Bill Barr Just OBLITERATED Democrat And Media Lies About Antifa And Leftist Riots, Media PANICKING
The narrative flip is getting increasingly more absurd as they desperately try to stop Trump from gaining ground due to the riots.Democrats grilled Bill Barr today and barely gave him a chance to speak but when he finally could he absolutely nuked the fake news and Democrats from orbit. Asking them if the far leftist rioting was ok as they attack the US courthouse during the Portland riots.Republicans actually gave Attorney General William Barr the chance to speak and when he did it was calm, reasonable, and articulate.The real battle however is not over lies but what the lies are for, to win the suburbs over for Democrats.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The media either lies, ignores it, or actually supports the rioting.
And then downstream from that, the Democrats do basically the same thing.
We had Jerry Nadler recently say that Antifa violence in Portland's all a myth.
It's not the first time he called Antifa a myth.
But today, Attorney General William Barr absolutely obliterated the Democrat and media lies about what's going on around this country when they let him speak, mind you.
The Republicans actually played a video showing all of the violence, which is funny considering Jerry Nadler himself said the violence was a myth.
Then they played this very long video proving it is in fact not a myth, yet the Democrats still tried to maintain this position.
Now I'll tell you this, The hearing with Bill Barr was absolutely painful, I feel for this man.
Every single time, for the most part, a Democrat would ask him a question, they wouldn't let him actually answer anything.
So it was quite frustrating to not actually get to hear what the man had to say.
Republicans actually did give him a chance to speak, and when he did, he roasted the lies from the media, and the media is becoming increasingly desperate.
Over the past couple of segments I've done on this channel, I've talked about Donald Trump winning the propaganda war, and boy, do we have more proof.
Not only did the Republicans thoroughly debunk the myth nonsense, I mean, let's be real, most of us have Facebook and Twitter, we can share a video and our friends and family can see what's really going on down there.
But the media has absolutely tried to spin the narrative in pure desperation.
The riots have begun helping Trump.
That's how desperate and panicked they've become.
First, they tried claiming, in fact, Donald Trump wanted the riots.
Well, that's strange because that would imply Donald Trump controls Antifa, which he clearly doesn't.
And Bill Barr points out the Black Lives Matter protests in Portland is, quote, an assault on US government.
Well, that narrative is not going to work anymore.
So if it's not about Trump inciting this to try and drum up a reelection campaign strategy, like some Democrats insinuated, what could it really be?
I kid you not.
The media has now decided to roll with the narrative that secretly the violence is being instigated by, you guessed it, the white supremacists.
Those black-clad individuals that we call Antifa, in fact, are not Antifa.
They are, in fact, disguised white supremacists trying to cause violence and chaos.
And, of course, there's a separate narrative emerging that the real threat is, in fact, not Antifa.
But in fact, the far-right, even The Guardian, recently put out a story saying, there are no deaths tied to Antifa.
And I love this fake argument.
As if anyone's comparing death counts and being like, who do you think is the one group we should complain about?
Only the one group who's killed the most people.
In which case, communists would take the cake.
No.
We're talking about bad things.
Guess what?
Far-right extremists, really bad.
Really, really bad.
Yeah, basically everybody agrees.
Far-left extremists?
Also really, really bad.
But for other reasons.
You don't have an argument that one group is worse than the other?
Fine.
It doesn't make any of those groups good.
In fact, the far-left and Antifa are really bad.
They engage in this violence.
They sustain this violence.
And it actually ends up helping Donald Trump in the long run.
And that's why the media is in a full-on panic.
You see, peaceful protests work.
Lo and behold, we've all known it.
When happy, smiling people hold hands and sing under a rainbow, it works.
The only problem is, that has happened in Portland with people singing songs.
Personally, I don't like it.
I think it's weird and creepy, but good for them.
The problem is, almost within like the next half hour or so, somebody's lobbing industrial-grade fireworks into a building to try and burn it down.
Gunshots are going off.
People are losing their lives.
So yes, unfortunately, there may be peaceful protests.
They're becoming riots.
And Bill Barr laid it out very, very well.
And the funniest thing, I've got this Daily Beast article pulled up, but guess what?
They don't actually quote what he said.
It's hilarious.
They try and weasel their way around it.
Look, man, I get frustrated by fake news, but it is kind of hilarious to see how desperate the media is becoming.
So let's talk about what Bill Barr had to say, just a little bit.
It was a long hearing.
And I want to talk to you about what the media is doing and what you can expect with these riots next.
Because in the end, this, all of this is about Donald Trump and the Democrats fighting over the suburbs.
That's right.
The suburbs, the big battleground.
Let's see the first story.
Before we do, Head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do, just subscribe to this channel, man.
More than half of the people who watch, just about, aren't actually subscribed.
So if you do watch, and you want to make sure you get more content from me, hit that subscribe button, hit that notification bell, hit the like button, and consider sharing the video to help spread the word.
Here's the first story I'm not going to spend too much time on, though.
AG Barr calls Black Lives Matter protests in Portland an assault on U.S.
government.
In highly anticipated testimony, the Attorney General wouldn't say he hadn't discussed the federal crackdown in the context of Trump's re-election.
Absolutely confusing and mixed framing, mind you.
They say, asked by Chairman Jerry Nadler.
If he discussed the politics of the crackdown with Trump or anyone in his inner circle, Barr didn't specifically mention the Department of Justice operations, but confirmed that election comes up in his conversations with the president.
I'm a member of the cabinet, and there is an election going on.
I'm not going to get into my discussions with the president.
As well, Barr indicated he views protesters in Portland, Oregon not as demonstrators demanding black liberation or defending themselves from an unwanted federal intrusion, but as insurrectionists.
Yeah, well, Bill Barr would be right.
You can't show up to federal property and attack it.
And then finally, 39 nights later, when the Fed says, hey, we're gonna stop you now, go help, help, I'm being repressed.
That's exactly what the media is trying to do here.
What unfolds nightly around the courthouse cannot reasonably be called a protest.
It is by any objective measure an assault on the government of the United States.
Later in his response to GOP questioning, Barr thundered, is that okay?
In outlining demonstrators' alleged offenses against federal officers.
I reject the idea the department has flooded anywhere and attempted to suppress demonstrators.
We are at the courthouse defending the courthouse.
We are not out there looking for trouble.
But hold on a minute.
There's some words missing from their quote.
Is that okay?
That's the only thing they quoted.
Is what okay?
Come on, Daily Beast.
Why don't you show the full quote?
It's because the leftists in media are starting to panic.
The riots are awful.
People hate them.
They barely like the protests.
I believe it was Gallup came out and said two out of three people support the protests, so that's pretty good.
But the polling ended, I believe, on July 6th.
I wonder how many of these people feel now that things have devolved into outright rioting, but it is fair to say peaceful protests work.
I love it.
I accept it.
It's an American institution.
You want to go out and peacefully protest?
Please do so.
Stand up for yourself.
Stand up, speak up, everybody.
Awesome.
Violence?
No, no, no, no.
None of that.
Don't do that.
And most people don't like that.
Civil disobedience may bother people, but I'm actually okay with that too, because I think there's a line where you gotta nudge people a little bit.
And I mean that figuratively.
You'll end up getting arrested for civil disobedience, like, you know, painting something, graffiti event, people gotta clean it up.
That one's a little bit more complicated because you're actually costing people money.
But like, you know, sitting in a street or walking in the street.
Okay, okay.
Well, let's take a look at what the actual quote was.
From Town Hall, Attorney General William Barr, quote, Federal courts are under attack.
Since when is it okay to burn down a federal court?
Is that okay?
Is that okay now?
Oh!
That's the missing part of the quote the Daily Beast didn't want to tell you.
Because they don't want you to know that people are trying to burn down a federal courthouse.
Or whatever.
I don't know exactly why they omitted that quote.
But it sounds to me like they're just trying to make sure you don't see it.
You know why?
How hard would it have been to include a few extra words?
Since when is it okay to burn down a federal court?
Ah, the Daily Beast can't do it!
Bill Barr thundered, is that okay in outlining alleged offenses against federal officers?
No, he didn't!
That's not true!
He literally said, since when is it okay to burn down a federal court?
Come on, media!
Oh, I'm sorry.
The media has become so desperate.
The narrative is becoming a joke.
And Bill Barr roasted them.
You know what really bothered me about this hearing?
What bothered me is that when the Republicans would speak, they'd say, can you answer this question, Bill Barr?
And he'd answer the question.
And the Democrats would speak.
And any time Bill Barr tried to speak up, they'd say, I reclaim my time.
I reclaim my time.
Well, you're grandstanding.
You know what the issue is?
Jerry Nadler lied over and over again.
Here's a story from Fox News.
Antifa is very real and very dangerous, Rep.
Jordan says, reacting to Rep.
Nadler's claim the movement sparking violence is a myth.
Antifa has no defined organizational hierarchy or membership process.
And Bill Barr gave a remarkably succinct and excellent answer.
When asked about Antifa and domestic terror, he said, it's not a national movement.
In fact, many of these groups, due to their anarchic nature, fight with each other.
But there is substantial organizing before events, where they organize around events.
So, yes, they're being investigated as such.
Jerry Nadler said it was a myth.
And Bill Barr annihilated, roasted, obliterated this lie.
And that's why they didn't want to let him speak.
Because when Jim Jordan showed the video of all the violence, what was Nadler to say then?
With a smirk on his face, maintains the lie, maintains the lie.
And all the Democrats tried playing the same game.
In fact, one guy tried insinuating that Bill Barr was being racist or something due to his personal opinion on COVID, which was nonsensical.
Antifa is not a myth, but certainly the media tries to do two things.
Either argue Antifa doesn't exist at all, or they try to strawman by claiming people like me are saying that there is a large organization with billions of dollars called the Antifa with a leader who organizes commanders.
No, that's never been the case.
Antifa has always been a loose-knit, cell-based group, movement.
They fly the same banner.
They have the same symbols.
They organize in this way to protect themselves from law enforcement, but they do share end goals.
That's it.
So some of them have brand names.
They name themselves.
They sell merchandise.
That's the reality.
Let's take a look at how the media's desperation is beginning to manifest.
Oh, this is so good.
Violent protest clashes turned Portland into a right-wing boogeyman.
Here's how it happened.
Ah, yes, Washington Post, July 21st.
I did mention some of these stories.
I'm going to go through this quickly for you because you may have seen my segment from yesterday, but you need the context.
And then I want to tell you what you can expect next as the battle for the suburbs continues.
And the reason I say battle for the suburbs is because Well, first of all, Trump is trying to win the suburbs for sure.
But this is why you see the wall of moms.
That's right.
The wall of moms who are now suing the city because they're trying to make suburban mothers feel like they are being attacked.
So they have all of these middle-aged women wear yellow shirts, pretend to be this wall of mothers, and maybe many of them really are mothers.
I get it.
That's fine.
But they're engaging in violence.
