New Documents Directly Implicate Biden In Obamagate Scandal, Biden SLAMMED For Abuse Of Spying Power
New Documents Directly Implicate Biden In Obamagate Scandal, Biden SLAMMED For Abuse Of Spying Power. A new list of Obama officials who requested unmasking of Michael Flynn has directly implicated joe Biden in the #obamagate scandalOn the same day that the Washington post published the name of Michael Flynn in reference to a phone call with a Russian Ambassador Joe Biden had made a request for unmaskingMore strangely still Biden had previously denied any knowledge of the investigation into Flynn but was forced to walk back after being pressed over his meeting with Obama.Obamagate is starting to come into view and it seems that the Obama administration was trying to sabotage the Trump administrationA day after the FBI sought to close its investigation into Flynn Obama held a meeting with Biden and others pertaining to the Logan act and Trump's people. On January 24th we saw notes from the FBI showing they sought to get Flynn fired.Clearly not a law enforcement matterDemocrats are now downplaying the severity while many Republicans sit on their hands. Rand Paul however took Biden to task over the targeting of a political rival.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Newly declassified and released documents directly implicate Joe Biden in the ongoing Obamagate scandal, a story that is so complicated it spans back years and dozens of individuals and is very difficult to explain to you unless you've been following these stories.
But I'll do my best to give you a basic breakdown, citing a National Review story with a brief overview.
But when it comes to Joe Biden, one way to look at how serious this is comes from Senator Rand Paul, who said, Vice President Biden is guilty of using government to go after a political opponent.
This is what Donald Trump was accused of doing with Russiagate.
And now we've seen a document that shows on the same day the Washington Post released the name of Michael Flynn in reference to a phone call with the Russian ambassador, Joe Biden made a request to have his name unmasked.
Again, Very complicated as to what this means.
But the Michael Flynn investigation shows, at the very least, the FBI was seeking to jam up Donald Trump's administration.
Does this go all the way up to Barack Obama?
It actually might.
Notes that were released show the FBI was seeking to get Michael Flynn fired.
They were trying to get him to lie, citing the Logan Act, a law that's never been enforced.
And one of their goals was potentially to get a man fired.
And there is no law enforcement basis for trying to get someone's job unless you're just trying to go after the incoming administration.
We learned recently, the FBI was going to close the investigation on Michael Flynn until one agent intervened.
A day later, Barack Obama himself and Joe Biden had a meeting where they discussed Michael Flynn.
So this story is, again, extremely complicated.
But as far as it pertains to Biden, Rand Paul is, he's going as hard as he can.
So let's break this down.
I'll start with the breaking news about the statement made by Rand Paul and then I want to give you a basic overview of Obamagate and what this really means and boy is there a lot to go over.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
The mainstream media is getting propped up on YouTube.
The algorithm favors these major networks like CNN, and many of these networks don't actually cover this.
They haven't, much to the non-surprise of many people who have actually been following this story, because for the most part it makes Barack Obama look bad.
But as we can see from the New York Post, they say it looks like President Obama ordered up a phony Russia-gate scandal.
The National Review, carried by Yahoo News.
Obamagate is not a conspiracy theory, so why aren't these major networks carrying this, I don't know.
But by helping, sharing this video, it's one of the most powerful things you can do to support the channel.
And if you just want to watch, hit the subscribe button, hit the like button, hit the notification bell, and hopefully that'll be enough to get YouTube to actually recommend my videos.
Real clear politics reports.
Speaking to members of the press, Rand Paul said he wanted testimony from the officials on the list, including James Comey and James Clapper.
This is the list of people who sought to unmask Michael Flynn.
He said, these rumors have been going around for years, that Obama's administration was abusing the power of unmasking.
And this sounds like they were using it to go after a political opponent, which is a serious offense and should be investigated.
The fact that Vice President Biden is directly involved in the unmasking of a political opponent.
Think about it.
You remember impeachment?
They said the president was using the government to go after a political opponent.
This is Vice President Biden using the spying powers of the U.S.
to go after a political opponent, and he is caught red-handed here, eavesdropping on a political opponent's phone calls.
Every reporter in the country needs to ask this legitimate question.
They need to come out of hibernation and ask Vice President Biden, do we think it is a legitimate function of government to eavesdrop on political opponents, illegally unmask them, and listen to their private conversations?
In documents published by Catherine Herridge of CBS, we can see that on January 12th, Vice President Biden of the U.S.
sought to unmask the name of Michael Flynn.
This basically means that as the U.S.
was spying on a foreign individual, there was an American that they didn't, and they didn't know the name of this American because the reports don't give the name.
We have Fourth Amendment rights.
We have a right to privacy.
Well, Joe Biden asked that this person be unmasked, and he presumably got that name.
On the same day, the Washington Post published an opinion piece which revealed the name of Michael Flynn and basically put the story out there that Flynn had been communicating with the Russians.
Now it's hard to know if Barack Obama was the person who gave the name to this writer because it happened on the same day.
You need to know what time the story was published and even then you're still speculating.
I actually think based on some information it stands to reason Joe Biden isn't the person who leaked the information.
But why then was he seeking to unmask Michael Flynn?
We don't know.
But I can say they accused Donald Trump of trying to use his powers to dig up dirt on Joe Biden.
Well, at the very least, Senator Rand Paul and anyone else could argue that Joe Biden was doing the same thing.
Now, some might argue, there's no way Joe Biden could have known that this would have benefited him.
Well, when it came to Ukrainegate, Joe Biden wasn't the presumptive nominee.
I actually didn't think he was going to win.
He was doing really poorly.
But everyone was so convinced, they said, Donald Trump had the foresight back in, you know, 2018 or 2017, yeah, I believe it was 2017, 2018, I'm not sure which year, to actually try and dig up dirt on Biden, presuming he would run against him.
I think that's silly, but that's the argument they wanted to make, that Donald Trump years in advance presumed Biden would run against him, so he sought to dig up dirt.
Okay, I'll make the same assumption, or I'll ask the same question.
I can then say Joe Biden knew he was planning on running for president, so he was doing what he could to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
We don't know for sure.
We don't know why these people were seeking to unmask Michael Flynn, but we do know that
on January 5th, Obama's chief of staff also made this request.
That same day, Obama and Biden had a meeting where they talked about Michael Flynn and
they discussed the Logan Act.
This is very, very strange.
And perhaps we would need an actual investigation into what's going on.
But let me give you a basic rundown, because many of you are probably, you know, I assume there's many people who don't know what Obamagate is.
Reporters certainly aren't going to do the investigating and tell you, but we have this story from the National Review.
Obamagate is not a conspiracy theory.
That gives a basic overview, so we'll read this, and then we'll carry on with what's going on with Obama and Biden.
Daryl Harsanil writes, those sharing the Obamagate hashtags on Twitter would do best to avoid the hysterics we saw from the Russia collusion believers, Russia collusion believers, but they have no reason to ignore the mounting evidence that suggests the Obama administration engaged in serious corruption.
Democrats and their allies, who like to pretend that President Obama's only scandalous act was wearing a tan suit, are going to spend the next few months gaslighting the public by focusing on the most feverish accusations against Obama.
But the fact is, we already have more compelling evidence that the Obama administration engaged in misconduct than we ever did for opening the Russia collusion investigation.
He says, It is not conspiracy mongering to note that the investigation into Trump was predicated on an opposition research document filled with fabulism and most likely Russian disinformation.
We know the DOJ withheld contradictory evidence when it began spying on those in Trump's orbit.
We have proof that many of the relevant FISA warrant applications, almost every one of them, actually were based on fabricated evidence or riddled with errors.
We know that members of the Obama administration, who had no genuine role in counterintelligence operations, repeatedly unmasked Trump's allies.
And we now know that despite a dearth of evidence, the FBI railroaded Michael Flynn into a guilty plea so it could keep the investigation going.
What's more, the larger context only makes all of these facts more damning.
By 2016, the Obama administration's intelligence community had normalized domestic spying.
Obama's Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, famously lied about snooping on American citizens to Congress.
His CIA director, John Brennan, oversaw an agency that felt comfortable spying on the Senate, with at least five of his underlings breaking into congressional computer files.
His attorney general, Eric Holder, invoked the Espionage Act to spy on a Fox News journalist, shopping his case to three judges until he found one who let him name the reporter as a co-conspirator.
The Obama administration also spied on Associated Press reporters, which the news organization called a massive and unprecedented intrusion.
And though it's been long forgotten, Obama officials were caught monitoring the conversation of members of Congress who opposed the Iran nuclear deal.
What makes anyone believe these people wouldn't create a pretext to spy on the opposition party?
If anyone does, they shouldn't.
Because on top of everything else, we know that Barack Obama was keenly interested in the Russian collusion investigation's progress.
In her very last hour in office, National Security Advisor Susan Rice wrote a self-preserving email to herself, noting that she'd attended a meeting with the President, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, FBI Director James Comey, and Vice President Joe Biden, in which Obama stressed that everything in the investigation should proceed by the book.
Did high-ranking Obama administration officials not always conduct such investigations by the book?
It is curious that they would need to be specifically instructed to do so.
It is also curious that the outgoing National Security Advisor, 15 minutes after Trump had been sworn in as president, would need to mention this meeting.
None of this means that Obama committed some specific crime.
He almost assuredly did not.
In a healthy media environment, though, the mounting evidence of wrongdoing would spark an outpouring of journalistic curiosity.
But you might ask, why does it matter anymore?
Well, for one thing, many of the same characters central to all this apparent malfeasance now want to retake power in Washington.
Biden is the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee.
He's running as the heir to Obama's legacy.
And he was at the meeting with Rice.
He had denied even knowing anything about the FBI investigation into Flynn before being forced to correct himself after ABC's George Stephanopoulos pointed out that he was mentioned in Rice's emails.
It's completely legitimate to wonder what he knew about the investigation.
But Joe Biden tried saying he knew nothing of this investigation.
And we know, according to this document, he sought to unmask Michael Flynn.
Not only was he in the meeting, but a week later, he made an unmasking request.
Why?
And why lie about it later?
But to be fair, some have said that as a private citizen, this information was classified.
He couldn't state it.
But I think that's potentially a fair point, but it doesn't matter, because Joe Biden was involved in whatever it is that was going on.
I want to show you some very strange circumstances.
Let me start with this story from Fox News.
Biden says he was aware of Michael Flynn probe during transition.
This is where he first said, quote, I know nothing about those moves to investigate Michael Flynn.
If it was true that he just couldn't say this because it was classified, We had already seen the declassification of transcripts that implicated Joe Biden saying that he was in the meeting with Obama.
He had no reason to lie.
He did.
He was called out on it, and then he walked it back saying, no, I thought you asked whether or not I had anything to do with him being prosecuted.
I'm sorry.
I was aware that there was, that they asked for an investigation, but that's all I know about it.
I don't think anything else.
Well, now we know that he made an unmasking request.
Take a look at this story from Politico, where the timeline gets strange.
FBI docs suggest agents prepared to close Flynn case then reversed course.
On January 4th, the FBI had drafted a document summarizing findings on a probe, codenamed Crossfire Razor, of whether Flynn had been acting as a Russian agent during the 2016 campaign.
The partly redacted document, which was included in the court filings, indicated the FBI had no derogatory information on Flynn and was prepared to close the case.
A review of logical databases did not yield information on which to predicate further investigative efforts.
