Democrats Say They Are NOT Nominating Joe Biden??! Did They Just Gaffe Or Admit Biden Is Out?
Democrats Say They Are NOT Nominating Joe Biden??! Did They Just Gaffe Or Admit Biden Is Out? In an interview with Fox news Xochitl Hinojosa said that they are "not officially nominating Joe Biden in order to taken on Donald Trump"The confusing comment led many to believe that the Democratic party had slipped up and the DNC communications director accidentally revealed the real reason for the upcoming convention.Biden has been a disaster for the Democrats and Republicans have been cheering the entire time. The GOP loves that Biden is the presumptive nominee because he doesn't stand a chance against Trump.Many suspect that Biden is a placeholder candidate that allows the Democrats to shield the real nominee from bad press and from having to win the primary. The ultimate cheatCould it be Hillary Clinton? Andrew Cuomo? Michelle Obama?
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Even before the latest scandals, Joe Biden was a disaster for the Democrats.
He actually wasn't doing that well in the primaries, and he was doing so poorly, in fact, I thought he wasn't going to win.
It wasn't until he had one good performance in one state that the other nominees rallied behind him, and then he became the presumptive nominee, just edging out Bernie Sanders.
But he has been hit with gaffe after gaffe.
And not just that.
Many of his interviews have devolved into word salad, leading high-profile individuals to question whether or not Joe Biden is suffering from dementia.
But now he's got the Tara Reid allegations, and now he's got the Obamagate allegations.
So this is nothing short of an unmitigated disaster for the Democrats.
Because of this, There's been consistent speculation the Democrats would actually pull Joe Biden out, replace him with somebody else.
Now, a bunch of articles emerged demanding they do just that, saying, please replace him.
In fact, some conservatives even said if the Democrats want to win, you got to get rid of this guy.
Of course, many Trump supporters are laughing, saying, no, no, please, please run Joe Biden.
Even leftist activists are saying, please stop.
You're not going to win.
And I have to wonder, based on the latest gaffe, Joe Biden flubbing the COVID number, saying, America has lost 85,000 jobs.
What?
No, we lost millions.
85,000 jobs.
He has no idea what he's talking about.
I have to wonder if the Democrats are doing this on purpose.
They're leaving Joe Biden here because it helps Donald Trump and makes him look better by, through general relativity, just placing Joe Biden next to Trump.
Trump seems to make sense.
But now we have some evidence to suggest the Democrats may actually be planning to get rid of Joe Biden.
In an interview on Fox News, the DNC communications director said the convention, the Democratic convention, must happen because, quote, we are not officially nominating Joe Biden in order to take Donald Trump.
Now, this is strange, and I don't want to believe it, but there's a few, they're confusing comments.
Is she saying that they're not officially nominating Joe Biden to go after Trump, meaning they're going to pick somebody else?
Or is she trying to say that the convention is about something else?
Honestly, I don't know.
And it may be a slip up because there is speculation that maybe Andrew Cuomo will step in.
Some people think Michelle Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Now, I'm not saying these things are definitive.
That's just the speculation that's come out so far.
So for the DNC Communications Director to say, we have to have this convention for this reason, as much as my initial gut reaction is, no, no, no, that's not what she meant.
I think she meant to say, we have to have the convention because there's events, there's networking, there's other things we do.
But she said it in a really weird way.
Which leads people to think they are planning on swapping out Joe Biden.
Ever since the Tara Reid allegations, there have been speculation, I mean, probably even before this, that they would use this as a pretext to pull him out.
Initially, the New York Times and many media wouldn't touch the story.
They then kind of defended him.
But then we started to see activists, personalities, and even MSNBC and the New York Times start questioning Whether or not Joe Biden was fit for this role because of the allegations.
Now when you add on top the Obamagate investigation, the implications against Joe Biden, his stuttering, his stammering, his backpedaling.
He's implicated in this.
Maybe they really are planning on pulling him out, and maybe this was an accidental slip-up.
I don't know for sure, and I'll tell you what, part of me wants to say, no, no, that can't be the case.
Well, let's take a look at what's going on, because it's just good news for Donald Trump, it's bad news for Joe Biden.
We'll go over what's going on with the replacing Joe Biden theory, but I want to show you, the media is coming after his campaign.
They're saying it's a disaster.
It really, really is.
Trump is doing really well in the polls, And there's new evidence to suggest Joe Biden has some involvement in, let's just say impropriety, pertaining to the Michael Flynn case and Obamagate.
Let's read the news.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's several ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
Seriously, I don't have the massive marketing budget of these mainstream media corporations that get propped up by YouTube.
But if you really think I do a good job, sharing the video is the best possible way to help out my channel.
YouTube will prop up CNN and MSNBC and Fox News.
I don't have that luxury.
So with your help, it really does support the channel.
Otherwise, if you just want to watch, kick back, enjoy me as I rag on Democrats once again, then hit the subscribe button, like button, notification bell.
Let's read the news.
Breitbart Reports.
Xochitl Hinojosa, Communications Director for the Democratic National Committee, sparked confusion this week after stating during an appearance on Fox News that it is crucial for the party to hold its convention because they are, quote, not officially nominating Joe Biden in order to take Donald Trump.
Bill Hemmer of Fox News asked, he said, there's a real possibility the convention does not happen,
or it happens in a virtual sense. Is that correct as of today? She responded, first of all,
our convention has to happen because we are not officially nominating Joe Biden in order to take
Donald Trump. So our convention is happening. There is business that has to happen. I got to say,
it's a very confusing comment. And it sounds to me, based on everything we've seen,
what she's saying is we're not nominating Joe Biden to go after, to take Trump.
Think about how they could change that sentence.
We are nominating Pete Buttigieg in order to take Trump.
You see how this plays out.
No.
She said there's business that has to happen.
They're confusing comments.
She hasn't clarified them.
And this tweet went viral yesterday.
She did the interview yesterday.
As of today, I've seen, or as of right now filming this video, there's no clarification.
Maybe she slipped up, I gotta be honest.
But consider this, consider all these reasons they may want to get rid of Joe Biden.
Coronavirus shows why Democrats need to dump Joe Biden.
The Washington Examiner basically says that Joe Biden couldn't handle this pandemic.
Before the pandemic, you basically had a guy that was nostalgia.
You could vote for what it was like during the Obama years.
He was old and endearing.
But now he's lurking in a basement.
He's saying things that make no sense.
He can't address this crisis.
So, no.
Democrats, if they want to win, they should dump Joe Biden now.
This was April 14th.
We see this article from Counterpunch, May 8th.
Democrats dump Biden now!
This makes the more political argument that Joe Biden just can't do it.
He will not unify the left.
He will not build the coalition needed to defeat Donald Trump.
And then, possibly one of my favorite stories in this whole cycle, a Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama ticket to replace Joe Biden?
Is it even possible?
Nah, I kid you not.
125,257 shares on this story.
This is what I call viral.
People are actually asking, in high-profile circumstances, if Joe Biden will be removed.
Now I'll tell you why.
Joe Biden says women probably shouldn't vote for me if they believe Tara Reade's assault claim against him, and then admits he does not even remember her.
Did you know that Joe Biden has now said, on like three or four occasions, not to vote for him?
This makes me question everything about the Democrats' strategy.
Earlier today, Joe Biden flubbed some numbers.
He botches unemployment and fatality figures related to coronavirus, and it was embarrassing.
They say presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden on Thursday fumbled his figures concerning lost jobs and lost lives tied to the coronavirus pandemic, stating at one point that only 85,000 Americans were out of work, saying, quote, We're in the middle of a pandemic that has cost us more than 85,000 jobs as of today, he said.
Lives of millions of people, millions of people, millions of jobs.
What?
You know, I saw this and I tweeted, I have to wonder if the Democrats are trying to help Donald Trump win.
And I'm kind of joking.
Obviously, it's a bit facetious, but think about it.
Propping up someone like Joe Biden in this way and then standing him next to Donald Trump makes Donald Trump look really, really, really good.
Maybe it's just the last vestige of the crony Democrat establishment, and they can't muster a real candidate, but this is what we get.
Biden appeared to switch up the two staggering figures.
We get it.
It's a simple mistake, right?
Maybe.
But considering all of the interviews we've seen with Joe Biden, where he's just presented us with word salad, many people have questioned whether or not the man actually has early onset dementia, or I don't even know if it's early onset, if the man actually has dementia in its early stages.
I believe even Joe Rogan mentioned this.
But let's take a look at this story.
I want to hop over to McClatchy and talk about the bold Democrat strategy of, don't vote for us.
This is confusing me.
All right.
My gut instinct is to just try and have, I guess, an optimism bias or a normalcy bias, where I assume Joe Biden simply is making gaffes, his raw mistakes.
But when you combine the scandal after scandal and statement after statement, Joe Biden saying, don't vote for me.
It sounds like they're going to replace him.
It really does.
This is a story from McClatchy.
January 29th.
Biden keeps telling people to vote for someone else.
He just did it again in Iowa.
After being confronted on the campaign trail by a former lawmaker on his climate change policy, former Vice President Joe Biden said to go vote for somebody else.
Biden's exchange with former Iowa State Rep Ed Fallon happened Tuesday as Fallon stopped to take a photo with the former vice president in Iowa.
In a video of the interaction that was posted on Twitter, Fallon first tells Biden he would support him if he wins the Democratic nomination.
Then he asks, but what are we going to do about climate change?
He continues by accusing Biden of saying he wants to replace gas lines.
That's not going to work, Fallon said.
We've got to stop building and replacing pipelines.
Biden responds by placing a hand on Fallon's chest and telling him, go vote for somebody else.
Wait, wait, wait, hold on.
What?
Biden didn't even try to talk to this man.
He didn't even try saying, well, listen, here's my plan.
He just straight up said, go vote for somebody else.
What?
You'd think you'd at least try.
Pete Buttigieg tried.
Buttigieg had a question from a woman at a town hall who was pro-life and he's pro-choice, and he at least tried saying, I hope you consider me as someone to make the right choice, you know, in this, you know, political battle.
Joe Biden?
Nah, you go vote for somebody else.
All right, man, if you think that's the way you win, you're wrong.
You've got to fight for people, argue.
You've got to defend your positions.
The two continue their conversation with Bayer leading asking Fallon if he believes Bernie Sanders can do something to address climate change.
Fallon goes on to say supporting Tom Steyer.
Steyer later issued his own response in the video, telling Biden, this is no way to treat an Iowan.
Now, seriously, this is nuts.
Biden had a similar exchange with a climate change activist in December, when he was confronted over hiring someone who served on the board of a natural gas company.
If you looked at my record and you still doubt about my commitment, then you should vote for somebody else, he told the activist in a video posted on Twitter by the Climate Grip Sunrise Movement.
Just one month earlier, Biden again dismissed an immigration activist who confronted the candidate over deportations during the Obama administration.
You should vote for Trump, Biden told him in a video.
So let me get this straight.
Two different climate change activists, an immigration rights activist, and now the women who believe Tara Reid.
You got a serious problem, Joe Biden, because there have been several high-profile blue checkmark personalities who have tweeted out, we believe Tara Reade, we'll vote for Biden anyway.
But Biden just told these women not to do it.
They were willing to support him even though they thought he had done this awful thing.
Biden's telling you, no, no, don't vote for me if you believe it.
He even said, Joe Biden said, I wouldn't vote for me if I believed it.
Jeremy Scahill of The Intercept tweeted, people Joe Biden has publicly told not to vote for him.
Immigrant rights activists, climate change activists, people who believe Tara Reade.
