Democrats Fall For TRAP As Smears Against Amy Coney Barrett BACKFIRE, Its The Kavanaugh Effect AGAIN
After the insane smears and attacks on Brett Kavanaugh we saw "the Kavanaugh Effect" which was a major boost to Republicans and Trump.Democrats are warning that any attacks on Amy Coney Barrett's family or religion could backfire and sure enough that's exactly what people are doing.Republicans are probably counting on a redux of Kavanaugh as this hearing will happen just before the election and if Democrats go on the offensive and disrespect such an accomplished woman it may backfire BAD.Voters may flock to Vote Donald Trump and leave Joe Biden in the dust.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Donald Trump has selected Amy Coney Barrett to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court.
This would give the Supreme Court a 6-3 conservative majority for a generation.
Naturally, Democrats and leftists are freaking out as to what this might mean.
Many Democrats are warning, however, you gotta be chill on this because we all saw what happened with Brett Kavanaugh.
Smears, lies, and insane accusations resulted in something called the Kavanaugh effect.
It riled up Republicans and many moderates to support Republicans and Donald Trump because most people thought what they were doing to Brett Kavanaugh was insane.
Unfortunately, Democrats can't control themselves.
They have no unified position.
So, of course, it was only a matter of time before they fell right into the trap.
But what trap was this?
Many people were speculating as to whether or not Trump would actually nominate someone, or even if he did, whether the Republicans would actually confirm someone.
There were fears that nominating and confirming a SCOTUS this close to an election would backfire on the Republicans.
Many others said, no, no, if they don't nominate someone and confirm them, Democrats are going to be riled up and they're going to run full speed to the ballot box and vote for Democrats.
As it turns out, there's something else here.
It's going the other direction.
In all likelihood, regular Americans are going to run full speed to vote for Trump and Republicans.
Why?
The Kavanaugh effect.
The Democrats and leftists couldn't help but fall right into the trap that was set.
Democrats were warning, do not talk about Amy Coney Barrett's adopted children.
They couldn't help themselves.
They said, do not target her on her religion.
People in this country are Christian, and there are many people who are Catholic.
They could not help themselves.
And now Amy Coney Barrett is being smeared, and it's racist and insane.
And of course, Republicans are cheering for a redux of the Kavanaugh effect.
So the backfire is kind of already happening, and Democrats know it.
Whether this will translate into real enthusiasm among Republicans or encourage middle-of-the-road voters to vote for Trump is yet to be seen.
We'll have to wait till the election.
But I don't even know if there's undecided voters anymore, so I'm not sure how much it matters.
I'll tell you this.
At least if they confirm a new Supreme Court justice, it will take the wind out of the sails of Democrats because they already lost the battle.
But look, people are fired up.
Some reports suggest there's like 5% of the population that can be swung left or right, so the battle rages on.
Who will win?
It may turn out that nominating Amy Coney Barrett, who seems like a very lovely woman, is going to backfire on Joe Biden.
Well, not really.
I would say the Democrats are going to walk into the trap and end up hurting Biden by coming out.
It's the smears that will backfire.
Because people are gonna go and vote because they're sick of the insanity.
So let me actually break it down for you.
I have a couple stories, but before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There's many ways you can give.
I got a P.O.
box, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
Republicans are probably happy to hear this, but let it be a warning to Democrats if you're on the left.
Now, I don't have a big marketing budget or anything like that.
Just word of mouth.
If you shared this video, if every person who watched this shared, I would be bigger than all of these mainstream media companies overnight.
And I think it's actually working because my views are doing really well.
You guys rock.
That really is the best way to support the channel.
Plus, if you think this information is important, it's probably really important for Democrats and Republicans.
So, please consider sharing.
But don't forget to like, subscribe, hit the notification bell, and let's see exactly what happened.
Democrats feel boxed in on strategy for for Barrett confirmation fight from Axios.
They say Democrats privately fear that going too hard on Judge Amy Coney Barrett in her confirmation hearings could wind up backfiring if senators are perceived as being nasty to an accomplished woman.
Yesterday afternoon, NBC posted a video of Barrett outside her house in South Bend, Indiana, loading four of her seven children, two of the seven adopted from Haiti and another with Down syndrome, into her Honda Odyssey minivan, then driving them all to her Air Force ride to Washington.
Good luck, Democrats, a Republican tweeted.
Between the lines, Axios says.
Senate Democrats recognize the danger.
A top Democratic strategist pointed to three pitfalls.
Liberals mishandling this by boycotting or treating her with disrespect.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, screwing it up.
Someone looking like a religious bigot.
One more fear on Barrett.
The adoption thing.
The strategist added, gotta avoid that.
Some liberals tweeted slurs about adoption yesterday and were slapped down.
A top Senate Democratic aide said the party has a three-part plan for avoiding these traps.
Healthcare, healthcare, It's not gonna work.
You already fell into the traps.
It's not about the Democratic Party necessarily.
It's about the lack of leadership.
And it's about the Democrats not condemning the extremists.
I can say it a million times.
The extremists on the right get booted out and shoved to the side, marginalized, and they say, we do not want you here.
The Democrats won't do it.
They won't say Black Lives Matter.
They won't say Antifa.
And they won't call out, because they don't call these extremists on Twitter, they just follow along.
There's nothing they can do to avoid these traps.
And guess what?
They fell into every single one!
I'm gonna show you.
But first, let's read more.
Healthcare, they say.
That's the Democrats' playbook.
Focus attacks and questioning on Barrett's views on healthcare, including the Affordable Care Act and reproductive rights.
Argue that she'd help take away coverage and protection during a pandemic.
This is a lie, and I can prove it.
Give the spotlight to Senator Kamala Harris.
Stick to issues including labor rights.
Democrats also feel boxed in by the calendar and the realities of the Senate.
Senate Judiciary Chair Lindsey Graham outlined four days of hearings beginning October 12th to 16th days from the nomination.
24 of the 42 Supreme Court justices who have had hearings were done within 16 days, Graham said.
Graham talking to Judge Jeanine Pirro on Fox News said he plans to send the nomination to the full Senate by October 26.
That means the vote will most likely be held the week before Election Day.
Perfect timing to rile up all of the moderates and Republicans and get them to go vote when this naturally goes sideways.
And what seems to be a lovely and accomplished and brilliant woman, Amy Coney Barrett, faces ridiculous smears and attacks.
The Democrats' best play would be to straight up respect Amy Coney Barrett.
I do not believe they'll be able to do it based on their past history and what I'm about to show you.
I say, Democrats know there's little they can do to stop any of that.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has the votes.
We could slow it down, perhaps hours, maybe days at the most, at Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second-ranking Democrat.
But we can't stop the outcome.
What we should do is address this now respectfully, 100% correct.
The Democratic base is pressuring senators to go as far as boycotting the confirmation hearing.
Oh man, if they do this, they're going to lose.
But there won't be much of that.
The top aide told me that would just speed up the hearing process and give Republicans a free platform to promote Barrett without scrutiny.
When Graham was asked on Fox about the possibility of Democrats boycotting the hearing, the chairman chuckled and said, well, it'd make them quicker.
Some Democrats on the committee may refuse the traditional courtesy calls with Barrett.
However, the more things Democrats do that confer legitimacy on the process, a leading progressive operative said, the less patient progressives will become with them.
I am going to now show you what the left believes.
I'm going to show you exactly how they walked right into the trap.
I was deeply troubled by the things that I see from this individual, Ibram X. Kendi, who slammed Barrett saying white colonizers adopted blacks to use them as props.
These people are overt racists.
This man wrote a book that is, for a long period of time, I don't know if it's currently, is the number one book on, I believe, human rights on Amazon.
A top-selling book on the USA Today bestsellers list, which is just by hard numbers, and a bestseller overall on Amazon.
This guy straight up says the solution to past discrimination is present discrimination.
No!
We got rid of that.
We made it illegal in public accommodation to discriminate against people.
This guy is calling for more, and he is insulting and attacking a good woman, calling her essentially a racist.
He says these very, very offensive things.
I don't even know if I can read.
But it was one of the traps Democrats said not to fall into.
Do not talk about her adopted kids.
But there's no unity.
You see, you've got left-wing extremists with psychotic racist ideology, and they are not beholden to the Democratic Party, nor do they like the Democrats for the most part.
But the Democrats have embraced Black Lives Matter and this ideology, and now it reflects upon them.
So, guess what?
You can have top-ranking Democrats begging, pleading, but you can't control this movement, these weirdos with crazy racist beliefs.
Here's what MIAW writes.
Author, historian, and director of Boston University's Center for Anti-Racist Research, Ibram X. Kendi, had something to say on racism following Amy Coney Barrett's appearance with her children at the SCOTUS nomination event held on Saturday.
September 26.
Kendi wrote that white people who adopt black children may be racist, and thus joined Democrats and leftists who are commenting on Judge Amy Coney Barrett's adopted Haitian son and daughter.
Kendi wrote, Some white colonizers adopted black children.
They civilized these savage children in their superior ways of white people
while using them as props in their lifelong pictures of denial,
while cutting the biological parents of these children out of the picture of humanity.
He continued, And whether this is Barrett or not is not the point.
It is a belief too many white people have.
If they have or adopt a child of color, then they can't be racist.
He added, I'm challenging the idea that white parents or kids of color are inherently not racist, and the bots completely change what I'm saying to white parents of kids of color are inherently racist.
These live and fake bots are good at their propaganda.
Let's not argue with them.
There is such an insane layer there.
Wow.
He really caked it on.
They're bots.
The people who are saying I shouldn't have said that because it's racist are all fake.
They're all bots.
It's all propaganda.
Wow.
Imagine that.
Amy Coney Barrett, living up to the ideals of her religion, and being smeared for adopting some kids based on their race.
And then this guy calls the critics bots, like robots, like not real people.
This is all part of some kind of gang-stalking, paranoid delusion, where these people think everyone's racist, fascists are everywhere, and everyone they talk to must be a bot because they're the only ones living in the real world.
But this is exactly it.
This is the kind of insanity that regular Americans are going to be like, nope, I don't want to support that.
And if you, if you as the Democrats won't denounce this and you actively provide resources to these people and they do.
Well then, you're a part of the problem!
This is the main reason why I don't want to vote for these people, and Donald Trump moved to ban critical race theory, which is exactly what this is.
I gotta be honest, I think it's entirely likely that this video might get flagged and...
Deranked and demonetized because of what this man said.
Well, I have to report on it.
He's a best-selling author right now, one of the thought leaders of this far-left movement, commenting on Amy Coney Barrett in exactly the way the Democrats warned not to do.
And you know who agrees with him?
Who agrees with Ibram X. Kendi is Richard Spencer, probably the most prominent white nationalist in the world.
Now, I can say this for Richard Spencer.
He's overt, he is upfront, and he is honest with his views.
He's not pretending to not be racist or not, you know, believe these things.
He's straight up saying, not wrong.
He responded to Ibram X. Kendi saying, straight up, not wrong.
Now, if you want to have a discussion with Richard Spencer about his particular views, You can do that.
I think there's a lot of, a lot of the media likes to just use buzzwords to describe people.
I particularly don't agree with Spencer or Ibram X. Kendi.
But I can tell you this.
I met Richard Spencer at the RNC.
And I asked him what he believed and to explain what his, you know, whole thing was about.
And he said it's identitarianism.
And he actually said to me it's very similar to Black Lives Matter, but white instead of black.
So it's no surprise that he would then support Ibram X. Kendi.
And we can look at it this way.
Whether you agree with or disagree with Spencer or Kendi's view on these kids, you have this view from Kendi and many of these anti-racists.
Where they don't view themselves as not racist.
They think it's bad to be not racist.
Anti-racist.
What does that mean?
Well, it actually means racist, but they're talking about different outcomes.
