DOJ Explored Charging Democrats Over Civil Unrest In Portland And Seattle, Trump Has ENDED The Riots
According to several reports the DOJ was looking into charging Antifa and BLM Leftists with sedition as well as pursuing charges against Democrats who may have contributed.Where the case is now we don't know but charges may still happen. It seems extremely unlikely however that this will ever be more than a news story about plans that never came to fruition.But many people have demanded that Trump, Bill Barr, and The DOJ do more to end the riots. Perhaps this was part of their plans to do as much as possible. Another move they made that perhaps ended the riots was deputizing Oregon State Police so that the Feds could prosecute the BLM organizers who were leading the riots.It seems to have worked
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
There were many people on the right who were saying that Donald Trump needed to do more to end the riots.
At one point, I was saying that as well.
Many people said that Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act, send in the military, crush the riots.
Well, he didn't.
But the riots still stopped, and I believe it has to do with the fact that the feds stepped up, started arresting the organizers, the OSP, the Oregon State Police, got deputized, and all of a sudden, poof, the riots were gone.
Now, many people on the left were saying that the riots are happening in Trump's America.
It's his fault.
Well, actually, it's the local mayors and the Democrats who run the jurisdictions where the riots were occurring.
Naturally, many on the left tried to deflect, saying, well, that's just because Democrats run all the big cities.
Well, I'm like, that doesn't change anything.
The Democrats are still running the cities where the riots are happening.
Well, now we're getting a slow trickle of very serious, major news.
It appears, according to several different publications, that the DOJ was seeking either sedition charges against many of these Antifa or Black Lives Matter far-leftists, meaning they wanted to accuse them of conspiring to overthrow the U.S., but now the bigger breaking stories.
First, Bill Barr apparently was exploring whether or not he could charge the mayor of Seattle.
Feds were apparently doing research to see if there were criminal or civil rights charges against the Seattle mayor for allowing the Chazz Chop to occur.
And several people lost their lives.
And now we have this story from the Associated Press.
Department of Justice explored possibly charging Portland officials amid protests.
Well, you know, look, I like to see justice.
This is still a bit disconcerting.
I think Bill Barr's given some pushback, saying that some of it's not true, like the charging Mayor Jenny Durkan.
But it's still really scary because we are heading into an election, and you better believe both sides will pull out all the stops.
Now, I gotta say, I think the cheating for the most part comes from the Democrats.
That's just the way it is.
Mail-in voting is broken.
We know it's broken, but they keep saying it's safe.
And now they've apparently flagged Donald Trump's opinion on Twitter, you know, linking people to mainstream news sources.
It's an information battle.
They're trying to silence his voice.
I believe we are heading into a storm, as it were.
And while it may seem good to many people that Democrats who are running these cities could face civil rights charges or criminal charges over their failure to secure their cities, think about what that means.
Imagine Feds walking into Seattle, arresting the mayor Or Portland.
Same thing.
That would be a shocking moment for this country.
And if you want to talk about civil unrest, and you want to talk about civil war, this is exactly what needs to happen if that were going to be the case.
Let's read the news and break down exactly what is going on so we can get very, very precise on what this news means.
Before we get started, head over to timcast.com slash doneit if you would like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
I got a P.O.
box if you want to send me some stuff.
But the best thing you can do Seriously, share this video.
I don't have a big marketing department or anything like that.
I just rely on word of mouth.
If you all, right now, just shared this video anywhere, then I would be doing way better than, you know, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News.
If you think I deserve to, then with your simple sharing of the video, maybe I will.
Also, don't forget to hit that like button, that subscribe button, and the notification bell.
Let's read the story.
Bay News 9.
The Associated Press reported through Bay News 9 says, Department of Justice explored possibly charging Portland officials amid protests.
This is just one of several stories I have to show you.
The Justice Department explored whether it could pursue either criminal or civil rights charges against city officials in Portland, Oregon, after clashes erupted there night after night between law enforcement and demonstrators, a department spokesperson said Thursday.
So this is official.
The revelation that federal officials researched whether they could levy criminal or civil charges against the officials, exploring whether their rhetoric and actions may have helped spur the violence in Portland, underscores the larger Trump administration's effort to spotlight and crack down on protest-related violence.
The majority of the mass police reform demonstrations nationwide have been peaceful.
I love it.
They still try to maintain that whole peaceful narrative.
Majority of human beings are peaceful.
Does that mean we ignore the murderers?
If I complain about murder, does that mean I'm just exaggerating the problem?
I love how they were like, many of these riots were confined to a certain area.
Yes, that's true.
And where I grew up in Chicago, a lot of the crime was confined to certain areas as well.
We called it gang territory.
Yeah, you get the point.
I get it.
Mostly peaceful, fine.
But we're talking about the violent unrest for months that caused over $2 billion in damage, according to Axios Research and the Foundation for Educ- I believe it's called the Foundation for Economic Education.
Says, it's actually higher than that.
The $2 billion price tag, that just refers to insurance claims.
What about the things that couldn't be claimed?
The damage and destruction that went well beyond what they could actually claim?
Let's read more.
For many nights, federal officials were told that Portland police officers were explicitly told not to respond to the federal courthouse as hundreds of demonstrators gathered outside.
Some throwing bricks, rocks, and other projectiles at officers, and not to assist federal officers who were sent to try and quell the unrest.
The department had done research on whether it could pursue the charges.
Spokesperson Carrie Kupec said she declined to comment on the status or whether charges would be brought, meaning they still might bring charges.
Kind of a scary thought.
But if charges are warranted, then charges should be brought.
If someone broke the law, or exacerbated the problem, or allowed this to happen for some kind of political gain, then yes, they must be charged.
The federal government needs to weed out corruption.
But it could be dangerous.
At a time when we're hyper-polarized, I can only say this.
Law and order must be upheld.
Police need to be able to make arrests.
The government needs to be able to enforce laws.
If there are other people who are resisting and rejecting our laws, well then, we have a problem.
Maybe the night is always darkest before the dawn, huh?
And if they come in and arrest these people, these Portland officials, it could get bad.
But maybe we have no other choice.
Let's read some more.
They say.
But bringing criminal civil rights charges against city officials to protest related violence would likely present an uphill court battle for federal prosecutors.
Justice Department officials disputed news reports that Attorney General William Barr told prosecutors in the Department's Civil Rights Division to explore whether they could bring charges against Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan for allowing some residents to establish a protest zone this summer.
President Donald Trump has blamed Democrats and specifically pointed to Portland's mayor Ted Wheeler,
who he says have not done enough to stop nights of looting and unrest in cities across the U.S.
Trump has called Wheeler a wacky radical left do-nothing Democrat mayor.
Well, to put it mildly, I guess.
And as said, the city will never recover with a fool for a mayor.
Trump has heaped blame for the unrest on Democrats who are leading the cities where violence has occurred and tried to keep focus squarely on pockets of protest-related violence instead of on the point of police reform and the larger movement of racial injustice.
More than 100 people have been arrested in Portland on federal charges related to the unrest in the last few months.
The FBI has said it was also shifting the agency's resources to focus more heavily on violence and federal crimes committed during nearly three months of unrest during nightly racial injustice protests in the city that often end in vandalism, clashes with police, and dozens of arrests.
Well, they say the Justice Department is disputing reports that Bill Barr was going after Mayor Durkan, but we do have this story.
From Como News, it goes a little bit more in-depth, and I don't know what to believe.
I mean, what's the intent on reporting a story?
I know that the media often falsely frames things, but if they've got a person, a spokesperson, or a source saying that they were going to do this, why wouldn't I believe it?
Apparently the spokesperson said they were going after Portland politicians.
Why not Seattle?
Maybe it's true, maybe it's not.
Now, before I read this, I'll just point out Donald Trump has ended the riots in Portland, so we can talk about what they should have done or what they shouldn't have done.
Is it acceptable for us to just say Trump was able to get it done by deputizing the Oregon State Police and then having the feds come in and make the arrest of the organizers?
Then, just like Mike Magic, the riots are gone.
It was effective.
Maybe that proves, in fact, or it provides evidence to suggest that the politicians in Oregon weren't doing anything to stop this.
And I think the main issue is the DA.
The DA was letting everyone go.
But let's see what's going on with this Mayor Jenny Dirk, and we'll come back to that in a second.
From Como News, Attorney General explored possible criminal charges against Durkin for allowing CHOP, or CHAZ as some call it.
According to the New York Times, Attorney General William Barr told federal prosecutors to consider sedition charges against rioters, and he asked the Justice Department to explore possible criminal charges against Mayor Jenny Durkin for allowing the Capitol Hill Organized Protest Zone, or CHOP, to form.
Whether this leads to legal action is unclear, but Barr reportedly singled out Durkin as responsible for the violence that unfolded in a zone where police steered clear.
Professor Andy Siegel, a constitutional law expert at Seattle University, calls it ludicrous, quote, They are saying, the mayor may have violated criminal statutes, very serious criminal statutes, simply based on the discretionary decisions she made.
Like where to deploy the police, when to pull them back, Siegel said.
Barr also wants rioters charged with sedition, which is the crime of trying to overthrow the government.
It is a statute that Siegel calls archaic.
Basically, it is a junior varsity treason charge, Siegel said.
We have charges for rioting, we have charges for assault, we have charges for particular terroristic acts, and in the modern world we tend to use those.
But I'm going to push back on constitutional law expert Andy Siegel when he said that there are very serious criminal statutes based on the mayor's discretionary decisions, like where to deploy the police.
She allowed the Chaz Chop to exist, and people died.
Did she bring the police in then to end the unrest?
No.
Do you know when she brought the police in?
Shortly after, the protesters showed up to her house.
Only then was she like, whoa, whoa, whoa!
You see, allowing people to occupy a city center for which the city is now being sued, allowing them to inhibit and shut down businesses, run illegal checkpoints, And actually kill people.
That was all fine apparently.
That was all okay.
But heaven forbid these people go to her home.
No!
Then she put down the iron fist.
So maybe there are charges to be brought.
Maybe it's actually something that she could have dealt with a long time ago and people died because of this.
You know, right now, there's a rumor circulating across the Pacific Northwest that Antifa is lurking in the brush, starting wildfires.
I think it's untrue.
I don't believe it.
There was one guy who was a Black Lives Matter protester.
That's confirmed.
But it's just, sometimes people do dumb things, and we don't have any evidence of widespread Antifa activity.
I'm not saying it's not true.
I'm just saying, I don't believe it.
Give me the evidence first.
But from this, we have seen many individuals forming checkpoints.
And the police have said, it's illegal, you can't do that.
Yeah?
Well, setting up checkpoints at the CHAZ was illegal, too.
The only difference between these random people who live in their neighborhoods and what happened in Seattle is that the mayor did not send in the police to clear it out.
In Portland, it's just random people in different areas where they live guarding their neighborhoods.