Why should I believe that Joe Biden actually wants to win?
I'm sorry, I do not.
I think he is a placeholder candidate.
And when you hear this woman Sochiel Hinojosa of the DNC say, we are not officially nominating Joe Biden to defeat, in order to defeat Donald Trump, I am sorry.
At this point, I'm like, no way, dude.
They are not running Biden against Trump.
They wanted to get rid of Bernie Sanders.
They did.
Now they need someone else.
That's creepy.
You know why?
It's bad enough our democratic institutions for the presidency is controlled by two private entities, the RNC and the DNC.
But if they end up actually switching out Biden, It negates the vote of every Democrat.
Perhaps that's what they were thinking.
Look, they wanted Hillary Clinton last time, and she struggled.
Hillary Clinton ran basically unopposed.
These other people who ran dropped out almost immediately, and then it was Bernie Sanders.
Bernie Sanders came close to winning, but then eventually dropped out and endorsed Hillary.
Hillary Clinton couldn't beat Barack Obama in 2008, but she's wanted it every step of the way.
Maybe they've realized she can't win the primary, and by having her exposed in the media for a long time, it would be really, really bad for her campaign.
One of the disadvantages that Hillary Clinton had is her decades in office.
This was weaponized against her.
Donald Trump didn't.
While there were things to criticize Trump for, and boy did they, it wasn't policy-related.
It's an advantage of new, you know, incoming politicians to not have that record, because it's hard to attack them.
You keep Hillary Clinton out of the limelight for a certain amount of time, Joe Biden gets pulled out because of a scandal, and then boom, there it is.
A Hillary Clinton-Barack Obama ticket to replace Joe Biden?
Is it even possible?
Well, maybe not Barack Obama.
Maybe Michelle Obama.
Maybe they try and go for some intersectional social justice play.
I don't know.
I honestly can't believe this.
If this happened, I would laugh harder than I've ever laughed.
Maybe they're just trying to keep her out of the limelight for long enough.
Or maybe it'll really just be Andrew Cuomo.
I honestly don't know.
But I really don't think it'll be Joe Biden.
Not after all this.
Take a look at this story.
Poll finds Trump ahead of Biden in 15 battleground states.
Oh boy, do they love showing off all these tweets where they claim they're winning.
They're saying things like Donald Trump, you know, he's losing now.
It's slowly dawning on Trump that he's losing.
The president is raging at his advisors as they try to explain where he went wrong.
Donald Trump is losing?
You know what they do?
They're pulling polls nationally.
Like, you know, they say Joe Biden's leading Trump nationally by 6.3 percentage points.
It's like, okay, right.
Well, many of us didn't expect Trump to win in California and New York, so why do we care?
Trump didn't win the popular vote last time.
It's likely that he's going to dominate in the states where it matters, and that's always been his focus.
The Atlantic also writes, Biden's virtual campaign is a disaster.
You want to simultaneously write, you know, a couple weeks ago, Trump is losing, but then come out and say Biden's a disaster?
Look, I get it.
They're not the same people.
Maybe you need some kind of editorial strategy, Atlantic.
But the fact is, The Republicans just won two special elections, crushing Democrats, overperforming.
This sent shockwaves to the Democratic Party.
They were hoping, even FiveThirtyEight wrote, they were hoping that this was going to signal a coming blue wave.
It didn't.
It's the opposite.
Republicans overperformed.
Now, that's shocking.
They at least thought they'd be competitive.
It stands to reason when Donald Trump is on that ticket, with the disaster of Joe Biden, we may actually see a red wave.
Now, they also mentioned that Joe Biden is up in many other states.
But as I noted the other day, Donald Trump has stealth voters.
These are people who will publicly say they approve, you know, in polls, they'll say they approve of Trump's, you know, job, but then say they wouldn't vote for him.
Many people think that number indicates the Trump stealth vote because they approve of him.
Yeah, they're probably going to vote for him, but they don't want to admit it.
They're scared.
Let's take a look at this story.
They say, a poll conducted by SSRS of 15 battleground states found former Vice President Biden trailing President Trump.
The poll did not include different surveys of each of the 15 states, but surveyed 583 people across 15 states that were decided by 8 points or fewer in 2016.
The margin for the battleground states alone was 5.3 points.
That's a very awful margin of error, to be honest.
They mentioned that they're battleground states and they say Trump lead Biden in the poll across those states, 52 to 45.
So even within that margin of error, Trump is still winning.
How do you think the media is handling all this?
I'll tell ya.
We need to prepare for the possibility of Trump rejecting election results.
From the Washington Post, Brian Klass writes, Since 2017, so many events in U.S.
politics that were previously unthinkable have come to pass.
Don't believe me?
A few days ago, the President of the United States baselessly accused a cable television host of murder.
And it barely made a blip in the news cycle.
The shocking has become unsurprising, almost routine under Donald Trump's unhinged presidency.
We don't know whether Trump will be re-elected, but as we head toward November, you have to ask yourself, if he loses, would it be more surprising if Trump graciously accepted defeat and congratulates his opponent, or if he claimed to be the victim of a rigged election and a deep state plot?
The answer seems clear.
Do you know what happened since 2016 when Trump won?
Has it been Donald Trump who could not accept the results of the election?
No, Donald Trump won, and the Democrats have not shut up about it.
They lost, and they've been screeching at the top of their lungs ever since.
Jonah Goldberg wrote an article that I quoted the other day, the reason Democrats are struggling today is because they still can't figure out what happened in 2016.
And they keep doing things like this.
Do you really think this article, this is a global opinion contributor for the Washington Post, do you really think people are going to agree with this?
It's you!
It's the Democrats!
And that's why they picked Joe Biden.
They have no idea why they lost or how to win.
Times have changed.
Social media has changed things.
Donald Trump is not your typical Republican candidate.
And a lot of Republicans really hate the guy.
The Never Trumpers.
They left.
Well, Donald Trump won.
They didn't cheat.
The Democrats did.
In this story from Fox News, Hemmer confronts DNC spokesperson over Flynn unmasking.
I was asking for collusion, and I haven't heard it.
This is part of the same interview where this woman, Sochil, says, you know, we're not officially nominating Joe Biden.
Now, for some reason, not many outlets are covering that we are not officially nominating Joe Biden.
I wonder why.
Maybe they want to get a comment or a quote.
I think that's fair.
I'm doing commentary, so by all means, criticize me for jumping on this, but I think it's important.
Bill Hemmer asked a very important question, and this is another reason I think Joe Biden is in trouble.
Of course, many people in the media, CNN, you know, you've got Vox, trying to argue Obamagate is a conspiracy theory, and sure, you can argue it's a literal idea of a conspiracy, but we actually have some creepy evidence.
Many people sought to unmask a conversation between Michael Flynn and Russian Ambassador Kislyak.
They argued they didn't know who Flynn was in the first place, except some of the unmasking came after Obama's chief of staff unmasked Flynn, and then a week later Biden did the same thing.
I have to wonder why they would do that.
But there actually is evidence.
See, Bill Hemmer asks, is it a crime to talk to other countries in that period?
Hemmer interjected, is that the law?
Hinojosa suggested that former National Security Advisor Flynn was guilty of trying to interfere in the 2016 election and trying to go against the United States.
An assertion Hemmer was quick to push back on.
The answer, there was a suggestion that there was collusion.
There has been no proof of that.
Where's yours?
I will try one more time.
Why would Joe Biden want to know about Michael Flynn at that time?
Hinojosa said she would leave that question to the investigators and called for a new president and a Justice Department who will remain independent and take into consideration the rule of law before anything else.
Okay, Hammer said.
I asked it twice and I didn't hear an answer of proof.
I was looking for a crime that I haven't heard it there.
I was asking for collusion.
I haven't heard it either.
It's almost the summer of 2020 and there's no evidence of it.
Yep, no evidence.
Why would they seek to unmask Michael Flynn?
It was a conversation with the Russian ambassador.
These things should be considered routine.
Even the Washington Post story that released the name of Michael Flynn said that he should be talking to the Russian ambassador.
So why then did Joe Biden unmask Michael Flynn, or at least seek to?
I honestly can't tell you.
But his campaign is absolutely a disaster, and we all know it.
Does anyone really think Joe Biden can win?
I don't think so.
It feels like a bad joke.
And that's why I said I have to wonder if they're actually trying to help Donald Trump win.
If the goal was to get Trump to win, I would say change nothing.
Do exactly what you're doing.
However, if they swap out Joe Biden, it all starts to make sense.
Joe Biden is a terrible candidate, a gaffe king, word salad, scandal after scandal, telling people not to vote for him, giving them every reason to swap him out.
Giving them a way to have a placeholder candidate they could switch out of the last minute that you never got a chance to vote for.
That also wasn't smeared in the press.
And also, the Republicans didn't get a chance to run opposition research on.
It's a very clever strategy if that's what they end up doing.
Think about it.
Let's say they end up choosing someone like Cuomo at the last minute.
Will the Republicans have an effective strategy to challenge Cuomo?
No.
In the meantime, Cuomo is on TV every day doing his press conferences with a massively skyrocketing approval rating, around 80%.
It really does make me wonder.
Andrew Cuomo is on a terrible job for New York, but his approval rating is impeccable.
So what would happen if at the very last minute, in August, only a couple months out from the general, they bring in Andrew Cuomo with his massive approval rating?
No chance for any smears.
Now, even though I think the Republicans may be actually capable of putting out commercials and going after the character of Cuomo, they won't have the time they need to actually target his character.
Right now, Joe Biden is under heavy scrutiny.
There are videos popping out about him every day.
He's being slammed, smeared, and dragged in the press.
People are challenging him on Burisma.
They're challenging him on Obamagate.
It's making him look really bad.
All of this ammo is being used against a man who in all likelihood won't be the nominee.
So by the time everyone comes to hate the man and they bring in Cuomo, they'll have almost no time to learn anything about him.
But maybe not Cuomo.
Maybe it could be Michelle.
Maybe it could be Hillary.
I honestly don't know.
It may be someone we just never expected.
It could be someone that isn't overtly public.
Or maybe it really could be Joe Biden.
Let me wrap it up by saying this.
The comments made by Xochitl Hinojosa, we don't know what she meant.
She very well may have just meant to say, the convention has to happen because there's a lot of other things we have to do.
But she said we're not officially nominating Joe Biden.
Who are they gonna nominate?
Or what did she really mean by that?
Don't be surprised if they throw Andrew Cuomo in the mix.
I'm telling you now.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
at youtube.com slash Timcast News, and I will see you all then.
Now, I'm not typically one to go that far and say it was a childish tantrum, but let me give you the backstory real quick, and then I'm going to have to say, yeah, I would call it childish.
You see, they were going to do on CNN this panel about the coronavirus, and they put up this promo image of Greta Thunberg.
I actually did a short segment about it.
And the internet erupted with criticism.
People saying, to what capacity is Greta Thunberg qualified to be talking about the coronavirus at all, period.
In any capacity, no matter what the angle is you're taking, I'm sorry.
A 17-year-old kid who skipped school to complain about the environment is not qualified to speak about anything other than her protest.
Okay, anyway, Anderson Cooper got all bent out of shape, and he called it the phony outrage machine, blah blah blah.
The reason?
You know, normally I would just say that, you know, they pushed back or something, but CNN has been devolving into overt, performative trash.
Why is Anderson Cooper engaging in the outrage game?
It's for ratings, it's for money, it's so that I do this video, you see the game they're playing?
So, you could call it a childish tantrum, or you could just call it performative reaction.
You know, the internet was outraged, they complained about Greta, so Anderson Cooper and the producers at CNN were like, ooh ooh, do a segment about this.
