Trump Suggests Delaying The Election Causing Democrats To Freak Out, But Technically Trump COULD
Democrats reacted one of two ways to Trump's tweet.They either panicked and said that Trump is a dictator trying to seize power or they laughed and said Trump was desperate.But many news outlets are arguing, without evidence, that there is no evidence that mail in voting would create problems and that Trump does not have the power to delay and election.The reality is that under Directive 51 Trump could potentially have this power and it has been raised several times in the past. Created by Roger W Bush leftists were shocked by the brazen powers granted to the president in certain events.But once Obama got elected no one seemed to care that this power existed. Now that Trump is president perhaps they might start to regret ignoring the directive for so long.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This morning, Donald Trump tweeted out a warning that because of widespread mailer voting, this would be the most inaccurate and fraudulent election in US history.
He then went on to suggest delaying the election until people can vote safely and securely.
Naturally, Democrats started started to freak out in one of two ways.
Either they were panicking, saying that this is it.
Donald Trump is a dictator.
He's going to try and delay the election.
We knew this was happening.
In fact, Joe Biden warned about this several months ago.
And other Democrats and leftists started laughing, saying, ah, Donald Trump is truly desperate.
The only reason he would suggest delaying the election is because he knows he's going to lose and this is his last ditch effort.
And I think many Trump supporters and people on the right actually got this one correct when they said Donald Trump woke up, was, you know, half glazed eyes looking at his phone and just started mashing the keys and asked a question about delaying the election.
He never said he was going to do it.
He just asked the question.
And of course, the media went insane because let's be real, Donald Trump could tweet a gibberish word.
He literally has and it becomes an international news story and earns itself a Wikipedia entry.
But fine, because everybody is so obsessed with every little tweet from the president and because real questions are being raised.
I say we actually dig into this.
Can Donald Trump actually Delay the election?
Well, of course many journalists are saying no, and I believe it's fair to say they're technically wrong.
You know what I realized from a lot of these stories about Trump raising the idea of delaying the election?
Is that many journalists don't actually, I don't know, use Google.
They don't do any research, even the most rudimentary research, and they don't consider the context or historical context as to whether or not Trump could delay an election.
And technically, he can by using Presidential Directive 51.
Now, there's some arguments as to whether he actually could or couldn't do this, but I think it's fair to say, based on past articles and the information, I can actually show you that we do have a pretext for an extremely authoritarian measure The executive branch could carry out.
Now, of course, I don't think Trump is actually going to do this.
I don't think the election is going to be delayed.
But I'll tell you what, man, we are in an unprecedented time.
The economy is collapsing.
GDP dropped like, what, 33 percent or some ridiculous number.
We're seeing 180 something thousand deaths in this country from COVID.
That one's a little complicated.
Well, I'll explain this later.
The point is, Presidential Directive 51 gives the President extreme authority over the other branches, and we've basically already met the prerequisites for him to invoke Presidential Directive 51.
Now I know, it's a very paranoid, you know, Idea that the president would try to enact a national continuity coordinator invoking this directive, giving him essentially authority over the other branches.
I don't think it would happen, but let's be real.
George W. Bush did create this.
It does basically give the president the power, and Trump could argue the mass casualties around the world from COVID in the United States and the devastation to the economy grant him the authority to do so.
So let's stop playing silly games.
Trump woke up this morning.
He tweeted out some nonsense like he often does.
Everybody needs to calm down.
When he actually does something, we can freak out.
But hey, sure, let's entertain the idea.
And I'll push back on some of these journalists saying Trump can't do this, along with many other Democrats saying the same thing.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash Donut if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give, but the best thing you can do is actually subscribe to my channel.
You know, half the people, maybe you, who watch my videos don't actually subscribe.
If you want to make sure you get all of my videos every day at 4pm, hit that subscribe button, hit the like button, and the notification bell.
And if you'd like to really help, just share the video so other people can see it.
Here's the story from the hill.
Trump raises idea of delaying election 44,769 shares. Wow.
They say Trump on Thursday suggested delaying the 2020 elections, something he does not have the
power to do unilaterally as he levied fresh attacks against mail-in voting. Now, I also want to
make sure I point out as we get into this mail-in voting is broken.
The media is absolutely lying endlessly because they're desperate to try and push mail-in voting through.
I'm going to show you the evidence that mail-in voting is broken as well.
And Trump, he's right about this.
Now, I don't know if we can predict that it will be the most inaccurate or fraudulent, but I do think it's fair to point out we are in for a wild ride because of mail-in voting.
They say Trump, who is badly trailing presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in national polls, framed the suggestion as a question and argued that with more mail-in ballots, there would be more fraud.
Now, that is an overt fact, period.
There's no argument about this, okay?
2012, from the New York Times, error and fraud at issue as absentee voting rises.
All of a sudden now, all of these journalists are like, no, mail-in voting is fine, when for years, They have been saying the margin of error failure rate for mail-in voting is extremely high relative to in-person voting.
They then go on to say, there is no evidence to support the idea that either absentee or mail-in ballots increase voter fraud.
It also does not appear that there will be universal mail-in voting this fall, though some states require mail-in ballots.
All right, all right.
They're going to make me do it.
How about I, how about I pull this up?
Yet votes cast by mail are less likely to be counted, more likely to be compromised, and more likely to be contested than those cast in a voting booth.
Statistics show.
Election officials reject almost 2% of ballots cast by mail, double the rate for in-person voting.
The New York Times, October 6, 2012.
But sure, The Hill, there is no evidence to suggest mail-in voting is busted or broken.
Dude, 2% of votes?
You know how big that's gonna be?
It's gonna be millions of votes.
Trump won some states by thousands of votes.
Stop playing games.
Here's what Trump tweeted.
With universal mail-in voting, not absentee voting, which is good, 2020 will be the most inaccurate and fraudulent election in history.
It will be a great embarrassment to the USA.
Delay the election until people can properly, securely, and safely vote?
Well, In response to this, we got a trend.
President Pelosi.
Because people started saying, well, if Donald Trump, you know, doesn't get reelected because there's a delayed election on January 20th, it goes to the next in line, which would be the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi.
She would become president because Trump would be forced to vacate the White House.
Technically.
But no.
If Trump really wanted to, he could do basically whatever he wants thanks to your pal George W. Bush.
Now, to be honest, it's not even necessarily George W. Bush.
There's something called Presidential Directive 51, which I believe you could argue Trump could invoke if he wants to.
I'll get to that in a second.
But let's move here.
I want to show you this.
Don't let it happen, says Reuters.
Democrats, including Biden, have already begun preparations to protect voters and the election amid fears that Trump will try to interfere with the November election or dispute results, particularly if the final result is delayed by late arriving mail-in ballots.
They're straight up telling you what's going to happen.
Both sides have been doing so.
Both sides are accusing each other of cheating, and they're both kind of preparing for what they think Trump or the other will do.
Notably, Biden is saying there's going to be potentially late-arriving mail-in ballots.
This is going to be a nightmare, an absolute disaster of an election.
No one's going to trust it.
Missing ballots, missing votes.
How is anyone going to know their vote was actually counted?
An experiment done, I believe by CBS, found that 3% of the dummy votes they sent went missing.
In fact, all of the votes went missing initially, and they had to argue with the post office to try and figure out where they went.
They did an experiment where they mailed in a bunch of fake ballots.
All of them disappeared.
Finally, after talking to a manager, they found the stack, and 3% were missing.
That is a massive margin of error.
We'll see how things play out, but they say, Polls have shown that U.S.
registered voters oppose the idea of election delay.
When Reuters, Ipsos and April asked voters if they thought the election should be rescheduled due to the coronavirus, 59% opposed the idea, including a majority of voters in each party.
A sitting president is peddling lies and suggesting delaying the election to keep himself in power, said Democratic Rep.
Dan Kildee.
He's writing on Twitter.
Look how triggered these people get because the president woke up and lazily tweeted a question about delaying the election.
He didn't even say he was going to do it.
He could have been asking this, suggesting that Congress do it.
Because apparently the power falls with Congress to actually delay an election if they do.
Apparently we've never done it.
But Trump didn't even say, I will do this.
He said, should we?
And a bunch of people said, no.
But of course now they'll take it to the most extreme possible and say, oh, Trump's trying to cheat an election.
Sure.
Check this out.
And July 18th, Joe Biden says he receives briefings warning of Russian and Chinese election interference.
Here we go.
Both sides have now argued there could be foreign interference.
Of course, when Trump says it, the media freaks out and says Trump, with no evidence, suggests that the foreigners will interfere.
Well, Joe Biden said they're literally doing it, too.
What's the context?
The way in which they interfere?
Spare me, dude.
They're both saying the same thing.
And along comes Rep Nadler and Tim K. Nadler says, let's be clear, Trump does not have the ability to delay the election.
Our elections are enshrined in the Constitution.
The Constitution also says that if the date of the election is to be changed, it must be changed by Congress.
That's fantastic, except you're ignoring the fact that when George W. Bush signed Presidential Directive 51, Congress was unable to do anything about it.
Now, it could be challenged, perhaps, if Trump does try to invoke it, but if Trump invokes it, he'll just... he'll have done it!
This is a problem with not holding the different branches accountable.
Don't come and cry now when you've been in office for decades and never did anything about it.
Here we have Tim Kaine saying, A president cannot delay an election.
The date of the election is established by Congress.
It was established in 1845.
There is no ability for a president to delay an election.
Well, back in, I believe, April, Trump shoots down allegation he may delay election day.
Calls suggestion propaganda.
He still hasn't even done it.
He simply asked the question.
The allegation he may delay it.
Now they're all freaking out.
How obvious was that?
Here's one I love.
From Vox.
No, Trump can't delay the election.
The law is very clear about this.
They've been going to say with this.
They've been going to say this.
Let's deal first with Trump's claim that universal mail-in voting will somehow lead to inaccurate or fraudulent results.
There is no evidence whatsoever supporting this claim.
Do we really have to do this over and over again?
Let me tell you something.
To the people who only get their news from Vox.
Isn't it enough that I've shown you a source from the New York Times from 2012 saying, yes, as we expand mail-in voting, it gets worse?
Is that not enough?
There's still no evidence?
These people aren't journalists.
They're just making things up.
Universal mail-in voting refers to a practice where states automatically mail a ballot to all registered voters within the state.
A ballot that can then be cast by mail or returned in person to various polling sites.
According to the Brennan Center for Justice, seven states—California, Colorado, Hawaii, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington—are vote-by-mail states.
Vote by mail is not a new practice.
They go on and explain, blah, blah, blah.
Yes.
Yes.
It can lead to problems.
So let's, let's, okay, first of all, we're going to deal with what Vox is saying.
No, Trump can't delay the election.
I will play that game and argue, as I said, I think he can.
We'll see.
I'm not a lawyer, mind you.
Well, let's do this.