It's very, very different from a centralized, organized occupation that was resulting in death and disruption that the mayor ignored until she was personally threatened.
So should she get charges?
Don't ask me.
I'm not actually the legal expert.
Well, Durkin has issued a statement saying, Today's report is chilling and the latest abuse of power from the Trump administration.
I'm gonna stop you right there, Jenny.
What abuse of power?
You weren't charged.
It's just a news story.
We don't know what happened.
She says, as a former U.S.
attorney, I took an oath of office to protect the Constitution and the rule of law.
That is the bedrock of our country and why the Department of Justice cannot become a political weapon operated at the behest of the President to target those who have spoken out against this administration's actions.
This is an act of tyranny, not of democracy.
Ultimately, this is not a story about me.
It is about how this president and his attorney general are willing to subvert the law and use the Department of Justice for political purposes.
It is particularly egregious to try to use the civil rights laws to investigate, intimidate, or deter those that are fighting for civil rights in our country.
Oh, spare me!
Wow is that brazen!
People are dead in your city, on your watch, and you let it happen!
Well, Donald Trump and Bill Barr did everything they could to stop it.
And if they were able to, then these people who were killed in the Chas would be alive today.
That's your fault.
But they blame Trump, and I'm sick of it.
The buck stops with you.
The president doesn't control your city's jurisdiction.
You do.
Stop passing the blame.
Now again, whether or not she should actually be charged, another question.
And the DOJ is pushing back on this.
So could it be that the story is incorrect and the Democrats are just using this to make Trump look like a despot?
Maybe.
I have no idea.
All we really know is the story that's being reported.
Here's what's being said.
She says, quote, Not surprisingly.
Just weeks before an election, this is yet another effort by the President and his administration to distract from the abject failure to lead America through its toughest challenges.
He downplayed the threat of COVID-19, which has cost nearly 200,000 Americans lives.
He has done nothing to help millions of Americans facing an economic crisis.
And he has threatened to withhold funding from Seattle and other American cities because of their commitment to racial justice.
He also rolled back common sense climate protections that undoubtedly have played a part in the climate fire crisis that we are currently experiencing.
Man, I really hate politics, can I tell ya?
They're saying that the fires are climate change, yet numerous reports come out over and over again about arsonists.
I'm not saying the arsonists have started all the fires, I'm not saying they've started most of the fires, but there are arsonists.
It is much more than just your climate crisis to be discussed.
But what we're getting from this, and this goes for Trump as well, Trump and the Republicans and Bill Barr, as well as the Democrats, are hyping up with the problems they want taken care of.
And it's just, I hate politics.
You know, the Trump campaign puts out the, you know, if Biden gets elected, this will happen.
And it's like, you know, I happen to agree.
I do.
Look, right now we're seeing the DOJ might actually go after the Democrats who allowed all this stuff to happen.
Maybe they won't.
Maybe they shouldn't.
I don't know.
But they're doing something.
They're doing something.
I believe, based on the evidence I've put forth, that the FBI was able to shut down the Portland riots.
Do you think Joe Biden would do the same?
No way.
A Biden administration DOJ would let them just do whatever they want, and no one could weed out the corruption.
In fact, it's scarier than that.
Because I think the Republicans are basically ineffective.
I mean, beyond that, they just don't do anything.
Not a fan.
But we have Donald Trump, and we have Bill Barr, and they're the last two people holding back this tsunami of lawlessness.
I know, maybe it's a little bit exaggerated, but that's the way it feels.
Because, look, I know there's a lot of issues to talk about pertaining to procedural law, but I'm focused on the riots and the violence, and what these politicians did and didn't do.
She goes on to say that she will continue to fight for what she believes is right, and will not be distracted by these threats.
Late Wednesday night, U.S.
Attorney Brian T. Moran released additional information, saying, quote,
Throughout this lengthy period of civil unrest, I have had multiple
conversations with Department of Justice leadership. They have asked for
information about protest activity devolving into violence, about federal
interests implicated by the Capitol Hill organized protest, and
about the cases filed in this district regarding federal crimes.
At no time has anyone at the department communicated to me that Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan is, was, or should be the subject of a criminal investigation or should be charged with any federal crime related to the CHAS, the CHOP.
As U.S.
Attorney, I would be aware of such an investigation.
My office continues to work collaboratively with state and local law enforcement, including the Seattle Police Department, to prosecute federal crimes such as arson, weapons violations, and the use of destructive devices.
Those cases are traditionally an area of focus for federal law enforcement.
The goal of my office is to strongly deter criminal acts that have no place alongside, and only endanger, those who choose to engage in constitutionally protected speech.
Siegel doubts Durkin would ever be charged and sees Barr's request as a play for swing voters on behalf of Trump.
I think it's mostly about the election, Siegel said.
It's about how they are centering these protests in the election campaign and trying to make it seem like the U.S.
is under attack.
Trying to make it seem like?
The U.S.
is under attack, sure.
It's an opinion, I guess.
No, it's just unrest.
We have a growing faction of weird far-left zealots, cultists who believe insane, racist things.
It is a dogma.
And they're in government.
They are.
It's a fact.
And they are in the streets, and they are protesting.
And they are painting their messages in our streets in violation of the First Amendment.
And I say that because they won't allow Trump supporters to put up similar messages.
They have used the power of public office to enrich and strengthen themselves.
To prop up their political slogan, Black Lives Matter.
And others aren't allowed to do so.
If Joe Biden gets elected, there will be nothing to go after this corruption.
But I guess we can only wait and see how that plays out.
And I don't think it's going to play out well.
We will not prosecute.
Left-wing prosecutors, many backed by Soros cash, implement soft on-crime policies across America.
This has been a long time coming.
The prosecutors that were being put in, it goes back to October 25th, 2018 from the New York Times.
The New York Times tells the story of George Soros funding many new progressive district attorneys who wanted to release people.
And he supported many, many people who today are in fact releasing people because they won.
Now listen, the New York Times is the one who brings up George Soros, right?
I don't, I don't, I mean they bring him up quite a bit.
I don't really care for the argument about George Soros because there are many billionaires who fund many different politicians and practices.
However, in this capacity, it's important to point out the New York Times is reporting that Soros-backed DAs were being elected and many of these people will not prosecute the far left.
They're not.
And that's why we need Donald Trump and his DOJ to pick up the slack.
I don't know if I believe they're actually going to go after Mayor Jenny Durkan.
That could be fake news put out by the left or the right.
I have no idea.
Maybe Bill Barr said it and he's lying about it now because they want the protests and the riots to be center stage, like this Siegel person said.
Or maybe the left put out the fake news so they could accuse Trump of being a fascist or a despot or a dictator.
Maybe that's the case.
I honestly don't know.
It would seem like going after Portland officials was legit though.
And it's also true.
I believe this has been confirmed.
Barr told prosecutors to consider sedition charges for protest violence.
They say protest violence.
I say this.
Violent insurrection.
These far leftists are saying revolution nothing less.
They're not going around saying, you know, just Black Lives Matter.
They are.
They're chanting that too.
But they're calling for the violent overthrow of the country.
Whether or not we should actually call that sedition, I don't know.
We are inching towards the razor's edge, to put it mildly.
And now we have this from the Daily Mail.
Donald Trump says the House might decide the election as he paints doomsday scenario of North Korea forging ballots, mass fraud, results off by 15%, and protests which will be put down.
Say, Tim, you are wrong about everything that actually happened.
I remember when I said they'll come to your house, and when you defend it, they'll arrest you.
Then they started doing that.
I remember when I said the culture war split would reach the highest level of government.
I wasn't making grand predictions, man!
I'm not pulling up lottery numbers!
We know that there was the Russiagate thing.
We know that there's the Obamagate thing.
We already have the fracture in our federal government.
Now we're seeing street violence, and of course that will start to make its way up to the highest levels.
I wasn't just predicting random nonsense.
So here's what I see.
If the DOJ does go after these Democrats, wow.
I mean, that would be a historic day in this country when state-level and city-level politicians get arrested for civil rights or criminal charges due to the riots.
Not only that, look at COVID.
What if charges come from the unconstitutional and illegal acts, civil rights charges?
What if they get charged in that capacity?
Trump is predicting.
It could be bad.
The Daily Mail reports President Donald Trump railed about mail-in voting, which he cast as vulnerable to foreign interference, and raised the prospect Wednesday that a contested presidential election could be thrown to the House.
He has also vowed to squelch any violent protests on Election Day, warning they will be put down very quickly.
The President exploded about mail-in voting at a White House press briefing after DailyMail.com asked him about his earlier vow to put down any potential violent election protests, which he said would amount to an insurrection.
He then raised the prospect of an election so disputed that it ends up being decided not by the direct vote of the Electoral College, but by the House of Representatives.
It's not just the counting of the ballots.
Which, by the way, will take forever.
Trump fumed.
It'll take forever.
You think November 3rd?
You might not have.
I guess at a certain point, it goes to Congress.
At a certain point, it goes to Congress.
You know that.
Well, according to one story I read from Newsweek, it's not going to go to the House for a direct vote.
It's going to go to House delegations, for which Republicans Actually have the majority.
So Trump would win in that capacity.
I don't know exactly what we can expect.
But we can see at the highest levels, they're talking about arresting Democrats.
Maybe they're just talking.
I don't know.
Seems like they were researching it pretty seriously.
The Democrats are disputing it.
They're saying Trump's the one who's going to cheat.
The Democrats are pushing mail-in voting, which is broken.
And I'll leave you with this.
Donald Trump tweeted a few things.
Twitter then put a tag on them, linking you to mainstream media information.
Trump just gave his opinion.
Why is he not allowed to have an opinion?
Why is Twitter and Facebook saying that if Donald Trump declares victory, they will remove his posts?
Isn't that something else?
I am really worried about what happens after November 3rd, and I hope all of you are paying attention.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at youtube.com slash timcastnews at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all next time.
You know, sometimes it sucks to be right, but I called this.
You may remember the story about a man in Omaha.
Apparently he walks out of his bar, he sees some guys, some Black Lives Matter individuals, being rough with his dad.
So he shows that he's got a gun, apparently tells him to back off, and then two guys jump on him.
He gets another guy who jumps on and puts him in a chokehold.
At some point, he fires a couple warning shots, but they don't care.
So, I believe the story was that he reached over and shot the guy, hitting him in the clavicle, killing him.
This guy's name was, uh, I believe it was James Scurlock.
He was 22.
The prosecutor said, clear-cut self-defense.
You know why?
There's a video of him being choked.
He warned them first by showing the weapon.
He warned them again by firing warning shots, which many people say is irresponsible, but he wasn't trying to kill anybody.
And then, this guy was choking him, and wouldn't get off him, so he fired in self-defense.
Well, what do you think happened?
See, at the time I said it's only a matter of time before some protest shows up, demands he be arrested, and he will be!
