Democrats Are LYING About Trump's Taxes, Push INSANE Theory That He's A National Security Threat
Media falsely claimed that Trump only paid 750$ in 2016 and 2017In reality the New York Time's revealed Trump overpaid by millions, $1M in 2016 and 4.2M in 2017The reality is that Trump, through deductions and losses, was only liable for $750.Following the news Democrats and leftists pounced. Nancy Pelosi claims there is a national security issue over Trump's debt and media claimed the same.NYT however noted that Trump easily can afford to sell assets to cover any debts he has yet still the lies persist. Joe Biden is already pushing out the lie that Trump only paid $750 and of course anti trump people are rolling with it ignoring the bulk of the story.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The New York times has released an expose on Donald Trump's taxes.
And what have we learned?
Nothing to be completely honest.
I mean, we've learned very little.
Of course, the story is being manipulated.
False framing is emerging.
And the narrative we're hearing now is that Donald Trump only paid $750 in 2016 and 2017.
And that's just not true.
I can't believe the New York Times led with that paragraph.
Then later on admitted Donald Trump actually paid a combined $5.2 million.
His tax liability Sure, we can break down what this means in terms of taxes, because most people don't understand how corporations work.
That doesn't mean Donald Trump is innocent.
Maybe he's using some tax loopholes and writing off BS in order to save himself money.
But it's all presumably legal.
So if they've got an issue, they should look to themselves because they're the ones, many of these Democrats, who have been in office for, I don't know, 50 years.
Joe Biden, where are you at?
You're the one who was a senator for how many decades, became vice president.
Maybe you or Pelosi or any one of these other politicians that have changed the law.
They didn't.
And now they're mad at Donald Trump for his taxes.
Look, I'm no fan of wealth inequality.
I've talked about it quite a bit.
But this is getting absurd.
Speaker Pelosi says Trump's taxes reveal national security issue.
The House Speaker was responding to New York Times reporting that Trump has more than $300 million in loans coming due within the next few years.
And Trump is a billionaire.
And Trump has assets he can sell.
And Trump is also donating his salary.
This seems like poorly — well, it's strategically timed, manipulative, falsely framed news.
Now, Donald Trump himself has issued a statement calling it fake news and saying he's paid way more in taxes, and The New York Times is wrong.
And if you actually read The New York Times' reporting, you'd realize Yeah, they falsely framed the story.
Trump did not pay $7.50 in total.
$7.50 is what he owed, and they're manipulating people, and it's working.
But it's not really working on Trump supporters.
The people who are getting mad about this are the predictable people.
They already hate Trump, they're already mad, and they're going, you know, in comes the narrative where they're like, Trump supporters just keep believing Trump's infallible and does no wrong.
Trump's got his culty base.
And I'm not saying every single Trump supporter, okay?
Trump's got this diehard sect that sure absolutely does believe Trump is infallible.
But then you've got people like me.
I've never been a big fan of the guy outside of his personality.
He's a funny guy.
He's an entertainer.
I like what he's doing with peace in the Middle East.
I'm going to vote for him partly because over the riots and because I'm sick and tired of the Democrats' identitarianism and their pandering.
They're not doing anything.
I don't even think the far left and the progressives want to vote for Democrats either.
But I recognize Trump is not perfect, and I recognize a lot of his problems.
And when you look at the moderate personalities online, they're going to tell you the exact same thing.
So let's take a look at what's really going on, and I'll show you how stupidly absurd all of this has become.
Before we get started, however, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
There is a P.O.
box if you would like to send me things.
But the best thing you can do, share this video.
Why?
Well, I'm going to debunk the $750 thing right away for all of you.
And if you think that's something people should know, please consider sharing this video.
Look, If I'm going to ever compete with mainstream media, then it's up to you if you think I should.
Word of mouth is the most important way to help my channel grow, and the most powerful thing you can do is just share this video.
But don't forget to like, subscribe, hit the notification bell.
I want to read what Speaker Pelosi said about Trump's taxes.
I want to show you what Bloomberg said.
Pelosi saying there is a national security issue.
Bloomberg publishing this piece, Trump's taxes show he's a national security threat Seriously, stop.
Just stop.
It's so absurd.
Okay?
But the first thing I gotta do is debunk the lie.
Okay?
The lie.
Take a look at the story from the New York Times.
They say the Times obtained Donald Trump's tax information extending over more than two decades,
revealing struggling properties, vast write-offs, an audit battle, and hundreds of millions in debt coming
due.
Didn't Donald Trump say that he couldn't release his tax returns because he was being audited?
Apparently he's disputing one of his returns or something to that effect.
I honestly don't care about Donald Trump's taxes.
I don't.
And most Americans probably don't either.
The people who are getting mad about this are just looking for something to be mad at, at least in my opinion.
I think there are probably some honest people who are legitimately bringing up real concerns, and Donald Trump deserves to be criticized.
Billionaires who use loopholes to avoid paying taxes criticize them.
In this instance, however, is it true that Donald Trump only paid $750?
Well, here's what they said.
Donald Trump paid $750 in federal income taxes the year he won the presidency.
In his first year in the White House, he paid another $750.
He paid no income taxes at all in 10 of the previous 15 years, largely because he reported losing much more money than he made.
As the president wages a re-election campaign that polls say he is in danger of losing, his finances are under stress, beset by losses and hundreds of millions of dollars in debt coming due that he has personally guaranteed.
Also hanging over him is a decade-long audit battle with the IRS over the legitimacy of a $72.9 million tax refund that he claimed and received after declaring huge losses.
An adverse ruling could cost him more than $100 million.
The story from the New York Times has exonerated Trump.
Look, I'll just pull it right up.
Russia.
They say, nor do they reveal any previously unreported connections to Russia.
So, no, all of the Russiagate conspiracy nuts who thought he was hiding his Russian assets, not there.
But how about this?
I just type in a good old little 4.2, and here's what I have to show you.
Here's what they say.
As he settled into the Oval Office, his tax bills soon returned to form.
His potential taxable income in 2016 and 2017 included $24.8 million in profits from sources related to his celebrity status and $56.4 million for the loans he did not repay.
The dreaded alternative minimum tax would let his business losses erase only some of his liability.
Each time, he requested an extension to file his 1040.
And each time, he made the required payment to the IRS for income taxes he might owe.
$1 million for 2016, and $4.2 million for 2017.
Let me read that for you again.
He made the required payments to the IRS for income taxes he might owe, $1,000,000 in 2016, $4,200,000 in 2017.
Why did they open this story saying he only paid $750,000?
He did not.
Donald Trump overpaid what his actual liabilities were.
Let me break this down for you.
They say, but virtually all of that liability was washed away when he eventually filed and most of the payments were rolled forward to cover potential taxes in future years.
Do you know what that means?
It means that Donald Trump paid $5.2 million, not $1,500, and that when it turned out his liability was only $750, he told the IRS to hold the payment for future debts, or for future liabilities.
So what did Trump literally pay?
$5.2 million in these two years.
What did he owe?
$750.
Donald Trump overpaid on his taxes, and according to the New York Times, he is owed money.
Now, if you want to have a discussion about whether or not his liabilities are legitimate, that's an entirely different question.
Some people are questioning whether or not he should have written off, I think, like $70,000 in haircuts.
Listen, if you've got a problem with the tax code, it should be changed.
And you can look at Donald Trump and say he's a sleazy business person who uses tax loopholes to save money.
What business doesn't?
Think about it.
Okay, I have an accountant for my business.
There have been.
There have absolutely been issues where I've been told there's potential deductions here for your business and I say, I don't want to push it.
Just do the normal thing.
Many people who run businesses will tell their accountants or H&R Block or whatever they use to find all of the deductions possible.
Remember when you filed your taxes?
And you see those ads on TV for like, you know, Hewitt, whatever, Jackson Hewitt and like H&R Block and TurboTax.
And they say, we can find you more deductions.
You take them.
Okay.
There is an issue I see from, you know, a philosophical standpoint that Donald Trump is super rich.