July 13th.
Signed, sealed, undelivered.
Thousands of mail-in ballots rejected for tardiness.
That's right.
If the New York Times in 2012 wasn't good enough, how about July 2020 from NPR, where they mention, an NPR analysis has found that in the primary elections held so far this year, at least 65,000 absentee or mail-in ballots have been rejected because they arrived past the deadline, often through no fault of the voter.
And there it is.
Can we be done with the lies from these other media outlets and Democrats that there's no evidence to suggest mail-in voter fraud will lead to problems?
Donald Trump is right.
Mail-in voting widespread will create very serious problems.
I don't understand how this is so hard for many of these leftist news organizations, journalists, pundits, and Democrats, when you have prominent and high-profile news outlets saying, prepare for absolute chaos.
We have this, as I showed you from 2012, error and fraud at issue as absentee voting rises.
But if that wasn't enough, how about the New York Times from July 17th, 2020?
Three weeks after primary, New York officials still can't say who won key races.
Tens of thousands of absentee ballots in New York are still uncounted, and many races have yet to be called.
What will November look like?
538 said in April, few states are prepared to switch to voting by mail.
That could make for a messy election.
Are we done here?
All right.
Let's talk about why people want mail-in voting and the crisis that we're facing and the power that Trump does have, which could give him the ability to do a whole bunch of crazy things.
So, as most of you know, right now we have around 150,000 or so COVID deaths in the United States.
This is, I would consider to be a catastrophe, right?
Now, many people have blamed Donald Trump, but to be fair, the Democrats played a huge role in this.
The governors, particularly Andrew Cuomo, Bill de Blasio, and many other states that reacted too late, told people to go out or put sick patients into nursing homes.
In fact, very early on, we saw this from New York in April.
It's tragic, man.
It's scary.
day. A New York pandemics coronavirus diary, senior paramedic Anthony Alma Hera describes
what has now become a typical day for medics in a war with an invisible bullet.
As New York State records 777 deaths in a day. It's tragic.
It's tragic, man. It's scary.
So I can understand why many people don't want to vote in person. But putting that aside,
I want to make sure it's clear. Vote by mail will lead to very serious problems. And we
are dealing with a catastrophe, which I'm I'm bringing up on purpose to show you this.
Now, I'm going to go ahead and do a quick test.
National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive.
I've talked about this a bit in the past, but it needs to have a more... It's not going to be a comprehensive deep dive, but I want to show you what the left was saying when this was signed into... I don't know how you say it.
Signed into law?
I don't know.
It was signed by George W. Bush on May 4th, 2007.
They say, the National Security and Homeland Presidential Directive, sometimes simply called Executive Directive 51, signed by George W. Bush, is a directive establishing a comprehensive policy on federal government structures and operations in the event of a catastrophic emergency.
Such an emergency is defined as, quote, any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption, severely affecting the US population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions.
Well then, that sounds like we're already in the midst of... Look, the prerequisites have been set.
Donald Trump could theoretically invoke President on Directive 51.
And one of the biggest criticisms about Directive 51 is that any president could just do it anyway.
Of course, people would probably revolt if done improperly, but what would happen if Trump actually said, I am going to invoke Directive 51, establish an enduring constitutional government, which gives him, the president, the ability to coordinate the other branches and thus control what we do as a nation.
Now, he may not necessarily, even under those powers, be able to delay the election, but he could... Look, there's no... It's hard to know what the limits of these powers are, and theoretically, Trump could do a whole lot of crazy things.
They say the source text for Directive 51 repeatedly affirms constitutionality.
specifically states that recognizing that each branch of the federal government is responsible
for its own continuity programs. An official designated by the chief of staff to the president
shall ensure that the executive branches, continuity of operations and continuity of
government policies in support of the enduring constitutional government efforts are appropriately
coordinated with those of the legislative and judicial branches in order to ensure interoperability
and allocate national assets efficiently to maintain a functioning federal government.
I want to make sure I avoid the more legalistic and esoteric statements, but I'll read you this.
Conservative activists, Jerome Corsi and Marjorie Cohn of the National Lawyers Guild have said that
this is a violation of the constitution of the United States and that the three branches of
government are separate and equal with no single branch coordinating others.
The directive created by the President claims the President has the power to declare a catastrophic emergency.
It does not specify who has the power to declare the emergency over.
So, the reception, according to Wikipedia, is that no one really covered it.
And when a representative in Congress tried to challenge it, they were denied.
And that was basically the end of it.
But I want to show you what the left was saying about Directive 51 13 years ago.
Presidential Directive 51, a blueprint for dictatorship.
Yes, the general idea around Directive 51 is that they would have control over essentially everything.
Take a look at this continuity requirements for the executive office of the president
and executive departments and agencies shall include the following vital resources,
facilities and records must be safeguarded and and official access to them must be provided.
I can't do an absolute deep dive into everything in this because, to be honest, it's a bit hard to understand for the average person.
But the general concern from everyone going back to 2007 Here we have slate is that it gives the president essentially absolute authority over all other branches of the government.
He would assign the I believe it's the advisor to the home to to Homeland Security.
The National Security Advisor to Homeland Security would be the National Continuity Coordinator.
So under him, they would coordinate the functions of the other branches, essentially giving him authority over the other branches and creating a new enduring constitutional government.
In this article from Slate, they say, who will rule us after the next 9-11?
The reality of NSPD 51 is almost as bad as the paranoia.
Well, Ron Rosenbaum, to this day, seems to be tweeting out a whole bunch of anti-Trump Anti-Trump statements and news articles.
So I'm pretty sure he's aware of the power the president has, and has said the criminal in the White House wants to delay the election.
But let me read to you this passage that he writes.
He mentions that some conspiracy theorists were going nuts, arguing that in 2008, George W. Bush could make himself president for life.
I'm showing you this specific article to make an important point.
The likelihood that Donald Trump would invoke these powers is slim to none.
I just don't believe it.
But it is important to point out that in 2008, when conspiracy theorists were worried that George W. Bush would enact Directive 51 to give himself unlimited power, there was no catastrophe.
There wasn't.
And then Obama ran and he won.
Right now, there is.
The economy is crippled.
154,000 people, I believe is the current number, have lost their lives.
So we have the prerequisites for this.
Here's what he writes.
After I read this article, I googled Directive 51 and got something like 36,000 hits.
Most of the ones I sampled elaborated on the Nightmare Coup scenario above.
Of course, Google hits are not evidence of facts, only the temper of the times and the times are seething with paranoia.
But that doesn't mean that Directive 51 doesn't deserve careful scrutiny.
Consider that an election eve attack, for instance, is not inconceivable.
What if a nuclear weapon goes off New York, Chicago, LA the weekend before the election and a warning is issued that the other two cities will be hit on election day?
Who will decide whether the elections in those heavily democratic states should be put off or whether the entire election should be postponed until when?
You see how it's all coming together?
In 2007, they were paranoid and worried that the president could postpone elections under Directive 51.
Now many people, some of the same people, are arguing the president can't do it.
Which is it?
Honestly, you're gonna have to ask a legal scholar, but it sounds like Trump could if you wanted to.
Here's what he says.
He goes on to mention other paranoid, you know, whatever.
But he mentions this specific provision, which we need to read.
He says, in many respects, it's innocuous.
It doesn't, for instance, tamper with the procedures for the presidential succession in case, say, the chief executive and vice president are killed.
And there's a value of requiring that every government agency prepare a plan.
But consider provision 2E.
Enduring constitutional government means a cooperative effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, coordinated by the president as a matter of comity with respect to the legislative and judicial branches, and with proper respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to preserve the constitutional framework under which the nation is governed and the capability of all three branches of government To execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
I'm not going to keep reading that.
You get the point.
The president can coordinate that cooperation.
He says, Do you see those five weasel words as a matter of comedy?
Just what elements of the legislative and judicial branches will be allowed to participate in executing constitutional responsibilities and providing for orderly succession?
In other words, who gets to call the shots?
What does comity mean in this context?
Informally, it means good-natured, good-faith camaraderie.
In its jurisprudential sense, the American Heritage Dictionary defines it as,
the principle by which the courts of one jurisdiction may accede or give effect to
the laws or decisions of another. In other words, in the weasel speak of Directive 51,
it implies that one or more branches of the government will have to cede power to another.
And since everything is to be coordinated by the President, I'm guessing that the members of the Supreme Court left alone... Okay, jeez.
Will in effect have to sit around a big conference table and do a lot of ceding to the Executive.
And given the current state of relations between Congress and the Executive, such comedy will not necessarily translate into camaraderie.
The point is...
Presidential Directive 51, it has long been argued, gives the president the power to basically rewrite everything.
They claim in the language that there'll be camaraderie and coordination in the Constitution, but many people on the left and the right have argued since this article's inception, the directive's inception, that the president has extreme authority and it needs to be checked.
It never has.
Theoretically, based on the mass casualties, the destruction of the economy, and the threat to our elections, it does seem reasonable now that Donald Trump could invoke Directive 51 to coordinate the other branches of government, giving guidance to all branches down to the state and local level, to make sure that we have clean and reasonable elections, or theoretically postpone them.
I don't see why not. But again, this could just be people freaking out. I'm not a lawyer. I've
done a ton of research into Directive 51 over the past several years. I even made a short video about
it when I worked for an ABC News subsidiary, Fusion, which many of you know. And as far as
I can tell, there is concern among many people this could be the case.
But there's a lot to consider.
Look, I mentioned this.
The U.S.
economy contracted at fastest quarterly rate on record from April to June as the coronavirus walloped workers and businesses.
I'm pointing out, man, there is a catastrophe.
There is a crisis.
As I've said several times, it seems like Trump could easily argue this is the case.
Of course, it would lead to widespread chaos.
But we are seeing some very serious reasons why this election is going to be This is the most important election of our lives.
I'll put it that way.
Will Donald Trump invoke 51 is the big question.
And I don't believe so.
I believe it's just something I happen to know about.
Many, many people probably don't know about it.
Many of these journalists don't know about it.
It's possible.
Barr says he won't wait until after election to reveal Durham's findings.
Democrats fear a campaign-altering surprise.
You've got to consider the importance of this election.
Many people are concerned if Trump loses, the Durham investigation stops.
And that means the criminals, the people who are spying on Trump and the lies and the smears will never be uncovered.
The Durham investigation will stop.
There will be no indictments and the criminals will get away with it.
Now, of course, the people on the left don't believe any of it's true anyway, but you've got to understand my people on the right are adamant Trump win.
And more importantly, it was announced just the other day, Ruth Bader Ginsburg undergoes medical procedure at a hospital.
Again.
We are looking at maybe two or even three Supreme Court nominations for the next president.
If Donald Trump had to, do you think he would?
I'm not going to.
I don't know.
I don't.
Considering what's at stake, however, I would not be surprised in the least.
I wouldn't.