And what do you think happened?
Well, the prosecutor said, after speaking with community members, I wanted them to have faith in the system, so I sent it to grand jury.
But the grand jury decided to indict.
Alright, well, maybe that's fair.
Maybe the grand jury is a group of people and they looked at the evidence and they said, okay, indict him.
And the guy's being indicted on, I believe, manslaughter as well as many other charges.
The argument from the community was that he should have faced some kind of charge, but I think that's really kind of crazy because there's photos that they put out where you can see the dude was attacked.
Well now, he may face jail time.
He is being charged with very serious crimes.
Now we do have another story that I want to get into, and it's the idea of, uh, how do we get past this?
Because you may have seen what happened in Milwaukee, where a guy was in his home, and a mob of Black Lives Matter people showed up and were shining lights in his window.
He brandished a weapon, pointed it at him, and the cop said that he appeared to be drunk.
Now the news is, intoxicated man points gun at protesters.
And there's a really interesting point to be brought up here.
What if he was just chilling in his home on a Saturday night having a beer, and then this mob showed up, and he wanted to defend himself?
Because these mobs in Milwaukee, where this happened, had actually set fire to another home, and there were gunshots at some of these events where several people were shot.
Several, like, teenagers.
So maybe this guy's like, I better show him I'm serious.
Nope!
You can't warn, you can't show him, you can't do anything, you can't defend yourself anymore.
And so what's the solution to all this?
Looks like it's Bill Barr.
He's trying to go after everybody.
Even the mayor of Seattle herself.
He's trying to... I kid you not.
Let's read this first story and then we'll work our way there.
From CNN.
Grand jury indicts Omaha bar owner in fatal shooting of black protester.
They say.
James Scurlock, a 22-year-old black man, was fatally shot by a white bar owner during a fight with several people on May 30th in Omaha, Nebraska, amid protests related to the police killing of George Floyd.
Douglas County Attorney Don Kline declined to bring charges against the shooter, Jake Gardner, saying he acted in self-defense.
But days later, Kline petitioned for a grand jury to review his decision.
Which, at the time, he said he stood by.
Meanwhile, the Omaha Police Department was continuing its investigation.
Special Prosecutor Frederick Franklin told reporters when announcing the decision Tuesday in video obtained by CNN affiliate KETV.
Gardner was charged with manslaughter, the use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, attempted first-degree assault, and terroristic threats, Franklin said.
The use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.
What was that?
There's video of this.
The guys were choking him.
What was he supposed to do?
Well, they do bring up that his concealed carry was expired, and I believe that is a factor.
But I think the prosecutor said, well, that's a different charge.
Self-defense is something else.
The indictment is not a sign that Klein was wrong in his decision, Franklin said, but after more than 60 interviews conducted by the Omaha Police Department and evidence taken from cell phones, video footage and social media, the grand jury was presented with more information that Klein's office had at the time, he said.
CNN has reached out to Gardner for comment.
They say, how the shooting unfolded.
Let's get to the nitty-gritty.
Two videos depict scenes from the incident, as described by prosecutors.
Gardner's father asked protesters outside the Gadsby bar to leave and pushed one.
An unidentified man can be seen pushing Gardner's father back.
And then Gardner intervened.
Scurlock was not part of that group, the family attorney Justin Wayne said.
Gardner had a handgun tucked in his waistband and lifted his shirt to show it during his confrontation with the protesters, Klein said of one video.
Let's stop right there.
Warning number one.
I'm armed.
Back off.
He didn't instigate.
His dad may have, but is that on him?
His dad, I believe, pushed the guy first.
Two people jump on Gardner's back, and he fired two warning shots, the county attorney said.
Within moments, Scurlock jumped into the fray, according to authorities.
Gardner told police he was put in a chokehold, and he begged for the assailant to get off of him, according to Klein.
Gardner then shot Scurlock in the clavicle, killing him.
He thought he was in danger of losing his life or serious bodily injury, Klein said.
Klein said that there isn't any audio that we have that shows any racial slurs, because they were trying to claim he was yelling racial slurs, as if that's justification for attacking somebody.
After reviewing the evidence, he doesn't feel that the owner was somebody who walked out and was trying to hunt somebody down.
Wayne, the family attorney, said Scurlock was trying to protect a family member and friend.
Doesn't matter.
It doesn't change what self-defense is.
And this is exactly what the left was saying and their lawyers with the Portland incident.
So in the Portland incident, With Aaron Danielson.
You see the far leftist guy raises his weapon, and then there's a cloud of mist that comes out if the shots are fired.
The left claims they both raised weapons.
Aaron Danielson, the Trump supporter, had tear gas, and, well, Reinoehl had a gun.
The lawyers that are, you know, these very pro-left lawyers had this viral thread and the left was sharing it saying it was mutual self-defense.
They both perceived a threat, they both saw the weapon, and they both took aim, and one of them had lethal force.
Well, we now know that it wasn't because Reinoehl was stalking the guy.
But you see, therein lies the issue.
Yes, Scurlock may have been like, oh no, he's fighting with, you know, my family member.
I need to get in and help them.
And then he threatened the safety and life of this other dude, Who had already warned them he was armed.
And had already fired warning shots.
And then he shot the student and killed him in self-defense.
You can argue that Scurlock was acting in defense of others.
This is a problem with... These things happen.
There's not always a good guy and a bad guy.
Now, I think, you know, in the scheme of things, you have several people who had been- apparently they were, like, smashed out windows.
I don't know if these guys were the rioters or the looters, but there were accusations.
They claimed these guys were saying racial slurs, but they come out of their bar and they say, you guys need to leave.
Then there's a scuffle.
The dude, Gardner, showed his weapon first.
He didn't just attack people.
Get out of here!
I'm armed!
And they attacked him.
Wayne, the family attorney, said Scurlock was trying to protect a family member and friend.
Quote, I surely believe none of this would have happened if the bar owner's father didn't put his hands on a young individual ahead of time, he said.
Maybe, you're right.
Yeah, don't do that.
It was wrong of Gardner's father to push somebody.
Yeah.
What does that have to do with Gardner, who walked out and saw a scuffle, and then got into it?
So therein lies the main issue.
If you have two parties, and they're both saying they're protecting friends and family members, and they're both attacking each other, what does it come down to?
One guy had a gun.
So are you really- it's- Neither of these people apparently started the fight, but it was Scurlock who decided to jump on this guy and put him in a chokehold.
And the guy had a gun.
Grand jury meant to show the system works.
When he requested the grand jury in June, Klein said it was in response to conversations with members of the community.
And there it is.
If you are clearly defending yourself on video and there's, you know, a prosecutor says, I'm not going to charge because I can see the dude's being joked and made several warnings.
But then the rioters show up and say, no justice, no peace, no justice, no sleep.
And the prosecutor says, I will give you whatever you want.
It is easier for the police and the government to give the violent mob whatever they want.
And if that means you, it will be you.
Now I need to stop, slow down a little bit, and make sure I'm being rational and reasonable.
It could just be that this guy did jump the gun, and there is new evidence.
Apparently, the prosecutor, the special prosecutor, I believe, someone in the case said, after reviewing text messages, they believe that his intent was very different that night.
Yeah.
Maybe he was in the bar and said something like, you know, I'mma shoot one of these dudes or something like that.
And that changed from self-defense to premeditation, I guess?
But if that were the case, I think he would have been charged with something more severe than manslaughter.
Manslaughter charge implies that he was negligent.
And he wasn't intending to kill somebody, but someone got killed.
Something to that effect, you know.
So what was on his phone that changed their mind?
I don't know.
But I think it's always important to point out that grand juries, you know, look, for one thing, it's non-adversarial.
What that means is the special prosecutor comes in and says, look at all this evidence.
Should we charge him?
There's no defense.
It's just about bringing charges.
Then you go to the actual trial.
So he may still get acquitted.
But the grand jury then sees a bunch of things, and it's a group of individuals who then decide whether or not to issue an indictment, which they did.
Maybe the indictment is fair.
He's not being convicted, he's being indicted.
So, perhaps this guy will go to trial, he'll say, here's what happened, and a jury of his peers will say, clearly self-defense.
The main issue I bring up here is this sentence, right here, is the most important part of this story.
That even though the DA said, this looks like self-defense and I'm not going to charge it, they, the protesters showed up and demanded it.
And he said, okay, grand jury.
And then the grand jury says, okay.
And they arrest, they charged the guy.
I don't know if he got arrested, but he's been charged.
Compare that to Portland.
Compare that to Seattle.
Ah, Seattle you say?
Well, how about we jump over to Seattle and see what's going on over in good ol' Seattle.
Homicide suspect in Seattle slang was arrested and released more than 34 times.
That's the main point.
If the mob shows up and says, we demand charges, they say, OK, OK, we'll do whatever you say, because we're spineless, pathetic losers.
But then in Portland, when you say, hey, those guys throwing firebombs clearly on camera should be arrested for it, they go, actually, the officers made a bad arrest, so we're releasing them.
And then you end up with 105 nights of rioting, or however many nights there were, before it finally stopped, thanks in part to the federal government.
That's right.
You see, in these stories, we see it all the time.
How about this one?
They said he appeared to be intoxicated.
And what does the local news run?
Milwaukee police say. They said he appeared to be intoxicated.
And what does the local news run?
They run, he is intoxicated. Yeah.
They showed up to his house.
A mob of people that, you know, previously, back in June, I believe it was in June, in Milwaukee, a bunch of people thought some girls were missing, so they set fire to a house several times, fired several shots into the air.
Apparently, wild shots resulted in two 14-year-olds, a boy and a girl, getting shot.
And so this guy's got this mob outside of his house.
Let's- let's- let's- we'll put it this way.
They say he was intoxicated.
How does that- that sounds so crazy.
A crazy drunk man waving a gun around, oh no!
What if it's actually much more simple than that?
What if he was sitting in his- in his living room, watching reruns of The Office, having a couple beers, when the mob showed up, were harassing and shining lights and blasting music, calling him all these names, and he felt threatened, so he brandished a weapon.
Should he have brandished the weapon?
What I mean by that is he actually pointed it at them.
Yeah, maybe that was the line he shouldn't have crossed.
Sure, sure, sure.
Intoxicated, however.
Yeah, it's interesting.
He ended up getting arrested.
The cops went and arrested him.
I'm telling you, man, this one, it's not going to, listen, it's not going to be like one day a guy's in his house, you know, playing backgammon with his son and the cops kick the door and like, you're a racist!
And then run in and grab him and drag him to the police station.
That won't be for several years.
When I talk about them coming to your house, it's going to be incremental through circumstances like this.
Oh, in this case, the guy showed the weapon and thus he's being arrested because he shouldn't have pointed it at them.
Regardless.
He was trying to protect himself in his own home from a mob that had many of the same people at a previous mob where people were shot and a house was set on fire several times.
