Trump Accuses Obama Of "Biggest Political Crime" In History, WSJ Argues Obama Getting NERVOUS
Trump Accuses Obama Of "Biggest Political Crime" In History, WSJ Argues Obama Getting NERVOUS. Obamagate has gone viral with a consistent push from Donald trump himself on twitter.Trump was responding to Buck Sexton who said that Obama had sabotaged the incoming administration. #Obamagate at the time of recording this video had over 3.5M tweetsNew information has come to light showing that many Democrats such as Adam Schiff had been lying about evidence of Russian collusion from the Trump administration. Now we are learning that Obama actually knew about it and that former Obama administration officials may have lied under oath.Republicans such as Devin Nunes are calling for criminal charges against many of these people.As we get closer to november I expect to see more information and potentially incoming indictments
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Obamagate on Twitter has over 3.5 million tweets as of the filming of this video.
And the number one tweet on Twitter is Donald Trump tweeting out just the word Obamagate.
Trump is accusing former President Barack Obama of the biggest political crime in history, essentially of trying to sabotage the Trump administration with his last few weeks in office.
We recently learned that all of these Russiagate cheerleaders were lying.
They were going on TV, MSNBC, and saying, we have seen the evidence.
Donald Trump and his administration were colluding with Russia, and for years we endured this, even entertained it.
The investigation turned up nothing.
And with the release of these transcripts, we now know that these people pushing the conspiracy under oath behind closed doors changed their tune a total 180.
No, they said.
We've never actually seen anything.
But we did learn that one individual was shocked to discover Obama actually knew details of the Michael Flynn investigation.
And boy, is there a lot to break down in this story.
And probably too much for me to even get to you in the next 20 or 30 minutes.
But we are seeing an interesting op-ed from the Wall Street Journal.
Barack Obama on Michael Flynn.
For those that have been paying attention, Michael Flynn was charged with one count of lying to the FBI.
He pled guilty.
But recently, the criminal charges were completely dropped due to improper behavior on the part of the FBI.
We learned that the FBI actually wanted to close the investigation into Flynn, but certain rogue FBI agents insisted it remain open and said that they wanted to get him to lie, potentially to get him fired or to prosecute him.
Now, why would the FBI want to get a man fired?
I honestly have no idea.
That sounds to me like sabotage.
But in this we discovered Barack Obama actually knew about it.
The Wall Street Journal says the lawyer president misstates the crime and the real threat of justice.
See, recently a conversation with Obama was leaked where he said that there was a threat to the rule of law.
The Wall Street Journal editorial board asks, This, among other things, is what U.S.
Attorney John Durham is investigating at the request of Attorney General William Barr.
Maybe that's why Mr. Obama is so eager to distort the truth of the Flynn prosecution.
Man, there is so much coming.
I wish I could get to literally every single bit of it, but I can't.
I can only give you a cursory glance for now.
We're hearing that the original FBI Michael Flynn interview report, the 302, has gone missing.
And this is only a couple months after we heard from Devin Nunes that they were considering criminal referrals against Mueller's prosecutors.
What is happening?
Could it be that Barack Obama was directing this?
Some have suggested as much.
I can't tell you for sure.
I can only show you the reports coming out right now.
And this op-ed from the Wall Street Journal I find to be particularly interesting because it essentially states that Obama is nervous or worried and is misstating what actually happened with Michael Flynn for some reason.
Could it be that Obama really did try to sabotage the Trump administration?
I'm not going to tell you definitively right now, but I can tell you that Obama knew.
And we do have some contradictory statements made by former intelligence community members, higher-ups, that seem to suggest somebody is lying.
So here's what I'll do, to the best of my abilities.
I know there are many of you right now who have read a ton about this, who are already screaming, here's what happened.
I know.
The challenge with doing a video like this is getting to a point where a regular person who has no idea what's going on can just read this and get a cursory understanding.
And boy is it difficult.
There are so many moving parts.
So many different people involved.
This is a major, major scandal.
Think about the story on its own, without any of the implications against Barack Obama or any of these other FBI agents.
For years, we endured a lie that Donald Trump was colluding with Russia.
And now it turns out that many of these individuals, former intelligence community members, were going on TV and lying to the American public.
That, in and of itself, is a massive and major scandal.
But now we have even more, potentially something more nefarious.
Let's read the news.
The first story from The Guardian.
Before we get started, 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 is share this video.
The goal of this video, to the best of my ability, is to make it easy for regular people to understand, and it is extremely difficult.
Donald Trump tweeted out Obamagate.
It is going insanely viral.
Many people don't know what Obamagate means.
So I'm going to do my best.
And I'm not going to be perfect.
But help share this video if you know anybody may be confused by this.
But more importantly, it's because YouTube props up the mainstream media, and I don't have a marketing budget to compete with them.
If you do like my content, sharing it is the best way to support.
If you just want to watch, hit the subscribe button, the like button, the notification bell, and hopefully that'll be enough for YouTube to actually send you my videos.
Let's read the first story.
And only a little bit, mind you.
The Guardian reports Donald Trump continued to fume over the Russia investigation on Sunday, more than a year after special counsel Robert Mueller filed his report without recommending charges against the president, but only three days after the Justice Department said it would drop its case against Michael Flynn.
Quote, the biggest political crime in American history by far, the president wrote in a tweet
accompanying a conservative talk show host's claim that Barack Obama, quote, used his last
weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration.
The tweet echoed previous messages retweeted by Trump, which earned rebukes for relaying
conspiracy theories.
On Sunday afternoon, the president continued to send out a stream of tweets of memes and
right wing talking heads claiming an anti-Trump conspiracy.
One tweet by Trump simply read Obamagate.
They say Trump fired Flynn, a retired general in early 2017, for lying to Vice President
Mike Pence about conversations with the Russian ambassador regarding sanctions levied by the
Obama administration in retaliation for interference in the 2016 election.
The U.S.
intelligence community has long held that such efforts were meant to tip the election towards Trump and away from Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee.
Flynn pleaded guilty to lying to the FBI, which Trump has acknowledged, and cooperated with Mueller, who was appointed to take over the investigation of Russian interference after Trump fired FBI Director James Comey.
Mueller did not establish a criminal conspiracy, but did lay out extensive links between Trump and Moscow and instances of possible obstruction of justice by the president.
Flynn sought to change his plea.
Now, ultimately, I think we get the gist of this.
Flynn sought to change his plea when new evidence emerged, and we'll break this down over at the Wall Street Journal piece, which gives you better context, and ultimately the charges were dropped.
Now, Donald Trump tweeted the biggest political crime in American history, but this tweet right here, Obamagate, has 101,000 retweets.
It is the most retweeted, it is the most quoted, and most replied to tweet currently.
Because, well, people are certainly fighting over this.
But there are almost 4 million tweets calling out Obamagate.
I'm sure many of those are people who are mocking the president.
But in response to this, Trumpgate started trending, even though Trumpgate only had tens of thousands of retweets.
But before we get into the potential criminal implications, I want to show you this Wall Street Journal opinion piece, which breaks down Obama's statements on Michael Flynn, to give you some context.
Now, the Wall Street Journal does lean right in their opinion, but they are as mainstream an establishment as they come.
Check this out.
They write, Barack Obama is a lawyer, so it was stunning to read that he ventured into the Michael Flynn case in a way that misstated the supposed crime and ignored the history of his own administration in targeting Mr. Flynn.
Since the former president chose to offer his legal views when he didn't need to, we wonder what he's really worried about.
Dare I say, is the Wall Street Journal implying Obama is worried about being implicated criminally?
There is no precedent that anybody can find for someone who has been charged with perjury just getting off scot-free, Mr. Obama said in the Friday call to about 3,000 members of the Obama Alumni Association.
The comments were leaked to Yahoo News and confirmed by Mr. Obama's spokeswoman to The Washington Post and other outlets.
Mr. Obama added, That's the kind of stuff where you begin to get worried
that basic, not just institutional norms, but our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk.
And when you start moving in those directions, it can accelerate pretty quickly, as we've seen in other
places.
They go on to say, even discounting for Mr. Obama's partisan audience,
This gets the case willfully wrong.
Mr. Flynn was never charged with perjury, which is lying under oath and illegal proceeding.
Mr. Flynn pleaded guilty to a single count of lying to the FBI in a meeting at the White House on January 24th that he was led to believe was a friendly chat among colleagues.
As for Scott Free, that better applies to former President Bill Clinton who lied under oath in a civil case and was impeached for perjury but was acquitted by the Senate.
We understand why Mr. Obama wouldn't bring that up.
They say we doubt Mr. Obama has even read Thursday's Justice Department motion to drop the Flynn prosecution.
If he does ever read it, he'll find disconcerting facts that certainly do raise doubts about whether, quote, our basic understanding of rule of law is at risk, though not for the reason he claims.
Start with prosecutorial violation of the Brady Rule, which Mr. Obama knows is a legal obligation that the prosecution must turn over potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense.
Yet prosecutors led by special counsel Robert Mueller didn't disclose that the interviewing FBI agents at the time didn't think that Mr. Flynn had lied about a phone call with the Russian ambassador.
Worst of all, as a legal matter, is that they never told Mr. Flynn that there was no investigative evidentiary basis to justify the interview.
The FBI had already concluded there was no evidence that Mr. Flynn had colluded with Russia in the 2016 election and had moved to close the case.
James Comey's FBI cronies used the news of Mr. Flynn's phone call with the Russian ambassador as an excuse to interview the then National Security Advisor and perhaps trap him into a lie.
And they even said in the note to maybe get him fired.
As far as I can tell, Well, I'm not gonna pretend like I can say anything definitively.
It certainly looks like these people were trying to sabotage the incoming administration.
Is that the biggest political crime in our history?
I'll leave that one up for you, but it certainly does seem like a major scandal nonetheless.
All of this was moved along politically by leaks to the media about Mr. Flynn's phone call with the Russians.
The U.S.
eavesdrops on foreign officials as a routine, but names of innocent Americans on those calls are supposed to be shielded from review to protect their privacy.
Yet senior Obama officials have had to acknowledge that they unmasked Mr. Flynn's name and others
in their last months in power. Then what a surprise, news of Mr. Flynn's call and its
contents pop up in the Washington Post. Did someone say institutional norms? All of this
raises questions about the role the Obama Justice Department and White House played
in targeting Mr. Flynn.
We already know the FBI had opened a counterintelligence probe into Mr. Flynn and other Trump campaign officials.
It had come up with no evidence of collusion.
Donald Trump's victory increased the chances that this unprecedented spying on a political opponent would be uncovered, which would have been politically embarrassing at the very least.
Targeting Mr. Flynn and flogging the discredited Steele dossier kept the Russia collusion pot boiling and evolved into the two-year Mueller investigation that turned up no evidence of collusion.
This, among other things, is what U.S.
Attorney John Durham is investigating at the request of Attorney General William Barr.
Maybe that's why Mr. Obama is so eager to distort the truth of the Flynn prosecution.
I remind you, this is not some conspiracy theory website.
This is the Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
Now, this is as mainstream as it comes.
Is Obama nervous?
Is something coming his way?