But messages later that afternoon between senior agents and FBI officials show a last-minute reversal driven by discussions at the Bureau's highest levels.
Hey, don't close Razor.
FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok wrote to an agent whose name is redacted but is identified in the conversation as the official case agent.
He adds, seventh floor involved, a reference to the highest echelons of FBI leadership.
A day later, we learned Obama meeting could be behind corrupt Michael Flynn probe.
This from Molly Hemingway writing for the New York Post, writing, information released in the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the case brought against General Michael Flynn confirms the significance of a January 5th meeting at the Obama White House, January 5th, 2017.
It was at this meeting that Obama gave guidance to key officials who would be tasked with protecting his administration's utilization of secretly funded Clinton campaign research, which alleged Donald Trump was involved in a treasonous plot to collude with Russia from being discovered or stopped by the incoming administration.
President Obama said he wants to be sure that as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
So here's what we know.
The FBI said no derogatory information.
A day later, Barack Obama's chief of staff made an unmasking request on information, and then Obama said, we need to be aware... Well, let me read the quote for you.
We are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason that we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
This is what Susan Rice wrote in an unusual email to herself about the meeting, which was also attended by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates.
A clearer picture is emerging of the drastic steps that were taken to accomplish Obama's goals in the following weeks and months.
Shortly thereafter, high-level operatives began intensely leaking selective information supporting a supposed Russia-Trump conspiracy theory.
The incoming National Security Advisor was ambushed, and the incoming Attorney General was forced to recuse himself from oversight of investigations of President Trump.
At each major point in the operation, explosive media leaks were a key strategy in the operation to take down Trump.
Now, like I mentioned, it is very, very difficult to understand.
It is very complicated.
Many of you may already understand a lot of this, but unless you've been following all of this, It is just, it goes back years.
It involves so many people.
But let me just tell you, the FBI said on the 4th they didn't find any derogatory information.
An unmasking request was made, and then Obama said, we gotta make sure we can be mindful, and gave direction.
We later learned, due to the release of these notes from January 24th, that one of their goals was to get Michael Flynn fired.
Now this is where it all comes together.
The handwritten notes, written by the FBI's former head of counterintelligence, Bill Priestap, after a meeting with then-FBI Director James Comey and then-FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe, Fox News is told, further suggested that agents planned, in the alternative, to get Flynn, quote, to admit to breaking the Logan Act when he spoke to then-Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak during the presidential transition period.
The Logan Act is an obscure statute that has never been used in a criminal prosecution.
Enacted in 1799 in an era before telephones, it was intended to prevent individuals from falsely claiming to represent the United States government abroad.
What is our goal?
One of the notes read, truth, admission, or to get him to lie so we can prosecute him or get him fired.
And there it is.
The Logan Act has never been used.
Barack Obama, in that meeting, there was discussion of the Logan Act.
In the January 5th meeting with Comey, Obama, and Biden, Comey brought up the Logan Act.
Something that has never been used.
But more importantly, it's the get him fired.
I believe the note saying get him fired is the smoking gun that ropes Barack Obama and Joe Biden into this whole mess.
And it says to me that this is the wedge in the door to open up and figure out what's going on.
I do not understand, and maybe I'm dismissing this, why a legitimate investigation into Donald Trump's staff would seek to get someone fired.
The only goal I can see from that is to sabotage the Trump, the incoming administration, to disrupt the transfer of power.
The Russian investigation served, on purpose or inadvertently, I don't want to, I'm not going to go as far as to assert direct conspiracy.
But because of the Russia collusion investigation, Donald Trump was unable to remove all of these former administration officials.
He made it very difficult.
In fact, when he sought to remove some of these people, he was accused over and over of obstruction of justice.
What do we see here?
Joe Biden used unmasking to presumably verify the identity of Michael Flynn.
Don't know why.
He was in the meeting.
But Barack Obama's chief of staff on the 5th unmasked the name of Michael Flynn, then had a meeting, then specifically brought up Flynn, brought up the Logan Act, and the FBI used that potentially to get him fired.
Now, does that mean that Barack Obama was directing them to do this?
I don't know.
But I'll tell you, getting someone fired doesn't appear to be by the books.
There's a lot more here.
I'm sorry, I can't get to everything.
It is...
It is a doozy of a story.
We'll see how things play out.
We've got some breaking news.
We'll see if it matters.
Lindsey Graham to start hearings on Russia probe Flynn in June.
The Hill reports that Graham said in a statement, the hearings will deal with the Justice Department's decision to drop the case against former White House National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, the warrant applications against the former Trump campaign advisor Carter Page, and if former special counsel Robert Mueller should have been appointed.
There's an ongoing criminal investigation into the origins of Russiagate.
Currently, we know that there was FISA abuse.
This means spying on people unjustly.
FISA abuse has been going on for a long time.
The story I showed you earlier, it's true.
Barack Obama did spy a lot.
It's really, really bad, even on journalists.
Glenn Greenwald made a very, very important point on May 7th.
I'd still like to understand what was improper about the incoming National Security Advisor of a newly elected administration calling his Russian counterpart Let me read a little bit for you.
tensions in the weeks before he took office. I wonder how many Americans even know about
the recently discovered FBI notes regarding their intentions before interviewing Flynn.
Same question for the recently discovered FISA documents undermining which of the Russia gate
conspiracy, much of the Russia gate conspiracies. These have been largely buried in the media.
Obama may have ordered up a phony Russia gate scandal.
Let me, let me read a little bit for you. This is from the, from May 11th.
They say it's now clear the Obama Comey FBI and Justice Department never had anything more
substantial than the laughable fiction of the steel dossier to justify the investigation of
the Trump campaign. You Yet, incessant leaks from that supposedly confidential probe wound up consuming the Trump administration's first months in office, followed by the Bob Mueller-led special counsel investigation that proved nearly the, quote, total witch hunt that President Trump dubbed it.
Information released as the Justice Department dropped its charges against General Michael Flynn showed that President Barack Obama in his final days played a key role in fanning the flames of phony scandal.
Fully briefed on the Crossfire Hurricane investigation, he knew the FBI had come up with nothing despite months of work starting in July 2016.
Yet on January 5th, 2017, Obama told top officials who'd be staying on in the new administration to keep crucial facts from Team Trump.
It happened at an Oval Office meeting with Vice President Biden, John Brennan, Jim Clapper, National Security Advisor Susan Rice, as well as James Comey and Sally Yates.
Quote, from a national security perspective, Rice's memo afterward put it, President Obama said he wants to be sure that as we engage with the incoming team, we are mindful to ascertain if there is any reason we cannot share information fully as it relates to Russia.
And there it is.
Obama had been giving guidance.
He was moving on, but certain people were staying.
It's really funny.
People like to bring up this idea of the deep state.
This phrase, the deep state, is used by many on the left to accuse Trump supporters and Trump of believing in conspiracy theories.
I don't care for the phrase, whatever it means, deep state, because it's used by the left to mean something else.
But I can tell you, unelected officials that had worked for the Obama administration, that were staying in their positions into the Trump administration, did not have a favorable view of the president and were receiving guidance from Obama as to what they should be doing.
We then learned later on, more recently, that the FBI wanted to get Michael Flynn fired.
Obama had warned Trump about Flynn for some reason.
They didn't like the guy.
And we learned recently that one of the reasons they claimed they didn't like Michael Flynn
is that he viewed China as a larger threat than Russia, as if that should ultimately
matter.
It's a matter of opinion.
But all that matters, as far as I can tell right now, is that, as Rand Paul puts it,
Vice President Biden is guilty of using the government to go after a political opponent.
Do we?
I think it is.
It is a bold statement from Senator Rand Paul.
We don't have that direct evidence, but they didn't have the direct evidence evidence against Donald Trump when it came to Russiagate and the incessant investigations and impeachment.
In fact, in fact, when it came to impeachment, there was nothing but conjecture and opinion.
Donald Trump said he wanted to look into what Joe Biden's son had been doing with Burisma and whether or not Joe Biden was involved in ending this prosecution.
They argued that was proof.
It wasn't proof of anything.
You couldn't prove what Donald Trump was thinking or why he was doing it, and in fact there were real questions being brought up about what was going on with his company Burisma.
Well, now we know that Joe Biden actually made a move.
His name is on the list of people who unmasked Michael Flynn.
That, by any reasonable standard, should be enough to question why did the FBI want Michael Flynn fired?
Why were they trying to use the Logan Act?
Why, in a meeting with Joe Biden and Barack Obama, was the Logan Act brought up?
Why did Barack Obama seek to unmask Flynn a week after he had already been in a meeting where they discussed Michael Flynn and the Logan Act?
I don't know.
Well, Lindsey Graham's going to have some hearings.
There's an ongoing investigation.
Many people have called for Barack Obama to be subpoenaed.
And I will remind you for the 800 millionth time, I really can't break down the entirety of what's going on here.
But I hope that's enough to help you understand that whatever this is, is substantially more serious than what Russiagate was.
53 transcripts released show that many of these people knew there was no evidence of Russian collusion.
But every time one of these people would leak something fake to the press and the press would run with it, they would use that as justification, which is exactly what happened to Michael Flynn.
And then because of the Flynn prosecution, that was justification to keep things going.
And anything Donald Trump tried to do to stop it was seen as obstruction, which led ultimately to the Mueller probe, which ended in failure.
Now that Donald Trump has successfully pushed back on all of these things and more information is coming out, I would say he beat Russiagate.
He beat Ukrainegate slash impeachment.
They made some weird allegations about China that fell apart right away.
Now we're seeing Republicans sweep in these special elections.
There may be a red wave coming in November.
Donald Trump is now on the offensive.
But there are a lot of Republicans who are dragging their feet because they like the power they have.
Rand Paul not being one of them, potentially Lindsey Graham.
A lot will come out in the coming months.
Obamagate is, in my opinion, something we absolutely need to be paying attention to.
Once we learned that Russiagate was nonsense, there should have been a hard question from everybody as to why we were duped for three years.
Who were these people claiming they saw evidence?
Why was Adam Schiff, a Democrat, House Intelligence Committee, saying he saw evidence?
There was none.
And why did it take until now to get these transcripts released to prove Obama knew, Biden knew, the Democrats were lying?
Now I want to have these questions answered.
And I'll put it this way.
I entertained Russiagate.
I absolutely did, and I covered all of these stories, and I said I didn't think it was real, but we talked about it.
Hey, maybe.
Maybe.
Now that it's all over, I want to know why we all wasted our time.
More importantly, I want to know why the FBI sought to get Michael Flynn fired.
That's the first question, in my opinion.
Everything that comes after that, who knows?
Maybe it was somebody who just didn't like the guy.
But Obama had a meeting about it.
Really weird.
Really, really weird.
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
According to NBC News, Google is drastically rolling back its diversity and inclusion programs, and many lefty activists are angry about it.
Now, what makes this so strange is this story dropped only a few days after we heard that James Damore has dropped or asked a court to dismiss his discrimination lawsuit.
According to the story from NBC News, Google is concerned about appearing biased against whites, Asians, and conservatives, conveniently what James Damore was suing over.
Dare I say, I think the conservatives may have already won the culture war.
I shouldn't say the conservatives, but the right faction, whatever it is.
And now it's kind of a scraggler cleanup.
There's still a few pockets here and there of leftist social justice types.
There's still a few instances.
I don't want to claim... I don't want to act like it's completely done.
But this is a huge loss for the leftists and it's a huge victory for the right.