Or I should say twice.
I believe it was twice.
Well, he crossed the line.
And so they've arrested him for it.
The line has been pushed back now.
So what happens next?
Now they're gonna go on to the house, banging on the doors, and the guy's gonna, you know, pump his shotgun, and they're gonna go, and the cops are gonna come and arrest him.
I'm telling you, man, it won't happen immediately.
The cops will break into a regular person's house, but it will come.
Like this first story.
You could be, you, this guy was being, he was choked.
They attacked him.
They have video of him being attacked.
And he fired warning shots, he warned them with the gun, doesn't matter.
You will be arrested if the morality police say so.
And then when their rioters and their murderers and their meth heads are out in the streets, the prosecutors will release them.
Because apparently that's the story that's happening in Seattle.
So how do we stop all of this?
This is why, as much as... I will be absolutely critical of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, because they've both kind of said, if I lose, there will be violence.
Donald Trump has run commercials saying, Biden's America.
Don't let Biden win.
And it's basically saying that if Biden wins, there's gonna be a lot more violence.
Well...
Joe Biden has said this is Trump's America, and the media has put out this message, because Biden doesn't really talk, saying that unless Biden wins in a landslide, there will be violence.
See?
It's Trump's America.
Well, you know, I don't like either of these messages.
Vote for me, or else the violence will get worse.
But I do think Trump is right, and here's why.
Bill Barr compares coronavirus lockdown to slavery, AG says it's one of the greatest intrusions on civil liberties, as he calls for sedition charges for violent Black Lives Matter protesters, and urges Seattle's mayor to be prosecuted for allowing chop.
That's right.
Donald Trump is right.
Bill Barr is probably the only person standing between you and the mob.
And he's not doing, he can't stop everything.
So you'll still get local charges.
A lot of people on the left, they don't realize this.
They were saying things like, I remember when Kyle Rittenhouse got arrested.
They were like, if Trump pardons Kyle Rittenhouse, blah blah blah.
Trump can't pardon somebody for state charges.
Trump can pardon people for federal charges.
The governors have to do state charges.
People don't really understand how this country works at all.
That's why they want to get rid of the electoral college so that the country would just burn to the ground.
They have no idea what they're talking about.
But in terms of the violent rioters and self-defense and what are your rights, Bill Barr, DHS, Donald Trump, they're the only ones defending all of us right now.
That's true.
Of course, you'll have people say, but what about the marginalized communities who are being terrorized?
And first of all, that's just, it's just patently absurd.
It's the exaggerations they've been pushing forward for all this Black Lives Matter stuff, and the propping up of criminals over and over again.
I can say it again.
I say it a million times.
I don't want to see anybody get hurt.
I don't care if they're a criminal or otherwise.
I don't want anybody getting hurt.
I don't want anyone dying.
So we definitely want to figure out how to make sure people don't die.
Cops shouldn't kill people.
However, sometimes life is just that way, and these things happen.
But they're willing to go out and riot for literally anyone.
And then, when there is video of you being choked out, and you warned several times, all the mob need do is say, charge, and they will.
So we're seeing that at the state level, the city level.
In many jurisdictions, they've refused Trump's assistance.
What do we do?
Well, I think the federal government, I could be wrong about this, has the ability to intervene in some circumstances where constitutional rights are being violated.
I don't know exactly how the federal government could or would go about doing that, but I can tell you, at least the feds shut down the riots in Portland.
I want to make sure I show this.
On September 4th, the Portland General Defense Committee warned people the FBI was showing up to people's homes and giving them similar charges to their state charges.
That was the DHS.
That is Bill Barr.
That is Donald Trump's administration saying, if they won't do it, we will get these people off the streets.
Like magic.
The riots stopped.
And I see all these people saying, but why did they stop?
Where did Antifa go?
Into hiding.
And into jail.
It's that simple.
The DHS, Bill Barr, and Trump, their plan was to cut the head off the snake.
They found the individuals who were organizing, they charged them, they locked them up, now they're facing federal charges.
In New York, you got these two people facing a minimum of 45 years for Molotov cocktails.
They were like, I guess, I don't know if they were handing them out, they threw them at like a beat-up NYPD cruiser of some sort, and now they're facing serious federal charges.
I really do believe it.
If Donald Trump loses and Biden gets in, you're not going to have law and order.
You're going to have morality policing at every level of the government.
Perhaps Donald Trump is the last bastion of true law and order before the morality police show up, knock on your door, and tell you you're going to jail for being a racist.
Maybe we're several years away from that degree of absurdity.
I wouldn't be surprised if it started happening sooner and earlier than I anticipate.
The man in Milwaukee, for instance, they said he was a racist.
That's why they were protesting him.
He had a Trump flag outside his house.
They claimed he would parade around with Confederate flags.
You know, I don't really believe that because the guy wasn't hanging a Confederate flag outside his house.
It was an American flag and a Trump flag.
But nonetheless, they called him a racist.
And they apparently are planning other protests at the homes of racists.
What do you think will happen next when the mob shows up and they say the man is a racist?
And then they can just lie.
They can say to the cops, he's armed.
He was threatening us.
And the cops will arrest him.
The cops will arrest him.
They'll eventually arrest you.
The mob will show up to your house on private property or whatever and there's nothing you can do.
The police will say, our job is to keep the peace.
And you know what?
You are the obstacle and the weakest link.
Which means we need only arrest you and mission accomplished.
I know you didn't break any laws.
You were just sitting in your home watching Jurassic World 2 or whatever with your family.
Preparing a good old game of backgammon.
I've never actually played backgammon.
I don't know, I just think it's funny.
And all of a sudden, you see a knock on the door, and the cops show up.
The cops are there, and there's a big mob outside of your house, and you're like, what's happening?
Sir, sir, sir!
Place your hands behind your back, you're under arrest for what?
Sir, sir!
You're under arrest!
What am I being arrested for?
Sir!
Put your hands behind your back!
And they bring it to the car, and the wife's running out yelling, what's happening?
I don't know, I don't know!
And then who knows what you get charged with.
Think it can't happen here?
Think again.
It can happen anywhere.
And we're seeing the insurrectionists in the street.
And I think if Trump loses, it will get worse than we can possibly imagine.
I've heard stories from the Soviet Union.
That story I told you about the cops showing up the angry mob, that stuff happened over there.
I had a friend tell me that if you had a problem with your neighbor, you just called the police and said that he was bad-mouthing the Communist Party and they were gone.
House was cle- apartment cleaned out!
Off to the gulags!
So, I don't know how far away we are from something like that happening, but let me tell you.
We're already at the point where a mob can show up to your house, and they will arrest you.
I know, I know.
The guy was dancing the line, pointing a gun at people.
Sure, of course.
They did it to the McCloskeys, and these people actually got charged.
You hear that?
Nine people, I think it was, got charged with trespassing by coming onto the McCloskeys' property.
So, doesn't that justify that they were in the right to defend themselves, especially in a stand-your-ground, castle-doctrine state like Missouri?
Doesn't matter.
Felony charges.
So this is a very serious conflict we're facing.
Culture war, cold civil war, I don't know.
But I'll tell you this.
If you believe in equality under the law and want to be treated fairly, then the left is your enemy.
Because they believe in morality policing.
They believe that they have a right to impose subjective laws.
It's literally what they do.
They do not believe in equality under the law.
That's why they want to repeal the civil rights law in California and probably everywhere else.
They do not want you to be equal because that's not equity.
Think about what that means.
You may have seen the photo.
They love to share.
Three people standing against a fence and there's a baseball game in front of them.
Everybody has a box they're standing on.
The first guy is very tall.
Second guy is of average height.
And the third guy is short.
Well, the short guy can't see.
So what they do is they take the box from the tall guy and give it to the short guy and now everyone can see.
Yay!
Equity.
It's a very simple way of showing it.
But think about what that means in terms of enforcing the law.
It means that the short guy is the marginalized person.
The tall guy is an oppressor.
And now let's do this.
The short guy brandishes a weapon in defense.
All three of them do.
And the police show up.
And the analogy isn't just about watching the baseball game.
It's about the police saying, we're not going to arrest the marginalized person, but we are going to arrest the oppressor.
And that means you could end up, you could find yourself as just sitting in your house with your family, and race doesn't matter, mind you.
It matters in some contexts, but if they deem you're a racist, they'll just call you white.
I mean, look at Candace Owens.
She's a white supremacist, apparently.
Ben Shapiro, Orthodox Jew, is apparently a Nazi.
And George Zimmerman was a white man, even though he's actually, I think he's Mexican, I'm not entirely sure.
So, they'll just say it.
They'll just, they'll call you a white supremacist.
Then you'll be arrested for being an oppressor, internalized racism or misogyny, and they'll justify it as inequity.
You must be arrested and he must not because it is about equity, not equality under the law.
So you want to defend yourself?
You have no right to defend yourself in their world.
Fortunately, with the likes of Bill Barr, you do.
However, What do we have?
Just Bill Barr?
Well, we still have many Republican jurisdictions that probably believe in this stuff, and the governor of Missouri may pardon McCloskey's if they do end up getting convicted.
But this battle is something we gotta pay attention to, because if these people on the left win, if Donald Trump loses, yeah, they'll show up to your house, call your racist, you'll be arrested.
There you go.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel, and I will see you all then.
A viral video shows a father being dragged out of what appears to be a school board meeting for refusing to wear a mask.
An officer threatens to tase him.
Bill Barr says that the coronavirus lockdown is one of the greatest intrusions into civil liberties in the history of this country.
And now we have the big breaking story, and we'll get to those other stories in a minute.
I just want to give you some context around what the result of these lockdowns and mandates have been.
Or and what Bill Barr is saying.
COVID-19 emails from Nashville mayor's office show disturbing revelation.
Yes, the emails show that they knew bars and restaurants in downtown Nashville were not contributing to the rise in cases, but they locked them down anyway.
And now we have the leaked emails.
And so I couldn't help it.
I couldn't help it.
I said, okay, okay, let's look up the political party for the mayor and...
Democrat!
Wow!
How did I know that was going to be the case?
Bill Barr's right.
The lockdown has been a very serious intrusion into our civil liberties.
But that doesn't necessarily mean it's been all bad.
I want to make sure we're being reasonable here.
There was a major spike in coronavirus.
We saw it happen.
And I think a lot of people overestimated how bad it was going to be.
We can look at it in several different ways.
Was it, uh, did everyone overhype it?
Is that my fault?
It may be.
Because early on in the year, I was like, whoa, I think this is going to get way worse than we realize.
And then things actually didn't get as bad as a lot of people predicted, particularly the New York Times.
Could it be that we all just got it wrong?
Or could it be that the lockdowns helped?
And that Donald Trump also, by shutting down travel and other measures and guidelines, also helped.
We really just won't know.
We don't have a controlled planet for which to test these things.