The problem with this?
There's such a thing as benevolent racism.
They know this.
There's negative and there's benevolent.
Negative racism is when you assume negative things and you treat people poorly because of their race.
Benevolent racism is when you assume positive things or treat them better based on their race.
These are concepts that exist.
Ibram X. Kendi is a racist.
He just believes in a system where he can benefit the people he likes And by creating equity as he sees it, it's anti-racist.
But they still use the exact same methods, and they agree with the exact same system.
It's why we saw at the University of Michigan, they created like a white-only virtual event.
They called it non-POC, but that literally just means white-only, and then they had to panic and take it down.
Now, I can talk all day and night about leftist identitarianism and intersectionality, of which I am not a fan.
Or, or, identitarianism as a whole, I'm not a fan of it.
And I'm glad Donald Trump is banning critical race theory.
But the next trap the Democrats fell into, religion.
My respect and bravo to Vox.com, V-O-X, a progressive site, for debunking this lie.
The false link between Amy Coney Barrett and the Handmaid's Tale explained, they say.
On Saturday, President Trump chose Amy Coney Barrett, as we know.
Barrett is a devout Catholic.
She has written before about her belief that Catholicism should affect a judge's jurisprudence.
And Democrats discussed her views widely when she was nominated to the federal bench in 2017.
In a moment that has become infamous on the right, Senator Dianne Feinstein declared that the dogma lives loudly within you during Barrett's hearing, a phrase some conservatives took to be an attack on Barrett's Catholicism.
Barrett is part of a small Catholic group known as the People of Praise, and that's where her religious affiliations get especially touchy.
Some liberals argue Barrett's membership in this group, which teaches that husbands are the heads of families and have authority over wives, signals that she will hand down religiously motivated conservative opinions if confirmed to the Supreme Court, particularly when it comes to women's reproductive freedom and the rights of the queer community.
Meanwhile, conservatives reply that Barrett is a high-powered federal judge who is also married, so she can't be all that oppressed by her husband, and that liberal critiques of the way Barrett's religion affects her judicial obligations are nothing more than anti-Catholic prejudice at work.
I gotta say, it's a really interesting point that the left is pushing these memes of the Handmaid's Tale But the memes are about a woman who's literally going to be sitting on the highest court in the country, a court of nine people that will have authority over hundreds of millions of people.
I do not believe she will be oppressed.
If anything, she'll be the oppressor.
I guess that's probably how they're looking at it.
But it's kind of ridiculous that Amy Coney Barrett, a woman, would be sitting on the Supreme Court being like, women shouldn't have rights, even though she's there with other women.
I really, really don't think so.
Now, early on, I read in the Axios article, Democrats fear she's going to overturn all these things.
That's probably not true.
Why?
Well, Amy Coney Barrett believes in... Let me just read this for you so I get the language correctly.
They say, her scholarship focuses on constitutional law, originalism, statutory interpretation, and stare decisis.
This basically means it is a judicial principle that it means let the decision stand.
In all likelihood, as it has been explained to me, Amy Coney Barrett will likely defer to past precedent, not overturn it.
So the argument from the Democrats that she's going to do all these things, probably not true.
But back to the religion thing, now that I kind of debunked that.
This is where it gets funny.
They say.
One of the weirder ways this debate has played out since Barrett was first discussed as a potential Supreme Court nominee is the fight over whether or not People of Praise, this group she belongs to, is also one of the inspirations for The Handmaid's Tale in Margaret Atwood's 1985 dystopian novel.
Fertile women are forced to live as childbearing slaves called handmaids.
The group isn't an established inspiration for the book.
But the story has developed legs anyway.
The inaccurate link between the People of Praise and Etwood's story, perpetuated by a series of confusing coincidences and uneven fact-checking, first emerged in a Newsweek article, and was later picked up by Reuters.
Both articles have since been corrected, but the right was furious at both.
The Washington Examiner called it a smear that just won't die.
Fox News noted, several other outlets have mentioned Barrett and The Handmaid's Tale in the same story.
To be absolutely clear, People of Praise is not an inspiration for The Handmaid's Tale, and the group does not practice slavery or any other kind of dystopian practices Atwood wrote about in her novel.
But the argument over whether or not the two are connected reflects the deeply contentious atmosphere in which Barrett's
No, it's because these people don't know anything.
It's not reality, okay?
It was fake news.
And these are the mistakes they made.
Attacking her kids, and attacking her faith, and lying.
And regular people in this country, believe it or not, are Christian.
Some of them are not, you know, very, very devout or orthodox, but some are.
Either way, this country is still majority Christian.
And while many of these people may be passively, they're probably not going to like hearing these things because it's insulting.
We don't like... People have a right to practice their religion.
And now we can see what the final, third mistake will be.
The Kavanaugh effect.
Republicans relish a reduct.
This one has not yet occurred.
But I'd be willing to bet it will.
And what is it?
Well, in about two or three weeks, when they have hearings, and they start attacking and insulting And denigrating Amy Coney Barrett, it will rile people up and they will get angry.
What they did to Brett Kavanaugh was horrifying.
My, my, I don't even know how to explain how horrifying it was to watch this.
The man nearly in tears, being accused of these insane things that could not possibly have happened.
Like, the first accusation is that he was at a party 30 years ago, a party this woman didn't remember, no witnesses corroborated, and they smeared him and accused him of all this stuff, went through his yearbooks.
That's insane.
And the guy had already been vetted when he became a federal judge anyway.
They then started claiming that he was at parties where women were being drugged and men would line up outside of doors to abuse women.
Absolutely psychotic!
Not real.
Who would believe this stuff?
But they did.
This made regular Americans angry.
Now look, the tribalist left and the Democrats just don't care.
They just hate Trump.
And they don't want to give him anything.
So they naturally went along with it.
But regular people were just like, dude, y'all are crazy.
How much you want to bet, they'll fall into the exact same trap.
Now, to be fair, okay, these Democrats, at least the elected politicians, probably will have some kind of unity.
The issue we're seeing right now is the lay Democrat, the regular people, and the leftist extremists.
No matter how much the Democrats might say, please don't do this, they're going to do it anyway.
I mean, Joe Biden's like, stop rioting!
The violence is bad!
And they're like, we're gonna go riot anyway!
And that's helping Donald Trump.
Some, some resistance members, I'll do air quotes for resistance, have argued Antifa may as well be wearing Trump stickers and Trump hats because what they do when they go out, and Black Lives Matter, is support Trump by rioting.
Well, it's really simple, actually.
All you need is a handful of Democrats, or Joe Biden, to say, the extremists flying the flags of Black Lives Matter, I condemn totally.
See, you see how I worded this very carefully?
Because Joe Biden probably doesn't want to come out and say Black Lives Matter, you know, are extremists.
That would probably, you know, make a lot of people angry.
But he could say something like, listen, There are extremists flying Black Lives Matter flags.
These people should be condemned totally, and they should be told to stop, and the good people and those who support the real movement should stop them.
He could even just say that he won't do it.
So what do you get?
You're gonna see the Kavanaugh effect, baby.
You're gonna see them attack and belittle and smear this woman.
I don't think it'll be nearly as bad as what they did to Brett Kavanaugh, because that was WOW.
But it's already going there, calling her a colonizer and implying she's racist for adopting these kids.
Oh, okay, I'm sorry, he corrected himself.
Ibram says, what I mean to say is, just because she adopted kids doesn't mean she's not racist.
That's still kind of messed up to say, dude.
She seems like a fine human being.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a fine human being.
In fact, I look to all the Supreme Court justices, they are regular Americans!
I mean, there's nine of them, so they're, you know, in a privileged and honored position, that I understand.
But when I see someone, you know, like the late Scalia, or Kennedy, or Roberts, these other judges, Ginsburg, their opinions, I'm just like, I know people who kind of feel that way.
I know people who feel like, you know, Kavanaugh.
I know people who feel like Gorsuch.
I know people who feel like Roberts.
I know people who feel like Coney Barrett.
Because these people live in this country.
So, it's not even so much about, are they liberal?
Are they conservative?
It's, who do they represent?
And do they represent us?
And Coney Barrett represents a lot of Americans.
Christians, and a smaller amount, but yes, still Catholics.
So, sure, fine.
Have her on the court.
Is she going to defy the Constitution?
Doesn't seem like it.
Seems like she'll be a brilliant justice.
And she worked under Scalia, so conservatives are naturally very happy about this.
I think the left needs to stop having panic attacks and temper tantrums every time they face some little itty-bitty setback, because for the most part, this country has kept skewing towards the left.
Think about how weird that is, that the left has been gaining and making gains and winning on so many of their issues endlessly, and they're just crying and screaming the whole time whenever there's a bump in the road.
Chill, dude.
Look, it's possible that with Amy Coney Barrett, they do overturn past decisions.
I don't think that would be the case based on what they say about Amy Coney Barrett's focus on stare decisis.
I'm not a lawyer, maybe I'm wrong about that.
Maybe the conservatives come in and they just overturn everything!
I just don't see that being the case.
That would be extreme.
There's precedent.
There are set standards in these rulings.
And I think these justices are intelligent and rational people, and they'll recognize that.
Some things might change.
They may say, well, that's unconstitutional.
So maybe.
So maybe.
Maybe.
But you know what?
All I can say is this.
As I stated just a moment ago, when I see Amy Coney Barrett, I just see an American, and I might disagree with her religious views.
Oh, I definitely disagree with her religious views, for sure.
But I want her to live in peace, and I respect her for her accomplishments, and so there you go.
I'm not gonna cry about it.
The same is true for Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Talk about a trendsetter.
Someone who shattered the glass ceilings.
I mean, amazing woman.
Strong, too!
You can't deny it.
You can disagree with the things she voted on or the things she believed, but don't tell me that as she battled cancer over and over again and she fought through it, don't tell me she was not strong.
She became a Supreme Court justice, stronger than most Americans.
My respect.
But even if I disagree with both of them, I recognize they're Americans, and so all that really comes down to is vote.
Vote, vote, go out and vote.
Stop complaining.
Stop pretending to be angry.
These young people going on Twitter and Facebook being like, yo, Trump, you're, you're wack or whatever, and they don't go vote.
You see that cringe TikTok where it's like this, this, this young girl and guy, and they're like, hey, Trump, you're so dumb.
Is that rapping?
I'm like, dude, go vote.
You're not helping.
You lost in 2016.
Okay.
The Senate majority strengthened in 2018.
Go and vote.
But this is true for conservatives.
Don't get complacent.
You may be winning now.
Go and vote.
That's all that matters.
Stop smearing people.
Stop insulting them.
You disagree?
Go vote.
It's that simple.
We'll see how things play out.
I wish the best for Amy Coney Barrett.
Like I said, she seems like a lovely human being and an admirable and respectable and intelligent human being as well.
And I hope she serves this country and the court well.
And my respect, my absolute respect and admiration to Ruth Bader Ginsburg and respect to her family, because I believe she did serve this country for a long period of time.
Can't we just be like...
Regular people recognizing that in this country there are some people who believe some things and some people who believe other things and we're going to argue about it?
I can still respect the service.
I can criticize the decisions.
I can criticize John McCain for a million and one reasons.
Man, I don't like that guy.
But I'm not gonna drag him in death.
I understand he was trying to serve this country.
I get it, whatever, I'm a centrist, ugh, I'll leave it there.
Here comes all the hate from everyone saying, you're wrong!
I got so many dislikes when I was like, my respect to John McCain, you know, for his service, as much as I disagree with him, like, cause everybody hates that guy!
But I'm just trying to be civil.
I don't want people to get angry at each other.
I want them to just take it to the ballot box.
Have that vote.
That's how we move forward in this country.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all then.
Yesterday we saw the Proud Boys rally in Portland.