There's one viral video now from NBC where a mom is screaming, Why am I here?
Why do I have to be here?
And I'm just like, you don't!
You can go home and have a nice cup of tea with some crumpets or something.
Whatever it is, you know, moms do.
I don't know.
You get the point.
They don't got to show up to the courthouse and throw bricks at cops or try and pull down barricades.
So don't play that game with me.
Here's the important point.
The Washington Post said it was a right-wing boogeyman.
That's right.
The right is saying, oh, oh, violence!
Oh no, what's happening?
And everyone else is saying, it's just a boogeyman.
You know, the boogeyman's not real, right?
What are you scared of?
Nothing's going on!
And now it's slowly starting to evolve.
From it being a right-wing boogeyman, it started to become Trump's effort.
Trump's effort to provoke violence is working.
The president sent federal agents into Portland with the apparent aim of inciting a confrontation.
It's just so stupid.
For 39 nights, Trump did nothing.
Nothing.
And now it's Trump's effort.
nothing.
And after 39 nights of violence, they sent in feds to protect a courthouse that people
were throwing industrial grade fireworks at to try and burn down.
And now it's Trump's effort.
You see, it goes from a right wing boogeyman.
There's no violence.
Look, not behind the curtain.
There's nothing happening here.
There is no war in Ba Sing Se.
And now it's, well, Trump was trying to do it.
Trump was trying to make it happen.
But I'm not going to stop there.
It gets even better.
Wait till you see the latest narrative from the press.
This is my favorite.
You see, first they said it was a boogeyman.
Then they said Trump was trying to make it happen.
Now it's White supremacists!
Ah, that's right.
Umbrella Man was a white supremacist trying to incite George Floyd rioting.
Police say the suspect has been identified, but no charges had been filed as of Tuesday afternoon.
Okay, okay, here it comes.
Maybe the guy really was sure fine.
I don't know who this guy is.
But I find it so convenient that a week ago, they were telling us we were experiencing fear of a boogeyman who didn't really exist.
And now they're telling us, actually, the riots are being instigated by white supremacists disguised as Black Lives Matter.
I tell you what, man, the desperation in the news is amazing.
But to be fair, to be fair, in both of these stories, it is the police who are making the claim.
So perhaps there really are white supremacists disguised as activists and marching and riding with Black Lives Matter.
I'd just like to point out, personally, I believe Antifa are literally white supremacists.
Maybe not, like, identically, but have you seen that viral video from the comedian Ryan Long where the woke guy and the racist guy basically believe the same things?
That's the point.
I wonder if that's what the police are really talking about.
But fine, okay, fine.
So maybe it's the police who are making these claims, and it's not some biased journalist, because these are just local news outlets.
Okay, okay.
How about this?
Right-wing domestic terror is on the rise.
Did the warning signs evade us on July 21st?
How amazing that when the riots start backfiring on the Democrats and the media, that the narrative has begun to change.
That's right.
Jihadists' plot used to be the U.S.
and Europe's biggest threat.
Now it's the far right.
An increasing percentage of plans and attacks on the U.S.
are linked to far right activity, said Seth Jones.
Why do I care about Seth Jones's opinion right now?
Is something happening with the far right?
It's not.
But hold on a minute.
These stories emerged about, you know, the far right, about a week or so ago, several days ago.
And then the narrative emerged that it was actually not Black Lives Matter but white supremacists.
You see how it all glues together?
Bill Barr stands up, figuratively, and he says, when is it okay to burn down a federal courthouse?
And where are the Democrats?
Where is the media?
They omit it.
I don't mean all media, obviously.
There's local news, there's conservative media, there's real journalism out there, but the leftist media apparatus, which functions as an arm of the Democratic Party.
Uh-oh.
Oh no, the riots are hurting us!
I'll tell you why the riots are hurting you.
Check this out.
Black Lives Matter protests extend into America's suburbs and towns, June 10th.
Yes, when everything was getting crazy and violent and people were getting scared, violence was extending in the suburbs and this shocked many, many people.
And boy, did it help Donald Trump.
You see, there were 31, I believe, suburban areas, I believe they were mostly suburban, where they voted for Trump in 2016 and then elected a Democrat to Congress in 2018.
What could Trump possibly do to win the suburbs back?
Well, Trump has tried claiming, I'm a law and order guy, I'm a law and order guy, right?
Well, does it really matter?
Do people believe it?
When after 39 nights of violence in Portland, he wasn't doing anything.
Finally, he goes in and he sends in reinforcements.
And they try and argue that it was intentional so he could get videos and photos of him, you know, the police going out there and doing the right thing.
And you know what?
Whether it was intentional or not, he was right.
It's the fault of the far left and Antifa who have been going out and getting violent and scaring people that will help Trump.
Well, guess what?
Here we go, baby.
Trump is not making these people do this.
Donald Trump does not control Black Lives Matter or Antifa.
Black Lives Matter organizers traveled to suburbs to take on Nike from July 27th.
Is Donald Trump having secret meetings with Black Lives Matter saying, can you help me get reelected by going to the suburbs and scaring people?
No, he's not doing that.
I was in a small Philadelphia town.
I won't name because I don't want people to know exactly where I've been.
But I was in a small town, and there was a huge crowd of people protesting for Black Lives Matter, and they were marching around all through this small town.
And most people didn't care, but I'd imagine a lot of people were like, after all the riots, I gotta say, I don't feel comfortable.
They were in the street, they're honking, they're holding up signs, they're yelling.
That's getting scary.
After all the riots, and it's Black Lives Matter riots, we know who these people are.
They're putting up the signs in Portland.
I'd imagine people in the suburbs are getting antsy about this and getting worried, saying, keep this away from me!
Not in my backyard, they say.
Oh, but there's more than this.
Here you go, here's from NBC21.
Canfield Black Lives Matter rally asks suburbs to look in own backyards for racism.
Whoa, whoa, that's quite literally in their own backyard.
Talk about nimby, huh?
They're literally coming to your home and saying, what's going on in your backyard?
Well, this solidarity march, it's not the photo.
I love it.
This photo they're showing is Blue Lives Matter and there's a Gadsden flag and they're waving Trump signs, but sure, I appreciate the imagery.
My friends, there's so much more.
Portland suburb sparks flap after raising Black Lives Matter flag over City Hall.
Gresham, Oregon.
Yep, it's coming.
Crowds launch fireworks at brewery, draw guns on drivers as riots spread from Portland to smaller Oregon City.
It will come to the suburbs.
And Trump can't control it, in the sense, like, he's not making these people do this.
But Trump will be on standby to deploy federal law enforcement to protect them, should they ask.
And Bill Barr stated in his testimony, they have been.
It's true.
A story from Reuters showed that people in Chicago were asking for FBI assistance in the ongoing increase in lethal crime.
Not just violent crime, because crime for the most part is down, but murders are going way up.
So here we can see the narrative is just, it is a fractured and broken world, man, I tell you what.
But I believe what we're seeing right now at the Wall of Moms, the fighting, it's an attempt to make Trump, you know, look, I think a lot of the rioting, they tried to weaponize the photos of the police to smear Trump and make it seem like, you know, he's this, you know, authoritarian dictator.
I don't think they realized that it backfired.
As I stated yesterday, a lot of people don't know this.
Well, at least one of the reasons, I should say, for the Fifth Amendment, pleading the Fifth, remaining silent, is that if you're sitting in court and it's your word against a cop, people trust the cop.
Period.
You're not going to change that.
Even with all this, A lot of people, they're still gonna trust the cop.
Now that may change because of, you know, a lot of these protests, but for the most part, nah man, you got a dude who's accused of committing a crime, even you, even if it's wrong, and the cop says you did it, they're gonna believe the police officer.
So what do you think happens when they see cops marching around the streets, and they see protesters or riots?
They're going to believe the police officers.
That's it.
At the very least, I'll tell you a secret.
A lot of these Americans living in the suburbs, not in my backyard, they would say.
So you know what they're thinking deep down inside?
They're probably thinking, I don't know or care, just don't let them come here.
And they're coming.
They're gonna come, so I'll tell you what, I'm sure these people in the suburbs are like, send in the troops, baby!
Just get them out, I don't care what they're doing.
They just don't care.
I'm willing to bet, personally, most of these people in these suburbs That Trump so desperately wants would pay a good sum of money for private security to protect themselves, like we saw in St.
Louis with the McCloskeys.
They hired private security because they just they don't care about what the protests are doing, what they want, where they're going.
They just don't want it in my backyard.
So if Trump says, I'm going to send in law enforcement to protect you, keep the crime down, they're going to be like, good, because we're chilling, man.
What's the average person doing right now?
You can't go out, so you're sitting at home watching movies on Amazon or something.
Watching Netflix, I suppose.
Maybe ordering some takeout.
And you don't want to deal with people in the streets screaming and throwing stuff.
So they'll take what they can get.
And what they want is security.
And that's what I think this is all about.
The narrative.
The lies.
They're trying to scare people.
The far right is coming for you!
They'll come to your homes!
Yeah, please spare me.
Right now, we are seeing 60-plus days of violence.
And Bill Barr called it out, and the Democrats had no response to this.
This is why I'm fed up with them.
No response.
A couple of them gave Bill Barr the opportunity to respond politely.
I can respect that.
But so much of it was grandstanding and lying.
You're attacking peaceful demonstrators and arresting them.
And then Bill Barr would be like, Well, actually, I reclaim my time.
I reclaim my time.
I'm speaking now.
You want to make false claims?
Fine.
But let the man respond.
Oh, they can't, because he would debunk their entire narrative.
I want to show you something very important.
This is a story for Michael Tracy I've highlighted several times.
Two months since the riots and still no national conversation.
The story from Michael Tracy shows how journalists are ignoring the bigger picture.
The small towns that are being destroyed and vandalized.
How the riots swept across this country and hit places most people just ignored.
He mentioned some of these towns early on.
He says Atlantic City, Fort Wayne, Green Bay, Olympia.
They all underwent riots and nobody knew about it.
Where are the journalists to come out and say, look at what's happening to small-town America?
Look what's happening in our backyards?
Fortunately, Michael Tracy hopped in a car, drove around, and actually talked to people.
But what about the Daily Beast?
What about Vox?
CNN?
MSNBC?
They don't want you to know it's happening, because then Trump would win back the suburbs.
You see how this is being... That's why they say, you know, Trump is opposing Joe Biden's plans for urbanizing the suburbs, and Trump is desperate to win back middle-aged white women and stuff like that.
Maybe he will.
I don't know what's gonna happen, man.
Everybody's convinced they're gonna win, but I will show you this.
If you live in the suburbs, or you're a city dweller eyeing to move to a quiet cul-de-sac where your kids can play, you need to know about Joe Biden's plan for a federal takeover of local zoning laws.
Biden wants to ramp up an Obama-era social engineering scheme called Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, which barely got started before Donald Trump took office, vowing to stop it.