Does Trump have the power to do so?
Well, you can thank George W. Bush because it would seem that he does.
And I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews, and I will see you all then.
Yesterday, the Democratic governor of Oregon announced the Feds would be leaving Portland today.
And that's not true.
A bunch of people on the left were celebrating, saying, we won!
Yay!
The Feds are leaving!
The Feds are not leaving.
We actually have another statement here from the acting secretary of the DHS, Chad Wolf, saying, no, we're not leaving.
However, See, there's a technically the truth going on.
The governor of Oregon has deployed state police to bolster the law enforcement efforts in Portland, maybe because Ted Wheeler wouldn't get the job done.
If there's any one group of people who lost, it is the far-left extremists on the ground engaging in violence.
And let me just show you a still image of the night.
Here's a tweet from Ian Miles Chong who says, not much different tonight in Portland.
And you can see a bunch of officers with their riot control weapons standing shrouded in tear gas.
And these are state police, I believe.
They could be local.
I believe they're state police.
Someone said the feds.
So literally feds are replaced by local police?
Yeah.
Just give feds some rest.
They're fighting against these so-called peaceful protestors for a long time.
Well, here's what's happening.
The Portland riots are still going on.
The feds are still there.
They vow to remain there until they feel that the riots have been dealt with.
The only thing that's changing is local police are being added to the mix.
That's right, more police.
Let me make sure it's very, very clear for those in the back.
To all the far-left activists that are jumping up and down, cheering, ah, the feds are leaving, we won!
Yes, they're being bolstered by more outside agencies coming in to assist.
All these federal agents are still inside the building, could come out at any time.
Now you've got local police, who may still be standing out, I don't know, but apparently state police being deployed as well.
Congratulations, more police are coming out.
How amazing, the grand experiment isn't working.
Getting rid of the police made everything worse.
And it should be obvious to everyone why these far-left extremists keep saying defund the police.
They're telling you to drop your guard while they're attacking you.
How stupid would you have to be to do it?
Think about it.
A bunch of crazy extremists are banging on the gates of your castle and they're like, get rid of these doors!
That's our demand.
Once the doors are gone, then we'll stop.
And you're like, okay.
You take the doors down and they run in full speed.
Okay.
You got to be really dumb to think defunding the police and getting rid of the police is going to end this.
And then they charge in full speed, like they've been doing for two plus months.
If they pull the feds out of Portland, if they take the police away, these people will run into the courthouse and go nuts.
More so than they already are.
We got a bunch of big updates, though.
I want to show you this story from Newsweek, giving you the basic update of what's been going on with these police.
Hundreds of police officers have been injured, and DHS Secretary talks about what their plans are.
They are staying.
They are not withdrawing.
That was not true.
The Democratic governor of Oregon is just desperate to stop the violence, because they've been losing, and it makes Trump look good.
You know what makes Trump look good?
When the only person willing to send in law enforcement is Trump.
So now this Democrat is like, I'll send in the police too.
We also have an update here that I want to show you this.
Conservative journalist 25 is stabbed in the back by Portland protester who he accuses of following him and he claims he was targeted because he supports Trump.
So this is an update on something that had happened a week or so ago or several days ago.
A black conservative was being followed by some Antifa guy.
He waited until the guy, you know, lost track of him, I guess, went up around him, put his arm around him and said, why are you following us?
And the Antifa guy stabbed him.
I want to talk about this because there's an interesting debate going on as to whether or not, like, who's going to get in trouble?
The conservative guy for putting his arm around him or the Antifa guy for stabbing?
I gotta say, it looks like it's the Antifa guy because Oregon has specific statutes dealing with the amount of force you can use in certain circumstances.
There may be a moral or ethical argument that if someone puts their arm around you, you can do whatever you need to protect yourself.
But it stands to reason, I'm seeing some of these arguments online, Even among, like, moderates and lefties, nah man, he made a big mistake by using a knife, because that goes into lethal force, which he's not gonna be able to justify.
It's not gonna work.
But either way, we'll read through this, we'll see what's up, but first let's get started with what the feds are saying.
100 people have been arrested in Portland, according to the DHS chief.
Federal officers deployed to Portland in response to unrest in the wake of the George Floyd incident have arrested nearly 100 people since they first arrived.
They first arrived on July 4th weekend.
That's very important.
Very important for people who aren't following this.
Speaking with reporters on a press call announcing a new agreement struck between the DHS and Oregon State Governor Kate Brown to collaborate on the response to unrest, Wolf said at least 94 people so far had been arrested by federal officers.
Since late May, days after Floyd died, there have been protests in Portland, with some being peaceful demonstrations and others being marked by what Wolf branded violent activity.
Federal officers, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CBP, ...were initially deployed over the July 4th weekend in response to unrest in a proclaimed bid to protect federal property, and specifically, the Mar-Catfield Courthouse, from criminal acts of violence and vandalism.
Yes, for those that don't know, on July 4th, Antifa breached the building.
Actually, it may have been July 3rd.
They breached the doors, they cut into it or something, they had welding tools, I don't know.
There's photos going around of it, and then apparently set a big fire.
Fortunately, the building's made of stone and, you know, concrete and steel, so I don't think the fire actually did much.
Since then, they have faced scrutiny over their treatment of demonstrators with officers being accused of excessive force, including refusing and worrying tactics like not wearing name badges and forcing demonstrators into unmarked vehicles.
Man, two times!
Two times.
During the press calls on Wednesday, Wolf sought to draw a distinction between peaceful protesters and violent rioters attacking the courthouse.
While we have seen non-violent protests, violent activity is not associated with these protests.
I want to be clear.
Calling the federal courthouse the seat of justice in Portland, Wolf said federal officers have sought to protect property while demonstrators have attacked it with Molotov cocktails and IEDs.
During the call, Wolf said 245 law enforcement personnel had been injured due to the encounters with demonstrators, with some being seriously injured, including several who may have permanent eye damage from having lasers shot into their eyes.
It is unclear how many demonstrators have been injured in the clashes.
During the call, the DHS acting secretary appeared to counter Brown's claim that an agreement between her office and Homeland Security would see the Trump administration pull federal forces out of Portland.
In a statement published online, Brown said they'd be leaving, a phased withdrawal on Thursday.
Wolf refuted the claim, saying there was no agreement for federal officers to start leaving starting Thursday.
Federal officers, the DHS chief said, would only start to withdraw once they were certain the federal courthouse would not be at risk of nightly attacks.
We get the point.
That's the gist of it.
So I'll go back to showing you this image.
They are deploying more police!
That's the solution.
More cops.
These appear to not be the feds.
They appear to be, they look like state police.
I don't, I'm not convinced they're Portland police.
They may be.
But it looks like they're deploying more cops to deal with the violent riots.
So how is that narrative working out for everybody?
Where they kept saying that peaceful protesters are being attacked by Trump's secret police.
Congratulations!
Congratulations.
Thank you for putting out that narrative.
You know what?
I'm just going to say it.
You have essentially just slipped on a banana peel on this one.
These far leftists who wanted to blame the Feds and attack Trump for having secret police now have to contend with the fact that their Democratic governor in Oregon is deploying their own secret police.
Oh no!
What do you do when Trump's units, Feds, are out there and now you have the Oregon State Police doing literally the same thing?
Oops.
So now can we say that Governor Kate Brown's secret police are being deployed?
Yeah, I think so.
There's her secret police, right?
You can't see their faces.
They're unidentified.
Hey, wait a minute.
Let's play this game, huh?
You see these guys?
Are they wearing badges or anything?
I can't see anything.
Their faces are covered in masks.
That proves it.
Unidentified, unmarked, state secret police deployed by the Democrat.
It's so dumb, isn't it?
We know they're cops.
We know what they're doing.
We know who deployed them.
The feds announced that they were going to be sending in CBP, BORTAC, ICE, etc.
You could see their patches.
You could see their badge numbers on their arms.
Everybody knew who they were and what they were doing and why they were doing it.
And they lied.
So I'll tell you what.
How about people stop reacting to the news cycle and start setting it?
Kate Brown's secret police deployed to the streets of Portland.
That's the announcement.
The feds are going to stay inside the courthouse while Kate Brown's secret Gestapo goes around beating protesters, peaceful protesters being beaten by Kate Brown, Democratic governor.
Her secret police.
Is that what people are going to say?
You know they're not going to do it.
Why?
The problem is, the right, or whatever, they react.
They react.
They don't set the cycle, for the most part.
Sometimes they do.
And then the media gets all angry and pretends like conservatives are always in control of the narrative.
Okay, here's the narrative.
As far as I can tell, if we're going to be operating under a single standard, A Democrat has just deployed unidentified secret Gestapo to go around gassing moms and innocent peaceful protesters.
How could this Democrat do this?
You know, I'm exaggerating.
That's the point.
We know why the police are out.
These people are violent.
And we know the police are trying to stop these things.
We're fine.
We'll hold it to a single standard.
But let's jump over to the story and talk about what's going on with this conservative journalist who got stabbed.
Daily Mail reports, conservative journalist 25 is stabbed in the back by Portland protester who he accuses of following him.
And he claims he was targeted because he supports Trump.
A videographer who was a knife in the back during a protest in downtown Portland claims he was targeted because of his conservative activism.
Well, of course he was.
Andrew Duncombe was knifed in the back.
Here's a photo of the guy.
Look at that.
Look at that.
Good cowboy look, Andrew.
Nice cowboy hat and big old belt buckle.
I'm just kidding.
Shocking video captured the moment Andrew Duncombe, 25, was stabbed while he was out filming footage of protests at the courthouse early Saturday morning.
Duncombe, who is black and a vocal supporter of Donald Trump, told Oregon Live he had traveled to the city from Northern California because he wanted to offer a more complete view of the situation than what has been portrayed in the mainstream media.
Over the past several weeks, photos and videos emerged of federal troops using aggressive tactics.
Oh, gotta stop you right there.
Gotta stop you right there.
I'm sorry, Daily Mail.
New photos and videos have emerged last night of the Democratic governor's aggressive tactics with her Gestapo.
I'm kidding, again.
Over the past several weeks, we've seen it.
My main goal was to show that it wasn't just the feds creating problems.
But Duncombe's trip took a very unexpected turn when he was attacked hours after he arrived on Friday.
He says, I was stabbed for being a conservative journalist.
They arrested the guy who did it, right?
Don Gomez built an impressive online following with videos he films of demonstrations and other political events under the moniker Black Rebel.
He believes that people familiar with his work, which frequently features staunch defenses of conservative causes, had alerted activists that he would be at the Portland protests soon after he arrived.
He said that he and a few friends that were with him noticed a group of people was trailing them just before 2.30 a.m.
on Saturday.
After traveling several blocks with people still on their tail, Duncombe said he handed his camera to a friend before he decided to confront one of the men in the group.
Now, here's a big mistake.