And this is the event that I had been warning about, and I have some good news.
My concern for the most part was that antifa would show up, they would fight each other, people would get hurt, and things could potentially escalate.
But the actual terrifying moment where a Black Lives Matter organizer was arrested on attempted murder charges actually happened in California.
Didn't happen in Portland.
In fact, the most of what I can see in Portland is you had some arguments, but the police kept everybody separated from... a decent ways away.
There were some instances where some journalists got hassled by some right-wing groups.
There were some instances where journalists got hassled by antifa and left-wing groups.
Seems like Portland, for the most part, was not that big of a deal, and so I gotta say, it seems like the Proud Boys took a victory on that one.
I had been warning for some time that it was going to escalate into violence, and then the media was going to say, oh, the right, oh, and they're going to blame everything on the right, even though they ignore 100 plus days of Antifa.
all that writing and violence from Antifa and Black Lives Matter.
And of course, the Proud Boys won this one from a PR standpoint. You see,
their goal was to point at the hypocrisy. As soon as they announced they were coming,
state of emergency, they announced they can use tear gas again. Why? The Proud Boys?
But they had 100 plus nights of rioting, and it's still going on now.
And get this, in Seattle, where Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioters went around smashing everything up, there's video going viral of these people, like, doing donuts in the street, because there's no cops!
Because the cops are preoccupied.
And there's a really scary story, I don't know if it's related, but it comes from L.A.
where someone broke into a police station and tried to kill a cop.
That one doesn't sound like it's political, but considering what's going on in California, considering what's happening now, a lot of people are shocked by this, and they're sharing it, so I'll stress that point.
We don't know what the motivation was, as I normally say, unless we have evidence.
But this is the really scary story.
A Black Lives Matter organizer plowed her car into a crowd of Trump supporters in California, injuring two, before she is arrested and charged with attempted murder.
Now, I can already hear the people screaming, Tim, why don't you ever talk about when these right-wingers crash their cars?
Okay, well, I do.
But the problem is, most of what we see when it comes to a left-wing rioter or protester getting, you know, hit by a car, all of these stories, Have been... Well, look.
For one, you had the people dancing on the highway in, what was that in Seattle?
Dancing on the highway at night.
And some dude went on the highway, wasn't supposed to, but the police shouldn't let people dance on the highway.
How stupid do you have to be?
And then two people got hit, and it was shocking, and it was sad, and it was tragic, and I wish they didn't get hurt.
But these things happen.
The guy driving the car was not politically motivated.
Then you have these other stories, like in Hollywood, where the car slowly moves through the crowd, they chase after and attack the vehicle.
Not politically motivated.
These people are not — they're just regular people, like, I have no idea what's going on.
Dude bumbling down the highway, and there's all of a sudden a roadblock, and he's like, whoa, and he swerves, and there's people dancing in the street.
And of course they try and play this game where they're like, he was a white supremacist!
It wasn't.
They're regular people.
This story?
Attempted murder?
Black Lives Matter organizer plowed her car into a group of Trump supporters in California, injuring two.
One guy, you can see his ankle is visibly broken, dangling.
And they were standing in a parking lot.
They weren't standing in the street.
Now, listen.
You got all these Trump supporters surrounding a vehicle.
I don't know exactly why.
So I can't necessarily, you know, criticize any intent because I don't know what their intent was.
When it comes to the rioters, we know what their intent is.
We watch them swarm vehicles, start banging on them.
In this instance, you see a choppy video where the vehicle just plows through people in a parking lot.
And then pulls out in the street, the individual gets arrested immediately.
Now, Trump supporters did chase after the vehicle and someone smashed out the window and they should not have done that.
You know, I get it.
It's like a mob mentality thing, but listen.
They're going to show that video and say, they were being attacked.
She was being attacked, you see.
This is the way they cheat.
A regular person is driving down the street, and they start attacking the vehicle.
In Provo, Utah, a guy gets shot.
And then when that person drives through, they say, see, look, it's a right-wing tactic!
That's what the Daily Beast said.
Right-wing tactic.
Oh, is it?
Black Lives Matter organizer uses right-wing tactic.
It's ridiculous.
So don't give them the propaganda they want.
Now, I don't know why they were around her in the parking lot.
They may have just been in the parking lot cheering.
I don't know.
I will say to people, don't swarm cars even in a parking lot.
The story from the Daily Mail.
A Black Lives Matter organizer has been arrested after video shows her driving a car into a crowd of Trump supporters in Southern California injuring two.
Driver Tatiana Turner, 40, of Long Beach was arrested and charged with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon following the incident on Saturday in the city of Yorba Linda, about 30 miles southeast of downtown LA.
The chaos unfolded as about 250 people gathered, some with a group called Caravan for Justice supporting Black Lives Matter, and others to stage a nearby counter-protest supporting President Donald Trump.
Federal records show that Turner filed a trademark application for Caravan for Justice in July, and a GoFundMe campaign names her as the group's founder.
Police confirm that Turner is believed to be a member of the Caravan for Justice.
Well, it sounds like.
She started it.
It was around 3pm, police say, when a car in the parking lot of the Yorba Linda Public Library at 18181 Imperial Highway accelerated into the road and struck at least two individuals.
We can see this video after the fact.
They chased after the vehicle.
Someone threw something into the back.
You can see some people on the ground.
Here's the video of her getting arrested.
You can see someone smashed her windshield and smashed up the back window.
I do not believe that happened until after.
She had already run through people.
Federal records show that she is a caravan for justice.
Oh my God, a woman is heard screaming on video as the white Nissan Versa accelerates into the
crowd, knocking the demonstrators to the pavement and speeding away.
Furious crowd members chased the car, hitting it with flagpoles.
But within seconds, police intervened, taking the female driver into custody.
The two injured people, a man and a woman, were taken to a hospital with non-life-threatening
injuries, said Carrie Braun, spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Department.
Okay, so I'll tell you this.
This is horrifying, okay?
But the alternative, what I was worried about by, you know, relatively, I'm kind of relieved, but it's also kind of messed up that I would be.
So here's what I'm saying.
I was really worried that in Portland, it was gonna be, I mean, people were gonna be dead.
Let me show you what they're saying in Portland.
Check this out.
Rest in piss, Jay.
This city kills fascists and Proud Boys.
And a sickle and a hammer.
There are people celebrating the execution of a Trump supporter.
Celebrating it.
And so when you see things like that, and you know what these people want to do and what they're happy with, I was really, really worried, and I feel like we got off light with a car injuring a couple people with non-life-threatening injuries, but we shouldn't think that way.
We should not let the extremism be normalized.
This is shocking and insane.
We're not talking about a regular person driving down the street, encountering a giant mob, and then being attacked by that mob and fleeing, or driving through the mob.
We're talking about Trump supporters in a parking lot and a Black Lives Matter organizer plowing through them.
Attempted murder charges.
That, to me, is scary.
But the scary part about it is that we are entering normalization territory.
I mean, this is not even like a leading story.
This should be huge!
You may remember what happened with NPR.
They showed this image of a car hitting a Black Lives Matter rioter.
And then it said, like, an increasing tactic where people, you know, are plowing into protesters.
And they had to issue some kind of correction or whatever because the image they picked actually depicted a woman who was physically assaulted by these people and then panicked and tried fleeing once again.
Black Lives Matter are the aggressors.
They're the ones attacking the regular people in their cars.
They're the ones who are targeting Trump's report and trying to run him over.
Oh, I know what happened in Charlottesville.
I think we all remember that.
It happened.
And that guy deserves no excuses.
But that's not what's happening right now.
So they call it a right-wing tactic.
I think it's hilarious.
Yeah, we get it.
They're not protesting police brutality, man.
Spare me.
I don't want to hear these excuses.
I don't know what they're protesting, but they're certainly not protesting whatever they claim to be.
They say counter-protesters crossed the six-lane Imperial Highway and confronted the Black Lives Matter protesters, authorities said.
The protesters also confronted each other in the parking lot of the Yorba Linda Public Library.
No excuses for anyone.
None.
If Black Lives Matter is holding their rally and a bunch of Trump supporters want to walk over there, you started it.
That's what Antifa does.
Instigate the violence and instigate the fight.
Don't give them that because they're the ones who are typically starting the fights.
Gotta tell you this, I don't care who's doing it.
You can have your rally, but if you want to go and confront people and then a fight breaks out, don't be surprised what happens next.
That's no excuse for someone ramming their car through a group of Trump supporters in a parking lot, however.
They go on to say that a white sedan went through the crowd in the parking lot A white sedan came, went, people chased the car as it tried to drive away, and it was eventually stopped and was surrounded by police.
The register reported it was not known how fast the car was going.
The back windshield had been broken out, and it had a flagpole sticking out of it.
The front windshield was smashed.
The register reported, I'm not all about this.
I'm not, I'm not, I'm not going to give anybody, defend anybody who wants to go and engage in a conflict and don't go smashing up windows.
Again, Black Lives Matter organizer seems to be the aggressor as far as I can tell from the evidence.
Maybe that's not the case, but.
Don't hit people with your car in a political conflict.
Alright?
And if you've got regular people in a parking lot, let them leave.
So I don't know why these people were surrounding this vehicle, but to be fair, y'all should leave.
However, like I said, they were in a parking lot.
It's hard to know exactly what happened.
I'm trying to make sure I have all the facts right, but I know the left is going to start saying, they play this dirty game where they're like, why won't you criticize, you know, the other side?
And it's like, well, they were in a parking lot at a library.
It's not regular people.
And you guys are choosing to engage in this political conflict.
You see what I mean?
Like if Black Lives Matter chooses to bring their car over there, Or there's an active political conflict and they choose to drive through people that is part of their active political conflict.
When a regular person has no idea what's going on, it's a different story.
So the OC Sheriff says protests today in Yorba Linda resulted in two arrests and injuries to multiple people and a vehicle driving into a crowd, striking and causing major injury to two people.
The driver was arrested for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon.
The release says, A protest today resulted in two arrests and injuries to multiple individuals.
On September 17th, the Orange County Sheriff's Department became aware of a protest planned in the city of Yorba Linda for today at 2 p.m.
by a group called Caravan for Justice.
Shortly after, a counter-protest was planned for the same time.
Deputies were present at the beginning of the protest to protect the constitutional rights of all individuals and to protect life and property.
Just after the beginning of the protest, it is estimated there were approximately 150 individuals total.
Approximately 30 minutes after the protest began, we began to receive reports of physical altercations occurring between the two protest groups, including at least one individual who was pepper sprayed by another protester.
At that time, the crowd grew to approximately 250 protesters.
Due to the physical altercations and reports of individuals within the crowd having weapons, an unlawful assembly was declared and a dispersal order was issued.
One man, Jason Mancuso, 46, of Anaheim, was arrested for failure to obey a dispersal order.
At approximately 3 p.m., after several dispersal orders, a vehicle in the parking lot of the Yorba Linda Public Library struck at least two individuals.
The driver, believed to be part of Caravan for Justice, continued to leave the parking lot and was detained a short distance away from the incident.
The two people struck, a man and a woman, believed to be at the protest, were transported to a nearby hospital with major injuries, but are expected to survive.
The driver, Tatiana Turner, 40, of Long Beach, was arrested.
She will be booked into the Orange County Jail for attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon and the investigation is ongoing.
The Orange County Sheriff's Department requested mutual aid and mutual agencies from across Orange County responded immediately to assist.
We'd like to thank the outside agencies who responded.
By 4.30pm the crowd had dispersed and all roads to the city were reopened.
Now I want to show you this.
From the Seattle Police Department.
Protesters have wound their way through the city, causing damage along the way.
Group is now at Broadway and Pine.
Avoid the area if possible.
People in the group have now set fires at 11 and Pine.