Let's read the story and I want to break down some of what's going on for you.
But I do have some interesting bad news if you're someone who is interested in the culture war and you lean to the right.
They say current and ex-employees allege Google drastically rolled back diversity and inclusion programs.
One well-liked diversity training program at Google called Sojourn was cut entirely, according to seven former and current employees.
Before I read this, there needs to be a disclaimer on this video.
The reporter April Glazer was implicated in an activist action using her credentials as a journalist to get the Proud Boys banned from their bank.
A story I had actually broken some time ago.
When I saw this story, I found it very interesting that this social justice activist now works for NBC News and is writing about social justice.
NBC News, you have a serious conflict of interest here and you need to do something about it.
They won't.
They have to actually hire a lot of lefty activists.
But take a look at this story from Epoch Times.
Chase withdrew services to conservative business one day after Slate Reporter's query.
This is a story that I actually broke.
I was leaked information.
An email from this journalist was basically accusing... It seems as though, alright?
I'll be very careful how I phrase this.
Let me just... I'll give you the overview.
What these people do...
Is they'll see that, say, the Proud Boys are banking with Chase, and they'll send an email saying, Hey Chase, I'm a journalist, and I'm gonna write this big story, and I'm just curious as to why you support white supremacy.
They'll phrase it in that way.
Chase panics, and then bans the person saying it's not worth the negative press, and that's the gist of what we've seen.
In my general, I'll just call it my opinion, this reporter, first, she did send the email, she did make something about, like, why would you support these people kind of statement, And then, shortly after, the Proud Boys got banned.
This is an activist tactic.
You send an email, you load it, you freak them out, you tell them we're coming for you.
This is what this woman was doing.
And now NBC News has hired her, and she is writing on these issues, once again.
A massive and major conflict of interest.
NBC News, totally corrupt, man.
She writes, and take it with a grain of salt.
Google has significantly rolled back its diversity and inclusion initiatives in an apparent effort to avoid being perceived as anti-conservative, according to eight current and former employees.
Since 2018, internal diversity and inclusion training programs have been scaled back or cut entirely.
Four Google employees and two people who recently left the company told NBC News in interviews, in addition.
They said, the team responsible for those programs has been reduced in size and positions previously held by full-time employees has been outsourced or not refilled after members of the diversity teams left the company.
One well-liked diversity training program at Google called Sojourn, a comprehensive racial justice program created for employees to learn about implicit bias and how to navigate conversations about race and inequality, was cut entirely according to seven former and current employees.
Sojourn offered its last training to Google workers in 2018, four current employees said, and by 2019 it was cut completely.
Seven current and former employees from across a range of teams and roles at the company said separately that they all believe the reason behind cutting Sojourn and taking employees off diversity projects and to move them elsewhere at Google was to shield the company from backlash from conservatives.
The current and former employees agreed to speak to NBC News on the condition of anonymity for fear of appraisal for speaking to the press.
This writer is an activist.
She probably knows these people.
This is a major conflict of interest.
But you know what?
Fine.
We're getting the statements.
I would argue that this story is an attempt to rally the left.
To let them know this stuff is happening.
So they selectively speak to one of their activist buddies who infiltrates NBC News.
This is the problem with journalism.
This is why I didn't want to work in the industry anymore after working at Vice and Fusion, which is an ABC News company.
This is the problem.
The deception, the lies, and the infiltration from political ideologues who care not for giving you the facts, who are just using it as a weapon for their ideological allies.
Now here's what I think's going on.
Take a look at this story.
Ex-Google engineer who alleged discrimination against conservative white men asks judge to dismiss lawsuit.
This story came on May 10th, so about four days ago.
Very interesting.
I was curious as to why James Damore, who I believe was repped by Harmeet Dhillon, why they would dismiss this case.
And they likely can't speak about it.
I think it's a major victory.
That's my personal opinion.
When you see this other news from NBC News and the panic when they rush to one of their activist buddies to spread, you know, help, help, we're under attack.
The conservatives are winning.
Let's read a little bit and I'll tell you what I think's going on.
They say the high-profile discrimination dispute between Google and one of its former software engineers has quietly come to an end.
Ex-Google employee James Damore has moved to dismiss his lawsuit against the internet giant two years after alleging discrimination against conservative white men.
Damore worked as an engineer at Google before being fired in 2017 after criticizing the company's efforts to improve diversity among its workforce.
He made the controversial assertions in a memo that circulated throughout the company, triggering an internal culture war.
On Thursday, Damore and three other men involved in the suit made a written request to the Santa Clara Superior Court in California to drop the charges.
Google also signed the motion, which was first spotted by Bloomberg.
This matter is dismissed in its entirety, Judge Brian Walsh wrote in the order.
A lawyer for the men told Bloomberg his clients are prohibited from saying anything beyond what's in the court filing.
Let me tell you what I think happened.
I could be wrong about this.
I don't know.
It's no secret that tech companies including Google, Twitter and Facebook have a diversity problem.
Now we can see the journalists loading up their language and going for the activist attack.
Let me tell you what I think happened.
I could be wrong about this. I don't know.
I think they won.
Perhaps James Damore and the other people involved ran out of money.
That's possible, but I really doubt it, because I'd imagine in this instance, with the high-profile nature of the case, if they were on the verge of losing due to funding, they'd probably just ask for funding, and they would get it.
And boy, would they.
If they really needed money, they could probably raise a million bucks overnight.
People are going to dump money.
It's a culture war issue.
No, I think they won.
Again, this is just heavy speculation.
I think Google knew they were going to lose, they knew it was going to be very, very bad precedent for the company, bad press, and a settlement could be seen as Google losing.
CNN recently settled with the Covington kids, and that's seen widely as a defeat, because CNN didn't fight back, they gave in and gave the kids what they asked for, or there was an agreement, right?
Typically, settlement will be viewed as some kind of defeat.
And I think it's fair, because that's actually one of the goals for many suits, just get them to pay out so you win.
In this instance, perhaps, Google did something, met some criteria, paid some money that satisfied Damore and these other men involved and their legal team, and thus they said, okay, we'll dismiss the case and we'll leave it at that.
If Google agreed to settle the case, maybe James Damore and the crew refused a settlement.
Maybe this was the only way they could actually get it done.
But considering the other story from NBC News, where we're hearing they've been shutting these programs down, if we can believe it, to be honest, because the writer's an activist, I think James Damore won.
I think this is how they got their victory.
Google found a clever way to not publicly lose, but still give these individuals what they wanted.
Take a look, this is hilarious.
They say in 2018, Google pledged to focus on its diversity efforts on its least represented demographic, black and Hispanic women.
The company has since made some modest gains according to its 2020 diversity report.
In the U.S., the percentage of black hires grew from 4.8 to 5.5 in 2019, a 0.7% rise.
I don't see why any of that matters at all.
And it's fascinating to me that the problem people find with Google is there are too many white men and Asian men.
If there is an issue of people not being qualified to get hired, then you've got cultural problems outside of Google.
The people who are advocating for these policies don't seem to understand that you have cultural issues.
Why is it that these companies don't hire people?
It's not because they're overtly racist.
I mean, I gotta be honest.
I would say a lot of Asian countries are very racist.
You know, hey, it's just, it's the way it is, I guess.
I don't know why I'm being part Korean and having, you know, visited there and talked to people.
Yeah, they got, they got, they got racism problems.
But, look, you've gotta hire people because they know how to do the job.
You gotta hire people because they're the best.
Hiring people simply because of their race is very, very weird.
Now I get it, there are some initiatives to try and...
Find people who are qualified and who meet this racial criteria, but I find it very, very creepy when you're like, we need you to look this way.
That to me is not, you know, that's weird.
But anyway, back to the, more to the point.
I think we're seeing something beyond just this story.
We're seeing something strange happen.
We saw those victories, okay, in California's 25th, a 21-point swing in favor of Republicans.
Wisconsin's 7th was a plus-6-point lead for Republicans.
The district in Wisconsin is an R-plus-8.
The guy there, Tiffany, won by 14 points.
The guy there, Tiffany, won by 14 points.
Not the same as Trump in 2016, but still a very large gain off the average.
Take a look at this though, something I covered the other night.
Taylor Lorenz of the New York Times says, are you even an Instagram influencer if you haven't posted the full Plandemic video to your millions of followers this week?
Noting that one influencer at one point was wearing Ruth Bader Ginsburg socks, calling herself a nasty woman.
She was a hashtag resistance influencer.
Now she's all about Plandemic and QAnon, and she really believes it.
Someone brought up, here we go, says, people think, oh, these influencers are just doing it for traffic, but that's not it.
Many people deeply believe this stuff now.
They don't care if they lose some followers because they see these dangerous conspiracies as the truth and are on our intent to spread it.
Now take a look at Google shutting things down.
I'm not here to tout the veracity of conspiracy theories.
I'm saying these people who were once the resistance on social media are flipping to the other side.
And it's kind of an extreme flip from far left to... not necessarily... I hate the term far left, far right.
Like entrenched leftist culture war to entrenched right culture war.
And I say that with some, you know, it's...
The conspiracy stuff isn't necessarily right-wing, like the media tries to smear it, because many, you know, regular Trump supporters, conservatives, don't believe in a lot of this stuff.
But I guess it's fair to say that most liberals don't believe in this weird, resistant stuff either, but they're also not active at all.
So you have inactive liberals, active conservatives, and then you have the entrenched fringes.
Let's read a little bit more, see what they say at NBC News.
They say, quote, one of the major motivations for cutting sojourn Is that the company doesn't want to be seen as anti-conservative, one employee familiar with the program said.
It does not want to invite lawsuits or claims by right-wing employees about Google discriminating against them.
And that could be it.
James Damore.
Here's another potential scenario.
James Damore made allegations of bias.
So Google cuts these programs down over the past few years.
Thus, James Damore loses.
James Damore and his crew says, you're discriminating, Google us, we got rid of them all.
You're gonna sue us now?
They're gone.
And maybe they said, okay, I guess that's it.
Or, James Damore said, so long as you have these, once Google said we got rid of them, he said, okay, we'll drop the suit.
I don't know exactly, you know, these things are always private.
But I will say, I am kind of upset.
That Damore dropped his suit.
Because you need a major public statement.
I guess going up against Google is very, very difficult.
And maybe they got some major victories, and the unseen victories are better than the public statements.
You know what?
But, I think for the most part, you need to make a statement to the people about if you won or not.
Because right now, it could potentially be a defeat.
I mean, on the surface, simple solution appears, they gave up.
Seeing this story, however, I think it's a victory.
They want to write, Melanie Parker, Google's Chief Diversity Officer, disputed the allegation that Google has scaled back its diversity and inclusion efforts.
We're really maturing our programs to make sure we're building our capacity, she said.
Parker added that changes Google is making to its diversity and inclusion work is focused on the need to provide a scalable solution across the globe.
Google acknowledged it had ended Sojourn, but said it was not in reaction to conservative criticism.
Sojourn ran for three years, Google said, and it was too difficult to scale globally, since it was focused on issues of racism in the United States and didn't apply to the rest of the world, where Google has offices.
Google and the majority of its workforce are based in the US.
Four sources familiar with the Sojourn curriculum said the training was designed to be intensive,
requiring multiple classes in small cohorts, and that the project was always intended to
roll out slowly as the team learned how to scale up such an in-depth program.
Working to reduce bias and address sensitive topics such as racial privilege and discrimination
can't be done in a single session, the four sources familiar with the Sojourn curriculum said.
