the COVID-19 panic.
	We've attempted to partner with our governor, but she's rejected.
	We've offered cooperation, but instead she chose court.
	This was avoidable, but today we filed a lawsuit in our state to challenge her unconstitutional actions.
	The law in Michigan is clear, and nobody is above it.
	Good.
	Now listen, there's a big difference about when it comes to Donald Trump, immigration, detainment, and all that stuff.
	Donald Trump was seeking to get funding for the border wall.
	This is very different from, say, arresting people and fining people who are breaking no laws.
	Trump did not decree the law.
	Trump is enforcing existing law.
	There's a big difference.
	Now, I'm still down for the argument, absolutely, 100%.
	And that's why they've taken Trump to court on these things, and Trump has taken them to court on these things, and Trump has won some, and he's lost some, and it's back and forth.
	I respect that process.
	But for a governor to come out and say, regular American citizens, law-abiding peoples who want to give haircuts, we're going to fine you, nah, you can't do that.
	You can't just create a law and start telling people you're going to arrest them or fine them for it.
	They go on to say, the lawsuit seeks a speedy hearing and hopes Michigan's Court of Claims will assess that Whitmer's ongoing emergency orders are improper and invalid under Michigan law.
	The Detroit News reported Wednesday.
	Last Thursday, Democratic Michigan governor extended her state's lockdown until May 28th and increased her executive powers, which caused many to protest.
	People don't seem to get this.
	You know what, man?
	There's a dude in Indianapolis.
	Who live-streamed himself running, fleeing from the police in his car.
	And I don't know the full details, alright?
	I'm not gonna, I'm not gonna... Look, you guy was running from the cops.
	The police, he gets out of the vehicle, yells something.
	The cops say that he fired at them.
	They fired at him.
	Dude lost his life.
	About a hundred people protested.
	Awesome.
	Protest injustice.
	I appreciate it.
	Now, is the governor going to come out and complain about these people not social distancing or wearing masks who are coming out and protesting?
	Is the media going to complain that these protesters are risking their lives and everyone else's, and they don't even know what happened in this case?
	I mean, here you have a story where apparently this guy was live-streaming himself flee from the police.
	Why was he doing it?
	I mean, look, I understand injustice.
	I understand violation of authority.
	Maybe there's a conspiracy afoot.
	I really doubt it.
	The best thing you can do, and lawyers typically advise this stuff, if you're going to be arrested, calmly comply.
	Now is not the time for a fight.
	You lose when you do this.
	You win when you shut up, when you put your hands behind your back, let them arrest you, go through the process, and you know what?
	It sucks.
	And we got serious problems with this.
	I don't like that at all.
	I don't like the idea of people falsely arresting other people, but you calmly do it.
	Then you seek action.
	Then you file suit.
	But when you flee in a car speeding and stream yourself, this is when problems erupt.
	I don't want to get into all that whole debate.
	The point I want to bring up is protesters came out and they were protesting what they said was injustice, chanting no justice, no peace.
	Where are the complaints?
	Where are the smears, the lies?
	They say all these protesters just want haircuts.
	The people showing up in Albany and Michigan.
	No, the people protesting in Michigan are mad.
	The governor just gave herself more power.
	That's horrifying!
	Why would anyone support that?
	Everyone's got to protest that.
	It's not about getting a haircut, but that's what the press will tell you.
	They will defend the authoritarianism and the tyranny of the executive branch.
	Mind-blowing, isn't it?
	Whitmer claims Republicans who control the state legislature are endangering lives by encouraging the state lockdown to end, where there is still a risk of infection from the coronavirus.
	I'm pretty sure the statement was give me liberty or give me death, not give me liberty or give me death unless, of course, a virus could get people sick and we need to remain safe.
	Sorry, it doesn't work that way.
	You can't just extend, expand your own powers because you claim Well, people need to be safe.
	Yeah, people need to be safe from a lot of things.
	Okay?
	What if... This logic.
	I understand the coronavirus is novel.
	I understand the coronavirus, in one month's time, has killed more people than the flu did in four months' time.
	It's serious.
	We understand this.
	But that doesn't give you the right to increase your powers.
	You can't just be like, well, as governor, I've decided I should be allowed to do whatever I want.
	Signed right here, on the dotted line.
	Why are the police adhering to that?
	That's what's crazy.
	This is truly the scariest thing.
	You know, I'm not a big fan of violating Godwin's law.
	But you wonder about World War II and why the Germans, the soldiers, just did what they were told.
	Here you go.
	I know it's not the same thing.
	But the point I'm bringing up is that when you get someone in power who says they have the right to do something, and the law enforcement agents or the soldiers or whatever just say, okay, you've got very serious problems, perhaps what we need to instill in our law enforcement to protect ourselves from things that could actually be compared to World War II, because this certainly couldn't, But perhaps what we need to do to protect ourselves from this rampant abuse of power by people who blindly break the law, and mind you, the police officers who are going around arresting people, they're breaking the law.
	When you arrest someone for protesting or worshipping, you are breaking the law.
	I'm not saying statutory law, I'm talking about the Constitution, the law of the land, right?
	I know some legal experts will probably argue with me, I'm not a lawyer.
	But maybe we need these officers to function under the courts, or something to that effect.
	Someone who won't give them direct orders.
	So when Governor Gretchen Whitmer says, from now on you can't do this, the police turn to a judge immediately and say, what's the ruling?
	Because you can't just, I don't, you know, maybe it doesn't make sense.
	The point of the executive branch, I don't know, the states are somewhat different, is to be able to respond rapidly.
	But for police officers to just be like, well, we understand the Constitution says the government's not allowed to do it.
	We're gonna do it anyway!
	Well, that can't work, can it?
	So, at a certain point I wonder, do we even have a Constitution anymore?
	I mean, you can argue the Supreme Court rules on things.
	Look, man, the Constitution is a piece of Swiss cheese right now.
	I'm not trying to disrespect it.
	I think it's fantastic.
	I think it's a piece of Swiss cheese.
	I've argued in the past, I mean, times change.
	They really, really do.
	And it does make sense to fairly reassess where we are with the current Constitution.
	And we've done that.
	And we do that.
	It's called amendments.
	We've made many.
	And many are very awesome.
	But right now, you have to wonder about shall not be infringed.
	The right of the people to peaceably assemble, the right to bear arms.
	The Third Amendment never really comes up.
	You know, what is that?
	To be free from soldiers from quartering in your house or whatever?
	The Fourth Amendment?
	All these things are being violated.
	And again, I've been critical of Brett Kavanaugh over his stance on the Fourth Amendment.
	I feel it's very archaic.
	Not understanding the true depth of how the internet and metadata and all these things work.
	But that's a whole other debate.
	The point is, Does it even matter at this point if they're going to keep arguing they can infringe?
	So we end up with a Supreme Court who says, well, in this particular instance, this isn't infringement.
	We're going to take away some of your rights.
	I mean, it strictly says the right to do this isn't, but we're going to interpret it differently.
	It's like they're looking at it, scratching their head, saying, what does shall not be infringed mean?
	Well, look, and a lot of people you'll see on the left, and I made this mistake in the past too, say that you can't yell fire in a crowded theater.
	Apparently you can.
	That's just a misconception.
	You have your free speech.
	So, look, people are defying these orders.
	They're falling apart.
	And so what I find strange in this whole thing is that, you know, you've got in Florida, you've got in New York, you've got in Los Angeles, people are ignoring these orders.
	They don't care.
	But then you see these business owners in these specific states in Texas and Michigan, and they're getting fined and targeted for this.
	Meanwhile, people have basically stopped abiding by this in other states as well.
	It's just not working.
	I know a lot of states are slowly starting to reopen, so that's the best part.
	I guess this stuff won't really matter.
	But I want to make sure that we stand up to authoritarians who try to extend their authority and power, demanding you apologize to them.
	The salon owner.
	She's in violation of the law.
	Fine.
	Well, actually, she's not.
	She's in violation of governor decree, which I wouldn't respect.
	And the judge said, I'll fine you for it.
	Okay.
	Okay, fine.
	All right.
	I get that.
	But then threatening her with jail time for not apologizing.
	That's tyranny.
	Apologize to me.
	Or else.
unidentified		Nope.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Sorry, buddy.
		Ain't gonna happen.
		So we'll see how this plays out, but I'll leave it there.
		Stick around.
		Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
		on this channel, and I will see you all then.
		There's no other way to put it.
		The Democratic Party is in complete chaos.
		It is lying in shambles, and all of these people are panicking.
		The progressive wing is currently attacking the presumptive nominee, Joe Biden, and the only real weapon the Democratic establishment had, Russia, is now falling apart.
		And I know it's stupid to say, because we went through years of Russia conspiracy nonsense, only to have the Mueller probe conclude there was no collusion.
		But now we are about to see the release of transcripts, which, according to Fox News, will show that the House Intelligence Committee and Adam Schiff, the Democrats, knew there was no collusion.
		Now, I know it seems redundant.
		We've been here before.
		We all know there isn't collusion.
		But keep in mind, Adam Schiff has repeatedly said he has seen the evidence more than circumstantial.
		He has repeatedly made these claims, and so is Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats, saying all roads lead to Putin.
		Even up until earlier this year, the Democrats were using Russia, arguing that Trump and the Ukrainegate investigation and the impeachment over it was all leading to Russia.
		But now we know that from interviews conducted in 2017 and 2018, they found nothing.
		And we've been waiting years for these to get released.
		So why did they keep trying to push the lie?
		Well, let's be real.
		Because they don't have anything.
		And they never did.
		Now, Devin Nunes, the Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, the lead Republican, says that Democrats were actually trying to cover this up.
		Now, of course, there's partisanship here.
		They'll accuse that.
		But I got to say, man, I've got some articles where even after the conclusion of the Mueller report, Adam Schiff is going around saying there is evidence and they still tried using this claim.
		Their presumptive nominee is a mess, a complete disaster.
		They're talking about removing this guy.
		Maybe rumors are circulating.
		And now the craziest thing, the progressives are in line with Republicans on the narrative pertaining to Russia.
		I kid you not.
		Jacobin, the socialist magazine, is saying it was actually the Democrats that were pushing Kremlin disinformation, and we know it.
		That's how bad it's gotten for Democrats.
		You've lost the progressives.
		They are now in line on certain issues with the Republicans on this one.
		So yeah, when a senior administration official comes out and says Democrats are panicking, or Adam Schiff is in panic mode, I'm inclined to agree.
		I mean, look, I get it.
		I got a ton of videos where I'm like, Democrats are panicking, Democrats are panning, but I kid you not, they're often panicking.