Brought in 450 million dollars or whatever, but then ended up losing, declaring losses of about 4, you know, 47.
What that means is even though he made all that money, he actually lost like 500 million dollars.
So his total losses were like 57 because the revenue offsets this.
So what does this mean?
Donald Trump may be using loopholes.
It appears to be legal.
He appears to be in a dispute over $72.9 million.
You want to complain about it?
I'm all ears.
I'm not going to defend the guy if he's using loopholes or whatever.
If it's not illegal, though, what do you want me to complain about?
Now, here's the best part.
Nancy Pelosi comes out and says it's a national security issue.
I hear you.
If Trump owes $400 million and And he's the president.
Those debtors have to question whether or not they're going to, you know, call the debt on a sitting president, which they probably would just do, because a lot of it's probably automated.
What does that mean for Trump?
What if he can't pay it?
Donald Trump's a billionaire.
Even the New York Times mentions all the way at the bottom of the story, he has tons of assets he can sell off.
And this story is pretty long.
They say Mr. Trump still has assets to sell, but doing so could take its own toll, both financial and to Mr. Trump's desire to always be seen as a winner.
The Trump family said last year that it was considering selling the Washington Hotel, but not because it was losing money.
In Mr. Trump's telling, any difficulty in his finances has been caused by the sacrifices he made for his current job.
Quote, they say Trump is getting rich off our nation.
He said at a rally in Minneapolis last October.
Quote, I lose billions being president and I don't care.
It's nice to be rich, I guess, but I lose billions.
That's true.
Donald Trump is losing money as president and he's donating his salary.
Now, I've been partly critical of that move.
Not not, you know, donating his salary is awesome, right?
But a lot of Trump supporters will say, Trump's donating his salary. You know, he's doing the
right thing. And I'm like, yeah, but how much is the country spending on him traveling around and
playing golf and stuff? I'm not criticizing the guy for the most part, but if we're going to
talk about him donating a salary, yeah, a lot of his living expenses and travel costs are being
covered by the government.
Now, I get it.
Trump's allowed to go play golf.
He is.
And I don't care when he does.
They love complaining, Trump's playing golf again.
I didn't care when Bush did it.
Didn't care when Obama did it.
Don't care when Trump does it.
Okay?
I care about whether they get the job done.
I'm the kind of guy who's like, if you work for me, I don't care when you come in and when you leave so long as what you need to do is being done.
It's that simple.
So if Donald Trump wants to do that, that's fine.
So look, I'll put it this way.
The Secret Service is not Trump's fault.
He needs security, he's the president, they do this, and that's a big part of those costs.
The main point here is Donald Trump is giving away his salary.
If he was really concerned about having money for his debts, I'm sure he would not be doing that.
And if Trump's debts are actually a national security threat, I mean, well, no, they're not even.
Because he can literally just sell things and then have money to pay those debts off.
They say, but Trump wants to be seen as a winner.
Well, that's speculative.
You don't know what Trump wants to be seen as.
He's straight up saying to people he's losing money.
If Trump were to sell off a bunch of his assets and then come to his supporters and say to the American people, I lived a life in luxury with golden toilets as a billionaire, sitting atop the ivory tower.
And I sold that and lost money because this is what I wanted to do.
This was more important.
They'll cheer for him.
What's the left going to say?
He's trying to enrich himself off the presidency?
He's a national- Look, you've got to give me one definitive reason why you're upset that Donald Trump is president, okay?
Well, no, you can give me a bunch of reasons.
A bunch of people have different reasons.
The point I'm saying, what I'm trying to bring up is, They're complaining about his taxes for no legitimate reason.
None.
Is Trump a loser?
Is he a winner?
I don't care.
I really don't.
I don't know what to think about all this taxes stuff because I'm too busy worrying about whether or not rioters are going to burn down my house.
You see how this works?
And that's what's happening right now.
The story may be big.
I think it'll go away.
But take a look at this.
Nancy Pelosi, this is the gist of it.
They say House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Monday called a report that Trump owes more than $300 million in loans.
A national security issue.
An argument that raises questions about whether foreign nations or individuals could have leverage over the president.
He owes 300 million?
And he's a billionaire?
And he can sell a couple buildings and pay it off?
I'm not stressing about it, man.
I'm not.
Now there's a couple important things I want to show you.
First, this story is not new, okay?
This is very clearly an October surprise type thing from the New York Times.
And they're saying they're going to have more to release.
Sure.
Does anyone who's voting for Trump care about this?
In 2016, Trump went up and said that he was paying off politicians for favors or something to that effect.
He's like, I make big donations to them because they do me favors.
The system is broken.
Elect me.
I know how it works.
I'll change it.
So, so what?
Trump talks about how not paying taxes makes him a smart businessman.
He said it!
And the New York Times wrote this.
Donald Trump tax records show he could have avoided taxes for nearly two decades.
The Times found October 1st, 2016.
It's the same playbook.
Now, there's a lot to ponder here.
First, here's the fake news being gobbled up.
Trump paid no taxes.
Trump paid $750 in 2016.
You know, national security.
Trump paid $750.
None of it's true, okay?
Trump issued a statement, on the record, from Trump attorney Alan Garton.
The New York Times story is riddled with gross inaccuracies.
Over the past decade, the president has paid tens of millions of dollars in personal taxes to the federal government.
While we tried to explain this to the Times, they refused to listen and rejected our repeated request that they show us any of the documentation they purport to be relying on to substantiate their claims.
Of course, I can't help but question the timing of this story.
Obviously, this is just part of the Times' ongoing smear campaign in the run-up to the election.
John Roberts tweeted this.
Donald Trump followed up by saying, The fake news media, just like election time 2016,
is bringing up my taxes and all sorts of other nonsense with illegally obtained information
and only bad intent. I paid many millions of dollars in taxes, but was entitled,
like everyone else, to depreciation and tax credits. Also, if you look at the
extraordinary assets owned by me, which the fake news hasn't, I am extremely under leveraged.
I have very little debt compared to the value of assets.
Much of this information is already on file, but I have long said that I may release financial statements from the time I announced I was going to run for president, showing all properties, assets, and debts.
It is a very impressive statement, and also shows that I'm the only president on record to give up my yearly $400,000 plus presidential salary.
They're now claiming he's in massive debt and all this other nonsense.
They're claiming that Donald Trump is a national security threat.
But it's just garbled fake news.
It's not going to convince anybody.
Donald Trump knows how the system works.
And there's definitely rules for rich people that don't apply to poor people.
I get it.
I'm not going to blame Donald Trump because our laws are broken.
I'm going to say, OK, Congress, fix them.
I'm not going to.
Look.
Joe Biden has no grounds for yelling at Trump about something.
Trump's only been in government for just about four years now.
Well, three and a half years.
Joe Biden, 47.
Okay, how about you do something about this, okay?
How about you actually change the laws?
I want to show you something really, really crazy.
From FiveThirtyEight, they say Biden is favored to win the election.
Is Donald Trump going to lose because of reports about his tax return?
Well, even Rasmussen has Donald Trump down a little bit.
FiveThirtyEight shows us the election tracker, updated 33 minutes ago from the time of recording this.
We can see all of these scenarios for Biden where he's going to win.
I believe he's got 20 scenarios.
I'm sorry.
Eight.
Sixteen.
My math is terrible.
And then Donald Trump.
Seventeen.
Sorry.
And Donald Trump has five.
Here's what they say.
The latest news.
On Sunday, the New York Times published an investigation into President Trump's tax returns, disclosing that his business empire looked to be in dire straits and that he'd only paid $750 in federal income taxes in 2016 and 2017.
Trump dismissed the Times report as fake news.
What do you want me to say?
This is crazy.
When I pull up all these stories that are supposed to be tracking the election and they're pumping out fake news, maybe people are falling for the lies.
Or maybe it's the media class that's falling for the lies.
Maybe people can easily go to the story from the New York Times and see that they straight up say Trump paid $4.2 million in 2017.