Biden's plan is to force suburban towns with single-family homes and minimum lot sizes to build high-density affordable housing smack in the middle of their leafy neighborhoods.
Starting in 2015, Obama's Department of Housing and Urban Development bureaucrats imposed a cookie-cutter requirement balanced housing in every suburb.
Balanced meant affordable even for people who need federal vouchers.
Towns were obligated to do more than simply not discriminate.
As HUD's 2013 proposal explained, towns had to make it possible for low-income minorities to choose suburban living and provide adequate support to make their choices possible.
Towns had to scrap zoning, build bigger water and sewer lines to support high-density living, expand schools and social services, and add mass transit, all pushing up local taxes.
Towns that refused would lose their federal aid.
It is very simply the urbanization of the suburbs.
This is the big battle.
I think so.
Because cities are going to vote for, you know, they're going to vote for Democrats.
Rural areas are going to vote for Republicans.
There are some suburban areas that are flickering back and forth, and both sides desperately want to win them over.
Now, you can make your arguments as to why Joe Biden and the Obama administration wanted to urbanize these suburban districts.
Some would say it's to, you know, solve problems.
It would actually benefit people.
And others would argue it's because it would alter the demographics of these areas, of the areas, and thus the politics of them.
And I mean just Democrats in terms of, like, city dweller liberals moving to the suburbs because of, you know, metro lines, spreading out those who live in dense cities.
And there's some positive arguments for this, you know, getting people out of cities.
Sure, I mean, it's happening now because of a lot of factors, notably the riots.
And for whatever reason, some people don't want it.
They want to keep their suburbs as nice, quiet little towns.
And that makes sense, too.
You want a place close enough to the city where you can go into work, but you want to keep your home outside of the noise and the commotion and the pollution.
For whatever your argument may be, I'm not concerned about it.
In the sense that, the point I'm trying to bring up, when you hear about riots, when you hear about law enforcement, when you hear about a wall of moms, it's because they are fighting for control of the suburbs.
And they need those votes to swing in their direction.
Trump knows it.
Democrats know it.
The media knows it.
And that's why they're panicking.
We'll see how things play out.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
We are facing quite possibly the most epic and major media scandal I have personally ever seen.
Breitbart live streamed a press conference from, I believe, a Republican congressman, a bunch of doctors talking about COVID.
It was this press conference.
This live video was taken down from Facebook after around 17 million or more views.
It was removed from President Donald Trump's Twitter feed.
They claim that he was sharing false information.
This is such, I can't even begin to explain how insane this is.
First and foremost, what are we seeing?
Propaganda efforts.
These aren't really doctors.
Well, I can't confirm literally every single person, but I have confirmed, yes, in fact, many of them are doctors.
More importantly, it doesn't matter what the doctors had to say.
Breitbart was live streaming a press conference from a congressman.
That's all.
Trump shared the video.
That's all.
And that was enough for every major big tech platform to take the video down.
So first and foremost, we can talk about who is Facebook, Twitter, or YouTube to decide what is or is not true when it comes to healthcare practices.
If a doctor says it, who are they to take it down?
We've already heard from the CEO of YouTube that if you go against the World Health Organization's recommendations, they will remove you.
Well, who are they?
They're not an American institution.
If the President of the United States wishes to send a message to the American people, advice on their health care, it is not for these social media companies to decide whether or not the President should be allowed to do it.
But I laugh, I laugh.
You know why?
Because I've been talking about this for years, and now we are entering truly uncharted territory.
Guess what?
Big tech companies now get to control what the president can or can't share with the American people.
Now, of course, here come all the lefties saying, actually, Tim, they're just choosing not to amplify his message.
Imagine if 20 or 30 years ago, the president announced he would be giving a State of the Union address, or he decided to address the nation.
And all the big networks were like, well, we're not going to amplify his message.
That would be unheard of.
When the president gives an address to the nation, they speak.
But we're already seeing it.
The media is shutting him down.
This is absolutely a whole new level of insanity.
I do not believe that Twitter, YouTube, Facebook employ doctors to question the veracity of the claims made by these doctors.
But they have removed a message from the President.
Okay, let me slow down.
Let me show you the story as of right now, and then I'll show you... I want to debunk the lies.
I'm going to show you the websites and verification that these people are doctors.
Here's, let me show you the first, actually let me show you this.
Here's Donald Trump's Twitter account.
This tweet is no longer available.
This is the original story.
Watch live frontline physicians aim to dispel massive COVID-19 disinformation campaign.
I'm not going to read through it because YouTube will delete this video if I get too much into it, but it was called like the white coat summit.
It had millions of views.
And let me show you this.
This is the story.
Facebook, Google, and YouTube, Twitter, censor viral videos of doctors, Capitol Hill coronavirus press conference.
You can still find this information at Breitbart.
I can't link it.
I can't display it.
Not on YouTube.
And I know people are already complaining, saying, Tim, just play the video.
No, listen.
If I play the video, you won't hear about it.
Now you can go on Google and search for it and do what you want.
Facebook has removed a video posted by Breitbart News earlier today, which was the top-performing Facebook post in the world Monday afternoon.
A press conference in D.C.
held by the group America's Frontline Doctors and organized and sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots.
The press conference featured rep Ralph Norman, Republican from South Carolina, and Frontline Doctors sharing their views and opinions on coronavirus and the medical response to their pandemic.
YouTube, which is owned by Google, And Twitter subsequently removed footage of the press conference as well.
The video accumulated over 17 million views during the eight hours it was hosted on Facebook, with over 185,000 concurrent viewers.
This is absolutely a violation of Section 230, hands down.
If they want to argue the content itself was objectionable, and thus they have a right to remove it without violating the safe harbor provisions of the Communications Decency Act or whatever, Breitbart was just doing the news.
That's it.
Okay, okay.
You want to come at me and be like, Tim, they're not real doctors and they're giving bad advice?
Sure.
They're just doing the news.
Period.
They were live-streaming someone else's press conference, and guess what?
Other journalists were there as well.
But the video went viral.
The press conference wasn't supposed to get attention.
The media must be controlled, I suppose, so all the big tech companies just shut it down.
Removed.
Imagine this.
Imagine a journalist is walking down the street and they see Donald Trump, you know, on 5th Avenue.
Pull out a gun and shoot somebody and he films it.
Oh man!
The video goes viral.
And then all the big tech companies took it down.
Exactly.
This is a journalistic scandal of epic proportions.
And I've been warning about this, and I tell you now, the journalists are in on it, actively trying to suppress information.
Let me tell you a very funny story.
There's a group called FreePress.net.
Yeah, I used to be friends with some of the people who worked there, because back 10 years ago, 9 years ago, they very much were about protecting the free press for everybody.
And then some weird insanity started to happen.
We started to see, as many of you probably know, with the spread of the culture war, critical theory, intersectionalism, infecting institutions, taking them over.
And now, free press advocates overtly for censorship.
In fact, it's one of their principal causes.
They want to censor people they don't like.
How can this be possible?
That a group called the Free Press would say, our main goal is to censor the press.
They've been completely co-opted and infiltrated.
And the people who work there are spineless cowards.
Or cultists, the least.
This is insane to me.
This is a violation of journalism.
Our abilities as journalists.
And it's been going on for some time.
The live stream had accumulated over 17 million views, they say this.
In terms of viral velocity, the post was beating content from many other prominent accounts on Facebook, including Hillary Clinton, Franklin Graham, and Kim Kardashian.
The event, hosted by the organization America's Frontline Doctors, a group founded by Dr. Simone Gold, a board-certified physician and attorney, and made up of medical doctors, came together to address what the group calls a massive disinformation campaign about the coronavirus.
Norman also spoke at the event.
They go on to make some statements.
If America continues to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a constitutional republic with representative democracy will cease, reads the event's information page.
And here we are.
We've made it.
The president shared this.
Think about it.
The president says, very simply, America, I would like for you to see this.
So what did they do?
They removed it.
Why should they have that power over our president?
That is not good faith.
That is not removing objectionable material.
They are not doctors!
Something needs to be done about this.
We need 230 reform.
We need... Is the president ever going to sue them for violating section 230?
Or I should say, is anyone going to challenge their claim to section 230?
I don't think you can sue over specifically 230, but you would appeal saying you don't qualify for this anymore and therefore we are opening the floodgates and going to... Everyone on Twitter will sue you for what you publish.
The gates have been broken a long time ago.
Where are the lawsuits?
I know some are happening.
I know some are happening.
The event was organized and sponsored by Tea Party Patriots.
Quote, We've removed this video for sharing false information about cures and treatments for COVID-19.
A Facebook company spokesman, Andy Stone, told Breitbart News.
The company did not specify what portion of the video it ruled to be false information, who it consulted to make that ruling, and on what basis it was made.
And is Andy Stone a doctor?
Is Andy Stone the one who's supposed to be giving you medical advice?
Oh, I hope everyone now who might die because Andy Stone is telling you it's fake news.
Sues him because he's the one who said, straight up, that's fake information.
This is the most shocking and alarming thing to me.
That you'd get someone like Neil Cavuto on Fox News or these big tech companies saying, telling people not to listen to their own doctors is psychotic.
Listen to your own doctors.
These are doctors, maybe they're wrong.
You must listen to doctors, period.
Remember all the people who are like, stupid anti-vaxxers?
You need to be listening to what your doctor has to say.
What about these doctors?
What about these doctors who are working right now and would give advice to their patients and say, here's the treatment I prescribe?
And they have already.
Oh, not them, says Andy Stone.
Let's check this out.
Kevin Roos tweeted, the video appears to have been taken down from Facebook.
Let me pop open, we'll get the context on his tweet.
Stone then added, the platform would direct users who had interacted with the post to the information on myths debunked by the World Health Organization.
The World Health Organization is not an American institution.
You cannot be like, we understand that the American Medical Association and the FDA have made rulings on this, but how about you go to France?
No, because when that happened and the French study came out recommending hydroxychloroquine, they said, oh, that's a French study, we need trials here.
And now that we have doctors here saying, hey, hey, here's what we think about this, they're straight up saying, nope, World Health Organization, international institution says, nope, we're gonna ban you.
Neil Cavuto of Fox News said not to, you know, take the president's word for hydroxychloroquine or whatever, because it would kill you.
Neil Cavuto is not a doctor, nor am I. I'm not going to tell you what's real or fake about any of this.
I don't know.
What I can tell you is that when people like Andy Stone, who is also not a doctor, is telling you it's false, when Neil Cavuto is telling you it's false, you are not doctors.
Shut your mouths!
He says, as Mark recently wrote about newsworthiness, a handful of times a year, we'll leave up content that would otherwise violate our policies if the public interest value outweighs the risk of harm.
It being from a publisher has zero to do with it.
Also, one thing to note, we're showing messages in newsfeed to people who have reacted to, commented on, or shared harmful COVID-19 related misinformation that we have removed, connecting them to myths debunked by the World Health Organization.