One very fascinating thing is that assuming you can trust this woman, which I think you can't, but we'll take it with a grain of salt, is that we're learning that Google has essentially dogmatic ideological programming for its employees.
And that is creepy.
That is very, very creepy, man.
Could you imagine if you got a job and they forced you to take some religious programming?
This stuff is ideology.
It's not fact.
It's not, you know, it's not improving your abilities in any tangible sense.
It is specifically an ideological dogmatic system where they believe in things that aren't based in fact.
Now you can make arguments about racism, about diversity, about inclusion, but what they're talking about with sensitivity trainings and diversity trainings and privilege, these things are not fact.
That's just reality.
I'm sorry.
The idea of white privilege is an opinion, not a fact.
Because, and I tell you this, because right now I know there's a bunch of lefties going like, no, we know that white... No, no, stop, stop.
It's not true.
It's not a fact.
I'm sorry.
It's an opinion.
An academic opinion, maybe.
But it is an opinion, not a fact.
They argue that white people have certain privileges, when in the reality certain privileges can be granted people based upon their class, the clothing they wear, the shoes they're wearing, the money they have, their status.
So they say it's based on whiteness, but you go to foreign countries like China and you don't have those same privileges, thus it's not about being white, it's about majority, it's about culture, it's about human psychology.
They are making this about race because they aren't smart enough to understand psychology, evolutionary psychology, human behavior.
That's why you gotta talk to smarter people like Brett Weinstein, for instance.
Who knows, you know, he could probably give you a better explanation of this stuff than I could.
Now, I certainly think, on the surface, you can make arguments about racial privilege.
But it doesn't make sense in the end when you realize you've got someone like, you know, Serena Williams who's a multi-millionaire, a black woman.
She certainly has more power, more privilege than a homeless white man.
Yet according to their ideology, she's oppressed.
And I'm not exaggerating.
They write stories about how oppressed she is.
About how the refs were being mean to her and all this stuff.
And it's like, this is fake.
It's completely absurd.
There was one story where she like, she broke her racket or something and got in trouble and they said, well that wouldn't happen to a man.
And it's like, it does.
You're comparing individuals to each other.
Different refs, judges, whatever.
But that's really how they view the world.
And you've got major companies like Google preaching this stuff.
So let's get to the final thought on this.
Listen.
I think...
The conservatives have been winning for a while.
I've made several videos where I've said like, you know, the right is winning the culture war, the conservatives are winning the culture war.
Winning is not won.
But I view this right now as kind of like the conservatives have taken the field and now the leftists are in full retreat.
There are still things that have come out that are, you know, Full-on, you know, leftist.
Take a look at the fact that this writer herself is an activist for social justice causes who has used her title as journalist to target her ideological enemies.
It still exists.
These people, these culture warriors, are still infiltrating journalism to cause damage to their political rivals.
This story is likely an effort to rally the troops.
So maybe the battle, the war, isn't completely over.
But I believe the right faction is winning.
And you take a look at Donald Trump's victories, you take a look at the influencers now going from resistance to, you know, whatever else, whatever they're becoming, they're certainly abandoning this.
I'm hearing anecdotal stories popping up on Twitter, people saying things like in California's 25th that many regular people have woken up to how bad and awful the left and the Democrats have become, and so they're now jumping ship.
You have the Gallup poll.
I love citing this, showing that approval for Republicans in Congress has surpassed Democrats for the first time in decades.
It was a long-standing trend that people approved of Democrats more than Republicans.
It's flipped.
Something has happened.
People are finally waking up.
Now, what you've got to understand when it comes to this culture war is it's not conservatives like, you know, people in the 90s would believe it to be, and that's one of the big problems.
Many of these default liberals right now, they still have a view of the Republican Party like it was in the 90s and the 2000s.
And that's just not accurate.
They've changed from a moral authoritarian to a more, you know, libertarian populist coalition.
And you still have remnants of the old Republican establishment fleeing.
You still have old, you know, look, the Republican establishment types went full-on Never Trump.
And Trump's base are like moderate libertarian types for the most part.
Not all of them.
Many are staunch conservatives.
But they've also attracted a bunch of people through walk away.
So when you have these old default liberals walking away and joining, you know, MAGA, you still have a lot of default liberals who don't know what's really happening.
And they assume the Republicans are still bad until they see that's their friend.
Like, whoa, hey man, I knew you.
I'll tell you a story.
I went to the Deplora Ball, which was a big Trump supporter event in 2017.
I had a bunch of people come up to me and be like, oh, hey, Tim Pool, shook my hand wearing MAGA hats.
And I was like, oh, wow, I didn't realize I had, you know, Trump supporters would be following me.
And they said, oh, we've been following you since Occupy Wall Street.
And I was like, wait, wait, wait, Occupy Wall Street?
You know, the big lefty, libertarian, whatever.
And they were like, oh, yeah.
A lot of the people during Occupy were anti-establishment, challenging the big banks.
They flipped for Trump very, very quickly.
A lot of Bernie supporters flipped for Trump.
And there, at this Trump rally, this Trump party, were people wearing MAGA hats.
Many people started jumping ship and going anti-establishment, populist route.
Now, many of these people were in it for Bernie, for sure.
More lefty.
Some of those people threw their hat in for the establishment because they thought that was their path to victory.
They learned their lesson twice now, I guess.
And a lot of those Bernie supporters just went and voted for Trump.
So I think it's not so much that conservatives are winning, but it's the right faction of the culture war.
The left is waning, they attack their own, they eat their own, they kick them out, and they are losing power at these big companies.
We'll see how it plays out.
I don't think the war is completely over, but it certainly looks like conservatives have stormed the field with a story like this.
Google backing down.
Maybe they're not.
We'll see.
But that's what the story says, if you want to trust this activist.
I believe... The reason I will take this story seriously and think Google's actually doing this is the Damore lawsuit, but also, I think this activist lady is trying to, like, you know, fire a flare to all of the woke activists, like, quick, we got to do something, like, here's the story, because that's what she does.
NBC News should fire her, should never have hired her.
Well, I don't know if I should go that far, because I hate the idea of cancel culture, but NBC News needs to stop hiring activists.
There's others, and they lie all the time.
So who can you really trust?
Not these people.
So take it with a grain of salt.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
As to be expected, new evidence has emerged in the Ahmaud Arbery case, which is countering one of the original narratives that there were no reported burglaries.
I believe this was a mistake of false framing from journalists.
We now know that Travis McMichael, the man who was arrested and is being charged, did call to report a break-in on February 11th, only around a week or two, around two weeks before the incident in question that ended Ahmed Arbery's life.
We can see the story from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, quote, it startled me.
February 11th encounter in Satilla Shores neighborhood.
Travis McMichael did call 911 and they have released the call and you can listen to it.
The man says in the recording that there have been a string of thefts and break-ins.
He mentions that his firearm was stolen from his truck.
Now the narrative that we were getting for the longest time.
No burglaries were reported in neighborhood where Ahmed Arbery was killed.
Contradicting suspects claim report.
No burglaries were reported.
What does that really mean?
This is one of the most dangerous things that we see in news media.
Framing.
Did any of these men file a hard report alleging a burglary?
The answer is presumably no.
Did they try?
We don't know.
Did the police reject it?
We don't know.
What we know now is they did try reporting a break-in.
We have the call.
I want to also address a tweet of mine, and I'm getting some flack from people arguing that I was wrong.
And I'm going to break down for you where I think there is a hard bias coming in.
I posted this tweet.
New video appears to show Ahmed Arbery inside the construction property on multiple occasions at night.
This was reported by a local outlet.
Let's pull up the video, and I want to see where it's coming from.
This is from NBC, a local NBC outlet, that released these images saying, it appears to show the same man, and I will tell you, it does.
Now, it could possibly be two or three different people, we don't know for sure, but it does appear to show the same men.
We can see the hairstyle, and it looks like, as far as I can tell, similar hairstyle to the man they confirmed to be Ahmed Arbery.
There's a lot to break down here, but I'm going to tell you why this is a difficult story, why everyone's trying to inject their bias, or I should say that they are.
And if you really want to understand what's happening and make sure you get to the true knowledge, the truth of what's happening, it's going to take time, and it's going to be difficult.
RedState is a conservative commentary site and news, and they've asserted that this argument, that the clip I put out was misleading or misinformation.
I just posted what was reported by NBC News, that it appears to show the same man.
Now, I did a video and I operated under the assumption it was the same man.
So for that, I will absolutely walk back and say, absolutely, I could have been wrong about that.
I may have made a bad assumption in my opinion.
What I mean to say is my opinion may have been wrong.
Based on the context, I assumed this was likely the same man because it really does look like him.
And I'll break this down for you.
We'll go into bigger detail.
But first, let's talk about the new evidence that has just emerged debunking this framing, this narrative that the men did not report anything.
Keep in mind, this is not a defense.
This is not me accusing Arborea of doing anything.
People are so insane.
Man, I can't tell you.
They are getting whipped up into a tizzy.
No one, okay?
I'm going to stop right there.
I don't want to be hyperbolic.
The overwhelming majority of people do not believe that Ahmed Arbery deserved to lose his life in this conflict.
It is a very complicated, nuanced situation.
These men, I think we can break this down based on the evidence, had seen a string of thefts, had seen numerous reports or videos even of a man who looked like this guy.
They had called the police.
Weapons had been stolen.
In the 911 call, Travis McMichael says, I saw him reach into his pocket.
I'm not sure if he's armed.
Corroborating a statement he made to the police.
Here's what I think happened.
These guys had seen a string of thefts, had seen somebody coming in.
They assumed Ahmed Arbery was that guy.
Arbery was... Look, I'm not gonna buy the whole he was just checking out a construction site.
It's possible, but it's irrelevant.
They assumed Arbery was the guy because he was in the property that had previously, you know, people have been going through.
That according to ABC, Larry English, the owner, did report this.
I'll make sure I get the facts straight.
We'll read the story.
I've got it pulled up.
They wanted to stop and talk to him.
They thought because of this scenario, he may have been armed.
It may have not been the same person.
It is called negligent homicide.
It is called manslaughter.
It was not cold-blooded murder.
They're trying to convince you right now, even some conservatives, that this was them hunting down Arbery for no reason and ending his life.
Absolutely not true.
Let's read the story.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports, in the months before the February 23rd shooting of Ahmaud Arbery, residents in the Satilla Shores neighborhood outside Brunswick reported thefts, trespassing, and activity they deemed suspicious to police and posted to the neighborhood's Facebook page and Nextdoor account a description of a man who'd been entering a home under construction, according to police records.
Some of the social media posts included security camera footage of the man inside the house, records said.
On the night of February 11th, Travis McMichael was driving his red pickup truck past the construction site when he spotted someone he deemed suspicious, according to an audio of a 911 call obtained by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
Quote, I was leaving the neighborhood and I just caught a guy running into a house being built, he told the dispatcher.
When I turned around, he took off running into the house.
McMichael, 34, and his father, Gregory McMichael, are charged with felony murder and aggravated assault in the fatal shooting 12 days later.
Was Ahmed Arbery traveling around 10 miles or so from his house to go jogging in someone
else's neighborhood?
To me, I get it.
A lot of people tried defending it.
I'm sorry.
That's not a defense.
That means literally nothing to me.
You cannot say he was just jogging.
No, I'm sorry.
It's nothing.
It's totally irrelevant as far as I'm concerned.