So where does the lie come from that Trump only paid $750?
His tax liability?
I guess people don't understand how this works.
That's why it's really funny when we see them call for the wealth tax.
It's one of the big proposals from Bernie Sanders and the progressives.
They say they want a hard tax.
They want a tax on your hard assets.
Things that you can't... Like, what?
How does that make sense?
So, they argue property tax, right?
If you own a home, you pay a percentage based on the value of that home.
Yeah, that can be tough for a lot of people.
You could buy a big house, and then if you lose your job, and have no income, and can't pay the property tax, you could lose the house.
So what they're trying to do is apply the same principle, but to wealth.
This won't work at all.
Because wealth is very different from just a piece of property.
Jeff Bezos, for instance, worth what?
160 billion dollars?
But his yearly income is like a million dollars.
If they want to put a 1% wealth tax, they want him to pay hundreds of millions when he only makes a million.
It's not possible.
Ah!
But what did I just say about your house?
They would take it from you, right?
That's what they're really saying.
And the other problem we see with the wealth tax and many of the progressives in terms of how they want to just tax assets that are hard to tax is that ultimately it just extracts the value from these wealthy individuals and then you have no wealthy individuals.
So the point there is you can't use a wealth tax to fund anything long term.
If you want to pass a law saying rich people aren't allowed, all right, sure, fine, I guess.
I'm not a big fan of wealth inequality.
I think that when you have extremely wealthy individuals who can live off of hundreds of millions of dollars but then claim depreciation and losses and basically living like a king and not having very high tax liability, I'm not a fan of that.
I'm not blaming Bezos or Trump.
I'll just say I blame the system.
It's hard to know exactly how to fix it.
But when you have this massive disparity between very wealthy individuals and very poor people, you risk creating oligarchy.
You risk creating another San Francisco, where you have extremely wealthy individuals running some of the most profitable companies in the world, and homeless people everywhere.
The problem is remarkably complicated.
But the other big problem is peasant revolt.
And I'm not trying to be mean, I mean that in the literal sense.
The poor people will not stand for a massive disparity between the haves and the have-nots.
Whether it's jealousy, whether it's greed, whatever your stance on the matter is, is irrelevant.
I'm not disparaging the wealthy, and I'm not disparaging the poor.
I'm saying that eventually you will get income disparity, you will have rich people who can influence politics too much, poor people saying it's not right, and there will be a revolt.
Call it jealousy.
Call it greed.
Doesn't matter.
It will happen.
It happens.
It's not a guarantee, right?
But it can happen.
If we want to stabilize our country, I think, I personally, am in favor of higher taxes on the wealthy.
The only problem I have there is just giving the government money doesn't solve any problems.
So taxes might not be the answer.
I also don't think any of these lefties understand how wealth works.
Because I see this meme go around where they're like, how about whenever you make a dollar over $999 million, it gets taxed at 100%, you get a plaque that says, congratulations, you won capitalism, and then it's over.
And I'm like, Jeff Bezos doesn't have that cash, okay?
It's hard assets.
Trump?
Hard assets.
There's depreciation, okay?
You lose value in a property.
You write it off, okay?
Because it's not worth as much anymore.
These people don't seem to understand what liquid assets and hard assets are, and cash.
They don't get how it works.
So what I find interesting with FiveThirtyEight is they're running with the false narrative that Trump only paid $7.50.
The reality?
Trump paid millions more than he owed.
Should he have owed more?
Perhaps.
But those aren't the facts.
That's just the false framing to manipulate the circumstances.
If we look at Donald Trump's taxes and we take them on face value, we can't accuse Trump of committing crimes unless you have evidence that he committed a crime.
If Trump is writing things off that are legal to write off, then Trump does not owe more than $750.
Good for him.
He lost a bunch of money.
I'm not going to go to a farmer who made $100,000 but spent $150,000 and be like, nope, you better give me more money.
He's going to be like, I don't have it.
I'm in debt now.
And then, oh, well, you're not paying taxes, but you're running a farm.
You made $100,000.
We've got to pay your taxes.
He doesn't have it.
Sometimes you have expenses for your business.
You write them off.
This is no excuse for Trump or any other extremely wealthy person for flubbing their taxes and using loopholes.
But I can't make that assumption.
I can't just sit here and be like, well, I think.
Who cares what I think?
And I don't care what most of these people think.
Show me the proof.
You can question some of these things.
Fine.
That's a job for the IRS to do an audit.
Apparently, they're auditing him now.
It's been going on for a decade.
Other than that, what do you want me to say?
The dude's losing money.
He's the president.
But they're pushing this to claim, because of this, Trump will lose.
Nah, I'm not buying it.
Maybe.
I'll tell you this, though.
Lindsey Graham is down.
He needs money.
He's looking desperate.
And polls are coming out saying he's down two points.
Well, you know what?
I don't like Lindsey Graham.
I'm not too enthused about what happens when the Democrats take over the Senate, but that's the fault of the RINOs, okay?
The Republicans in name only.
You want to sit around on your hands, get nothing done?
Why would anyone support you?
Congratulations, bye-bye, you're out.
And guess what?
Maybe a Democrat will get in.
And then maybe someone will actually run on a populist ticket, and they'll win.
For now, I don't know for sure.
But I gotta warn all of you, it's starting to look a bit like it's not guaranteed that Trump wins.
This may actually start skewing towards the Democrats.
But I'm not here, I'm not bringing up this poll to make that claim.
I'm just saying, be wary.
I know exactly what's going to happen if Trump loses.
They're going to be like, Tim thought Trump was going to win.
It's like, dude, I'm barely off the fence on that one.
But I know they're going to say it.
Not that I care.
Frank Luntz, famous pollster, says Monmouth is an A-plus rated pollster and now have the national race within their 3.5 margin of error among likely voters.
Not only that, he says a 3-point margin of error for each candidate individually becomes approximately a 6-point margin of error for the difference between the two.
What does this mean?
It means that we don't know what's going to happen.
It could be Trump or Biden.
None of this matters.
Dude, Trump's base doesn't care about taxes.
Suburban housewives probably don't care about taxes.
The top 20% probably agree with Trump on his taxes.
So I have no idea how this will play out.
National security threat?
Absurd.
Donald Trump using loopholes?
Probably.
Me a fan?
No, obviously not.
But if it's not illegal, what do you want me to do about it?
Change the system.
And that goes to senators, Congress, whatever.
If they're not going to do that, don't expect me to be mad about it.
Now they're going to come out and say, you know, Trump's fans will never admit that he's done wrong and blah, blah, blah.
And it's like, yeah, some of them, I guess.
Um, I like the guy as an entertainer.
I like the Middle Eastern peace deals.
But the inverse is true as well.
There absolutely are a bunch of Trump supporters who will never admit fault under any circumstances.
When Trump said, if you burn the flag, you get a year in jail, I said, no way!
Get out of here!
That's stupid.
But I don't think that's ever actually gonna happen.
I don't agree with that.
I believe in the right to free expression, so long as it's your flag, mind you.
But then you have the inverse.
I could point out that Trump overpaid by millions, and they'll still find a way to claim he didn't pay at all.
It's framing.
That's all it really is.
In my opinion, it's just people desperately trying to, like, drum up some reason why you should hate Trump, too.
Okay, I'll tell you what I'm concerned with.
Um, on the list of the top 100 things in my life, and what I need from my government, Trump's taxes is not even on the list.
And you know what, I gotta be honest, Russia is, and it's very low, because Russia is a threat, but all this Russiagate stuff is just nonsense.
What matters to me, I don't know, family, security, food, probably water and air are up there first.
Trump's taxes, way at the bottom.
So when you have riots running, you know, rampaging through the country, I gotta think about my safety first.
And if the Democrats will not get on top of this and shut down these riots, then don't expect me to support this.
That's your fault.
You support this, and I'm scared that you're gonna embolden these people if you get elected.
And that's just me.
Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm wrong.
Cue all the people saying, Tim's a grifter defending Trump.
You know what?
Did you read the story?