The only thing I could speculate is that based on this, that Obama and his administration
launched the investigation into Trump, made the claims they did, thinking he would never win.
The one thing I see that benefited them, knowing there was no Russian collusion,
but they wanted the investigation anyway, it stopped Donald Trump from purging the swamp,
getting rid of these people, and going after those who were trying to sabotage his administration.
When Trump tried making moves to fire any of these intelligence community members, people would, if he did, they would accuse him of obstruction of justice because he was being investigated.
But now we know, based on the released transcripts, these people knew there was no evidence.
They had never seen any.
They were simply jamming up Donald Trump's administration.
This is a major and massive scandal.
Now this is where things get really crazy.
Over at the National Review, Andrew McCarthy reports, Obama officials and FBI collaborated to invent the Russian collusion narrative.
Wow!
Now look, you can call them biased, but that is a bold statement of fact.
Saying, the FBI coordinated very closely with the Obama White House on the investigation of Michael Flynn, while the Obama Justice Department was asleep at the switch.
That is among the most revealing takeaways from Thursday's decision by Attorney General Bill Barr to pull the plug on the prosecution of Flynn, who fleetingly served as President Trump's first National Security Advisor.
Flynn had been seeking to withdraw his guilty plea.
This we know.
But check this out.
They say, That these conversations took place has been known for over three years, ever since a still unidentified government official leaked that classified information to the Washington Post.
For almost as long, it has been known that the FBI became aware of the Flynn-Kislyak discussions very shortly after they happened.
That's the Russian ambassador.
What was not known until this week was that then-acting Attorney General Yates was out of the loop.
She found out about the discussions nearly a week afterwards from President Obama, of all people.
This was a White House powwow on January 5th.
That was the day when the chiefs of key intelligence agencies briefed top Obama White House officials on their assessment of Russia's meddling in the campaign.
After the main briefing, the President asked Yates and the FBI Director James Comey to stick around to meet with him.
Along with Vice President Biden and National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
Yates was taken aback when Obama explained that he had learned of the information about Flynn and his conversation with Kislyak.
She was startled because she later told investigators she had no idea what the president was talking about.
Yates had to figure things out by listening to the exchanges between Obama and FBI Director Comey.
The latter was not only fully up to speed, he was even prepared to suggest a potential crime.
A violation of the Morabund-Logan Act that might fit the facts.
An act that has never been used.
And according to many sources, only exists because we didn't have telephones in the past.
Meaning, somebody could travel abroad and claim to represent the United States and it would be hard for anyone to verify.
Now that we have telephones, it doesn't really matter if someone claims they rep the US.
You can just call and verify.
That's not the case.
According to an FBI report, which was appended to the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the Flynn case, Yates later said she was so surprised by the information, she was hearing that she was having a hard time processing it and listening to the conversation at the same time.
I'll bet," they write, that Yates was in the dark was not the FBI's fault.
Two days earlier, the Bureau's then-deputy director Andrew McCabe had briefed Assistant
Attorney General Mary McCord, the head of DOJ's National Security Division, about the
Flynn-Kislyak discussions.
Evidently not appreciating what the FBI regarded as the urgency of the matter, McCord did not
pass the information along to acting AG before her White House meeting.
This is a very, very long story, but I wanted to just show you this because they make the definitive statement that the Obama White House was coordinated.
Now, take a look at this.
This is the breaking news.
Michael Flynn's original F-302 is gone missing.
Wow.
It's very interesting considering Devin Nunes has talked about filing criminal charges, and even in this interview, he has brought up criminal referrals, saying, I think most Americans that watch your show, who have known this was a hoax all along, they get that there's not going to be anything new in these transcripts.
Other than that, there will be likely, you will see, you'll begin to see where some of our criminal referrals are based out of.
Some of the false testimony that was given to Congress.
And this is one of the latest updates.
States. Newly declassified evidence undercuts former DNI Clapper's testimony to Congress.
Newly released FBI records raise doubts about former intelligence community chiefs' claims.
He never briefed Obama about Flynn-Kislyak calls.
Listen, there's FISA abuse.
There's the Durham investigation.
There's Michael Flynn.
There's Carter Page.
There are many, many, many aspects to this.
And you would probably need someone to give you, like, a three-hour breakdown, a full documentary, to break down the scandal that is unfolding right before our eyes.
But as this evidence comes out, let me tell you something.
I made this prediction a couple years ago, and I'll make it again now.
As we get closer to November, you will see more and more of these kinds of claims and accusations come out and you very well may start to see indictments in the coming months.
I don't know for sure because we've heard this a whole lot, but it stands to reason that if Donald Trump loses reelection, This will will stop dead in its tracks.
Immediately the new administration will cover everything up or just, you know, it'll be over.
No one will investigate.
Not so much a cover up, just a complete end to any and all investigations.
If Donald Trump wins, you can expect more.
Therefore, I believe that the Trump administration and Bill Barr We'll start to release more and more information in the coming weeks in the event Donald Trump may actually lose re-election.
Think about what happens if all of this information in these scandals remains covered up.
That's not in the interest of anyone in the Trump administration who was targeted by this, nor any of the current allies of Donald Trump.
While I certainly think Donald Trump is winning, those are the odds they're giving in Vegas, Trump is favored to win.
I think they're going to start to release information for another reason.
It helps Donald Trump win.
Let's read some of this story.
They say, Newly declassified evidence undermines James Clapper's testimony to Congress, raising questions about whether the former Director of National Intelligence misled lawmakers about briefing former President Barack Obama on former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn's telephone call with a Russian diplomat.
FBI records released late last week show that senior Justice Department officials were surprised to find in early January 2017 That Obama already knew details of Flynn's phone call with the Russian ambassador to Sergey Kislyak before they had briefed the president.
Senior Republicans want to know what Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden knew about the call and how they knew it.
Interviews declassified by the House Intelligence Committee may provide answers.
Starting in early 2017, the committee interviewed dozens of witnesses for its investigation into Russian election interference.
In a July 2017 interview with Clapper, Republican members asked if he had briefed Obama on the phone calls.
No, Clapper said.
Clapper's denial conflicts with earlier congressional testimony provided by former FBI Director James Comey.
According to Comey's March 2017 account, he briefed Clapper on the Flynn-Kislyak calls and then gave the former DNI copies of the transcripts as he requested.
In the first week of January, said Comey, Clapper briefed the president and the vice president and then President Obama's senior team about what we had found.
Comey's testimony squares with the account of former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in his 2019 book, The Threat.
McCabe writes that after an analyst shared the information with him, he shared it with Comey.
Comey shared it with the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, and Clapper verbally briefed it to President Obama.
Former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes on Sunday said his team has referred several people to the Justice Department for possible false testimony based on the evidence in the newly released transcripts.
You will begin to see where some of our criminal referrals are based out of, some of the false testimony that was given to Congress.
Interest in Clapper's testimony and Obama's role in the Flynn matter is growing.
On Sunday morning, President Trump retweeted a thread of anonymous Twitter user undercoveruber, who noted the discrepancy between Clapper and Comey's testimony.
Flynn's phone calls with Kislyak were the basis of special counsel Robert Mueller's case against Flynn.
The special counsel prosecutors alleged that on January 24th, Flynn made false statements to the FBI, so we know all of this.
The Department of Justice withdrew the case Thursday, and we know all that too.
Okay, that's all a bit complicated, esoteric, hard to follow.
But basically, Clapper testified.
Look, Jim Clapper, you've got a major problem.
You denied under oath ever briefing Obama on the Flynn-Kislyak calls.
Well, it's not just McCabe who says you did.
In a book, James Comey said you did under oath to Congress.
Now listen, I'll tell you what, if you think something's gonna happen to Obama and some of these higher-ups, I think you're wrong.
I think we'll see a whole lot of nothing from this.
There will be indictments, of course, like I said.
But it's gonna be FBI agents, it's gonna be low-level people, and then it will all be brushed away.
You know why?
The people at the top cut deals with each other.
You don't come after me, I don't come after you, but they'll go after the lower- the lowly people.
Now I also want to point out, as it refers to false statements to Congress, just because Comey says Clapper did, doesn't mean Clapper did.
James Comey could be telling the truth and saying that Clapper did because he believed it to be true, and he could be wrong.
James Clapper could have forgotten.
Now it stands to reason...
In my—well, it doesn't stand to reason, but I would say in my opinion, it sounds like lies.
It sounds like lies because they never expected it to go this far.
Now, I said it before, I wish I could give you a lot more to break down what's really going on, but here's what I will say.
Devin Nunes said that they were going—they were considering criminal referrals.
All of a sudden, The 302 report from Flynn goes missing.
That'll make it awfully hard if there's no evidence, huh?
But take a look at this story.
This is from December 13, 2019.
Vindication for the Nunes Memo.
They write, Back in February 2018, the Nunes Memo took the political world by storm.
Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee, led by then-Chairman Devin Nunes, released the memo questioning the surveillance of former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, and by extension, the legitimacy of the Russia investigation.
Democrats cried foul and issued a rebuttal.
Well, this week we got the official word on all of it.
Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horwitz released a report on the origins of the Russia investigation, including extensive new information about improprieties in Page's surveillance.
The Fix annotated the Nunes Memo in early 2018.
We also wrote skeptically about some of the GOP's arguments based on it, many of which are not backed up by Horowitz's report.
But how much is the Nunes Memo itself vindicated?
A fair amount, it turns out, at least in Horowitz's estimation.
So what we're seeing is the Washington Post admitting that Republican Devin Nunes in 2018, when he called out Russiagate and their surveillance against Carter Page, and everyone said that he was lying.
The Washington Post says Nunes was vindicated.
My question to the Democrats is, when will you be tired of being wrong on this?
So here's what I say.
Early on, we heard from Republicans about collusion, about, you know, I'll call it a conspiracy, right?
Rogue FBI agents, the former administration, the things they were doing.
And bit by bit, over the past couple of years, Donald Trump has been vindicated.
The Republicans have been proven right.
The Ukrainegate scandal flopped.
Russiagate resulted with nothing, no evidence of collusion.
The transcripts get released showing that none of these people even thought there was collusion.
They had no evidence of it.
So now when we hear, From the Wall Street Journal's editorial board, that Obama might be nervous about something.
I wonder what that means.
Based on the track record of the Democrats and being proven wrong consistently on these matters, I'm leaning towards, I think something bad may be coming Obama's way.
I think Obama will walk away from this.
I mean, look, you know, Bill Clinton did stuff.
He didn't get in trouble.
Why would Obama get in trouble?
These people at the top, they get away with it.
It's what I expect to happen.
It's what most people probably expect to happen.
We'll learn about it.
And then what?
Some low-level people will get in trouble.
Potentially Clapper, potentially Comey, potentially these other people.
But I guess we'll see.
Just to reiterate, I highlighted this Nunes post to show you that the Republicans have been vindicated.
John, the Durham investigation is ongoing.
It's a criminal investigation, and so I think we're going to see something happen in the coming months.
Stick around.
I hope you're ready for it.
But I'm going to say one more time, for those in the back, the Wall Street Journal is not a conspiracy rag.
It is one of the most prestigious papers in the country, and this is a statement from their editorial board.