You can make an argument about what he was doing, why he was doing it.
Some people will have a negative view, say he was casing the house.
Some will say he was just jogging.
Those do not matter.
What matters is the greater context on the past few months and whether or not this was a lynching, cold-blooded murder, which it was in all likelihood not.
Which is why I don't think the felony murder charge is going to stick.
This is a mistake made by activists all the time.
They wonder why it is these guys get away with this stuff.
And I don't mean get away like they perpetrated a great crime, but why they aren't imprisoned or convicted.
Because felony murder and aggravated assault, I think the only way to make that stick is if the court of public opinion demands it and the judges and the courts bend to just sweeping under the rug.
Let's read.
Our office has reviewed the surveillance video which appears to show a person believed to be Ahmed Arbery entering a property under construction.
A statement from the legal team repping the family said after the clip was made public.
This video is consistent with the evidence already known to us.
Ahmed Arbery was out for a jog.
He stopped by a property under construction where he engaged in no illegal activity and remained for only a brief period.
Full stop.
The AJC has previously reported that surveillance footage from across the street shows that Arbery was not jogging.
He was walking, stops, enters a home.
A man approaches from across the street, stops, calls 911.
Arbery, about three minutes later, exits the house and then starts running.
You can assume what happened there on your own.
I can't tell you.
Those are the facts of the case.
Now, do you want to assume he was jogging?
I'm sorry.
The footage shows he was walking.
Maybe he jogged and then he stopped because he was tired and catching his breath.
Fine.
You can assume whatever you want.
The fact is, video footage does not show him jogging.
He enters the house, someone calls, he exits the front door, and then he runs.
Take that for whatever you want.
During the February 11th call to 911, Travis McMichael told the dispatchers he'd seen a man at the construction site and was backing up his truck to check on things.
I've never seen this guy before in my neighborhood, he said.
He was breathing heavily during the call.
Yeah, it just startled me.
When I turned around and saw him and backed up, he reached into his pocket and ran to his house.
So I don't know if he's armed or not, but he looked like he was acting like he was.
McMichael told the dispatcher that he was in his truck across the street from the construction site, while as many as four neighbors were out looking for the man.
Neighbor Diego Perez said he was armed when he left his home and walked up to Satilla Drive that night.
Gregory McMichael joined the search and was also armed.
The 911 call placed at 7.27pm summoned police to the construction site.
We've been having a lot of burglaries and break-ins around here lately, Travis told the dispatcher, adding that his gun had been stolen from his truck in January.
His home is a few doors down from the one under construction.
He described the man as having short hair and standing about six feet tall, wearing red shorts and a white shirt.
Now this is where it all gets interesting.
They tried to debunk the tweet I put out.
New video appears to show Ahmed Arbery inside the construction site.
Let me show you what RedState says.
Next, we have the theory that Arbery entered the construction site on multiple occasions.
At first, it was established that the young man went to the site shortly before his confrontation with the McMichaels, but later it was reported that footage showed him going into the property multiple times in October 2019.
The anti-Arbery crowd was using this fact to support the theory that the young man was casing the house for a future burglary.
However, ABC News revealed the man who was entering the construction site in October was not Arbery.
According to their report, English-informed law enforcement, the owner of the property here, That an unknown black male kept trespassing on the site and was captured in the surveillance camera footage.
However, the suspect was described as a lighter-skinned black male who stood between 5'10 and 6', whose arms may have been covered in tattoos and has 3-inch to 4-inch twists, dreads, hairstyle.
Arbery does not match this description.
He was six feet tall with a dark complexion and a low-faded haircut.
Full stop.
What did we just hear from the February 11th 911 call from the McMichaels?
The man was standing about six feet tall wearing red shorts and a white shirt.
Now, I don't know if that man was Ahmet Arbery.
I don't know.
But I can tell you that we have evidence the McMichaels had experienced someone entering this property who was a black male around six feet tall.
Twelve days later, Ahmed Arbery, standing about six feet tall, a black male, was seen leaving the property and running.
And they went after him.
They should not have done this.
They should have done what they did the first time, called the police and backed off.
Now, of course, in this instance, they went out as well.
It is a very, very nuanced discussion, nuanced situation.
But you will hear people say it was hunting him down.
No.
I'm sorry, man.
Evidence exists that these guys had a reasonable concern.
Should they have done what they've done?
No.
But you gotta understand, man.
In the video, Ahmed Arbery is seen running towards their truck.
Travis McMichael is in the middle of the intersection and Arbery then runs to the right side and goes around the truck.
Many people have said it's because his road was blocked by a man with a weapon.
I can understand that.
I respect that.
But for him to then run around the truck and then go and then attack Travis, be in self-defense or otherwise, I can't tell you why someone would do this.
All I can tell you is that proves not cold-blooded murder.
This evidence now should back that up.
The police report from February 11th incident said the owner of the home under construction, Larry English, had an ongoing issue with trespassing on the property.
The report said English lived nearly two hours away, but he had installed security cameras that alerted him whenever someone entered the home.
The report of the person in the security security camera footage described a black man of slender build standing about six feet tall.
So what is this Red State story?
Let me break it down for you.
When people started saying, Tim, you're wrong.
This report is wrong.
That wasn't Arbery.
That wasn't Arbery.
Okay, the first thing I can tell you...
The man in this photo appears to have a similar haircut to the haircut we've seen of Arbery.
It might not be the same person, I honestly don't know.
It appears to be.
It was reported by a local NBC affiliate that it appeared to be the same man.
I have seen no evidence debunking this, okay?
Now, it's fair to point out, and that's why in the previous video I made the note, I walked it back, it only appears to be, and it was wrong of me to make the assumption, that it was him.
But what we can say is that the people who lived in this neighborhood heard reports of a similar person consistently going in this property and a report that a man of slender build standing at about six feet tall was there.
There are other reports conflicting this, but initially when I put this video out within about a day, people started posting a clip of like a cell phone recording a TV where someone said the family denies it.
I couldn't back that up.
In fact, the only thing we really have from ABC, is that they mention the person on the camera, they say an unknown black male kept trespassing on the property, who stood between 5'10 and 6 feet tall, arms may have been covered in tattoos, and has 3 to 4 inch twist dread style haircut, the report said.
Ahmaud Arbery was 6 feet with a darker skin complexion.
This is not definitive evidence of anything, but I'm more than willing to say, I lean more towards maybe it wasn't him.
The problem is, for some reason you have all of these people who are so incredibly biased, even conservative outlets, trying to defend this before they know the details.
Now they say, you know, everyone's backing up this claim that there were no reported burglaries, but that is a framing problem.
When these guys said, we've had burglaries, they may have been speaking in a more colloquial manner, not a formal police, you know, manner, right?
So they are like, yeah, people are breaking in, and they don't know what the actual terminology means.
So then the news jumps on it and uses a framing device.
Not literally burglary, therefore, these guys were wrong.
Now we know they did call it in.
English's security cameras ping the phone the night Travis McMichael dialed 911.
Security camera footage shows someone walking through the house and looking around.
English said nothing was taken from the home.
They say Arbery was black, the McMichaels are white.
The incident has drawn national attention and local action including several recent rallies.
So that's the gist of this story, okay?
This is why you have to be very, very careful.
All of the people that are jumping on this and saying they know for sure what happened are wrong.
I don't know for sure what happened.
Even Donald Trump has said there may be things that have happened before the video or after the video that we don't know, and he is correct.
The video shows us someone running towards a pickup truck, flanking around the right side, getting into a fight over a weapon, and then that man loses his life.
People have argued he was just out for a jog.
When they show this video, they say he's clearly jogging, but that ignores the context of the evidence we've now seen from AJC.
That he was walking, entered the home, someone spotted him, called 911, he came out the front door, and then ran.
These guys got in their vehicles and got weapons, which I again think was absolutely wrong to do, and went to go question him or stop him or detain him or sit and arrest him, whatever people are saying.
Everybody is so desperate to prove that they know that they're saying things like, you know, Red State here is making a bold assumption that this was debunked.
It was not.
I'm sorry.
I think it's fair to lean towards this man may have not actually been Arbery, and I will absolutely say I should not have done that 100%.
I can't necessarily call it a correction because we don't know for sure.
I'm getting tons of people on the left arguing I'm lying or making it up.
I'm sorry, man.
I can only see a few grainy photos of what appears to be a black male that was reported to be around potentially six feet tall, which is consistent with the 911 call we heard before.
So let's pretend this guy is not Arbery, and that's fine.
We still now have evidence.
That Travis McMichael saw a black male around six feet tall enter the property.
So when it came 12 days later to a similar man, he made the assumption.
He shouldn't have done that.
He should have left it to law enforcement.
I'll tell you what, man.
There's no real way to know for sure.
Hindsight is 20-20.
These guys made a profoundly stupid mistake.
I understand the idea of wanting to, you know, self-defense, citizen's arrest.
But you've got someone entering a new-build construction property.
Maybe he took something, maybe he didn't.
I think a lot of people are wrong.
They're saying he was wearing hiking boots.
I do not see that.
I don't even know how you would prove that.
They claim he dropped a hammer.
Again, can't prove that either.
I have absolutely pushed back on those claims.
100%.
We just don't know.
The left is jumping on the narrative that this was cold-blooded murder, and they maintain that position.
That is 100% false, and I think we know for sure it was false.
Now, I'll ask you, I don't know why, you know, Daily Wire, Red State, and other conservative outlets are so desperate to be on the side of the social justice left on this one.
It's fine to say Ahmed Arbery should not have lost his life that day.
In fact, I believe it is the morally correct thing to do.
I do not even believe in the death penalty.
I oppose the death penalty 100%.
Even if the dude did commit some very, very serious crime and was caught, I do not believe anybody should end their life.
And I get flack from that from conservatives.
So yes, I do not believe that he should have lost his life.
It's plain.
It's plain to see.
So why do we still have this bias?
I honestly don't know.
What really happened?
For sure.
You know, we for sure don't know.
That's all I can really say.
Now I will tell you this.
More evidence is likely to come out.
I'm actually surprised a 911 call dropped back in the south.
This came out just the other day.
He had called and reported a break-in.
Does that mean it was a burglary?
No.
But, what about all these reports claiming things like this?
This is what you have to be careful of.
So, I'll end this by talking about the framing problem.
When I repeatedly said, we don't know for sure, you see stories like this, and people were so quick to jump on this and say, aha, it contradicts their claim.
It doesn't.
If a couple of non-law enforcement individuals don't know what burglary is and say it was a burglary, and then the news comes out and says no burglaries, they didn't even bother to check?
Well, the AJC did check.
There were reported crimes.
They called 911.
Did the police fill out a report for this?
We don't know.
I don't know where this is going to end up, my assumption.
These guys, if they are convicted, it will be because the mob with the pitchforks demanded it.
It's possible, however.
I believe they have a very strong defense based on all the evidence.
The activists wanted too much.
They do this often.
I've seen this.
I have covered a lot of Black Lives Matter rallies and protests, and they often demand more severe charges than you could actually end up getting, you know, actually pulling off.
This seems to be a case of manslaughter.
They shouldn't have gone out to confront somebody.
They potentially, you know, people have argued citizen's arrest requires that they be witnesses to the crime.
They may have actually been.
Now we're hearing from this that the house that people were repeatedly going into was a few houses down.
But I don't think it's fair to say we don't have raised any evidence to suggest that Arbery took anything.