I don't care.
Try and be honest for once.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It's a different channel, and I will see you all then.
Last night, two major breaking stories, which I find very strange for a Sunday evening.
Donald Trump's tax returns, not formally released, but the New York Times rewrote a story they already wrote in October of 2016.
Boring.
I don't care.
The big breaking news comes from Project Veritas.
They dropped video evidence that shows a man in his car saying these, all of these envelopes, absentee ballots, with other people, including a Minneapolis councilman, I believe, I believe, we'll read this to get the facts straight, saying he looked at them, they were blank.
Veritas has uncovered, according to their release, a massive voter fraud scheme, Where people are going around and taking ballots from people, absentee ballots, that are not filled out, and getting paid to fill them out, and these people are supporters of Ilhan Omar.
I gotta be very, very careful about how I explain this, but suffice it to say, Donald Trump demands U.S.
attorneys launch an investigation into Ilhan Omar following report her supporters illegally harvested ballots in Minnesota.
We've got two big stories right now.
Donald Trump's tax returns.
You wanna know why I don't care?
Because he didn't do anything illegal.
Now, maybe there could be an investigation.
Maybe it was amoral.
Don't care.
In 2015 and 16, Donald Trump bragged about how he doesn't pay taxes.
Only morons would.
And they complained about his bankruptcy.
He says, bankruptcy makes me smart.
Protects my businesses.
He brags about this stuff.
Now, Trump is disputing the tax returns thing.
But why would I care?
I'm sorry, man.
Listen.
I may be... You know, I think the system is broke if Donald Trump is able to live this lavishly, but by claiming losses on some of his businesses, he effectively pays, like, no taxes.
Well, Trump is denying that, sure.
But I don't care, man.
Last night in Portland, there were riots.
Normally, this is my morning riot update for you for the past four or five months.
That's been the case.
But now we have something bigger coming.
And I usually like to leave the big political stories for four, but this is too important.
What Project Veritas has uncovered And there is more to come.
How do I know?
Well, you know, look, the debates are tomorrow.
I can only imagine that Veritas has got a lot more to release, but that's just my speculation.
What's not my speculation?
From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Wisconsin Liberal Group tells Attorney General they believe they were targeted by undercover group Project Veritas September 16th.
Just a couple of weeks ago.
More is coming.
That's all I can... That's the best assumption I can make.
Especially when you consider that Veritas normally releases a few things and they kind of like, you know, draw it out for a little bit to make sure they get the big impact in the media.
Well, I don't care about—I gotta be honest, I don't care about Donald Trump's taxes.
This story's old.
They published this story in 2016.
Look at this.
Donald Trump tax records show he could have avoided taxes for nearly two decades, the Times found.
And there it is.
October—well, they say the published date is October 1st, 2016 here.
It says October 2nd up top, but you get the point.
New York Times tried doing their October surprise, and guess what?
Nobody cared!
You know what?
Maybe some people cared and didn't vote for him.
He still won.
Is this supposed to have an impact on the election right now?
I'm sorry.
We can complain about Trump's taxes, but Veritas has uncovered what looks like legit and serious crimes.
The concern now is that there are people in the Somali community who are being pressured into giving up their votes for cash and They either have to do it or they need the cash so they do it.
Either way, it's totally illegal what's happening.
Let me read you the story.
The Daily Mail reports Donald Trump demands U.S.
attorneys launch an investigation into Ilhan Omar following report her supporters illegally harvested ballots in Minnesota.
President Trump took to Twitter just after midnight on Monday and demanded that the Justice Department investigate Democratic House Rep.
Ilhan Omar of Minnesota for alleged ballot harvesting.
This is totally illegal, the president tweeted on Monday morning.
Hope that the U.S.
Attorney in Minnesota has this and other of her many misdeeds under serious review.
If not, why not?
We will win Minnesota because of her and law enforcement.
Save Minneapolis and Iron O Range.
Yeah.
Maybe you'll win, Trump.
I mean, maybe this will help you win.
But, uh, like the sentiment among people.
But if they're straight cheating, how do you beat that?
I don't know, man.
I don't know how you beat that.
So listen.
Here we go, baby.
November 3rd.
Donald Trump gets a narrow victory in Minnesota.
Mail-in ballots start popping up.
Trump points to this and says, nope.
Not gonna buy it.
Lawsuits emerged.
And now it's interesting.
Nancy Pelosi has said that this may kick back to the House for the first time in like 130 or 140 years.
What happens is, if there's no determination on the president and the Electoral College is bunk, the House delegations will vote.
What if they drag this out until after, like, I think it's like January 7th or something, early January.
They drag this out until after the House gets taken over by Democrats.
So, uh, the House delegations, I should say.
Right now, my understanding, according to a Newsweek article that I was reading, House delegations are dominated by Republicans.
If the Democrats gain a foothold, even more so, and strengthen their majority in the House, Then they draw out the election until it can go to House delegations.
Then they can override the results of the election.
What if that happens?
It's all speculation, man.
I really just don't know.
Trump was reacting on Monday to an unconfirmed internet report from conservative provocateur — you see how the media plays this?
This is Daily Mail, too — James O'Keefe of Project Veritas, claiming that supporters of Omar were illegally harvesting ballots.
I mean, he showed us a video of it, and there are people on camera being like, yep, that's exactly what happened.
Even one of them is apparently a politician saying he's seen it.
According to O'Keefe, a Minneapolis resident— Okay, this is weirdly worded, by the way.
I read this, I'm like, According to O'Keefe, a Minneapolis resident, Liban Mohamed illegally— Wait, wait, wait.
No, they're not saying James O'Keefe lives in Minneapolis.
They're saying, According to O'Keefe, a Minneapolis resident, Liban Mohamed, illegally collected some 300 ballots from primarily Somali immigrants to help his brother, City Councilman Jamal Osman.
On Twitter, Mohammed claimed O'Keefe doctored the video, and that the voice heard on the Project Veritas is not his, as he claimed.
I do not believe that for a second.
Veritas has been sued, and they've won.
I don't believe Veritas has ever lost a lawsuit, I could be wrong about this, but they've been sued for defamation and have won every step of the way.
James O'Keefe and Veritas go after the establishment, and they don't like it.
And so the media pops out and starts smearing him like crazy.
Look at this.
They're calling him a provocateur.
What has James O'Keefe done that has been provocative or provoking?
Like, doing a news report is not provocative.
I mean, I guess you can argue it is.
So are we going to call, I don't know, any one of these writers?
Brian Stelter.
Internet provocateur because he tweets things.
Is Oliver Darcy of CNN a provocateur?
They're media reporters and they have their opinions, but come on.
You can call them advocacy journalists.
You can call James that.
You can call me that.
That seems to be the place, the way that things are going.
But provocateur?
Yeah.
Omar is one of four Democratic congressmen known collectively as The Squad.
I don't care about The Squad.
Last week, Trump again went after Omar at an election rally in Pennsylvania, suggesting that the U.S.
isn't her country.
She's telling us how to run a country.
How did you do where you came from, Trump said, of the Somali-born Democrat who's a U.S.
citizen?
How is your country doing?
The president added.
Omar hit back at Trump's comments, even calling his rallies cult-like.
Firstly, this is my country, and I'm a member of the house that impeached you, the Minnesota lawmaker tweeted.
Secondly, I fled civil war when I was eight.
An eight-year-old doesn't run a country even though you run a country like one.
Oh, Sabarn, I don't care.
It's so dumb.
Trump shouldn't, I don't like Trump when he tweets stuff like that.
I don't care for Ilhan Omar tweeting stuff like that.
It's so stupid.
I want to know what's going on with our country.
I want to know what's going on with these votes.
I have a tweet here from David Steinberg.
Steinberg is at PJ Media—well, he was at PJ Media.
He's done a bunch of stories on Ilhan Omar in Minnesota, and he tweeted to Real Donald Trump, I can confirm that early this year, the FBI was told at an in-person meeting that Ilhan Omar ran massive vote-buying operations in 2016 and 2018.