So why don't y'all calm down, stop screaming that it's fake news, and start to accept, guess what?
The narrative's unraveling, and it seems like the Republicans were right.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you then.
We have major breaking news in the Ahmed Arbery case.
New video footage has emerged showing Arbery was entering this property on multiple occasions at night.
Now the footage that was released by WSAV-3 shows potentially two separate instances, three or maybe even four separate instances, Where Arbery was entering this property at night.
Now, this doesn't prove he stole anything, but it does dramatically change the narrative being pushed by the left and by, for some reason, many conservatives.
They have claimed that he was just out for a jog, but according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, video footage shows that he was walking in the neighborhood and entered the property.
The breakdown we have so far, this man, Arbery, was walking through the neighborhood, entered the property, Somebody witnessed it and approached him across the street, called 911 saying this man was on the property.
Arbery exits the front door and then takes off running.
He wasn't jogging.
You know what, man?
The he was just jogging is another... It's gonna be the big narrative, and I just believe it's a lie.
I gotta be honest.
I really do believe it's a lie.
I'm not gonna accuse the man of doing anything.
I don't know what he was doing.
I can tell you that he was around... I believe he was 10 miles from his home.
Jogging in a neighborhood that wasn't his seems to make no sense.
And especially when you consider that footage now exists of him in this property.
Take a look at this footage.
Walking around.
Was he consistently jogging this neighborhood and going through this property all the time?
What's he looking around for?
Here's footage from the day of the incident where, once again, he's entering the property.
Looking around.
What is he doing?
Okay, well, according to many conservatives, They say that he was simply scoping out a construction site because it's something that men like to do.
I kid you not.
We have seen people like Matt Walsh from the Daily Wire, and I've seen, I believe Mike Cernovich mentioned that it's a completely normal thing for men to do this.
I don't know if this is just like an urban versus suburban versus rural perspective, but as someone who grew up in Chicago, that to me makes literally no sense.
Where I grew up, if you entered a new build, there were cops patrolling.
They would arrest you.
Now typically, if you were just by yourself and you went in, they'd detain you, they'd question you, they'd frisk you, and then probably just kick you off on your way like, we don't want to deal with this.
But if you did it more than once, you would definitely be arrested.
They were patrolling.
The neighbors would call instantly.
So it's strange for me to see many conservatives arguing it's a normal thing to do.
That, not to me.
Not to me, man.
Now I wonder what their argument is going to be.
Do they not know about this footage?
Look, if you want to argue that someone was out for a jog and they saw a construction site so they peeked their head in to take a look at what was going on, okay, fine, maybe.
But how do you argue that a guy goes 10 miles from his house on multiple occasions, entering this property in the middle of the night?
That just makes no sense to me.
Again, I'm not accusing this man of doing anything wrong, and I want to make sure it's clear because the immediate defense from almost everyone is, but he didn't deserve to die.
No one said he did.
Well, actually, I'm sorry.
Some people are saying it, yes.
But I completely, completely disagree with those people.
And most people disagree with those people.
But no one is being honest in this story.
I'll tell you what.
This dude, in my opinion, appears to have had mal-intent.
I do not believe he was going 10 miles from his home for a jog and consistently just entering this property.
He just wants to see the update.
No, I don't think so.
No, I don't know what he was doing.
Perhaps he was there looking for tools or something else.
I don't know.
He kept doing it.
It's strange to me.
And if he knew that the people there didn't want him doing it, then it stands to reason he knew he was doing something wrong.
Why would he show up at night and enter this property?
You can see in the corner of one of the images, there's a boat here.
It stands to reason that somebody was keeping their private property at this new build, outside of just the construction materials.
So yeah, maybe they don't want someone constantly entering their property in the middle of the night, or showing up in the middle of the day and doing so.
That being said, two guys jumping in their truck with weapons is completely wrong.
It's substantially worse than some dude, you know, potentially stealing or whatever, or trespassing, whatever he was doing.
And the two- the McMichaels are- probably- probably should face something along the lines of...
I mean, actually, I gotta say, upon further review, potentially a murder charge.
And I really do mean it.
And not necessarily because I think it was cold-blooded murder, where I'm seeing these celebrities say things like, they hunted him down.
No, they certainly did not.
That is an extreme exaggeration.
Okay?
I mean, you could probably argue something to the effect of, They have seen footage of this guy.
They knew he'd repeatedly done this, and they wanted to stop him and talk to him.
Arbery approaches from around the side of the vehicle, attacks Travis McMichael in the front.
You can see it on the video.
A fight breaks out.
Arbery loses his life.
It shouldn't have happened.
A fight shouldn't have happened.
They shouldn't have gotten their trucks and gone after him.
A lot of things shouldn't happen.
But the important point that people are missing, the police were called.
These weren't two guys who ignored the police.
No, the police had already been called twice.
And so they were like, let's go after them.
Guess what?
Shouldn't have brought your weapons.
You come out with the ability to use deadly force, I understand there's self-defense and all these things, but it was a terrible situation.
So I really do feel that this is much more likely to be a negligent homicide or a manslaughter charge.
Potentially voluntary, maybe involuntary.
What people seem to be missing from the scuffle that breaks out where Arbery loses his life is that I can't speak to the statutes in Georgia But if it was murder, it meant that to varying degrees, either they premeditated it, which they didn't do very obviously, it was passion, meaning they approached the situation with the intent to end his life, or potentially in the third degree, where they were intending to hurt him and it resulted in his death.
I don't think any of those things are true based on the footage we've seen.
Stands to reason they were trying to stop him.
I don't know if they had a reasonable fear for why Arbery may be armed, but it's also true, according to all the reporting, that seven weeks prior there was a reported burglary, someone stole a gun from his truck.
Now, if this guy has been consistently entering their neighborhood and going in this property, Maybe it's not justified.
But maybe they thought this was the guy that took their weapon, and they were concerned about it.
I don't care to defend two guys who want to hop in their truck and go off and chase some dude down, resulting in a death.
That was wrong.
But it's strange to me.
You know, it's not really strange.
No one's going to change their mind.
People are dead set.
They know what happened.
They don't care about the truth.
Well, we have a Fifth Amendment for a reason.
You have a right to a trial.
You have a right to due process.
Okay?
But I'm already seeing even friends of mine posting things and they're just lying.
I don't get it, man.
Why don't people want to read the news to figure out what really happened?
This dude is not a saint.
Does he deserve to be killed?
Of course not!
But it wasn't an instance where two guys got in a truck, chased him down, aimed their weapons, and took him out.
It was two guys being dumb, trying to stop a guy, and they were armed, a fight breaks out, and one of the guys lost their lives.
It was a serious, serious screw-up.
Now it's possible, of course, that McMichaels really did intend to end this guy, in which case, well, we'll have to wait and see what happens.
But we do have more information that's coming out right now.
So this is the footage I mentioned before, and I just want to highlight this really quickly before we move on, to stress the point.
He wasn't jogging.
He was walking, okay?
Maybe he ran 10 miles and then stopped in this neighborhood where he likes to stop.
The argument from the family is that he likes jogging in this neighborhood.
That just really, to me, is just such an obvious falsehood.
Come on, man.
When people go for a jog, they walk out the front door of their house and they start jogging.
They have a trail, they have a path.
Or, when I grew up in Chicago, people would drive to the forest preserve, go on the trail, or they'd drive to the canal where there's like a road that goes along, and you could go for a run along it.
But to go to someone else's neighborhood, like go 10 miles from your home to someone else's neighborhood repeatedly and at night.
Come on, stop playing games.
Okay, this is not a defense of anybody.
It's just the facts.
But now apparently we're seeing that GBI has made an arrest for terroristic threats related to the Ahmed Arbery murder investigation.
Now this is very confusing and I don't know what this means.
Check this out.
They say Midway, GA.
On Sunday, the GBI arrested Rashawn Smith, age 20, and charged him with dissemination of information relating to terroristic acts.
He was taken into custody in Midway and will be booked into the Liberty County Sheriff's Office.
This investigation was conducted with the assistance of the FBI and Liberty County Sheriff's Office.
On Saturday, May 9, 2020, at approximately 11.55 p.m., the GBI was made aware of a Facebook post that contained a threat to future protests related to Ahmaud Arbery.
This is an ongoing and active investigation.
If anyone has any information pertinent to the case, please contact the GBI and they post the phone number.
Now, I believe this story was reported on by WSAV as well.
And they don't really elaborate on what this threat was.
I tried looking it up.
I couldn't find anything.
But it appears that he was threatening protesters.
So I can only assume, were these protesters pro-McMichael, pro-Arbery?
I honestly don't know.
I think it would be strange if he was threatening the protesters who supported Arbery because of the heat and anger around this case.
But I'll tell you what, man.
You know, this is, uh, it's ongoing.
New information needs to come out every day.
Everybody thinks they know.
Everybody's making excuses.
And let me tell you something.
I got a few things to say.
The first, I am flabbergasted by the attempted defense that this dude entering private property was somehow normal or justifiable.
You absolutely can point out that Ahmed Arbery should not have been entering this property, and that clearly the people didn't like it.
The people who are arguing that it's normal for someone to enter a new build, my question is, someone called 911 over this.
Clearly they don't want you doing it.
It's a weird justification.
It's totally normal for him to be trespassing.
No, it isn't.
I mean, not to me at least.
I don't know any circumstance with... Listen.
I've been skateboarding my whole life.
Let me tell you something.
Skateboarders know trespass.
Skateboarders do it.
All the time.
They hop fences, they climb through windows, looking for that sweet, sweet skate spot.
Growing up in Chicago may be where my bias comes from, but skateboarders all across the country, the world, will trespass.
They'll go into the canals, go watch videos from Los Angeles.
They'll hop the fence and go down to the LA River and skate where they're not supposed to be.
They do it all the time!
So yeah, skateboarders understand what trespass is.
Growing up in Chicago, there were various new builds that skateboarders in my area would go skate at.
You know why?
You've got flat, clean concrete, you've got an open space with a roof, and in the winter, you have a place you can skateboard.
And there's angle iron line around, and there's metal, and you can grind on it with your board, and you can just skate something unique and new.
And yes, they all knew when the cops showed up, because they would patrol, you had to book it.
Skateboarder's trespass.
It's a thing they do.
It's weird to me to see people acting like this guy did absolutely nothing wrong.
He didn't do anything to justify his life being ended.
Of course not.
I don't even believe in the death penalty!
Come on!
This is what's really funny to me.
It's like...
To see the Daily Wire people and, you know, joining in with the leftists to push this narrative, and then the immediate defense whenever I bring up this guy clearly was trespassing and people were, you know, concerned he was doing something.
It was like, he didn't deserve to die.
You know it.
Yep.
I've done multiple videos on why I oppose the death penalty.
You think I'm... No.
I'm not defending what happened to this guy.
I'm completely opposed to it in every aspect of every piece of my being I oppose the death penalty.
Okay?
So...
To see this story and these weird defenses, to me it's just strange.
But let me tell you something.
Let me tell you about my experiences growing up in Chicago.
I did a Twitter thread about this earlier.
I grew up on the southwest side by Midway, and yes, it pertains to this story.