		I don't know how else to describe it.
		When you actually have people coming out saying, we know Joe Biden's guilty of the allegations against him, we're going to vote for him anyway, or maybe we got to pull him.
		You're six months out from an election, man, and you can't get your narrative straight.
		And now more evidence is coming out showing you lied?
		Talk about chaos.
		Before we read the news, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
		There are several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video!
		Look, man.
		CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, they get propped up.
		They get front page access.
		If you like the work that I do and think I do a good job sharing this video, it really is the best thing you can do.
		Because no matter what the algorithms can do, your direct sharing is more powerful.
		But if you just want to watch, make sure you hit the subscribe button, the like button, the notification bell, and then maybe that'll be enough for YouTube to actually recommend my videos to you.
		But otherwise, let's just jump into the story.
		Fox News says, sources say, Russia probe transcripts affirm officials came up empty on collusion.
		Schiff is in panic mode.
		I can't believe I'm reading this story.
		You'd think the Mueller probe would be enough.
		So you know what?
		As much as I didn't care to actually do a full segment on this, let's just be honest.
		Perhaps now, having more evidence from the House Intelligence Committee, this will be enough to put Russiagate to rest.
		Oh, they're trying to still use it.
		Fox says transcripts of House Intelligence Committee interviews that have been cleared
		for release show top law enforcement and intelligence officials affirming they had no evidence of
	collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election, senior administration
	and intelligence community officials told Fox News on Wednesday.
	This would align with the results of former special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation,
	which found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between President Trump, the
	Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.
	But the numerous transcribed interviews could raise further questions about committee chairman Adam Schiff's past statements, saying that there was direct evidence of collusion.
	Quote, Schiff is in panic mode.
	Earlier this week, House Republicans sought over 6,000 pages of transcripts pertaining to interviews conducted by the committee in 2017 and 2018 after the panel in September 2018 voted on a bipartisan basis to approve their public release.
	A day later, Acting Director of National Intelligence Richard Grinnell notified Schiff that the redaction and declassification process was complete and the records were ready for release, putting the ball in Schiff's court.
	Here's the question I have.
	If they knew, after 53 interviews at least, that there was no evidence of collusion, why did the Mueller probe have to extend into 2019?
	Well, because of more leaked memos, or I shouldn't say leaked, but released memos, we're now learning that, for the most part, it seems the Mueller probe wasn't about collusion.
	It was a phishing expedition, meaning they were just looking for crime, something they could get them on.
	Now, we all saw the controversy with Michael Flynn.
	They were trying to get him to lie.
	Get him to lie so we can get him fired, they said.
	Look, man, if you want to accuse Flynn of lying, by all means, the Washington Post still is.
	Let's talk about it.
	If you want to argue there was legitimate crimes that need to be investigated, okay, I'm listening.
	But if the scope of the Mueller probe, as we're learning now, From this DOJ scope memo, it went well beyond the mandate of just Russia.
	They were just digging.
	They were confidential informants trying to—it sounds like they're trying to set people up.
	And if they were just trying to get Michael Flynn fired, That's what the note said.
	Get him fired.
	That has nothing to do with law enforcement.
	Then when you add in the fact that in these interviews there was no evidence, what was really going on?
	Now look, we can argue about rogue FBI agents and all that stuff, but the scope of this video is how the Democrats used this as a weapon, even into 2019.
	So they had interviews from 2017, 2018, and Schiff knew!
	And what did Adam Schiff say?
	Oh, man.
	Ample evidence of collusion in plain sight in April of 2019.
	How about this one?
	Schiff says there is direct evidence of collusion between Trump campaign and Russia.
	Oh, we heard it all.
	And then on December 7th, 2019, all roads lead to Putin.
	Impeachment ties, Ukraine, Russia.
	Are you kidding me?
	The Mueller probe wasn't enough?
	How many times did I talk about this?
	Hey, the Mueller probe says no evidence of collusion.
	Let's not try to impeach the president over what you're accusing him of.
	Now we know that they have unreleased transcripts.
	It goes well beyond just what Mueller said.
	Take a look at this story.
	From back in December, House Democrats are bringing the impeachment focus back to Russia as they draft formal charges against President Donald Trump.
	Are you serious?
	And from this, what do we get?
	Op-eds in the New York Times with Trump.
	All roads lead to Moscow.
	Monday's congressional hearing and the inspector general's report tell a similar story.
	But unfortunately, for us, it was fake news.
	We had to endure all of this nonsense.
	And they still want to use it.
	They still want to claim Trump-Russia.
	Yeah, well, that narrative has collapsed.
	And now I have absolutely no trust in any of these people.
	Fox News goes on to say, intelligence officials told Fox News on Wednesday that Schiff has had
	his subcommittee staff director reaching out to heads of intelligence community agencies,
	asking how Grenell was involved and what role Grenell, a known Trump ally, may have played in
	the declassification and redaction process. Fox News is told, however, that the redactions were
	completed before Grenell took the helm as acting director this past Friday.
	Seems like Schiff was going to try and play the, oh, he's selectively redacting narrative, and he still may.
	The process, according to an intelligence community official, took place under both former directors Dan Coats and Joseph Maguire, and was conducted by career intelligence officials.
	The official also told Fox News that the relevant heads of appropriate agencies were consulted on the declassifications and redactions of all 53 transcripts.
	Grenell, in a letter to Schiff dated May 4th, wrote that the review of 43 of the 53 transcripts was completed in June 2019, and that the interagency review of the remaining 10 transcripts has been completed.
	Pursuant to your guidance, these transcripts have not been shared with the White House.
	The remaining 10 transcripts included interviews with President Trump's eldest son, Trump Jr., former advisor Steve Bannon, the president's son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump aide Hope Hicks, and former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.
	Further, Grenell wrote Schiff that he was willing to release the transcripts directly from the office of the Director of National Intelligence as to ensure we comply with the unanimous and bipartisan vote to release the transcripts.
	It's unclear at this point when Grenell could release the transcripts.
	A House Intelligence Committee spokesman told Fox News on Wednesday that the panel received Grenell's letter on Tuesday.
	The panel, however, blamed the delay on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, saying after more than a year of unnecessary delay, the ODNI has finally concluded its protracted classification review of the committee's transcripts, and it also appears the White House has now abandoned its improper insistence on reviewing key transcripts, which the committee appropriately rejected.
	We are now reviewing the proposed redactions from the ODNI based on classifications, law enforcement sensitivity, or items ODNI requests before official use only.
	The spokesman added this process has already taken far too long, most notably because the ODNI improperly held up the declassification review and release of several transcripts at the request of the White House.
	They go on to say, Fox News says, the 53 transcripts eligible for release, according to a source familiar with the transcripts, included interviews with Trump Jr., Bannon, we read all that already.
	Also expected to be released, according to the source, transcripts for interviews with Obama officials.
	Now this is where Devin Nunes says that they're trying to cover things up.
	I'm sorry, that these Democrat officials are trying to cover things up.
	Two sources familiar with the transcripts told Fox News that not one of the 53 witnesses could provide evidence of collusion.
	The transcripts show a total lack of evidence, despite Schiff personally going out saying he had more than circumstantial evidence that there was collusion, one source involved in House Russia investigations told Fox News.
	Mueller similarly said the same thing.
	Well, we're seeing now from Devin Nunes, look for witnesses who were not so truthful in Russia investigation transcripts.
	Listen, I understand there's a back and forth right now.
	Adam Schiff is saying, oh, they were holding things up.
	Apparently Devin Nunes agreed the ODNI was dragging its feet.
	However, Devin Nunes made some claims about FISA abuse back in 2018, and he was, well, he was vindicated.
	Turns out there was.
	We saw what's going on with Michael Flynn, and it's curious why the media isn't all over this.
	You mean to tell me they were trying to get the guy fired?
	Seriously, go look at the notes.
	It was, get him to lie so we can get him fired or prosecute.
	I don't understand why law enforcement would be trying to get someone fired unless, of course, it was just an insurance policy to go after the Trump administration and jam him up.
	If we now see 53 witness statements and none of them provided any evidence, why would Adam Schiff go for Ukraine?
	Why would Nancy Pelosi claim it was Russia?
	Why would they use those lies?
	Obvious reasons.
	It's all about political power.
	I mean, right now we're seeing that in the polls, Joe Biden, he's actually still doing well, even though people know about the allegations made against him by a woman named Tara Reid.
	It doesn't matter.
	They don't care.
	I can appreciate them now finally coming out in the New York Times and admitting it, saying, you know what, we know this happened, but we're gonna vote for him anyway.
	What they did, what the Democrats did, With Donald Trump and Russia was all about power.
	The story was absurd on its face.
	There was no evidence.
	They knew there was no evidence.
	Their witnesses provided no evidence, yet still for years and even for the year after the Mueller report, they claimed it existed and it didn't.
	And I shouldn't have to say it, but I do.
	Well, Devin Nunes says some of these people may have lied.
	The Washington Examiner has a quote from Nunes.
	There's not going to be any major bombshells in this, because the Democrats already leaked all the supposed bombshells and lied about those bombshells, he told Lou Dobbs.
	Schiff, who has stressed there was direct evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, is now in panic mode, a senior administration source told Fox News.
	The California Democrat signaled on Wednesday he would release 53 witness transcripts, which had been unanimously approved for release by the committee two years ago.
	Only after the ODNI, we know that part.
	Schiff's office pinned the blame on the Office of the Director of National Intelligence for the unnecessary wait, even as GOP lawmakers and Trump administration officials blamed Schiff.
	Nunes said the most interesting transcripts will be those of interviews with Obama administration officials, which he hinted will expose the Democrats covering this up.
	So perhaps in this regard, the reason they are in panic mode is because we're going to see them looking really, really bad.
	But you know what?
	I don't care.
	I'm sick and tired of the scandals and the nonsense.
	How many times do we have to say, there was nothing here?
	It's enough, right?
	How many times have people asked, will there be indictments?
	Will there be arrests?
	And so far, nothing.
	Do we have enough?
	Maybe?
	I don't know.
	Maybe the Durham investigation, for those that aren't familiar, it's a criminal probe into the origins of this, will uncover something.
	I'm not so confident.
	I'm willing to bet that nothing comes of that.
	That there will be a few low-ranking individuals no one's ever heard of, getting a slap on the wrist, and they'll say, ah, herp de derp, you know, whatever, and nothing will come of it.
	Because when have we ever seen anything come out of this?
	You know, people who work in government, they get away with these things.