The story has circulated for years.
Congrats to Project Veritas for getting the first solid evidence.
You want to know what I love?
This dude claiming, look at it, where's that?
On Twitter, Mohammed claimed O'Keefe doctored the video.
These people don't understand the game.
Do you think James O'Keefe is stupid?
Have you not learned your lesson by now?
Everything they do is tactful and strategic.
He knows what he's doing.
And it's like, you can see this play out time and time again, and they just don't get it.
You wanna know what it is?
James O'Keefe doesn't release everything at once.
Have you noticed that?
In many of the stories he's done, there's like part one, part two, part three.
They'll wait a week, they'll publish another week.
You know why?
Because people bury themselves.
Here's the guy on video- That wasn't my voice, that was doctored.
The next thing you know, James O'Keefe's gonna publish a video of the guy pointing the camera- He turns the camera to himself and says, These are my words, I'm talking right now.
This video isn't doctored.
I'm just kidding.
You get the point.
He's like, Oh no, the video was doctored, it didn't happen.
Dude, you- you- you better keep your mouth shut.
You're digging your own grave, but sure, fine.
It's only a matter of time.
Before another release comes out.
Like I said, check this out.
Another group, this is from a couple weeks ago, thinks they were targeted by Project Veritas.
Yeah, well you probably were.
And this says to me, Wisconsin, Minnesota, not the same place.
I get it.
But Veritas probably has more to release, and there could be connections here.
In this story from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, they say, half a dozen liberal groups in Wisconsin say they were
deceived by a longtime member of the conservative group Veritas this summer in an apparent
attempt to get damaging footage of Democrats in a battleground state. Black leaders organizing
for communities, Voces de la Frontera, and others on Friday asked Democratic Attorney General Josh
Call to investigate the matter.
According to a letter the group provided to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Call has not said what he will do.
Project Veritas for years has misrepresented itself.
I love how the media goes after undercover journalism.
To get an inside look at how Democratic campaigns and liberal groups operate in Wisconsin and around the country, its secretly recorded videos have hurt some entities, but some of the group's claims about improprieties have fizzled when independently investigated.
I'm not entirely familiar with what that means.
I have seen a ton of things from Project Veritas that I think, I gotta be honest, they're like, you know, I get it, it's whatever.
Like, you know, Veritas has uncovered more recently, like, individuals who legit, you know, voted illegally.
Okay, you know, like there was one guy who voted twice, and they got him, and the guy got in trouble, and that's cool.
It's not a national, you know, grand slam like this story is.
I'm not trying to drag Veritas for doing small stories, or small-er stories, but the idea that I'm not entirely familiar with what's fizzled when independently investigated, that's an opinion!
What does fizzled mean?
What is your opinion, Patrick Marley?
No.
You see, the point is, everything they do is an attempt to protect the establishment.
Did Newsweek report on what's going on with Ilhan Omar and these ballots and these videos?
No!
What Project Veritas is claiming about Ilhan Omar and illegal ballot harvesting.
Are they gonna tell us exactly what's on video?
Kind of.
There's some quotes.
I can respect that.
Just today we got 300 for Jamal Osman, Mohammed says in the video.
I have 300 ballots in my car right now.
Straight up admitting to committing a crime.
Numbers don't lie.
You can see my car is full.
All these here are absentee ballots.
Look.
All these are for Jamal Osman.
Muhammad can be seen showing white envelopes on his car's dashboard in a video from July 1st.
Later in the Veritas video, Muhammad says, Money is the king in this world, and a campaign is driven by money.
You know my favorite part about all this is, is when they mention that Muhammad claimed O'Keefe doctored the video and that the voice on the video is not his.
So is that you handling a bunch of absentee ballots on video?
Like, that's still illegal, dude!
You can't do that!
What does he say in the video?
I found all these ballots in a dumpster, what do I do with them?
Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't buy it.
But what do we see from Newsweek?
They go on to say—well, they go on to smear Project Veritas.
You know, they—let me just read this for you.
They say the group has targeted mainly liberal groups with sting operations.
Ah, that's right, because The Washington Post, Google, Facebook, Pinterest—liberal groups!
Oh.
What's that?
When you claim that Veritas only targets liberal groups, what you're showing is that you think mainstream establishment corporations and big tech are liberal.
They don't want to admit it, I guess.
But James O'Keefe has gone after major journalism organizations.
Are those liberal groups?
So explain to me.
What liberal groups he's going after?
These individuals committing crimes?
I don't think they realize what this means when they say this.
Let me frame it for you in a couple of ways.
The group which has targeted mainly liberal groups as sting operations could imply that James O'Keefe is biased and he just hates the liberals and he's going after them.
Or it could imply that when he's looking for crimes and impropriety, they're mainly liberal groups.
You get the point?
Be careful how you play with words in Newsweek and try and smear people.
They go on to mention what this guy is doing.
Muhammad can be seen showing white envelopes on his car's dashboard in a video from July 1st.
Later in the Veritas video, Muhammad says money is the king in this world, and a campaign is driven by money.
An anonymous person identified as a former Minneapolis police worker told Veritas that Omar's campaign deputy director, Ali Issa Ghani, was coordinating ballot harvesting from elderly people in Charles Horn Towers, a housing complex in the city, before the Minnesota primary on August 8th.
Interesting.
Did they do a universal mail-in ballot?
The same person claimed that women and young people were paid for their ballots during the primary.
The cash-for-ballots accusation is unsubstantiated at this time.
What does that mean, unsubstantiated?
What does that mean?
You've got people saying they've done it.
You've got videos of them with the ballots.
Please, James O'Keefe, I hope you're holding out on us, because it is going to be so glorious when Veritas drops whatever else they have, hoping they do.
And all of these articles are like, oops!
Oh, about that.
They say ballot harvesting is not illegal in Minnesota.
However, a district court in the state denied a Republican motion to state a temporary injunction against the law that made it illegal for anyone to help more than three people vote.
Veritas, here we go, here we go.
Project Veritas is a history of dubious claims and doctored videos.
And there it is.
Don't believe the news because James O'Keefe had to pay $100,000 to a former ACORN employee who didn't consent to be filmed and claimed he called the police after a disguised O'Keefe asked how he could make underage prostitution look like a legitimate business.
I believe that was a settlement.
I'm not entirely sure.
But I will point out that John Stewart from the Daily Show highlighted that Acorn expose and praised James O'Keefe.
What happened to that?
That's when the mainstream media and these personalities who were liberal actually We're legit.
Jon Stewart had no problem being like, look at this guy.
He's doing real journalism.
Journalists, where are you?
And it's like, bravo.
Jon Stewart recognized that James O'Keefe was doing good.
And what do you say about it?
What do we get now?
Yeah, we got some breaking news.
It could upend the election and result in major lawsuits.
But smear the guy who got the footage.
Why?
To me, that's ridiculous.
They say there was instant skepticism of Veritas' latest claims.
CNN analyst Jessica Huisman, who has covered the organization, pointed to the timing of the release.
Quote, Wow, you're telling me that Project Veritas just happened to release a project right after the New York Times released a bombshell?
Huh, what are the odds?
How is that skepticism?
That James O'Keefe timed this and waited right until the New York Times dropped a bombshell.
Well, I wouldn't even call the New York Times bombshell, because the New York Times just wrote a story they wrote 2016.
It's not relevant, and I don't care.
You know what, man?
Listen, when you get someone like Donald Trump going up on stage and being like, I'm rich, I cheat the system, I know how it works, I bought politicians, and everyone cheers, wahoo!
And then he's like, that's why you should vote for me, I know how the system works.
And then they go, yay, Trump!
How is that supposed to offend these people or make them not want to vote for him?
If you think that this story about Trump's taxes is going to swing the election, I got two words for you.
He won.
In 2016, he won.
Now, you may be saying, yeah, Trump's base doesn't care, but regular Americans might.
No, they don't!
Okay, look, some of them might, for sure.
Some of them might.
But it wasn't enough to cost them the election then.