In which case, he didn't commit a crime.
These men did not have a reason to believe this man committed any serious felony or crime.
In which case, they should not have gone after him.
And now they will reap what they have sown.
You want to argue self-defense in the fight and all that stuff?
Fine.
But you have to understand, you have to choose your battles.
And if you initiate a confrontation that results in loss of life, you are responsible.
You really, really are.
Self-defense could play out.
It's a possibility, except for the fact that they had no legal justification, by the evidence we're seeing now, to actually confront this man.
Just because someone else may have broken in, doesn't give them the right, or I should say, illegally entered, or trespassed, or maybe it wasn't even a crime, they didn't take anything.
They don't know it's the same person, and neither do we.
So I'll leave it there.
I think I made my point clear.
I don't want to beat the dead horse, so... Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at timcast.net.
Check it out.
It links to my other YouTube channel, and I will see you all there.
I've recently had some pretty kind words for New York Times media columnist Ben Smith, formerly the editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News.
I think he's doing a really, really great job.
He's called out some big stories, something the mainstream media often neglect, things like Joe Biden, for instance, the defense of him, CNN, and their controversy over the fake quarantine.
Anyway, long story short, Ben Smith does a great job.
But he used to work at BuzzFeed, and he left, and he went to join the New York Times.
And immediately, people started saying, is BuzzFeed in trouble?
Why would the editor-in-chief leave?
Now, my understanding is that Ben Smith said, it was just an opportunity.
I do not believe so.
I believe as the editor-in-chief, he saw the writing on the wall.
He knew it was coming.
BuzzFeed is in trouble.
BuzzFeed is closing its UK and Australian news operations, but we also have this story from Vanity Fair.
Quote, I feel like they are trying to murder us.
Struggling Buzzfeed feels targeted by the Times Death Star.
Poaching employees and re-reporting other outlet stories is in the Times DNA.
And BuzzFeed is now in the crosshairs, says former editor-in-chief Ben Smith.
The biggest poach of all?
I'm still rooting for BuzzFeed.
The biggest poach of all.
The New York Times stole Ben Smith.
Okay, I stole, but he left.
Now, I don't think they poached him, necessarily.
I think his ship was sinking, and the New York Times is a massive vessel that's doing well enough.
And so we jump ship.
I think BuzzFeed's in serious trouble.
Now, it's not just BuzzFeed.
I'm not going to get too much into detail, but I want to point this out.
Other outlets are dying off.
It's gotten worse, man, with the coronavirus.
These news outlets have been seeing massive revenue collapse.
I've also seen revenues start going down.
In the past few weeks, things have slowly started to recover, but man, it was a bad couple of months.
Revenue dropped dramatically.
In some instances, like 70%.
That's why I started doing those promos, you may have noticed.
Now, how do you think BuzzFeed's going to handle this when they're not even profitable in the first place?
Quartz is also laying off 80 employees.
Now, Quartz isn't that bad.
I'm not going to rag on Quartz.
BuzzFeed is bad.
And you know what the messed up thing is?
It's funny to me.
That you can have someone like Ben Smith at BuzzFeed, and BuzzFeed does this really awful job for the most part.
He leaves and goes to the New York Times, and then starts doing, you know, good reporting.
I think that shows you the problem of these outlets.
It is like getting a ball and chain tied to your ankle.
You've gotta fight to make sure you can get those sweet, juicy clicks.
Well, now that he's writing for a mostly, you know, well, I guess technically mostly subscription-based service now at New York Times, he can write what he wants to write.
He can write things that challenge the mainstream, and he's doing a great job.
Let's read about BuzzFeed closing down a couple other offices.
The BBC reports.
The U.S.
company, which set up its London office in 2013, said the decision had been made both for economic and strategic reasons to close U.K.
and Australia.
BuzzFeed said it would be focusing on news that hits big in the United States during this difficult period.
Some staff will stay on to cover social news, celebrity and investigations, but it is thought about 10 jobs are affected.
BBC News media editor Amol Rajan said the affected UK staff had been furloughed.
He added that the title didn't did much outstanding work.
And its closure showed that the coronavirus crisis had claimed a high-profile journalistic institution.
Whoa!
Journalistic institution?
Hold on there, buddy.
Give yourself too much credit.
BuzzFeed News has been a strong, scooping, important voice in UK journalism.
No, it isn't!
You guys hired that guy Mark Stefano or whatever, who pumped out a bunch of fake news, went to the Financial Times, and then got fired for spying on other outlets.
You guys were trash.
Buzzfeed UK's political editor Alex Whitman tweeted, Oh yeah, every time they wrote about Sargon of Akkad and Count Dankula, I was just so impressed with their journalistic integrity.
You were about YouTubers, you morons.
Paying tribute to his colleagues, news editor Alan White posted that the amount of talent in that office was unreal.
Oh, I completely agree.
It was unreal how awful it was.
You gotta be careful how you speak because a statement you made isn't necessarily a positive.
Political correspondent Hanan Al-Othman tweeted, she had an absolutely brilliant three years at the title.
It's been the best job I've ever had, and there'll probably never be another one better.
Guardian columnist Marina Hyde wrote that she had been informed and made to laugh so many times
a day by their brilliant, idiosyncratic, and dedicated staff.
A BuzzFeed UK investigation into 14 mysterious deaths allegedly linked to Russia
was nominated for the Pulitzer Prize in 2017.
Oh, the Pulitzer Prize!
You mean a bunch of hoity-toity journalists giving each other awards?
Yeah, sorry, smear me.
Earlier this month, the site was also the first to report on all seven of the government's draft documents which outlined proposals for easing UK's coronavirus lockdown.
In a statement, BuzzFeed said it was still investing heavily in its news business and will spend around $10 million more than it makes from its current upper... Whoa!
It's going to spend $10 million more than it makes from its operation this year?
And about $6 million more in 2021.
It added, we will be consulting with employees on our plans regarding furloughs and stand downs.
This is why BuzzFeed is in full on panic mode.
They are spending more money than they make.
And this, this is mostly their news division being impacted.
So then when the New York times steps up and says, we can just follow up on your story and do a better job.
Why does anybody care about BuzzFeed?
You can just spend your, you know, 20 bucks a month or whatever it is for your New York times.
And I have to worry about the trash garbage clickbait nonsense that comes out of BuzzFeed.
You see, that's the thing.
BuzzFeed UK had that dude, Stefano or whatever.
Man, he would write like, Count Dankula, a YouTuber with his pug, and I'm like, how is that news, bro?
It's not news.
Why am I reading this?
Some of it was such ridiculous fake news.
And you know what?
BuzzFeed wouldn't correct the stuff.
BuzzFeed once wrote a fake story about two black men fighting over a chicken sandwich.
I kid you not.
It's fake.
It's a fake story.
They didn't know fact-checking.
They didn't ask any witnesses.
They just wrote the fake trash.
That's what they did.
So, no.
Okay?
No BuzzFeed.
I'm not going to mourn your loss.
In fact, I'm going to encourage more.
I like what's going on with some of the New York Times reporters, and I do have a subscription to the Times, but I don't even give the Times, like, highest marks.
The New York Times and the Washington Post are really biased.
And not just the Washington Post, I just throw them in there for good measure.
But they've got their problems too.
AP does a pretty good job.
So you want me to cry now that the New York Times is poaching your staff?
I'm not going to.
I'm actually, you know what?
I'll encourage the New York Times to do more.
Actually, no, I kind of take that back.
New York Times shouldn't be hiring BuzzFeed reporters, you know?
I'll tell you what, man.
Me personally?
BuzzFeed News is lacking in the credibility department.
They used to be okay.
I used to think so.
But as all of these news outlets have continually gotten more and more stressed as they can't seem to make money, I'll tell you what, man.
The quality of content they've produced has become gutter trash.
Completely.
And it's because they can't figure out how to monetize.
So now when they go to the New York Times, perhaps they would do a better job.
But again, as I mentioned, you know, courts has now been hit by this too.
I'm not super, you know, the courts is not that bad.
Vanity Fair says, I'm not going to read their, you know, Donald Trump COVID stuff.
They say if the story... The New York Times basically poached a story.
And if it sounded familiar, it's because the piece was a more detailed and fleshed-out version that BuzzFeed had written.
The Times acknowledged and linked to BuzzFeed's article, and it also included a nasty response from Oren Pines.
Yeah, yeah, we get it.
They're basically lining out how the Times is stealing stories.
And the social... You know what?
I'm gonna stop right here.
I'm just gonna complain about journalism right now.
I can't stand...
And how they do this.
These first two paragraphs could have very easily been, BuzzFeed on May 8th, The New York Times published a story about Silicon Valley engineer.
It was a rehash of a story published by BuzzFeed.
It was more fleshed out.
Done.
But they always do this.
That's why I can't stand a lot of these outlets.
They do things where it's like, you'll be reading a story and they'll say Donald Trump, you know, the headline will say, Donald Trump to campaign in Virginia.
And the first paragraph will be like, it was a dark and stormy night.
A cold autumn breeze.
Donald Trump approached the plane, a stern look in his eye, and I'm like, what am I reading?
I don't care about this.
Tell me what happened.
In the social media age, tweets like this are practically a requirement.
Oh, you know what, man?
Okay, this is ridiculous.
Here's the story.
I may not even read it for you.
Vanity Fair says that BuzzFeed employees are upset, they're struggling, they can't make money, and their employees are going to the New York Times.
Let's just read the final paragraph.
Oh, they didn't even write this like an actual article.
This is trash.
Vanity Fair is trash.
Vanity Fair, you should also have your people poached by New York Times.
The digital age is coming to an unceremonious end, unfortunately, for a lot of these outlets.
They made most of their money off the Facebook algorithm, and then times changed with YouTube and Facebook video, and they started to lose money.
They drove clickbait, ragebait nonsense.
They wrote garbage articles.
And now, with the pandemic, we are seeing most of them be hit really, really hard.
It's almost like... Well, I'll avoid making the analogy, but basically, Everybody is sinking.
Every boat is sinking.
But some boats are strong enough to survive.
It's like, it's kind of like the whole economy has been poisoned.
And the smaller and weaker industries are dying off while the major corporations are surviving.
So this is ultimately a net negative in a lot of ways.
Walmart, for instance, can keep making money because they're essential, because they sell food.
But a small shoe store can't.
So what ends up happening is that the mom-and-pop shop goes out of business.
Walmart stays open.
The big boats are gonna be just fine.
The small businesses, the individuals, the smaller outlets, the BuzzFeeds will go out of business.
It's bad?
It's not all bad.
You know, I mourn the mom-and-pop shop that's being negatively impacted by this, but I will not mourn BuzzFeed when they struggle to get their ad revenue.
There are a lot of independent YouTubers and creators who are still profitable and doing just fine, and what they do is desperate, archaic, bloated trash.
It does not cost that much money to do what BuzzFeed does.
They spend a ridiculous amount of money to write trash articles, and for what?
Because they don't want the boat to sink.
Well, now that the boat has sunk, or I should say their boat is sinking, but many others have sunk, like the UK and the Australian outlets, this is good news.
It really, really is.
One of the biggest problems we face politically is that all of these digital news outlets are writing the most insane things possible.
to try and jump up traffic, and that creates hyperpolarization.
So if we go back, if we get rid of a lot of these rage-bait garbage outlets, we can go back to
big news outlets with a moderate opinion, okay, and then you can have all of the people on social
media talking about how they feel about it. There are pros and there's cons.