A dispersal order has been issued to the crowd at 11th Street Pine due to public safety concerns.
Crowd has also begun throwing bottles.
I think you get it.
We're facing ongoing riots.
They don't seem to be stopping.
And it tends to be the left that are the aggressors.
But this paves the way for something else entirely.
Whatever this is.
Cole Miller.
is a journalist with Como News reporting.
Just another Saturday night outside the Space Needle.
The silver G8 is loud.
There have been at least 150 people now out of their cars watching.
People took over an intersection and began just peeling out and doing donuts in their cars.
He says the dude must have fresh tires.
He's absolutely slaying them while throwing flames from his exhaust.
The crowd cheered loudly once he finally stopped.
A few near misses between the Mustang and Chevy truck just now.
Given that police are tied up with protesters, I'm guessing this is a low priority.
No sign of cops over the course of the last half hour.
Normally, we do our live shots from the balcony.
Not tonight.
It's been close to an hour since this kicked off.
A newer Camaro now getting in on the action.
Update.
Here we go.
The driver of the red Mustang just hit multiple people and at least one car.
Its back bumper is hanging off.
People are now jumping on another car.
Wow.
Here's the moment the Mustang hit those people.
I can't show it on YouTube.
You know, people complain.
They're like, Tim will pull up the Twitter, but he never plays the video.
I can't!
YouTube will delete it.
So at least you can see something, right?
Apologies, man.
It's been a little over an hour now, no cops in sight, so for now there's a dose of early 90s German engineering.
Another person was just hit, this time by the driver of the red Campari.
This is crazy!
This is what's happening in the streets of Seattle!
This is lawlessness.
You see, the rioters and the protesters are basically stripping— This is what you get when you defund police.
Forgive me for being a liberal and not a staunch libertarian or far leftist who wants to defund the police.
This is what you get when the rioters take over your city.
It's not- It's not even about- You know what we focus on too much?
We focus too much on the fact that they're going around smashing things up.
The real issue is that they're straining police resources, and then these people are allowed to basically do whatever they want.
No one can stop them.
There's no cops in sight, nobody cares, and now people are being hit.
And that's the real issue.
You know, and then you see stories.
We got this story from LA.
I'm gonna come back to this one and see what happened.
But you got a story from LA.
An officer was pistol whipped and shot at.
Got a graze wound, I guess.
Because someone broke into the police department.
Now, I don't know if this is anything to do with anything.
People are sharing it.
They're shocked by it.
It is shocking.
It could be part of this anti-cop sentiment.
The defund the police narrative is going far and wide.
I'm sure it contributes.
People are really mad at cops.
We don't know for sure.
And I don't know if it has anything to do with police resources being strained, but I can say, you know, when you see things like this in Seattle...
You have to just assume, okay?
And it may not be correct, but just assume.
If these riots are happening across the country, then police resources are being consumed.
So when you hear about this increase in shootings and violence that's taking place in big cities like New York and Minneapolis, could it be that you won't stop rioting so police are dealing with that instead of dealing with all of the other crime?
I'll put it this way.
Rioting is a crime.
And when people go out and riot every single day, that is a massive and dramatic escalation of the crime the police have to be dealing with on a daily basis.
You then defund the police so there's less of them and less resources to actually deal with this, and then crime in general is just way up.
Petty crime, larceny, things like that may be down.
Sure.
What we're seeing is that this crime, to me, is on par with the riots.
It is essentially the same thing.
It's just reckless endangerment, wanton destruction, people spinning around hitting people, crashing their cars.
And the people running around smashing things aren't doing it for any real reason either.
So, Cole Miller says, seconds after that person was hit, another Camaro enters the ring.
In the midst of the donuts spinning, the driver popped at least one rear tire.
This is crazy.
Here we go.
And here comes Seattle PD.
The white Camaro has a flat.
Someone brought out a jack to swap the wheel out, and now a white truck is doing donuts.
What an evening it's been.
Pit crew working to change out that tire.
Tandem donuts continue.
Police blaring sirens.
They're not able to get anywhere remotely close to the action because there are cars literally parked down broad all the way to Denny's.
This is crazy!
Look at this!
Here's the clip of the second spectator collision.
I can't show it.
Look at this.
Now begins the very slow-moving, very congested, very rev-heavy caravan out here.
I sincerely hope that no one was seriously hurt.
Thanks for following along.
And while I shouldn't have to say it, I will.
This was not related to any protests happening in Seattle tonight.
These sideshows go down once or twice a month, at least during the summer months.
Sure, and like he said earlier on, the police are occupied with the riots and the protesters, which we can see going around smashing things up last night.
You take this, and there's a natural conclusion.
I think a lot of these people want to say, oh no, it's not the protests.
Okay, listen.
There's a finite amount of cops, there's a finite amount of time and cars, and so it's no surprise to me the police weren't able to come down and shut this down.
I've seen videos like this before, so I'm not going to pretend like it's a new thing, but when the riots happen, when the clashes happen, when people are ramming cars into people, then you get strained police resources.
Combine that with defund the police, and it's just general lawlessness.
I'm not a fan.
I like things to be chill.
But I'll tell you what.
Last night, seeing what happened with the Proud Boys and no dramatic escalation since the shooting, I'm actually feeling a bit more hopeful that things won't be too crazy moving forward, especially with the election.
Because there was every opportunity for these groups to go insane, and they didn't.
And that's good.
Now, look, I get it.
I don't expect the Proud Boys to, because they have a hierarchy, in a sense, and they're tactical, right?
If the Proud Boys give instructions to all of their members, don't do this, don't do that, they won't.
Some right-wing groups, an individual might show up, someone along with them, and act a fool.
Antifa has no control.
They're just running around, smashing things.
So the Proud Boys are aware of this, and they try to make sure to de-escalate things.
It was one incident, I don't want to get too specific, where... I'll just put it this way.
There have been several instances where, you know, right-wing groups have, you know, given the business to journalists or live streamers, and then you'll see Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the Proud Boys, telling them to knock it off, and then people chill immediately.
When I was in Boston, there was two factions.
There was Antifa with bats and clubs, there was the right-wing groups with shields, and the three percenters who were out there were holding back the right-wing group.
Isn't that something special?
The left-wing group, armed with clubs and bats, were just standing there itching for a fight, and some of them walked over.
And the 3%ers kept the right-wing groups back.
Why?
Because they want to make sure they're following the rules and not starting the fights.
And even with that, I don't care what you think about their ideology, sure, fine, they're not starting the fights for the most part.
It looks like in Yorba Linda, they actually crossed over to confront the protesters.
That makes me livid.
I can't stand it when Antifa does it, and I don't want to hear that anybody else is doing it either, because I feel the exact same way.
You cross over and you start a fight.
Don't expect when people start fighting back.
That's what Antifa does.
But that's why it's important you don't have reckless random groups.
That's why it's important that there is some kind of authority.
And I may be an anti-authoritarian, but I still understand the basics of authority.
And I'll give you a simple example.
Right?
Everything I explained with Enrique Tarrio and the Proud Boys.
How he might be like, yo guys, chill, don't do that.
They'll say okay.
Because they respect authority and loyalty.
They can walk away whenever they want.
They can do whatever they want.
They just respect him when he says, don't do this.
Antifa doesn't do that for anybody.
They don't respect any authority, so they destroy things and it makes them look bad.
Well, because they are bad!
Because there's no way to control what they're doing.
And therein lies the problem.
We shouldn't have any clashes in the street.
But on one side, you have Trump supporters waving little American flags, and for the most part, a tendency to be under control.
And on the left, for the most part, a tendency to be out of control.
And that's why it's very easy.
And they say, Tim, why don't you talk about the right-wing extremists?
I will.
When you see them.
I've done several videos on the arrests of these right-wing extremists.
I don't even want to say right-wing, because what do they even mean?
Laissez-faire capitalists?
Traditionalists?
I don't know.
But racial supremacists and whatever.
The guys getting arrested in the military.
I've done several videos on these guys.
It's just a problem for the left in that they're the ones committing the violence almost all of the time.
Well, there you go.
I hope these people who got hit are okay.
We'll see what happens with this woman.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks so much for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
For a brief period, the riots in Portland stopped, and no one really knew why.
Some speculated that Antifa was going around setting wildfires.
A wildly unsubstantiated claim, though we do know there were arsonists.
We do know that one of the guys who got arrested was a Black Lives Matter activist, There's no evidence that Antifa or Black Lives Matter was going around and doing this.
So why did they stop?
Well, I speculated that it was because Oregon State Police who had been brought in were deputized by the feds.
So if they arrested someone, that person wouldn't be charged at the state level.
Federal prosecutors would come in.
We then saw this outcry.
What was it called?
The Portland General Defense Committee or something said that the FBI is going to people's homes and they're getting charged with things that are similar to their state charges.
Well, the riots came back.
Interestingly, though, when the riots reemerged, they went to an ICE facility, quickly got crushed.
You see, the feds aren't playing around and the feds are operating under Bill Barr and Donald Trump.
Right now, Portland police are being deputized as U.S.
Marshals, which means those rioters running around in Portland, who are now trying to avoid federal facilities and are just smashing up local businesses, will be facing the same prospect.
Mike Schmidt, I think his name is, the DA in Portland, he doesn't want to charge people.
He says, well, you know, we don't have evidence, we're gonna let them go, and then they go out and riot again, and again, and it doesn't stop.
So I don't know exactly why they stopped when those fires were happening.
It is kind of strange.
But before that, we had Oregon State Police coming in and making these arrests.
When the riots came back, went to the federal facility, snatched up federal charges.
Rioters then went local.
Now the local cops are getting that deputization.
And I suspect these people are going to be running scared, but we can only wait and see.
We have this story.
Earlier, I had to focus on the breaking news of that woman who crashed into the Trump supporters, seriously injuring some Trump supporters.
Although they're not in critical condition or anything, they're going to survive.
They're like broken bones, I think.
We're seeing the story from the Daily Mail.
NYPD clash with Black Lives Matter protesters standing among diners in Manhattan as Seattle descends into chaos and Portland erupts on the fourth night of Breonna Taylor unrest across the U.S.
Oh, come on!
Breonna Taylor unrest?
The unrest never stopped, okay?
We had that brief lull in Portland, but that doesn't mean all of the rioting just ceased.
It was still ongoing in many other places.
Some of the people, some people were speculating the reason the Portland riots were slowing down is because these loonies were going to other places, like they were going to be in DC on the 17th, that whole thing got cancelled.
And guess what?
They were supposed to do the siege on the White House, the White House siege or whatever, got cancelled.
Why?
They straight up said, because of Trump, they were scared of Trump.
So I tell you, as we enter this election, who am I going to be voting for as the riots don't seem to be stopping?
Well, the only evidence I have that the only thing I can see is that Trump and the Republicans are willing to shut them down and Democrats are not.
The only reason we ever see anything happen to these people is because the feds move in.
And so these people decided not to go to Washington, D.C.
for their 50 days of unrest.
Good, I guess.
I mean, look, if you want to engage in nonviolent protest, that's fine.
And then we had Adbusters, the organization that was that was rallying for this, change it from the White House siege to what did they call it?
The nonviolent improvisational jazz.
Because they realized What it meant if you're going to see besiege the White House.
I think they were scared of federal charges, but we've got more news as well.
Governor Ron DeSantis has just rolled out a new bill that has a ton of very serious charges for people who engage in this kind of behavior.
Now, I don't agree with a lot of it.
Actually, I think I disagree with most of it.
And so we'll go through that and break down what we have here.
In this segment, the incoming penalties and the way we stop these extremists.
Because I want to show you something else, too, from the New York Times.
You see, there was a guy during the Louisville protests for Brenna Taylor who started shooting wildly and he shot two cops.