They're trying the exact same strategy now.
The only thing they're doing is they're like, well, people really hate Hillary Clinton.
Maybe if we do literally the same thing that people hated, but choose Biden instead, people will vote for him.
Maybe.
It very well may be.
The only problem, what we're seeing here, is cheating.
So no one's gonna believe the results of the election.
What are you gonna do?
I... I hope you, uh...
I hope you do what you gotta do to keep yourself safe, because it may come and go.
November 3rd may happen, Trump may win in a landslide, and then nothing really happens, and he wins, and then we carry on like normal!
Or it may turn out that Trump wins on election night in a landslide, and then slowly over time, more mail-in ballots start popping in, and more videos of this start popping up, and it immediately disputes several states.
Why wouldn't Trump sue every single state that drops off a ton of mail-in ballots?
And therein lies the real problem.
The Supreme Court could intervene.
They may not necessarily side with Trump.
If the Electoral College fails, then what's going to happen is you're going to have people saying, oh, but the popular vote says Biden, therefore we must just, you know, go with Biden.
Trump's going to say, well, what about the Electoral College?
Then all of these House members, they end up, you know, being sworn in.
And then it goes to the House with a majority Democrat delegation who says, Joe Biden, and there will be furious uproar.
It's kind of like what happened with Gore v. Bush, you know, um, back in, in 2000 and people were upset about it.
I don't know where we're going now, but I think it's, you know, the media is going to start smearing James O'Keefe like crazy.
But let me show you this.
This is really crazy.
This is the trending tab for the United States on Twitter, and we can see Trump tax returns with 500,000 tweets.
We can scroll down.
Trump is not a billionaire, blah, blah, blah.
Project Veritas trending with Ilhan Omar, 272,000.
So, it's got traction.
It's legit trending.
Project Veritas, legit trending.
Now, Trump tax returns is going up, probably because of journalists, and probably because you've got a lot of very vocal leftists who use Twitter.
But what do regular Americans think?
Are regular Americans going to be outraged that Donald Trump hires an accountant who does his taxes for him?
You realize that, right?
Like, they're all coming out and saying, like, Trump didn't pay taxes!
I've got an accountant, you know, and my accountant takes care of everything.
And I just, I don't know, I'm like, here, you know, I trust the accountant to be doing everything correctly.
That's literally how businesses work.
So Donald Trump runs a billion dollar empire, a multi-billion dollar empire, and so he hires probably a ridiculous number of accounts.
He's probably got massive accounting firms.
And they do his taxes for him.
So I'm not entirely sure what I'm supposed to feel about this, especially when people are throwing, you know, molotovs at cops and shooting them.
And then we get actual video that, look, there's a guy with a bunch of envelopes claiming their absentee ballots.
That's evidence.
Is it definitive proof?
No, we need more.
But it's evidence.
So what next?
How much you want to bet James O'Keefe publishes something even more damning?
All of these people have their foot in their mouths.
And then, you know, then they immediately just start doubling down and saying, oh, no, no, no, no, he's lying, James O'Keefe is crazy, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, no matter how much evidence he puts out.
Well, I'll tell you this, the debate's coming up in a day, tomorrow.
It's gonna be fun!
And Donald Trump will probably bring this up.
I'll say one more thing on Trump's tax returns, just to break down how stupid all of this is.
Donald Trump's taxes.
He purportedly only paid like $750 in the past 10 years, or in a couple years.
And that's probably having to do with some kind of like filing requirement.
It's because his businesses are losing money, and his tax returns probably show that he's losing money.
Everybody knew he was losing money.
His net worth is tanking as he's president.
Now, they'll try and claim it's because, you know, Trump ran for president because he was failing.
I'm kind of like, no, I don't think so.
I mean, you get a certain point and you're like, I'm a billionaire.
Like, what do you do?
Trump wanted to be president.
Now that he's not running his companies, yeah, they're starting to do bad.
Am I supposed to be surprised by that?
But what I love is when I tweeted that, like, you know, Donald Trump's talked about this before, I think, but nothing specifically.
And the reason he didn't pay taxes is because his businesses are failing.
And they're like, why don't you defend Trump some more, Tim?
And I'm like, I just said his businesses are failing.
How is that defending the guy?
These people are tribalists.
They want to believe the narrative that Donald Trump just goes, I'm Donald Trump, and for no reason other than being a jerk, I'm not paying taxes.
That's not how it works.
Trump wrote off like $450 million losses.
No, no, no, I'm sorry.
It was $450 million revenue and like $50 million loss, meaning he lost like $500 million.
And now you've got some people saying, he must be the worst businessman ever.
He's not a businessman.
He's a president.
He's not running these companies.
I don't care.
Stop the people shooting cops.
Deal with the voter fraud.
But voter fraud doesn't exist.
How many stories have I had to read about this stupid BS where the primary ballots are broken, Democrats are destroying the integrity of our elections, and you want me to go vote for that?
Get out of here.
I'm so over this.
Let's see what Veritas has to offer in the upcoming videos, because I'm excited, and they usually have more.
We'll see what happens.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
And they're angry and they're claiming hypocrisy.
But listen, the Democrats can't help but fall into these traps.
Yesterday, on my main segment at youtube.com slash Timcast, I talked about how the strategy from the Democrats was backfiring and they can't help themselves.
The story, I have a couple stories for you.
Look at this one.
Here are the people with large platforms who have warned of violence if the GOP replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
I'm just going to say it.
Donald Trump is either this bumbling buffoon who keeps slipping on banana peels or he knows exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it.
We heard that there was another potential nominee.
This was a Cuban American woman.
And Amy Coney Barrett ultimately got the nomination and will likely be confirmed a week before the election.
Now, I want you to think long and hard about what Amy Coney Barrett represents and what Donald Trump is desperately trying to win.
Which voting demographic has he been very concerned about?
And what they're saying right now, I just, oh, these people are so dumb.
Amy Coney Barrett is like a suburban housewife, a religious mother.
She's an accomplished woman.
And when I, listen.
When you see her leaving her home with her family and smiling in his photographs, Donald Trump knows he has chosen someone who may serve as an avatar for many of these suburban housewives he has desperately been trying to convince to vote for him.
Now, you also have fears from these suburbs about riots and violence.
Donald Trump, I'm sorry, I'm just gonna say it.
We all know he wanted to nominate Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court, but this is Trump slipping on a banana peel.
Okay, maybe not.
Maybe he just understands the left so well, he knows how to push their buttons.
I think it's fair to say he does.
Think about it.
He's going to put this woman, who is an accomplished mother, successful woman, a regular mom on the stand.
I say regular mom because that's what I think she may represent to a lot of people.
She has kids.
She goes to church.
Trump wants that vote.
He's going to put her in his hearings.
Why are they having hearings?
I thought there was talk about how they would just skip over the hearings and go through it quicker.
Well, there's going to be hearings.
Maybe they're supposed to be whatever.
Think about what happens when the Democrats start insulting her faith.
Start insulting her kids?
That is going to be an avatar for the suburban housewife feeling, why are you attacking this woman?
She's shattered, she's shattering glass ceilings.
Actual suburbans, housewives, not these weirdo far leftists like regular people saying, I see myself in her as a regular American.
How many people will see that and see the Kavanaugh effect get completely played again?
I can say that better.
How many people are going to watch this happen, and then we will experience the Kavanaugh effect again?
But this story is something special.
Because the other thing the suburbs are worried about, violence.
And they can't help themselves.
So now here's what you're getting.
Trump nominates this person.
Amy Coney Barrett's going to be going through these hearings the next couple of weeks.
Just a few weeks before the election, you're going to have a Kavanaugh effect, and you are going to have threats of violence.
Let me show you the story!
The Daily Caller says, Following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg with only weeks left before the 2020 election, some activists and people with high profiles have called for action to resist President Donald Trump's potential selection.
Some even threatened violence.
And they're doubling down!
Stop!
They can't!
And these aren't Antifa types.
These are like resistance Democrat personalities.