What gives you the right to supersede the President and American doctors certified in America?
You know, I'm fed up with this.
Matt Gaetz, good dude.
Josh Hawley, right on.
The Republicans that have been challenging what these companies are doing.
Good for you.
Democrats?
Nowhere in sight.
Well, Tulsi Gabbard, actually, she was going to sue, she did sue, and then she gave up her lawsuit.
I believe she was going after Google for suspending her account.
I'm very unhappy with that, to say the least.
Where are the lawsuits?
Where are the legal ramifications for these egregious violations of the president addressing the nation?
Of speech?
Of medical advice?
Who are these people to determine what is or isn't false information?
Andy Stone specifically said, sharing false information.
False information.
That is a statement of fact from Andy Stone that he said that's false.
Okay.
Do we have a defamation, libel, slander?
What do we got here?
Are these doctors gonna come out now and challenge him?
Start suing people!
Facebook's decision to censor the livestream was quickly followed by YouTube.
The video had over 80,000 views on YouTube prior to its removal.
Following Facebook and YouTube's removal of the video, Twitter followed suit, removing Breitbart News' Periscope livestream at the press conference.
Jack Dorsey's platform also then limited the Breitbart News official account, indicating that tweets containing links to multiple stories about the press conference violate the platform's COVID-19 policies.
That is amazing.
Amazing.
Well, here's Kevin Roos.
He says... Let's see what his initial tweet was.
The No.
2 most engaged post on Facebook today is a Breitbart video of a group of doctors claiming that hyersulchloroquine is a cure for COVID and you don't need a mask.
14 million views in 6 hours.
For scale, Plandemic got 8 million in a few days.
The video is also trending on Twitter.
It doesn't seem to be doing big numbers on YouTube, but not having sortable site-wide data makes it hard to know for sure.
Interestingly, the fact that a news organization posted this video may be why it's still up on Facebook.
Breitbart could claim it was just covering a newsworthy press conference, not promoting the views of doctors.
It could claim that's literally what they were doing.
The video appears to have been deleted by Facebook, and a Facebook spokesman says the video was removed for sharing false information.
Now, this one is entirely, entirely on Facebook, simply because this journalist here, who I gotta admit, I know personally and I'm not a fan of, simply because he's telling us about this, I don't believe, is the issue.
However, I've seen it straight up when these journalists will start sending emails asking why they're allowing fake news to exist on the platform in large scale.
Think about it.
If you cover a story, And it gets a lot of traffic.
A journalist.
And Facebook decides we don't like what the story is.
They will remove it.
The free press is dead.
Free speech is dying.
It's almost dead.
We can still speak up to certain degrees, but I would say at this point free speech has been completely crushed.
The Constitution is Swiss cheese as multinational major corporations sell out our interests to international organizations that do not care about you and do not care about me.
I can't believe they actually straight up removed us from the president, but let me show you something.
So, I watched a bit of the press conference, not all of it.
They did say some things I find objectionable.
Absolutely, absolutely.
I'm not a doctor though, so what do you want me to do about it?
What am I going to say?
What am I going to say about what they said?
I can't tell you this.
Here's Dr. Robert Hamilton, one of the doctors.
Bob Hamilton.
According to multiple websites, if you Google him, sure enough, the guy is a pediatrician in Santa Monica.
Looks like he's a real doctor.
You know what people are saying on Twitter?
They're saying they were fake doctors and they're actors.
That's what they're saying.
Conspiracy theories.
This is insane level conspiracy nonsense.
That's their response.
And because they deleted Trump's tweet, you can't fact check it.
That's the point.
They say Trump is lying.
First of all, if the president recommends a medical treatment, You can choose to listen to him or not, but he's the president at the very least.
It's his task force.
He's... It's... Literally, Trump has a task force, which people have been using to get their advice.
Look, man, I'll tell you.
This is one of the reasons, I'll tell you one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of Trump.
Because he seems to have not taken hard enough stances.
Maybe he can't, I don't know.
But why hasn't he dropped a figurative nuke on all of this?
And just, free speech, whatever.
Fire people, get the people you trust, just do it.
Maybe he will if it gets re-elected.
I get it.
Maybe not.
I don't know.
We also have Dr. Mark McDonald, child psychiatrist.
Lo and behold, multiple pages for Mark McDonald.
Tons of videos about it.
And here's his psychology today.
Psychiatrist MD, Mark McDonald.
Do you know what the craziest thing about the video was?
In the video, they actually ultimately just say, you've got to check with Dr. Harvey, what's his name?
Harvey Risch.
M.D.
Ph.D.
That's Risch.
R-I-S-C-H.
Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health.
From Newsweek, the key to defeating COVID-19 already exists.
We need to start using it.
I wouldn't be surprised if YouTube purges this video simply for me sharing a mainstream media story.
Why?
Because this was the crux of the message from those doctors.
When these people say it's fake news, it must be taken down.
Well, Newsweek published it.
You see how the game is played?
I think what we're seeing here more so is them trying to accuse Trump of spreading disinformation on COVID.
It doesn't matter that other doctors and an MD PhD.
Literally telling us that the treatment exists the key to defeating.
I'm sorry Here's what he says as a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently holds senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within mainstream within the mainstream of medicine So have been flummoxed to find.
Then in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support, but for which reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of science have been pushed to the sidelines.
As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily.
Fortunately, the solution can be reversed easily and quickly.
I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine.
When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of the illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin and doxycycline, and the nutritional supplement zinc.
On May 27th, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology entitled, Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic High-Risk COVID-19 Patients That Should Be Ramped Up Immediately as a Key to the Pandemic Crisis.
That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that show the medication's safety.
Take this video down YouTube, do it, because I am done playing games.
If I can't publish a Newsweek article from a medical doctor with a PhD and the professor of epidemiology from the Yale School of Public Health, then I don't know what we can do or say anymore, because this is the epitome of expertise.
And the doctors in the press conference put on Capitol Hill by a Republican congressman saying, take a look at the research from Dr. Harvey Risch.
That's their message.
That's what they said.
Nuked.
Gone.
Why?
Because some journalists were angry?
Because they claim that the World Health Organization should supersede our own MD-PhD from Yale.
Outstanding work.
He says, Since the publication of my May 27th article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit.
In a lengthy follow-up letter also published by AJEA, I discussed these seven studies and renewed my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include an
additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko with zero deaths, four
studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S.
with no deaths, a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil with
significantly reduced risk of hospitalization, and two deaths among 334 patients
treated with hydroxychloroquine, and another study of 398 matched patients in France also
with significantly reduced hospitalization risk.
Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.
And there it is.
Newsweek published this.
Newsweek.
Ace, come on.
You're not going to argue with me that Newsweek is fake news.
Now, Dr. Risch can be wrong.
People are fallible.
Dr. Fauci has been right and wrong about certain things.
But listen, if right now, this story, as of July 23rd, we have MD, PhD, Yale saying, yo, is alright.
What am I supposed to say to that?
Am I supposed to tell doctors they're wrong like Facebook is doing?
YouTube might.
So you know what?
Maybe YouTube will just take this down.
Maybe that's what they'll do.
I wouldn't be surprised.
But I have a line, and so does everybody else, and I imagine we are very, very close to my channel being completely nuked because I would dare read an article from Newsweek.
We'll see how this plays out.
Hopefully, the next segment will be at 1pm on this channel, and I'll see you all then.
It would seem that, quite accidentally or maybe on purpose, the mayor of Portland has basically admitted that the far left is totally under his control, putting out a tweet asking for a ceasefire.
Do you know what a ceasefire means?
It's when two warring parties say, hey, let's stop attacking each other.
So, what is Mayor Ted Wheeler saying?
That he can negotiate on behalf of the far left that is besieging the courthouse?
Perhaps it would seem so.
But it's not just this tweet from the mayor that says to me, yes, the state is totally in alignment with those attacking the federal government.
It's also this story.
Wall of Moms, Black Lives Matter, sue Trump admin over Portland response.
Now, you may be asking yourself, what does that have to do with the mayor?
Well, you see, the thing is, initially, the Attorney General filed a lawsuit, but the judge said that the state has no standing to sue on behalf of the protesters.
So, guess what?
The protesters are now suing.
You see how that works?
Because they have standing.
They are in total alignment.
Now, as to whether Mayor Ted Wheeler actually has control of these people is a whole other discussion, but I believe it's fair to say Yeah, probably there's influence there.
Probably there's some alignment.
But more importantly, the Portland police could shut this down in two seconds.
They refused to do so.
Mayor Ted Wheeler tweeted, Commissioner Joanne PDX and I are calling for an immediate meeting with the Department of Homeland Security leadership on the ground in Portland and with Acting Secretary DHS Wolf to discuss a ceasefire and the removal of heightened federal forces from Portland.
Let me break this down for you.
For two months, for two months, four leftists have marched to the courthouse and attacked it.
And numerous occasions actually breached the courthouse and got inside.
They have injured several police.
Of course, the federal officers have defended the property and gone out on counter-offensives to arrest these violent rioters and try and break up these groups.
The activists use this as a kind of propagandistic physical warfare, where they can attack you, but the media won't show what's really going on.
They'll give you the easily packaged clickbait narrative that makes money.
They know this, they exploit it.
Mayor Ted Wheeler himself has joined in the riots.
Not the rioting, but he's been a part of the group as they've attacked the feds.
Now he's offering up a ceasefire.
How could he do that?
Either he's a moron who's lying and can't actually negotiate on behalf of the far left.
Perhaps he literally can negotiate on behalf of the far left.
Or more importantly, Perhaps he's saying, I could end this whenever I want, but we want to control what you can do.
What would happen if the feds leave this courthouse?
They'd march on in and they'd destroy it all.
I want to show you, outside of just his tweet offering this up, I want to show you a couple other stories.
Judge refuses to issue order reigning in federal agents in Portland.
Court rejects bid by Oregon AG to require feds to identify themselves before whisking suspects from city.
There's a lot more than just this pathetic subtitle.
Basically, what the judge said is that two viral videos showing police detaining people does not a widespread problem make.
The cops can go around with police badges and their badge numbers on their arms, and they can detain people.
They have a legal right to do so.
But more importantly, he ruled they don't have standing.
Okay?
Let me pull up the exact area.
Here's what it says.
U.S.
District Court Judge Michael Mossman rejected the motion, arguing that she did not present enough evidence that future harm would continue at the hands of agents.
The judge also raised doubts about whether the state had legal standing to pursue a suit on behalf of protesters or others who might be targeted by the federal officers.
At the very least, what we're learning now is that they are operating in lockstep with each other.
Wall of Moms.
Black Lives Matter sue Trump admin over Portland response.
They say, members of the group Wall of Moms don't shoot Portland and Black Lives Matter sue the Trump administration Monday over its use of tear gas, rubber bullets and other aggressive means in response to protests in Portland.