	The examiner goes on to mention Obama administration officials like Ben Rhodes, Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, and Samantha Power, and Susan Rice, plus additional witnesses, and they say additional witnesses include Trump associates as well.
	I think for the good guy side and the real investigators that are trying to get to the bottom of the Russia hoax and who was involved in it, there will be likely people who are not so truthful to Congress, let's just say, Nunes added later.
	The Republicans, who were in command of the House Intelligence Committee at the time, released a report in April 2018 that said they found no collusion in their investigation into links between the Trump campaign and the Russians.
	Democrats argued the investigation was shut down prematurely.
	A year later, Robert Mueller said his team's investigation did not establish any criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin.
	So the House Intelligence Committee found nothing, yet we still saw certain Trump allies and individuals arrested for obstruction or interference or for lying.
	Yeah, you know what, man?
	I don't believe any of it.
	Well, Adam Schiff is saying he will now release these.
	So hopefully this will be enough for him to stop claiming there's evidence.
	And you know what?
	I gotta say, I think the only reason it's coming out now is because they've already given up the weapon.
	They used it in 2019.
	They tried to impeach Trump.
	That's what they claimed.
	It didn't work.
	And now they don't care anymore.
	They're moving on.
	Now they have the pandemic to blame on, you know, to blame Trump for.
	We can see how this has been their primary weapon in how they used it against Bernie Sanders.
	Back in March, they tried claiming that Bernie was being boosted by the Russians.
	Yeah, we get it.
	It's the only thing they really had.
	We're also now learning that George Papadopoulos says he's positive he knows who the FBI informant in his case was.
	The reason this is significant is because it looks like they were trying to set him up as well.
	Now, I understand there's a lot of context in the Papadopoulos case we're not going to get into in this video, but with more information now coming out, We know that the scope of the Mueller probe was well beyond just Russia.
	They were looking for crimes or crimes in general.
	It was a phishing expedition.
	They just wanted to make the Trump team look bad.
	And apparently they were.
	In this story about George Papadopoulos, apparently this informant was trying to get him to take a cell phone from him.
	Seems like he was being set up.
	I'm not going to play any conspiracy games.
	I don't know for sure.
	But the whole thing does look fishy.
	Now here's where it gets really bad for the Democrats.
	The only way they're going to win against Trump is with a coalition.
	Or so they believe.
	Maybe it's not true.
	Maybe they're wrong.
	Maybe they needed to win the moderates over and they gave them up.
	But right now, boy, do they look silly.
	Jacobin Magazine.
	I have increasingly seen articles from Jacobin, the socialist magazine, that's actually in line with Trump supporters.
	And I think the reason is, as I've stated before, is that populist versus elites.
	And the Democrats have, you know, I should say the progressives have lost their opportunity with Bernie Sanders.
	The Democratic establishment has won.
	Now the best bet for the progressives and the far left is to just, well, is to destroy the Democratic establishment by any means necessary.
	We know that they typically believe by any means necessary, so that probably means the enemy of my enemy is my friend to these people.
	So if Donald Trump and the Republicans are pointing the finger at the Democrats saying they're lying and manipulating you, why wouldn't the progressives hop on board?
	Anything to disrupt the establishment.
	Now, when Bernie Sanders was a contender, they blocked this.
	They argued against it.
	Not completely, but to a certain degree.
	Now that Bernie Sanders is out, and they don't really care for Bernie, mind you, they care for the ideas, their only bet right now is to disrupt the establishment and then try again with a new leftist or progressive.
	Jacobin writes, Democrats and mainstream media were the real Kremlin assets.
	Go ahead and laugh.
	Newly declassified sections of a Justice Department report suggest that the Russiagate conspiracy theory may itself have been part of a Kremlin disinformation campaign.
	They say Russiagate has always been a farce.
	Always!
	Wow.
	But even its most ardent skeptics couldn't have predicted just how absurd the scandal would become.
	Now, to be fair, progressives like Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept and the other reporters there have long maintained Russiagate was fake news, and they have long targeted the Democratic establishment.
	But there were many fake progressives, I suppose you could say, that ignored it or played the game.
	Now we're seeing Jacobin, of all people, come out and just saying it was always fake news.
	This is where it gets really bad for the Democrats, because their alliance with the left, their desperate attempt to win them over, to defeat Donald Trump, is over.
	They never cared about you, the progressives.
	They never cared for the Democratic establishment.
	They don't care for Joe Biden, and they're not going to vote for him.
	Some might.
	There's overlap.
	Nothing's absolute.
	But now they're coming for you.
	And they'll use whatever weapon they have available.
	And if that means calling you out for playing into this conspiracy nonsense and being a tool of the Kremlin, so they say, they'll do it.
	Case in point, newly unredacted footnotes from the Department of Justice Inspector General's report on the FBI's collusion-related spying on Trump contacts now strongly suggests that the SEAL dossier was itself the product of Russian disinformation.
	When the socialists are defending Trump, you know you're in trouble.
	Man.
	We also have this story from The Nation.
	These questions for Mueller show why Russiagate was never the answer.
	And this is from Aaron Maté.
	So I'll be absolutely fair.
	Aaron Maté is one of the journalists who has long called this out.
	Well, I wonder.
	I wonder why it is the media remains silent.
	Well, as we've seen from Jacobin, if you want to trust the socialists, the media and the Democrats were playing the game for the Russians.
	Or just lying.
	Now Judge Napolitano, a frequent Trump critic, has said, Republicans are absolutely right to demand investigation into FBI's handling of the Flynn case.
	Napolitano's, uh, he's a good dude.
	He often disagrees with Trump.
	He calls Trump out and here he's saying, nah, sorry.
	Look, I know it's Fox News, but he's saying the handling of the Flynn case raises questions and it should be looked into.
	That I can respect.
	One thing I find truly, truly confusing.
	This is a story from the Chicago Tribune.
	The Kavanaugh-Biden double standard and an appalling lack of curiosity over Michael Flynn.
	The reason I'm bringing up Flynn is because it's just more evidence coming out that everything the Democrats had been saying about Russia was wrong, was a lie, was manipulation, that rogue actors in the FBI were targeting this man.
	And the Democrats had evidence none of it was true.
	But they kept saying they did.
	And so what I find confusing is that we don't get any real journal... Well, I say that, but I'm being kind of facetious.
	Like, I obviously understand why the media won't cover this.
	But it's interesting nonetheless.
	In an op-ed, in a column for the Tribune, the appalling lack of curiosity over Michael Flynn.
	In it, John Cass says, What happened with Flynn is, of course, open to interpretation.
	The best place for it all to come out isn't in news columns or cable TV, but in federal court.
	Perhaps it will, with indictments to follow.
	This story needs a wide telling, but it's not being widely told.
	America is still wrestling with the virus.
	The economy is ruined.
	A depression looms.
	Joblessness lead to drug and alcohol abuse, domestic battery, misery, fear, and suicide.
	That is a crisis.
	Your candidate not winning an election is not a crisis.
	Now the people desperately require confidence in the information given them by journalists in Washington.
	Information they'll need to reorder their lives and maintain the Republic and their rights.
	Political tribalism and a lack of curiosity doesn't help.
	You don't need a hospital x-ray to tell you what's broken.
	Those two stories, the one about Biden and Kavanaugh and the other about Mike Flynn, protrude from the skin like jagged bones and painfully tell you what you need to know.
	That's the Chicago Tribune, man.
	So I don't know if the Democrats were really covering things up.
	I mean, like Nunes said, I think it's fair to say that Schiff-Pelosi lied.
	And the Democrats are freaking out now because the truth is about to come out.
	But I also don't know if it matters.
	Because what we learn from this, and the reason I bring this up, is that they have allies in media.
	Allies that will always protect them.
	That will drag Joe Biden as close as they can get to the finish line, even though the man is clearly not there.
	But, they're in shambles.
	They're in chaos.
	They're panicking.
	I don't even know if it's fair to say they're panicking anymore.
	Not because I think they're not panicking.
	I think because they're consistently always panicking.
	Everything they're doing right now is frantic, panic, and chaos.
	So what am I going to do?
	Just say in every single video, oh, looks like they're panicking again?
	Yeah, it really does get boring.
	But when the senior administration officials are saying they're panicking, when evidence is now going to come out showing that even up till December or January of this year they were lying about Russia, I think it's a fair bet.
	And when Joe Biden's the nominee, when the socialists and the progressives are not coming out against you, lining up with Donald Trump, this could be it.
	The last vestige of the establishment.
	The Republicans being defeated by Trump, now in the Democratic Party, are seeing their last ditch effort fail.
	Russia.
	Finally.
	You know what?
	I won't be too confident, though.
	Well, this may be evidence that they've been pushing lies.
	We already had evidence that they were lying before, and that wasn't enough, was it?
	So maybe they'll just keep going.
	I don't know, but I'll leave it there.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
	It is a different channel from this one, and I will see you all there.
	A couple of months ago, a man named Ahmed Arbery was shot and killed.
	And if you follow only progressive sources, they would tell you that two white men hunted him down and killed him in cold blood.
	And I will tell you 100% that is fake news.
	Why?
	Because I've seen the video that's circulating.
	While I'm not saying there's, you know, one side is innocent, one side is guilty, I'm telling you the narrative being pushed by many on the left is just fake news.
	It is sensationalized.
	It is framing.
	And we have ourselves a complicated story.
	But based on the video I've seen, based on the statements I've read, I am inclined to believe that while this is a horrifying tragedy, I do not believe it is a story of two white men who chased and ran down a man based on his race or anything like that.
	There's actually good reason, according to the New York Times, to suggest these men actually did have a reason to believe that Ahmaud Arbery had committed a crime.
	I won't bury the lead on you.
	According to the New York Times, Officials have stated there is a video showing this man, Arbery, or at least the person, that's who they suspected he was, the person on video burglarizing a home.
	And someone apparently called 911 saying that a black man in a white t-shirt was inside of a property, a semi-constructed building, and then started running.
	There is reason to believe that these men, knowing these things, went after him.
	Now, in a video that's gone viral, which I cannot show for obvious reasons, you see a car following this guy.
	He's running down the street.
	They said he was just jogging or whatever.
	I'll read through the full breakdown of the story, but you actually see Arbery run up to the truck with the white men, the two white men, and then turn hard left, and then you see the two men fighting over a shotgun.
	In the DA's statement made as he recused himself, because the potential conflicts of interest, which we'll get to as well, He breaks down their findings on how this went down.
	And according to the video I have seen, and according to the statement released, which I believe to be consistent, and you can watch the video for yourself, it appears that in the struggle over the shotgun, Arbery was shot and killed.