Trump's nomination to the court is Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who has already faced smears
for her Catholic faith, including by Democratic California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who said,
quote, The conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, which is of concern.
The president's nomination now requires a vote from the Senate.
Quote, We're shutting this country down if Trump and McConnell try to ram through an appointment before the election.
Beau Willimon, an American playwright and screenwriter, said on Twitter, September 18th.
His tweet received more than 19,000 retweets.
Now hold on, hold on.
What does it mean to shut the country down?
They don't vote on a budget?
That's kind of nebulous, but you can always count on good ol' Reza Aslan to either eat human brain or to threaten violence against people.
Former CNN employee Reza Aslan twice threatened to burn the entire effing thing down after Ginsburg died, should the GOP try to replace her.
Aslan did not respond to a request from the Daily Caller to elaborate on what he meant by the tweets.
It's literal!
They've been setting fires.
Okay, I don't know if he means literally.
I don't know what he means.
It's just- look at this!
He keeps- over our dead bodies literally.
Okay!
He said it literally.
Reza says, been a few days since I tweeted that if GOP try to ram a SCOTUS through before the election, we burn the effing thing down.
And since the death threats and Breitbart headlines about my tweet have now stopped, let me just say, That if the GOP try to jam SCOTUS through, we burn the effing thing down.
Over our dead bodies, literally.
These people are nuts.
Absolutely insane.
You know what the Republicans did when Obama wanted Merrick Garland?
I want you to think about who Trump needs to win over, and who will see this and go, jeez, leave the lady alone, dude!
Y'all are crazy!
Listen, I'm seeing these memes fly around, where they're like, Amy Coney Barrett, it's gonna rewrite the Constitution and erase all this precedent, and that gay marriage will be repealed.
Okay, well, first, let me say, I'm not psychic.
Maybe she will do those things.
Maybe these things may happen.
I don't know.
But based on her field of practice, I don't think that to be the case.
You know, they're trying to take a lot of her quotes out of context.
It's just weird.
She seems to be an originalist and a textualist, I guess.
Like Scalia.
I'm not big on the Supreme Court.
I'm not a hardcore politico on SCOTUS stuff like many people are.
My general understanding, though, is she tries to interpret the Constitution as it was written, not as we interpret the language today.
In which case, I guess they're freaking out, assuming that she's gonna, like, erase precedent?
I'm not worried about that, okay?
It's funny how they talk about Roe v. Wade, but they don't talk about Loving v. Virginia.
That was when interracial marriage was made legal, and miscegenation laws were basically found unconstitutional.
They don't talk about that.
They talk about gay marriage.
Why?
I think it's because these are buzz issues of the day.
You know, it's irrelevant enough to our history and our minds that they actually think we're going to go back in time.
I'm not really worried about that.
We just had two Supreme Court rulings, I think, or like there's been several, where even Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have been against Donald Trump.
These people need to chill out.
And they're even saying that, based on Coney Barrett's record, she's actually not even the most conservative person.
She would be, like, the third most conservative on the—or, I think, the third most conservative.
So, it's not even a guarantee she's going to be hardcore conservative.
She may actually go moderate on some of these issues.
But they can't help themselves.
They're gonna call for violence.
They're gonna get violent.
They're going to insult women's religion.
They're going to insult their kids.
That's what they're doing.
And this, in my opinion, is exactly what Trump needs.
He needed something to light up the suburbs.
He needs the riots to be inflamed, and he needs people to attack what could be a representation of the suburban housewife.
I'm not saying Amy Coney Barrett necessarily is, but to someone who holds, like, If you're going to look at a picture of her wearing like, you know, her Sunday clothes or whatever with her kids, she's going to come off with your, you know, she's going to come off like a stereotypical suburban woman.
I think that's what Trump is playing to.
You got to understand people, and I mean this with all due respect to the American people, they're vapid and shallow.
I did this little bit on the IRL podcast talking about how conservatives tend to be more attractive and liberals tend to be less attractive.
And the left got so angry!
And then they agreed with me.
It was the weirdest thing ever.
It's true.
It's a privilege.
And they were pointing out that people vote for who they find to be attractive.
Well, there you go.
And people who are attractive tend to be more individualist.
Yeah, sure.
There you go.
So what happens when people look at this image of Amy Coney Barrett, see her getting attacked and berated and insulted for her kids and for her faith?
It's going to feel like they are being attacked.
The media doesn't understand Trump.
They don't understand the people who vote for Donald Trump.
I remember back in, was it 2016?
Where they were like, Donald Trump had a well-done steak with ketchup!
What a loser!
They were making fun of Trump because he got this, like, 30-day dry-aged steak or whatever.
I don't know how steak works.
And it was supposed to be this really fancy meal that you gotta get, like, medium-rare, you know, and put a little garlic, a dash of salt on it, and eat it just as is.
Or whatever it is they put on steak.
Trump ordered it well-done and schlopped ketchup all over it.
And they attacked him for it.
You know what that was and why Trump did that?
Because poor people in this country don't eat fancy steaks, medium rare with fancy spices.
They eat garbage gutter steaks for a buck.
They cook it through because it tastes like garbage and it's probably loaded with parasites, and they schlock ketchup on it to make it taste better.
So when they started making fun of Trump for eating a well-done steak with ketchup, how many middle American people were sitting there eating their well-done T-bone or ribeye with ketchup, looking at the TV screen, looking down and saying, hey, what's wrong with that?
Why are you making fun of me?
They were making fun of Trump for doing things they accuse poor people of doing.
Because they are snooty elitists who will declare violence!
And they will literally get violent.
They will cheer for the violence.
And they will insult you if you're poor.
And Trump won a lot of these people.
I remember seeing that video.
I've talked about it where this guy was crying.
You know, because his factory had closed down.
He was running out of money.
He wasn't going to be able to pay for his kid's school.
And then Trump, you know, gets elected.
The factories came back.
And then he said he got hired again.
And now he's saving again.
And he's feeding his kids.
And he was like in tears.
It was a crazy video.
It was years and years ago.
Here we go.
We got more.
Canadian political science professor Emmett McFarlane of the University of Waterloo tweeted, burn Congress down before letting Trump try to appoint anyone to SCOTUS.
You're not even American, dude!
Mind your own business!
You know, I think it's really funny how Canadians love to have a say in American politics, and I don't care if this is the left or the right-wing Canadians.
We got a lot of Canadians on the right who are, like, praising Trump, and I'm just like, I find that weird, but fine, I guess.
Canada is America Junior, so sure, do your thing.
Laura Bassett said in a tweet that appears to have been deleted that if McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.
This one I actually think is unfair.
I think this one's unfair.
Laura Bassett didn't say there should be riots.
She said there will be riots.
I would tweet exactly the same thing.
If McConnell jams someone through, which he will, there will be riots.
I don't think there should be riots.
I think the left will go nuts.
So I think She's at the Washington Post.
Y'all gotta be careful with this stuff, man.
I've seen things where, like, a journalist will tweet something, and they'll assume the journalist was, like, encouraging or calling for it.
There was a journalist who tweeted a quote from, like, some politician.
I quote-tweeted it, and then everyone started attacking the journalist, and I apologize.
Like, I didn't realize people were gonna do that, because you were just quoting the article.
Like, I do the same thing.
You gotta be careful.
Now, sure, maybe this individual is on the left, but she didn't say there should be riots.
She said there will be riots.
Here's Brian Stelter.
Just another normal night over on Tucker Carlson.
The banner says, the left threatens violence over court nomination.
Oh, Brian, the dude doesn't even know how to use Google.
Come on, man.
Brian, do better.
Not that it matters.
For all I know, it's probably intentional.
He knows people are tweeting these things.
Expand who you follow, good sir, and use Google search to fact check these things when people claim it.
If Tucker says the left is threatening violence, why don't you Google it to see if it's true or not?
Here's the best part.
So there's going to be a bunch of violence, right?
Sure, sure, sure.