We lose outlets like BuzzFeed, I'm not going to cry about it.
I like the idea of a large, accountable establishment paper being, you know,
basically attacked left and right and forcing their opinions to become more middle of the road.
The problem is, with the BuzzFeeds and the competition, you see these outlets become extremely biased.
I like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
They're not perfect, but what I like more is independent media, and BuzzFeed has tried to get independent media destroyed.
Now, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal have been implicated in those things as well, but I'll leave it at this.
The New York Times does an okay job.
They're very biased.
BuzzFeed is trash.
And they're going away.
So you know what?
I'm not gonna cry about it.
We'll see how things play out.
I'll see you all in the next few minutes in the next segment.
I'll leave it there.
In a somewhat irrelevant passing statement, Joe Rogan stated, I might move to Texas if California continues to be restrictive.
Now, the media loves taking these passing comments made by Joe Rogan and running with big stories about them.
And sure enough, Joe Rogan apparently wanting to move to Texas is breaking news, because numerous outlets have reported on this.
Now, of course, I have a video where I've titled it much the same.
And I think it's because I actually want to address, you know, how the media plays these games with Joe Rogan.
They did it with Bernie Sanders.
They did it with Donald Trump.
Sort of.
It goes back and forth.
But I actually want to point out what's going on in California.
Elon Musk said, not too long ago, that he might actually move out of California.
He may move Tesla's headquarters to Texas or Nevada.
A lot of people seem to be thinking that Texas is the right move.
California is crippling itself in a lot of ways.
They've got this extended lockdown.
L.A.
is extending their lockdown.
And we don't even know if it's the right thing to do at this point.
It may actually be worse.
The L.A.
Times has written just this, saying that it's impacting the poor negatively.
So why then would they keep, you know, just, they're going to extend the lockdown indefinitely, they've said.
Now, to varying degrees.
Some health official in California said they're going to extend it for sure until August.
Then, I believe it was Mayor Garcetti comes out, and he said something like, no, no, no, it won't be three months.
It'll be until we have a cure.
To varying degrees.
Like, we'll be masking and social distancing.
You can't cure a virus, bro.
There's not going to be a cure for this.
What are you talking about?
Maybe he means a vaccine.
Sure, fine.
Preventative measure.
But how long will then LA be locked down?
And that means people like Joe and Elon Musk and other big wealthy individuals who live in California got to make a hard choice.
You want to live in lockdown or do you want to go somewhere free like Texas?
Let's read his comments.
Podcast host Joe Rogan said on Wednesday he is considering leaving California and moving to Texas because of the Golden State's restrictive coronavirus measures.
Quote, I might move to Texas, he said.
Here's the thing.
If California continues to be restrictive, I don't know if this is a good place to live.
First of all, it's extremely expensive.
The taxes here are ridiculous.
And if they really say we can't do stand-up until 2022, I might jet.
I'm not kidding.
I'm not kidding.
This is silly.
I don't need to be here.
The only reason why I'm here is because I'm close to people like you.
A lot of my friends live here.
The comedy store is here.
But if they won't let us do the store, we can do stand-up in other places.
Why would we stay here?
Exactly.
I'm in South Jersey.
I run my business from home.
I got no reason to be here either.
And some people have told me it was a mistake to even set up here in the first place because the taxes are so high.
Yeah, I've actually been thinking about moving somewhere else.
Texas actually does sound good.
Although I don't want to be in Central Time, so I'd much prefer to be on the East Coast.
We'll see how things play out.
But when you have all of these states increasing their taxes, you have to wonder... You don't wonder, I think you can know exactly why they struggle.
California has wealth, and they have great hype.
They've convinced people that you gotta come to California, that's the place to be!
It's not the place to be.
I know, I lived there for a couple years, and, well, I don't regret it.
I had fun, had some crazy adventures, met some cool people, had an apartment burned down.
Yeah, fun stuff happens.
But it was a cutthroat, very spread out, You know what I tell people?
California's where you go if you have a bunch of money already.
You're successful, you're rich.
Yeah, buy your Malibu property and go live on the beach or whatever.
But to go there, you get jammed up, you waste your time.
Now I think it's not even a good idea to say you should go there if you are successful because we can see what's happening with Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.
But I'll tell you where it gets really crazy when we're talking about the lockdowns.
After Wisconsin court ruling, crowds liberated and thirsty descend on bars where the Wild West Governor Tony Evers says.
A bunch of photos are starting to pop up of these states where they've been reopening.
In Wisconsin, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin ruled that the lockdown would not be extended.
It's like a four to three vote.
You can see how the average person feels about this as well.
Now, unfortunately for a lot of regular people who live in, say, Michigan or Wisconsin or whatever, they don't have... Well, actually, Michigan's one of the best examples.
The people who live in Michigan can't afford to leave.
Although people have been fleeing Michigan like crazy over the past, you know, couple decades, they don't have the money that, say, Joe Rogan does to just up and move.
It's very difficult for people to move.
I did a story on people who lived in California who had their water taken away.
They had well water, right?
But their wells went down like 30 feet, and because of the drought, the cities were basically voting to take the water away from the farming areas, which resulted in the farmers digging into groundwater, which resulted in the wells running dry.
This is what you get when you live in California, right?
And the people who lived there were poor, they had no water, and they couldn't even afford to leave if they wanted to.
So what is a person supposed to do?
I'll tell you what.
My advice?
Don't move to California.
I mean, I'm surprised people are still living there.
Because I've been saying for a long time, if you live in California, at this point, you're nuts.
You gotta move.
I left a while ago for a lot of these reasons.
I actually worked with non-profits dealing with homeless issues in California.
And I saw how bad it was.
And I saw no end in sight.
But let's get off the California thing.
I want to talk about what's going on with people wanting things to be reopened.
This is a story from Washington Post.
They say, On Wednesday night, in the heart of downtown Platteville, Wisconsin, just hours after the Wisconsin Supreme Court threw out the state stay-at-home order, Nix on 2nd was packed wall-to-wall, standing room only.
It was sometime after 10 p.m.
when Long Cool Woman in a black dress by the Hollies came over the sound and says, Okay, you know what?
This is what I talk about when I say journalists waste time writing novels.
I don't care.
They say, some were clapping their hands in the air, some were fist-pumping, a scene so joyous they could have been celebrating the end of the worst pandemic in a century.
Instead, as Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers knew, they were just celebrating the apparent end of his power over them, at least for now.
Quote, we're the Wild West, he told MSNBC, reacting to the state Supreme Court's ruling and the scenes of people partying in bars across Wisconsin.
There are no restrictions at all across the state of Wisconsin.
So at this point in time, there is nothing that's compelling people to do anything other than have chaos there.
Chaos it was.
Chaos?
You mean life like it used to be?
I understand you've got concerns, but we gotta follow the rule of law on this one, everybody.
It would far be it from me or anyone else to advocate violating the law.
These governors are violating the law as we now see.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court said you can't do it.
You can't.
Stop complaining.
This is what's funny to me.
When the governor says, do it or else, the media and the left, they all like, yes, yes, here, here, cheer, cheer.
When the state Supreme Court says you can't do it, it's illegal, release it, they go, oh no, oh, it's chaos, oh, harumph.
How come you're so intent on following the rule of law when the governor decrees it, but not when the courts rule it?
Either way, it's the rule of law.
I now demand that YouTube not take down... Well, actually, I don't know what YouTube's gonna do, but I hope that YouTube respects videos that tell people in Wisconsin, you can go out, you can go eat, there are no restrictions across the state.
That's apparently what we're learning right now, and you should be happy when you follow the law.
If you want to complain and you don't like it, you don't have to go outside.
But this is the law and the Supreme Court has ruled as such.
Here's what they say.
Right after the Supreme Court's conservative majority issued a 4-3 ruling invalidating the extension of the stay-at-home order issued by Evers' appointed state health chief, the Tavern League of Wisconsin instructed its members to feel free to open immediately.
With ever statewide orders kaput, local health authorities scramble to issue or extend citywide or countywide state home orders, creating a hodgepodge of rules and regulations all across the state that are bound to cause confusion, not to mention some traffic across county lines.
It's a situation unlike any in the U.S.
as the pandemic rages on.
But most of all, Evers feared that the court's order would cause the one thing he was trying to prevent, more death.
Wisconsin has seen more than 10,900 confirmed cases and 421 deaths.
When you have no requirements anymore.
That's a problem, he said.
We're just leaving it open.
We're going to have more cases.
We're going to have more deaths.
And it's a sad occasion for the state.
I can't tell you how disappointed I am.
And I can't tell you how little I actually care about what you think.
When you come out and say we're doing this, I say okay.
You know why?
Because we have checks and balances.
You want to issue this health decree, guess what?
People actually said okay to it.
This was an extension.
The Supreme Court, you know, shot down.
So anyway, here's the point I want to make.
California is extending things, right?
Here we have this story.
L.A.
Mayor Eric Garcetti tells all Angelinas they must now wear face masks when outside as crowds return to reopened beaches.
You can't mandate that!
You do not have the authority to create these laws!
I also find it's really funny that we have anti-mask laws, because technically the law states you can't wear masks, depending on the jurisdiction.
But here's what's really funny.
In New York City, for instance, there's a law in the books, like a masquerade law.
They use it against protesters all the time.
If you're in a group of three or more, you can't wear masks.
I don't know, it's about masquerade laws, like 1800-something.
But it's funny now that they're actually telling people you have to wear masks, but the law literally says you can't.
So, listen.
I don't know about the mask laws in California, but just think about this for a second.
Look this up, because maybe we'll see this, you know, paradox.
If the law on the books that was passed by the government says, you can't do X, and then a mayor, a governor, anybody comes out and says, no, you have to do X, Who's breaking the law?
Which one of those is the law you must follow?
It's kind of obvious.
Executive decree does not create laws.
Executive orders are orders on the executive branch and how they respond to things, not new laws on the books.
So if a governor, if a mayor, if somebody comes out and says, you have to do it, you know what the problem is?
I tell you this, the cops will probably enforce the decree over the statutory law.
You know why the cops don't know what the laws are?
You could actually have the law in your hand and they're gonna say, I don't care.
Executive authority.
They say to do it.
And they'll do it.
And they'll arrest you.
There was a cop up in, I think it was Washington, who spoke out against this saying, follow the Constitution.
He lost his job because of this.
They told him, take the video down.
He said, no.
So anyway, here's the point.
Joe Rogan talks about leaving California.
And while I agree it's silly that the media wants to overhype a lot of these things, like, oh, what did Joe Rogan say?
And now here I am doing a video about all of it, too.
I do it to make the point that Joe Rogan is a high-profile individual.
I think this is one thing they could have added to the story.
When he speaks out as a high-profile wealthy individual saying, I will leave your state because of this, think about the revenue the state will lose.
When Elon Musk says the same thing, think about the revenue they will lose.
They've got problems they can't fix, high-profile people getting ready to leave, then they don't make money.
I'll tell you what, man.
I will say this to you, Joe Rogan.
There's an opportunity to set up and invest in small towns that need jobs, that need help.
You can find somewhere outside of Austin or somewhere.
I know he mentioned, I think Dallas was like, you know, bad summers.
But I've been looking at towns that need rejuvenation.
Why do I want to be in, you know, I'm in the Philly suburbs, why do I want to be in a place with heavy taxes and stupid lockdown orders and things like that?
I can just move.