	This was not an instance of a man taking aim as he ran or fled and shooting him down.
	It was a fight over a shotgun.
	Arbery was punching the man with the weapon, and it apparently grabbed at the barrel.
	And because of this, and because of the struggle, I ended up getting shot and killed.
	I'm not going to pretend that, you know, there's a bunch of arguments to be made, okay?
	You can argue them.
	Should these men have gone off and chased Arbery?
	That's not an argument I will make.
	Should Arbery have turned around and run away the other direction?
	Not an argument I'm interested in.
	I'll make my arguments at the end of this, but what I want to do is break down the media, the framing, and what we can try and piece together to the best of our abilities.
	The Daily Mail says, and I'm not going to use it as a source, I'm going to use the New York Times.
	White man who chased and shot dead unarmed black jogger Ahmed Arbery with his son is an ex-cop whose law enforcement links caused two prosecutors to recuse themselves as victim's mom says police are protecting him because he is one of them.
	I believe there is a potential conflict of interest.
	But it doesn't seem to be the case.
	The argument is that the man's son works for a DA's office where someone else had retired.
	I'll read it, I'll read it.
	I'm not going to use the Daily Mail, but I'm showing you this because I want you to see how they're framing it.
	Chased and shot dead unarmed black jogger removes so much context.
	Now I'm sure progressives would argue this doesn't go far enough.
	They would argue the headline should read, you know, two white supremacists chased down, blah, blah, blah.
	And actually, that's what they're already trying to say, that these men were white supremacists.
	Now, a bunch of celebrities have come out, made their statements.
	Protests have erupted.
	Looking forward to seeing the media call out the protests for breaking social distancing and not wearing masks.
	Of course, that won't happen.
	And we can see Joe Biden saying it was cold-blooded murder.
	Absolutely Irresponsible, horrible leadership from Joe Biden.
	And what do you expect?
	Okay, we need to make sure we approach this in a calm and reasonable manner to make sure justice is found for whoever is deserving of it.
	Naturally, we are dealing with a horrifying situation.
	And the last thing we need is a presidential candidate to ignore The video is clear, Biden.
	They were fighting over a weapon.
	By all means, you can argue.
	Some have that Ahmed was defending himself, that he has a right to jog down the street.
	These guys had weapons, so he defended himself.
	You can make that argument.
	Fine.
	The point is, this was not cold blood.
	That is absolutely incorrect.
	Even if this was a case of two morons chasing this guy down, a fight broke out over the weapon, resulting in the death of a man.
	Clearly, you can say there was potential manslaughter, but clearly not murder.
	At least as far as I can tell.
	But of course, all of the usual suspects coming out, Bernie Sanders, the men who murdered Ahmaud Arbery must be held accountable.
	Beto O'Rourke says I would ask why the killers aren't already in jail.
	LeBron James saying we're hunted every day.
	My question is why it's taken two months?
	Why is this story just now emerging?
	Who benefits from shifting the narrative in the press?
	The answer is simple.
	The press.
	Media has found a sensational story.
	They're going to start pumping it up.
	They're going to put it in the hands of politicians and celebrities, and the politicians will benefit from it.
	They'll all make money.
	It is an incestuous relationship.
	And you've got to be careful, because if you really want to know what's going on in this world, you can't just jump on these articles.
	You've got to dig in.
	And the problem is, for most of you, it's not your job to do this.
	So most people end up reading one or two articles thinking they know what happened, and even I don't know what happened, and I've read many articles including the DA's statement and the police report.
	I can tell you I have a general idea and opinion based on reading all these things, but if you think you know, you are wrong.
	The conservatives don't know, the progressives don't know, nobody knows except for the people who were there and they are pleading their case.
	Now, unfortunately, With situations like this, the man who died can't speak, and that creates a serious bias in how things get reported.
	Fortunately, though, we do have a video which provides more context.
	You know, there have been many circumstances where somebody is shot and killed, then the people who get to make a statement in defense are the ones who lived.
	That does create a problem in trying to understand what's happening.
	LeBron James chimed in.
	I think we have something here from the NAACP saying that, what did they say?
	Ahmed Arbery was running in his neighborhood and was chased and murdered by two white supremacists.
	That is, as far as I can tell, the most irresponsible and absurd lie.
	Perhaps they are.
	Perhaps I'm wrong about that, fine.
	But nothing I've seen suggests these men were simply going out and targeting the guy because of his race.
	Now here's where it all gets very interesting.
	Two weapons, a chase, a killing, and no charges from the New York Times.
	A 25-year-old man running through a Georgian neighborhood ended up dead.
	A prosecutor argued that the pursuers should not be arrested.
	That's right.
	He did.
	The prosecutor's argument was that it was the fight over the weapon that resulted in the death of Arbery, and therefore it is essentially an accidental death with different sets of circumstances.
	Notably, that these two men asked Arbery to stop because they had seen footage of a man burglarizing a home.
	But there's more, there's more.
	So some have argued that their citizen's arrest attempt was not legal because these two men didn't have immediate knowledge of a crime.
	But immediate knowledge of a crime is going to be argued in court, I'm sure.
	If these guys actually get indicted by the grand jury, then there will be the prosecutor arguing, seeing footage of a previous crime does not give you the right to stop someone jogging through a neighborhood.
	It'll be argued.
	But there's... Listen.
	This is how courts work.
	A jury will hear.
	There will be an argument.
	It doesn't mean it's definitive one way or another.
	Here's what they say.
	Ahmed Arbery loved to run.
	It was how the 25-year-old former high school football student standout stayed fit, his friends said, and it was not unusual to see him running around the outskirts of the small coastal Georgia city near where he lived.
	But on Sunday afternoon in February, as Mr. Arbery ran through a suburban neighborhood of ranch houses and moss-draped oaks, he passed a man standing in his front yard, who later told the police that Mr. Arbery looked like the suspect in a string of break-ins.
	According to a police report, the man, Gregory Michael, 64, called out to his son, Travis McMichael, 34.
	They grabbed their weapons, a .357 Magnum revolver and a shotgun, jumped into a truck, and began following Mr. Arbery.
	Stop, stop, they shouted at Mr. Arbery, we want to talk to you.
	Moments later, after a struggle over the shotgun, Mr. Arbery was killed, shot at least twice.
	No one has been charged or arrested in connection with the February 23rd killing.
	The case has received little attention beyond Brunswick, but it has raised questions in the community about racial profiling.
	Mr. Arbery was black, and the father and son are white, and about the interpretation of the state's self-defense laws.
	However, this is not a racial profiling incident necessarily, because there is, according to the officials, video of a man, match in the description, burglarizing a home.
	You can argue that simply because they used the color of his skin as a descriptor, there was potentially racial profiling, but I don't believe that's fair.
	If someone said a 6 foot 3, 200 pound white man was seen running, you would be looking for a white man.
	If they saw video footage of a person who matched the description, and they saw this person running, they would make that assumption.
	But it does get interesting.
	Let's move down.
	I want to get specifically to, well, let's just keep reading.
	According to documents obtained by the New York Times, a prosecutor who had the case for a few
	weeks told the police that the pursuers had acted within the scope of Georgia's citizens
	arrest statute and that Travis McMichael, who held the shotgun, had
	Seriously, watch the video.
	I can't show it to you.
	It's up everywhere.
	Watch the video.
	And decide for yourself.
	I'm not saying anyone is innocent or guilty.
	self-defense. It may have been just because they were fighting over the shotgun that Arbery
	may have caused it to go off. You can see this in the video, man. Seriously, watch the
	video. I can't show it to you. It's up everywhere. Watch the video and decide for yourself. I'm
	not saying anyone is innocent or guilty. You need to watch the video.
	The police report does not mention whether Mr. Arbery was in possession of a weapon.
	Attempts to reach Gregory McMichael, a retired investigator in the DA's office, were unsuccessful.
	In a brief phone conversation, Travis McMichael, who runs a company that gives custom boat tours, declined to comment, citing the continuing investigation.
	The prosecutor who wrote the letter George E. Barnhill, the DA for Georgia's Waycross Judicial Court, recused himself from the case this month after Mr. Arbery's family complained that he had a conflict of interest.
	A prosecutor from another county is now in charge and will determine whether the case should be presented to a grand jury.
	And my understanding is that it will be going to a grand jury.
	They say in and around Brunswick, activists and allies of Mr. Arbery's family are doing what they can to organize online.
	They have started a Facebook page and coordinated a pressure campaign, emailing law enforcement officials and the local newspaper.
	There are hashtags, I run with Maud, and justice for Ahmaud, and t-shirts have been printed.
	Let's move down.
	They say Mr. Arbery was killed in Satilla Shores, a quiet middle-class enclave that abuts a network of marshlands about 15 minutes from downtown Brunswick and a short jog from Mr. Arbery's neighborhood.
	His friends and family said they believe that Mr. Arbery, who was wearing a white t-shirt, khaki shorts, Nike sneakers, and a bandana when he was killed, had been out exercising.
	Everybody in the community knows he runs, said Mr. Vaughn, who said he saw Mr. Arbery jogging in the streets a few months ago.
	Mr. Vaughn said that he himself had raised suspicions by jogging through his own neighborhood in the suburbs of Brunswick, recalling a recent instance in which a white woman followed him in a van.
	But others contend that Mr. Arborio was up to no good.
	On the day of the shooting, And apparently, moments before the chase, a neighbor in Satilla Shores called 911, telling the dispatcher that a black man in a white t-shirt was inside a house that was under construction and only partially closed in.
	And he's running right now, the man told the dispatcher.
	There he goes right now.
	In his letter to the police, Mr. Barnhill, the prosecutor, noted that Mr. Arbery had a criminal past.
	Court records show that Mr. Arbery was convicted of shoplifting and of violating probation in 2018, five years earlier.
	According to the Brunswick News, he was indicted on charges that he took a handgun to a high school basketball game.
	Still, even if Mr. Arbery committed a property crime on the afternoon he was killed, activists and family members said it would not have warranted a chase by armed neighbors.
	neighbors.
	This incident was at least a case of overly zealous citizens that wrongfully profiled
	the victim without cause, Mr. Perry wrote in an email.
	These men felt justified in taking the law in their own hands.
	Now, whether or not you want to argue they wrongfully profiled the victims, my opinion is that it's not necessarily true.
	I wouldn't argue that they wrongfully profiled anybody if you have a 911 call and footage, which we'll get to in a second.