So I lived on 49th Street, and on 47th Street, if you crossed over this, you went from a predominantly white area with some racial mixture, but mostly white, a lot of Polish immigrants, and it immediately became an entirely black neighborhood.
I don't know why.
I'm not an anthropologist or a city planner.
That's just the way it was.
Then if you headed to the east, you had Cicero Avenue.
And if you crossed that, it went from a white mixed area to a mostly Latino area.
In fact, you'd see the billboards would change to Spanish.
So that's how things were broken down.
Now, the further you went west, you started getting into the suburbs, because this is like the edge of the city.
And then once you crossed Harlem, you entered a mostly like poor white area called Summit.
That was a Harlem Avenue.
There was a cube.
It was a few square miles where there were racial barriers.
That's how Chicago was where I grew up.
And this created a ton of racial conflict and tension.
Because I think people are mostly... People are kind of dumb, right?
It's like George Carlin said, think about how stupid the average person is, now realize half of them are stupider than that.
While I don't necessarily think humans are, for the most part, stupid, I think humans make assumptions.
It's kind of like that Men in Black quote, where Agent K says, a person is smart, but people are dumb and panicky.
So here's what would happen.
We were told, growing up where I did, that you couldn't go north past 47th because the police would stop you.
Why?
Well, someone from that side of the neighborhood had no legal or reasonable reason to be on the other side of 47th, where the racial barrier basically was.
Now, people had friends.
I mean, it's the weirdest thing to make this assumption, but it was very different communities.
So there were a few instances where the cops would, like, see someone walking, stop them.
And there were a few instances where friends of mine were stopped by people in that neighborhood and warned not to go there.
So there was one story I know where a young teenage girl, a friend of mine, Crossed over into 47th and was warned by an older black man that she needs to turn around and go away.
Not because he thought, you know, for racial reasons she shouldn't be there, but he was worried that there was real tension and animosity for racial reasons.
So that's just a story someone told me, but it was a common thing we heard.
So here's what ends up happening.
You have these two communities, divided by the street, where people don't view each other as part of their neighborhood.
So when somebody of a different race would be like walking around, there were a lot of people who were racist.
And it wasn't that they were inherently racist, it's that their assumptions and their stupidity made them racist.
Because in my experience, what ended up happening was, they would say like, hey, that person clearly doesn't live on my side.
And they would make an assumption based on their race that the problems they experienced was because of race, when in reality, it was because they didn't care for each other's community.
If something bad happened on this side, they didn't care.
There were crimes committed typically in our neighborhood, and then people would blame the people from the other side.
It was all about community conflict.
And because humans, I think, can be really stupid and make assumptions, the first thing they saw was, it's because of race.
No.
Race did create a barrier, but it was because of this divide between the two communities and the assumption of what community was like, you know, who lived where.
In reality, they were people of all different races that lived in, you know, on the areas where I lived outside of 47th.
And a lot of us were friends, you know, of varying races and everything.
And it was interesting for me to grow up seeing that the older people, man, they were super racist.
Across the board, like, everybody was racist.
And I'm not talking about just the white people, that's the thing.
This is the point I'm trying to make.
We see a story like this.
I think the reason the people on the left are so quick to defend Arbery is because they tend to have grown up in white enclaves in the suburbs.
That's a statistical fact we know from the Hidden Tribes report.
So they grow up in this area where they're surrounded by white people, and they don't understand the tensions that arise when you live in these areas, and they assume the only racists are the white people.
Therefore, this man has done nothing wrong, he's completely innocent, and it's the white people who are at fault because the white people are racist.
Someone like me, growing up in this area, is seeing the real complications and conflict arising from, you know, how humans view each other.
And I say, well, it's probably a lot more complicated than anyone realizes.
But of course, like I said for the 50 billionth time, this guy shouldn't have lost his life over this.
They should have shown this footage to the police and asked them to patrol.
That's what they should have done.
Instead, they wanted the citizens to arrest the guy.
For what?
Trespass?
Now, there's some videos, like I mentioned the other day, where you can see stuff being thrown in the street or something like that, but there's no proof he threw anything in the street.
It doesn't even look like he did.
Some people have said he's wearing boots.
It doesn't really look like he's wearing boots to me.
I think someone got one frame where they're claiming it, but it doesn't matter.
Okay?
It doesn't matter.
The dude wasn't jogging.
That's a lie.
That's a narrative.
This is not jogging.
You are seeing the footage.
He was not out for a midnight jog with no shirt on and khakis to go to a— and then wandered into a construction site over and over and over again.
Okay, it's possible.
It really is.
It really is.
And the reality is, I don't know.
These are my assumptions, the same as anyone else is going to make an assumption about this.
It's entirely possible the dude did go for a night jog and decided, you know, I'm going to see how they're doing on the construction site.
Maybe they finished it and, you know, he can see the new wood going up and be all excited or something.
It's possible.
I don't buy it.
The reason I don't buy it is, for one, it seems absurd on its face.
This dude's not jogging ten miles from his home on private property.
That's just a weird thing to assert.
But the other issue is that I'm repeatedly told by social justice activists that the black community has to take special precautions.
There's a viral comic right now that's appeared on Reddit and it shows a man tying his shoes and his wife says, you know, where are you going?
I'm just going for a jog, honey.
And then she's like, you know, don't forget to wear your protection or something like that.
And then it shows him jogging, wearing a fake head of a white person.
If this is how people and these social justice activists really view the world, Then why would this person do something so out of the norm and dangerous and risk to themselves of going 10 miles from their home at night with no shirt and entering private property repeatedly?
The dude should not have lost his life.
In fact, I don't even believe in the death penalty, and I hope I've drilled that through your skull.
But when I tweet about this and say, the dude, you know, new footage shows us people are saying, so what, so what, so what?
And it's like, dude, it's because the media is lying right now.
It's because the activists are lying right now.
We can call out that this man shouldn't have died and point out you are being lied to.
This is not the story of an innocent man going for a jog.
It's a story of someone doing something dumb and committing a very low-level offense, if that, and then two idiots jumping in their car and chasing him down and causing a whole world of trouble and ending someone's life.
I get it.
Arbery started the fight, you can see it in the video, and I'm just flabbergasted that, you know, even people I know, some celebrities, some activists, are just... It's like they didn't even watch the video!
It's like...
You know what, man?
Here's what we can do.
We can wait and see how things play out.
Another dude has got arrested.
I don't know what to expect.
But I'll tell you what.
We heard the whole hands up, don't shoot thing.
Well, my understanding is that the final assessment was that in the Ferguson case, Michael Brown did not have his hands up.
It was just not the case based on the analysis of how the shots were fired.
This is a case where they're saying he was jogging, but we have multiple bits of video evidence showing that's not true.
He was not jogging.
Let's just be honest.
I wish.
Nobody wants to.
Apparently not even many conservatives, so I'll leave it there.
Thanks for hanging out!
I'll have more updates on the story as it comes, and I will see you all at 1pm on this channel.
In my previous segment, discussing the new footage that came out showing Ahmed Arbery inside the new-built property, the construction site, on several occasions at night, I briefly mentioned that with the assistance of the FBI, the GBI had made the arrest of a man named Rashawn Smith.
They claimed that he was making threats to future protests, but they didn't give us the full details.
Well, we now have an update.
This story did come out the other day, so I have a fuller picture here of what's going on.
This man, Rashawn Smith, is being accused of creating a hate crime hoax.
Creating a fake Facebook page, apparently supporting the McMichaels, the two men who were in the pickup truck in the confrontation with Arbery.
and threatening any protests that were actually seeking to mourn Arbery's death.
We also have some other information, but the man who recorded the video,
things are getting a bit out of hand. And as it goes, you've got tribal information war.
I think it's fair to say at this point, no one's really interested in getting to the
truth of what happened and getting justice.
I mean, look, there are obviously people who want to know what really happened and want to see justice, me being one of them, many of you probably agreeing.
But for some reason we're seeing many conservatives and leftists just push on this fake narrative and not try to figure out what actually happened.
And because of this, apparently, a man who is apparently innocent is now receiving threats.
In fact, this man.
Who filmed the incident is responsible for the two, uh, uh, the McMichaels being arrested in the first place.
Yet, for some reason, they're accusing this guy of being an accomplice.
He filmed it, he gave the footage to the police, the video came out, and it's the reason this is all happening.
But for some reason, these people are threatening this guy.
That's how bad things are getting.
Well, let's take a look at the first story.
They say, from the Daily Mail, BlackGeorgiaMan20 is arrested for setting up fake Facebook page in support of Ahmed Arbery's two killers.
I like how the Daily Mail is just going full framing on this one.
They say, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation on Sunday said that state police arrested Rashawn Smith and charged him with dissemination of information relating to terroristic acts.
Smith allegedly created a fake Facebook page and used it to make threats against the protesters.
He was taken into custody in Midway, a town about 50 miles north of Brunswick.
Earlier in the day, the GBI said it had been made aware of a Facebook post that contains a threat to future protests related to Ahmaud Arbery.
It was not immediately clear if Smith has an attorney who could comment on the charge.
Hundreds of people gathered alongside some 300 bikers in Brunswick on Saturday to honor Arbery.
The bikers were seen kneeling at the spot where Arbery was fatally shot on February 23rd by two white men who claim they were making a citizen's arrest as they suspected him of neighborhood burglary.
Several of those in attendance near the Sydney-Lanier Bridge wore face masks and t-shirts with the phrase, I run with Maude, in tribute to Arbery.
On February 23rd, Arbery was jogging in his Scintilla Shores neighborhood.
We actually don't know anything about what he was doing there, why he was there, and it wasn't his neighborhood.
He was relatively far away from his neighborhood.
That's accepted.
Maybe it's wrong.
And he's also been seen on multiple occasions at night.
Now, I love this because I tweeted this out, and I immediately get inundated with people saying the same thing over and over again.
Yeah, well, so what?
He doesn't deserve to die.
I agree.
I oppose the death penalty.
That's not the point.
The point is, he wasn't jogging.
That's an absurd assumption to make, and the Daily Mail's reporting it as fact.
So the bulk of the story here, or I should say the lead story for this main segment, is just this man trying to, uh, making hoax threats to smear people who would be supporting the McMichaels, which is kind of strange because very few people, I don't think anyone is supporting them to be honest.
Very few people.
There are.
I've seen the tweets.
But almost nobody.
I mean, there are high-profile conservatives that are taking the leftist perspective on this one, which is wrong.
And then there are many more people, typically on the right, who are simply saying these two guys shouldn't have gotten in a truck and gone after him, and it resulted in his death, and they're responsible for it, straight up.
But there are a few interesting things I've seen.
Now, I don't have one of the stories pulled up, but it talks about the guy who actually owns the home, Larry English.
Larry English is apparently saying nothing was ever taken from his property, and he's an innocent bystander in all this, and he's getting threats, and now he thinks he can't even return to his own property.
According to the Washington Post, The owner of the home where Arbery was inside of, several times, said that it was his bucket list.
He doesn't live there, he's about 90 miles away.
But that he wanted to build this waterfront property.
And that he hasn't seen anything taken, he's never reported a robbery, anything like that.
Now, I find this claim strange.