But I'll put it this way.
I always, typically, I would say it is a tendency of me to err on the side of freedom over security.
But I do understand that if you have a pandemic, you might have to lock down.
The problem is we said 15 days to slow the spread, and we're still locked down today.
And the worst part?
It turns out some politicians, at least this guy, these people, were withholding information to manipulate the public to enforce a lockdown they did not need.
Now that is creepy.
In that regard, Bill Barr is 100% correct.
This is an overt attack on our civil rights and our country, our long-standing institutions, that these politicians would do things like this.
Now the scary thing is, many people are asking, if it's being exposed here, where else did it happen?
So I want to make sure I'm being clear here.
Yeah, I think there was a period at which the lockdown really did help.
And now that cases have stabilized and are almost gone, perhaps it's about time we started reopening again and respecting civil liberties because we're well past that point where we... The line was crossed a long time ago.
Someone asked me.
I wasn't asked, but you can see this on Twitter.
Somebody tweeted.
If the end result of the lockdown is that we've gotten rid of this flu and these colds, isn't that a good thing?
What's so wrong with wearing a mask?
I think it was a mask question.
Anyway, here's something to consider and then we'll read the story.
I was reading about the Spanish flu, and there is speculation that it may have originated in China.
People in China got sick with the normal flu.
It then moved into the trenches of World War I, and then made its way to, I believe, to the U.S., where it started getting really prominent in the middle of the country.
And then, they say that China didn't experience the Spanish flu pandemic the way other countries did.
And there's a couple reasons.
One, well, it may be because we're in war and so everybody was sick and injured and easily infected.
Or it could be that China already had developed some kind of partial immunity to this particular strain.
Before it became as deadly as it did when it mutated, they had developed some partial immunity, creating herd immunity for the country.
The reason that's important is that if we eliminate flu season, it's possible we're stripping ourselves of existing herd immunities to other strains that emerge every year.
So it's not necessarily a good thing, but I will tell you this, I am no epidemiologist, so don't take my advice.
It's just something I read on the internet.
But let's see what happened in Nashville.
COVID-19 emails from Nashville's mayor's office show disturbing revelation.
The coronavirus cases on Lower Broadway may have been so low that the mayor's office and the Metro Health Department decided to keep it a secret.
Emails between the mayor's senior advisor and the health department reveal only a partial picture, but what they reveal is disturbing.
The discussion involves the low number of coronavirus cases emerging from bars and restaurants, and how to handle that, and most disturbingly, how to keep it from the public.
On June 30th, contact tracing was given a small view of coronavirus clusters.
Construction and nursing homes were found to be causing problems, with more than a thousand cases traced to each category.
But bars and restaurants reported just 22 cases.
Leslie Waller from the Health Department asks, This isn't going to be publicly released, right?
Just info for Mayor's office?
Correct.
Not for public consumption, writes Senior Advisor Benjamin Eagles.
A month later, the Health Department was asked point-blank about the rumor there are only 80 cases traced to bars and restaurants.
Reporter Nate Rau asks, The figure you gave of more than 80 does lead to a natural question.
If there have been over 20,000 positive cases of COVID-19 in Davidson, and only 80 or so are traced to restaurants and bars, doesn't that mean restaurants and bars aren't a very big problem?
Health Department official Brian Todd asked five Health Department officials, please advise how you recommend I respond.
The name at the top of the response is clipped off, but you may find the answer unacceptable.
Quote, my two cents, we have certainly refused to give counts per bar because those numbers are low per site.
We could still release the total, though, and then a response to the over 80 could be because the number is increasing all the time, and we don't want to say a specific number.
There it is.
We're not going to let the public know that they can have their bars and restaurants.
Why, then, are they mandating these things get shut down?
There is a piece of this puzzle that is missing.
You see, if it was really about the interest of public safety, if they were really acting in the interest of public safety, Well, they wouldn't need to manufacture a lockdown of these bars and restaurants, right?
Because the data shows it was safe.
So what was the real reason they locked this down?
I wonder.
Neither the Health Department nor the Mayor's Office would confirm the authenticity of the emails, but Council Member Steve Glover had a Metro staff attorney inquire.
Here's the official answer, quote, I was able to get verification from the Mayor's Office and the Department of Health that these emails are real, the staff attorney answered.
Glover says this is Metro Nashville orchestrating a cover-up.
They are fabricating information, Glover said.
They've blown their entire credibility, Dennis.
It's gone.
I don't trust a thing they say going forward.
Nothing.
Glover says he has been contacted by an endless stream of downtown bartenders, waitresses, and restaurant owners asking why would officials not release these numbers.
Quote, we raised taxes 34% and put hundreds, literally thousands of people out of work that are now worried about losing their homes, their apartments, and we did it on bogus data.
That should be illegal, Glover said.
Again, Fox 17 News wasn't told by the mayor's office this wasn't true.
We were told to file a Freedom of Information Act request.
How pathetic!
Which allows us to now ask the question, why are you keeping this from us?
Why would you even want to?
It's just the real numbers and what could possibly be an honorable motive.
I want to know the exact same thing.
Mayor's office.
John Cooper.
Mayor of Metropolitan Nashville.
Democratic Party.
Very, very interesting, huh?
What is the reason they're locking down?
Now, I know the conspiracies will run wild.
The Democrats are hurting the economy on purpose because they want to stop Trump.
I don't know that.
We don't know that.
I wouldn't put it past them, but you need to give me evidence before we can make those assertions.
What I can tell you right now is, we got evidence.
We got emails.
They knew the numbers were so low, they kept them a secret.
Because they could not justify why they were shutting down the local economy.
How insane is this?
Was it for no other reason than their vanity?
Their despotic nature?
They just wanted to feel the power and destroy the lives of the people who needed these jobs?
They wanted to force people into unemployment for what reason?
Maybe they felt even though it's really low, they were really concerned that it would still cause a spike later on and that people wouldn't understand if they told them to lock down because they'd be saying things like I'm saying right now.
Okay, fine.
Maybe it really was the right decision to have the lockdown.
You know what the wrong decision was?
Lying to the public and keeping public information a secret.
That was wrong.
Well, Bill Barr, according to Politico, calls coronavirus lockdown the greatest intrusion on civil liberties since slavery.
The Attorney General also compared career DOJ prosecutors to preschoolers and defended his intervention in high-profile cases.
We got a lot coming out of Bill Barr, and I gotta say, I have tremendous respect for this man.
I'm gonna give him a little pushback though, but let's see what he had to say.
Politico reports Attorney General William Barr argued Wednesday that coronavirus-related lockdown orders were surpassed only by slavery as the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in the nation's history.
I mean, it's an opinion.
He didn't say it was worse than slavery, so take it for what it is.
It's up to you to form your own opinion.
The remarks from the Attorney General came during an event hosted by Hillsdale College, where Barr delivered a speech defending his intervention in high-profile Justice Department cases and comparing career prosecutors to preschoolers.
You know, putting a national lockdown, stay-at-home orders, is like house arrest.
It's, you know, other than slavery, which is a different kind of restraint, this is the greatest intrusion on civil liberties in American history, Barr said, during a question-and-answer session following his remarks.
Barr seemingly suggested the federal response to the pandemic should be guided by politicians and elected officials other than medical experts and the broader scientific community.
He said, quote, The person in the white coat is not the grand seer who can come up with a right decision for society.
A free people makes a decision through its elected representative, he said.
Barr has also used the appearance to address the widespread criticism he has faced as the nation's top law enforcement officer for allegedly interfering in criminal cases on behalf of President Donald Trump.
Well, we'll read this stuff maybe.
We got a lot more to cover in terms of the COVID stuff.
But let me just say, you know what?
No, actually, Bill Barr's correct.
I've said it before.
Fauci should not be the dictator on what we do in this country.
And I'll give you a simple analogy, I suppose.
Fauci sees... Actually, I'll just tell you literally what happened.
Fauci sees the virus and says, as a medical expert, we're going to see a lot of death.
You need to do these things, lock down the country, to prevent that death.
He presents that to the media, and the media starts screaming, whoa, lock it all down, shut it all down!
Screaming, their pants are on fire, they're running around in circles like... Meanwhile...
The words of Fauci make their way to a politician.
And the politician looks at the bigger picture and says, OK, if we do this, what happens?
And the economist steps in and says, I dare say, if we lock down, we'll lose more people to poverty than we would to the virus itself.
Ah.
And that's why the doctors, the scientists, shouldn't be the end-all be-all dictator on what we do.
We, of course, listen to science.
But then they all made fun of the economy.
Okay, do you have any idea what the, I think it was the UN said, something like a quarter of a billion people could starve to death because the economy was shut down?
Because people rely on our household management?
That's what economy means.
To bring food to the table.
People will starve.
And there are some people who can't work.
And they rely on the system functioning so they can stay alive.
The politician then decides, looking at the data, what is going to be worse.
And as it turns out, the lockdown was predicted to be worse.
So what do we get?
15 days to slow the spread?
We are so far beyond that.
What are we at, like 170 or 200?
What ridiculous amount of days has it been?
It's been almost six months.
So yeah, 170, 180?
So much for slowing the spread, now it's no one can do anything until there's a vaccine.
And Bill Barr's right, it is like house arrest.
Many people in these cities live in cubicles.
These studio apartments they live in, they don't spend that much time in them because they go home, they go to sleep, they wake up, they leave.
They spend their time outdoors and in offices.
Well now they're locked in their cubicle apartment.
You know, ordering food and not being able to go outside.
And you do that for months and finally people are gonna snap!
So what are we seeing?
People are snapping.
Take a look at this story from ArgusLeader.com, part of the USA Today network.
Police remove man from Mitchell School Board meeting for not wearing a mask.
Now for me personally, I got no problem at all wearing a mask.
I don't really care all that much.
I know a lot of people are saying that it's about, you know, not being controlled and standing up and reject, you know, refusing to be, to lock, you know, to be whatever, controlled, sure.
I'm just like, I don't know, whatever, man.
It's not difficult to wear a mask.
I have a really cool mask someone sent me.
It's got a beanie on it, so I just wear it.
I don't know, it's fine.
Actually, it's kind of cool, because it looks like a ninja mask.
So, I'll take it.
Whatever.
And some people don't want to, though.
And I think people are tired of being pushed down and pressed upon.
I wonder about this stuff, right?
So this guy's sitting in a chair, the cops come in, and they threaten to tase him, they try and drag him out.
This dude resists!
I mean, is it worth it to fight with the cops in this capacity?
Because you wanted to be in a public building with no mask on?
In my opinion, no.
But it shows you how people feel.
And guess what?
How much you wanna bet that guy's gonna vote for Donald Trump?
Because Trump's the one who's been saying, lift the lockdown.
Bill Barr's the one who's saying our rights are being violated.
How many people feel like him, but are, feel the same way as this guy, but are scared to speak up?