	However, I do think it's fair to say they were overly zealous to load up, you know, grab some weapons, jump in a pickup, and drive after a guy, instead of slowly and calmly following, perhaps, and calling law enforcement, or just calling law enforcement, period.
	Mr. Cooper, Mr. Arbery's mother, I'm sorry, Miss Cooper, Arbery's mother, said she believed the man had judged her son by his skin color and she does not believe he committed any crimes that day.
	If he had, she said, he should have been handled by the police.
	I agree with that.
	He should have been handled by the police.
	And I know that some people will say, look, you got to defend your home, your property.
	Really should let this one fall into the hands of the policemen.
	You gotta be careful about this stuff.
	You can argue that you have a right to defend yourself, defend your property, defend your neighborhood, but I think they made a mistake in going out the way they did, and it ended with someone losing their life.
	Because even if you want to argue, and I think it's fair to say, that Arbery lost his life in a scuffle over a shotgun, man, nobody deserves to lose their life because they committed a property offense.
	That's a fair, fair point.
	However, in the video you can see Arbery and the man are fighting.
	Some have argued that Arbery was defending himself.
	But I gotta say, man, look, if there are people with guns yelling at you to stop, in the video you see Arbery run to them.
	Look, the dude got into a fight.
	He ran towards a fight.
	You gotta choose your battles.
	Perhaps he was scared.
	These guys are in a truck.
	They have weapons.
	He couldn't do anything about it.
	But my question is, in what world would someone run towards two armed men yelling at you to stop when you have the chance to run away?
	Now, according to the story, when they first approached him, he did run away.
	And then the truck tried to head him off.
	But he still ran towards the truck.
	got into a fight with Travis in the front of the vehicle, and then according to the DA report,
	the gun went off at least two or three times, and two of the shots hit him, once in the hand where
	he was grabbing the weapon, and then once in the upper left part of his body, I believe,
	which may have killed him. Let's read more.
	Ms. Cooper pushed Mr. Barnhill, a veteran prosecutor, to recuse himself from the case
	after she learned that his son works in the Brunswick District Attorney's Office,
	which had previously employed Gregory McMichael. The Brunswick District Attorney,
	Jackie Johnson recused herself early on, also because Mr.
	McMichael had worked in her office.
	Okay, so that makes sense.
	Let's go through that again.
	She had learned that Mr. Barnhill has a son who works in the same office where McMichael worked.
	She believes they are kinships.
	Now, the DA has denied this, but as such, Mr. Barnhill wrote, he had decided to step away from the case.
	Respectable and the right thing to do, in my opinion.
	Mr. Barnhill also wrote that he did not believe there was evidence of a crime, noting that Gregory McMichael and his son had been legally carrying their weapons under Georgia law, and because Mr. Arbery was a burglary suspect, the pursuers, who had solid first-hand probable cause, were justified in chasing him under the state's citizen's arrest laws.
	In a separate document, Mr. Barnhill stated that video exists of Mr. Arbery burglarizing a home immediately preceding the chase and confrontation.
	In a letter to the police, he cites a separate video of the shooting filmed by the third pursuer.
	Now, we got to stop here.
	This man has recused himself.
	But I think it would be a bold assertion that this man is lying about the existence of evidence.
	He has definitively stated, Mr. Arbery, on video, burglarized a home.
	If that's the case, then these two men, perhaps, According to the statute, with knowledge of this crime, were justified in seeking a citizen's arrest.
	I still think it was wrong of them to do.
	And the result of what happened is evidence that it was wrong of them to do.
	You gotta be careful, man.
	You gotta choose your battles.
	Because I'll tell you what, man, there's a story that I tell people from when I was a kid.
	I'll simplify it.
	But basically, there's a man and his wife, and some dude walks up, and he starts hitting on the wife.
	We'll call it Man A and Man B. Man B is hitting on Man A's wife.
	Man A gets angry.
	Man B punches Man A, who falls back, hits his head, and dies.
	The guy didn't mean to kill him.
	He was just... They got into a fight.
	But now Man B goes to prison for killing Man A. There's a lot of more details, but that's the gist of it.
	Is that you might have... Well, you could theoretically have bad intentions like Man B, but man, when you get into a fight, you have to recognize that this could end much worse than you realize.
	There's a video I love.
	of a martial arts instructor explaining how the guaranteed technique to always win a fight,
	the one ultimate move that will make sure you never lose.
	And he gets all ready and he breathes and he does that martial arts movement, everybody's
	gathered around watching, waiting, and then he turns around and runs full speed in the
	other direction.
	And then everyone laughs and claps and he comes back in and he points out that any fight
	you can avoid is a fight you've won.
	It should be a last resort.
	Now I understand these men, apparently according to the prosecutor, had seen evidence.
	This was the guy.
	Look, man.
	I don't think it was the right move.
	I don't.
	This dude didn't deserve to lose his life over this.
	I'm not saying he was a good guy, you know, if he was committing crimes.
	I'm not saying he did either, but they're saying the evidence exists.
	I'll wait for that to be seen.
	All I know is I've seen a video where a fight breaks out, and I'll tell you what, man.
	You gotta choose your battles.
	For both the men in the vehicle and for Arbery.
	I didn't understand why Arbery ran to the truck.
	I don't get it.
	Honestly, I don't understand.
	And that's the issue.
	No one does.
	You don't, I don't.
	Perhaps it was wrong of him to do.
	Perhaps they had chased him enough to where he finally said, I gotta stop these guys.
	I have no idea.
	But I'll tell you what, man.
	I'd run into the woods.
	I'd get away from the dudes with the guns.
	That's just me.
	Hindsight is 20-20.
	I can't fault this guy for not knowing or thinking the things that I do.
	I can say, if two people are fighting over a weapon, it is not cold-blooded murder.
	They are going to twist this on you.
	They are going to make it this big protest moment.
	They are going to steal the news cycle.
	There could be wrongdoing.
	But it really does seem, at the end of the day, this was the worst of the worst in terms of just, you know, bad circumstances.
	These two guys had good intentions.
	Based on the evidence I've seen, just the video, Arbery seems to have just been running down the street, and I will make no claims against him.
	I've seen no evidence.
	And a fight broke out.
	And in the fight, Arbery got shot and killed.
	That's not murder, okay?
	You want to argue everything else.
	You want to argue he was committing burglary?
	I can argue back he didn't deserve to die over it, and that's true.
	I'm sorry, man.
	Anybody who thinks that a guy who's already left... Listen, what you got to understand about self-defense is that control matters.
	If you catch someone in your home and they pose a threat to you, That I understand.
	Unfortunately, you put yourself in that position.
	But a man walking, you know, running down the street is not in a position to directly threaten anybody.
	So this confrontation results in a loss of life that could have been avoided.
	I understand it's easy for me to say.
	You know, I didn't know what was going on.
	I haven't been there.
	So that's why I'm trying to reserve judgment for the most part.
	This is how people fall into a trap, like Covington.
	You see a video, you make an assumption about what it is.
	You read a news article, you make an assumption about what it is.
	I can tell you this.
	The people who are coming out and saying cold-blooded murder are full of it.
	They are playing politics.
	They are trying to rally a cause, rally a base.
	And these two guys, they're going to pay the price of public opinion.
	Public opinion is terrifying.
	It doesn't believe in due process.
	It doesn't believe in constitutional authority.
	And you will get thrown away if the lynch mob comes out with pitchforks and torches.
	So I used that phrase on purpose to make a point.
	Now everyone's getting all offended.
	But that's the point, man.
	Whether or not these guys deserve it, I'm not asserting.
	I will say that public opinion is going to convict them no matter what they do.
	We can argue about all the other instances, all the other unarmed men who have been killed, but I want you right now to just do one thing for me.
	Read this.
	Don't necessarily trust anybody.
	Trust yourself.
	Watch the video.
	What I will say is, if the now-recused prosecutor is saying that video exists of Arbery burglarizing a home, it stands to reason these guys had probable cause to perform a citizen's arrest if they knew this.
	More importantly, anyone who asserts this man is lying is pushing a conspiracy.
	Conspiracies happen.
	Absolutely.
	But I'm not going to play that game.
	If the prosecutor is saying we have evidence, that's a bold, bold statement to make.
	What are they going to do in a week?
	Be like, oops, we lost it.
	I mean, maybe it's happened, but nah, I don't think so.
	I think the video likely exists.
	And I think we're dealing with an overhyped politicized situation.
	And I think we'll do our best to just leave it at that.
	We have the link to the DA's statement.
	I'm sorry, this is the police report from the officer who arrived.
	And it all seems consistent with what I watched in the initial video that was released.
	Perhaps they'll release the footage of the burglary.
	I don't know.
	It's an ongoing investigation.
	We'll find out.
unidentified		But it seems like...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The death was an accident.
		I mean, it was a fight, you can argue it wasn't, but at the very worst case in air for these two men, what is it?
		Manslaughter?
		Definitely not cold-blooded murder.
		But, I don't know.
		Perhaps not definitive enough for you, for this video, which actually took a long time, but it is a very, very complex issue.
		But just don't be surprised when you see riots, protests, bricks.
		You're gonna hear people twist and turn.
		They're gonna call these men white supremacists.
		Well, I haven't seen evidence of that, so I'll leave it there.
		I will follow this.
		We'll see what happens.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		The next video is coming up at youtube.com slash timcast.
		Check this out.
		It is a very much so a different channel.
		It's actually a different URL than this one.
		So for those that have constantly asked, saying, hey, wait a minute, I thought this was TimCast.
		This channel right now is TimCast News.
		Don't ask me why YouTube labeled it this way.
		It's weird.
		They call this channel Tim Pool, even though the URL is TimCast.
		It's just what they did.
		So go to that URL, and I'll have another video up for you at 4 p.m.
		Thanks, Frangin' Out, and I will see you there.
		The Flynn criminal case is being dropped by the Justice Department, and I'm shocked.
		I mean, I guess we were all kind of expecting something like this to happen, but it just dropped, and the crazy thing is, moments before this happened, Moeller prosecutor withdraws from Flynn case after questions surface concerning his compliance with court order.
		But he didn't just withdraw from this case, he withdrew from everything!
		This is crazy, man.
		This is huge.
		Technofrog tweeting from Fox News.
		It's not just the Flynn case.
		Van Graak is withdrawing as counsel for the government in other cases as well.
		I wouldn't be surprised if that's it for Van Graak at the DOJ.
		AP exclusive Justice Department dropping Flynn's criminal case?
		Let's jump right in.
		The Justice Department on Thursday said it is dropping the criminal case against President Donald Trump's first National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, abandoning a prosecution that became a rallying cry for Trump and his supporters in attacking the FBI's Russia investigation.