You see, what I talked about before was that these people will attack the courthouse, and you all know this by now, and then claim the feds have no right to defend themselves or fight back.
In a nine-count complaint, the plaintiffs accused the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agents of violating constitutionally protected rights, including freedom of speech and protest, and exceeding their law enforcement authority.
The litigation was brought in federal court in D.C.
by several law firms.
It was also supported by the left-leaning group Protect Democracy Project.
Which announced the lawsuit on Twitter a day after President Trump took the platform to announce the participants, blah blah blah, they're saying they're suing.
How convenient that as soon as the judge says, you have no standing, they pick it up.
It's like they drop the torch, they pick it up, and they carry on with it.
Well, we've actually got the police side of things for once, you see.
For the longest time, what have we shown?
On the ground, outside, there have been a couple reports which have actually shown us the perspective of the police, which is very important in understanding what's going on.
A report from an Associated Press reporter showed several officers being injured, having burns, having welts from being shot at with pellet guns, and they're using wrist rockets, I believe, slingshots, essentially, with ball bearings, and talked about what they were doing, why they were doing it, and what was happening to them.
Now I want to read this, but I do want to mention right now, Bill Barr is testifying before Congress about the ongoing riots.
And of course, the Democrats continually say that it's peaceful protests.
None of these things are really happening.
Bill Barr, you're a liar.
You're deploying Trump's secret police to help him get reelected.
Lie, lie, lie, lie, lie.
All lies.
I wonder how much it really matters at this point, because we have gone so far outside of the realm of, can we be good people, what's really happening?
And we've entered the territory of the Democrats and their allies literally don't care about you.
They just want to win.
They want to win.
They want to win.
They want to burn it all down.
They want to win.
It doesn't matter what's really going on.
It doesn't matter that the Feds are being besieged.
It matters that they lie, lie, lie.
You wanna know how I can prove very simply that Nadler, Jerry Nadler, lies?
He told Flecka's talks, personality, when asked about Antifa, he said, that's all a myth.
Today, just before I started recording this segment, Jim Jordan, a congressman, played a video showing all the violence, and Nadler smirked and just kept lying.
Nope, nope, you're violating rights.
Ignore.
He knows it's happening.
He's just lying with a smile on his face.
While businesses across this country suffer, At the hands of these far-left lunatics and besiege the courthouse, Nadler goes, you're just trying to get videos for Donald Trump's re-election by deploying federal agents across the country.
And Bill Barr's like, no, we literally didn't do that.
We did not deploy federal agents to protest.
That never happened.
Lies.
The Democrats just keep lying.
It's all they do.
And you know what the problem is?
The media is more than happy to lie for them.
Yeah, it's a fact.
Let me show you a couple stories.
How about this one?
Richmond riots instigated by white supremacists disguised as Black Lives Matter.
Oh, who had, which one of you had that one on your bingo card?
We all knew this was coming.
Oh, actually, Antifa, it's really, it's white supremacists and they're just pretending to be Black Lives Matter.
That explains it.
Yes.
That explains it.
How would they know they were white supremacists?
They say law enforcement says this.
I'll tell you what.
You know what?
Technically they're correct.
Antifa are white supremacists and they pretend to not be racist, but they're very racist.
That's why in California they're trying to repeal civil rights law.
How about this one?
This one's just so great.
ABC News, mocked for peaceful demonstration intensified report.
That's right!
Peaceful demonstrations intensify!
How does, what does that mean?
Like, the peace, it's so peaceful!
Oh, too much peace!
Help, help!
What does that, what does that mean?
Did people just fall asleep?
That's what happens when peace intensifies?
Everyone just lays on the ground, takes a nap?
And it's really quiet and serene?
No, it was called a violent riot.
The media is more than willing to lie and prop up these Democrats who then smirk with a smile on their face, spew word vomit into your ears while sitting in Congress talking to the Honorable Bill Barr.
Is Bill Barr perfect?
No.
But Bill Barr is doing his job, and as far as I can tell based on the video evidence and reports from on the ground, yeah, he's correct.
You want to argue they shouldn't use tear gas?
Okay.
You want to argue they shouldn't use rubber bullets?
Okay.
But you can't argue That they are defending themselves.
That's literally what's happening.
That they're not defending themselves.
That's literally what's happening.
The feds are on their federal courthouse property with fences up, and the extremists are ripping the fences down and attacking them and screaming.
And you can say, okay, don't defend yourselves.
Well, they gotta do something, right?
Some would argue they have a right to do so.
But Jerry Nadler, The Democrats in Portland now seemingly straight up admitting, well, they're in control the whole time.
You know what?
I talked about this before.
Let me, I want to make sure I drive this point home and show you what he's saying.
Discuss a ceasefire.
Wait a minute.
He has the capacity to negotiate on behalf of these far leftists?
Yes.
Here's how I explained it.
Like a letter of mark.
When these governments, back in the old colonial era, would issue a letter of mark to a privateer or a corsair, who would then go off a private ship, attacking enemies of the crown, and then if they got caught, they'd say, wait, wait, I'm actually working for the king.
Now if they got caught by the enemy, they'd argue, no, no, it's just, you know, they're privateers.
Then these other governments would go to the, you know, like France would go to Britain and say, hey, you have pirates attacking us!
No, no, heavens, they're just private ships!
That way they could feign non-involvement.
We didn't attack you!
That would be war!
Of course not!
The privateers would do it.
And because the privateers could keep some of what they stole, it just depends on... The point is...
What I see with the far left is that the mayor can't actually attack.
He can't order the police to make these attacks.
What he can do is have these black-clad insurgents going out with explosives and weapons and Molotovs, and now apparently loaded magazines, some shots were fired, that he can allow a private group of peaceful protesters.
And he can say, we're just respecting the First Amendment.
But I suppose at some point, he could say, time for a ceasefire.
You know why he wants a ceasefire?
Whether he actually has the power to negotiate one.
Assuming he does because he joined them in the first place, I think he has more control than he's letting on.
Because the Democrats have realized the rioting is bad.
Yep, that's right.
I've covered it several times.
Trump has begun winning the propaganda war.
The riots are now hurting the cause.
So all they can do is claim, actually, it's white supremacists doing it.
says 10 News NBC in Richmond.
It's actually the white supremacists that are doing it.
Or they'll say, well, according to an anonymous source, Donald Trump wanted this to happen.
That's the Washington Post said.
You mean to tell me for 39 nights Trump did literally nothing and then somehow Trump snapped his fingers and just used his powers to pull Antifa on the far left of the courthouse?
How psychotic is this?
Yes, that's right.
Trump has secretly managed to get Antifa to attack him at his own... Is he like Antifa man?
Like Aquaman?
Like he can telepathically control Antifa and force them to attack a federal courthouse?
That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
So for 39 nights, he's not engaging.
They finally breached the courthouse doors.
And now all of a sudden, Trump wants it to happen.
Now all of a sudden, Mayor Ted Wheeler has the capacity to negotiate a ceasefire.
And there it is.
The Democrats know what they're doing.
They were in control.
They thought it was going to help them.
They thought that if they provoked a response from the feds, they would run with the whole Gestapo secret police BS.
Protesters seek to embarrass and defeat Trump catatonic with hate.
This is from Paul Bedard, Washington Secrets Colonist.
Hatred of President Trump is fueling protests in Portland, Oregon, prompting activists to threaten the lives of federal police in hopes of driving them away and handing the White House a major embarrassment, according to an agent who broke the code of silence to describe the situation.
Quote, as the night goes on, the rioters become so hateful it's surreal.
Their voices hoarse, their sentences jumbled, they seem almost catatonic with hate, said the agent of the Portland Clashes that have nearly, you know, for over 60 nights.
A totally surreal experience.
You get large non-violent demonstrations where people march, they chant, they give speeches.
Then shortly after they are replaced by a smaller crowd of those still large who immediately start trying to break in and destroy the federal courthouse.
They have transposed their hatred for the president and for law enforcement onto the physical structure of the federal courthouse and the uniformed personnel whose job is to protect that courthouse, the agent told the Center for Immigration Studies.
The agent assigned to protect Portland's Mark O. Hatfield U.S.
Courthouse talked to the Center's National Security Fellow, Todd Bensman, to reveal the experience of the agents under attack every night.
The situation has played out in several other cities.
President Trump has moved to send federal agents into violence zones to protect federal buildings, leading to support in polls but condemnation for Democrats.
And that's important, and that's true.
Now, I don't know how many cities.
I believe, for the most part, it's just Seattle for now.
Operation Legend is something totally different.
This is Diligent Valor, but I'm not entirely sure if Diligent Valor will extend beyond just Portland, so we'll see how things play out.
Here's a quote.
They throw homemade Molotov cocktails.
Well, Molotov cocktails are basically always homemade, but sure.
Try to set the walls on fire.
Try to cut and pry through the plywood covering the glass walls, all while screaming vitriol under their voices, until their voices are cracked and hoarse.
When DHS personnel are visible, they throw frozen water bottles at them, canned goods, paint, and gasoline.
They try to shine high-powered lasers into our eyes, which can cause permanent damage.
They chant and spray-paint, Feds Go Home, as one of their slogans, and that could be easily achieved if they could prove they wouldn't destroy the courthouse.
DHS personnel would go home, it is that simple.
That's the most important point I've said over and over again.
It is that simple.
If they just leave, the Feds leave too.
The Feds are just on their own property.
That's the lie.
The lie the Democrats would feed you.
As if Trump's, you know, secret police are marching around the cities, snatching people up.
It is just not true.
And the media is all too happy to lie.
Because they're inept, lazy, and they're malicious.
The DHS agent said that hate drives many protesters to rage against the police and the federal agents.
Some of the things screamed at us ad nauseum.
Go home, you're Nazis, racist, the Gestapo, F you, F your mom, you suck, quit your job, go F yourself.
I'm going to get all your F-ing names, the agent told CIS.
The agent added, I'm seeing African American Federal Protective Service inspectors.
20 years law enforcement officer being called the N-word to their face for the first time in their careers by a scrawny, pasty, white, booger-eating communist.
Here, here.
Yeah, I've seen it.
These far leftists are some of the most racist and disgusting people I have ever seen.
No joke.
And I'm not saying some kind of veiled reverse race.
I'm talking about literally hating other people, hating minorities.
So you know what?
That's why I say, yeah, Maybe the Richmond riots were instigated by white supremacists disguised as Black Lives Matter because Antifa are white supremacists, they're overtly racist, and they go in and they start violence.
Maybe that's what they meant.
Meanwhile, said the agent, the police take the abuse until the destruction begins.
The officers stand calmly, listening to it, taking it, only making a move if the rioters try to destroy the property or enter the area they have been told repeatedly not to enter.
The agents don't even respond to thrown projectiles, merely calmly dodging them, said the agents.
Leaving, however, is a lose-lose situation for federal officials.
If federal law enforcement leaves, we lose face, but we walk away with stacks of overtime pay.