Probably a lot.
Probably a lot.
And, uh, you know who's to blame for all this?
I know.
It's predictable.
You're watching Tim Pool.
I'm not gonna blame Trump.
I think Trump did what he could.
I blame the Democrats.
I do, and so does Chris Rock.
That's right.
Chris Rock criticizes Pelosi and Democrats on Pandemic, compares Trump to 5-year-old.
I respect Chris Rock for saying this, although I don't necessarily agree completely.
What he basically said was, we know that Trump is a five-year-old, so why would you think that you could just sit back and COVID would be taken care of?
I'm paraphrasing.
But he basically, he drags them for impeachment.
He's like, we can blame Trump, sure, fine, but he's the five-year-old in the room.
Where's the adult who's supposed to be doing their job and solving these problems?
Right.
If they want to complain that Trump is a moron and incompetent, all they're doing is proving they wasted their time instead of doing what needed to be done.
They wanted to impeach him.
It's the stupidest thing ever.
It's the last year of his first term.
And they were like, we gotta have an impeachment.
Meanwhile, while they were doing their mock show trial, for whatever reason, waste of time, nobody even remembers what happened on impeachment.
Do you even remember why he was impeached?
Now, I know many of you probably do, but I'm sure there's some people going, what was Trump impeached for again?
He had a phone call with Ukraine and was concerned about a video on Twitter?
What is this?
So Donald Trump, early on, shuts down travel.
That's why I disagree with Chris Rock.
What should the president have done?
He shut down travel.
It's a virus.
Right?
China lied to the world.
They deserve responsibility.
But we as a country don't function under a presidential dictatorship.
That's not how it works.
The governors are responsible for their states and the mayors for their cities.
Trump has federal jurisdiction, not state jurisdiction.
He can't pardon people at state level.
He can pardon people at the federal level.
They don't seem to understand this.
So when the pandemic's coming, Trump says, we're going to do these things for national security.
Borders get locked down.
Travel gets suspended.
Here are the guidelines.
Here's the task force.
We're going to be doing daily press briefings.
People criticize me because I said I think Trump did a good job.
Well, the New York Times said it was going to be 2 to 6 million dead.
So we're at 200,000, and it's a shocking tragedy.
But do I blame Trump for a pandemic?
What?
No!
These things happen!
The hurricanes that are hitting the U.S.
are not punishment from God.
It's that sometimes there are hurricanes, sometimes there are droughts, sometimes it rains, and sometimes pandemics happen.
And what can the president do?
He doesn't have a magic wand.
He can't, you know, manifest a force field of psychic powers to keep a virus from sweeping across the country.
No, it's a concerted effort.
And unfortunately, we just saw what happened in Nashville.
They lied to people to enforce the lockdown.
So I'll put it this way.
Chris Rock is correct.
The Democrats are to blame.
They wasted so much time on impeachment.
They weren't doing anything.
In fact, they were criticizing Trump.
And now that it's bad, they're stripping out the cultural context of that specific time to make it seem like Trump is the bad guy and he messed this all up.
How is it Trump's responsibility?
Trump does not tell the states what to do.
Trump can, I think there's some provisions where he can intervene, you know, in some capacity at the state level, but it was Cuomo who put the sick people in the nursing homes.
It was, uh, many other governors on the East Coast did the same thing.
And now they're just watching their cities and states burn to the ground.
Are you trying to convince, by blaming Trump, are you trying to convince your constituents to vote?
Let me tell you something.
New Jersey, New York, California, Illinois.
I mean, they're gonna be blue no matter what.
So, who's to blame for this?
If the people come out and they vote, I guess what happens?
Biden wins by 10 points in the popular vote, but Trump still wins the Electoral College, so they call for a constitutional crisis of some sort?
Maybe this is their big play to abolish the Electoral College, which would be a huge mistake for them, especially.
I don't know what their plan is.
I don't know what their game is.
But I can tell you this.
We can try and give them the benefit of the doubt and say they were just so concerned.
They were so concerned the numbers were too low so they couldn't tell the public.
Because the plague, the pandemic, could have been worse.
I'm not gonna.
I think that they're just despotic authoritarians who are like, no, no, no.
You know what it probably was?
I'll give you the reasonable solution.
If we allow the bars to be open, and the theaters are gonna demand to be open, and the construction sites are gonna demand to be open, no, everyone has to shut down, regardless.
And so they sacrificed the jobs of so many people and the livelihoods of so many people because they just wanted to be fair.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is my main channel, a different channel from this one, and I will see you all then.
Okay, when I first saw this story, I did laugh.
But I gotta admit, it's a bit over the top to deploy a heat ray called the Active- I think it's called the Active Denial System against protesters.
Maybe a little too much.
But check out this story from NPR.
Alright, let's just read this story because, um... What?
ray against DC protesters, I don't understand why they're burying the lead.
They didn't weigh doing it.
They literally asked for one.
I guess they didn't get it.
All right, let's just read this story because, um, what?
Okay.
Hours before federal police officers cleared a crowded park near the White House with smoke
and tear gas on June 1st, the lead military police officer in the Department of Defense
region asked if the D.C.
National Guard had a kind of military heat ray that might be deployed against demonstrators in the nation's capital, according to one of the most senior National Guard officers on the scene.
In written responses to the House Committee on Natural Resources obtained by NPR, Major Adam DiMarco of the D.C.
National Guard said he was copied on an email from the Provost Marshal of Joint Force Headquarters, National Capital Region.
He was looking for two things.
A long-range acoustic device, a kind of sound cannon known as an LRAD, and a device called the Active Denial System, or ADS.
The ADS was developed by the military some 20 years ago as a way to disperse crowds.
There have been questions about whether it worked, or should be deployed in the first place.
It uses millimeter wave technology to essentially heat the skin of people targeted by its invisible ray, literally deploying a giant microwave to microwave protesters!
That sounds a bit insane.
So, okay, they didn't do it, but, oh, I'm glad!
That's... I'm sure there's a lot of people laughing right now, saying they should.
Ah, listen, man.
We gotta be careful about crowd control stuff that results in permanent injury.
The LRADs are already questionable.
Though they're not really ever used in a capacity that could seriously injure people.
Sometimes they are because some people are more susceptible.
If you're not familiar with an LRAD, they take on a variety of forms.
They're just really, really loud speakers.
It's really impressive technology.
It's kind of sad they made it a weapon.
Because you could take one of these things, you could blast some music.
It's pretty cool.
If you've not experienced an LRAD, let me explain it for you.
I was in, I think it was Long Beach.
And there was a protest, some Occupy thing.
And I was probably like a full city block from the police.
They have this thing mounted on top of their vehicle, and then you hear them make the announcement using it, saying, this is an unlawful assembly, you must disperse, go this way.
From a block away, it sounded like a guy was standing next to me yelling at me.
It really does.
The way it, like, reaches you and bounces, it's really crazy.
I gotta say, it's impressive technology.
But the other thing they'll do is they'll do a chirping thing where it goes, you know, it makes this, like, fluctuating, really high-pitched sound that's painful and everyone covers their ears and it causes disruption in the crowd.
They're gonna say.
In his written response, DiMarco, who has sought whistleblower protection, quoted from an email
he said was forwarded to him that originated from the provost marshal, which read,
the ADS can provide our troops a capability they currently do not have. The ability to reach out
and engage potential adversaries at distance well beyond small arms range and in a safe,
effective and non-lethal manner. Those are all technically the truth.
I guess they're literally true, but this technology basically microwaves your skin and it makes you- it simulates like you're on fire.
I can't- I- I don't know, man.
Oh, man.
I- I- I guess it's better than a hose?
But it can- it can cause permanent damage if someone doesn't know what they're doing.
It's a legit weapon.
It's a directed energy weapon.
The email wanted to say the ADS can direct a beam toward a group that provides a sensation of intense heat on the
surface of the skin.
The effect is overwhelming, causing an immediate repel response by the targeted individual.
That's true. I mean, I don't know if they use these things overseas, but I've seen people, I've seen journalists, they
like click it, and you get hit and you go, oh, it's so hot.
And it's like, whoa!
And they hold it on you, nah!
Supposedly, it feels like you're on fire.
They say, last month, the New York Times reported that U.S.
border officials weighed deploying the so-called heat ray against migrants a few weeks before the 2018 elections.
The Times reported that Kirstjen Nielsen, who was the Secretary of Homeland Security at the time, Told an aide, after the meeting, according to the Times story, that she would not authorize the use of such a device, and that it should never be brought up again in her presence.
Wow!
That's amazing.
That's really impressive.
Yeah, I kind of think the heat ray goes over the top, man.
You know, we're not talking about taking out live ammo or anything, we're talking about microwaving people, so let's, you know, let's avoid that.
Kirsten Nielsen, look at that.
That's rad.
Don't bring it up in her presence.
Amazing.
Yet according to DeMarco, it was something considered by DoD's lead military police officer the morning of June 1st after days of fiery protest and looting in Washington.
DeMarco said in his written comments that he responded about half an hour later that the DC National Guard was not in possession of either an LRAD or an ADS.
NPR made multiple calls and sent multiple emails to the Joint Force Headquarters National Capital Region for comment, but has not heard back.
Now, I will say this.
Having more options is better than having less.
If we can provide options to law enforcement to end serious violence and crimes, it's not a bad thing.
So, chokeholds, right?
Kind of a bad thing, but better than shooting someone, right?
And therein lies the main point.
Would it be a good thing if police have a heat ray, active denial system, Yes and no.
I lean towards yes in the sense... I lean towards mostly yes, actually, but hear me out.
Mostly yes in the sense that if the right person knows when to use it, and it allows us to avoid shooting people, then that's a really, really good thing.
The problem, however, and why it's probably not a good idea to actually deploy, is that you're gonna get some rookie dude who's gonna mash the button and microwave a bunch of people when he probably shouldn't.
But I don't know.
You know what?
I think there's a good reason why we have them.
I think about not protest situations.
I don't think you deploy this at a protest at all.
But what about, you know, when it escalates into a riot or straight-up armed conflict?
And in rioting, you can see people with guns shooting people like we saw in Chicago.
If people have guns, and you want to shut it down, and you don't want to kill them, I mean, think about it.
I think about that video that went viral from Chicago where the guy is shooting into the Gucci window.
What would happen if the cops ran up and the cops only have this gun?
Actually, no, I'm gonna stop there.
Here's a better one.
There's a story right now about a rookie cop who's been indicted because he was approaching a woman, a homeless woman.
She had a dog.
The dog was a 40-pound lab mix and charged at the officer.
So he pulled out his gun.
He yelled, like, the first thing he yelled was, get a hold of your dog.
When the dog charged him, he fired three rounds.
I believe he hit the dog, but he also hit the woman in the chest.
For this, he's been indicted.
I believe he's been charged with a negligent homicide.
And it's kind of crazy.