		The move is a stunning reversal for one of the signature cases brought by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
		It comes even though prosecutors for the last three years had maintained that Flynn had lied to the FBI about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in a January 2017 interview.
		Flynn himself admitted as much and became a key cooperator for Mueller as he investigated ties between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign.
		In court documents being filed Thursday, the Justice Department said it is dropping the case, quote, after a considered review of all the facts and circumstances of this case, including newly discovered and disclosed information.
		The documents were obtained by the Associated Press.
		The Justice Department said it had concluded that Flynn's interview by the FBI was untethered to and unjustified by FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Mr. Flynn, and that the interview on January 24, 2017 was conducted without any legitimate investigative basis.
		Mic drop!
		This is nuts!
		So as we learned, Recently, documents were released showing that the FBI was seeking to close the investigation against Michael Flynn, but Peter Strzok said, no, don't close it in a text message.
		And then notes came out showing they were trying to get him to lie to either get him fired or prosecute.
		And the big question I've raised a million times, why try to get the man fired?
		That's weird.
		That's malicious.
		At the very least, they're lucky that's all that's happening.
		Now, many people have been demanding indictments, investigations.
		When's it going to happen?
		I'm going to go ahead and say, probably never.
		But hey, this is better than nothing, right?
		We'll see.
		We'll see.
		I could be wrong about that.
		Here we go.
		The U.S.
		Attorney reviewing the Flynn case, Jeff Jensen, recommended the move to Attorney General William Barr last week and formalized the recommendation in a document this week.
		Through the course of my review of General Flynn's case, I concluded the proper and just course was to dismiss the case.
		I briefed Attorney General Barr on my findings, advised him on these conclusions, and he agreed.
		Yet of course the partisan resistance on Twitter is freaking out.
	Outraged, this is Bill Barr just trying to reverse the Mueller investigation.
	They don't want to reverse the Mueller investigation.
	The Mueller investigation ended favorably for Trump.
	This is under the recommendation to Bill Barr, not Bill Barr acting at the behest of Trump directly.
	You want to argue a conspiracy, you're free to do so, often Wally World with the other conspiracy theorists.
	This just looks like politics.
	The decision is certain to be embraced by Trump, who has relentlessly tweeted about the case and last week pronounced Flynn exonerated and energized supporters who have taken up the retired Army Lieutenant General as something of a cause celebre.
	Celebrate.
	But it may also add to democratic concerns that Attorney General William Barr is excessively loyal to the president and could be a distraction for a Justice Department that for months has sought to focus on crimes arising from the coronavirus.
	Well, if you falsely prosecute people and you go after them without any real basis, don't be surprised when someone comes in and has to clean up your mess.
	The Justice Department's actions comes amid an internal review into the handling of the case and an aggressive effort by Flynn's lawyers to challenge the basis for the prosecution.
	The lawyers cited newly disclosed FBI emails and notes last week to allege that Flynn was entrapped into lying when agents interviewed him at the White House days after Trump's inauguration.
	Though none of the documents appeared to undercut the central allegation that Flynn had lied to the FBI, Trump last week pronounced him exonerated.
	The decision is the latest dramatic turn in a years-old case full of twists and turns.
	In recent months, his attorneys have leveled a series of allegations about the FBI's actions and asked to withdraw his guilty plea.
	A judge has rejected most of the claims and not ruled on others, including the bid to revoke the plea.
	Now you know why Donald Trump submitted written answers when they asked for an interview.
	It was the right thing to do.
	Good lawyer.
	Because they were trying to get him in a perjury trap.
	We know that's what they were trying to do with Michael Flynn.
	Let me tell you how you play it out.
	I- I- Listen.
	Whenever you are engaging with law enforcement, do not speak your lawyer speaks.
	Always have your lawyer present.
	And if you don't, and they ask you a question, say, I'd like my attorney to be president.
	To be president.
	No, to be present.
	Or at the very least, get your advice from me.
	I'm not an attorney.
	So before you do anything, talk to an attorney.
	But here's what happens.
	You could be sitting down.
	Let me give you some advice.
	Personal advice, not legal advice.
	I'm not a lawyer.
	You could be sitting down, and a cop would come up to you and say something to you like, hey, is that your car outside?
	And you'll go, uh, yeah, actually, that's mine.
	They'll go, huh, alright.
	They come back in, they arrest you, and later, all the cop has to do is say, I asked them if he knew, if he had purposefully, you know, did something, and he said yes.
	And you'll say, I never said that, I never said that, and it's your word against a cop.
	You don't want to get into that game.
	So you say, lawyer.
	Lawyer.
	Sorry, man.
	Lawyer.
	And then you can be like, that's strange.
	I just handed him a card that said, I must speak to my lawyer before ever talking to you.
	And I know that's an extreme example.
	But what happens is, it could be something like, so can you tell us what you had for breakfast yesterday?
	And you're like, oh man.
	An omelette?
	Mm, can they write an omelette?
	Thank you.
	They leave and come back.
	Turns out you had cinnamon toast crunch.
	You lied!
	Then they accuse you of lying.
	And they say, he said... Now again, I know the omelette thing is a stretch, but the point I'm trying to make is, after two years, after a year or whatever, they can come to you and say, six months ago you were on the phone with this person, did you say this?
	And you'll say, I don't think so?
	I don't believe I did.
	Ah, wrong.
	Liar.
	And then they accuse you of lying.
	In this case, they actually went after his son.
	And apparently they told him that if he pled guilty, they wouldn't go after his son.
	That's dirty.
	The decision comes as Barr has increasingly challenged the Russia investigation, saying in a television interview last month that it was started without any basis.
	In February, he overruled a decision by prosecutors in the Roger Stone case in favor of a more lenient recommended sentence for the longtime Trump friend.
	Earlier this year, he appointed Jensen of St.
	Louis to investigate the handling of Flynn's case.
	As part of that process, the Justice Department produced to Flynn's attorneys a series of emails and notes, including one handwritten note from a senior FBI official that mapped out internal deliberations about the purpose of the Flynn interview.
	What's our goal?
	Truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
	Now, why would the FBI want to get you fired?
	Isn't that strange?
	Other documents show that the FBI had been prepared weeks before its interview with Flynn to drop its investigation into whether he was acting in the direction of Russia.
	Later that month, though, as the White House insisted that Flynn had never discussed sanctions with Russia, Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, FBI officials grew alarmed by Flynn's conversation to the diplomat and what he had communicated to the White House.
	The investigation remained open and agents went to visit him in the White House on January 24th, 2017.
	Yes, but that was because someone intervened and said not to close it.
	DOJ officials visited the White House just two days later to warn officials that they feared that Flynn was compromised and vulnerable to blackmail by Russia because of his account of what was said on the call.
	White House officials waited several weeks to oust him from the job, saying they concluded that Flynn had lied to them.
	Flynn pleaded guilty that December, becoming among the first of the president's aides to admit guilt in Mueller's investigation.
	He acknowledged that he lied about his conversation with Kislyak, in which he encouraged Russia not to retaliate against the U.S.
	for sanctions imposed by the Obama administration over election interference.
	He provided such extensive cooperation that prosecutors said he was entitled to a sentence of probation instead of prison.
	As it turned out, the sentencing hearing was abruptly cut short after Flynn, facing a stern rebuke from U.S.
	District Judge Emmett Sullivan, asked to be able to continue cooperating and earn credit toward a more lenient sentence.
	Flynn's misgivings about the case were already on display when his then-attorneys pointedly noted
	in their sentencing memo that the FBI had not wanted him, that it was, warned him that it was
	against the law to lie when they interviewed him at the White House in January 2017. There's a lot
	of context here and there's a lot that has to be gone through in order to really get at what's
	happening. But I want to remind you, pleading guilty does not mean admitting fault.
	I mean, of course, to some people it does.
	But you have to understand how the legal system works.
	People plead guilty to crimes they didn't commit every single day.
	You shouldn't.
	I wouldn't.
	You don't have to convict me, okay?
	If I didn't do something, I'm not gonna say I did.
	Never.
	But a lot of people are scared.
	A lot of people have kids.
	A lot of people are offered sweet deals.
	Listen, just plead guilty.
	It'll all go away.
	You don't go to prison.
	But if you don't, we'll send you to prison.
	Eh, nah man, you gotta prove your case, sorry.
	And I get it, federal courts, they do, they tend to win.
	But if you admit to guilt, people, or if you plead guilty, people are gonna say you admitted it.
	It's not necessarily true.
	So, why would the White House come out and say Flynn lied?
	Well, perhaps Flynn lied.
	I don't know.
	All I know is this has been dropped and the dude is out.
	Perhaps it's because it is something like fruit of the poison tree.
	They investigated him for no reason, therefore everything after that is void.
	At least that's what we're seeing.
	So they go through just the details.
	Suffice it to say, it's done.
	More to come!
	I wouldn't be surprised if Roger Stone gets pardoned or has his case dropped.
	I don't know.
	I wouldn't be surprised if this is just the beginning.
	Or I should say, no, it's just the beginning.
	I'll leave it there.
	I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes.
	Stick around.
	I will see you all shortly.
	Democrat voter hypocrisy on full display, and there's no point in even really telling you because it would be preaching to the choir.
	But I'll show you anyway.
	In 2018, 71% of Democrats said an assault committed in high school should disqualify someone from being a Supreme Court justice.
	In 2020, only 30% of Democrats say assault committed when someone was a senator should disqualify that person from the presidency.
	Now, I'm being family-friendly to those that are listening, but there is another word, and it's about, you know, they're referring to the Brett Kavanaugh allegations and the Joe Biden allegations, but because this is YouTube, I'm being a bit more family-friendly, so you get the point.
	But the point here is, maybe I could be fair.
	They're not being inconsistent.
	They're saying high schoolers need to be held accountable and senators get free reign.
	Democratic voters don't care that Joe Biden did it.
	They think he did.
	They don't care.
	Now, progressives are the most honest.
	Surprisingly, though, female Bernie supporters are more likely than men to vote for Biden, even after all this.
	But they acknowledge That if they could prove this against Biden, it's disqualifying.
	And they also acknowledge if you could prove any of the allegations against Donald Trump, it's disqualifying.
	And I think that's fair.
	I mean, if you could prove that a president had done, you know, committed a felony of some sort, yeah, I'm not going to vote for them either.
	But I find it fascinating.
	Ben says these questions are from the same pollster, are asked in almost the exact same way, and assume the allegations have been proven.
	They have nothing to do with either Christine Blasey Ford or Tara Reade's credibility.