And we get to go home.
Portland wins.
They get to say they defeated Trump.
They get to say they have caused tens of millions of monetary loss to their downtown and local businesses and will have ransacked and torched a courthouse in the heart of their city.
And that's the important wrap up here.
What does he say?
I wrap up in the sense of like tying it all together with a nice little bow.
Portland wins.
Wait, wait, hold on.
Why is a federal agent saying Portland would win?
Certainly the extremists and rioters don't represent Portland, do they?
Ah.
You see, at a certain point, everyone understands what's going on.
The federal agents know it is the Portland establishment.
The mayor himself who joined in, who is trying to make this happen and make things worse.
Did you know the mayor tweeted out, I hear people are scared that federal law enforcement may use live ammunition.
Be careful everybody!
That's it.
Now I'm hearing they may not, but just stay cautious.
Why would he tweet that out?
Because he's a part of it.
He is absolutely a zealous fanatic who apparently has the authority to negotiate a ceasefire.
Oh no, what's that Mayor Ted Wheeler?
Did you start to realize that the rioting was making y'all look bad?
And that people were starting to complain and Trump's polling was improving because the riots have been going on for too long?
Uh-oh!
Seems like your operation is starting to fall apart.
Now, let's be real.
Maybe Mayor Ted Wheeler has no authority to negotiate a ceasefire, and what he's really saying is that he'll just send in the police to wrap things up.
The point is, what makes him think he could stop this?
What makes him think he could go to the feds and say, it's time to end this?
What?
I'm curious.
Is the fact that the protesters are picking up a lawsuit that the AG of Oregon just lost?
Why is it that the federal officers who are speaking anonymously are saying straight up, Portland would win if they stand down?
The city is going up against the feds?
Yes.
The governor, the senators, the local politicians have outright and explicitly supported the demands of the extremists to force the feds to leave the city.
And then they'll go in and they'll ransack the building.
What gives Oregon the right to tell the feds they have no jurisdiction on federal property?
We are the United States of America.
We are a single nation comprised of many states.
Now, sure, you can argue the states are sovereign, but the federal government has authority on its own jurisdiction, at the very least.
So what is this?
You tell me what it is when one group of people is fighting violently to overthrow a government, while another group of people is standing up to defend the existence of that government, because that, you call whatever, a revolution, an uprising, an insurrection, a civil war, whatever, man.
But how about you tell me this?
What is it when the state government uses its resources to protect the extremists, the mayor joins the extremists, and the mayor somehow claims to be able to negotiate on their behalf?
What do you call that?
How about we call it Portland literally being the belligerent in this, okay?
And if you're a citizen of Portland and you're supporting this, guess what you're involved to?
Let's have a conversation about what's really going on, because I'll tell you this.
Vox.com compared what's happening in Portland to the Reconstruction era, and Tom Cotton, a senator, compared this to Fort Sumter.
What do you think people are talking about on both sides?
The mayor knows what he's doing, knows what he's in control of, knows who he's supporting, and the only reason he wants to cease fire is because it's hurting the Democrats.
Blah, blah, blah.
We'll see how things play out.
Next segment will be coming up at TimCast.net at 4 p.m., and I will see you then.
Jesse Jackson has penned an op-ed for the Chicago Sun-Times saying, outright, we don't need Trump's thugs in Chicago.
The excuse for sending federal police here is to protect federal property.
The reality is that this is a cynical re-election ploy aimed at earning support for a law and disorder president.
You nailed it, Jesse.
That's right.
Trump's just trying to get re-elected by defending property from violent extremists.
But hold on, hold on.
I gotta admit it, friends.
You know what?
Jesse Jackson is at least correct about one thing.
We don't need Trump's thugs in Chicago.
Well, I don't like the framing.
I wouldn't call them thugs.
They're just law enforcement, so calm down.
But you know what?
As it turns out, hear me out, he's right.
Chicago doesn't need them.
This may come as a general shock to you, actually not, because I probably put the title of the video as something pertaining to what this video is about, but you get it.
Lo and behold, funding the police was all you needed to make crime go down.
You know what?
I'm not a fan of police brutality.
I'm not a fan of the Chicago Police Department.
And I think we need to, you know, be able to hold cops accountable when they do wrong.
Who doesn't agree with that?
But I also recognize cops do a pretty dirty job dealing with the crazies and the criminals and it could be dangerous.
So you know what?
Perhaps cops need better funding.
Perhaps we don't need militarized police.
Perhaps we need cops who get paid well enough And, I don't know, perhaps there's some kind of reform we can enact to deal with accountability in a proper way instead of just stripping away their funding so many of them can't work or eat or have the proper supplies.
But here we go.
Jesse Jackson, you are correct.
Chicago, in fact, doesn't need federal officers because they've launched two new units and violence has already dropped.
How about that?
What's going on over in New York?
All over New York, they got rid of their anti-crime unit, 600 cops were reassigned, and then crime began skyrocketing and activists started begging, please bring back our police.
Well, you know what?
Chicago needs better cops.
I don't know if more cops is the right answer.
Perhaps.
That's what they've, they've launched new police units.
But I'll tell you what, Chicago needs help.
And if the help can come from within, all the better.
Here's the story from Fox 32.
Good old Fox 32.
I remember Fox 32.
Chicago violence drops after two new police units rolled out, officials say.
There has been a reduction in homicides and shooting incidents in Chicago since the city's police force launched two units aimed at combating gun violence and ensuring protests and other large events don't devolve into chaos, police said Monday.
Chicago Police Superintendent David Brown said tenuous progress has been made in the department's efforts to stem gun violence.
There were three homicides over the weekend compared to 12 and 8 the previous two weekends and 17 over the July 4th weekend, Brown said at a news conference.
You know why they want to defund the police?
They want to defund the police so that they can control the new police.
That's the point.
They want morality policing.
They want cops to walk around wearing diversity and inclusion badges to tell you that your microaggression warrants a fine.
What's that?
The clothes you're wearing are appropriating someone's culture?
You're under arrest.
Yes, if you actually want to deal with crime, it's simple.
Fund the police.
That's it.
No, no, no.
They joke, like, re-fund the police, as in, like, fund them again.
No, no, no.
Just fund them.
Just give the police funding.
Militarization, I understand.
We don't need a bunch of fully-armored, combat-ready, you know, like, soldier-looking dudes riding around on APCs.
We need cops to feel like they have the tools they need.
We need them to be able to engage with the community properly.
And I'll tell you what you do need.
What I do like that New York does is community policing.
Perhaps they don't do it well enough, but you need... New York has a group.
It's called, like, the Community Liaison Officers.
You probably... I'm probably getting the name wrong.
But you can use these police for low-tier, you know, incidents.
Petty theft, arguments, quarrels, homeless person, car accidents, etc.
And then you can have other cops for other things.
It's funny because they talk about sending out social workers, and I'm like...
Why not just have, you know, police?
If we've got a violent crime situation, then we'll send out cops the equipment they need.
And if we've got a bickering argument between neighbors, and it's getting kind of heated, and there's a dispute, you can send out the community police.
Well, I'll tell you this.
At the end, I think they're disingenuous in their argument about what they actually want, because as we can see from Chicago, the solution is simple.
More cops.
That's it.
Look at this.
They say the tenuous progress headed by Brown was obvious late Monday when five people sitting on a porch in the Southside Burnside neighborhood were wounded by shots fired from a passing vehicle.
A 22-year-old man was later pronounced dead at University of Chicago Hospital from a gunshot wound in the back.
A man wounded in the buttocks was hospitalized in critical conditions, and three others were hospitalized in good condition.
Earlier Monday, a 10-month-old girl riding in a vehicle... Come on, Fox 32!
From 6 p.m. Friday until midnight Sunday, the department recorded 39 shootings.
That compares to 41 the previous weekend, 50 the weekend before that, and 87 during
the long Independence Day weekend.
Our citywide teams deployed Thursday from the first day helped cover more areas that
have seen spikes in violent crime, Brown said.
While protesters took place in the city over the weekend, none of them turned violent.
You know what?
I was saying before, as a former Chicagoan, it was, the crime there is just, it's ridiculous, okay?
We all know it, everybody knows it, come on.
It's not the worst in the country, you got cities like Baltimore, they could use some help too.
But I was saying, you know what man, if Trump's the only one gonna get the job done, then so be it.
Send in some federal investigators to help stop this crime.
Turns out, They didn't need it.
All they needed was for Trump to say it.
Think about that.
Whether it was Trump's intention or not.
You got to get some credit on this one.
Trump goes, I'm going to deploy hundreds of FBI, DEA, ATF.
It's going to be great.
We're going to have great law enforcement.
Everybody agrees.
And then all of a sudden the mayor's like, whoop, whoop, whoop, whoop.
We're going to launch some police and get the crime down.
They don't want Trump sending in the feds.
It's going to hurt their re-election, hurt the suburbs.
So you know what they're going to do?
They're going to actually do their job for once by Trump threatening to do it.
If they don't, they said, fine, we'll do it.
Think about that.
It seems like, you know, it's like so obvious the solution.
Whatever Trump supports, they oppose, right?
So if Trump comes out and says, I'm gonna send in law enforcement to deal with the crime, they're like, no, we oppose that.
Well, we're gonna send in law enforcement to deal with the crime.
I wonder why they weren't doing it in the first place, but sure.
The Community Safety Team of about 300 officers was deployed to areas that have seen an uptick in violent crime this year on the city's west and south sides.
The other unit comprising about 250 officers is called the Critical Incident Response Team.
Those officers have received training in crowd control And we're deployed to protests and marches around the city.
In the future, that unit will also be deployed to major events such as music festivals and the Taste of Chicago, which is awesome, by the way.
Go to Chicago and check out the Taste if you haven't.
One of the good things I can say about Chicago.
Which have been cancelled this year due to the pandemic.
That I will not stand for.
The pandemic has gone too far!
No, but for real, the taste of Chicago is awesome.
They do the fireworks over the lake.
If you ever want to visit Chicago, that's the time to do it.
And, you know, avoid certain neighborhoods.
He said the development of the Critical Incident Response Team is especially important because it means officers won't need to be diverted from their own communities to police demonstrations and marches.
Every time we have to drain our resources for protests, the people on the West and South sides suffer.
Brown said he hopes the Critical Incident Response Team will help restore public trust in his officers.
Long plagued by a legacy of excessive force and racism, the CPD has struggled to convince residents to trust it enough to come forward with information to help solve homicides and other violent crimes.
The unit is not a roving strike force, he said.
Such units have been criticized in the past for being overly aggressive, and one was disbanded after some of its officers committed robbery.
This is Chicago, dude.
Wait, I gotta read this again.
Wait, wait, wait.
One unit was disbanded after some of its officers committed robberies and home invasions.
That's Chicago, people!
That's why, you know what?
That's why I'm like, bring in the feds, dude!