Let's play the game too.
So you know what?
Hey, we're all guilty, man.
The issue I take with CNN putting up Greta Thunberg, why I would feel justified in criticizing that, is they use her.
She has no experience, no expertise.
She doesn't even fully understand climate change, which is her core issue.
But that's okay.
She's just a 17-year-old high school kid who stopped going to school in strike.
That became a big movement.
They had her speak about why she was doing it, but she really doesn't understand.
And I'm not going to pretend like I do, for the most part.
She is not a climate scientist.
She's just a kid.
What she did resonated with people who cared about the issue.
Should she be speaking on panels now?
No!
The only qualification she had was her activism, not climate science, and especially not coronavirus.
So to the people who want to call out CNN for using this, I think it's just.
I'm calling out CNN for using her for ratings.
That's it.
Ooh, I know.
We'll get Greta Thunberg to talk.
She has no idea what she's talking about, but we'll get her to talk.
And of course, in response, you can expect CNN to do exactly what CNN does, play the performative fake rage game.
Let's read the story, and I'll show you something else, too.
I find it really, really funny.
I have this article from CNN that talks about, you know, Anthony Fauci and Rand Paul.
And there's a meme going around right now that claims CNN was saying that, you know, Rand Paul wasn't qualified to be speaking about, you know, COVID or coronavirus.
And for the most part, I haven't really seen a lot of that, but this article does.
It does kind of do that.
What I find interesting is the way CNN, or at least this one analysis, is willing to frame the argument.
And there's many different op-eds about Rand and Fauci that are very similar.
And so while I think a lot of people are trying to hype up this, you know, Rand Paul being qualified and stuff, I think they are a bit dismissive.
And I want to show you this because it goes into a lot of the coronavirus details and how CNN approaches the facts.
Meanwhile, they put Greta Thunberg on a panel.
Look, if you're going to run all these articles, if you're going to have your opinion people come out, not do any research, and then just play the tribal line, I'm going to drag you if your response is going to be performative reality TV.
News Buster says, Anderson Cooper ended Thursday night's CNN coronavirus town hall with an emotion-driven, hypocritical, and sophomoric rant complaining about the phony online outrage machine, after CNN received widespread blowback to having climate change activist Gregg Thunberg as a guest.
This was despite the town hall's billing of facts, science, as part of the show title, having the phrase, facts, and fears.
Sounding more like a perturbed tween.
They really don't like Anderson Cooper, by the way.
I don't think you guys need to go that far.
Cooper took cheap shots at Donald Trump Jr., well-intentioned observers, and news outlets like Forbes and the New York Post.
Since CNN's entire existence under Jeffrey Zucker has been churning out phony outrage, peddling lies, and hatred for those not on their team, their meltdown was rich.
Yeah, Zucker's a reality TV guy, man.
And aside from the fact that CNN was not a serious news organization, Cooper shot himself in the foot by peddling the liberal media-wide narrative that the president should liberate the scientists and slink into the background.
In other words, the line, listen to the scientists, doesn't apply to Zuckerville.
Cooper started The Screed live after the taped interview with Thunberg, which was fairly benign as it focused on her efforts with UNICEF to raise money and raise awareness for childhood starvation amidst the coronavirus pandemic.
Quote, So we taped that interview earlier today, as I mentioned, and I just wanted to take a moment to point out a kind of surreal, absurd drama that played out over the last 24 hours online and amazingly in some reputable news sources, Cooper began.
He then put on-screen still shot promos for the town hall, both of which included Tunberg.
This led him to complain that apparently someone with a blue check on Twitter, I love that he's even, you know, jumping in, saw the initial ad and was outraged and claimed that we had booked Greta Tunberg to be an expert on a coronavirus panel with other health experts.
Yes, numerous outlets worded her impending appearance as a panelist, even though Thunberg could safely be pegged as a solo hit like Alicia Keys and Spike Lee were on past town halls.
But that would have required watching past town halls, like the MRC's News Analysis Division has.
So that's an inside baseball point, and thus petty for Cooper to harp on when her very presence was the issue.
I'm gonna stop right there, man.
It's not an inside baseball issue for the most part.
I understand people were saying she was going to be an expert panelist, and they thought she was going to be talking about coronavirus.
I certainly did.
But the issue that I think really, look, I don't care what Greta Thunberg does.
She should not be on TV at all.
What they're doing with her, it's flavor of the month.
It's an attempt at ratings.
Look, I can respect that she became very famous and that she's now doing activism, But I'm sorry, there is nothing that gives her any kind of, like...
Qualification to continue on in the space that she is continuing on in.
She's now doing UNICEF stuff, like feeding kids.
I'm sorry, man.
She skipped school.
It was a big viral wave.
Respect.
She started something.
Sometimes, you know, people do things.
They go viral.
And she got a lot of attention for it, and she was featured and praised.
But that's all.
Now she's just any other kid talking about the same things with no expertise.
When they book her for these things, it is just an attempt to pander to... You know what?
Look.
There are scientists, there are doctors, and there are actual people who have dedicated their lives to the efforts that she's doing.
They're giving you a Greta Thunberg update.
That's the issue.
I'm sorry.
A lot of people will get mad, but I do not believe she does anything at this point of merit to actually warrant appearing on cable news to get an update.
No, I get it.
That's their choice, I guess, to put her on TV or not.
But that's what they're doing.
They're like, ooh, I know, let's put her on TV.
I'm sorry, man.
It's just totally irrelevant.
Why would you put her on this at all?
They say, next, Cooper's snark went up to 12, and facial expressions that betrayed the notion of a serious newsman when he gripped that.
Then, of course, Donnie Trump Jr.
jumped in, and here we go.
Look, this is where CNN goes full performance art.
Jumped in, which is weird because I thought he was allegedly running whatever remains of the Trump Organization.
I mean, shouldn't that, like, a really busy job since, you know, allegedly such a great big company?
What?
This is what I'm talking about.
They don't get people who can actually speak to things.
They are just doing reality TV.
Greta Thunberg is a character.
They think they'll get ratings.
They put her on.
She has no qualifications.
She is doing nothing of merit.
There are so many more people qualified to talk about whatever it is they're doing with UNICEF and starvation and climate change.
She had her limelight, but she's still not doing anything of merit.
You can argue that the activism is good.
That's fine.
I'm not disputing that.
I'm disputing that there are just... Why would you put her on TV other than you wanted to use that to get clicks?
And this is what we're seeing now.
Why are you bringing up Donald Trump Jr.?
A ton of other people were critical of you bringing on Greta Thunberg.
Why are you attacking Trump Jr.' 's job, the Trump Organization, and the company?
This is resistance pandering.
It's exactly what I explained with how Jim Acosta does it.
Right now, Anderson Cooper isn't speaking to me for criticizing him.
He's not speaking to Donald Trump Jr.
He's not speaking to any of these people who said, why are you booking Greta Thunberg?
He's speaking to the resistance left and doing this performative bit so that he can be like, I'm standing up to Donald Trump!
Your company sucks!
What?
Why are you talking about the Trump Organization?
I don't care.
It's Donald Trump Jr.
sending one tweet.
A bunch of people sent tweets.
That's the game.
While decrying online criticism as the work of trolls, Cooper became an actual troll with slides against Trump.
He also played the child card on criticism of Thunberg and inadvertently delivered a beatdown to CNN's current existence.
Click expand.
What?
Anyway, once DJ TJ, Donald Trump Jr., started typing. Then other people with blue checks on
Twitter started doing their thing because everybody has to produce content these days. That's
what it's all about.
It's like a tween on TikTok. You've got to produce content lest you miss out on a cycle
of phony outrage. Then someone who apparently, who's apparently a reporter at Forbes,
okay, so this is the quote from Anderson, wrote an article about the alleged controversial booking
and the concern about it. And the New York Post today wrote about it, as well as claiming we
were having her on a panel, which was what the first person on Twitter was claiming, which was
made up. It was made up, made up then. It was made up today in the Post. I don't know.
Look, I get Donnie Trump attacking CNN and a 17-year-old Swede.
It's low-hanging fruit.
No, CNN.
You were going for low-hanging fruit.
You are doing reality TV and you love that this is happening.
You know what, man?
Everybody does.
Everybody wants to play the game and feign outrage.
And the joke I made, you know, there was... I can't remember what it was.
Something social-justice-y happened, and I said, you know what?
I get it.
Now, I'm gonna pretend to be angry because you're angry about something that, you know, someone else was pretending to be angry about.
I think it's fair to... Look.
I mean it sincerely when I move to criticize CNN for what they do.
Jim Acosta stands up, he argues for the president, and as much as I think I deserve criticism too because I definitely jumped on the, what are you doing with Greta Thunberg bandwagon, I stand by why I think it was a bad idea to book her.
I think she should not be on TV.
I don't know, man, whatever.
They can book whoever they want, fine, if they want Greta Thunberg.
I just think she's not relevant, and it's strange to me that there's this thing on the left where they keep propping up non-inexperienced children.
They did it with the Parkland kids.
They do it with Greta Thunberg.
It's just a thing they do, and I don't like it.
There are doctors they could get instead, and I understand why they would put them on TV in the first place, but I don't get why they would continually prop them up.
They're using them for some kind of emotional dig to go after people by, like, stop attacking children.
My problem with CNN is that I do political commentary.
You know, I give you my opinion.
And so sometimes you got silly, stupid stories.
And you know what?
I believe I was wrong.
I don't remember exactly what I said on every issue pertaining to Greta Thunberg, but I probably viewed it the same way everyone else did, assuming she was being brought on as an expert and stuff.
And so if I was wrong, Just assuming I was, I apologize, and we can go and correct that.
CNN isn't supposed to be political commentary, and they've pushed back on the claims that they are.
But this is exactly what they're doing, but it's worse.
It's performative, rage-bait, fake news.
And let me give you an example, right?
Because I don't care to read more about this stupid... This is just dumb.
Check this out.
Oliver Darcy and Brian Stelter are the main show, in my opinion, when it comes to performative fake news.
I know you can look at Don Lemon, and he does it too, and he's hot.
Well, actually, take this back.
The whole network is just trash.
You got Chris Cuomo pretending to be in quarantine.
Anderson Cooper now jumping into the flame war.
If you want to have her on, then you can just have her on.
And Anderson Cooper really went after Donald Trump Jr.
You can see it's about performance.
Look, I get it.
If you want to come out and say, you know, talk about the online outrage, I think that's fine.
If Anderson Cooper said, you know, recently in the past 24 hours has been a bit of anger online under the assumption that Greta Thunberg was going to be an expert panelist.
She wasn't.
We had her on to talk about her recent activity, you know, the activism.
And that's all.
So to those that were, it could have been very simple.
Instead, he attacks the Trump organization and stuff.
Fox News dumps coronavirus coverage for anti-Obama conspiracy theory.
I'm not going to read this story.
I don't care.
I want to show you some other news pertaining to COVID and how the media is treating this and how CNN treats it.
But I bring this up because Oliver Darcy and Brian Stelter, all they do now is talk about Fox News.
And this is exactly what CNN has become.
Anderson Cooper, you know, complaining and attacking Trump Jr.
is the perfect example of the same thing we see all day every day.
I gotta be honest, I really, really get tired of talking about it.
I wake up and I see this story and I think to myself, am I really gonna do the same thing and just keep criticizing CNN because they've become a reality TV station?
And to what point do we all get sucked into this toilet, right?
If CNN is devolving now into the Fox News Review Channel, and then I start criticizing CNN because they've become the Fox News Review Channel and reality TV garbage, then I just become the CNN Review Channel.