He walks up behind the guy, puts his arm around him, and says something like... Here's what he says, quote, Duncombe says as he approaches the man from behind and places his arm around the man's shoulder.
A split second later, the man is seen thrusting a knife into Duncombe's lower back without saying a word as Duncombe falls backwards and shouts, Okay.
Don't put your hands on people, alright?
If someone's following you, then, you know, you're at a big event, they're following you.
More importantly, you're in a location, alright, where you know these Antifa people have weapons.
Serious weapons.
You know they've attacked people, you know they don't care about hurting anybody, and you know they're extremely racist.
That's a fact, man.
These people are racist to the core.
They're white supremacists with guilty consciences.
I'm not exaggerating.
Watch the Ryan Long comedy bit he did about the wokes and the racists and how they basically agree on everything.
The only difference is they feel guilty about it.
So what does he do?
This Antifa guy, they arrested him, stabs this dude in the back.
Now, initially, a ton of people were saying, very obviously, bro, you shouldn't have put your hands on that guy.
Don't be surprised if someone, you know, strikes back if they think, you know, you're, look, you're putting your hands on somebody.
Imagine what would you do if Antifa walked up to you and put their arm around your shoulder real quick?
You'd probably knock him out or something, right?
Maybe not everybody, some people might just push him away and be like, get off me.
But here's the issue.
The question arose of who was at fault and would this guy be the one to get in trouble?
Because maybe he was just defending himself, right?
Apparently, the answer is no.
This guy's been arrested.
So, I don't know if he was transported.
The knife-wielding man identified in court as 43-year-old Blake David was arrested by police at the scene.
Hamp, uh, Blake David Hamp, that's his name, Hamp was charged with second degree assault and unlawful use of a weapon and is now being held in jail on a $250,000 bond.
Probable Cause Affidavit quotes Hamp as telling investigators that Duncombe had set up on him and tried to choke him, though that version of the events was not supported by the video.
So he lied to the police.
This guy's gonna get locked up.
Duncombe maintains the attack was planned, but says it isn't going to deter him from continuing his coverage when his wounds heal.
I'm not going to let them intimidate me for going back out.
I wasn't meant to die.
It wasn't my time to go.
So initially, like I mentioned, a lot of people were saying, who's at fault on this one?
I mean, he came up and grabbed the guy.
Well, here's the thing.
This dude was following him.
Following him and probably putting Duncombe himself in reasonable fear of impending harm.
The attack, in the legal sense of walking up and putting his arm around the guy, does not constitute lethal force against him.
And I think that's the important part.
And that's why this guy lied to the police because he knew.
If he said to the cops, this dude walked up to me and put his arm around my shoulder so
I tried to...
So he did what he did.
Then the cops are going to be like, okay, that's attempted murder or something, right?
Well, they gave him second degree assault.
There was someone, someone posted in an online forum about how in Oregon, in order to use
a knife in this manner, you need to have legitimate fear of harm, otherwise it's considered unreasonable.
The argument basically is if someone's running at you or like, you know, trying to punch you in the face, and so you use a weapon against them that could end their life, it could be seen as excessive.
Now it's all going to come down to the jury, to the courts, but I'm willing to bet based on what we've seen, this guy's in serious trouble.
He's been arrested.
He lied about it, probably because he knew it wasn't going to fly.
Someone put their arm around my shoulder and said, why are you following me?
So he pulls out a knife?
Not, not gonna work.
I think this guy's in serious trouble.
We'll see though.
He's 43 years old.
He was lurking around like some moron and then attacked.
Not only, not only... Look man.
He attacked a conservative.
He was hunting him down.
You're gonna be hard-pressed to claim it was self-defense when he was arguably initiating the conflict.
That's another really important point about this.
You could say that Duncombe shouldn't have put his arm around the guy.
But you could also argue this man was stalking them armed And it may have been a premeditated attack, and that was just his opportunity to engage in it.
So you could argue to a court, from Duncombe's perspective, I'm being followed by a guy, we know these people are violent, and then I felt threatened by this dude, and sure enough, he was right to suspect it.
So here's a photo of him.
Duncombe said the incident won't stop him from going out.
You can see him with his cowboy hat and his Gadsden bandana.
Duncombe spoke out about the incident Wednesday, which marked the 63rd consecutive night of protests in Portland.
It came as the Trump administration and Oregon leaders declared victory.
After it was announced, the federal agents would finally begin withdrawing from the city, though it remains unclear whether that agreement will reduce tensions.
There's no agreement.
It's a lie.
She made it up.
Oregon Governor Kate Brown said Wednesday agents with CBP and whatever are going to be pulling out.
However, Acting Secretary for the Department of Homeland Security wouldn't specify where they would go.
He insisted a federal presence would remain in Portland.
No, he literally said, we will keep our excess forces in Portland, period.
Okay, so maybe they'll leave the courthouse and then go to a courthouse down the street.
I don't know.
But it sounds like he's saying, no, we're staying.
We're not bailing out.
Many demonstrators are peaceful, but smaller numbers have thrown, you know what?
No, no, no, we're not playing this game.
Listen, if you go... Here's what I said.
If someone robs a bank and then a bunch of people surround him and link arms so the cops can't get to him, you can't be like, but it was a peaceful demonstration and one bank robber... No, they're all bank robbers.
Sorry.
They have every opportunity to stop these people and they don't do it.
And now if they want to start claiming these people are actually white supremacists, maybe they should be stopping them, but they're not.
You could argue, okay fine, it's the far right secretly agitating.
Then why aren't you stopping them and why are you allowing them to form ranks within your protest?
It makes absolutely no sense.
Well, I'll tell you what.
They're now fighting among themselves.
From Wall of Moms.
Wall of Moms started with a social contract.
Defer to black voices.
Shield black bodies.
These people who joined this movement of mothers did so under that understanding.
The founder, Bev Barnum, decided to break that contract.
As of today, all POC admins of Wall of Moms Facebook, including prominent black activists, Teresa L. Railford has been removed from Don't Shoot PDX, has been betrayed after legitimizing Wall of Moms due to the now broken social contract.
Oh jeez, now they're all fighting each other!
Who could have seen this coming?
Why is this important?
This is another example of something built on the premise of helping black people, legitimized by black people, taken from black people.
Yes, please hear me out.
These far leftists are overt white supremacists in the classical sense of the term.
They believe they're better than you.
They think they're smarter than you.
They just have a guilty conscience.
That's the only thing that separates them from the rest of them.
And guess what?
Many of them are part of the exact same political party, the Democratic Party, who's long been doing this, historically.
Listen.
They're going to come out and they're going to be like, the Democrats, the party's switched.
I don't care what you think happened.
When you have people like this repeatedly doing this, I don't see Republicans weaseling their way in to a Black Lives Matter protest and taking it over.
It's the Democrats over and over and over again.
And these far leftists.
Why is it that the head of the NAACP Oregon is complaining about white spectacle?
Because these people are white supremacists who are manipulating everyone else into gaining power.
And it's working.
I do not like these people.
They are actively voting to repeal civil rights law in California because they are insane white supremacists in the true sense of the word.
They put out literature claiming that white people invented all of these things.
They're nuts.
Stop defending them.
They literally just stabbed a black man in Portland.
But apparently, they're going to keep doing it.
So you know what, man?
I don't know what else to say.
You've got all of this stuff laid out in front of you.
You know exactly who these people are.
You know exactly what they're doing.
And for some reason, It's not going to change.
You're going to see more videos of... I don't know if you guys saw that video of the mom screaming, I heard George Floyd called mama so I came out!
And yelling, getting millions of views.
Or how about the white protesters in New York getting arrested by the NYPD warrant squad in the unmarked van.
10 plus million views.
They are pretending to be opposed to racism.
They are some of the most racist people you will ever meet.
Are there right-wing racists?
You betcha!
Yeah, absolutely.
Good news, though.
They're not prominent.
They're not in mainstream media.
They're not in movies.
They have very little cultural institutional power.
Some of them are in politics.
Some.
But those people get removed because Republicans have no problem purging them.
The left is laden with these white supremacists who want to enact insane laws, turn back the clock on freedom of speech and civil rights legislation like they're doing in California, and they are overt.
They are in government.
They are at every level of all of our cultural institutions.
And then you get people like Mackenzie Bezos dumping $1.7 billion into many of these organizations that pretend to be against racism, But are the same as these people.
White supremacists with guilty consciences.
These are the organizations in California that are trying to remove civil rights legislation.
That is not an exaggeration.
Google search.
It's on Ballotpedia.
It's called Prop 16.
Repeal Prop 209.
It would strike civil rights law from the California Constitution.
I believe California was the first state to To enact civil rights legislation.
Because we've had it at the federal level since 1964.
They're getting rid of it.
You need to pay attention to what these people are doing.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
And I will see you all then.
Thanks for hanging out.
A veto-proof majority of the Seattle City Council is in favor of defunding the police.
One of the City Council members has been marching with extremists to the homes of Seattle politicians, demanding they bend the knee and give in and end the police.
OK, defund.
But now Seattle residents are speaking out and they're quite perturbed, to say the least.
Seattle residents slammed the fund police as radical experiment during city budget meeting.
City's police union said it has collected 20,000 signatures on a stop defunding petition.
That's great.
I'm glad there are many people in Seattle who are willing to say, we do not want to defund the police and we will put our names on this.
Don't do it.
Guess what?
You're going to lose.
You voted for these people.
You voted in these city council people and the extremists and they're going to defund the police.
That's what's going to happen.
And if you want to live in a place like that, do so with my blessing.
I'm not going to, what do you expect me to do about it?
Right?
It's a free country.
You can do whatever you want, but don't expect me.
To stand up repeatedly over and over and over again when this keeps happening, you know it keeps happening, and the people around you keep voting for this stuff.
Now, I can empathize.
I mean, it would be rather shocking.
I'd be really angry myself if all the people in my area started demanding the police department down the street got taken away.
That would suck.
I need the police, literally.
Well, I'll tell you what.
If it got to that point where people were attacking my local police department, and people in my neighborhood were marching around chanting, defund the police, I'd start looking for a new place to live.
Now, to be completely honest, I live in New Jersey.
The state's been horribly mismanaged with the governor joining protests, letting prisoners out of jail in the hole, and then literally arresting small business owners.
So I'm getting out of here anyway.
And that's why I'm sorry.
I can sympathize, but at a certain point, you need to leave the city.
I know.
It may be difficult.
Seattle, Portland, Minneapolis, these other cities that are facing some kind of weird defunding.
I guess technically not Portland, because they're sending in more police, which is kind of funny.
But look, man.
It may be difficult, but you can't just expect everyone to do things for you.
This golden age cannot go on forever.
Where you think you can live peacefully in harmony with the deli down the street, going to get your fresh roast beef sandwich every morning, eventually hardship comes and you have to realize it, and it's a shame.
I'm realizing it.