He's saying he just wants to get on with his life, and he's an innocent bystander, like I mentioned.
But how do the McMichaels know about this?
In fact, maybe they didn't.
Maybe they just heard people saying they saw it.
Maybe Larry English had told people these guys thought they were gonna go and catch somebody who was doing something, who apparently did very little.
A lot of people have argued with me, saying, what are you saying, Tim?
Are you accusing Arbery of stealing?
I'm like, no, I'm saying it's weird, and it's not, like, okay.
They're trying to say that Arbery was curious, and that's why he kept going into this property.
And I'm like, no, that makes no sense, man.
I'm not saying he stole anything.
I just don't know what he was doing.
It's really that simple.
But we can see how insane and heated things are getting.
Take a look at this.
Man who recorded the Ahmed Arbery shooting has been receiving threats, attorney says.
And the narrative that's coming out, apparently because in an initial police report, they argued this guy filming was actually trying to block Arbery.
He's denying that, saying no.
And the official statement is basically like, he saw the truck going after the guy, so he started filming and followed as well.
That's it.
Now he's receiving threats.
People do not care about what really happened.
I don't know what these people want, man.
I'll tell you what.
I have seen mobs.
I have seen mob mentality.
And this is what we are getting.
Okay?
Look, you're not gonna- there's no argument.
I don't think- I think 99% of people are saying Ahmed Arbery should not have lost his life.
There's a few- a small percentage of people saying, well, you know what?
He shouldn't have been committing a crime or whatever, but most people are like, dude shouldn't have died for this.
Okay?
So this is really strange, then, that people are just going out for blood for anyone related to this.
This is the danger of mob mentality, and it's why facts are so important.
But I'll tell you what, people are emotional.
They don't necessarily care about what happened, who did what.
When you get a mob rolling up, people just go nuts.
This is the danger of, like, the first Rock Throne, right?
So what happens during protests, we see how this mob mentality takes hold and how it escalates.
There'll be a big group of people, mostly peaceful.
Someone who wants to spark a mob mentality or a mob scene will go in the middle of the crowd, crouch down, and throw something.
That triggers the police, and then a bunch of people just go nuts, and it escalates and lights the powder keg.
What we're seeing right now, the powder keg has been lit off.
Most people don't care about what happened.
They don't care about the facts.
They just want blood.
And I mean that figuratively.
Here's a story from News4JAX.
The man who recorded the fatal shooting of Ahmed Arbery in Georgia is receiving threats.
After authorities announced he's also being investigated following the killing, his attorney said.
The man, William Rhodey Bryan, shared the 36-second video with police and was cooperating with investigators, his attorney Kevin Goff said in a statement Friday.
I don't know how to pronounce that.
It's English.
Spare me.
It was Mr. Brine who videotaped the incident in question, disclosed the existence of the videotape, and invited a responding Glynn County police officer to sit with him in his truck where they watched the video together.
The video appears to show the confrontation between Arbery and two men before the shooting that left Arbery dead.
They go on to explain what happened, we know.
The footage was a very important piece of evidence, GBI Director Vic Reynolds said Friday.
Asked whether there will be additional arrests, Reynolds told reporters the investigation is still active.
We investigate everybody involved in the case, including the individual who shot the video.
The comments by authorities have put Brian's life in danger, along with his family, friends, and neighbors, his attorney said in a statement.
He added that his client has lost his job despite committing no crime and cooperating with the investigation.
This is why you stay the F away from mob whatever.
This guy decided to film this stuff.
You shouldn't have done it.
Stay away.
Avoid the conflict.
And you know what?
Let this be a lesson to all the people who want justice.
Because of what you're doing, you are making sure that witnesses do not come forward.
The only reason these guys, the McMichaels, are getting arrested, the only reason this story is happening, Is because of this man.
Rhodey, Brian, or whatever you say his name is.
Because he filmed it!
Because he gave the footage to the police!
It's the prosecutor who didn't move forward.
It's the police who didn't arrest the guys.
Don't get mad at the witness who gave you the evidence that you needed to make this happen.
But of course, now you're gonna see a ton of people refusing to engage, not wanting to be involved, and giving no statements.
And congratulations!
They say, go, Brian's attorney said his client was not acting in conjunction with the McMichaels the day of the shooting.
Brian was doing yard work when he saw an unfamiliar man being chased by a car he recognized as being from the neighborhood.
Brian filmed the incident and shared the video with police when they arrived on scene.
Later, he went to a police station so authorities could access and download the footage.
Brian and the McMichaels did not have a relationship, Goh said, besides being neighbors, and at one point when Gregory McMichael brought lawnmowers to the shop where Brian worked.
Any implication that his client was a vigilante was inaccurate.
Mr. Brian videotaped what was going on, and because he did that, there is a prosecution.
If he had not videotaped that incident, the only person who really could speak to what happened is dead and will never have that opportunity.
The video is the prosecution.
The GBI is reviewing additional video and photographs as part of the investigation it announced Saturday in a news release.
The footage, which the GBI did not describe, was reviewed prior to the arrests of Gregory and Travis McMichael.
The McMichaels allegedly chased down Arbery in a pickup truck, believing he was a suspect
in a string of burglaries.
Gregory McMichael told police his son...
Yeah, so this we know.
CNN's attempts to reach Gregory and Travis have been unsuccessful.
According to an April 7th letter from Waycross Judicial Circuit District Attorney General
George Barnhill, who has since recused himself from the case, his son and McMichael helped
with an earlier prosecution of Arbery when they both worked for the Brunswick Judicial
Circuit District Attorney's Office.
Barnhill's letter, sent to the office of Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr, did not specify
what the prior prosecution was for or when it took place.
Now some people have responded to that saying...
So in the video, many of you have probably seen it, I've gone over this several times
now.
This guy who's filming is relatively far away.
He's not blocking anyone from doing anything, okay?
He's in fact so far away you can't even see what's really going on and the video pans.
You can't really make out a lot of what's happening.
This guy is saying he was just a bystander who filmed it.
In that video, though, you can see that Travis McMichael is in front of his pickup truck, and Arbery turns right, presumably because Travis is standing in the road, and goes around the pickup, but then attacks Travis.
That's in the police report.
That's what we see on video.
The defense we see from many of the defenders of Arbery is that, well, if someone was pointing a weapon at you, you'd defend yourself as well, too.
That's an extremely good point.
And a lot of people I see are dismissing it, arguing that Arbery just struck him for no reason.
I'll tell you what, man.
Regardless of what he did or was doing, if there's a guy with a weapon in the middle of the road, yeah, you gotta make a decision.
You don't know if the guy's gonna attack you, shoot you in the back, you have no idea what you're gonna do, so I can understand why there's motivation for this fight breaking out, which is why I've said these two guys were wrong to get in their pickup and chase after him.
The problem I have with everything is the mob.
They're going after the witness who's allowing us to know what's going on.
Y'all need to calm down!
This dude's speaking out now.
Man Who Recorded Shooting Of Arbery Speaks Out.
And this is a story from CBS local, JAX, saying, Last week, after the arrest of the two men, we have an interview with William Roddy.
Roddy is his name, I believe.
Action News reporter Bridget Matters spoke to Brian in his home.
He says he's been in complete shock.
Here's what he said.
Complete shock.
I've never been involved in anything like that before.
The GBI said Brian and his video are both currently part of the investigation.
The video, which was leaked more than two months after the shooting, prompted demonstrations.
We get it.
He said, I am not feeling safe at all.
I haven't felt safe in at least three to five days now.
Like Amy, his fiancee, has said, the threats have been real.
The initial police report mentions Brian attempted to block him, which was unsuccessful, but Brian denies being a part of the confrontation.
I had nothing to do with it.
I'm trying to get my life back to normal and it's been smeared for the last week.
I was told I was a witness and I'm not sure what I am other than receiving a bunch of threats.
His lawyer apparently said, my client was responding to what he saw, this we already know, I read that already.
Brian and his fiance said they are now living in their car in fear for their lives.
I'd be lying if I didn't say I wasn't scared.
If that's what they wanted to do was scare me, they've scared me.
The Brian's attorney expects the GBI to give him more information.
You know, I'll be honest, we don't know who's threatening this guy.
I think it's fair to say it's likely the leftist activists who are threatening him.
It's entirely possible there are people threatening him for having filmed this and getting the McMichaels arrested in the first place, but I really, really doubt that.
This is what we have to be careful of.
I've seen it in protests.
We've seen it in riots.
We see how this escalates.
And now you've got people who don't care about what's really happening.
They just want...
What they call justice.
It's not justice.
It's never justice.
Justice is due process.
It's the Fifth Amendment.
I'll be the first one to point out, having covered a lot of these things, you have a serious problem when it comes to due process when one party to this is no longer alive to actually tell you what happened.
Ahmaud Arbery has died.
We'll never hear his side of the story.
And that is a serious problem with getting to the truth.
What was he doing?
Why was he doing it?
Why had he frequently been there?
We'll never know.
And we'll never know because these two guys jumped in a truck and went after a guy.
Now, it's not a story.
This is what really bothers me because I've, you know, look.
I guess the main thing I should be highlighting is the hoax hate crimes.
This is how insane things get.
This is what happens when people are just going to war for no reason, alright?
So this is what I'll say.
I see the posts from, man, friends of mine who are just saying lies.
It's the most frustrating thing.
And I know there's nothing I can say to them.
No one will change their mind.
I could message my friend and say, yo, that post you put up is not true, man.
No, I am not saying these guys were good guys.
Not at all.
But man, you really got to stop this.
Look what's happening.
The witness is getting threats.
The guy who owns the home is getting threats.
unidentified
These are the people who are helping give evidence.
And this dude now arrested for setting up a fake Facebook page.
Why?
To get people hurt.
This is nuts.
Things are getting out of hand.
Nobody cares.
That's all I want.
I want everyone to calm down and say, let's get some justice.
Let's look over the evidence.
Instead, when this guy puts out these fake threats, what's going to happen?
The protesters are now going to point the finger at conservatives.
Well, tons of conservatives are on their side, so that's strange.
But it's creating insane tribal animosity.
People will get hurt.
This dude's hoax Facebook page is going to create partisan lines.
The fake threats will freak people out and they're going to escalate tensions.
It's probably because they want it to happen.
The people posting things like this, this dude, he wants chaos, he wants conflict.
You know why?
It's not about justice like I mentioned.
It's about justification.
This dude wants to be justified in his hatred.
We see this all the time with hoax hate crimes.
Look at the Jussie Smollett thing, man.
We got Jussie Smollett, what, 4, 5.0?
It keeps happening.
This dude needs to be able to justify why he hates other people.
And he wants other people to join in his hate.
So he makes a fake Facebook page and he threatens people so that everybody can get all angry and scared, and then he can say, see, this proves it.
They think they're right, they think they know.
The problem is, you're not actually seeing real threats.
It's a fake narrative created by people who just want blood.
Now, I don't know what this guy really wants.
I'll tell you what.
I have no idea.
Maybe he's just like the Joker.
He just wants to watch the world burn.
So, setting a fire to the powder keg was what he was trying to do.
Fortunately, he was caught.
I don't know how apparently they said the FBI and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation worked together on this one and the GBI made the arrest.