He got charged with wanton endangerment.
That's it?
For shooting wildly?
He could have killed people.
Well, that's it?
They're saying he wasn't trying to kill people, he was just firing a gun randomly at cops.
During a protest against cops.
I think I can see this guy's intent.
The reason I bring this up is because one of the officers, the only charge in the Breonna Taylor case against one of the officers had to do with wanton endangerment because he was firing wildly into the building and he hit the neighbor's house nearly hitting somebody.
They freaked out over that and said, it's not enough!
The charges are too weak!
He's only being charged for the shots he missed, they said.
Yet this guy who went out and did this was worse.
Waving a gun, shooting it wildly, hitting two cops.
Wanton endangerment.
Man, to me, that's incredible.
I want to highlight something here in this story from the Daily Mail.
And I'm not going to get into too into the depth on this story.
NYPD clash with Black Lives Matter protesters standing among diners in Manhattan.
Seattle then descends into chaos and Portland erupts.
The reason why is, dude, how many times do you need me to come out and say,
we get it, riots happened, cops came in, people started fighting, cops got arrested.
And this is another story where Black Lives Matter protesters were apparently standing among diners.
I guess they're trying to play it safe.
I don't know what that means, whether or not they were actually harassing the diners.
Maybe.
Maybe they were standing there and talking to them and, you know, it's not at the point where you'd call it harassment or anything.
But the cops moved in.
This keeps happening, okay?
It keeps happening, and something needs to be done about it.
Multiple arrests made in downtown Portland, unlawful assembly.
And this is what I was basically saying before.
When they went to the ICE facility, they got rounded up quick.
When they go out and protest just at the local level, they get released.
Well, now we have a solution.
Portland Police deputized as federal officers ahead of protests.
This is from KVAL Eugene Ortegon.
They say members of the Portland Police Bureau's Rapid Response Team were deputized as federal marshals on Saturday morning ahead of a planned rally by the Proud Boys group and expected counter-protest.
Interestingly, this happened before the Proud Boys even showed up.
Quote, I want violent individuals thinking about the enhanced penalties they may face if they harm a Portland Police Bureau officer.
And it's likely not going to come from any of the Proud Boys or right-wingers.
Deputizing the police officers will allow federal prosecutors to charge allegations of assault on a federal officer to anyone who attacks a deputized Portland Police Bureau officer, State Police said.
Portland officers have been serving on the front lines of nightly protests for months.
Sustaining injuries and encountering unspeakable violence, Hampton said.
If I am to send them in a harm's way this weekend, on my authority, I am going to ensure they have all the protections and authority of an OSP trooper.
You see, Oregon State Police have already been deputized.
Well, it's only fair the local cops get that as well.
I will say, it could be a little alarming to hear this.
And the reason is, we're going to give more power to the federal government.
We're going to make more laws.
And that can be kind of a bad thing.
If it's already illegal, we just need the D.A.
to do their job.
If the problem is that the D.A.
won't do their job, and the cops are doing their job, then we need to move in, maybe Bill Barr or the D.O.J.
or something, and get rid of this D.A.
who is not enforcing the law.
Short of that, this may be the only solution.
I'm not necessarily a fan of seeing the federal government gain more power and authority, but I will say it's a very clever way to deal with this.
They posted to Facebook.
At 9 a.m.
this morning, members of the Portland Police Bureau Rapid Response Team were deputized as federal marshals.
This will allow federal prosecutors to charge allegations of assault on a federal officer to anyone who attacks a deputized Portland Police Bureau officer.
We then see the quote.
say, along with the Oregon State Police, who are also sworn as federal officers.
This will enable any persons who commit violent acts towards our law enforcement officers
to be charged federally. The Oregon State Police and Portland Police will continue to make arrests
on state charges. Those cases are then reviewed by the U.S.
Attorney's Office, and federal prosecutors will determine if any cases warrant federal charges.
I want violent individuals thinking about the enhanced penalties they may face if they harm a Portland Police Bureau officer.
It's not even about the penalties they may face, or enhanced penalties.
It's about the fact that no one's getting any penalties!
They're just being allowed to romp around and do whatever they want for a hundred plus days.
At a certain point, it has to stop, I'd imagine, right?
And if this is the only way to do it, then so be it.
Now, Governor Ron DeSantis, over in Florida, has his own solution.
Governor DeSantis unveils new bill to crack down on riots, penalize cities for defunding police.
DeSantis' bill is a priority for the 2020 legislative season.
I don't know if I agree with this stuff, but listen.
The challenge is that we're between a rock and a hard place, where violent criminals are going around doing whatever they want with impunity.
You've got major corporations, mainstream media supporting these people.
How do we deal with it?
You've got district attorneys that were funded by George Soros.
That's a fact reported by the New York Times who are not charging these people and they're letting them go.
Then they go out and commit more crimes.
So what's what's what's the end goal here?
It's more extremism?
Was that the point of bringing on these DAs who won't prosecute people?
Look, man, I'm all about criminal justice reform, but this ain't it.
It's not the way we're going to get it done.
These people are violent criminals.
These are the ones you want to be in jail.
The ones you don't want in jail are the ones who are sitting on a street corner smoking a blunt or having a 40.
We want criminal justice reform in reference to non-violent offenses.
But they've done the inverse.
Now we still have people going to prison, going to jail, because of some non-violent drug offense, which I personally don't care about so long as they're, like, not selling it to kids or something.
I mean, there's some restrictions, right?
And we have the violent criminals romping around and going free.
This is... it's backwards.
They're not doing what they're supposed to be doing.
I will say, There was a story about Kim Fox in Chicago.
She's the lady who let Jussie Smollett go.
And she's been at a much lower rate.
She's been prosecuting at a much lower rate than her predecessor.
A large portion of that was nonviolent drug offenses.
I'm actually okay with that.
I actually kind of like that.
So I'm with respect.
I'm glad that's happening.
But you cannot take that And say, that's good enough, now we'll let all these other people in.
No, no, stop, slow down.
You can do it right.
You can say, this guy, what was he doing?
He had pot or something?
I don't care about that.
This guy was throwing bricks at cops.
That guy should be arrested and he should be in jail when convicted, right?
You go to jail and then you'll face trial.
But check out this law.
I want to show you this new law that was proposed by Ratnasantas.
They say, in Winterhaven, alongside several law enforcement leaders from around the state, the House Speaker and the Senate President DeSantis said the bill aims to crack down on riots and antifa types.
We have zero tolerance for violence, zero tolerance for disorder, and zero tolerance for looting, DeSantis said.
And I agree with that, in terms of zero tolerance.
Under the bill, called the Combating Violence, Disorder, and Looting and Law Enforcement Protection Act, It'd be a third-degree felony when seven or more people are in an assembly and cause damage to property or injury.
You know, I don't necessarily even disagree with this.
My question is, though, if it's already illegal, why do you need more laws, right?
I do have a concern that we just keep stacking laws on top of laws and, you know, where does it end?
Where does it end?
If it's illegal, just prosecute these people.
But I guess the goal here is, if you've got a group of seven people and one person throws a brick, you arrest the seven people.
The same penalty applies to anyone who is obstructing traffic during unpermitted protests.
That I disagree with.
The bill states that any driver who hits a person who is obstructing traffic during a disorderly assembly will not be liable for injury or death if fleeing from the safety of a mob.
That I definitely agree with.
Calling it the boldest and most comprehensive piece of legislation like this in the country, DeSantis said there will also be enhanced penalties for people who throw objects or assault law enforcement officers during assemblies.
I agree with this, okay?
If you are involved in a violent or disorderly assembly and you harm somebody, if you throw a brick and hit a police officer, you're going to jail.
You want to talk about demilitarizing the police?
It's simple.
People need to stop throwing bricks and shooting at them.
We ask cops to do this job, because population density is expanding, it's becoming harder and harder for us to recognize our own neighbors, and that is a serious, serious challenge.
I don't have all the answers, I can't tell you.
Maybe people should stop living in big cities, I don't know if it's unique to us or how you get through it, but a lot of these countries that don't have a problem, like China, well they're authoritarian, you know?
They will drag you out of your home and send you to a, like, work camp, You know, for a lot of crazy reasons, like having the wrong beliefs.
We don't do that in the U.S.
We believe in individual freedom, and that means it's particularly difficult when people have a right to peaceably assemble.
You now have a massive group of people that are saying, we're just peacefully protesting.
So the cops come out to make sure that they stay peaceful, and that's fine.
And then we have these stories from the New York Times about a dude shooting two cops.
And what does he get charged with?
Wanton endangerment.
No, no, no, no, no.
If you're out at a protest, okay?
If you're at a pro- Well, I'll tell you this.
At least they're undercharging him, because he'll probably get convicted.
You overcharge, and people get released.
If you're at a protest, specifically calling out cops, and saying ACAB, and then you start firing wildly at them, and you hit two, I'm gonna say that's attempted murder, alright?
But you know what?
They're not doing it.
I guess I'll take... It's probably better that they're under charge in that case.
But let me show you this PDF.
Combating violence, disorder, and looting in Law Enforcement Protection Act.
New criminal offenses to combat rioting, looting, and violence.
Prohibition on violent or disorderly assemblies.
Third-degree felony.
When seven or more persons are involved in an assembly and cause damage to property or injury to other persons.
Alright, well, you know, I don't know if we need more laws for this, because if you go around smashing up things, it's already illegal, but now they could probably get the accomplices.
Prohibition on obstructing roadways.
Third-degree felony to obstruct traffic during an unpermitted protest, demonstration, or violent or disorderly assembly.
Driver is not liable for injury or death caused if fleeing for safety from a mob.
I get it.
I do.
But listen, Nonviolent civil disobedience is a good thing.
It is the boundary by which, like, where we find it acceptable, okay?
If you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.
And I'm not even, I'm not saying that in a literal sense like revolution, I'm just saying general reform.
If people feel that they have no outlet for a radius of grievances to even pressure the system in any way, things get bad.
They'll get more violent.
If a bunch of hippies want to link arms and sing a song in the middle of a road, I think that is acceptable.
I think they should be arrested for obstructing a roadway, but not a third-degree felony.
When we see non-violent civil disobedience, we accept it's crossing the line.
And those people get arrested.
And then they get taken away and the road is cleared.
I understand there's a big problem here, though.
For one, we are seeing waves of people blocking streets and then beating on cars.
That's why I understand the second part.
Drivers not liable if they flee.
I get it.
I do.
But now we're seeing, with population density, it is very easy, with social media, to rally a group of lunatics to block roadways.
And that's creating serious problems.
I don't believe a third-degree felony is appropriate.
A felony charge is serious.
It's like, you get convicted of a felony, you can't own a weapon anymore.
I think, for the most part, you can't vote.
You can't leave the country to many other places.
Like, that's a serious thing to say, because some hippy-dippy protester wanted to sing a song in the street.
So I think, the important thing here is, Keeping things proportional.
Maybe it just needs to say, like, you know, Class A misdemeanor.
I don't know how they judge it in Florida.
I know, like, Illinois would be like a Class A misdemeanor.
Which can be up to a $2,500 fine.
All right, man.
You want to engage in this.
And you don't get more than a year in jail.
And it's a misdemeanor.
So, you know, you don't get that felony charge on your life.
So I disagree, but I'm not saying I know all the answers.
Just that I think we've got to be careful about this.
Prohibition on destroying or toppling monuments.
Second-degree felony.
Totally agree with.
Absolutely.
Prohibition on harassment in public accommodations.
First degree misdemeanor for participant in a violent or disorderly assembly
to harass or intimidate a person at a public accommodation.
Totally agree.
RICO liability.
Attaches to anyone who organizes or funds a violent or disorderly assembly.
100%.
100%.
percent.
These people know what they're doing.
They're putting money in it.