But I guess the challenge is, CNN is wildly influential, so we're all getting sucked into, I won't call it a toilet, we'll call it the maelstrom, where we all point the finger at each other and we slowly spiral down and down and down, and I don't know how you break it.
The problem is, they will claim, you know, Fox News is influential, therefore we must challenge Fox News.
I think that's actually a bit absurd, because Fox, for the most part, is actually kind of boring news coverage.
Bill Hammer, you know, America's Newsroom, Brett Baier, their daytime stuff is very, very standard.
They don't really talk too much about, you know, Tucker Carlson, for the most part.
But they do just go after Hannity all the time.
And it's not even about whether or not they're a Fox News review channel, it's about how they're basically just going after Laura Ingraham and Hannity.
And sometimes Tucker.
It's like primetime Fox News review.
We all kind of play this game.
And it's coming to a point where there's not actually news.
Like, is it news that Anderson Cooper did this?
No.
Does it matter that CNN is doing this again?
It's like, well, what else is new?
So, I don't know, man.
I tell you what.
I actually, you know, started this segment a little late because I was like, This is what we get.
I think it has to do with, honestly, with the coronavirus pandemic.
Let me show you this, because I said I would.
This is an article from just the other day from CNN, and there's a bunch of articles like this.
I just picked this one.
There's tons of analysis op-ed pieces about Dr. Fauci and Rand Paul, and they always frame it the same way.
You know, Rand Paul, a noted down player of coronavirus, an asymptomatic vector, told Fauci he didn't buy everything the doctor said.
Rand Paul's a doctor.
You know what I mean?
He's not the same doctor, but it's just, there's no honest discussion.
I know this is just one op-ed.
Anyway, look, the point is, well, let me show you this, let me show you this.
They go on to talk about Trump.
They argue that, you know, false promises about hydroxychloroquine, blah blah blah.
Trump is the biggest bullhorn.
He deals in innuendo, has unproven allegations, pushes false promises, as he did with the anti-malarial drug would be an effective treatment.
Look, they make this stuff up.
Just Google search it and you can see they're still working on the hydroxychloroquine stuff.
There's tons of articles talking about it.
Drug Combo shows a promising study.
Another study shows it doesn't help.
So you've got a war going on in media.
You've got this de-evolution.
I think there's a certain role that I play in this as well because I do my, you know, like I did my Greta Thunberg thing the other day.
I guess for me, I feel justified in doing it because I look at this content and I'm like, look, CNN's doing it again.
But it continues the downward spiral, the devolution, and now we are really at the bottom of the toilet.
Me criticizing Anderson Cooper's reality TV nonsense, criticizing the content that many other people produced, like myself.
But here's what I mean as we downward spiral.
At first you have Donald Trump, you know, talking about coronavirus.
He then says there's a potential treatment.
We're seeing other countries use chloroquine and a hydroxychloroquine.
The media then challenges this.
Then people challenge the media.
Then the media challenges them back.
Then the media writes story after story, highlighting as many, you know, studies as they can to claim that this medicine doesn't work.
This is where it gets really, really bad in terms of how we function as a society.
There are studies right now.
Let me show you this.
Spectrum News NY1.
Drug combo with hydroxychloroquine promising.
NYU study.
That's legit.
They say we got UW Medicine ramps up study of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.
NIH begins clinical trials.
So there's been another malaria cure draws notice in coronavirus outbreak.
Then we have Reuters.
COVID patients given malaria drug didn't see significant improvement studies.
There's a bunch of studies that say it didn't work.
There's a bunch of studies that say it does work.
There's a bunch of doctors who have been surveyed saying they saw great results with it.
But when it comes to the media game, where all we are doing is going after each other for tribal reasons, then we actually lose valuable information.
The news media is no longer actually trying to inform you about whether or not this drug actually works.
They're looking for a story they can push that's going to generate traffic.
So, I've actually talked to some journalists about this, and it's almost impossible to actually figure out.
You have mainstream news outlets, not political commentary, and I'll explain this in a second too, saying over and over and over again, this drug doesn't work, and they're not actually giving you the relevant information.
CNN publishes the op-eds where they say Trump was wrong, outright, false promise.
We're not even there yet.
It's just performative rage, like what we get for Anderson Cooper.
Now, I think that we all kind of play this game, and here's where it gets scary.
I am an individual, and people have criticized me because they say, Tim only ever rags on the left, exclusively critical of the left, things like that, and I'm like, yeah, for the most part.
Like, last night, I ragged on Republicans over their, you know, voting to pass this FISA surveillance stuff, and voting, for the most part, not to remove more spying.
Basically, the Republicans are all, you know, voting for the spying trash, and I think it's awful.
Most of the content I do is critical of the media and the Democrats, and it's typically because they are in alignment with the BS nonsense they put out, and it's a thing that really, you know, gets me riled up.
As a political commentator, these are the stories that I want to talk about.
The challenge I see is that news organizations have ceased to function, partly because of people like me, but mostly because of the systems that exist that allow people like me to function.
It is a...
Conundrum.
So I make content.
It costs relatively nothing.
I complain about my feelings.
I laugh at Anderson Cooper.
I make a living, for the most part, doing this.
Now, for my main channel, go to TimCast.net.
These are segments where I actually track, like, the current political, you know, what's going on in politics, and very, very much so focused on the Democrats, what they're doing, and that's the lens I have.
That's how I view the world.
I'm an individual.
These are the stories that I think really matter.
You know, day by day.
Sometimes the stories aren't super important, like talking about Elon Musk and his battle in Rage Bait Online, and sometimes they have to do with very serious stuff like China and war.
But sometimes when I think there's a big story pertaining to, say, China, I'll say, like, here's what's going on with Chinese escalation.
I think it's the most important story right now.
When I see Democrats lose two special elections, I think that's the most important story because we're tracking whether or not Donald Trump will get re-elected.
I don't need to frame everything as to what Donald Trump is doing.
I'm looking at what the opposition is doing.
That's how I view it.
It creates a problem.
CNN then has to compete with me.
And I'm an individual political commentator with a very low overhead.
So CNN says, you know what?
The only way we survive is we play the same game, because we can't compete.
And then we get Anderson Cooper coming out and complaining about content like mine, where I was complaining about content like his, and it just devolves everything into garbage.
Complete and utter garbage.
I don't know what to tell you, because I don't think we can expect this to get better, because the money being made in media is being made from content like this.
It's true for me.
It's true for CNN.
It's true for MSNBC.
It's true for Fox News.
And I don't know if there's actually a way to solve this or get around it.
Here's how I view the difference between someone like me and what CNN would do.
I think, in the age of the internet, if you as an individual want to put out your opinion and talk about how you feel, you're entitled to do so.
If people want to watch that and see how you feel, you're entitled to make this happen.
You're never going to stop people from having opinions and posting their opinions.
So I don't see anything necessarily unethical about Individual political commentators going on their channels and talking about this.
And if it was Anderson Cooper going on YouTube and complaining about this, I would be totally fine with it and say, if he wants to post on Twitter or post a clip.
But when he's doing a nightly news program, and he's supposed to be the most trusted name in news, and he uses that as an opportunity to do performance art, that becomes a problem.
When Don Lemon uses a primetime news slot to attack Donald Trump, that's a problem.
When Brian Stelter and Oliver Darcy are supposed to be talking about the media, but they use their news segments to do Rage-bait performance art, it's a problem.
The barrier to me is individuals are entitled to their opinions.
What are you going to say about that?
People can talk online.
News organizations should maintain that level of professionalism.
They can't though.
They will cease to exist.
They can't compete.
So where does that leave us?
Maybe doomed?
I honestly don't know.
You're going to see a lot of people exploiting the news, exploiting the system to try and make money.
I get accused of doing it too.
There's no solution to the problem in the end, I would say for the most part.
Hopefully something good comes eventually.
Maybe our culture improves and we find a way to get past this.
But so long as our institutions I don't know the answers.
I really don't.
Criticize me all you want.
I think that's legit.
I don't think mainstream, major, massive corporations should be doing the same things that I do unless they're a political commentary show.
a nightly like serious newscaster and he's become you know he's devolved. I
don't know the answers I really don't. Criticize me all you want I think that's
legit I don't think mainstream major massive corporations should be doing the
same things that that I do unless they're a political commentary show and
that's okay but ultimately I think this is where we end up.
And I will add, to be fair, I think the coronavirus plays a big role in it because people are desperate.
Anderson Cooper, they gotta fill time.
There's no news, so he's like, I'll just rant about, you know, this or whatever.
And that's what you get.
It really is.
I don't know.
Again, I'm just gonna wrap it up there.
Whatever the solution may be, maybe it'll come.
Otherwise, we'll all just get flushed down the toilet.
Myself included.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
I will see you all then.
They said, no, no, those are just planning documents, and then here we are.
They're actually laying people off.
I think we are faced with the end of this leftist digital media wave, this venture capital-funded, hyper-partisan, You know, rage bait, social justice nonsense.
It is hurting.
It is dying out.
Now, I have some predictions I can make.
We'll read the story, but I got a lot— I got a big announcement, too.
First, I think independent commentary like mine is going to do well.
So, for the time being, YouTube is purging a lot of channels' independent political commentary.
We'll see who survives this, if anyone.
I think conservative commentary websites will survive, and I think legacy media is going to survive.
Big cable channels are probably hurt a little bit.
But I think, you know, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, these websites are going to do well.
And that might be a good thing.
It might actually force political opinion to be more moderate because especially these websites.
Well, I don't know.
It's hard to predict.
It's hard to predict.
It is.
What I can say is we have seen a massive wave of layoffs across the digital space.
The coronavirus only made things worse.
This is entirely predictable.
The fuel for the culture war, the lies, the deception, the fake news, the activists in media are being purged!
It is glorious!
Now I want to read you about what's going on here, but I got a big announcement, and I'll just touch on it very briefly, and then we'll come back to the story, but you're gonna love this.
You may be familiar with Scanner.
Maybe you're not.
Last year, with a couple friends, we launched Subverse, uh, basically just Subverse.
It's media.
We recently rebranded, and now it's Scanner.
You can find it at scnr.com.
There's still a lot going on.
I know some people are like, I don't like the acronym, and you know, whatever.
Just give us a minute.
Come on.
It's a lot of work happening here.
But we published a trailer for Scanner, introducing Scanner, your guide to dystopia on YouTube.
It's got around 20,000 views.
Many people very much like it.
You can see I give it a big ol' thumbs up.
And some people said things like, you know, wow, this is kind of like what Vice used to be before they got all woke.
Kind of like what Vice used to be, yeah.
Well, I'm just gonna say it.
One of the people now running the show is the former editor-in-chief of Vice, who left not too long after I did.
It's Rocco Castoro, former editor-in-chief.
He was at Vice basically running global editorial.
I don't want to pretend like I know every little detail, every little job he did, so I'll just leave it there.
He basically ran things.
He was there at a time when Vice expanded from, you know, multi-million dollar company to billion dollar company, and he was in charge of a lot of things.
He was also a correspondent.
And so he's now involved, and so many people may have realized, may have noticed the style of content, the things that we're doing.
So let me just say, look, I left, I believe, right around the time that Vice was kind of peaking out, a little bit earlier, because they did in terms of revenue.
Hit a good stride around 2018 with like some reports say 600-500 million dollars.
But I left because I could see the corporate writing on the wall.
It started becoming woke.
It started becoming rage-baity and sensationalist and it started getting, you know, I don't know, just not fun.