I haven't been living in this house that long, and I'm already like, we have to leave.
We have to start realizing that as much as we love the area, we love the people, our neighbors, the local businesses, we got really great restaurants we really love.
Too bad.
It's getting worse and worse, and we recognize, at least I do, It's time to leave before it gets worse than it already is.
Now, if you live in one of these big cities, in fact, if you live in any big city, you probably need to start considering that you're going to take a loss and you need to move.
You can hold out, sitting in a city like Seattle, saying, it'll be fine, it'll be fine, I'll weather this storm.
That's fine if it's your choice.
But for the 20,000 people saying stop defunding the police, first and foremost, my respect, you're standing up for what you believe in, and this may actually help to reverse this.
Ultimately, however, I don't think it is.
I see the trend sweeping across this country and it's going well beyond just defunding the police.
We're going to see riots.
We're going to see weird November election stuff.
It's already getting crazy.
And with COVID, with the economy, I gotta tell you, man, the last place you wanna be is in a city.
I've received tons of emails from people straight up saying they were comfortable, they got a new apartment in a city recently before all this happened, and now they're immediately fleeing.
I've got emails from people who said they just got up and left their apartments and went to a family's home to stay there amid all of the rioting and the COVID crisis, and they've just left their apartment, basically.
It's not a good thing.
I'm not telling you what you should or shouldn't do.
I'm just letting you know.
That's what I'm hearing from people.
And if you're going to be in a city where you feel they're conducting a radical experiment on you, you need to get away from these people because no one is standing up to them.
Now, I know, I know.
The police are.
And there's 20,000 signatures here.
But how many people live in Seattle?
How many of these people keep electing the same people?
You may be a principled, rational liberal who wants to live in Seattle because it's not a very conservative place, the city itself.
And I've lived there, but guess what?
There are regular liberals who don't like what's going on.
Hey, they're signing petitions, right?
I don't think it'll be enough.
You know why?
There are too many people who don't pay attention, don't care, and just believe the hype.
And they get their news from memes, and they post it on Facebook, and it's the only access to information they have, and they're nuts.
And they're thinking all the cops are evil stormtroopers, and they're gonna keep voting for these people.
And you will be trapped in the storm.
I know it may not be possible for some people, so to all of those trapped in these cities, I feel for you.
But like I said, man, I'm hearing from a lot of people who are just getting out.
Let's talk about what's going on in Seattle, because it's bad.
The police found, like, explosives and weapons.
They were, like, being handed out by a van or something.
Check this story out.
Seattle residents slam, defund the police as radical experiment.
Hundreds of Seattle residents spoke up about proposals to defund the police during a city council budget meeting on Wednesday, according to reports.
The council is considering a plan that could slash the budget of the city's police department by 50%, resulting in layoffs for hundreds of officers, all as Seattle deals with the coronavirus outbreak and frequent riots and other unrest since the May 25th death of George Floyd.
While the defund the police effort was initially popular in the city, opponents of the plan have been growing more and more vocal.
Defunding the police is a radical experiment that will hurt the vulnerable, one member of the public calling into the phone meeting.
The phone-in meeting told the council, according to Q13Fox.
In addition, the Seattle Police Officers Guild, the union representing the police, said it collected more than 20,000 signatures on a stop defunding petition the station reported.
But proponents of defund the police plan say it would be part of an effort to repair race relations in the city following years of excessive force against minorities and other claims of mistreatment.
I'm gonna stop you right there.
This is the narrative.
It doesn't matter what you need.
They've got the narrative.
You might be saying the Wall Street Journal said it's not true.
It might not be true.
It doesn't matter.
Why would they take away your police?
How does this make sense?
Think about it for one second.
People have made this point.
If your doctors in your hospitals are ill-equipped to help people, and thus people are turned away or mistreated, do you just say, shut the hospital down?
If the fire department fails to put out a fire, do you say, shut the fire department down?
No!
You supply them.
You fund them.
In Chicago, they created two new units and crime has gone down.
Funding the police works.
Better training, better equipment, more units, more officers, lower stress.
That actually seems to work.
So why do they keep saying defund amid all of this?
Why do they want to take away police from you?
Because some people are having problems with police.
It's because it's not about this narrative.
They're lying.
Nothing less than defunding will begin to heal the violence committed by police against Seattle's black, brown, and indigenous communities, said another of the estimated 300 people who signed up to address the council in a process that took about three hours.
Now I want to point this out.
About 300 people signed up to address the council.
signed up, is that the total? Another of the estimated 300 people who signed up to address
the council in a process, blah blah blah. Seattle has been an epicenter of the rioting
that has been seen in many cities across the U.S. The unrest there has included the famous
chop or chas.
The city, along with Portland, Oregon, Chicago, and other locations, has taken criticism from Trump and other Republicans who have portrayed Democratic leaders in the cities as enablers of the rioting and destruction rather than law enforcers who are dedicated to maintaining public safety.
Yeah, I'll tell you what, man.
These riots, they're happening all over the place.
Check this out.
This is from Vice just the other day.
Police arrested 120 anti-racism protesters in Omaha and barely anyone's talking about it.
Yep.
And it's gonna keep happening.
Here's what's happening in Seattle.
Criminal investigation launched into use of explosives during a riot in Seattle's Capitol Hill Saturday.
How do you still live there?
I'm sorry, man.
How do you?
I briefly lived in Seattle.
I don't know, man.
Let me just say.
Some people have families and some people have jobs.
Some people don't have savings.
Many Americans live paycheck to paycheck, but it's time to sacrifice.
It's time to start selling things and getting ready to get out.
There comes a time where the peaceful golden era that we've been living in, well, it comes to an end, right?
You can't always have this perfect, you know, system.
And we've been living really, really well for a long time.
It's kind of incredible how awesome everything really is, not including, I mean, before COVID.
But people just wouldn't stop complaining.
One of the things I've talked about in the past is that I think the reason people hate Trump so much is they have nothing else to complain about.
It's true.
There was a poll done by Gallup talking about what people cared about.
And once Trump got elected, within the next couple years, the biggest issue for people was Trump and the Republicans and Democrats.
Before this, it was like the economy, jobs.
When people were living really, really well, they had nothing to complain about, so they found something to complain about.
But then, look, COVID happened, and now everything's kind of falling apart.
I hate to say it, man, because I know a lot of people don't want to accept it.
Sell your stuff?
You can't?
You don't want to?
I guess you can stay in these cities where there'll be no police and mass rioting, and what do you think's gonna happen come November?
Take a look at this story from King5.
Chief Best said no arrests have been made yet, but assured we are going to follow up aggressively with the investigation.
Uh-huh.
Take a look at these photos.
Look at these things that are being found.
Explosive, nails, commercial-grade fireworks.
They're finding mortars with nails pressed into them.
I'm telling you, man.
If you want to hang out while this violence escalates and they take your police away, then feel free to do it.
It's a free country, you can do what you want.
Maybe you know better than I do in these cities, but I'm just saying, man, I've seen a lot of what's going on, I've seen other countries dealing with this, and I see how these things turn out.
Seattle Police Chief Carmen Best announced the department is launching a serious criminal investigation into the use of improvised explosives and other devices against officers and property during Saturday's riot that was declared a riot.
Okay, it says protest.
No, right.
The riot on July 25th remained peaceful until about a dozen people set fire to portable trailers and other equipment at a construction site next to the King County Youth Service Center.
From there, the group continued to damage businesses and destroy property, including the Seattle Department's East Precinct on Capitol Hill.
During a news conference Wednesday, Chief Best, joined Mayor Jenny Durkan, said several items were seized from a van that was following closely behind the destructive group and people were seen pulling things out of it.
From the van, detectives recovered items like baseball bats, improvised shields, pyrotechnic explosives, bear spray, pepper spray, stun guns, improvised spike strips designed to disable bike officers.
And you know what happens when one of these bike officers falls on a spike strip and another officer falls on top of the spike strip?
They get impaled by the spike strip.
I see no reason why someone would need to arm themselves with these at a peaceful protest.
Good point!
Because it wasn't.
It's violent insurrection.
And it's going to get worse.
The Democrats are advocating for this mail-in voting thing.
Trump's now tweeting about it.
I'll get to this in the next segment at 4 p.m.
But we should not expect normalcy moving forward.
For too long, we have lived, year after year, decade after decade, with peace and prosperity.
But we have forgotten that hard times existed, that war existed, that there was rationing and shortages, that people were drafted to go off to war.
For too long we have had peace and prosperity.
And I don't mean that in a bad way, I just mean people have forgotten what conflict and crisis really is like.
I know because I've seen it.
And I would go to these countries and come back here and see the complacency of people, the ignorance and the comfort and the entitlement, not from everybody but from many people.
And now we're seeing violent extremists with weapons.
Now they're escalating appropriately.
Many of these people are armed with rifles, like the guy in Austin who got shot and killed.
We've already seen now in Eugene just last week, with a guy in his truck and an anti-va guy both pointing handguns at each other.
Where do you think this goes?
Carmen Best says, I don't understand.
I see no reason why a peaceful protester would have these weapons.
Because they're not peaceful protests, and they never were.
It's propagandistic warfare.
It's fourth-generational warfare.
They only act like peaceful protests to take advantage of our goodwill.
And we have to respect that.
We do.
It's in the First Amendment.
But they're carrying these weapons so that at a moment's notice, they can become a violent insurrectionary riot.
That's what their plan really is.
And, you know, you see these people in Portland just allowing them to do it.
You have to wonder, don't you?
A total of 59 officers were injured during Saturday's riot on Capitol Hill.
Chief Best said no arrests have been made yet regarding the particular investigation,
but assured, we are going to follow up aggressively with the investigation.
Mayor Durkin condemned the acts of violence committed against officers and property in
Seattle on Saturday.
Acts of destruction, violence, and hateful speech, really.
None of that gets us where we need to be.
It's not just a distraction.
It undermines the central message and the actions we want to take as a city, said Mayor Durkin.
Well, I'll tell you what, man.
As I often do.
It is happening in other cities.
It will continue to happen.
Police arrested 100 anti-racism protesters in Omaha.
Police officers wearing riot gear corralled anti-racism protesters in Omaha, Nebraska onto a highway overpass over the weekend, blocked both exits, and fired pepper balls into the crowd.
Approximately 120 protesters were then zip-tied and arrested.
Okay.
It's happening in Omaha now.
I've been to Omaha once.
They have great steaks, apparently, and some beef jerky.
I don't know a whole lot about it, other than it's pretty flat.
Big place in the middle of nowhere, I guess.
Well, big place, relatively.
But even they're having mass protests.
They call it a protest.
I don't know what happened, okay?
But the police, they're rounding up these people.
They're arresting them.
They say they were taken to Douglas County Correctional Center, where they told Vice News they were routinely denied water and bathroom.
Oh, you know what?
I don't want to hear that.