I can go find a place that needs a revitalizing industry and I can go there and as I seek to expand and do the news division, the fact-checking division, I got a bunch of plans, a bunch of stuff in the works, I can start hiring people locally.
And that sounds like a good idea.
So think about it this way Joe, you got an opportunity.
If you end up moving, you can, well, I hope you, you know, the people who do work for you, you know, can sustain their employment, maybe come with you.
But think about the opportunity you can provide to these smaller towns that need help as their industry fades.
You can, not only that, you'll revitalize a whole area regardless.
You could buy a house in the middle of nowhere, and then industry will start growing around you if you have the resources to do so.
That's what I'm interested in.
Kind of just like finding a place, finding people, you know, the prices may be going down, the houses are going down.
It's an opportunity for investment, man.
And you can bring these jobs back to areas or bring jobs to areas that need it.
We'll see how things play out.
Stick around.
I got one more segment coming up for you in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
The U.S.
is sending a destroyer through the strategic Taiwan Strait amid rising tensions with China over coronavirus crisis days before island's president is sworn in for a second term.
And now we have this story just a day later.
Trump says he doesn't want to talk to Xi Jinping as China tensions rise.
Not a confidence, not confidence building, not a good sign.
There's been an ongoing escalation between the U.S.
and China.
China's not happy.
The U.S.
is not happy.
We've been in a trade war.
China sent a strike group through the South China Sea.
The U.S.
responded with an elephant walk, a bunch of bombers in Guam.
The U.S.
had to pull those bombers out because China apparently has a weapon that could wipe them all out.
Then the U.S.
sent some warships into the South China Sea.
And then China claims they actually expelled one of those warships.
So yes, dramatic, maybe not overly dramatic, but escalations, tensions, fears of real conflict.
The U.S.
is now sending a destroyer and Trump won't talk to Xi because of these tensions.
And I got to tell you, man, It's only going to get worse from here.
It's entirely possible that things calm down.
Maybe in the coming months, we'll see something.
But if we're going to look at what's going on with the coronavirus and how the experts are telling us it could extend it for quite some time, then it stands to reason international trade is going to be stifled.
This will lead to desperation, potentially conflict.
Hopefully, this is just saber rattling.
And as I always mention in segments like this, these things could probably... They happen a lot.
They really do happen a lot.
And maybe we're only focused on them because we've got nothing else to do.
But I'll tell you this.
We're on the brink of a real international conflict, potentially a real war with China.
We just arrested a guy at a university, the FBI did, because he was on the take, he was in on the take from China without disclosing that.
We've had people, look, I don't know, I call it spying.
They don't say it's spying, they say it's fraud or whatever, but it sounds to me like we've got people working at our universities stealing information, taking our taxpayer dollars to fund research that they then give to China.
You then take into consideration what's going on in the South China Sea, and the powder keg is being filled up, man.
Let's read these stories, see what's going on.
The Daily Mail reports, The U.S.
Navy has revealed it sailed a guided missile destroyer through the sensitive Taiwan Strait yesterday, just days before Taiwan's President Xi Jinping's inauguration for a second term in office amid rising tension with China.
China, which considers Taiwan its territory, has been angered by the Trump administration's strong support for the island, such as increased arms sales.
Beijing-Washington ties have also been buffeted by fallout from the coronavirus pandemic.
Here's a cool photo.
The guided-missile destroyer USS McCampbell DDG-85 transits the Taiwan Strait on Wednesday as part of ongoing operations in the Indo-Pacific.
The U.S.
Pacific Fleet, in a statement on its Facebook page, said the USS McCampbell had transited the narrow strait that separates Taiwan from mainland China on Wednesday, showing pictures of the ship underway.
Taiwan's defense ministry said the ship had sailed south on what it termed an ordinary mission, adding it was continuing in that direction.
Sai, who will be sworn in for her second and final term next Wednesday, won re-election by a landslide in January, vowing to defend Taiwan's democracy and stand up to China.
Both China and the U.S.
have ramped up military activities near Taiwan in recent months, including regular U.S.
sailings through the Taiwan Strait and regular Chinese Air Force drills near the island.
Last Friday, Taiwan said a Chinese Air Force Y-8 aircraft had briefly crossed into Taiwan's air defense identification zone, prompting Taiwan jets to warn to leave.
China operates the Y-8 both as a transport and early warning and electronic warfare aircraft.
Taiwan has denounced the Chinese drills as attempts at intimidation and has told Beijing it should focus its efforts on fighting the coronavirus rather than menacing the island.
China considers Tsai to be a separatist.
Charges she strongly denies.
Last, uh, late next week, China will open its delayed annual meeting of parliament, where it is expected to release its defense budget for next year, a number closely watched around the region as President Xi Jinping oversees a military modernization plan.
Now, of course, there's been an ongoing conflict.
It's not escalated to full-on confrontation.
But you'd think, with warships going back and forth in the South China Sea, China has been accused of blowing up, you know, Vietnamese fishing vessels.
You'd think talking would be a good thing.
Diplomacy should always be the first response.
I am no fan of war.
And I gotta tell you, if Donald Trump gets us into a war with China, I will be the opposite of happy, okay?
Like in the far end.
And that's why, you know, a lot of people are always like, Tim, say it.
You know, the other night on the IRL podcast, we were talking about it, and I said, leaning towards voting for Trump for sure.
The reason is, our economy is in trouble.
Who better to fix it than Trump, who's got a three-year track record of doing really, really great with the economy?
I can respect that.
Almost four years, basically.
But I'll tell you what, man.
A lot can happen in a few months.
I'm not gonna vote for a guy who gets us into a war with China.
I can certainly understand how China may be the instigator.
That's why I'm saying we will see what happens.
But I will not be happy if we, if like... I don't think anyone's gonna be happy if we get into a war with China.
But I'll tell you what.
Stands to reason if we do, and it's China's fault, Trump will win in a landslide never seen before.
It's gonna be like, he's gonna win 500, he's gonna win every, you know, 538.
He's gonna win every single electoral vote.
It's gonna be an overwhelming landslide if we're in a war.
It's just how it happens.
I don't like the idea of war.
But I do know that China has been pushing it hard.
I do not blame the U.S.
for this one.
There's a lot of things I do blame the U.S.
for.
I think we've got awful foreign policy, especially what's happened in the Middle East over the past couple decades.
It's been trash.
I understand what they're trying to do.
You know, a lot of people act like I don't know anything about foreign policy.
It's like, this is like, I cover this more than domestic policy for the longest time.
That's why it's a big issue for me.
We've got the Qatar-Turkey pipeline.
We've got China oil exploration in Africa and South America.
The Nicaraguan Canal.
I know a lot about this stuff.
And one of the big fears is that if the U.S.
pulls out of these areas, China and Russia will move in.
Notably China.
Yes, I get that.
But it doesn't mean we handled these things well.
This is where things start breaking down.
Let's read the story.
President Donald Trump said he doesn't want to talk to Chinese President Xi Jinping right now and mused about eliminating the largest trading relationship in the world with tensions high over the coronavirus outbreak.
Asked in a Fox Business Network interview whether he had spoken to Xi recently, Trump said that they have a very good relationship, but right now I don't want to speak to him.
I don't want to speak to him.
Unprompted, he said, that we could cut off the whole relationship.
If we did, what would happen?
You'd save $500 billion.
An inaccurate reference to the volume of trade between the countries.
Trump has sought to blame China for the coronavirus pandemic as public confidence in his handling of the outbreak has sunk.
Okay, you know what?
I'm not going to entertain this, Bloomberg.
Let me tell you something.
When Donald Trump was doing his press briefings and they were airing on TV, his approval rating kept going up.
Once they cut those off, his approval rating has gone down.
So to insinuate that Trump is doing this because his approval rating is going down, I very, very, very much disagree.
No, I don't think so.
I think Trump has always viewed China negatively.
He was talking about this back in 2010.
It's what he ran on, and it's his opportunity for a nationalist move to bring manufacturing back to the U.S.
Any opportunity to cut off the trade, and he's right in many capacities, many regards, that the U.S.
was sending too much of their labor and factories overseas to China.
We were being extracted.
Our manufacturing is decimated.
And then what happens is American companies get set up, hire Chinese factories and laborers to do the work, and then sell it back to Americans.
That means American money is being siphoned off to foreign countries.
Trump doesn't like it.
So we saw the tariffs, the trade war, and now Trump is just looking for another excuse to go ham.
Trump is talking about keeping our borders shut until COVID is no longer a threat.
Well, think about what that means.
Two years, they say, until we have a cure.
Trump could be like, oh, can't have the borders open.
Oh, sorry.
Trump is really showing up our defenses.
He's talked about bolstering the military, which he's done.
He's talked about building a wall, national defense.
And now we're entertaining the possibility of a real military conflict with China.
Stands to reason Trump has had something like this in mind.
Not overt or direct war.
But perhaps Trump realized if he starts calling out China for the things they've done, stealing our intellectual property, spying in our universities, taking our manufacturing jobs, it could come to full-on physical confrontation.
We recently heard in a report from Reuters that the Chinese Ministry of State Security issued a report to top officials, including President Xi Jinping, that they need to prepare for the worst-case scenario, full-on physical confrontation with the United States.
So you want to tell me that it's fear-mongering?
That's why I wait till the end before I say this stuff.
But let me tell you, man, I said it weeks ago, last month, we are on the brink of war with China.
This is where we're at right now.
Trump doesn't want to talk to Xi Jinping.
We've got a destroyer going through.
It's not the first time we've sent our warships through the South China Sea.
But we also have China, in March, I believe it was, or I'm sorry, I believe it was early April, maybe late March, where they said they need to prepare for this.
We know China is.
Do you think the United States is?
I would go and say, yes.
And that's why we pulled our bombers out of Guam.
So I was reading one story that basically said, we did this elephant walk as a show of power.
Our bombers lining up on the runways so that, you know, they know we are armed to the teeth and we're ready to go to fight.
But we removed them because China apparently has a very powerful weapon that could just blanket the, you know, the island and wipe out our weapons.
So we had to move them and be a bit more strategic.
China, as many people have said, is a paper tiger.
That's what they argue.
Because they have a tremendous ground force, a ground army, but their technology is a bit old and weak.
They've got technically two aircraft carriers, I believe.
They have one real aircraft carrier and then like a small kind of aircraft carrier.
And the U.S.
has technically like 21.
So a lot of people act like the U.S.
shouldn't be, you know, overtly concerned.
And I think it's a fair point to be made.
I'm not confident anyone ever would be able to invade the United States because too many people in the United States are armed to the teeth.
So anybody who really tried to come here to engage in any conflict would never happen.
But What I think may happen is that resources, strategic allies, people, you know, trade that we need could be disrupted.
We could see conflict with oil tankers, shipping containers.
That's when things start getting bad for us in the US.
But then think about what Trump is pushing for.
Bringing back manufacturing.
If our manufacturing is secure, and we're able to sustain ourselves, that would have less of an impact.
That's why I think we really need to consider the fact that a war is a real possibility, and you should not have an optimism bias.
A lot of people think it could never happen.
Okay, well, a hundred years ago we had a pandemic and a world war.
We're now in the pandemic.
Is it possible?
I don't know.
I think about that, um, I've heard what's called, it's the generational theory, where it talks about how every 80 years something happens, and we are potentially facing the next phase, which could be a great war.
I don't know.
I'm not trying to fearmonger, but it's happening, so you decide what you think about it.