There are a lot of other reasons I don't want to be there.
And shortly after, you know, Rocco, I think, I don't know how long Rocco ended up staying afterwards, but it's been quite some time.
Now, I've always loved doing this style of content.
For those that aren't familiar, I was the first and founding member of VICE News Vertical.
Not the VICE organization, but basically when I came into VICE, there was no VICE News standalone.
The content I had produced, like Ukraine, Venezuela, well, or actually no, I think I had to come back from Venezuela.
We almost produced something in Venezuela.
I did Ukraine, Egypt, Thailand.
And we put all that out under Vice.
And people really liked it.
It was getting millions of fits.
Then they decided, we had a bunch of conversations, they decided to create a vertical Vice News.
It's actually a bit more complicated than that, but I was the first person that was brought on before there even was a Vice News.
And then they basically used a lot of what I was doing and expanded it.
I ended up leaving late 2014.
It was sad to see Vice become something not good.
It just started getting worse, and I, you know, for whatever reason, that's what happened.
So, yes, Scanner does look a lot like Vice, and it will be... What I liked about original Vice was fun, entertaining, edgy, personal.
Verite style content.
So it's like you get someone on the ground experiencing and telling you what's going on.
Not so much gonzo reporting, but just like honest, here's what I see, here's what I see happening.
This is my perspective on the ground.
I'm but one person.
Things like that.
Also tracking, you know, interesting stories.
A lot of people don't know this, but I was a field producer on a story we did about North Korea.
It's called the North Korean Motorcycle Diaries.
You can check it out.
There used to be a lot of really cool stuff coming out of Vice.
And then it became, in my opinion, like a lot of the stuff they started producing was a bit generic.
And then their articles just became fake news.
And it's funny, actually.
Vice wrote about me last year and called me an extremely online lefty, and then another guy at Vice wrote that I was, like, right-wing.
Dude, I worked there.
These people know who I am.
There's a lot of people there who still know who I am.
And my opinions, for the most part, have not changed since I worked at Vice.
Some things, but for the most part, I'm the same person.
Vice has changed, and I've talked a bit about why.
Let me read you this news about these layoffs, and then I'll talk to you about what I think happened, and I'll probably get in trouble, because I'm going to say some stuff that's probably going to get me in trouble.
I don't know if I'm allowed to say it.
I'm going to say it anyway, so let's just read.
Hollywood Reporter says, citing business challenges and a low return on investment from resources spent on producing content for digital platforms, Vice Media CEO Nancy Dubik announced plans on Friday morning for 155 employees to be laid off.
In a memo, Dubik said that 55 staffers will be cut on Friday in the U.S.
and that approximately 100 staffers will be cut abroad over the coming weeks.
I want you to know that we've done absolutely everything we could to protect these positions for as long as possible.
And your time and contributions will forever be a part of who we are and who we will become," she wrote in a memo obtained by The Hollywood Reporter.
In February 29, as part of a reorganization, the company cut 10% of its staff, or approximately 250 people.
In the memo, Dubik told staffers that tough decisions had to be made about the company's digital teams, which she said account for 50% of VICE's headcount costs, but only generate 21% of the company's revenue.
Looking at our business holistically, this imbalance needed to be addressed for the long-term health of the company.
The global spread of the coronavirus pandemic has completely upended the digital media business model, resulting in layoffs or furloughs at almost every prominent company in the industry.
On Thursday, the global business publication Quartz laid off 80 employees, representing 40% of its staff.
And on Wednesday, magazine giant Condé Nast laid off 100 staffers in the U.S.
Now, this is funny.
The Wall Street Journal reported, Vice Media document lays out plan for layoffs amid coronavirus
pandemic. And then they came out and said, you know, they're pushing back that there weren't
Well, there were.
That's just, that's the way things go, man.
Shane Smith started the company with Soroush Alvi, Gavin McInnes, and I think they're all, in their own respects, cool dudes to varying degrees.
Gavin's kind of gone off and, you know, he pushed the boundaries a bit too much, to say the least.
But Shane stepped down as CEO a couple years ago, and I knew I knew before he did it.
I knew the moment he did it.
I was like, man, those people who made investments in device, that was a bad move.
I mean, no disrespect to Shane, but Shane was the man.
He was the guy.
He was the captain of that ship.
He knew what it was.
He knew where it was going.
He knew how to make it happen.
And as soon as he stepped down, I was like, that's it.
And that was it.
Revenue is dropping.
Layoffs are happening.
Around the time that Shane stepped down and they put in this woman as CEO, the company has just been downward.
Trying to say it as respectfully as possible, but yeah.
Going downhill.
It's sad.
It was going downhill a bit under Shane in the last few years anyway.
And I'm going to tell you why.
Now, let me just do this promo first.
Make sure you check out scnr.com.
Make sure you go to... It's scnr on YouTube.
You can go to... I think you might be able to still go to youtube.com slash subversenews.
I'm not entirely sure.
But I do have the link to it on my channels as well.
Check out the trailer.
I'll link the trailer in the description below so you can click it.
See what we're up to.
It's going to be very awesome.
You see, right now, my companies are doing really, really well.
However, it's been really, really bad with the coronavirus pandemic.
I'm looking at maybe like a 70% revenue decline because of the coronavirus.
But here's what's going on.
Look, I'm one person.
My overhead is extremely low relative to what Vice has to do.
Now, when it comes to Scanner, we did a big fundraising round last year.
We raised a million bucks in a day.
People were really into this.
And the goal is to do more field reporting, documentary production stuff.
It is going to be mostly video production, it's my understanding.
Again, editorially independent from me.
The crews, you know, it's Emily, we've got Rocco, Castoro, Emily, Molly.
They do their thing.
They choose the stories that they want to cover.
The only thing I really do for the most part Is I trust them, so I'm not really concerned about this, but I'm just trying to make sure that they don't, you know, it doesn't fall into this line of BS that Vice did where they start pandering for social justice points and stuff like that.
And I think it's funny because I know a lot of people are going to criticize me and be like, you did the same thing to the right.
Yeah, great.
Look, I don't care.
It's editorially independent from me.
They should not be doing political opinion content like I do or anyone else does.
That's the point.
So it will be a Verite documentary.
Seriously, you got to watch this trailer because you'll see, like, a lot of people have compared it to how Vice used to be before they, uh, before they, I don't know, kind of just lost it, I guess.
Let me tell you why they lost it.
I have friends who are higher-ups there.
For the longest time, Vice had been this edgy, wild ride.
They played things fast and loose, they traveled to crazy places, made crazy stories, and a lot of these stories were fun, exciting, entertaining.
But there were also a bunch of scandals where many high-ranking, higher-profile people at the company had been credibly accused.
I'll put it that way.
Credibly accused by some women.
I was told by someone higher up that around the time I was leaving, the investors were getting scared, people who had put in hundreds of millions of dollars, that the social justice outrage would result in the company becoming valueless.
It would destroy their investment.
And so they said, you need to embrace woke social justice and feminism so that we can avoid this, these attacks in the press.
Basically, get woke, go broke!
It's the easiest way to explain what happened to Vice.
Now, as far as it goes with the founders and Shane, I mean, they all became extremely wealthy.
I think Shane's a billionaire.
I don't know how much he actually cashed out of the company, but he stepped down, he's chairman of the board, he's no longer CEO.
He's doing his thing, he's doing his shows.
He built a massive media empire, made it worth one of the most valuable companies in media, one of the fastest growing companies in media.
And then he stepped down.
And since then, it's been just not good for the company.
This is one of the biggest pitfalls that we saw many of these companies fall into.
When I left Vice, I went to a company called Fusion, which was set up by ABC News and Univision.
Their goal, the reason they wanted to hire me was because they wanted to be like Vice.
Everybody did.
And they would say things like, the goal is to be nice Vice.
Oh, I'll tell you what, everybody said that.
People from Discovery Networks were saying it.
Everybody was saying, how can we do this?
You know, one of the challenges that Vice had was that they were edgy boys.
And they would go and talk about drugs and craziness, and they would swear and cuss, and they're like, if we can get that energy, that rough punk rock on the ground, you know, almost Gonzo-style journalism, but avoid all of this, you know, over-the-top edginess, we can make some real money.
And that's what they tried to do.
But something changed, and it may have been Vice.
I think one of the big catalysts for a big shift for a lot of these companies may have been Vice shifting.
Because of the scandals at Vice, and this is what I was told by someone who was higher up, they said we've got to be more embracing of feminism and social justice, otherwise we will get attacked by these other media companies over these scandals.
Some of the people, the higher-ups that I knew, Honestly didn't like, had been accused and ended up losing their jobs.
They'd done really nasty things to women and, you know, good riddance.
These were awful people.
They shouldn't have their jobs in the first place.
And that was one of the biggest mistakes Vice had made.
They were a bunch of edgy boys and they were, you know, playing things fast and loose.
So they made this change.
When I was working at Fusion, they were talking about being like Vice, asking me to, you know, basically replicate what I had done, travel the world, cover these on-the-ground stories, help create this Verite news reporting thing that Vice News had done.
And I said, you got it.
And then six, seven months in, they did a complete 180.
They had posters on the wall that said things like, we will not be partisan.
And then all of a sudden they were.
All of a sudden, Fusion decided to appoint an editor-in-chief who said, we gotta get woke.
Embrace woke social justice.
Guess how well that went?
Oh yeah, I was there for two years.
Man, two years of my life.
I tried quitting.
Just around a year in.
I had a meeting and I was like, I shouldn't be here.
You guys clearly are going down a different path.
You don't want what I'm going to produce.
I'm doing straight on the ground stuff.
You want woke social justice points and you want like reality TV stuff.
That's not what I'm about.
They didn't want me to leave because they had done a big press play where they hired a bunch of high profile people where they could brag like they called it the expendables of journalism bringing on all these high profile people from across the board to make the best news organization.
And then they just became a woke blog.
That's the craziest thing.
They had hundreds of millions of dollars.
Some people said billions.
I don't know about that.
But I think they had hundreds of millions.
They built this big studio.
They had all of these really high-profile people, smart people.
But for some reason, they appointed some dude to be editor-in-chief who had no idea what he was doing.
And he drove that company straight to the ground, lit hundreds of millions of dollars on fire.
And I find it sad and also kind of funny.
Because I warned them over and over again.
This is back before there was a phrase, I believe, Get Woke, Go Broke.
This was like 2014.
So it was around the time a lot of the GamerGate creators, you know, personality started popping up and making their YouTube videos.
And I would go to these people and be like, look at what is popular, okay?
You want to talk about doing straight news.
We can do straight news.
We just tell people like it is.
They don't want me to do that.
They said something like, You know, side with the audience.
I've told this story often.
Basically just side with the audience.
Tell them what they want to hear.
Blah blah blah.
And I warned them.
I was like, this is not going to play out well.
It is going to go up in flames if you go down this fringe ideological route.
And I even showed them videos.
And I even showed them metrics.
And I broke down and explained it like, it's evident in your own content.
Fusion produced a video that was making fun of political correctness.
And it went viral.
And it got hundreds of thousands of views.
I mean, as viral as it can go.
And I said, look at the content you produce when you do the SJW stuff.
The social justice activist.
Nothing.
Nobody wants it.
You get a hundred views.
You do this one video that was a funny sketch mocking social justice, and you got hundreds of thousands.
You doubled your subs.
This is working.
From a marketing point of view, from a cultural point of view, why would you embrace the angry nobodies instead of the regular people?
Look at Dave Chappelle.
Look at Joe Rogan.
Look at Ricky Gervais.
Look how popular and successful they are just being regular people.