It's like the dog was charging at him, and he had a split-second panic.
He doesn't know what kind of dog it is.
It's far away.
It's barking and snarling and charging at him.
What does he do?
And he accidentally shot this woman.
He was a rookie cop.
Now, I don't think anyone's gonna be carrying around an ADS, like, on their person, but I just think about how we could have avoided that circumstance.
Is there a weapon we could provide to police?
An option to stop a dog that would allow him to be safe without using his handgun?
Maybe pepper spray?
Maybe not.
I don't know what you expect the dude to do, just lay back and get mangled up by the dog.
I don't know.
He's being charged.
So thinking about a circumstance like that, I think about this dude in Chicago who was firing into the window of the Gucci store.
And what would happen if the police pulled up in a vehicle and encountered a bunch of dudes with guns?
Do they want to just start shooting everybody and then have a bunch of dead people?
No, that's not a good thing.
But what if they had an ADS and they just pressed a button and then everyone went, ah, and they ran away?
I mean, they're alive.
We don't want them to die.
We just want them to stop.
So this could be an effective tool.
Now, against protesters?
Nah, nah.
I guess the issue is they're talking about riots.
They were saying that there was widespread rioting throughout the city.
In which case, Maybe it did make sense.
Now, the immigrant thing, I think Kirsten Nielsen nailed it.
Yeah, no way.
Not in that capacity.
Some of these people may be coming to the border because they're asylum seekers.
And of course, you know, we've heard they gotta go to a port of entry.
Maybe some of them can't or don't know.
And that's why we detain, arrest, and stop them.
Yeah, no, I'm not a fan of microwaving people.
If you have a widespread riot, I don't know.
It's a more difficult question.
Because where's the line, right?
And what we hear from... What they're actually talking about wasn't the peaceful protests in front of the White House.
They were talking about ongoing riots.
I don't know, man.
It's tough, but I probably lean towards saying we shouldn't allow the police to deploy microwave cannons simply because they will find their way into the hands of regular old small-town departments.
They'll be abused and misused.
I don't know, man.
I think the sad reality of life is that there's just going to be conflict.
And maybe it's better the cops don't have water cannons.
Maybe it's better they don't even use pepper spray.
Maybe it's better they have something like active denial.
Maybe we have to realize that if you go to a riot or some kind of conflict, you might get injured no matter what.
I mean, you're choosing to enter the fray.
These things happen, whether intentional or otherwise.
We don't want people to be permanently maimed or injured, and so we've got to figure out better ways of crowd control.
We do.
Because mobs go nuts, man.
We've seen it.
So what should the police do?
Well, in this capacity, they never actually used it.
The LRAD gets used all the time.
I don't think the LRAD's a big deal, although it can be weaponized to make people bleed from their ears, and that's messed up, too.
What's the alternative, though?
We allow the officers no defense and no way to deal with, you know, mobs and mob mentality?
You tell me.
What do you think?
I lean towards no on the heat ray thing, even recognizing options can be good for police.
Maybe there are some circumstances where the departments should have them, but not for riots.
Not for protests.
Maybe I'm wrong.
I'll leave it there.
I've got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
Support for Black Lives Matter is collapsing, seriously.
Opposition is skyrocketing, and I can only assume it's due mostly to the riots.
I think people are sick and tired of it.
And you know what?
I bet it has a lot to do with sports.
How many people do you know that were probably just like, I don't care, leave me out of it, don't care about your riots, I can't wait for football.
And then they turned on football, and they got Black Lives Matter, and they probably went, no!
No, I said no, I don't want this!
Now they're angry!
Yeah, you know what, man?
I'll tell you this.
People riot for many reasons.
The most consistent reason to riot is when your sports team wins or loses.
So, don't mess with people's sports.
And that's what they did.
And now, people are souring.
But I do think... I think the riots played the main role.
Let's check out this story from the Daily Mail.
Support for Black Lives Matter has dropped among Americans since unrest flared after George Floyd's death, Newpol finds.
Fewer white and Hispanic Americans are supporting Black Lives Matter, while African American backing for the movement remains virtually unchanged, according to a Newpol well.
It's worse than just that.
Net support for Black Lives Matter has been cut in half from where it was just before the George Floyd incident.
I kid you not.
Black Lives Matter—let me say it again—net support cut in half.
Man, is it bad.
So I'll read this to you, but then I'll show you the actual civics chart.
A majority of Americans, 55%, express at least some support for the movement, which is down from 67% in June, according to Pew.
The number of American adults who say they strongly support the movement has also dropped from 38% in June to 29%, nearly a 10-point drop in strong support.
The previous survey was taken in the days and weeks following the May 25th police-involved death of George Floyd.
Pew's latest findings were taken in the aftermath of the police shooting of a 29-year-old black man, Jacob Blake, in Kenosha.
Among African Americans, support for Black Lives Matter remains strong.
In June, 87% of black people said they backed the movement.
The latest survey puts the figure at 86%.
Notably, the poll found a drop of African American adults who say they strongly support BLM.
In June, 71% said they strongly support it, though now 62% say the same.
They still overwhelmingly support it, but man has it gone down.
Pew found that it is among whites and Hispanics that backing for Black Lives Matter has wavered.
Among white adults, 60% said they supported Black Lives Matter back in June.
That number has now dropped to less than half, 45%.
In June, 77% of Hispanic adults said they supported Black Lives Matter.
The latest findings show the number has slipped to 66.
So across the board, about a 10% drop-off for every demographic.
Among Asian-Americans, they say backing for Black Lives Matter has dropped slightly, from 75% to 69%.
Now, I got a question for my Asian-American friends.
More Asians support Black Lives Matter than black people, strongly support Black Lives Matter than black people do.
Oh, okay, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
It's just a standard, okay, so it's different.
That's strong support.
Okay, okay, I'm wrong.
Support for BLM also brings down sharply along partisan lines.
Just 19% of Republicans said they somewhat supported the movement.
Meanwhile, 88% of Democrats said the same.
Broken down into race?
88% of white Democrats expressed at least some support for Black Lives Matter, while just 16% of white Republicans say the same.
A little more than half.
51% of white Democrats said they strongly support BLM, while just 2% of white Republicans said the same.
2%?
Hold on.
2% of Republicans strongly support Black Lives Matter?
I guess.
Are they never Trumpers who refuse to give up the name?
I don't know, whatever.
I bring you now to civics.
Black Lives Matter among registered voters.
Something happened, I don't know what, from the 9th, from the 7th, to the 14th, where net support for Black Lives Matter fell in the gutter.
Take a look at this.
What we're seeing is a map, a graph that goes all the way back to 2017.
Let's see, around, I think we saw the shift in 2018, on February 9th to the 10th, there was a shift in general negative net support, general opposition to Black Lives Matter, to a slightly favorable position favoring Black Lives Matter.
Before this, net support was negative, meaning more people opposed it than supported it.
But something changed in early 2018, and it slowly started to go up, with net support around 4%.
So what this means is just like slightly more than half, right?
Here's where it gets interesting.
There were big gains for Black Lives Matter.
Breonna Taylor was killed, and Black Lives Matter went down a little bit.
COVID happened by race, and it went up a little bit.
Then we see right here, so that, I'm sorry, that's COVID.
Just before George Floyd, on the day of the George Floyd incident, 18% net support.
And they saw a glorious high of 25% net support.
Black Lives Matter was on cloud nine.
It was the greatest time to be a member of the movement.
But then they couldn't control Antifa in the far left.
And the riots happened.
And it started to collapse.
Then, when Jacob Blake was shot, check this out.
This is the craziest thing out of all of this.
It was on the decline due to the riots.
It was at 18%, mind you.
And just before Jacob Blake got shot, 11%.
It had dropped 7 points.
And then Jacob Blake got shot.
And what do you think happened?
Did it spike?
Did it go up?
No.
It actually tanked.
Whoa.
Before Jacob Blake got shot, 11%.
After, it stayed at 11% and has fallen now to 9%.
How is it that there was no boost?
In fact, after Jacob Blake got shot, it went down.
I have a couple theories.
As I mentioned earlier, sports, people putting Jacob Blake on their helmets, a lot of people who are just like, yo, I don't like this, I didn't care when you were putting up signs, it was fine, but now you're in my sports, get out.
So when they got pulled, they said, nah, I don't like any of this.
But I got another, I got another theory.
I got another theory for you.
You see, when George Floyd was killed, everybody was on board.
Everybody.
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity were expressing their support.
But then we found out, you know, George Floyd wasn't a saint.
The riots happened.
People kind of got upset.
Well, you'd think, after watching another police shooting like at Jacob Blake, there should be a spike again.
Yeah, but then we quickly learned, literally like a day later, that he was being arrested for a felony, you know, assaulting a woman.
He had assaulted a woman, And then he had gone back to her home, and she called 911.
The police came to stop this man who was wanted on a felony warrant, and he fought with them.
And he had a knife.
He says he had a knife.
I don't know if he grabbed it at what point.
They yelled, grab the knife at him, according to a witness.
And they shot him several times.
You see, regular people saw that story.
But the media didn't understand.
And the Democrats didn't understand either.
And they propped this man up.
And they said, Oh no, another police shooting.
And the activists jumped on top of this.
And then regular people saw the reports.
This guy was, uh, an abuser, man.
This guy was abusing a woman.
And he came back.
And they said, you're supporting this?
I'm out.
I am out.
Well, look.
Overall, they still enjoy net support.
Black Lives Matter is at 9%.
The funny thing is, that erased Black Lives Matter's gain from earlier in the year.
We go back to January, and they were at over 10%.
At the beginning of the year, 10% net support.
So guess what?
I guess if you don't like Black Lives Matter, never did, I got good news for you.
They are erasing all of their good will that they generated throughout the past year.
With 10% net support in January, they are down now, below.
Black Lives Matter has less support today than the beginning of the year before anything happened.
The riots have backfired.
It is worse than they probably could have imagined if they just didn't riot.
And this is why I say to all the right-wing individuals, this is why I say, heed my warning, Proud Boys.
You go to Portland on the 26th.
Don't be surprised when you see the same thing.
Now, I know the media doesn't like the Proud Boys anyway, but it's bad enough already.
You see how bad it went for them?
I know the Proud Boys aren't going to riot.
I'm not stupid.
They're going to march around and do a free speech thing, right?
But the left will make it a riot.
The Antifa will show up.
They will make it a riot.
And you will see more negative polling and it'll hurt Trump.
I just gotta stress this, man.
Think about how credible this is.
When they started the year off, they had 10%.
They spiked after George Floyd with 25%.
All they had to do was NOTHING.
No riots.
No football whatever.
No basketball.
But they couldn't help themselves.
They were frothing, oh, it's ours, we're gonna take it.
And then they ripped it to shreds.
And they've set themselves back.
Well.
That's what happens when you don't pay attention to what people actually care about.