The roving strike force unit was committing home invasions?
Chicago is not a place I would like to live ever again.
I'm sorry, that's just a fact.
Members of the new unit will instead participate every week in events such as prayer circles, food drives, COVID-19 resource distribution, and other community events, Brown says.
That sounds awesome.
Good on you, Chicago, getting your act together.
I'm glad they disbanded the group of criminal cops who are committing robberies and home invasions.
That sounds so much like Chicago.
I'm sorry, man.
Ah, you know what?
It's hometown pride in being a mob-run town.
It always has been, and probably always will be, and probably still is to this day.
That's what you can get, but I'll tell you what.
Jesse Jackson's argument in the Chicago Sun-Times was actually, in my opinion, really dumb.
Calling Trump's federal law enforcement like brown shirts and other stupid analogies.
No.
Chicago has a history of corrupt cops.
Go look up the story of John Burge.
Yeah.
That'll make you never want to go to that city.
Look up the story.
They got corrupt cops across the board.
They got a lot of good cops.
I've gone, you know, I went on a night crawl.
It's called night crawling where you go around at night and there's crime.
Met a lot of really great cops.
Responding to some really horrific, you know, crimes.
So I can only imagine what these guys go through.
But there's a lot of bad cops.
There are dirty cops.
Chicago's gangland.
It's mobsters.
It's gangs.
You know, that's what Chicago's all about.
If you like the wild, wild west, there you go.
Join the police force over there.
I'm kidding, by the way.
But, uh, look, no.
This is it.
The narrative is defund the police, abolish the police.
The reality is fund the police, create community units, and units specifically for demonstrations and events, and you will actually reduce crime.
How about that?
Was that a surprise to anybody?
But we definitely need accountability.
So maybe this is the right way to go about it.
Specific units might reduce, you know, police malfeasance, and disbanding the guys who are committing crimes certainly seems like a good idea.
But there you go, man.
Fund the police.
Give them the proper funding.
Don't give- Don't overdo it.
Make sure they can be held accountable.
They're people same as everybody else.
And we can see crime go down.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes and I will see you all shortly.
I haven't yet commented on the victory of the Covington kids as it pertains to the Washington Post and CNN as of recent.
But we have a new development!
CNN and Washington Post may be sued again!
Because...
Their employees have breached the terms of the contract, at least according to the lawyer for the Covington Kids.
For those that haven't heard, the Covington Kids, you may be familiar with the story.
Native American dude walks up to the kid, gets in his face, the media lies, and said the kid got in his face, and then everyone attacks the kid, and the kid was just like, what's going on?
Well, the kid sued for like $250 million each.
And there's a couple other outlets that are being sued as well, and other individuals.
CNN and the Washington Post settled for an undisclosed amount.
We don't know.
We won't know.
However, I will tell you this.
The Covington kids did not receive, or I'm sorry, Nick Sandman, this one kid, did not get 500 plus million dollars.
Settling a lawsuit for 250 million dollars does not mean he got 250 million dollars.
I'll tell you what most likely happened, and some lawyers have pointed this out.
Thus is the crux of this story.
That he probably got paid a nuisance fee.
Meaning, most of the cases were dismissed, a judge upheld some of them, and they were going to move to discovery.
That is a nightmare and a threat to the credibility of these institutions, so they probably paid him a little bit more than nuisance fee, I'll tell you what.
A lot of these lefty lawyers are like, he probably got paid $50,000 just to go away because the lawsuit would have been more expensive.
In my opinion, not a lawyer, I think it was probably a little bit more because if they went to discovery, that could be seriously damning.
If there were emails or communications that would be released throughout the court process, People are going to pay to avoid that.
Which means they had a little bit more leverage than just, we expect to lose and we're wasting your time.
That's the argument from the left.
They were wasting their time.
I think Sandman and the lawyer were thinking, no, we'll go to Discovery.
We'll see what their communications say about these kids.
And it could prove they're anything but credible journalists.
We may still lose, but at least we'll get to figure out what their thought process was.
And so they said, what do you want?
Probably got a little bit more.
Well, here's what happens.
According to the suit, apparently, CNN and Washington Post employees or otherwise are not allowed to reveal any information about the settlement at all.
No one's supposed to know what that number is.
And that's because the news organizations don't want to reveal that they ended up paying out a substantial sum.
And Sandman and his lawyer don't want to reveal they didn't actually get a whole lot of money.
So there's a vested interest from both sides to make sure nobody knows anything about the payouts.
Well, this brings us to the latest story.
Covington Catholic teen's lawyer threatens to take CNN and the Washington Post to court again after journalists, including Brian Stelter, tweeted speculation about the settlement in his $250 million lawsuit.
More importantly, when it comes to Brian Stelter of CNN, He specifically retweeted someone saying he got $50,000.
Okay, that is... Yes.
Look, we put in our Twitter profiles, retweets are not endorsements.
Everybody does that.
I don't know if they still do it.
But the idea is I can retweet someone without saying, I agree.
I want you to see this, right?
The problem is Brian Stelter is an employee of CNN who probably has privy to information pertaining to the lawsuit.
And by retweeting this, most people would say he wouldn't want you to see it unless it was true, to some degree.
Unless, of course, Brian Stelter is a liar and wants to send to you disinformation that would confuse you.
Well of course Brian Stelter is nothing but a credible and honest reporter in which case he must be showing us information that is pertinent and relevant to this case in which Brian Stelter then shared information which he probably believes is true at least that's what you know someone could he's sharing information he's amplifying it so that you can see this message CNN didn't lose nothing oops let's read a little bit So we know about the lawsuit, we get it.
Let's move, they say.
Let's move down.
Wood first called out Stelter on Twitter on Monday afternoon, after spotting a post the Reliable Sources host had retweeted from attorney Mark Zaid, who speculated about how much money Salmon walked away with.
Those with zero legal experience, as far as I can tell, should not be conjecturing on lawsuits they know nothing about.
What kind of journalism is that?
Good point.
That's why I always say, not a lawyer!
Not a lawyer.
I've litigated defamation cases.
Sandman was undoubtedly paid nuisance value settlement and nothing more.
Well, I'll defer to Mark Zaid, but I do think he's biased.
For sure.
But I also think it's fair to point out, Discovery could be a much more... Well, maybe that's what he's saying.
Discovery is a nuisance as well.
Sure.
Wood shared a photo of the retweets, writing, This retweet by Brian Stelter may have cost him his job at CNN.
It's called breach of confidentiality agreement.
Brian Stelter is a liar.
I know how to deal with liars.
The attorney made the same attack on CNN analyst Asha Rangappa, who had responded to Zaid's tweet about the settlement by writing, I'd guess $25K to go away.
In a retweet of Rangappa's post, Wood wrote, Is that what he said?
Was there a typo in this?
He says, uh, is going to filing.
Yeah, there's a typo.
Is going to be filing.
filing another lawsuit and reveal the truth.
Is that what he said?
Was there a typo in this?
He says, uh, is going to filing.
Yeah, there's a typo is going to be filing.
Well, there it is.
These CNN employees may have absolutely breached the contract.
I don't know what the contract, I don't know what's in it.
I don't work for any of these companies, nor am I affiliated in any way with Sandman and his lawyer, but that sounds about right, because part of the speculation from Mark Zade himself was that he says in this thread, or I'm sorry, there's another person called Reliable Lawyer, and he says, the agreement, like most agreements, probably says neither side or their affiliates can in any way reveal any information about the monetary amount.
By speculating.
Asha Rangappa literally did that.
And by sharing this thread, Brian Stelter literally did that.
Because, for one, the thread from Mark Zade, which Brian Stelter is amplifying, does speculate as to the amount of money being given, and makes it look, the argument is, they didn't actually win.
Asha Rangappa actually said a hard number.
I'd guess.
You'd guess?
I wonder how you would be able to guess that.
Do you have information?
I don't know.
Do you have inside information from CNN staff?
Oh, she might.
And thus, I'm sure Ellen Wood could easily just argue her guess is based off of information known only to CNN personnel.
Therefore, she has just given credence in violation of, you know, our confidentiality agreement.
Wood also dragged post reporter Dan Zak in the fray by sharing a photo of a since-deleted tweet.
And there it is.
Dan Zak deleted the tweet.
I'm sure they went to him and said, you gotta get rid of that.
You can't do this.
Uh oh.
Too bad.
He'd written about the outlet settlement over the weekend.
Check this out.
Dan Zak said, I didn't know, but it makes sense that the post did.
You settle for a small amount without admitting fault because there was none in order to avoid a more expensive trial that you would nonetheless win.
It is, you might say, the American way.
Well, he deleted this tweet.
I wonder why.
A spokesperson for the Washington Post has since said that Zack's tweet was taken down because it had no basis in fact.
And there we go.
Dan has no knowledge about the agreement.
Oh!
Looks like LLinwood is right!
These employees can't help themselves!
They're such egotistical narcissists!
They can't shut up to save their own lives!
Figuratively, of course.
It takes me back to the old lawsuit with Sargon of Akkad.
You remember this?
Sargon of Akkad got sued by Akela Hughes, and she could not keep her mouth shut.
She went on Twitter, she was spitting and yelling, oh, I'm gonna make so much money, Sargon's so dumb.
And then Sargon said, can't talk about it, guys, sorry.
Can't say anything.
Sorry.
And then Sargon won.
And now he's suing for court fees because he won and she still just won't shut up.
Any good lawyer worth their weight is gonna tell you, stop talking.
Stop.
Oh, they can't help it though.
So the spokesperson for the Washington Post says, its post has no basis in fact.
He has no knowledge of the agreement because they are desperately trying to distance himself from what he said and he deleted it.
Because it does have basis, in fact, and they know it.
And by asserting it doesn't, they're trying to defend themselves because another lawsuit is likely coming for breach of agreement, and they're gonna have to pay him out again!
Glenn Greenwald pointed out, Jon Stewart pointed it out, that they're so egotistical, they take everything personally and they won't shut up.
They can't do it.
It's just an easy game to play.
And a series of related tweets over the course of this afternoon would pledge to take legal action against CNN and The Post if they refuse to fire the offending journalist.
If CNN does not fire Brian Stelter, I will be okay with a good butt spanking, which will teach him not to ever again falsely speculate on confidential settlements.
Wow.
He wrote a post.
Take him to the woodshed, CNN.
They're not going to fire Brian Stelter.
They're not.
They're going to go to Ellyn Wood and say, how much do you want?
How much more do you want?
The problem is the best part.
This is the best part.
The blue-checked journalists at these companies will still not be able to keep their mouths shut.
I'm sorry, they won't.
So even if CNN settles with him, they're gonna have more of these dumb people being like, oh, whatever, I'll say what I want, and CNN's gonna be like, no!
Stop!
And then they'll have to start firing people.
Oh, it's like a toilet swirl down to oblivion, huh?
They're not gonna fire Brian Stelter.