So there's a bunch of ways you can look at it.
They say go broke.
And I like that.
It's a very surface level thing.
What you need to understand is that what it really comes down to is market share, market size.
Vice was trying to be generalist.
Like they wanted to become, I think Shane called it the CNN of the street.
So you've got to become more moderate in your opinions, honestly, so that you can attract a wider audience.
Now, things are hyper-polarizing, and especially at that time, it was hard to figure out where you wanted to be.
But they all decided to take a hard bet on a small group of fringe activists, and it was a mistake.
I never told them, be right-wing.
Absolutely not.
I said, don't do that, and don't go left.
Just be regular people.
Just be middle-of-the-road, call things out, don't play politics, don't pander to these activists.
Nah.
What happened was they saw some minor successes with some viral videos, they ran full speed with it, and then when they realized it was just one or two, you know, videos because they pandered to fringe activists, they were trapped.
They had created this editorial strategy.
Now as for Vice, I left before all that started happening.
And I left because I could see some of the writing on the wall.
The company was becoming more and more corporate.
They had to.
They were growing, they were expanding.
And I was like, man, when I first started watching Vice videos, and I was really into this, they were just off-the-cuff, edgy, hanging out in this big old warehouse doing their thing, and that's what I wanted to be a part of.
So I'll tell you what.
Scanner is doing its own thing.
It's editorially independent.
I do not dictate content.
I honestly don't even know half the stories.
I don't even know where they are at any given time.
They do their thing.
They report their thing.
When there are certain issues that come up, then I, you know, step in.
I am active, you know, involved, but I want to make sure that there's no accusations of bias.
That's the point.
Scanner is going to be legit.
There's gonna be issues where, you know, journalists get things wrong, but you will not see me dictating what they're covering, when they're covering it, why they're covering it.
Never gonna happen.
That's on purpose.
I do political commentary.
I've complained about myself.
I just complained about myself in the last video.
So what I want to see happen is legit news, on-the-ground reporting, real reporting, real interviews, because I want that to succeed and survive.
CNN has gone the other route.
They've become reality television.
Well, something has to be done.
The good news is, I'll put it this way.
Matt Taibbi, journalist, was on the Joe Rogan podcast.
And he said, there is a major hole in the market.
If someone makes something like this, it will do really, really well because everyone's craving it.
That's correct.
They are.
That's the point.
You come to me, you're gonna get my commentary, my opinion.
If you come to Scanner, you're not gonna get that.
And you know what?
There are, you know, CNN knows it, the path to quick cash and easy money is to play, you know, dance around in the muck and the mire with everybody else.
It's sad.
Look, I don't think what I do is the most prestigious political commentary news journalism reporting.
It's like, no, it's me hanging out in my home studio and I talk about how I feel about things.
I'm very self-deprecating.
For those of you that actually follow my content, I just talk about how I complain about my feelings on the internet and apparently people want to listen to it.
This is going to be something different.
CNN was supposed to be news.
MSNBC was.
MSNBC has gone full conspiracy theorist.
They've embraced it.
They won't even fact-check or correct.
They have no idea what they're doing.
CNN is just playing, you know, they're just playing the same game, mucking the mire, political commentary, rage-bait nonsense.
Fox News, mostly boring, to be honest.
Like, they're just reporting throughout the day.
But Fox has been doing an increasingly good job, as evidenced by Donald Trump getting mad when Fox News actually reports things that he doesn't like.
But Fox News still has its pitfalls as well.
Political commentary late night.
Bombastic, you know, news programs.
I think Tucker's really, really good.
Laura Ingraham and Sean Hannity, I'm not a big fan.
I mean, no disrespect.
It's the same thing I would say about Rachel Maddow.
I'll criticize her over the conspiracy stuff, but she's allowed to have her opinion.
Scanner.
You're going to see documentaries, travel docs.
You're going to see character profiles.
Some people say it sounds like it's going to be like what Vice used to be, before they got woke and went broke.
I'd like to think so.
I mean, that's not necessarily the idea behind it, but I'll tell you what.
I know Rocco.
Rocco did a great job at Vice.
Rocco's now doing a great job, along with Emily.
You guys know Emily, if you've been following the work that I've done.
Emily Mollie's been doing a lot of field reporting and coverage.
And they've been doing a fantastic job of their reporting, putting these things together, and growing the company.
And, you know, early on, my intention with Subverse, before it's been rebranded now, was to be very actively involved.
I was hosting videos.
But I want to make sure this is seen as new, legit, straight news.
And so because there is a clear difference between the content I do with my opinion and what Scanner now does, I'm like, okay, you guys have to run this.
You've got to be independent from me.
And that way no one can ever come out and be like, oh, Tim Poole's biased, don't trust it.
They can say that they can try, but I have nothing to do with the content they produce, the news they produce, insofar as if they started doing things like me, I would tell them to stop.
But they don't.
They don't want to do it because they're journalists, so... Vice is laying people off.
You may see something happen from that.
Like I mentioned.
We'll see.
I can't say too much.
It's still early stages.
These things take time.
But check it out.
Make sure you subscribe to the YouTube channel, which I'll put the link in the description below.
And I guess I'll just leave it there.
You know, I could really rant about everything that happened with Fusion and Vice and these media companies getting woke and falling apart.
But I'll just wrap it up by saying you will not see that happen with Scanner.
I guarantee it.
I'll do my best to guarantee it.
How about that?
Stick around.
The next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
over at TimCast.net.
It is a different channel.
I set up this URL.
Go to TimCast.net if you haven't already.
Subscribe to that channel and I will see you at 4 p.m.
It's not a secret that Andrew Cuomo has done a particularly bad job dealing with the coronavirus in New York City.
It's not entirely his fault.
It is a big, big city.
It's very dense, and so it's very easy for the virus to spread.
And China was lying.
But still, they've had a lot of time to deal with this.
Andrew Cuomo tried stopping the lockdown very early on.
It's gotten bad.
But for some reason, his approval rating is still really good.
Well, I can only imagine, at some point soon, it will start dropping.
Maybe not soon, maybe the next year or whatever, but I'll tell you what, New York is done for.
You gotta understand how bad this really is.
Nearly 420,000 of New York City's richest residents have fled the city amid the pandemic, with smartphone data showing Upper East Side and West Village populations down by 40%.
You wonder why it's so bad?
You see, it was not that long ago, just last year, Andrew Cuomo announced a $2.3 billion revenue shortfall.
God forbid if the rich leave.
You see, they said, Mr. Cuomo, why don't you just raise the taxes on the wealthy?
And there was a concern that by doing so, they would just leave the city and the state.
Now they are.
How will Cuomo make up for this deficit?
Well, as you know, they are begging for the federal government to bail them out, but the federal government may not actually do it.
This budget shortfall happened way before coronavirus.
They were mismanaging the state, and you can thank people like Ocasio-Cortez.
The system The system is broken.
Ocasio-Cortez exploited the system to get elected.
She got like 17,000 votes in a district of 750,000.
She chased out Amazon, crushing 25,000 to 40,000 jobs, gloated about it.
The system is broken.
And because of this, because of other things like this, they can't make up the money.
The coronavirus hits.
Now they're going to dump more money they don't have.
Now they're facing a massive budget deficit, and the rich are fleeing, and that's where they make their money.
Now, the story says they're fleeing the city, the Upper East and the Upper West Side.
The Upper East Side, Soho, and the West Village emptied at least 40%.
New York City has a city income tax.
It's like, I think like 3% or something.
It's really high.
When you combine the city, state, and federal, man, living in New York City is one of the most expensive states to live in tax-wise.
A lot of these people fled to upstate, but a lot of them fled to Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, surrounding states, taking all of that money with them.
The economy being shut down is going to hurt them in so many more ways.
Not only are people leaving, but many of them may not actually come back.
This means that what Andrew Cuomo feared is coming to fruition.
Their $2.3 billion revenue shortfall last year?
Guess what?
God forbid if the rich leave?
Well, they've left.
And when you reopen, if you do, it will be too little too late.
New York is, it's hanging itself.
Cuomo extends New York State Home Order until June 13th.
Well, I don't know what to tell you, man.
I don't know what he can or should do.
This is why I would never want to be in politics, but dude, he knew what would come from this.
And now it's here.
So whether or not it's Cuomo's fault, I'm not gonna play that game.
I will say, the horrible taxes, the mismanagement, and everything outside of coronavirus set the stage for all of this to happen.
They had been, due to poor management of their city and their state, They have been filling the powder keg.
The coronavirus was simply the spark.
And now we're going to see just how bad it really gets in the coming months.
Let's read the story.
Daily Mail says, 5% of New York City's population has fled.
While there was relatively little change in some zip codes, others such as Soho, the West Village, Morningside Heights, the Upper East Side, the Financial District, Midtown, Gramercy, and Brooklyn Heights emptied by at least 40%.
Meanwhile, Manhattan's overall population had fallen by almost 20% as the lockdown enters its third month.
Income was perhaps the strongest indicator of how many residents in a particular neighborhood fled.
New York City has been the epicenter of the outbreak with more than 186,000 cases,
15,300 deaths, 5,000 probable deaths.
Percent of NYC residents who stayed home by income group Look at this, the top 1%.
They're the lowest.
Wow.
Here we can see where NYC coronavirus refugees are fleeing.
Cape Cod, Rhode Island, the Hamptons.
Jersey Shore, South Florida, Martha's Vineyard.
Surprise, surprise!
The rich people got the cash to get out of Dodge.
Many of them run companies that can operate in other places.
Many of them probably work from home or work wherever they see fit.
And now that revenue is leaving.
Cuomo is keeping the place locked down until June 13th.
Another month.
Many of these people just won't come back.
Why?
You're setting up roots in other places.
You were forced to move.
That money won't come back either.
The Daily Mail says, for its report, The Times looked at data provided by New Mexico-based Discart Labs, a geospatial imagery analytics company.
The company used anonymous smartphones' geolocation data to track where New York City residents were in February and whether they left the city or not after the pandemic.
The same population was 140,000 people from nearly every census-counted neighborhood in the five boroughs.
While smartphone data is not yet perfect, and not every resident owns a smartphone, it provides a general idea about New Yorkers' mobility.
Between March 1st and March 15th, there was a small trickle out of New York.
But after Mayor Bill de Blasio announced the city's schools would be shut, there was a mass exodus.
The Times found that residents from neighborhoods where the median income is $90,000 or less stayed in their homes.
About 10% of those in the top 10th percentile fled, and about 25% in the top 5th percentile did the same.
However, more than one-third, 35%, of the top 1% escaped to summer homes in Long Island, upstate New York, or other states.
According to CNBC, the top 1% of New York City earns about $2.2 million per year on average, and the top 5% annual income is about $480,000.
The data is consistent with other reports of wealthy New York City residents having fled.
People that live in vacation towns, such as the Hamptons in Long Island and the Catskills in upstate, complained that their grocery stores were being emptied by city people who were living in their summer homes.
Last month, officials said the price of rental homes in the Hamptons soared from $5,000 per month to more than $30,000 for a two-week period.
Small-town populations practically doubled as Big Apple residents fled to their summer homes.
But locals said city dwellers were bringing COVID-19, the disease caused by the virus, with them, yes.
And the New York Times confirms the wealthy individuals in New York City fled, took their tax dollars with them, and then infected a bunch of other places.
That's how things work, huh?
They go on to mention a bunch of other places.
You know.
They say overall, Descartes Labs found that New York City's total population decreased by 5.2% and Manhattan's by 18.6%.
The Times found these numbers to be consistent with two other papers it looked at.