But this is what we need to be careful for because we've seen it across the country.
You know what happens when someone lies and sparks hatred and then it results in rioting.
And I have to wonder, what really really bothers me about this Makes me so angry to see people I know going on Facebook and Instagram and posting these things, saying it's so heartbreaking, this poor man was jogging.
And I'm like, where were you when that Asian woman got kicked in the face?
Andy Ngo's been talking about it.
It's really difficult to get justice for certain communities.
Think about what goes on in New York all the time with the Jewish community.
Have you seen the videos where people run up and they bash the face in of just innocent people who are walking on the street?
Happen to be Jewish.
How hard is it to get justice for these people?
What about the crimes committed against Asian Americans that never make the press like this and happen all the time?
These social justice people, they go on their accounts and they're like, it's not fair!
It's like, bro, I didn't see you come out for any of these other minority groups.
You never do!
You are lying!
You just want the chaos!
That's why I don't like it, I don't trust it, and you see this stuff.
Are they gonna call this guy out?
Is any one of these people going on their social media virtue signaling tirade gonna point out it is fake, it is being exaggerated?
No.
What we have is a story of stupidity, tragedy, And it happens all the time in this country, yet it's selective outrage.
I don't know why, you know, I don't know why it is that people latch onto these stories.
It's almost just like a spark.
We don't know for sure.
There's so many other stories that people could latch onto and protest over and get angry over, but for some reason it's always stuff like this.
Confusing, complicated, and nuanced.
I think about that story of, I think his name was Philando Castile.
The guy who was legally carrying a firearm and a cop killed him.
And I'm like, that did get a lot of attention.
I'm glad it did.
Because that was injustice.
And we got a clear picture.
His girlfriend or fiancé, I'm not sure the relationship, livestreamed it.
It was horrifying.
Innocent dude.
Legally carrying a firearm.
Had his life ended.
That's what you gotta call out, man.
This is a story of a guy who, in all likelihood, in my opinion, was not jogging, was entering a property on multiple occasions.
I can only assume for why, but the point is, he was trespassing, people didn't like it, a couple morons took lethal force to confront him, and it resulted in somebody losing their lives.
That shouldn't have happened.
But stories like this happen all the time, man.
They're trying to make it out to be a lynching.
They're trying to make it out to be race-related.
It's not at all.
That's an extreme assumption.
And then when they do, it just bothers me that so often we see these stories not get covered when it's any other racial minority.
It just makes me feel like it's all a lie.
I'll leave it there.
I'll see you all at 4 p.m.
on my main channel.
If you want to check out the main channel, in the description below, go to TimCast.net and you'll be brought to a channel many of you didn't know existed.
I do.
I get a bunch of messages.
People are saying, I don't understand you have another channel.
I do.
TimCast.net.
Check it out.
I will see you all there at 4 p.m.
The other day, Chuck Todd aired a deceptively edited segment that made Bill Barr look really bad.
It took his comments out of context by removing the bulk of his answer, making it seem like he was acting like, I can do whatever I want.
Something to that effect.
We'll read to it.
The Daily Mail reports Donald Trump demands Chuck Todd is fired and his bosses at NBC are prosecuted by the FCC for editing tape of Bill Barr discussing clearing Michael Flynn as he rages against sleazy hit job.
Now, they don't have the tweet pulled up.
Or something where Donald Trump says they should actually be prosecuted.
He just says something to the effect of, if it was a Republican, they would be prosecuted.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but we'll read the story.
We also have news that Joe Scarborough is apologizing to Mike Pence and Ted Cruz after a heated Twitter feud.
Now, that I can respect.
Thank you, Mr. Scarborough.
We'll get to this if we have time, but let's read about what Donald Trump is saying.
And I'll tell you, if he really wants this guy to be prosecuted for fake news, we have a First Amendment, so you can't do that.
But let's just read.
The Daily Mail says President Donald Trump launched a new round of salvos at NBC's Chuck Todd on Monday morning, complaining Meet the Press performed a sleazy hit job on Attorney General William Barr and reiterating his call for Todd to be fired.
Okay, now that's different.
Guy probably should be fired.
Trump let loose after the program admitted to inadvertently cutting short a soundbite from Barr when he was responding to a question about the dismissal of charges against former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn.
No, they didn't inadvertently do it.
They literally did it.
They showed it and then they dropped the audio right after Bill Barr basically says he's asked You know, about, you know, Flynn being released, how people would think, and he says, well, you know, history's written by the winners, so it really just depends, but I think history will reflect that we did the right thing, blah blah blah.
They cut off the end, so it sounds like he's just saying, well, we're in charge, so we win, blah blah blah.
He should be fired by CONCAST if done by a Republican would be prosecuted, Trump tweeted Monday morning, CCing Ajit Pai, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, the FCC's jurisdiction over the public airwaves, which NBC used to broadcast.
The president launched an all-out Twitter assault against Todd, who he frequently derides as sleepy eyes, on Sunday after NBC made its apology for the edited quote from Barr.
Trump picked up Monday morning where he left off the night before, retweeting his own salvos and hits from his supporters, including one that called NBC's actions a sleazy hit job.
The president also retweeted a point made by Fox News' Brit Hume, who wrote, quote, Though NBC posted a correction on Twitter of its misrepresentation of Barr's words, as of this writing, it had not added so much as a note to the transcript.
Hume had his own Twitter controversy in March when he was mercilessly mocked online after he posted a screenshot on Twitter about the election and eagle-eyed social media users realized a tab on his internet browser said sexy vixen vinyl.
It's not nearly as bad as Kurt Eichenwald, who is so bad I'm not going to point it out.
Well, I'll just tell you.
It had something to do with tentacles, and you know where that goes.
So yeah, some people get bad things happening.
Let's read some more.
So here we can see his tweets.
Slazy hit job, Chuck Todd.
Chuck Todd is the guy who had on Ted Cruz and asked him about, I believe it was Chuck Todd, asked him about Ukrainian meddling and he was like, do you really think the Ukrainians were meddling?
And Ted Cruz said something to the effect of, there have been numerous press reports that Ukrainians may have done this.
And then all of a sudden you hear laughing on Chuck Todd's side and he starts laughing.
And it's like, bro, do you even have Google?
Chuck Todd should be fired for a million and one reasons.
This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
You could have just Googled it, bro.
The New York Times wrote about the Ukrainian meddling.
A court in Ukraine ruled it was happening.
This guy, it's sleazy, performative rage bait.
What do you expect?
They say, but it was NBC's Chuck Todd in the president's sightlines after Meet the Press used an abbreviated quote.
Is that what you're calling it, Daily Mail?
Come on!
NBC apologized for the poor editing on Sunday evening, admitting that the clip Todd had played was inadvertently and inaccurately cut short.
But Trump picked up on it and included his fury at Todd and the network in a tweet storm on Sunday.
The president spent Mother's Day firing off more than 100 tweets and retweets, also launching attacks at Barack Obama, 60 Minutes, and Jimmy Kimmel.
One of those included his calls for Todd to be fired.
Sleepy Eyes Chuck Todd should be fired by Comcast NBC for this fraud.
He knew exactly what he was doing.
Public airwaves equals fake news.
Well, I agree with the bulk of what Trump is saying.
I think Chuck Todd knew exactly what he was doing.
It's the name of the game, man.
Come on.
If you want to get the ratings, if you want to get the traffic, you've got to shock and sensationalize.
That's what it's all about, man.
They say it took place during a roundtable discussion that, you know, we get it.
Do they have the apology here?
Here's a statement from Carrie Koupek of the DOJ, very disappointed by the deceptive editing commentary by Chuck Todd.
So I did talk about this the other day, but they ended up apologizing later last night, saying, you're correct.
Earlier today, we inadvertently and inaccurately cut short a video clip of an interview with A.G.
Barr before offering commentary and analysis.
The remaining clip included important remarks from the Attorney General that we missed and we regret the error.
No, they don't.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
You run the fake news, you get all the clicks.
You run the apology, you still get clicks.
That means they make money on the fake news and the apology and then can say, oh, it was all a mistake.
We're so sorry.
They're not gonna run an on- Well, I'll tell you what.
I don't know if they've run an on-air attraction.
I'd like to see them run an on-air attraction.
An apology.
Maybe they will.
I really doubt it.
They say, uh, Kubek would say she was very disappointed.
So we got all this.
You know what?
Here's what we should do.
Let's take a look at the right way to do things.
Joe Scarborough, for all his faults, he has said some pretty good things.
He has been self-critical in the past, and here he is saying that he's got to work on himself.
Scarborough apologizes to Mike Pence and Cruz after heated Twitter feud.
Maybe this is what Chuck Todd should be doing.
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough apologized to Vice President Pence and Senator Ted Cruz after getting into a weekend Twitter feud, saying he was wrong to retweet a video produced by the late night host Jimmy Kimmel, and that he should not have allowed himself to be provoked about last night.
I gotta work on some things myself.
I feel really bad about retweeting the Jimmy Kimmel video, Scarborough wrote while retweeting conservative pundit Eric Erickson.
I feel worse about being provoked.
I apologize again to Mike Pence, to my Twitter followers, and to Ted.
I've got to do better.
Here, here, good sir, I respect that.
You see, Jimmy Kimmel also produced fake news where he accused Mike Pence of staging a press event with fake boxes of protective equipment.
Some Democrats then latched on and said, hot mic catches Mike Pence delivering empty boxes.
The whole thing was fake.
I can't, I don't get it, man.
I've asked it before.
At what point are they tired of being wrong?
I don't, this is what you fall for, man.
So I can respect Joe Scarborough for apologizing for it.
But perhaps if you learned, Covington, Jussie Smollett, come on, man, you can't constantly just believe this stuff, can you?
Man, Jimmy Kimmel, dude, that guy is the worst.
This is what they do.
They make fake videos and they get away with it.
Eric Erickson actually tweeted, he said, about last night, I got to work on word choices and I'm deeply encouraged by the large number of conservatives, not to mention everyone else who agreed, that actually makes me more hopeful about the situation within the movement.
They say the Kimmel video showed Pence delivering protective gear to a Virginia hospital.
During part of the video, Pence is told that some of the boxes are empty, and he jokes to staffers about whether he should carry those into the hospital.
The only boxes he carries in are full of gear, but the video suggests Pence was bringing in empty boxes.
After Cruz criticized Scarborough for tweeting the video, Scarborough ripped Cruz, saying he had sold his soul to support President Trump.
Ted Cruz said, Hmm.
When you're on the defensive for being dishonest and corrupt, perhaps best not to forward fraudulent stories from Jimmy Kimmel.
That he's admitted were false.
You're claiming to be a journalist.
Scarborough said, Ted, when I make a mistake, I admit it.
You remain mired in shame because you kowtow to a man who called your wife ugly and said
your daddy assassinated JFK.
Me messing up a tweet or two will never erase the shame you carry every day of your life.
I try my best to avoid this kind of Twitter absurdity because Joe made no argument.
Ted Cruz made an argument.
Ted Cruz's argument is that if you want to claim you're not fake news, don't post fake news.
Joe Scarborough responded with an ad hominem saying, well, Trump makes fun of you and you bend the knee to him.