That's what happens when you abuse the goodwill of the people who said, we're sorry that this man died.
You spit in the face of all of these people by burning down buildings, and then to add insult to injury, they put Black Lives Matter up on billboards, they put it up on the banner at the Red Sox field, they put it up all over the TV.
While we watched them burn down cities, you would honor them?
Get off my TV screen.
I'm not watching your stupid game.
I don't have anything to do with this.
And so now, their support has fallen in the gutter.
I'm curious about net opposition, mind you.
I don't know.
They don't have a net opposition.
They just have net support.
The trendline... I guess it's the same thing, though.
But I'm curious about how much opposition they've gained.
Something happened in the past few days where opposition jumped up another point.
Support fell down a point.
Two points, actually, from 50 to 48.
Well, you reap what you sow.
The riots are yours, Democrats.
You've earned it.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
Well, that was fast.
They're already trying to get Joe Rogan booted off of Spotify.
The CEO had to defend transphobic Joe Rogan, says Vice.
Podcasts online.
Okay, they're talking about his podcast.
Sure, fine.
Basically, long story short, a bunch of employees called Joe a transphobe, a homophobe, a racist, misogynist, you know, every name in the book.
And the CEO had to defend Joe.
There's been a lot of concern about several episodes that have been removed from Spotify.
Or, I shouldn't say removed, that were never put up from the Joe Rogan experience.
And, you know, Joe says it's a licensing deal.
That it's not gonna... Spotify can't change the content of his show.
So then Spotify gets what they get.
But the only issue, I suppose, is...
If Joe leaves YouTube and all other platforms except for his Klip channel, which I believe will be staying, and then Spotify decides not to host a podcast with Alex Jones, Where does it go?
Because it's an exclusive licensing arrangement.
In which case, they might not control the content, but you won't hear it.
So, uh, that's a problem.
But this story is just another story in the incoming smears against Mr. Rogan, because he dared to say he wanted to moderate a debate between Trump and Biden.
Hashtag JoeMustShow on Twitter, on Instagram, post it!
And include along with it, Joe Biden must join Donald Trump for a debate moderated by Joe Rogan.
Hashtag Joe must show.
I figured as soon as this happened, as soon as Donald Trump said he would do it, they needed to find an excuse.
And here we go.
They got it.
Employees are saying, but Joe is all of these really bad things.
So there you go.
Biden's gonna come out and be like, ah, you know, with respect to Rogan, I understand he's a big platform, but, you know, some of the things he's said.
Let's read the story.
Motherboard for Vice reports, and I just want to point out, what has Vice become?
Ugh, Vice.
He used to have a spine.
Used to be edgy.
Now it's conformist trash.
I can't believe I used to work there.
It makes me feel bad.
They say.
In a Spotify all-hands company meeting on Wednesday, Spotify CEO Daniel Ek defended keeping transphobic content from hugely popular podcaster Joe Rogan on the audio platform, who earlier this year signed an exclusive licensing deal with the company likely worth tens of millions of dollars.
Some staff inside the company feel alienated by Spotify's hosting certain Joe Rogan Experience episodes, according to copies of some of the questions presented to the meeting obtained by Motherboard.
The news signals how Spotify, as it moves into the podcasting space beyond music, is facing content moderation decisions more commonly associated with social media platforms, like Facebook or Twitter.
Spotify has already removed JRE episodes with some right-wing figures, including Alex Jones and Gavin McInnes.
Quote, in the case of Joe Rogan, a total of 10 meetings have been held with various groups
and individuals to hear their respective concerns, X said, according to three sources.
And some of them want Rogan removed because of things he said in the past.
Three sources provided Motherboard with some of the questions submitted at the town hall meeting.
Motherboard granted them anonymity as they weren't authorized to speak to the press about
internal Spotify issues. Two of the questions submitted for the Q&A section of the meeting
highlight some of the Spotify employees' concerns around Joe Rogan's content.
One of the submitted questions was, quote, Many, okay, all right, I'm actually reading a quote here,
bear with me. Many LGBTQAI plus slash ally Spotify-ers feel unwelcome and alienated because of
leadership's response in JRE conversations.
What is your message to those employees?
Another was, quote, why has Spotify chosen to ignore Spectrum ERG's guidance about transphobic content in the JRE catalog?
Referring to a group of Spotify workers who focus on related issues.
At the meeting, Eck also told employees not to leak to the media, noting, if we can't have open, confidential debates, we will have to move those discussions to closed doors.
Here's another quote.
Others have concerns specifically over a recent episode, Ek said.
And Joe Rogan and the episode in question have been reviewed extensively.
The fact that we aren't changing our position doesn't mean we aren't listening.
It just means we made a different judgment call.
The specific episode of the Joe Rogan experience Ek was referring to was from July, in which Rogan interviewed Abigail Schreier, author of the book Irreversible Damage, the transgender craze seducing our daughters.
According to one of the sources, From the opening moments of that podcast, Schreier associates transgender youth with those with autism.
Schreier and Rogan spend parts of the episode explaining that young people are being pressured into transitioning by YouTube and other media.
Okay, let me stop right there.
Are they wrong?
I'm not saying they're right.
I'm just asking, are they wrong?
Or are you just offended by what they're saying?
How about you challenge what they said, and you do a show, and put up your facts?
Otherwise, what's the issue?
You don't want people having open discussions?
That's one thing that Rogan even brings up in the podcast, I'm pretty sure.
That there are people trying to shut down any open discussion around the issue, and that will only make things worse.
But let me get to the bigger point here.
This could be a good thing.
Joe Rogan is the most popular podcast in the world, period.
When you look at the top ten podcast charts, Joe Rogan typically has five of them.
Not just number one, but it's usually like number three, six, seven, four, you know, two.
And they're old episodes, because people just love the Joe Rogan experience.
This puts Spotify in a really difficult position.
Spotify wants the biggest podcast, and they want to host content people love.
But their whiny baby employees are crying!
Oh no!
Take them down!
Who do you listen to, Spotify?
What happens if your employees revolt?
Would you prefer to get rid of the most popular podcast in the world from your platform, of which you've already removed several episodes, some of the most popular, mind you, like the Alex Jones episode?
You would choose to actually get rid of that stuff because some people complained?
That, to me, is absolutely insane.
You know for a fact when you look at the Rogan experience, this is what people like.
So why would you get rid of it?
People loved the Alex Jones episode.
It was hilarious!
Joe was goading Alex on.
Alex was ranting and turning beet red and waving his arms up and down.
And they were pushing him.
They were trying to make him go off.
And people thought it was funny.
It was entertainment.
We can't have that though, can we?
Is that what the gist of this is?
Now, I gotta wonder.
I gotta wonder.
I'm gonna let you all in on an industry secret.
I'm gonna give you some real industry advice.
And I mean it.
Perseverance is the key to success.
No matter what you do, so long as you just keep doing it, eventually you will find some kind of success.
I mean, you know, look, there's within reason.
If you're trying to find success in banging your head on the wall, you'll eventually just damage your brain.
But if you do a thing like play music or podcast or skateboard, whatever, things that I do, eventually, if you just stick with it, you will find some success.
Not everybody does, but perseverance is the key to success.
One of the other big important factors when it comes to content production on social media is that consistency is important and Look, it's really just about doing more than others.
So why I'm bringing this up is I'm curious to see how this all plays out with Spotify and Joe.
If they're removing some of his episodes already, and it's a licensing deal where the clips will be exclusively on Spotify, Why should I assume there's a guarantee they will put up every episode Joe does?
I mean, think about it.
If they removed a bunch of episodes, what happens if Joe has Alex Jones on again?
Spotify says, we won't air that.
And then there's no episode of the JRE, you know, Joe Rogan Experience?
And if people can't get this, there's a break in the consistency.
I also have to mention the number one position on iTunes is a guarantee that you're getting access to iPhone users.
This is something that has greatly benefited Joe and many other top podcasts like the New York Times.
Now of course you have to have a good podcast in order to work so what I see happening is Probably 90 plus percent of why the Joe Rogan experience succeeds is Joe Rogan, plain and simple.
But he does receive a big bump by being number one.
Because he's number one, when you open the iTunes app, you see Joe Rogan.
And if you don't know anything about podcasts, you might click it.
Now Joe's got a new fan.
This gives him access to all of the Apple users.
Of course, Joe's got word of mouth.
He's been doing it for a decade, so his perseverance, his consistency, and now being on the top, have created this position where he is the biggest podcast in the world.
The reason I bring that up is, by moving off of iTunes, he's going to lose that key advertising position, which is really valuable.
Of course, people will still listen to the JRE Experience, and probably almost everybody will.
But he's going to lose some advantage there, and someone else might start moving up in those positions, and this could cause potential displacement.
There's also the fact that with episodes being removed, Joe may lose his consistency.
So he'll lose the top spot, he'll lose potential consistency.
I don't know if that will actually happen.
I mean, if Spotify ends up taking over because of Joe, that's the bet they're making, then it's going to greatly benefit everybody on Spotify today.
Apple has the dominant position in podcasts.
It's true.
When I look at my stats in the podcast, it is dominated by iTunes.
Spotify is in second place.
With Joe moving over, it could actually push Spotify up to the number one position because all his fans are going to move over as well.
In which case, who has more power?
Joe or iTunes?
I don't really know.
My bigger concern in all of this is They're going to try and find reasons to remove Rogan from the podcast, or to hurt him in some way.
I'm sure Joe's smart enough to have a contract, you know, a strong contract, so I don't think he has much to worry about.
And that being said, I mean, he got a fat paycheck from this deal.
I'm sure the worst case scenario for Joe is that he's rich for the rest of his life, and so are his kids.
So, what really does he have to complain about?
But I guess for the rest of us, there's a fear.
These people are already trying to take Joe Rogan down.
They're already trying to get him removed.
They're calling him all the names in the books.
I'm not surprised by it.
Especially with this attempt to debate, or to host a debate.
Can they allow it?
This may be a really good thing for us.
This may be one of the most important things and what Joe Rogan has done may have saved the anti-SJWs.
It may have ended the far left.
Now hear me out.
Let me just put it this way.
Spotify is looking at one of the most difficult decisions they have to make.
The SJWs or the most popular podcast in the world.
They took a major bet, a major risk, dumping tons of money in Joe.
They can't get rid of him.
It's the most popular show in the world.
But the SJWs are coming knocking, and they want him gone.
Who will win?
I don't believe the SJWs can win this fight.
Because at a certain point, look, money walks.
I'm sorry, money talks!
And BS walks.
So they're gonna have to say, sorry, goodbye, we're keeping it.
And then, the tide changes, and everyone sees.
What Joe did may be the final nail in the coffin.
I don't know for sure.
We'll see who wins this one.
In the end, it could just be a blip, and some episodes get pulled, and everything stays the same, I have no idea.