Look, man, if you've ever been arrested, you understand.
They hold you for some time, and often you're not going to get special favors.
Saturday night's protests in Omaha, one of many nationwide that ended in arrests and brutality this weekend, were held in solidarity with Portland's uprising.
They're calling Portland an uprising straight up, okay?
Let this be made very, very clear to all of you.
Vice News has said Portland Uprising.
Not protest.
Not riot.
Uprising.
An uprising is a reference to political action.
That's it.
It's a political movement rising up, getting violent.
It's an uprising.
And they also demanded justice for James Scurlock, a young black man who was fatally shot by a white bar owner in Omaha while protesting George Floyd's death in May.
The bar owner, Jacob Gardner, was not charged because the Douglas County Attorney's Office said he had acted in self-defense during the fight, and there's video evidence of it.
I don't know if it can be made any more clear to all of you what's happening in this country, you know, when people post jokes and memes saying things like I'm, you know, overreacting, and that's fine, you know, feel free, you can criticize me all you want, that's whatever.
But I think I'm right, you know why?
I warned about this.
I said this would happen.
It seems like it's often enough I say something is gonna happen, and then, unfortunately, it does.
Now, to be fair, I don't make, like, hard predictions, like, on the 13th night, the 13th hour of the 13th month, A giant demon will emerge from the shadows with a gun and shoot, you know, John Smith.
That's a very, very weird and specific... It's a joke, by the way.
It's a Simpsons reference for those that don't get it.
But what I say is that there will be escalation.
And what I did say is that in this instance in Omaha, where the guy was defending himself, you will see them riot for this guy next.
The McCloskeys in St.
Louis, defending their property.
They're being criminally charged.
They're the bad guys.
Garrett Foster in Austin, who was armed with a rifle and approached a vehicle, was shot and killed, is heralded as a martyr.
You see what that means?
If they have guns, they're heroes.
If you bring out guns, you're evil and must be charged and arrested.
It is absolutely an ideological attack.
Those who are with the cult will be protected.
And we can see it here.
So this guy comes out and apparently he gets shoved to the ground and then he pulls out a gun and he like, I don't remember the full details, but he fired like a warning shot or something.
The guy attacked him.
He reached around and shot the guy.
It was self-defense.
He was not charged.
There is video of it.
He was attacked.
His dad was shoved.
He was shoved.
They attacked him.
Two guys ran off.
One guy jumped on top of him and he fired in self-defense.
They're now rioting because of that, demanding justice.
They don't want justice.
They want retribution for their ideology.
And that means they will trick all of these dumb, well-to-do progressives and liberals to vote for politicians who will strip them of their police like they're doing in Seattle.
And when the citizenry who are paying attention come out and say, stop, this is ridiculous.
Regular people and regular liberals are drowning in propaganda from fake news, desperate to get one last click before the whole system explodes.
So they'll sell you down the river and embolden these extremists.
But more importantly, some of these extremists, many of them in fact, work at these news organizations and are lying on purpose to empower their extremists.
There's a decent amount.
They're all over the place.
Many of them work in media, they're influential, and they're pushing their fringe, insane ideology.
It goes beyond their ideology.
It's a cult.
If you are on their side, you'll be okay.
If you're not, they'll arrest you.
If a group of people were marching and, say, a Black Lives Matter protester on their property pulled out a gun and said, staff my property, they'd celebrate it.
They'd say, hey, it's a good thing.
Absolutely.
But when it's the McCloskeys, it's a bad thing.
When this man defends himself while he's being attacked, it's a bad thing.
When a regular citizen defends themselves, they say, you're evil.
And that's what we've seen now on multiple occasions.
It's only a matter of time, if you stay in these cities, that they will come to your door and accuse you of being the bad guy.
It's like the old saying, first they came for the communists and the trade unionists.
You know how it goes.
It's real.
They will show up to your house the same as they did the McCloskeys.
They will surround your car with guns, like in Provo where they shot the driver.
And that guy, they defend the guy who shot the driver.
And if you defend yourself, they will call for your head.
They will come out in massive numbers, and when the police arrest these people, they will say the police are the bad guys.
Why?
Because the police are stopping their cult.
That's why they stand out in Portland.
That's why the Seattle City Council has a veto-proof majority that wants to defund the police.
And that's why they're going to keep coming out, and there's nothing you can do to stop them.
They're going to talk about what happened in Omaha.
I'm not super concerned, but it's been happening all over.
Here's an angle of Seattle police pepper-spraying a journalist and shoving him.
You know what, man?
We're getting to this point where With something, you know, Trump tweeted this morning about delaying the election.
Everyone's talking about whether he can or cannot do it.
I'm going to tell you right now, we are reaching an extreme moment in American history.
There have been times where rights have been suspended and people just stop caring.
And I think we're getting close to this.
I do.
There are stories about like Black Lives Matter protests, protesters who have come to small towns and been attacked and chased out.
They don't care about what your rights are.
They don't want you bringing that chaos to their towns.
Now, I'm in favor of the First Amendment.
If somebody wants to march around with a sign, so be it.
But these smaller towns don't care.
Not in my backyard, they'll say.
So who knows?
Who knows what's going to happen come November?
But I'll tell you what at least might happen.
Donald Trump tweeted this morning, delay the election until we can secure things? And all of a
sudden everyone's screaming he can't do it. Well, the next video is coming up at 4pm over at timcast.net.
For those listening on the podcast, you've already heard this, but stick around. I will see you
over there again, timcast.net at 4pm.
Let's talk about the bigger picture. Thanks for hanging out.
In a stunning act of defiance, the ACLU defending our civil rights has finally come out against
body cameras? I hate that.
Body cameras?
I guess?
ACLU sues Portland police challenging bureaus live streaming of protests.
They're basically arguing that by the police live streaming the protests themselves, it
is police state surveillance.
Or something?
I thought we wanted the police to be recording their interactions, and I thought we wanted the police to release that footage to the public.
Well, the cops are now livestreaming.
Why would anyone be upset about this?
I've seen already some people on the left arguing, Tim, there's clearly a difference, actually.
A big difference between body cameras, which they hold the information, and live streams, which are publicly available.
See, they're zooming in on people's faces.
No, no, no, get out of here, get out of here, listen.
The reason we want body cameras is because we want footage of exactly what happened when the police interacted with somebody, and we want to be able to see it.
The public should look at it.
So, what's the problem?
Ah, I get it.
The problem is that the police are showing these activists, and I'm doing air quotes for those that are listening, they're showing these people are breaking the law, and the police aren't the bad guys, and the ACLU has given up on all of its principles and become some weird I don't know.
That's the anti-Civil Liberties Union at this point.
Because the police shouldn't be showing us what's happening.
You want to know one really simple way to know if you're a good guy or a bad guy?
See, the good guys are okay with everyone knowing what's going on.
The good guys are okay with transparency.
The good guys are okay saying, I'm gonna let you speak.
The bad guys won't let you speak.
Burn your books and shut down your access to information.
They actually defended the Klan who marched in Skokie, Illinois.
Why?
Because of the right to free speech.
That's right.
When the ACLU was on the side of good, of the light, of knowledge, of truth, they said, well, These are bad people.
We don't like what they say, but we will defend their right to say it.
Because you have a right to know.
Today, what does the ACLU say?
We should not allow anyone to see what's actually happening down in Portland.
Let's break this down, and I am going to state definitively why the ACLU is on the wrong side of history here.
The Oregonian says, The ACLU of Oregon on Wednesday filed a lawsuit against the Portland Police Bureau challenging its live streaming of protests.
The ACLU contends the Bureau's practice of filming and broadcasting protesters violates state law that prohibits police from collecting or maintaining information about the political, religious, or social views, associations, or activities of people who are not suspected of criminal activity.
Well, there you go!
All of these people are suspected of criminal activity.
How about that?
The police livestream zooms in on individuals' faces, making protesters vulnerable to face surveillance technology the civil rights advocacy contends.
Let me stop you right there.
You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you're walking around in public.
If someone's filming, too bad, you're being filmed.
The police are an apparatus of the state, of the public.
If they're filming, too bad.
Now, I do think facial surveillance and other technologies are starting to go too far.
I do believe.
We're getting dangerously close to the Panopticon, but we created it first.
We walk around with cameras everywhere.
We, the people, are filming everything.
How are we supposed to be mad that now cops are doing what's already being done?
And more importantly, you can complain about the police filming, but there's already like 50 people live-streaming everything as it is.
So what's the difference?
It seems like a moot point.
The livestream has been one of dozens of livestreams of nightly demonstrations in Portland.
The Police Bureau put a link to its livestream on its Twitter feed three times this month.
Three times, that's it.
And it's one of dozens.
Spare me.
Unlawful police surveillance threatens our First Amendment rights, said Jan Carson, Interim Executive Director of the ACLU of Oregon.
The Portland Police Bureau has no constitutional reason to train its video cameras on demonstrators or to broadcast those images publicly on the internet where federal agents and others can analyze them.
They're in public.
Anyone can see them.
City Attorney Tracy Reeve said she couldn't comment on the pending litigation.
Federal officers who have been stationed in an incident command center in the Mark O. Hatfield courthouse have been monitoring live stream footage shared on social media of the demonstrations.
Portland police and federal officers have made arrests after reviewing video footage to identify people accused of committing violence or property damage.
Let me tell you something.
I got my start livestreaming at Occupy Wall Street.
The fringe far-left extremists told me to stop.
They said, you are a snitch because you're letting, you know, the police are watching your videos.
And I said, go F yourself.
I don't care what you think.
I'm going to film whatever I want.
Guess what?
The likes of the ACLU can't go around suing the actual protesters, individuals, and journalists who are streaming.
But they can at least have some kind of argument against the surveillance state.
It's stupid.
More transparency, not less.
I want to see what the cops are doing.
I want to see what the protests are doing.
Why is the ACLU suing in opposition to information?
Why is the ACLU trying to stop the public, have the public's right to know what these people are doing?
Why are they acting like a defensive arm for violent criminals who are not peacefully protesting?
I find it particularly disgusting.
The ACLU of Oregon filed its lawsuit Wednesday in Multnomah County Circuit Court, the latest legal action stemming from the nightly demonstrations.
The suit also is on behalf of an unidentified protester who was caught on the police streaming footage while demonstrating outside the police union office in North Portland.
Many of the other protesters, whose likenesses and voices have appeared on PPP's videos, also want not to be recorded.
Yeah, well, too bad!
You're in public, baby!
Several have shouted as much at PPB's camera person.
Others have shown bright lights at its cameras in attempts to obscure the camera's view of the crowds.
Still, others have used squeakers—squeakers?—to obscure PPB's audio recordings, the suit said.
I've been doing this, uh, I started—I was doing that job for a long time.
I don't really go out and do the livestreams all that much anymore.
They would do the exact same thing to me.
But who do you sue?