Has nothing to do with fake news at all.
You want to make a separate argument?
I guess that's fine.
But I'll tell you what, this is one of the biggest problems with political commentary on the left.
It's what they do.
So Joe Scarborough apologized.
I can respect that.
So Ted Cruz falls into the muck in the mire too.
He deserves some criticism.
Ultimately, it ended with an apology.
I can respect it.
Kimmel is a comedian, but he still should be careful about perpetuating a narrative the media peddles fake news.
Look, Jimmy Kimmel is a comedian, but people go to Kimmel, they go to John Oliver, they go to Trevor Noah, Samantha Bee, expecting them to get real information.
Expecting to get real information.
They really do!
What people will tell you is the comedian defense.
It's just a joke, man.
They're not supposed to take it seriously.
No, dude.
There's a difference between someone making a joke like George Carlin would, and someone showing you a video clip, claiming it's true, and then mocking it.
People, look, People went to Jon Stewart because Jon Stewart told the truth, for the most part.
I say for the most part because I'm not going to go through every single one of his videos.
But Jon Stewart would uncritically show some Veritas stuff and praise the work Veritas had done.
Jon Stewart was honest and was humorous in his delivery of information.
What we get now?
John Oliver lying.
Samantha Bee lying.
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
Jimmy Kimmel lying.
And they justify it by saying we're just telling jokes, it's not supposed to be serious.
But when people think you are giving them factual information and you don't clarify that, you are misleading them.
Now listen, I understand there's a difference between satire And, you know, delivering the news.
Some news outlets, some fact-checking outlets, I'll do air quotes, have dragged some parody sites and satirical sites for misleading people.
Listen, if Jimmy Kimmel says here's a real video of Mike Pence and then cuts it so you can't tell what happened, that's different from someone claiming Ocasio-Cortez grew dragon wings and started flying around breathing fire.
Some of these stories that come out from like the Babylon Bee end up getting fact-checked even though they're satire and they're absurd on their face.
It's very different from what Jimmy Kimmel has done.
Well, I'm glad to see the apology from Scarborough.
Donald Trump, I don't believe, wanted a prosecution, but you can't prosecute anyway.
Chuck Todd is just a bad person, and that's that.
I'll leave it there.
Yeah, I rag on the media all the time.
I got a couple more segments coming up for you in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Joe Biden is going to get absolutely crushed, and everybody knows it.
The odds that we're getting in Vegas, the average betting odds, have Trump up eight points on Joe Biden.
And now we're even seeing the MSNBC founder say Biden is not ready for primetime election season, going as far to say, It really pains me to say, but Joe Biden just, he doesn't have it.
Listen, man, let me tell you something.
When MSNBC has no faith Biden has what it takes to actually go up against Trump, who's betting on this guy?
Let me show you something, right?
Betting markets say the money is on Trump.
Why would anyone in their right mind bet on Joe Biden or assume Joe Biden could or would win?
That's insane to me.
How are the betting odds not 99 to 1?
Arguing, Donald Trump's got this, anyone who bets on Biden is an idiot.
When even MSNBC says he doesn't have what it takes, no one is betting on this guy.
Are you crazy?
I'll tell you what.
In 2016, a dollar bet on Donald Trump was a good bet.
Because you felt like Trump was gonna win, but everything showed you he wasn't.
All the polls, so you were like, I really don't think so.
So some people made a lot of money because the odds were like, you know, it was like a 10 to 1 gain.
If you put a dollar down, you won 10 bucks.
I know some people who made some money.
I don't know if that was the exact number.
But a lot of people I knew in 2016, and a lot of what we saw, like I thought Trump was gonna win based on what I was hearing and seeing.
But the mainstream media and the narrative said Hillary had it in the bag, and that's what I believed.
So it was a conflict.
It was like, could Trump really win this?
No, the polls are not in his favor.
Some people made those bets and they won.
I'll tell you right now, I would not put even a single dollar on Joe Biden.
I wouldn't do it.
I'd rather just buy a candy bar.
At least I know I'm getting something for my dollar.
In fact, I'd rather put the dollar in a piggy bank.
Putting a dollar on Biden, to me, is just ridiculous and not even worth it.
Because the odds aren't even that good.
You might win another dollar, but you're guaranteed to lose the dollar.
Trump was a good bet.
A lot of people made money on him.
The Examiner reports Tom Rogers, the founder of MSNBC and CNBC, said presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden was not ready for a general election clash with Trump.
Rogers, who is now an editor-at-large for Newsweek, made the argument about the general election during a Monday appearance on Morning Joe.
The interview focused on a column he wrote.
Well, Trump has been dominating the media as we all know, and Biden has not been in the spotlight.
But that's going to shift, and when it shifts, Biden needs to perform.
The bottom line is, the candidate needs to be able to articulate a clear and convincing message, and particularly when it comes to the pandemic.
What my piece says is he's not there yet.
Rogers continued.
And it pains me to say this.
It really does.
But his performance in being able to come up with a compelling narrative and a passionate storyline that is really ready for primetime election season, when it comes to talking about the legacy of Donald Trump, of mass death and economic collapse, he's just not there yet.
Excuse me, sir.
Did you say yet?
I'm sorry.
No, he's not there.
He'll never be there.
It will never happen because Joe Biden can't talk.
The dude's gone.
I don't know what you think is gonna happen.
I can respect you saying he's not there, but adding the yet just makes me question what you're really thinking.
You think there's a point which Joe Biden magically gets his ability to speak back?
No, he's old, it's going down.
It's not like it's a baby who's learning to talk and you're like, in a few years, they'll be good to go.
No, there's someone where it's like, in a few years, they will be gone.
He's already just out of it.
He went on to call Biden's performance in the primary process so far very unsatisfying and faulted the former vice president for sticking to mostly softball interviews.
In his column, Rogers said Trump was dominating the media landscape with frequent press conferences, although he argued that they may actually be helping Biden based on the president's performance.
That's not true.
Donald Trump's approval rating in the average was going up the more he did these press briefings until the media cut him off.
Then he started doing bad.
He says, quote, first, Trump has not been able to use the briefings to showcase capable leadership through this health and economic crisis.
Instead, the American people have watched him blame governors, criticize the press and release substantial misinformation.
He wrote before noting Biden will need to step up eventually.
Letting Trump continue to devalue his own political standing has been beneficial to Biden.
At a time when Biden's own media performances from home have unfortunately shown a worrisome inability to focus his message and articulate clearly and crisply.
As we move toward election day, Biden will no longer be able to let Trump do the talking.
He will have to come out and present the case against Trump himself, as well as his vision for the future.
And that is the time bomb.
He's right.
Joe Biden can't stay hidden.
You can argue that Trump is floundering and making himself look bad.
But but Biden can't stay hidden.
He'll have to come out eventually.
And when he does, boy, will he tank in the polls?
Because people are gonna look at Trump and be like.
You know, Trump's mean.
He's a nasty guy.
He says weird things.
He speaks in kind of a weird way.
Joe Biden doesn't speak at all.
Joe Biden is just word salad.
I have no idea what he's proposing.
I have no idea why he's running or what he wants to do.
I really don't.
There's no message.
And it's partly because Joe Biden can't deliver it, even if someone wrote him one.
Joe Biden could hire the best of the best, and they could craft this beautiful speech, and Biden would not be able to deliver it.
What do you think's gonna happen when they put this guy in primetime TV?
He's gonna just... The betting... I'll tell you what right now, man.
You know why you don't want to bet on Biden right now?
Or Trump?
You don't want to bet on Trump.
Because the odds have Trump in the average at, I believe, like... What is he sitting at?
Wait until they do one debate and then see the odds flip.
Then it'll get so bad that the odds are gonna... Actually, no, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
You do want to bet on Trump now.
That's what I mean to say.
Because you're looking at like a 2-to-1 win, right?
You put down 10 bucks, you might win 20.
As soon as they see that first debate between Trump and Biden, Trump and the betting odds is gonna go to like 99-to-1. 99.9.
And maybe then a dollar bet on Biden might work.
I mean, who knows?
They may try to steal or rig the election.
I'm not saying that's what I believe is going to happen.
I'm just saying there's a 0.001% chance that maybe there's a grand conspiracy to shut out Trump.
Maybe Biden wins?
Okay.
If the odds are that heavy, I might put a dollar on Biden.
But I gotta be honest, man.
I still feel like I'd just lose the dollar.
I'd probably be more satisfied just holding on to it.
Axios says, even after the White House delayed response to the coronavirus outbreak, unprecedented job losses, and a bruising recession, investors and betting markets are still putting their money on President Trump to win re-election.
Yeah, because nobody blamed Trump for a virus.
He didn't make it.
It's not his fault.
The big picture.
They say, presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden holds a sizable lead in most national and individual swing state polls.
But money managers expect Trump to retake the White House in November.
In a late April survey of U.S.-based investors with at least $1 million of assets, UBS found that 53% said they planned to vote for Biden.
But 52% think Trump will win.
The world's most popular betting destinations show Trump as the clear favorite.
Here's my favorite part.
They're saying straight up the 1% is in the bag for Biden, not Donald Trump.
You want to argue that Trump is a billionaire and all these awful things?
You can be mad about everything having to do with Donald Trump.
Donald Trump didn't stop Bernie from winning.
In fact, Donald Trump defended Bernie Sanders.
The world's most popular betting destinations show Trump as the clear favorite.
The RealClearPolitics average of betting websites gives the advantage to Trump with an average spread of 8.2 as of Sunday night.
Casino sportsbooks are paying around $83 for winning bets on Trump versus $135 for winning bets on Biden, making Biden the unequivocal underdog Bovada shows.
What we're hearing.
The expectation for Trump to triumph seems to largely reflect optimism about the economy once various state and local lockdown orders end, economists say.
Quote, we can't expect the economy is going to be in very good shape, although the trajectory ought to be pretty positive by November.
Steve Skank, Skank?
Is that how you pronounce that?
A former Treasury Department and Council on Economic Affairs official in the Carter and Reagan administration tells Axios.
As November approaches, it's more than likely we're going to see a positive stock market and there will be positive growth, says Skank.
Skanky, maybe?
I don't know.
Now Chief Economic Advisor at Wealth Manager Keel Point.
The wild card, obviously, is the virus and the potential vaccine, Mark Zandi of Moody's tells Axios.
And that's a very significant wildcard, both on the downside and the upside for people's perceptions of how the president managed all this and how they're going to vote in November.
Yes, but thus far Trump has not gotten the expected bump that comes from national catastrophes, as Americans typically rally around the flag and the president, says Bernard.
Baumol, chief economist at the Economic Outlook Group.
And honestly, Cuomo has.
Andrew Cuomo, his polls are like 80% approval even though he has completely mismanaged everything.
It is not just my opinion that Cuomo's mismanaged everything.
They're the hot spot.
Things are just worse than ever in New York.
Cuomo resisted the shutdown when Bill de Blasio said they wanted to do it.
Yet somehow Cuomo's approval rating is through the roof.
It's amazing.
It really, really is.
It goes to show you the power of the media smear machine against Donald Trump.