They're bringing U-Hauls with shields.
And they have flags.
When they take a flag off, they beat you at the poll.
Yes, and I don't care if you're left or right.
Increased penalty is a mandatory minimum jail sentence for striking law enforcement officers, including with a projectile.
Mandatory minimums are wrong, in my opinion.
I think it's already illegal to hit a cop.
We'll arrest them and charge them for that, but I do not like mandatory minimums at all.
I think it's a terrible idea.
Offense enhancements.
Offense and sentence enhancements for 1.
Throwing an object during a violent or disorderly assembly that strikes a civilian or law enforcement officer.
Assault battery of a law enforcement officer during a violent or disorderly assembly.
And 3.
Participation in a violent or disorderly assembly by an individual from another state.
Alright, I can get that.
Listen.
I don't like mandatory minimums at all.
I think the judge is the judge for the reason.
For a reason.
And the judge is going to look through the details and be like, okay, I understand what they're trying to avoid, though.
They're trying to avoid lefty activist judges being like, well, you only threw one brick, how about a slap on the wrist?
Now they're going to be like, nope.
Six months.
I don't like mandatory minimums, man.
I don't.
I think it's very important that our legal system understands individuality, right?
There are certain stories.
I remember I briefly took a criminal justice course when I was like 18.
It was like for a month.
We learned a story about this kid who was like 19.
He had an alcohol problem.
And he knew that his next door neighbors were out of town.
They were asked to watch the house.
They had keys.
The kid did not have keys.
So the kid went in the house, and he opened the door, he went to the refrigerator because he knew they had beer, he stole a beer, and the police were passing by, knowing this family was out of town because it was a smaller town, saw the light, went around the back, saw the kid in there, arrested him.
Because he opened the beer, it was, I believe it was a burglary.
Which is a mandatory minimum.
And apparently the judge was like, I am not sending this kid who stole a beer to prison for years on a felony charge for this.
And they were like, nope.
Mandatory minimum.
Now, that was a story told to me, like, 16 years ago, so I could be mixing up the details, but there's things like that.
The judge needs to be the one, you know, to determine the sentence, or, you know, a jury, or however it works.
I don't like the idea that you say, no matter what, you get the sentence.
Now, Rico!
That I like.
These people are organized.
They're in groups?
Get them.
Now, here's where it gets kind of weird.
No defund the police permitted.
Prohibit state grants or aid to any local government that slashes the budget of law enforcement services.
Well, come on.
Like, we have to slash law enforcement budgets sometimes.
You know, like, let's say we... It's really simple.
Let's say there's a cop driving around in, like, a Humvee or something.
And then we're like, hey, the budget for this, or that's probably a bad example, but let's say, like, we keep giving cops this particular tool, and we have it in a budget, and we're like, hey, this tool is kind of becoming obsolete.
Let's slash the budget in this area and reallocate funds.
Oh, you slashed the budget!
I know, I know.
It's probably more specific than that.
But I think there are legitimate times when you will cut a police department's budget.
Like, if the population is shrinking, or people are moving out of the city, or you need to reallocate funds to other specific areas.
I'm not saying defund the police the way they are.
I'm saying there's probably legitimate reasons to reduce police funding.
Defund the police is a political slogan about how you just don't like the institution.
There's no, they're not directly targeting anything, like, what if they were like, this, this fund for like, you know, night vision goggles and night equipment is completely useless to us.
Let's say, let's say they give up jurisdiction in some capacity for some, you know, to the DEA or specifically to state police.
Now they've got a budget they don't need that can easily be reallocated.
I guess you can call it reallocate, fine, whatever.
Is a victim compensation waives sovereign immunity to allow a victim of a crime related to a violent or disorderly assembly to sue local government for damages where the local government is grossly negligent in protecting persons and property?
Here, here.
100%, I agree.
Government employment benefits terminate state benefits and makes anyone ineligible for employment by state local government if convicted of participating in a violent or disorderly assembly.
Well, I don't know about that one, man.
I mean, I understand.
I understand.
That's bold.
That might be a First Amendment issue right there that'll get challenged and could get a lot of this shut down.
Oh, here's the last one.
Bail.
No bond or bail until first appearance in court if charged with a crime related to participating in a violent or disorderly assembly.
Rebuttable presumption against bond or bail after first appearance.
Oh, man.
This is tough.
I don't like an increase in authority in this capacity.
I don't think that we can keep people locked up before we've proven them guilty of a crime.
Unless, of course, there's probable cause and they're violent.
It's not so simple.
I don't mind a violent assembly.
If they're charged with a violent crime, yes.
But if someone's at a disorderly event, I've seen people get arrested who did not commit crimes.
In fact, We're gonna have two journalists from the Daily Caller on the IRL podcast, hopefully, I hate announcing guests so I'll keep it, I'll leave it there, who did not commit any crimes but are getting charged.
Like imagine if they got locked up and couldn't get out for like a week or two.
If there was a, you know, you get all these people arrested, they gotta go see the judge, that could take a long time.
Now, there is still an argument that they may get locked up for a couple days, but the judge is going to be the one who says, these guys are journalists, you know, released on your own, you know, on your own recognizance or whatever they call it.
So, listen.
Sometimes it's good to have things like this.
I would say I'm 50-50 on this.
Dude, just do the RICO thing.
Seriously.
Charge these people with conspiracy.
That I like.
They're organized, and they use these clever manipulative tactics to avoid liability.
I'm not down for that.
But I'll wrap this up by saying, we are not going to allow these people to control our streets.
And this is the unfortunate consequence of extremist violence for over a hundred days.
I warned it would happen.
Blame Antifa.
If you want to de-escalate and de-militarize the police, you need to come out, stop these people, and then you can say there's no reason for cops with shields because there has not been a brick incident in years, and the city's gonna be like, that's a really good point.
They don't need the shields, it's a waste of money.
Instead, they're coming out and throwing bricks, molotovs, and shooting police.
That's going to result in cops buying more safety equipment, and I don't blame them!
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
That is my main channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
You know, I just can't deny it.
Part of me is eternally grateful for the amusement that Donald Trump brings to the realm of politics.
Before Trump, politics was very boring.
I remember growing up and just wishing people cared.
Then along comes Donald Trump, who says some of the most outrageous things.
And all of a sudden, everybody cares.
And I'm like, whoa, too far, too far.
Slow it down.
But Donald Trump knows how to get people's attention.
Trump calls for Biden to take a drug test before upcoming presidential debate.
Trump said Biden's past debate performances had been record-setting uneven.
Okay, no, but in all seriousness, I think the reason Joe Biden's performances are uneven is because he's an old man.
They say he sunsets.
Sometimes he's not all with it.
Sometimes he is.
And who believes Joe Biden's gonna put on an amazing debate performance?
I don't.
But I love this idea that Joe Biden's been Willy Wonka-ing us.
You know, in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory?
Or, you know, the original Willy Wonka.
What was that movie?
Whatever.
You like, you know, Gene Wilder comes out and he's all, he's like crippled and he's got like a cane and then he falls over and somersaults and stands up.
Ta-da!
That's the joke about what Biden's going to do.
You see, he lulled us into a false sense of security and then he'll pop up on stage and he'll be perfect.
The best debate.
Yeah, right.
I guess that's why Donald Trump is saying he wants to take a drug test.
Because if Joe Biden does come out and he does hit out of the park, he's going to be like, no way, no way.
But maybe that was the trick.
Let's read this.
And then, of course, I'm definitely gonna talk about Trump himself.
I mean, he's 74.
Fox News says, President Trump said Sunday that he demanded his Democratic opponent, Joe Biden, take a drug test either directly before or after the upcoming presidential debate this week.
Could you imagine?
They're like, it's like, I don't know, Who's doing the first debate, Fox News or something?
You got like Chris Wallace, and he's like, America, as we prepare for the first debate, we're just a few minutes behind because Joe Biden is peeing in a cup.
Then we'll have the results at the end of the show to see if whether he was taking drugs.
Trump, who tweeted the message shortly before 10am, said he would also agree to drug tests if Biden agrees.
The president said drugs could only explain Biden's uneven debate performance.
He tweeted this.
I will be strongly demanding a drug test of sleepy Joe Biden prior to or after the debate on Tuesday night.
Naturally, I will agree to take one also.
His debate performances have been record-setting uneven.
To put it mildly, only drugs could have caused this discrepancy.
The remarks come after Biden's team recently told The Guardian they're hoping for a repeat of his standout, high-energy 2012 debate performance against then-Vice President opponent Paul Ryan, which helped reinvigorate President Obama's re-election campaign at the time.
Biden's record since then has been marred by repeated verbal gaffes during his 2020 presidential campaign tour.
You guys know what a bell curve is?
Yeah, you know what a bell- it goes up and then it goes down.
Okay.
If Joe Biden was 40 and eight years prior, he had this epic debate.
Yeah, he's 40.
It's fine.
If he was 48 and eight years prior, he had this epic debate.
I think he was 40 at the time.
Yeah, it's fine.
Joe Biden was like 70 years old when he did that debate.
Okay?
I think he was 69.
And it's been eight years since then.
Probably a little bit longer.
It's been eight years.
The dude is on the back end of that bell curve.
And I mean this with all due respect.
I understand he's getting old, but you think you're going to perform as well as you did eight years ago?
Dude, come on, man.
Listen, I'm, I'm 34 and about half year away from being 35.
And I am nowhere near as good at skateboarding as I was when I was like 18 or 19.
Cause you know, you got that youthful exuberance now.
Okay.
I get it.
And knowledge is a very different thing and developing skills.
So sure.
A physical activity.
All right, fine.
I'll walk it back a little bit.
Come on.
I've been skating my whole life.
I certainly don't skate as much as I used to.
I am still, you know, pretty good.
But to think that eight years, when I was a lot younger, I'm going to go compete.
When you're president, you sort of see everything that they're going to be asking.
And they may disagree with you, but we've done a great job.
We created the greatest economy in history, Trump said in an interview with Fox News' Pete Hegseth, after nominating Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court.
And now it's coming back.
We closed it, we saved millions and millions of lives by doing what I did, and now we're bringing it back.
Biden has called on the Senate not to act on Trump's Supreme Court nomination.
Okay, wait, wait.
I don't—I did a big segment talking about Amy Coney Barrett, so I don't think we need to rehash this.
We must talk about the drug tests!
And then, you know what?
I'm just going to mention this real quick.
It's a weird thing they do, where this story was just about Donald Trump's tweet, and they could have actually gone into detail about Donald Trump being accused of taking uppers, and he has been.
They don't do it, though.
They just go off and, you know, okay, fine, sure.
They're under an obligation to talk about whatever, you know, I think they should talk about this.
Salome Anderson, I hope I'm pronouncing your name right, said in response to Trump's tweet,
all I know is that I'm 35 years old, I'm exhausted by 11 p.m.
and barely functional at 8 a.m.
So the real mystery to me is how a man in his 70s can stay up almost every night until 2,
rage tweeting, get up at 6 and keep going for the rest of the day.
That's a good question!
Now, does Trump have magic meme energy?
Where he's just a spry old man?
I gotta say this.
I have heard that Donald Trump takes uppers.
I'm not saying that to imply that he's a drug addict or anything like that.
Like, he's on a prescription medication that has the effect of prepping him up.
Or pepping him up.
I don't know if that's true, whether it is or not, Donald Trump certainly is an energetic, spry old man.
You know, I was watching his... Where was he?
In Virginia.
I was watching him do his rally in Virginia, and I was just watching him come down the stairs, 74 years old, and he looks like he's 50.
I mean, let's be real.
Look at Donald Trump's face.
He looks old.
But does he really look like he's in his mid-70s?
I gotta be honest, he doesn't.
I think there's a much simpler solution here.