You can't sue me.
Sorry, I can't be done.
While the ACLU is arguing for less transparency, what is good old Joe Biden saying?
Joe Biden wants these extremists found, arrested, and tried.
That's what he said.
Good on Joe Biden, and I mean it with all sincerity.
Good!
The violent protesters, they're rioters by the way, found, arrested, and tried.
I completely agree.
And I'm glad that Joe Biden brought it up.
Not that I think he's all with it anyway.
But how do you propose we find these people, Mr. Biden?
How do you propose that we actually find these people, ACLU?
Oh, what's that?
Maybe we film them.
Maybe everyone is filming and more footage is better.
If you want privacy, you have privacy in your home.
I mean, I get it.
Social media, we got very serious violations of privacy.
But if you don't want people to recognize you, then you wear a mask.
Wear legal.
If you're walking around and your face can be seen, then why can't anyone film it?
Well, Joe Biden said, The former vice president struck a discordant tone with fellow liberals who insist protests against the killing of George Floyd are peaceful and that authorities are to blame for any violence.
I think we need to hold those who violate the law accountable, Biden said.
We should never let what's done in a march for equal rights overcome what the reason for that march is.
And that's what these folks are doing.
And they should be arrested, found, arrested, and tried.
Hear, hear Joe Biden, and I mean it.
I love it.
Civility.
Unity.
We can all come together and say, get rid of these lunatics, man.
Stop defending them.
Guess what, ACLU?
You're now on the wrong side of history, like I said, and I'll tell you why.
Because either Trump wins, and then obviously you're on the wrong side, or Biden wins, and oopsie, you're on the wrong side too.
How about y'all stop defending the extremists who are throwing explosives And you stand with Joe Biden, who's saying they should be found arrested and tried.
Guess what?
I'd be willing to bet most of the people who want to vote for Joe Biden don't like the rioters.
Now, many don't want to admit there's riots happening.
I know all the Trump supporters don't like the rioters, and these people should be found arrested and tried.
Why?
Because they're violent rioters and political extremists who want to burn down buildings and hurt people.
Joe Biden recognizes it.
Biden's call for the prosecution of violent protesters may further alienate leftist politicians, uneasy with Biden's decades of centrist policies.
This week Rashida Tlaib said she would not endorse Biden and a co-chair of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.
This is great.
Former Ohio, Nina Turner, she worked for Bernie Sanders, said voting Biden was like eating a bowl of S. Yeah, I don't, I don't disagree.
So don't do it.
The event was the first time Biden took questions since a June 20th, June 30th briefing.
President Trump, by contrast, often takes reporter questions multiple times a day,
including at his resumed daily coronavirus briefings. He's taken questions from reporters
at least 15 times. Biden largely steers, steered clear.
Biden largely steer clear.
He has no idea where he is.
of gaffes on Tuesday, steered clear of gaffes, but mistakenly said that Trump canceled plans
to hold a Republican National Convention in Tallahassee, Florida, before correcting himself
to say Jacksonville.
Yeah, and Joe Biden has no idea where he's going.
He has no idea where he is.
That's fine.
He said, I'm running because Trump is the president.
I think our democracy is at stake.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
It's at stake if you get elected because you can't think straight, Mr. Biden.
But that's a whole other issue.
Look, you know what, man?
He's a sad old man.
That's about it.
And I mean this with no disrespect.
He is a sad old man.
I can appreciate him speaking up against the violent extremists.
I'm glad he did.
Absolutely.
I mean this with respect.
But right now, the threat to our democracy is the far-left fringe extremists, and Biden wouldn't do anything to stop them.
I can appreciate him saying this.
They're going to walk all over him, and we all know it.
Right now, the ACLU, emboldened by the fact that the far-left gave them a bunch of money at some point because of Trump's policies, is actively fighting against civil liberties because they have become tainted and, dare I say, opportunistic and evil.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I'll see you all shortly.
If I told you that every single election Democrats lost since 1968 they've called illegitimate, would you believe me?
Well, there's a caveat.
Except for the 49 state landslides.
According to the Wall Street Journal, yep, every single time they lose, except for these big landslides, they're like, it's illegitimate!
We didn't really lose!
It happens, it happens, it happens, and it happened in 2016, and it'll likely happen again.
Only this time, it's a bit worse than it's been in the past.
Nearly two-thirds of voters say progressive activists will respond with violence if Trump wins re-election.
However, just 38% of U.S.
voters think conservative activists will respond with violence if Democratic candidate Joe Biden wins.
And those people would likely be right.
It's kind of like an ask the audience thing.
You know, you got Regis Philbin, rest in peace, asking you the million dollar question, Will progressive activists get violent if Donald Trump wins?
I'd like to ask the audience.
60 some odd percent say yes.
That is the correct answer.
Nearly two-thirds of US voters say progressive activists will respond with violence if Trump wins, according to the new daily poll with Rasmussen.
However, just 38 think conservatives will respond with violence if Biden wins.
53% of Democrats expect violence no matter who wins.
Wow, man.
Republicans and independents believe violence is far more likely if Trump wins.
Yeah.
If Joe Biden wins, the far left will still get violent.
I think that's why the Democrats are probably right on this one.
Quote.
It is interesting to note that last week, more people thought Republicans would cheat rather than Democrats, said Rasmussen, referring to the electoral outcome.
This week, the partisan gap is wider and reversed.
62% expect violence from progressives if Trump wins, but only 38% see violence from conservatives as likely if Biden wins.
They go on to say, you know, well, I'll show you the results.
They say, When they were asked, if President Trump is re-elected, how likely is it that progressive activists will respond with violence?
34% said very, 28% said somewhat likely, 13% said not likely, 8% not likely at all, and 16% were not sure.
We get it.
But here's the interesting bit.
So, yes, we all know that the progressives will get violent if-slash-when Donald Trump wins.
They did it last time.
Why wouldn't they do it again?
They probably will.
The Wall Street Journal writes, Will Democrats accept another Trump victory?
Swain for the Wall Street Journal's opinion section.
Will Democrats accept another Trump victory?
Every time they've lost since 1968, they've called it illegitimate except for the 49 state
landslides.
He writes, Joe Biden asked recently if he had considered the possibility that President
Trump may refuse to concede defeat in the election.
Answered that he had.
But he was absolutely convinced, the former vice president said reassuringly, that if such a thing happens, military personnel will escort him from the White House with great dispatch.
What a relief!
The exchange brings to mind the 2016 campaign, when media personalities speculated that Mr. Trump would refuse to concede to Hillary Clinton.
The hypothesis was never tested.
Mr. Trump having had the bad manners to win, but it turned out to be they who refused to concede defeat.
Not by contesting the election results, but by persuading themselves and half the country that Mr. Trump had won by illegal means and generally behaving like spoiled children for the next four years.
Yeah, and here we are.
It'll never stop.
They're still out smashing things, and I'm just so sick and tired of it, man.
I suspect Mr. Trump would have conceded the night of the election, which Mrs. Clinton did not do, for the simple reason that he neither expected nor particularly wanted to win.
In that event, in the event that Mr. Trump fails to win re-election, he will depart willingly.
Not graciously, perhaps, but willingly and at the appointed time.
The more interesting question is, what will Democrats do if Mr. Biden loses?
What idiotic conspiracy theory will they concoct to explain their defeat?
Oh man, and boy will they.
I mean no disrespect to my liberal friends when I say, to borrow Mr. Biden's phrase, that I am absolutely convinced that Democrats won't accept the result if the Republican wins.
I say this because, with only two exceptions, liberals have considered every GOP presidential victory in the last half century more or less illegitimate.
The two exceptions were Nixon's defeat of McGovern in 1972 and Ronald Reagan's defeat of Walter Mondale in 84.
Both were so lopsided as to make allegations of dirty trickery a waste of effort.
Nixon's re-election was tainted by crimes, but they didn't contribute to his victory in any meaningful way.
After every other Republican presidential victory from 1968 forward, Democrats invented cockamamie theories that the GOP had won by illegitimate means.
Liberals have long believed that Nixon beat Hubert Humphrey in 1968 by secretly telling the South Vietnamese not to participate in the Paris peace talks.
Thus depriving the outgoing Johnson administration of the diplomatic triumph it deserved.
Older liberals still cling tightly to this theory, but it's hooey.
Saigon had already decided not to participate in Paris talks because Hanoi was demanding unconditional U.S.
withdrawal.
In any case, the disgrace was Lyndon Johnson's, not Nixon's.
The outgoing administration knew the talks didn't stand a chance, but wanted the appearance of a diplomatic win to boost Vice President Humphrey's chances.
Incredible as it seems, liberal commentators still attribute Reagan's 1980 victory to his use of the term
states' rights in an August speech to the Neshoba County Fair in Philadelphia.
Philadelphia, miss?
I still believe the answer to And sure, I still believe the answer to any problem lies
with the people.
Reagan said, I believe in states rights that supposedly signals to racist Democrats across
the South that Reagan was on their side and they could safely vote Republican.
OK, you know what?
Look, the point is, no matter how many elections we have, no matter how many times Republicans
win, no matter how many times we see gaff after gaff, the Democrats will not accept
that they lost in 2016.
They will not accept that they've lost in 2020.
It doesn't matter what Trump does.
That's the point.
I don't think I need to read about all of this history or whatever, but sure.
But I'll read more.
He goes on to say, if that one doesn't convince you, there's the October Surprise Theory.
Reagan's surrogates purportedly negotiated with the Iranian government.
This is so mind-numbing.
You know why?
Because it's like, as bad as 2016 was with Russiagate insanity and years of this insanity, it's been going on forever.
And it will likely never stop.
He brings up Dukakis.
He goes through every single election.
This is crazy.
In 2004, Mr. Bush out-polled John Kerry by more than 3 million votes nationwide.
Even so, some prominent Democrats loudly insisted that the Ohio vote had been rigged to swing the election to Bush.
Senator Barbara Boxer of California lodged a formal challenge when Congress counted the electoral votes in January 2005.
I cannot stand the Democrats, man.
I can't.
And I'll tell you what.
When you get away, when you start paying attention to the news, you see just how awful they really are.
It's a fact, man.
I didn't pay too much attention, you know, growing up.
When I was in my teens and early 20s, I didn't.
With Obama, I didn't.
But then throughout the first term of Obama, I started to.
Why?
Well, because I decided to vote for the guy.
And then I felt slighted when he started bolstering our forces in the Middle East.
It felt like he lied to me.
And I didn't vote for him again in 2012 because I started to get more politically active.
Then I could start to see what the Democrats had truly been doing and what they've done.
And we can see here in this story from the Wall Street Journal what they always do.
The one thing they're adding to the mix now is, uh, violence.
Yeah.
They're going to be violent.
They're going to attack people.
You know, I don't think we should go as far as to say that Republicans will be hunted, as some might suggest, but there will be violence and there will be conservatives who will be attacked.