	Less than two weeks after the Brett Kavanaugh allegations broke, the public was much more aware of them than they are of the allegations against Joe Biden.
	Today, six weeks after Tara Reade was interviewed by Katie Helper, because the media is lying.
	YouGov data, how Americans view assault allegations against Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
	In November, voters may be left to choose between two party-backed candidates who have each been accused of assault.
	You know what, man?
	I don't care anymore.
	I get the game you're playing.
	You're liars.
	You're lying liars who lie.
	I get it.
	They're going to use— You know, they're scraping the bottom of the barrel.
	What can we do to try and remove Trump?
	I will accuse him of 50 billion different women saying he did all those things.
	I don't care.
	I don't care enough already.
	They've done it to him.
	They're doing it to Biden.
	They did it to Kavanaugh.
	Blah, blah, blah.
	Is that all you've got?
	How about when Donald Trump says, we're gonna build a wall?
	Excuse me, no, we're building a wall.
	You can come out and be like, I perhaps believe the wall is improper because it would be too expensive, and perhaps there's a better solution.
	I'm not saying that's the real argument.
	I'm saying, perhaps you could argue with the man.
	No!
	Arguments are hard!
	So when Donald Trump says, I think we need to build a big beautiful wall from sea to shining sea, they just go, racist. And then when Donald Trump is like, you know, I'm
	gonna put tariffs on China, they go, hmm, credibly accused.
	Have you considered arguing with the men?
	You know what?
	They're right, though.
	Unfortunately, they're right.
	Nobody wants to hear an argument.
	Only smart people want to hear arguments.
	The average person wants to feel emotionally satisfied.
	And so, how do people vote?
	Based on how they feel about someone.
	And let's be honest, you can like Donald Trump, but he's kind of gross.
	Look, you can disagree with me.
	I think he's gross.
	He is.
	The way he talks, the way he's talked about women.
	The way he acts.
	He's got bad character, okay?
	You can talk about good policy.
	You can think you like the guy.
	I'm not telling you not to like him.
	I'm just giving you my thoughts and my opinion.
	Feel free to disagree and comment below and tell me I'm wrong.
	But there are a lot of people who feel that way.
	Now personally, I don't think that's disqualifying if you have a good idea.
	I want to hear ideas.
	Coming to me and telling me that the orange man is bad, gross, or whatever, and showing me a giant baby floating in the sky that looks like Trump, that is not an argument.
	It's not going to work on me.
	And perhaps many independents who are looking for real policy feel the same way.
	And that's why Donald Trump is winning with them.
	I ain't making it up!
	In the same poll, what do we get?
	Among independent voters, 41% favor Trump, 38% favor Joe Biden, and then you have 7% saying another.
	9% not sure, and 6% would not vote.
	But among those who will, Donald Trump's got a three-point lead among independents.
	Now, there are 4% of Republicans who are saying they're going to vote for Biden, and interestingly, 5% of Democrats say they're going to vote for Trump.
	So let me just make this clear.
	There are more Democratic defectors than Republican defectors.
	That is big for Donald Trump.
	Somehow he's managed to convince 5% of Democrats to vote for him.
	I'm not really surprised, though.
	Have you seen the story?
	There was one story from CNN.
	They went to a Democrat stronghold, and what did they find?
	These people voted for Democrats locally, but were voting for Trump nationally.
	Now, interestingly, Joe Biden's lead Is mostly due to female voters who favor Joe Biden 51% and 37% of women say they'll vote for Trump.
	Trump's doing really bad among women.
	I don't know if he could do well or do better.
	Honestly, I don't know what he could do.
	Among men, 47% will support Trump and 41% will support Joe Biden.
	That lead for Joe Biden is coming from women, registered voters.
	He's got a four point lead over Donald Trump.
	If Trump can win the 5% of not sure people, which maybe he can't.
	You know, we'll see how things play out.
	But I gotta say, I really do love the fact that there are 5% of Democrats would vote for Trump and only 4% of Republicans would vote for Biden.
	Trump's won over more Democrats than Republicans he's lost.
	I think that's significant.
	They say Biden voters, when asked whom they expect to win, more than a quarter say they don't know.
	And a few now expect a loss for the Democrat.
	Nearly all the president's supporters expect him to be reelected.
	Many voters, even those who say they will vote Biden, will vote Biden, dubious about his ability to win in November.
	Even among Biden's supporters?
	I wouldn't even call them supporters.
	I'd just call them anti-Trump voters.
	They don't care about Biden.
	No one thinks the guy's gonna win.
	Anybody who says he's gonna win is lying, hoping that the lie will encourage people to go and vote.
	Several reasons stand out.
	Continued approval of Trump's handling of the economy, even as the majority see the country in recession.
	The slowness of many of those who supported Sanders to commit to Biden.
	And most recently, the charge of assault made against Joe Biden.
	Though as of now, women's support gives him his lead, not to mention that most presidents running for re-election usually win.
	And the last time Trump won, he was able to do so without securing the popular vote.
	Trump's political edge remains the economy, because I will tell you what, You can scream in someone's face, orange man bad, all you want.
	But if I turn around and Trump's sitting there straight in his shirt, like, you know, I love to do, and he hands someone a hundred dollar bill, and they put it in their pocket, I know who they're voting for.
	I don't mean literally, but with the economy doing really well, the people I've talked to have said, stay the course, man.
	Before the pandemic, people were telling me it was the best year of their lives.
	They had never made more money.
	Things were sounding like hotcakes.
	The economy was aflame in a good way.
	And that was Trump.
	Now that the economy is collapsing due to government mandates, who's best equipped to fix it?
	Donald Trump is.
	You know what, man?
	I'm gonna go ahead and say it.
	I don't think, right now, there is anyone else I could point to in terms of fixing the economy.
	Donald Trump has years proving he made an economy work.
	He does.
	You can't deny it.
	Jim Cramer, CNBC, the best numbers of our lives.
	And that was under Trump.
	Trump's the guy who walked into the auto dealership and said, I'm gonna tax you 30% unless you bring your cars back.
	And guess what they did?
	He's the one who put tariffs on China.
	Now, of course, you'll hear from the Democrats all the time saying, tariffs on China aren't paid by China, they're paid by Americans.
	Right.
	And the American corporations don't want to pay it.
	So they bring their factories back.
	The point is, under Trump, the economy did really well.
	Now we're facing a pandemic.
	It's not Trump's fault.
	You can criticize the man's response, fine.
	But once this is all over, and it will be, within the next year perhaps, who knows, we're gonna need someone to fix the economy.
	How did Joe Biden do?
	I mean, the Obama economy wasn't awful.
	It was slow growth.
	Who else do we have?
	No one, really.
	I mean, Bernie Sanders wants to spend, spend, spend, spend, spend.
	But if the only option is Biden or Trump, I can't even look to any of the other Democrats and tell you who I think could do better to fix the economy.
	If the economy is the only issue I'm concerned about, then, dare I say, Trump is the right choice.
	Period.
	Now, as president, there are a lot of other factors.
	Let's be honest, foreign policy being one of them.
	You can criticize him.
	I have.
	And there are a lot of questions that come up in dealing with our troops in the Middle East, oil, North Korea, Venezuela, the escalating military tensions with China.
	And I'll tell you right now, I'm not super confident in Donald Trump as a wartime leader.
	Like, I'm talking about literal wartime.
	You can argue in the pandemic, he's done a fine job.
	I'd say I give him a C plus, B minus, because I think he could have done better.
	And it's hard to compare, right?
	So I think he's typically leaning towards having done a pretty good job.
	Not perfect, but ignore the press, ignore the lies, judge them based on how things are going.
	And honestly, if the projections were much, much higher, saying millions of people, potentially hundreds of thousands, and it's well below that, I don't care what you're going to accuse them of or what you're going to say, I'm going to go ahead and say, well, the projections are down, so I'll give it to them.
	Oh, I get it.
	The projections came from his administration.
	Yeah, but the conservatives and Trump have been clashing with Fauci.
	Well, not so much Trump, but the conservatives have.
	And if Fauci gave these projections, and it was a guy in the UK who gave projections, and we've beaten those projections, well, then Trump deserves credit for that, doesn't he?
	Of course, the left and the Democrats have argued that Trump has tried touting the large numbers so that he could claim victory.
	Oh, shut up.
	I don't care.
	To me, it doesn't matter.
	For you, the average American, find out what matters most to you.
	I would say if it comes to foreign policy, it's actually a coin toss because Joe Biden's substantially worse.
	Oh man, I just gotta say it.
	You know what?
	Thinking of the Obama administration compared to the Trump administration on foreign policy and Obama was worse.
	Hillary would have been way worse.
	So I'm not voting for Biden.
	Dare I say, I think Trump is the best choice you have right now considering the crisis.
	I really mean it.
	I know a lot of people have said, you know, what will Tim do?
	Will Tim vote or whatever?
	And I've consistently said the Democrats have made it easier than ever to consider voting for Donald Trump.
	Man, the dude's got character defects that, you know, I think are gross.
	But you're gonna hear it more and more and more from people, especially people like me, who've tried their hardest not to support this man.
	I think Trump's funny.
	I don't think he's that bad.
	He's not my choice for president.
	But considering he's proven he can make the economy work, and considering the economy is in serious danger right now, I think Trump's probably the best choice.
	But look, it really just comes down to the fact that what are you comparing him to?
	You're comparing Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
	It's not really that fair.
	I think if you were to compare Donald Trump to, like, many, many other politicians, there are many, many better choices.
	But right now, all that matters is, even if they put the best of the best up against Trump, they haven't proven on the economy.
	So Trump really does get a huge bit of credit from this.
	And that's not necessarily my opinion.
	I mean, it is.
	But what I mean is, they're saying his big advantage is the economy.
	Even though it's bad, people still believe that Trump is the right person for the job.
	No, right, he is.
	So, you know what, man?
	I will let you know, in all honesty, I will never stop ragging on his character and his behavior, but you gotta give him credit where credit is due.
	Joe Biden, on the other hand, is a nothing.
	What are his policies?
	What is he doing?
	What can he even speak to?
	You know what, man?
	The Democrats wanted to make Trump look good as possible.
	That's my conspiracy theory.
	They picked Joe Biden so they could put Joe Biden next to Trump so that Trump would look really, really good.
	And it worked.
	Whatever, man.
	I'm not committed.
	I'm not.
	I know.
	People are going to yell at me in the comments and be like, take the red pill, Tim, or whatever stupid nonsense.
	Nah, nah, nah.