Trump isn't responsible for this, and for the most part, neither is Cuomo.
China is.
Yet Cuomo is coming out now calling it the European virus?
You know what, man?
I can't imagine this guy's approval rating being so high.
It is, though.
It's like, you'd think after all the mess-ups, he'd be sitting around 50-some-odd percent.
I can respect what he's trying to do.
But I'll tell you what.
Maybe the reality is nobody blames Cuomo for the virus.
And he's trying really hard, and they're seeing the effort he's putting in.
The same is true for Donald Trump, but Trump still has to contend with the resistance faction of Trump Derangement Syndrome.
There's no Cuomo Derangement Syndrome.
I mean, maybe a little bit.
So Trump faces an uphill battle.
He's got the press set up against him, and so it's a lot harder for him to win that approval rating.
But does it really matter?
I honestly don't know.
Because the betting odds favor Trump.
And I often say, you know, to me, I go, I follow the money.
You think these Vegas betting-odd agencies want to lose money?
They don't.
They're in the business of making money, meaning they need to make sure the spread is in their favor, right?
When you roll the dice on a craps game, you got a 50, you know, I'm just generalizing, but the House has a 1% advantage, sometimes even less.
Because the goal is, if enough people play, they just slowly win over time, even if you win here or there.
When it comes to people betting money, they take these things seriously, and they want to make sure they're doing it right.
So if they're saying Donald Trump is the favorite, I lean towards that.
But I will remind you, the betting odds, in my understanding, didn't favor Donald Trump back in 2016.
Everybody got it wrong.
Biden might actually win this one because people don't like Trump.
I guess we will see.
Trump supporters, remember hubris will be your downfall.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
Should biological males be allowed to compete against biological females?
It is a question we have been asking for quite some time as more and more schools and competition and organizations allow transgender individuals to compete against other people based on how they identify.
So what we end up seeing is these young females Well, now we have a very interesting development.
arguing that it is gender discrimination to allow males to compete against them.
Just because the males identify as female doesn't mean it's fair.
Thus their rights are being infringed upon.
Well now we have a very interesting development.
The judge in the case is saying you can't describe males as male.
Which is very, very weird.
Basically, the judge has already issued a ruling.
Could you imagine trying to argue that males shouldn't be competing against females, they should be separated, but then being told you have to refer to those males as females?
The lawyers would basically say something like, females shouldn't be allowed to compete against females.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
Wait, what?
How would you effectively argue that in a piece of paper?
You can't do it!
The argument is, are they male?
That's the whole argument.
The judge has basically already shown their bias.
So the attorneys are now asking for the judge to recuse himself because how can you have a fair trial if the judge is saying it's bullying to refer to males as male?
This stuff, it's really, really annoying.
But let's read.
Attorneys for Connecticut high school runners ask judge to recuse after he forbids them
from describing trans athletes as male.
They say, the ADF filed suit in February against the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference
on behalf of three girls.
The suit challenges the CIAC policy allowing students to compete in the division that accords with their gender identity on the grounds that it disadvantages women in violation of the Title IX prohibition against discrimination on the basis of sex.
During an April 16 conference call, Judge Robert Chattigny chastised the ADF attorneys for referring to the male athletes seeking to compete in the women's divisions as males, according to a transcript of the call obtained by the National Review.
The judge said, what I'm saying is you must refer to them as transgender females rather than as males.
Wrong!
The judge is wrong.
They're transgender males.
Male is a reference to their biological sex, not their identity.
If they are biologically male and are transgender, they are transgender males.
That's the correct terminology.
By referring to them as females, he's calling them trans men, which would mean they were born female.
The judge has no idea what they're talking about.
Yes, the judge should recuse.
Again, he goes on, again, that is more accurate terminology.
No, it's not.
And I think that it fully protects your client's legitimate interests.
Referring to these individuals as transgender females is consistent with science,
common practice, and perhaps human decency.
To refer to them as males, period, is not accurate.
Certainly not as accurate.
And I think it's needlessly provocative.
I don't think that you surrender any legitimate interest or position if you refer to them as transgender females.
That is what this case is about.
This isn't a case involving males who have decided that they want to run in girls' events.
This is a case about girls who say that transgender girls should not be allowed to run in girls' events.
So going forward, we will not refer to the proposed intervenors as males, understood?
That judge has no idea what they are talking about and should read.
This makes no sense.
Male.
That is how you are born.
Female.
How you are born.
Man or woman is the social construct argument.
Meaning, transgender girl, as terminology, would be fair.
Transgender woman would be fair, but still.
They should be allowed to say male or female to get to the biology of the argument, which is being argued.
Roger Brooks, the lead attorney for ADF, responded by pointing out the biology of transgender athletes seeking to compete in the men's division is relevant to the case, and as such, his duty to provide a vigorous defense of his client's interests required him to use the term male, saying, The entire focus of the case is the fact that CIAC policy allows individuals who are physiologically, genetically male to compete in girls' athletics.
But if I use the term females to describe those individuals, and we've said in our opening brief we're happy to use their preferred names because names are not the point of this case, Gender identity is not the point of this case.
The point of this case is physiology of bodies driven by chromosomes and the documented athletic advantage that comes from a male body, male hormones, and male puberty in particular.
So, Your Honor, I do have a concern that I am not adequately representing my client and I'm not accurately representing their position in this case, as it is to be argued before, Your Honor, and all the way up if I refer to these individuals as female.
Because that's simply when we're talking about physiology.
That's not accurate.
At least in the belief of my clients.
So if you feel strongly that you and your clients have a right to refer to these individuals as males, and that you therefore do not want to comply with my order, then that's unfortunate.
But I'll give you some time to think about it, and you can let me know if it's a problem.
If it is, gosh, maybe we'll need to do something.
I don't want to bully you, but at the same time, I don't want you to be bullying anybody else.
Maybe you might need to take an application to the Court of Appeals, I don't know.
But I certainly don't want to put civility at risk in this case.
In the motion filed Saturday, the ADF attorneys argue that Chettigny's order is legally unprecedented and disrupts the appearance of impartiality.
A disinterested observer would reasonably believe that the court's order and comments have destroyed the appearance of impartiality in this proceeding.
That requires recusal, reads the motion, which is obtained by National Review.
To be sure, the public debate over gender identity and sports is a heated and emotional one.
This only increases the urgency that court preserve their role as the singular place in society where all can be heard and present facts before an impartial tribunal.
Imagine if a judge said you couldn't refer to someone based on the characteristics for which the lawsuit was literally about.
Imagine if a woman was filing a sexual discrimination lawsuit against a man, and the court said, refer to them as peoples, because it would be offensive to highlight this.
What would you then say?
A person is upset about another person?
What if they actually said, refer to them both as female?
It totally changes the context.
I mean, that's literally what we're seeing.
The point of the argument is that the athletes are male, and these other athletes are female.
The judge is trying to preemptively just end any argument.
Imagine someone coming before a jury or a judge saying, Your Honor, these females should be allowed to compete against these females.
They'd be like, Okay, we're done.
Or if he said females shouldn't be allowed to compete against females, they'd be like, That makes no sense.
That's what the judge is doing.
And that's why this is a problem.
They say the case centers on the participation of two transgender sprinters, Terry Miller and Andrea Yearwood, who have combined to win 15 Girls Indoor and Outdoor Championship events since 2017.
The year prior to Miller and Yearwood's participation, those titles were held by 10 different girls.
The three plaintiffs have competed directly against Miller and Yearwood and have lost to them in nearly every case.
It's just really frustrating and heartbreaking because we all train extremely hard to shave off just fractions of a second of our time.
And these athletes can do half the amount of work that we do, and it doesn't matter.
Seoul told the Wall Street Journal.
We have no chance of winning.
It's funny because, well, it's true.
And these two transgender athletes, as my understanding in this case, have undergone no treatment, no hormonal treatment, so they're actually competing as biological males, period.
And they actually have shattered state records, that's my understanding.
They say Connecticut is one of 17 states that allows students to compete in a division of their choosing without restriction.
In contrast, the National Collegiate Athletic Association and the International Olympic Committee requires male-to-female transgender athletes to undergo testosterone-suppressing hormonal therapy before competing against women.
But even when it comes to the Olympics, the standard for how much testosterone a person can have is way higher than the average woman actually has.
So it's... Look, man, I'll tell you what we're gonna see.
If this is where we're going, don't be surprised if every single athlete in 20 years is biologically male.
There will be biological males on hormone therapy, but yes, still.
Let me tell you something.
Recently a video went viral.
The first ever half-pipe 1080 was done by an 11-year-old boy.
The first 1080 ever done was on a MegaRamp by a 12-year-old boy.
Now, let me explain the difference to you.
A MegaRamp is a massive slope and a massive ramp, giving you a lot more speed and a lot more height, making it easier for you, in a sense, to do bigger spins.
Recently, a man broke the record for rotations in skateboarding by pulling off a 1260.
That's ridiculous!
Four rotations!
It's amazing.
This was done on a mega ramp, where your 50 feet in the air have all this time.
On a regular half pipe, it's extremely difficult.
And for the most part, we only ever saw a 900, which is two and a half rotations.
I'm sorry, is 1260 three rotations?
Maybe I'm getting my math wrong.
Yeah, I think, no, I don't know.
I'm getting my math wrong.
1080 is three rotations, so 1260 is four.
So anyway, here's what happens.
An 11-year-old boy shatters a record.
A 12-year-old boy shatters a record.
The 11-year-old is just now starting to enter puberty.
The reason I bring this up is my question would be then, where is the 11-year-old girl hitting a 1080 and breaking a record, setting a major historical milestone for skateboarding as a professional sport?
It hasn't happened.
For whatever reason, before puberty, young boys and young girls are dramatically different.
So the argument that testosterone itself plays a role is still wrong.
We're seeing these things opened up, but I tell you this, man.
In skateboarding, where you don't directly compete against each other in terms of something definable other than style... Let me back up.
Skateboarding competition.
You could say something like a spin contest.
Who can do the most spins?
It's kind of a weird thing skateboarding doesn't do.
Meaning, okay, can you do a 180, a 360, a 540, a 720, a 900?
Well, I'll tell you what.
I believe the most a female skater has ever done is a 540.
And it was relatively re- Well, actually, I think it was like maybe 7 or 8 years ago.
Maybe it was 10 years ago.
Maybe I'm... But I believe the first ever 540 was done, maybe around a decade ago, by a woman.
The first 720 by a man was done in the 80s.
The first 900 was done in 1999.
And then recently we saw a 12-year-old boy get a... This is like 8 years ago.
Okay.
I'm getting into the nitty-gritty of skateboarding.
The point is, I'll make it simple.
Little boys are breaking records, and it's setting history for skateboarding.
Little girls are not.
I don't know why that is, but the difference is clear, and most people can see it.
Now we're dealing with all of these rule changes, which I believe will result in biological females just being cut out completely from sports.
That's it.
Think about what these divisions are.
The women's running division is made so that women don't compete against men, so they can set a standard among themselves.
What do we do now?
They're letting biological males compete, and even the judges are already biased in favor of them.
Look, in the Olympics, it's going to be like, why would any country have a biological female compete if they could have a biological male do it?