I think that's what you will likely see.
They go on to mention Trump colluding with, you know, with Putin.
It's a great, interesting opinion piece going through the history of every single time the Democrats have tried to lie.
He ends by saying, The president now seems likely to lose.
But if he wins, may I suggest an alternative theory?
A Trump victory in November will have nothing to do with the Russians or the Chinese or the coronavirus or voter suppression.
It will have everything to do with Democrats' foul behavior over the previous four years, born of the conviction that they can't possibly lose an election fair and square.
They say Mr. Swain is an editorial page writer at the journal.
I'll tell you what this is.
The Democrats are sore losers.
They've always been sore losers and they will continue to be sore losers as we're seeing from this story.
They will not accept Trump's victory.
And if they do lose, I agree with with Barton Swain.
But I think it's important to point out With the violence added to the mix.
It's not just about their foul behavior from a political standpoint.
It's about the extremist nonsense romping through our streets.
The tired, silent majority saying, ENOUGH!
And perhaps the reason we've seen 49 state landslides periodically is because the silent majority goes to sleep, ignores the problems of this country for too long until it reaches a point where it explodes, and you get lunatics running the show, and they finally stand up and vote and say, enough!
And maybe the polls are wrong.
And maybe these people aren't being polled.
And maybe Donald Trump will win in a ridiculous landslide.
I honestly don't know.
They say Trump is likely to lose.
Maybe the reason the polls are saying all of this is because they think they're going to lose and they want another reason to claim it's illegitimate.
Trump couldn't have possibly won with the polls this far against him.
How could it possibly happen?
The polls in 2016 were within the margin of error.
That was the issue.
They gave Trump a low chance of winning.
And he did not win the popular vote, but he did win the Electoral College.
That's the issue here.
If Trump wins again, they're going to say, how could he possibly have won when he was down double digits?
That's what they're setting up.
Chinese interference, Trump colluding with China.
I'm over it.
I got one more segment coming up for you in just a few minutes, and I'll see you all shortly.
One of the most important moments in the ongoing war over big tech censorship was the Battle of Patreon.
At a certain point a couple years ago, I believe it was a couple, maybe just actually over around a year ago, Patreon banned several moderately high-profile individuals.
They did it for hate speech violations or other terms violations.
This caused a lot of problems for a lot of people.
I ended up losing a decent amount of subscribers because people who were giving to me on Patreon said, sorry man, I use this to give to multiple people and if they're going to censor people I like, I'm leaving.
So I ended up actually losing paying subscribers who helped support my work.
Very, very frustrating.
Ultimately, I decided I will leave Patreon.
And use other services.
I still maintain a skeleton version of my Patreon.
I don't post to it, but I just left it up.
Some people still wanted to use it, and I'm just not going to update it because I think Patreon is a terrible company.
But we have a major, major breaking news update.
Patreon has just lost a very serious legal claim, which could result in the end of their company as it pertains to the great battle of Patreon.
You see, Owen Benjamin is a comedian.
Apparently, he's offensive.
I don't know a whole lot about the guy, to be completely honest.
But he got booted off for hate speech.
He then instructed his fans to sue Patreon.
The Daily Dot wrote this story back on July 6th.
Alt-Right comedian asked his fans to sue Patreon.
It backfired.
It actually didn't.
The update here from Mike Cernovich is, update, Patreon lost.
The judge applied well-established law and denied Patreon's motion cited against them in their lawsuit against Owen Benjamin's fans.
Patreon will now be forced to arbitrate 100-plus claims and pay upfront fees of up to $10,000 per arbitration.
Cernovich then said, Sargon of Akkad could end Patreon if he and his followers file actions similar to the one Owen Benjamin's fans did.
That's it.
That would be the end of Patreon.
And Will Chamberlain, also a lawyer, mind you, Will and Cernovich are lawyers!
Will said Lauren Southern and Milo too.
And there it is.
I defer to the experts.
I defer to the experts.
You see, Mike Cernovich makes a really important point.
He said, these social justice journalists don't know anything about law, and they often try to write about law, and they do a really bad job.
So the Daily Dot writes that it backfires on Owen Benjamin when he tried to get his fans to sue Patreon.
Let me break this down for you, but let me first start by saying If you were on Patreon, and you closed your account before the end of the year— Look, I'm not a lawyer.
Here's my general understanding.
Anybody who had an account before January 1st, 2020— I think it's 2020.
Actually, I believe they mentioned it right here in this article.
Okay, I'm just trying to make sure I get this absolutely correct.
Here we go.
Anybody who closed their account—arguably not even, it doesn't even matter, but let me just say it—if you closed your account before January 1st because of the censorship, you should be able to engage in much the same way Owen Benjamin's fans did, and it would—filing an arbitration claim This would result in Patreon being forced to front money to cover the costs of arbitration.
What Mike Cernovich is saying is that not whether you agree with the views of Owen Benjamin or his comment or anything like that, if people who have been banned from Patreon tell their fans To file arbitration claims.
Patreon will not be able to handle an influx of thousands of people.
It would cost them tens of millions of dollars, potentially more.
Could be, as Cernovich said, the end.
The general idea is that in Patreon's terms of service, they said, you must take it to arbitration instead of suing us.
They changed the terms on January 1st of this year.
What happened was, Owen Benjamin's fans announced their... Let me read this article for you and I'll correct the mistakes they say.
Owen Benjamin has managed to get 72 of his fans sued by Patreon.
Last October, Patreon banned Benjamin, an alt-right commentator and self-styled comedian, for violating its policies against hate speech.
Patreon's ban came in the midst of a flurry of other platforms kicking him off as well.
They say according to court documents, Benjamin subsequently filed a $2.2 million claim against Patreon for banning him, and then later upped it to $3.5 million.
He also got 100 of his fans to file separate, identical claims against Patreon for kicking him off the platform.
Notably, for tortious interference, arguing that Owen Benjamin has a contract with the user.
Patreon, by banning him, severed this contract, interfering in his arrangement with these users, and it's a very interesting argument.
They may not have a claim, but it's interesting because if I get banned from a platform, but I have an agreement with someone else, and I'm operating under certain terms, then they're essentially causing the third-party harm.
They say.
Now Patreon is suing 72 of his fans.
This lawsuit is about keeping hate speech off of Patreon, the company said.
Let me stop you right there.
What Patreon, like all of these other corporations, is doing is using the narrative to defend their unfair business practices.
Whenever someone tries to go to a different platform, we saw- I'm not going to get into it because we're dealing with legal matters and I don't want to get sued, but I'll just say I believe what they're doing is unfair and they manipulate the narrative by claiming we're fighting against hate speech.
When Sargon of Akkad got banned, it had nothing to do with their hate speech policy.
It was Sargon, like, facetiously using a word, or ironically using a word, on a separate livestream somewhere else from a long time before they decided to ban him.
So it seems arbitrary.
Anyway, let's read.
They say, unlike the prior claims, the suit against Benjamin's fans is filed in California State Court.
Patreon's previous terms of service require claims to be submitted to arbitration, like Benjamin's $3.5 million.
An update to its terms of service that went into effect on January 1st both prohibits users from filing claims based on the platform kicking off someone else and requires any who do so to pay the company's attorneys fees and costs.
The only problem?
Those were new terms.
So, a new lawyer stepped up to represent Owen Benjamin's fans.
I watched this court proceeding play out.
Cernovich tweeted about it.
That's what he's updating on a couple weeks ago.
He basically said, this argument, the lawyer basically said, If you enter into a contract with someone under specific terms, and then when they announce they plan to take you to arbitration, you immediately rush up and say, wait, wait, we've changed our terms.
You have to pay for it now.
Sorry, no one agreed to that.
You can't just do it.
And there is long-standing recognized law saying you can't just change the contract when you find out you're being sued.
Well, according to Cernovich, the judge agreed.
Patreon cannot change its terms.
So no, it didn't backfire.
It's working exactly as planned.
Between Milo, Lauren Southern, and Sargon of Akkad, every single one of these people who closed their account could file an arbitration the same way that Owen Benjamin's fans did, and we would be seeing thousands of these claims.
Take a look at what Cernovich said.
A hundred plus claims and upfront fees of up to $10,000 per arbitration.
Of up to $10,000 per arbitration.
Increase that $100,000 plus to, I don't know, $5,000?
I know for a fact that a decent amount of the people who were subscribed to me on Patreon left after Dave Rubin left, after Sargon left, and that means those terms don't apply to you.
The old terms do, which means if you filed an arbitration claim in the similar vein as today did, it stands to reason Patreon's got to front the costs.
And it's going to bankrupt them.
As Cernovich says, that's it.
That would be the end of Patreon.
To make matters worse, you know what I think would actually happen?
When it comes to payment processing on Patreon, Patreon actually takes in the money, holds it, and then dishes it out.
I would be willing to bet That because Patreon has that money, they would take the money from other creators to cover the costs.
Otherwise, they disappear.
They cease to exist.
So what would they do?
It's the inherent risk of going through a company like Patreon, and it's why I don't.
Now there's other services that are similar, and they have similar problems, but this is a problem of Patreon specifically.
There was a big story, not too long ago, about an MC on a multi-channel network.
The way it works, multi-channel networks on YouTube, is that your ad revenue will go to the network, and then the network will pay you.
When this one network went out of business, it took all of the money it had with it, even though it was the ad revenue that belonged to the creators.
Putting the intermediary in the middle meant that the money first went to this company who dissolves and took the money with it, leaving the craters high and dry.
Here's my prediction.
If every single one of Sargon's patrons, Lauren's, Milo's, and anyone in between, anybody who is using, like, if they all file arbitration claims, Patreon's going to say, here's how much money we have right now, even though they're supposed to pay it out.
And they'll say, okay, we can cover the costs.
And then what?
What happens to all the money lost by these big creators?
Now, I'm just saying that's my opinion.
Maybe what happens is that Patreon caves.
Pays out whatever little bit is left, shuts the company down because they can't afford the costs of arbitration.
This may be one of the most important battles we thought was over.
Patreon had bent the knee to the outrage mob, and now they will get woke and go broke.
They got woke some time ago.
And now it would seem, they're about to get broke so bad, this is gonna be insane.
I kid you not, Patreon's lawyers were telling the judge, listen, if you agree with them and side with them, we will have to front millions of dollars.
And he was like, and?
These are your terms.
The X has been dropped.
That's it.
That would be the end of Patreon.
Now, to those that use Patreon, man.
Look.
I warned everybody.
I said, you need to get off.
You need to get off, because it's not just about them banning you, it's about their legal responsibilities.
What happens if Patreon goes belly up?
It's too late.
Have you gotten- I'm sorry, man.
You were warned.
Stay away from these war- these culture wars, man.
I think Patreon's gonna collapse.
Unless they can pull in some massive venture capital to cover the cost of all this arbitration.