One from NYU and another company from Tealytics.
That looks at cell phone tower data.
So what does this reveal about who is and isn't leaving the city?
The residents of these wealthy neighborhoods where more than 25% fled are overwhelmingly white,
about 68% according to the newspaper. However, this is not representative of New York City's
population because less than half of the city's 42.7% is white according to USA Today.
Census data.
I mostly don't care about this.
They say more than three-quarters of these neighborhoods have residents with college degrees and rents of more than $2,000 per month.
What I do care about, Andrew Cuomo extends this, and then we can go back to 2019 and see what this means for the future of New York City.
This is it.
These blue havens.
You know, the big cities are where the epicenters are.
It's the Democrat-controlled states where they're shutting things down.
And people are going to flee.
Here's the theory I've had for a while, since this started.
Now, of course, the one thing we can say, that budget shortfall, if they don't get bailed out, it's going to be really bad.
It's going to be worse than we've ever seen.
Andrew Cuomo was pleading for people not to leave.
Now they're leaving.
But I think what will happen is as the... There's two possibilities I see that are... Two potentials.
I don't know what percentage I would give them in terms of probability.
As all of these Democrat voter individuals flee these cities that are becoming infected, they go to more rural areas which are more likely to be Republican.
I do not believe, because of the concentration, we're not going to see all of these people in New York go to one county.
They're going to spread out, likely diluting the voter base, making the congressional counties in these big cities smaller.
There'll be less of them, right?
They'll actually get bigger, space-wise, because there's less people in New York.
Think about it.
20% of people in Manhattan.
How many people are on Manhattan 9?
Like 2.5 million?
So we're talking about almost a half a million people, maybe? 400,000?
That's going to dramatically reduce the amount of congressional districts the city will have and their voting power in the Electoral College.
These people will spread out in various directions.
They'll enter mostly red districts and not likely overpower the Republicans or outvote them, thus resulting in Republicans getting a big advantage after the next census.
Census is currently going on in New York City and people are fleeing.
What's going to happen in the next election cycle when they get rid of, they're going to erase some of these congressional districts.
New York, California, Washington, these epicenters.
It's going to get bad.
You've got people like Joe Rogan saying he's going to leave LA.
You've got people like Elon Musk saying they will move to Texas or Nevada.
What happens when all these people leave?
This could change the demographic makeup of many states.
Some blue states could turn red, red states could turn blue.
But ultimately, what I think we will see is a depowering of major urban centers.
This freaked people out.
Even if we get through this unscathed, I mean, we're not going to, but even if we pull through this relatively soon, a lot of people are going to be scared about what could possibly happen.
They'll be traumatized.
Even though it's not the worst thing in the world, a lot of people will start to say, Either I've already moved, I've got roots in a new place, I'll stay here.
They might say, wow, we really do need to buy firearms like they tried to do at many of these gun shops.
Or they'll just say, I don't want to be in a big city, it's too risky if things hit the fan.
So what happens?
The mostly rural areas and suburban areas that are getting an influx, some of them may flip.
Because there's swing districts like CA25.
But considering Donald Trump's popularity, considering the culture war, I think what we're going to see is a mass dilution of this voter base, and they will be overtaken.
They'll be entering strong red areas where they won't have that same voting power anymore.
And what does this mean?
Donald Trump landslide, Republican 2024 landslide.
I don't see the Democrats winning unless they change their message and become more moderate.
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Not that I needed to remind you, but Democrats have abandoned civil liberties.
What's interesting about this story and what we're about to read is that it comes from Matt Taibbi.
Matt Taibbi is just a journalist.
In fact, he's rather a lefty one.
He's not particularly pro-Trump.
But he's consistently come out, much like Glenn Greenwald and many other actual progressives, challenging the federal government, the FBI, the intelligence agencies.
And this offers up a very strange defense of Michael Flynn, but he's right.
We have seen, right now, the ACLU abandon civil liberties.
The left, the Democrats, they don't care anymore.
Dare I say, they've become overtly evil, violating the civil rights of many individuals.
That I cannot support.
But to see a journalist like Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone no less, come out and say this, I find fascinating.
Which is why we're going to read what he has to say.
He says, the Blue Party's Trump-era embrace of authoritarianism isn't just wrong, it's a fatal political mistake.
Emmett G. Sullivan, the judge in the case of former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, is refusing to let William Barr's Justice Department drop the charge.
He's even thinking of adding more, appointing a retired judge to ask whether the court should issue an order to show cause why Mr. Flynn should not be held in criminal contempt for perjury.
Pundits are cheering.
A trio of former law enforcement and judicial officials saluted Sullivan in the Washington Post, chirping, the Flynn case isn't over until a judge says it's over.
Yuppie icon Jeffrey Toobin of CNN and The New Yorker, one of the resistance crowd's favorite legal authorities, described Sullivan's appointment of Judge John Gleeson as brilliant.
MSNBC legal analyst Glenn Kirchner said Americans owe Sullivan a debt of gratitude.
One had to search far and wide to find a non-conservative legal analyst willing to say the obvious, i.e., that Sullivan's decision was the kind of thing one would expect from a judge in Belarus.
Well done, Matt.
George Washington University professor Jonathan Turley was one of the few willing to say Sullivan's move could create a threat of a judicial charge even when prosecutors agree with defendants.
Sullivan's reaction was amplified by a group letter calling for Barr's resignation, signed by 2,000 former Justice Department officials.
The melodramatic group email somberly reported, as, And the preposterous leak of news that the dropped case made Barack Obama sad, the former president privately told members of his administration, who instantly told Yahoo News that there was no precedent for dropping of perjury charges and that the rule of law itself was at stake.
Whatever one's opinion of Flynn, his relations with Turkey, his locker-up chance, his haircut, or anything, the case was never about much.
There's no longer pretense that prosecution would lead to the unspooling of a massive Trump-Russia conspiracy.
As pundits once breathlessly expected, in fact, news that Flynn was cooperating with special counsel Robert Mueller inspired many of the is-this-the-beginning-of-the-end-for-Trump stories that will someday fill whole chapters of Journalism F-Ups 101 textbooks Bravo, good sir.
I want to throw flowers.
Matt Taibbi, excellent writing.
That's the joke I made about Joe Biden.
Is this the beginning of the end for Joe Biden as a bombshell report shows the walls are closing in?
How many times did we hear that with all of the Russiagate psychosis?
The walls are closing in, the beginning of the end.
It's a bombshell report, they would say.
But nothing.
And it was because of these fake investigations.
And it took us years to find out the investigations were fake.
How could it be that after we learned that there was no investigative basis for the FBI to go after Michael Flynn, that it wasn't perjury, that it was one kind of lying to the FBI in an informal meeting he didn't even know was, you know, that relevant?
How could it be that they still want this to be pursued?
You know why?
This is a danger.
of authoritarianism.
The Democrats right now, the ones cheering for this, they are the people who want to lock you in a gulag.
They're the people who want to take away your free speech.
They're the people who want to take away your due process rights.
They want to try you in a court of public opinion like Brett Kavanaugh.
But when finally it is now levied against them, the same rules they put in place, they say, we don't care.
We'll vote for Joe Biden anyway.
These people must not be given power.
Oh, and don't forget, it was the Republicans who just voted in favor of FISA spying, and it was the Democrats who actually opposed the spying provision for browser history.
So yeah, don't get me wrong, you got everybody to throw shade at.
Unfortunately, right now, as it comes to the Republicans, there is still a large sect, the dominant one, that wants the actual rule of law and civil rights.
You see, some of these Republicans, I'm not a big fan of.
I mean, there's been a lot of shade thrown at Trey Gowdy for not using his power.
Lindsey Graham seems to be a do-nothing Biden friend.
I don't even know why he's still in office.
But there's a lot of Republicans who actually do believe in freedom.
One of my favorite politicians, Rand Paul.
Good dude.
Probably disagree with him on a lot of cultural issues.
But when it comes to liberty and the powers of the government, hey, man, I'm right there.
I respect and agree with him.
I'd vote for that guy in two seconds.
And it's funny because people drag him all the time.
I'm like, look, man, when someone says we should give the federal government the rights to violate civil liberties, I just say no.
And who can you always count on to say no?
Rand Paul.
Appreciate that guy.
The Democrats you can always count on.
Well, actually, it's not fair.
They did vote to get rid of this one browser, browsing history provision.
The problem I see though, right now, whatever is happening, this flip in the culture war, we're seeing conservatives start to embrace much more libertarian, liberty-minded principles.
I don't want to say libertarian overtly, but for the most part, culturally, they're saying we don't like this stuff, we don't like the executive authority, we don't like the abuse from these governors.
The Democrats are cheering for it.
The cultural left has called for censorship.
The cultural left has said, but my private company!
There are reports that Antifa was apparently going to counter-protest anti-lockdown protesters, basically supporting the government.
Now, I didn't see that, so I don't know if it's true, but I wouldn't be surprised.
These people are nuts.
The Democrats are cheering for the FBI's false investigation and false charges against a guy.
They threatened his kid and told him to plead guilty.
Now, the judge, I'm assuming, is upset because Flynn, by pleading guilty, was lying.
Now that he admits that, they forced him to do it.
That's perjury, right?
That's absurd.
This needs to be dropped, right?
Taibi goes on to say, the acts at issue are calls Flynn made to Russia.
We know all this stuff.
I'm not going to read over it.
They say a Laurel and Hardy team of agents conducted the interview, then took three weeks to write and rewrite multiple versions of the interview notes.
Use as evidence.
Because why record it?
They were supervised by a counterintelligence chief who then memorialized on paper his uncertainty over whether the FBI was trying to get him to lie or get him fired.
Worrying that they'd be accused of playing games.
After another leak to the Washington Post in early February 2017, Flynn was actually fired.
And later pleaded guilty to lying about sanctions in the Kislyak call.
The transcript of which was, of course, never released to either the defense or the public.
Warrantless surveillance, multiple illegal leaks of classified information, a false statements charge constructed on the razor's edge of Miranda, and the use of never produced secret counterintelligence evidence in a domestic criminal proceeding.
This is the rule of law we're being asked to cheer.
Bravo, Matt Taibbi.
Russiagate cases were often two-level offenses, factually bogus or exaggerated, but also indicative of authoritarian practices.
Democrats and Democrat-friendly media pundits in the last four years have been consistently unable to register objections on either front.
Flynn's case fits a pattern.
We were told his plea was just the tip of the iceberg.
That would take the trail of Russian collusion to the center of the plot.
Remember George Papadopoulos?
Turns out he had no deeper story to tell.
In fact, none of the people prosecutors tossed into jail to get at the Russian plot, some
little more than bystanders, had anything to share.
Remember George Papadopoulos?
I'm not going to read the entirety of his article, but I will just, you know, point
out the final conclusion here.
He says, my family's in quarantine.
I worry about a premature return to work, and sure, I laughed at the Shaun of the Dead photo of Ohio protesters protesting state lockdown laws.
But I also recognize the crisis is also raising serious civil liberty issues, from prisoners trapped in deadly conditions, to profound questions about speech and assembly, the limits to surveillance and snitching.
If this disease is going to be in our lives for the foreseeable future, that makes it more urgent that we talk about what these rules will be, not less.
Yet the party I grew up supporting seems to have lost the ability to do so, and I don't understand why.
Well, I don't either, but I can't speculate, Matt.
Power.
That's what it is.
Something happened culturally, and the people that used to be on our side, when we were, you know, passive liberal Democrat types, they've left because they were attacked and berated.
Many of them said trade mattered, they voted for Trump.