I don't think Donald Trump is poppin' pills.
I mean, maybe some people have said it.
I don't think so.
Especially if he's saying he wants to take a drug test.
You know what I think?
I think Donald Trump is a man of tremendous privilege.
I don't see him as somebody who goes to the gym every day.
He does golf, but that's not like the most rigorous thing.
He's an overweight fella.
But why is it that he may have so much energy and be so spry?
Well, it could be... You can look at it different ways, but I'll put it this way.
Donald Trump was born into a wealthy family.
He was given his loan, he started his business, he built it up, became a billionaire.
My congratulations to him for his long and storied life.
But he hasn't gone through the same level of hardships, and he probably ate better, he probably lived better, and that really makes a whole lot of sense.
But, you know, when I think about that, and I think about Joe Biden, well, Joe Biden, too.
I mean, Joe Biden, privileged, wealthy politician.
Why?
You know, I guess he's a few years older than Trump, but come on, man.
Trump literally runs laps around Joe Biden.
They try and say on the left that Trump's brain is mush and he's too old and all that stuff.
It's because they're trying to counter the Biden thing.
So Donald Trump recently had a gaffe, or at least it could be a fake clip.
I don't know.
I saw a clip where people were sharing this around on the left.
And Trump said, today, a child can be born at nine months.
Trump said, we're going to be the first to get an astronaut on NARS.
Mars.
I'm like, that's a slip of the tongue.
Everybody has a slip of the tongue.
Joe Biden said he was elected to the Senate 180 years ago.
I'm not making that up.
He said when I was elected to the Senate 180 years ago.
Was it a joke?
He's trying to make a joke about him being really, really old?
I don't know.
It's not a good joke to make, dude, because you're really old.
Joe Biden was giving this interview.
I think it was MSNBC.
And it was like horrifyingly bad.
You know, he said he started stuttering and stammering.
He didn't know what he was trying to say.
And then the news host corrected him.
Oh, that's right.
That's right.
It was like, oh, dude.
No, man.
And there's another one from the same interview where he calls out to John.
I'm not kidding.
Like, who?
He's like, oh, you're going to look at this.
And John, John.
Anyway, and it's like, wait, who's John?
Biden, who are you talking?
Trump doesn't do that.
Trump might say dumb things over some of the time, but come on, you can't compare that to Biden.
I've been willing to bet you put Trump overweight up against Biden and Trump would win him in a foot race.
And I mean it because Joe Biden ain't all there.
You know what?
I do feel bad.
He's an old guy, and I get it.
But Trump does bring up a good point.
Salome questions how Trump is so spry.
Yeah, well, if Trump's willing to take a drug test, I don't think he'd be willing to call that out.
Or he's trying to call someone's bluff, playing like a poker game.
Maybe Trump is taking some uppers.
Joe Biden certainly needs them.
And I don't know if he can handle it.
This debate is going to be epically bad.
Well, for the Democrats, at least.
I think for Trump supporters, it's going to be like, Laugh fest!
But we'll see, man.
Donald Trump may get tongue-tied, he may get caught up.
But ultimately, I'll tell you this.
I don't think any of it matters.
Trump could be wrong about everything.
But Trump is a showman.
He knows how to play to the crowd.
And that's what he's gonna do.
And it's gonna work.
Well, Joe Biden can't do that.
Joe Biden's a politician.
But Joe Biden does not have the TV chops that Donald Trump does.
And that's why Trump rallies are always so fun and exciting.
And you know, they talk about Trump with teleprompters.
Nah, I'm telling you, man, he goes off on tangents.
He gets up on that podium and he just goes for it.
He's probably got some talking points on his prompters, but he just goes for it.
And he stands there for as long as he feels like.
And he's late, and he goes over, but he knows how to nail it.
The debates are coming up in two days.
I am gonna love this.
I don't think anyone's taking a drug test, though, but thank you, Trump, for the entertainment.
I got a couple more segments coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
Well, for quite some time, people have been questioning where their donations to Black Lives Matter actually goes.
And at least in one instance, to some guy, to buy a house, to get some guns and home security, I guess, $450,000 in donations, and apparently this dude Georgia activist is being charged with money laundering, GoFundMe to refund donations to his Black Lives Matter group.
Now this is not like the main Black Lives Matter organization, but is there really one?
There's like the Black Lives Matter movement, which goes through a non-profit called Thousand Currents, and people still question where those donations go.
Unfortunately, it would seem that a lot of people are donating haphazardly, randomly, not knowing where their money's actually going.
And even when they do donate to the right one, they're like, yo, what are you doing with our money?
So why would you donate to random people?
Because here's what you end up getting from Newsweek.
Federal authorities arrested an Atlanta-based actor and activist on wire fraud and money laundering charges Friday after an investigation suggested he purchased $200,000 worth of personal items with money donated to a Black Lives Matter fundraising organization.
The Federal Bureau of Investigations identified the man as 32-year-old Tyree Conyers Page, also known as Sir Major Page, in a news release detailing his arrest and charges against him.
Page, who operates an Instagram page using his alias SirMajor, often posts content related to social justice and the Black Lives Matter movement.
According to the FBI, he established a non-profit organization called Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta, BLMGA, in 2018, and opened a bank account under the same title.
Page was reportedly the account's sole signatory.
The FBI news release noted that BLMGA solicited donations through social media and GoFundMe, which similarly refer to the organization as a non-profit entity.
Its investigation, prompted by a complaint filed with the FBI's National Threat Operations
Center in April, showed Page's organization received more than $450,000 in donations between
June and August.
Whoa!
Talk about bringing in that sweet, sweet green.
Yowza!
As demonstrations against racism and police violence erupted across the U.S., Page reportedly said donations would be used to support efforts seeking justice for George Floyd, a black man who died in Minneapolis police custody.
In private social media messages sent in June, however, the FBI is alleging he repeatedly used a debit card linked to the BLMGA bank account to purchase a home security system, furniture, clothing, accessories, entertainment, and food throughout the summer.
In August, Page allegedly purchased two pieces of real estate, a residence and vacant lot in Toledo, Ohio, with $112,000 in funds from the BLMGA account.
Earlier in September, he allegedly transferred money from the organization's bank account to another personal one and used it to purchase a pistol and two rifles.
What are these people thinking?
You know, I want to express some, I don't know, empathy for the guy.
Look, I get it.
Buying property, it's clear, I mean, at least from the initial assessment, this dude was probably taking the money and running.
But I also think some of the stuff you hear about him buying stuff for himself, he just didn't know how to pay himself a salary, and he didn't understand what he was doing.
So, you gotta be really careful.
I think some of this falls onto the fault of our education system.
We don't know how to start businesses, we don't know how to start non-profits, and we don't even know what the law is pertaining to fundraising and things like this.
Dude should have paid himself a salary, because he should have been able to pay himself whatever he wanted.
Now, as a non-profit, when he files a 990, people are gonna see how much he's paying himself.
I think most people probably would not care.
It's a similar thing to what happened with, like, Steve Bannon.
Does anybody who donated to the Build the Wall Fund care that they were paying the dude?
Probably not, but you go about it wrong, this is what happens.
So they go on to say, quote, Numerous videos and livestream videos were posted to Page's personal social media page.
Page is showing himself in what appeared to be newly purchased clothing, hotel rooms, and office space in Atlanta.
The FBI said in its news release regarding the investigation and arrest, Several audio statements are made by Page in the videos boasting about the money he has, his tailored suits, his nice cufflinks, and $150 ties, and boasting about, my room way up at the top, at the top top, They put the bottom feeders on these floors, man.
That's crummy.
GoFundMe will provide refunds to individuals who donated to BLMGA through its fundraising platform, according to reported comments from a company spokesperson, who confirmed fundraisers associated with Page's organization were removed from the site, as well as partner site PayPal.
Page is reportedly prohibited from creating fundraising campaigns using GoFundMe in the future.
I can confirm that we removed the fundraisers associated with Tyree Conyers Page and the Black Lives Matter of Greater Atlanta organization, which collectively raised $13,154.
He has also been banned from using the GoFundMe platform for any future campaigns.
If any donor would like to request a refund, we will process it for them.
Madeline Perdue, a spokesperson at GoFundMe, reportedly said in a statement, Individuals who donated to BLMGA using GoFundMe can request refunds through the platform's website.
They reached out to GoFundMe for additional comments, but did not receive a reply in time.
This is not the first time questions have been raised about this, and I can show you this several months ago.
ABC6 reported, as Black Lives Matter donations surge, some want to know where the money goes.
And I gotta tell you, I have no idea.
I really don't.
So, a lot of people have alleged that it goes to Joe Biden.
That's not true, and it's really annoying that people do this.
Ugh, it's so mind-numbing.
ActBlue is a fundraising organ— I believe they're a non-profit, and it's a fundraising system, kind of like PayPal.
Progressives and Democrats use it.
So let's be really careful here.
When you donate to Black Lives Matter, I believe, and I could be wrong, your money is going to an organization called Thousand Currents.
They use ActBlue to process these donations.
At the very least, it shows you that Black Lives Matter is political and is affiliated with the Democrats.
Many people are trying to deny this so they can claim that Black Lives Matter is apolitical and they can put it wherever they want in their workplace when sometimes you can't.
Some of that money goes to ActBlue to pay their expenses.
They get a fee.
If the Democrats are using the same system, then it essentially provides funding to the Democrats' fundraising system.
That's about as close as you get.
Now, they do say, apparently ActBlue says that any money that's not claimed will be used by ActBlue for their charitable services or something like that.
They may actually give that money to political causes.
I do not believe it would go to a PAC or to a candidate because of strict Federal Election Commission rules.
But where does the money go?
I don't actually know.
This person tweeted, who is holding BLM accountable for this influx of money?
John Cena announced he's matched BTS Army's $1 million donation to the Black Lives Matter Foundation.
These people have no idea what they're doing, and that's what's scary.
Uber-rich individuals throwing money at an organization they know not what it does.
Black Lives Matter opposes the nuclear family.
That's weird.
Why would you fund that?
Don't ask me.
They say, with this much money suddenly flooding into charitable organizations, questions about how the funds are being spent are perhaps inevitable.
One thing Black Lives Matter wants to make clear, despite what you may have seen in viral social media posts by right-wing activists, none of this money is going to the DNC.
And that's true.
Well, actually, that's For the most part, true.
There's probably some, you know, circuitous way in which the money can be transferred, so you gotta pay attention to that stuff.
They say blacklivesmatter.com uses the platform ActBlue.
It's popular among Democrat politicians and progressives.
I believe they only allow that.
I don't think Republicans are allowed to use it.
They probably wouldn't let them.
They're going to say ActBlue is a fundraising platform used by Democrats and progressives.
We get that.
But let's move down, they say this.
Many Reddit users seem dissatisfied with the response.
The scales did not address subsequent questions about allocation of donations during the chat.
The Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation did not respond to a request for additional information Monday.
Some activists on the left have raised doubts as well, frustrated by a lack of specifics about how funds are distributed and how local chapters obtain resources.
BLM has faced similar concerns in the past, from the left and the right, about its financial structure and spending priorities.
Amid the influx of new funds, the BLM Global Network Foundation announced last week it is creating a $6.5 million fund to support grassroots organizing work by affiliated groups.
Starting July 1st, affiliates can apply for up to $500,000 in multi-year grants.
I don't even know what that means.
And therein lies the big problem.
But I guess not for any of us.
And I guess not for anybody who actually donated.
Let's be real.
provide resources to those new to the movement and interested in black liberation strategies
by developing curriculum in this stunning moment in American history.
We will honor those lost and those who have come before us in the fight for black liberation."
I don't even know what that means.
And therein lies the big problem.
But I guess not for any of us.
And I guess not for anybody who actually donated.