	They might swap out Joe Biden, but I don't know, man.
	We'll see how things play out.
	I got one more segment for you coming up in a few minutes.
	Stick around and I'll see you all shortly.
	New York is an awful, awful place.
	They have gun control, which results in racism.
	I know people are going to get mad at me for that, but we'll break this down.
	You have a city that wants to implement this harsh gun control so they target minority communities for a variety of reasons.
	You have a city that is right now saying no protests allowed in direct violation of the First Amendment.
	It's literally the first one on the list.
	Come on, you had one job.
	Yep, Bill de Blasio says you can't protest.
	So here you have New York.
	You've got homelessness, unemployment, escalating rent prices, certain parts of the city are in total collapse.
	You've got police consistently accused of racism.
	You've got harsh gun control measures that don't seem to be working.
	And that's New York for ya!
	You know what I really don't understand?
	I tweeted earlier that New York was a racist asshole, and I had a bunch of conservatives be like, that's not true, and I'm like, why are you defending New York City, dude?
	No, no, this place is run like trash.
	Bill de Blasio does not know what he's doing.
	He went out early on and was like, come everybody!
	Celebrate and go outside and party.
	And then New York, it turns out, is the cause of most of the infections in the entire country.
	Like, people from New York traveling around spreading it around.
	So no.
	I am not going to defend Bill de Blasio.
	I am not going to defend Michael Bloomberg or Rudy Giuliani.
	The city has been awful for a really, really long time.
	Stop and Frisk is a horrible policy that, in my opinion, and for whatever it's worth, violates the Fourth Amendment, walking up to random young people, pushing them up against the wall, and frisking them.
unidentified		What's the Fourth Amendment for?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They say, oh, but it's reasonable.
		Yes, Stop and Frisk is about their gun control measure.
		So stop defending this awful city, its awful policies, the racial disparities in their policing.
		Michael Bloomberg coming out and saying in a recording he was like, well, they're the ones committing the crime, so we have to go to their neighborhoods.
		It's not racist.
		Shut up, man.
		You've got impoverished communities that you don't support.
		It's about class, first and foremost.
		That's what I want to break down, right?
		But when you end up targeting poor people with your gun control measure that results in a disproportionate amount of them going to jails, you realize that results in long-term negative prospects.
		So put it that way.
		I'll take it easy.
		You know, the point is, if you go to rural areas, you don't see this stuff.
		You don't see this in more conservative areas.
		Maybe that's why they want to run these stories about, you know, these two guys in Georgia and this guy, Ahmed Arbery.
		The reason they want to exaggerate about these claims and lie is because they need to convince the world that it's the conservative areas where all of these horrible racist things happen.
		Let me tell you what.
		I've lived in the South, sort of.
		I lived in Virginia.
		And I have seen some very awful racism.
		More than I've seen in a lot of places, like New York.
		But if you want to claim that New York is better, and you literally have the police going to minority areas for gun control reasons, targeting minorities for gun control reasons, creating a disproportionate amount of minorities in jails, y'all got the serious problem, okay?
		If a person in the down south is a bad person with bad ideas, well, you can avoid him.
		You can insult them.
		That's America.
		Sure, it sometimes leads to fights and tensions.
		We have laws against that.
		But if the law enforcement themselves are doing this, Come on.
		Stop defending New York.
		You know what, man?
		I know Donald Trump has defended Stop and Frisk.
		He's wrong.
		And there have been a bunch of conservatives that have defended this, and I'm sorry, man.
		Y'all are wrong.
		The government doesn't have a right, first of all.
		This is a violation of the Second and the Fourth Amendments.
		I have never been a big gun person, but straight up.
		The goal they had with this kind of policing is gun control.
		They shouldn't be doing it in the first place, let alone arbitrarily stopping people in violation of their Fourth Amendment.
		It is unconstitutional, and it disproportionately affects poor people, and in New York, the minority communities tend to be the poor, you know, poor neighborhoods where they get targeted by this.
		You think that you're gonna see the NYPD show up to, like, you know, Upper West Side and go knock on some penthouse door and look for weapons?
		Or stop a man in a suit?
		Never gonna happen.
		Because, well, I do believe race plays an issue in a lot of these issues.
		You can't play that game because it really is about poverty and class.
		Because, yeah, if there's a white dude wearing, like, you know, Adego and some sweatpants, he'll get similar treatment.
		It affects Latinos, it affects everybody.
		But that's New York for you.
		That's what I can't really quite figure out.
		I can see the hypocrisy from many of the leftists when they talk about gun control and wanting more of it, but then complaining about stop and frisk, and talking about the rights of individuals and the policing, but then consistently voting for these same people who keep enacting these things.
		Oh, man.
		I don't get it.
		I don't get it.
		But what's really weird to me is that there are conservatives who come out and defend New York for any reason.
		There's a reason I left, man.
		I know, I know.
		We should read the story.
		Bill de Blasio and the NYPD Commissioner.
		No protests allowed in New York City.
		Let me stop you right there, New York City.
		That's not true.
		You can't do that.
		That's the First Amendment.
		You will make no law establishing, you know, blah, blah, blah.
	You shall not be infringed, right?
	New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio and NYPD Commissioner Dermot Shaye stated outright this week that people are not permitted to gather for protests in public due to the coronavirus pandemic.
	The city leaders pointed to the need to maintain social distancing in order to prevent greater spread of COVID-19, stating that this takes precedence over people's rights to exercise their First Amendment rights of free speech and assembly.
	Wrong.
	Remember when Donald Trump was debating Hillary Clinton?
	And he would lean over and go, wrong, wrong.
	That's what I want to do right here.
	That's what I'm going to say to you, Bill de Blasio.
	Wrong.
	NYPD, wrong.
	No, you can't do this.
	We have a right to protest.
	That's why it's called a right.
	The government has no ability to infringe upon that right.
	Unfortunately, as we're learning, they do.
	You know why?
	Because they're going to come out and arrest you.
	But man, I'll tell you what, Bill Barr was not sparing any harsh words.
	The Constitution is not suspended.
	Boy, are there going to be many, many lawsuits in the days, weeks, months, and years to come.
	It's going to be a backlog, I'll tell you what.
	What are they going to do?
	If you go on protest, are they going to arrest you?
	What about the people in Indiana right now who are protesting due to an unarmed black man?
	Well, actually, I don't know if he was unarmed, according to the story.
	They're chanting, no justice, no peace.
	Look, some aren't wearing, some, one person's wearing a mask, others aren't.
	They're certainly not social distancing.
	What about them?
	What about New York City?
	Y'all gonna go out and protest for Ahmed Arbery?
	You're allowed to do so.
	Do it with my blessing.
	Go protest.
	Are they gonna do it?
	It's not against the law to protest.
	In fact, the First Amendment guarantees it.
	And just because Bill de Blasio says it, doesn't make it a law!
	I hope YouTube gets that through their thick heads.
	You're not supposed to advocate for breaking the law.
	Well, Bill de Blasio has banned his YouTube channel.
	How about that?
	He says, You're talking about some of the values we hold in the highest regard in this country, and certainly in this city.
	The right for people to gather, the right to free speech, and the right to protest.
	I'm sorry, this was Shay, said during a Monday press briefing.
	But now comes the bad news.
	We're in a pandemic.
	And executive orders have been issued.
	So what?
	These are laws that have been passed down through executive order.
	No, they're not.
	They're not laws.
	That's how executive order works.
	To keep people alive.
	While we greatly, greatly respect the right of people to protest, there should not be protests taking place in the middle of a pandemic by gathering outside and putting people at risk.
	You want me to go get my van and drive it to New York?
	You're getting really close to making me get my van and drive it to New York.
	You can't tell people they can't protest.
	You don't pass laws through executive order.
	Executive orders are not laws.
	They're executive orders.
	They're orders to the executive branch.
	Okay, I get it.
	New York is a state.
	Its laws function differently from the federal government.
	They say the announcement came a day after the Reclaim Pride LGBT advocacy group protested Mount Sinai Hospital's relationship with a Samaritan Purse Christian organization, which set up a field hospital in Central Park for COVID-19 patients in an effort to reduce Mount Sinai's load.
	The group objected to the hospital working with the religious organization, claiming that its leadership has espoused bigoted views.
	Now listen.
	I'll be the first to tell you, you are insane to protest at an emergency hospital.
	You're nuts.
	And I will be the first to tell you, you are allowed to protest.
	And I will defend your right to protest.
	In fact, I will say thank you for protesting.
	Standing up for what you believe in is a God-given right, and it is protected under the Constitution because we had smart founding fathers who understood why it was so important.
	So you know what?
	I would now ask you to direct your ire towards Bill de Blasio, who is threatening your right to protest.
	While I certainly disagree with your protests, I would like to see you continue voicing your opinion legally and lawfully.
	And if Bill de Blasio has a problem with that, then I will absolutely defend your right.
	Now, I'm not quite so close to saying I would actually drive up there and stand next to you to protest.
	But if I lived in New York, I'd come down and join the protest, 100%.
	And I'd have a sign saying, like, I disagree with this protest, but I agree with their right to protest.
	Something to that effect.
	You can't... We can't function this way, man.
	The Constitution is Swiss cheese.
	That's what I said earlier.
	It's Swiss cheese.
	If no one will defend the Constitution, then what's the point of having one in the first place?
	Now, I get it.
	It does constrain law enforcement in most times.
	But if in an emergency, the government can just snap its fingers and say, you know what?
	No more rights.
	Then you don't have rights at all.
	The Constitution is meaningless.
	They are permitting you to do these things.
	How any police officer, NYPD, would actually break their oath.
	That's what they are.
	They're oath breakers.
	So I don't know if the NYPD actually swears an oath to uphold the Constitution, but they aren't.
	And they haven't.
	And this goes beyond just what this is.
	I mean, NYPD has been bad in a lot of ways, even going back to Occupy Wall Street.
	Never mind my disagreements with the leftist protesters.
	This is...
	We're past the slippery slope, man.
	I think one thing we can learn from this is that Americans have not defended their Constitution.
	And because of this, it's almost meaningless.
	It really is.
	Like, I understand it still has value, the Supreme Court, current laws, as they're written, there are lines.
	But if the mayor of a city can just come out and say, we have suspended your rights, then you didn't have them to begin with.
	They're God-given rights.
	They don't come from the government.
	But if the government can just snap its finger and take them away, then what's the point of the First Amendment at all?
	Americans have not and are not defending their Constitution.
	And that's a fact.
	I'll leave it there.
	I'll see you all tomorrow in the next segment at 10 a.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out.

▲