Then the lies started popping up about people I knew, my friends, who had changed their opinions.
And I said, I know many of these people who voted for Trump.
They're not all bigots and racists.
So then they attacked me.
They told me to F off.
They told me if I didn't bend the knee, I must be secretly far right.
And I said, you people are crazy.
And now you can even see people who actually support the left admitting.
In politics, everything flows in one direction.
And there's a couple things this means.
One, the smears, the lies, the censorship always hits conservatives.
But politics flows in one direction and another way.
If I come out and say, you know, here's an easy way to explain it.
If I stand next to a Trump supporter, smiling, thumbs up, they'll say, see, it proves Tim Pool is far right.
If I stand next to Antifa, they'll say, why is Antifa hanging out with someone who's far right?
They'll actually argue the Antifa guy must be far right.
They've done it.
That shows you it only flows in one direction.
There is no way to be left other than bending the knee and saying, yes, please, sir, thank you, and letting them do this insanity.
Well, I, for one, won't stand by it.
The Democrats have lost the plot.
The Republicans aren't perfect.
I've never been a big fan.
But at least there is some semblance of liberty on the right right now.
And maybe it's because many people walked away and they went to the Republican Party.
But at the very least, you have Bill Barr defending the Constitution.
Absolutely not perfect.
I do not like this FISA spying, and I do not like the Republicans who voted for it.
But that doesn't mean I'm going to vote for them.
But it does mean I'm going to criticize the Democrats, because they've lost it completely.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Navy fighter jets intercepted eight UFOs and even locked onto one with air-to-air missiles.
Classified reports show.
But what are these UFOs?
We now have confirmation from the Pentagon it was not even that big of a story.
But let's talk about aliens now.
For the most part, I used to do more segments like this back in the day, but we've kind of moved them over to the IRL podcast.
But we'll talk about this again later.
So, if you're not familiar, go over to youtube.com slash TimCastIRL, subscribe.
We do a live show, it'll be at 8 p.m., and we will be talking about UFOs, but I want to talk about this, because recently, I went on the Joe Rogan podcast, and we had a conversation about aliens, and I said, you know what, man, I just think it's military tech.
I do not believe it's aliens, because the likelihood it's aliens is astronomical, and the likelihood that some humans developed a crazy weapon, it's much more likely.
Now, Joe disagreed.
He said, no way we have this tech.
These things are moving in ways we can never imagine.
But while I think it's a fair point, I think about the Manhattan Project, I think about nuclear weapons, no one understood the devastation that would be wrought by a nuclear bomb.
So perhaps we just don't know about this stuff, and we're actually looking at high-tech, Something or other.
Now, I do think in today's day and age it's much harder to keep secrets due to social media.
So maybe Joe makes a good point.
Let's read about what happened with these Navy fighters.
Reports newly released by the Naval Safety Center reveal more information on the bizarre encounters U.S.
Navy pilots have had with unidentified flying objects off the east coast of the United States.
Eight hazard reports filed with the center's web-based reporting system were acquired under the Freedom of Information Act by The Drive.
And details strange run-ins that include a near-mid-air collision with a balloon-like object and a sighting of a suitcase-sized aircraft.
They go on to say, in one 2014 encounter, the Navy Jet reported even being able to lock onto the object with an air-to-air missile.
Seven of the reports were filed between 2013 and 2014 in a patch of airspace known as W-72, uh, W-72 Warning Area, which lies off the east coast of Virginia and North Carolina.
In each of these reports, F-A-18E-F Super Hornets were involved in the encounter.
The eighth report released occurred years later in 2019 and took place in the airspace known as the W386 Warning Area, which also lies over the Atlantic Ocean, off the coast of Maryland.
This final report involved an EA-18G Growler.
The Drive noted that they filed the FOIA request for reports dealing with naval aviation encounters with unidentified objects, balloons, and any other similar object anywhere, and were told that these were not the only ones submitted.
The first report recorded an encounter from June 27, 2013, when Strike Fighter Squadron 11 spotted an aircraft that was white in color and approximately the size and shape of a drone or missile.
The Super Hornet's crew said they had visually acquired it as it passed down the right side of the aircraft with approximately 200 feet of lateral separation.
The jet was flying at an altitude of 17,000 feet, while the report says the other object was climbing and at a visible exhaust trail.
Neither the Super Hornet or the Naval Air Station Oceana had recorded a radar track of the object.
Now here's why that's interesting.
This is not the typical UFO story or, you know, they call it UAP now, Unidentified Aerial Phenomenon.
We typically hear about tic-tac-shaped objects that zip-zoop, you know, and lateral and then up and then down and start and then stop.
This one had an exhaust trail.
This, to me, sounds like military tech.
If you want to make the argument, I guess, that the zig-zagging tic-tac things aren't human, fine.
That's something we don't understand.
But if you're going to argue it's missile-shaped and it's got an exhaust trail, I'm just going to go ahead and say somebody's flying something and we know.
Let's read just a little bit more, and I want to talk about the technology around these objects.
Let's jump to the end, because they just go through all of the different issues, but I want to read their conclusion.
They say, the Department of Defense said on April 28th it was releasing videos in order to clear up any misconceptions by the public on whether or not the footage that has been circulating was real, or whether or not there is more to the videos.
This is the release we saw recently.
The aerial phenomena observed in the videos remains characterized as unidentified, the Pentagon said in a statement.
One of the videos was shot November 2004, and the other two in January 2015.
In one, the weapon sensor operator appears to lose lock on a rapidly moving oblong object, which seconds later suddenly accelerates away to the left and out of view.
In another video, tracking an object above the clouds, one pilot wonders if it is a drone.
There's a whole fleet of them.
Look on the ASA, the other says.
My gosh, they're all going against the wind.
The wind's 120 knots out to the west, he said.
Look at that thing.
The first says, uh, look at that thing the first says as the object starts rotating.
The video had previously been released by the New York Times and to the Stars Academy of Arts and
Science, a group co-founded by Blink-182 guitarist Tom DeLonge.
A lot of people have pointed out that it's quite, it's kind of funny that the Pentagon has
finally confirmed these are legit videos, whatever they are, and nobody really
The first thing I'm going to do is tell you what my favorite conspiracy theory about this is, but I also want to talk about general technology in space and just, excuse me, forgive my allergies, and just talk about some hypotheticals.
There is a meme conspiracy, I guess, going around that, and I believe I did mention this in the Rogan podcast, it's basically like this.
They want to unveil aliens to us.
The government knows.
But they can't just come out right now and say, boom, aliens.
Otherwise, people will freak out.
I don't know if you guys have watched Star Trek, but there was an episode kind of about this.
So the argument then is, they're slow-rolling this.
Now we're seeing, May 13th, Navy fighter jets intercepted eight UFOs and even locked onto one with air-to-air missiles.
What happens?
First, there's some sightings.
Then there's some photos.
Then there's some videos.
Then you have high-profile individuals talking about it.
Then the government releases them a month later.
This is incrementalism.
By slowly doing it, no one is shocked to discover they actually, you know, these things are happening.
These things exist.
Let me just clarify for you.
These things are on video.
They've locked onto them.
They exist.
We don't know what they are.
It could be military.
It could be anything.
I think it's more likely to be military.
But we have now confirmed they're real.
And people are kind of like, cool.
Think about how crazy that is.
Now, what happens if in the coming months, there's a big event over New York where someone sees one of these objects zipping around and then flies away, and a bunch of people film it?
Then they'll say, whoa, it was one of those things we were hearing about!
Maybe we'll hear about this in the next coming months.
Then, later on, there'll be substantially more, eventually more and more and more, people will get used to seeing them, there'll be questions, research, finally someone will make contact, and no one will care.
Because they do it in increments.
I'm not saying I believe it's true.
I don't know what these things are.
Could just be U.S.
military tech.
I mean, they wouldn't tell us, right?
But I was thinking about how these ships move around, and I think we may have talked about this on the IRL podcast, so in case you've seen it, you might hear something similar that you've already heard before.
If you haven't, go to youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Get ready, we're doing a podcast tonight at 8 p.m.
But I was thinking about how they move just straight through the wind, right?
Like those pilots were saying, it's 120 knots, how are they doing this?
If they can manipulate space and move in this kind of idea of warp, right?
I was thinking about Star Trek and the idea of a warp drive, where it compresses space in front of you and expands it behind you, making it so that you move forward.
You're not really moving, though.
You're going in between space, basically, right?
The way it was described in one article I was reading is like, if you had a ball in a tube and you squeeze the back end of the tube and it pushes the ball forward.
So I started thinking about, if a ship could actually do this, what would it have in terms of some kind of defensive capabilities?
If there was a machine that could warp space, You'd be, by our standards, invincible.
Think about it.
Let's say there's a bubble of bent space around you.
That would mean that what we perceive as standard symmetrical space is actually curved and warped.
So, if the space warps to the left, and they fired, say, a bullet from a fighter jet, it would approach the object, and then appear to you to go like this, and wrap around, because space is warped around you.
These vehicles that can just zip, zap, and move around seem to be, in some capacity, manipulating space.
Now, maybe they're not.
Maybe they've got some kind of, I don't know, electromagnetic, you know, anti-grav or something.
Maybe they're not really manipulating space.
Maybe they've found a way to manipulate gravitational force in some way.
I'm not a physicist, so I don't really know.
I couldn't tell you.
I'm sure there's a physicist right now laughing, saying, haha, Tim, you're so wrong!
Your speculation is absurd!
But I just think about what you could do if you could bend space.
And I was thinking about this because I was watching, you know, after watching movies like Interstellar and how he was affected, how time is affected.
What could you do with a vehicle that could manipulate space?
Could you travel forward and backward through time?
Maybe not backward, maybe forward.
I honestly don't know.
What will your defensive capabilities be?
And what would that mean to us?
Challenging that.
Here's what I want you to understand, right?
We're in an atmosphere.
You can kind of look at the air how water is.
Things can float.
So we have these big balloons we send up into space that float on top of our atmosphere because they're lighter than the atmosphere.
The same is true for water.
It's about displacement and weight and things like that.
When we have planes, they're basically pulling in air, you know, pushing it out, creating pressure.
There's airfoils and, you know, that's how jets and planes work, basically.
You can talk about similar things with being in water, with, like, jet skis or they have those, like, those surfboards or whatever.
These ships, the way they move, presumably would operate much better in space.
They wouldn't need propulsion, right?
I don't know, man.
I don't know, man.
All I know is these things are real.
They may come out.
They may not.
But I think so.
I think we're going to see more and more videos from this.
And I think eventually we will get real answers.
Right now they're saying, look, these videos are real.
We don't want there to be any confusion.
But I don't think they're letting us know every single thing they know about these things.
And probably for good reason.
We are not a unified planet.
And so the joke I made, the theory I made is that the globalists want to unify Earth so we can join the Galactic Federation.
Joe was then like, I don't think there's a Galactic Federation.
No, I don't either!
I'm kidding!
But maybe, wouldn't it be kind of messed up if we're a backwoods, backwater planet?
We're a bunch of primitive, you know, yokels, and there's a big galactic space society with all this wonderful tech watching us the way we watch, you know, like, I don't know, prairie dogs bob around in the fields?
That would kind of suck, but I don't know.
Maybe they're vicious, tyrannical, parasitic agents who want to steal our life force and our water!
I guess time will tell.
Or it won't.
But hopefully technology does.
I live there.
Stick around.
Next segment will be coming up tomorrow at 10 a.m.
But as I've mentioned now for the third time, go to youtube.com slash TimCastIRL for the upcoming live show at 8 p.m.