They're gonna offer up Nick Sandman a little bit more money.
Probably, you know, several thousand more dollars, maybe more.
Because I'll tell you what, while perhaps he doesn't have a strong case as it pertains to the defamation, perhaps it would have been a long drawn-out trial and he would have won only a small amount, I'm pretty sure he has a very clear victory when it comes to breach of confidentiality according to the other contract, so now he has a clear victory.
In which case, I don't know what he'll reignite the case for, but...
They say Sandman also laid into Stelter, tweeting, I can't decide if it's worse to be Brian Stelter or believe Brian Stelter.
He was never in any court hearing or meeting I was, so why does he act like he knows anything?
It's unclear whether Woods' threats would hold up in court, given the tweets from Stelter, Zak, and Rangappa are all speculative and in no way indicate that they had knowledge of the settlements.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't.
If they didn't have knowledge of the settlements, it's unlikely that Wood could make the case that they breached confidentiality.
Sure, perhaps.
I'm not a lawyer.
But I would at least say the argument is, they work within the company, likely have talked to some people, they have knowledge of what the company is doing, and their speculation breaches confidentiality.
I'd be willing to bet Because several of these lawyers said this, the agreement probably covered their affiliates.
CNN knew their own staff couldn't talk about it.
Okay, okay.
Maybe it's a big nothing burger and we'll see how it plays out, but it's fun to think about, right?
No one's gonna get fired.
If anything happens, they'll get a quick, you know, extra little bit of cash or something.
We'll see how it plays out.
I got one more segment coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
I'd like to conduct a poll with all of you.
My poll is this.
Do you think the polls are trustworthy?
And then, no matter what you say, I'm going to say 92% said no because I can do whatever I want.
It's my poll.
I can publish whatever I want.
I'm joking.
The point is, it looks like the polls are acting all weird.
They did last time.
They seem to be now.
And I gotta say, a lot of these polling institutions that I normally trust, I'm calling them into question.
Check this out.
From Gallup.
Fewer Americans identifying as conservatives, more as liberals, since outbreak began.
I can't believe this.
I really can't.
I know too many people who have walked away.
Too many.
And there's literally a walk-away campaign.
Brandon Strzok, you may know the guy.
He's very famous now, in the MAGA world especially, because he's the creator of walk-away.
He was a Democrat, he walked away, now he's a Republican.
I think he's a Republican.
I'm pretty sure most of the people who walked away consider themselves to be conservative or Republican.
But maybe that's it.
Maybe that's it.
Maybe people don't really identify as conservative, but they don't identify as far left.
Maybe liberals are standing up against this, but I just don't buy it.
Because I'll tell you what, if I saw somebody walk away from the Democratic Party and now hang out with conservatives, they'd probably start considering themselves to be conservative.
So at least you'd see the numbers stay the same.
What could have happened that would make people all of a sudden not conservative?
I guess there's a lot of people who, you know, all of a sudden are out of work, need welfare?
You know, like some kind of unemployment check, and now they're like, okay, maybe that was wrong, maybe they need healthcare?
Maybe that's changing their view of things?
Perhaps.
Or maybe it's all just bunk polls.
Let me read a little bit of this, but then I want to show you, I got some proof that there's some poll shenanigans afoot.
Well, let's just pull up Gallup.
I'm not going to read what they have to say.
in Americans identifying as conservative and a rise in those identifying as liberal since February
as President Trump and Republicans in Congress have struggled in the polls amid the pandemic.
Let's just pull up Gallup. I'm not going to read what they have to say.
U.S. conservatism down since the start of 2020. Here we can see in this graph,
those identify as liberal has gone up.
Those that identify as moderate has gone up.
And those that identify as conservative has gone down.
Interestingly, we've got in March and April, 37% were conservative to May, June's 36.
So it's not the biggest swing in the world.
But from March and April to May and June, liberal has gone up three points.
So let's take a look at this.
What is their poll from May and June?
Let me tell you something.
I'm willing to bet it has something to do with the Black Lives Matter protests, and I'm willing to bet this will swing around the other way if they factor in all of the rioting that's taken place.
They say, in January and February, an average of 40% of Americans identified as politically conservative.
This was up from 37 in 2019 and was tied for the highest rate of conservatism Gallup had recorded in the past six years.
This coincided with President Donald Trump being acquitted of impeachment charges.
It also came amidst strong positive economic signals in the form of near-record low unemployment and the Dow Jones Industrial Average reaching record highs.
Nevertheless, the percentage of Americans identifying as conservative reverted to an
average of 37 in March.
It fell further to 34 in May and June as the pandemic wore on.
Trump's job approval rating has tumbled and the racial justice movement emerged as a national
Because the latest polling from Rasmussen has good news for Donald Trump.
Now I can't speak to what it means to be conservative or whatever.
I consider myself to be moderate over the past several years.
I probably would have considered myself to be liberal several years ago.
I did actually.
Now I would just say moderate.
There you go, what can I say?
But I find it hard to believe that people would change their political position based on all of these factors.
Like, maybe the pandemic really did hurt them, but I have to imagine the rioting would make people conservative like crazy, right?
I mean, war and violence and fear and panic does, doesn't it?
Maybe they're just missing July.
Maybe this isn't getting into, you know, I don't know if they have the dates of when they actually did the, they say May-June.
So maybe the second half of June and into July will show more people becoming conservative.
Or maybe that's just not the case.
Maybe the conservatives are losing.
Or maybe people don't want to identify as conservative.
Maybe Black Lives Matter really does have a profound impact.
I'm not sure.
I'll tell you this, though.
I don't believe it.
I don't believe the polls.
I'd be willing to bet, based on the far-left insanity and intersectionalism, it could be that it's spreading and people are adopting it, so they're choosing to identify this way.
But I'd be willing to bet if 62% of people, according to Cato, say they're uncomfortable expressing themselves, then this is actually incorrect.
Or maybe this proves Cato is incorrect?
I don't know.
It's hard to know which polls to trust, right?
We can't just pick and choose.
That would be a biased data set.
So I'll just tell you this.
I don't know.
Here's the data.
Take it for what you want.
But let me show you something.
Let me show you something that really, really made me angry.
Here's Rasmussen Report's daily tracking for Donald Trump's approval.
We can see.
On the 22nd, 49 approve, 50 disapprove.
The 23rd, 49 approve, 49 disapprove.
It was tied.
On the 24th, it was also tied.
On the 21st, we'll start from the 22nd.
I used the RealClearPolitics average.
Let me show you.
President Trump's job approval.
RealClearPolitics average.
This is what I use because I believe that tracking the average is the better way, the average over the past month, to get a clearer picture of whether or not people are happy with Trump.
One poll could simply be static.
Okay?
So, there are polls where it shows a huge spike and a huge drop.
You know, look at this.
We've got some that say minus 18, some that say minus 9.
I'm not sure how much I can believe each individual that have a wide swing like that.
You add them all together, you get an average.
There you go.
Take a look at Rasmussen Reports listed here.
It says 723 to 727 minus 9.
Whoa!
Minus 9.
Well, that's not okay.
I mean, that's bad news for Trump.
Well, that's not okay.
I mean, that's a bad, bad news for Trump.
Here's the thing.
A week or so ago, when I was using this poll, you may have seen it, it said, tie.
It was one of the best polls Trump has had ever.
Because he's been underwater basically the entire time.
I mean, look at this.
Trump's approval rating right now at 42.4.
It's actually been around there many times.
In fact, his whole first year was way lower in the high 30s.
So this is actually not the worst he's ever been.
It's actually kind of average.
But I saw that he had recipes in saying he was tied.
So I went to Rasmussen, and lo and behold, we can see.
On the 23rd and 24th, he did have a tie.
On the 27th, however, he was down 6 points.
Rasmussen... I'm sorry, uh, RealColorPolitics changed the number.
So instead of saying he was tied, they said he was down 6.
Right now, it says on the 23rd to the 27th, he's down 9 points.
But that's not true.
They're not adding up those poll numbers.
That's incorrect.
Maybe I just don't understand how RealClearPolitics does their average, but I will tell you this, if that's the case, how can it be that if you say date, the 23rd of the 27th gives you minus 9, whereas if you were to add the 23rd, the 24th, and the 27th together, you would not get 45%.
and the 27 together, you would not get 45%.
You'd get like 47 or 48% because if you averaged it out.
So what does this number really mean?
Nothing.
It means they're wrong.
It doesn't make sense.
If they want to put the current date, fine.
My other question is, why did they erase the other poll?
You see?
If Rasmussen is doing polls every day, then it makes sense perhaps.
They don't want to put every daily tracking poll in their average because it would be too many.
So perhaps it makes sense then to average out Rasmussen's daily tracking and give us the number.
If that's the case, minus nine is wrong.
The real clear politics average of Trump's approval rating is incorrect based on this already.
So if you want to come out and tell me, here are the polls, here's what they say, I'll counter with this.
We have no idea anymore.
And maybe it's intentional, maybe it's not, maybe the polls have always been broken.
But keep in mind, they use a methodology.
They use a certain amount of registered or likely voters.
You know, 3,744 registered voters, 1,104 registered voters.
We don't know if they're choosing the right amounts.
Rasmussen says they use, like, 35 Republican and, like, you know, 31 Independent and 37 or whatever.
I don't know what the exact numbers are, but they try to even them out so that you're getting a sample that shows an even number of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents.
Many of these polls over-sample Democrats.
If that means you take 100 people, You get 50 Democrats, you get 30 Republicans, and then you get, you know, 20 Independents.
And you're gonna have 50 people say Trump is bad, 30% of people say Trump is good, and then a mix of the Independents.
So they'll be like, wow, look at all the people who hate Trump!
And then they'll say, according to our poll, 50% say Trump is the worst!
Well yeah, 50% were Democrats, of course they said that.
You need to get a fair sampling.
There are arguments the methodology works, that's why it's right.
I'll tell you this.
Politico reported on it.
The New York Times has talked about it.
They can't actually track the Trump supporters properly, and they know it.
All of these polls have been unable to actually find, actually get in contact with a fair number of non-college educated white voters.
So the polls are absolutely wrong.
I don't know what that means.
Maybe Trump will still lose.
Maybe they're still kind of on point.
Maybe the margin of error is only 3% or something.
That's a huge margin, though.
But I will tell you this.
Rasmussen reports, as listed on RealClearPolitics, is wrong.
It's one day.
If they're going to put only the latest day and remove the other days that had Trump doing really, really well, they are skewing his overall average approval down.
And I think that's bunk.
We'll see how things play out in November, though.
I'll tell you what we're gonna get.
I'm sorry, it's just the case.
You're gonna see me and everybody else saying, like, here's the latest news, here's the latest news, here's the latest polls.
And I'll always just try to remind you, these polls are nuts, man.
You know, they're all over the place.
Are there more conservatives?
I'd bet yeah!
But maybe not, man.
Maybe people really are spreading this new religion.