Let's be real.
Like I just previously, like I mentioned, the people who donated to build the wall foundation,
you get all these people saying, oh man, it was a scam to build the wall thing on.
hooting and hollering because these people are, you know, I think Bannon's been charged
and we'll see, we'll see how it plays out.
Who cares?
I get it, the feds do, so by all means.
But do the people who donated actually care the dude was getting paid?
Probably not.
They're probably like, yeah, take a salary freeze off, you deserve it.
The guy I guess was like a veteran and he's got like, you know, injuries.
So what about these people?
Look, man, I'm just gonna tell you.
I'd say 99.9% of the people who donated this wouldn't care if they went out and bought a slice of pizza and a beer and then went to a party.
They would not care.
It is tribalism.
They're throwing their money at people they think are symbols of the fight and people who represent them.
And if the FBI or right-wing individuals or anybody comes after them, they're gonna say, you're just, you know, right-wing.
And most of them are gonna say, I don't care what they do with my money.
Same thing is true for Bannon and the build-the-wall people.
So I do think it's really, look, I gotta be honest.
It does seem like this Georgia activist guy was kind of stealing money for himself.
But do you think these people care?
Maybe when they find out it's like one guy they're donating to and he doesn't actually care, but I gotta be honest, man.
It's tribalism.
And when the right jumps on this, and they probably will, the left is gonna start defending him and they're gonna call for the charges to be dropped.
They're gonna donate more to him and be like, no, he was successful, he was making it.
I don't know what this guy was doing, alright?
But I really think... I don't think they're gonna care.
I mean, maybe I'm wrong because the left has complained about where the money's going, but it's an interesting question.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
Is there really a silent majority?
Or is there like a silent 5% or so?
And if that's the case, is that enough for Donald Trump to win?
It actually might be.
That might be the missing silent majority, though they're not in the majority, still might be enough for Trump to take the election or to get re-elected.
In this tweet from Sean T. at RCP, that is Real Clear Politics, he's a senior elections analyst, he tweeted, New York Times' Sienna has Trump at 46% job approval, but getting 41% of the vote.
Probably the most puzzling aspect of this election.
Either these voters, A, are voting on Trump's personal characteristics, or B, are lying to pollsters or themselves.
The thing is, it is mostly unanswerable until Election Day.
Nate Silver chimes in.
He's net minus five on approval, but net minus nine on personal favorability in that poll.
I think I've seen claims that favorability actually trends to predict the horse race better.
And Sean says A is not without support, meaning There are a lot of people who probably like what Trump is doing, but cannot stand the man.
And this is why I've repeatedly told Trump supporters, and I'll say to you conservatives, you gotta recognize it.
Now, you can criticize it, by all means, you can say it's stupid, because yeah, sure, I understand.
But people vote on this stuff.
Why did Barack Obama do so well?
Not because his policy was good.
I thought his po- I'm- I'm- I regretted voting for the guy.
Wouldn't vote for him a second time because he was blowing people up overseas.
But man, that smile.
They loved that celebrity smile of Mr. Smooth Barack Obama.
He would come on TV and he would whisper sweet nothings into your ear with a stern father-like approach.
And people loved him for it.
And they voted for him.
Not because he was doing anything great.
We kind of towed it along.
He blew up a bunch of people.
Started, I think, like seven new wars or some ridiculous number.
Didn't get us out of the Middle East.
Just kind of made everything worse.
Signed the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA.
Ripped the AUMF.
You get the point.
Killed more American citizens without charge or trial than anyone else.
I'm pretty sure.
Maybe the only one.
I don't know.
Prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than any other president and leakers.
So yeah, Donald Trump speaks to a certain group of people, and it worked.
Will it work again?
Here's what you need to consider.
No one thought Trump was gonna win.
Now, I do think Trump's base has grown, for sure.
Definitely.
I mean, I didn't vote for him in 2016, I'll vote for him now.
A lot of other people are in a similar position.
But think about all of the regular people who never thought Trump would win and didn't care, who are now realizing, ooh, we should've voted!
And they're gonna go vote.
Are there more people who underestimated Trump than people who are joining Trump now?
Because if that's the case, if there are, Trump will lose.
Trump will lose.
Now, there's another thing to read in this.
Something that Sean T. didn't bring up.
Well, he's kind of right.
They're lying to pollsters or themselves.
Yeah.
We've seen a poll suggesting that people are lying, and this could explain it better than anything.
Think about it.
I've mentioned this before, of course, of course.
You've got journalists who lie and smear people all day, and they go after regular people.
You get a phone call, and they're like, hello, I'm a journalist, and I want to know who you're voting for.
You're gonna be like, uh, Biden, click.
So you're talking to someone, and they say, how do you feel about the job Trump is doing?
You say, I think he's doing pretty good.
I would approve of it.
You gonna vote for him?
Uh, no.
I mean, I wouldn't.
I could—not for that bigot.
Maybe that's what they're saying.
I don't necessarily believe it, though, because if that were the case, why would they say they approved of what Trump is doing?
Some have speculated.
The fact that people would approve of Trump's job but not say they would vote for him shows there is a silent majority, or at least a large faction of secret Trump voters.
I think it's much more simple than that, to be honest.
I think they don't know how to poll people anymore.
Gone are the days of the landline phone call.
Ring, ring, hello, hi, I'm with the New York Times Sienna, and we're asking questions.
Oh, fire away, now it's your phone rings, and you're like, I'm not gonna answer that number, I don't know, because the last time I did, it was some lady speaking Chinese, or Mandarin, or Cantonese.
Is that what they're, Mandarin maybe?
I don't know, probably Mandarin.
You get those phone calls, those scam calls?
So we keep being told, especially older people, not to answer your phone for numbers you don't recognize.
Someone's probably tried to poll me.
I don't know.
I won't answer the phone.
I screen all my phone calls.
Will that affect the polls?
Probably!
So, how do we know any of this is legit?
We don't.
John Favreau, not the Marvel one, he says the other one, Crooked Media, Pod Save America.
He says, I keep thinking it has to do with the 12% who say they somewhat support Trump.
If you think he's handling the economy well, but can't stand him on every other issue, you might say somewhat approve of the job he's doing, but tell a pollster you're either for Biden or undecided.
That's a really good point.
There's also an inverse point to this.
Going along with the idea of the secret Trump voter, you may have people who just don't want to admit it, but are like, I can't admit it because... I'll put it this way.
You get a call and they say, how do you think about Donald Trump's overall job?
And you're like, somewhat approve.
How do you feel about Trump on the economy?
Oh, man, fantastic.
100 percent best economy ever.
How do you feel about when he said X, Y and Z and you go, will you vote for a man who said these things for money?
People aren't going to admit that.
They're not going to want to admit that.
And I've met people who have.
I met a guy, I told this story, he was at an airport and he was like, look, Trump's a lowlife.
I wouldn't invite him to my house for dinner, but the money's good.
I'm going to vote for him.
And that probably resonates more with people.
We can sit here and speculate all day and night as to whether or not, which way this goes.
But the reality is the pollsters do not know.
My respect to Nate Silver and Sean T, but I don't think anybody really knows.
It's just all speculation.
Take a look at this.
Sean responded saying, I think the undecided is the point where lying to yourself comes into play.
But I ultimately think of it this way.
Nate's saying, if you run this election 100 times, Trump wins 22.
That's around where I'd put it.
The story lined for Biden winning is much more straightforward.
The question is, what happens with those 22?
I sort of think, quote, people who approve somewhat of the job Trump is doing end up voting for him is a straightforward part of the story.
John responds, for sure.
If you're in a situation where Trump's vote share matches his New York Times approval and Biden gets all the disapprovers, it's a 50 to 46 race, which is close enough for Trump to potentially eke out an electoral college win again.
Sean says, at the same time, I can totally buy, quote, Trump is a horrible person without redeeming qualities, so this year job approval doesn't quite function the same way it did in other years.
And John says, I can also buy a little bit of both.
Elizabeth Picciuto says, I'm not saying it isn't true that they're lying to pollsters, because I have no clue if they are, but it's odd to lie about approval but not voting.
And that's why Sean says maybe they're lying to themselves.
We can't tell.
But I don't know if it matters.
Because let me show you this.
Over at the Columbus Dispatch, Ohio Democrats dominating absentee ballot requests, possibly creating election night angst.
They're saying we will not get the result of Ohio for 10 days.
I don't buy it.
None of it makes sense.
I'm sorry, man.
Let me show you the story from the Washington Post.
Voting by mail helps the GOP.
California's special election proved that.
Why older voters vote by mail?
Younger voters didn't.
They didn't turn out.
Voting by mail helped the GOP.
So what is this narrative that Democrats are dominating?
Maybe they are requesting it more.
Fine.
But I just don't see how it makes sense.
Aren't older people more likely to request vote by mail?
Aren't they more likely to vote Republican?
There's a lot of re- Look, so maybe it's not true, but I'd imagine young people and younger people could just walk to the poll, you know, walk to the polling station, whereas, you know, older people, Probably harder for them to get around, might need a ride, might just vote absentee because it's easier.
At least that's what we saw here at the Washington Post.
This story is from May 15th.
They say the race in Southern California suggests that voting by mail can help Republicans win.
So why are so many Republicans against it?
Because the Democrats are cheating!
You want to have a conversation about what it means to cheat?
They are changing the rules at the last minute and then claiming they dominate in mail-in ballots when the evidence suggests otherwise.
So, if you create a system where, first of all, the postal service union members endorsed Biden, the union endorsed Biden, why would I give my vote to this person?
Okay, maybe drop the vote off in person.
Why would you change the rules and strip away election integrity at the last minute?
Because you're cheating.
So even though it might favor Republicans, they don't want it.
Let people vote the way they've always voted.
Of course, the Democrats and the progressives say they're just trying to disenfranchise voters.
That makes no sense.
You know why?
Because the system's always been the way it is.
If people want to vote, they just vote the way you're supposed to vote.
How is it disenfranchising when you're like, just vote normally?
I'm sorry, it's not.
The Democrats' moves on this suggest they're, I was gonna say it, they're cheating.
You know, Let me put it this way.
I was having an argument and we looked up the definition of the word cheat.
And it says to act unfairly or deceptively to give oneself an advantage.
Okay.
So it's unfair to alter the rules of the election at the last minute when Republicans say no and Democrats say yes.
You do not have a democratically agreed upon rule change or policy change.
Nope.
Unilateral governor of New Jersey says just do it.
So the Democratic governor of New Jersey is acting unfairly to change the rules, which is, according to many stories, giving Democrats an advantage.
I think I have gotten through the semantic portion of this argument.
Yes.
Okay.
They're cheating.
So what's going to happen?
I don't think what Sean is saying or anybody is saying about Trump's approval or favorability matters.
I don't think so.
I don't think anyone's going to accept the results.
It's going to be a week or two weeks before we get the results in many states.
Legal battles will then ensue.
And what?
Nobody wins?
Pelosi becomes president?
I saw a really scary post from some activists.
Someone said that, it was a post on Facebook from someone who follows me, and they said that they were, they're a Biden supporter, they said that they were scared because they're not seeing any enthusiasm for Biden.
And the response from the far left was fascinating.
They said, I won't vote for Biden.
Biden has betrayed progressives, and it doesn't matter anyway, because you shouldn't be preparing for Election Day.
They said you should be preparing for the disillusion or the collapse of this country.
That's what they were preparing for.
To hear that come from progressives I thought was really interesting.
Progressives thinking they're going to lose, and saying they have to prepare for something more chaotic.
I don't disagree.
I mean, I don't know what you should do, I know what I'm doing, right?
But I think things are going to get crazy.
Who knows?
I assure you, from now till then, there's gonna be way more videos about all of this, so... Eye roll, I know.