And that's going to help Trump win over the suburban votes and the attack on this seemingly, uh, Amy Coney Barrett seems like a lovely woman.
Okay.
She seems like fine, respectable and accomplished.
I, I, this is the craziest thing about what the left does.
The same is true for any of these far-left progressives.
I donated to, like, I personally donated to progressive primary candidates against Democrats.
I kid you not!
It's a public rights effect.
Because I thought, I was like, well, they seem like good people, I probably really disagree with them, but I hate the establishment.
I hate them.
Okay?
And there's very few things I absolutely hate.
I can't stand the faux progressive establishment types.
I'm not going to say their names, but they pretend to be progressive and they actually support Joe Biden and the establishment.
You know what I don't mind and I actually like?
These progressives, even former Bernie people who hate Joe Biden, won't vote for him.
I don't care if you're far left.
I can disagree with you.
Don't support the violence and call it the establishment.
We're good.
Awesome, dude.
We probably disagree on a lot of things.
Probably a lot of things.
But I think Jimmy's great.
I think my bias is probably much more populist versus establishment.
I care about the people and what is good for the people, what is right for the people.
And I'm not a fan of the far left.
I'm not.
A lot of these people have also adopted the far-left identitarian insanity, which is why I really do oppose them.
I want to show you this just to give you quick context.
I talked about this yesterday.
Democrats feel boxed in on strategy for Barrett confirmation fight.
They mention one more fear on Barrett, the adoption thing.
Gotta avoid that.
Yes.
Please don't.
They also mention don't go after her religion.
All they had to do, all they had to do, is just say, Amy Coney Barrett's a federal judge.
She may be inexperienced.
How about we ask about that?
We say, do you believe... I believe she's been on the court since 2017.
Do you believe you have the sufficient experience to be a Supreme Court Justice?
And this is not to denigrate your abilities or your skills or your judgment.
It's a simple question.
And I personally think it's a fair question.
I'm not going to play any stupid games.
But the risk the Democrats have right now is that they're going after an accomplished woman.
How many women in the suburbs are going to see this and say, let her succeed?
Let her give her a chance, especially if she is a conservative.
Now, here's where things got spicy and this.
This stuff is so insane, it actually runs... I run the risk of getting... Look, my video yesterday got deranked and demonetized immediately.
And that is... That's BS.
They did it to my video before about Kamala Harris too.
But I requested a review.
They upheld it.
And then I reached out to Google specifically, and they said, we're overturning it because I'm talking about mainstream American politics, okay?
Boston University professor is urged to resign for calling Amy Coney Barrett a white colonizer who is using her two adopted Haitian children as props.
They couldn't leave it alone.
They are obsessed.
They are violent.
And this is what you get.
Yeah, the dude should resign.
Step down.
But you know what?
He's not.
This dude is a best-selling author.
Bravo, Ibram X. Kendi.
He can insult this woman for her children and her sister and stuff like that.
And he says, I don't care.
He called her a racist white colonizer, apparently.
Look at this.
A Boston University professor who said President Trump's Supreme Court nominee was a racist white colonizer for adopting two black children from Haiti and using them as props while cutting the biological parents out of the picture is being urged to resign.
The controversial charge was leveled at Judge Amy Coney Barrett on Saturday by Ibram X. Kendi, a professor of history and director and founder of Boston University's Center for Anti-Racist Research.
Hold on, hold on.
Didn't, like, a bunch of celebrities adopt African kids and Haitian kids to help, like, give them a better life?
This, it's so, it's so, it's so, just these people are nuts, man.
I don't care what your race is.
If you live in poverty and someone says, I want to bring you here and give you a better life, I respect it.
Yet, they would attack her for it.
Did this guy come out and write a book or issue a statement about, you know, like Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt?
Didn't they do the same thing?
I don't know or care.
I know a lot of people want to talk about it, make it an issue.
It doesn't matter to me at all.
It's so shockingly mind-numbing to see the illegitimacy of their attacks.
They're meaningless.
But the threats of violence are real.
So I wonder what this is going to do in the suburbs.
And I wonder if this is exactly what Trump was betting on.
I'm going to skip over the comments he made, but show you some of the photos.
I wonder if this was part of the plan.
I don't think they planned on Ruth Bader Ginsburg passing, but I'd be willing to bet they planned for the event, in the event that she did.
I mean, she was very old.
I'd be willing to bet they got way more plans for some of these other justices who were also very, very old.
One dude, 82.
You can see this photo.
They say Barrett, a devout Catholic, has seven children, five biological and two adopted.
Her youngest child also has Down syndrome.
Why would they attack this family?
Take a look at this family.
And I want you to think about this.
I really do.
And then go on Facebook and look at the photos from other families.
The reason why I say I think she will serve as an avatar, a representation of the suburban housewife, is because these are the photos I see all over the place from the Chicago suburbs, from people I grew up with.
They're wearing nice clothes.
They're smiling.
The kids are all happy.
It looks like a normal family.
Smile on their face.
But they're calling her a cultist.
They're calling her a handmaid or a handmaiden.
They're threatening violence over her.
What do you think's going to happen when she sits down for those hearings, the smile on her face, and says, thank you all so much with the utmost respect.
I am here to answer your questions, and I really appreciate the opportunity.
And they scowl and go, so when did you join the cult?
When did you colonize blah, blah, blah?
The Democratic leadership may be smarter than the activists, and that's the important factor.
The Kavanaugh effect may be on the minds of Democrats, and they may avoid this, but I'm not confident they will, because they have continually failed in this.
Impeachment was a failure.
It all backfired.
Every scandal backfired.
So even though they've said they have to be careful, what's happening?
They're threatening violence.
This dude Reza Aslan must be a Trump supporter.
He's a secret Trump supporter who's like, sitting at his computer crying with his MAGA hat on, going like, I must be the symbol that they oppose to rally Americans for Trump.
It's like, the more Reza says these crazy things, the more regular people want to vote for Trump.
I think it was David Frum who said that anti-fund Black Lives Matter rioters were secretly Trump supporters, or they must be, because everything they're doing is helping Trump.
Well then Reza Aslan must be secretly sitting there with that MAGA hat on, being like, I'm gonna make Antifa look bad!
And regular Americans are gonna be like, she's just a Catholic, dude.
She's just some lady.
With a family.
And she has a job, and she's accomplished things.
And then they're gonna go around burning things down, and they're gonna be like, I'm gonna vote for the regular people who just wanna live their lives, man.
I'll tell you what.
They talk about Donald Trump's tax returns all crazy, like, I don't know, what do you want me to say about Trump's tax returns, man?
We know billionaires do this.
I know Trump does it.
Trump brags about doing it.
They claim that Trump owes all this money and it's a security threat, but Trump's giving up his salary.
It just doesn't make any sense.
Well, you know what does make sense?
When I see Reza Aslan say, over our dead bodies, literally, we're gonna burn everything down, I'm like, okay, that guy's serious.
Because they've been doing it.
They couldn't help themselves, man.
Well, it's only a matter of time before the violence erupts, I suppose, so enjoy it.
Enjoy the peace.
The storm is a-brewin'.
We'll see how things play out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel, and I will see you all then.
The story had gone viral.
Trump's ex-campaign manager, Brad Parscale, barricaded himself inside his home, was threatening to harm himself, had a loaded gun.
His wife, screaming, runs outside, bruises on her arm, saying, I think my husband just killed himself.
Police show up, he refuses to come out.
Finally, they get a handle on the situation.
And I'm not entirely sure I believe any of that.
That's weird, and it's kind of a creepy story, because the video's been released.
And what does the video show?
It shows Brad Parscale walking out of his house in his shorts, very calmly and slowly, and the cop's like, come over here, chill.
Brad Parscale puts a beard down and he's like, dude, like, nothing happened.
I didn't do anything.
And then the cops run up and slam him into the ground and he's just like, whoa.
He's got his hands up.
He's like, I'm not doing anything.
I didn't do anything.
And they're yelling at him, get on the ground.
And then they cuff him and they're like, all right, get up, buddy.
And he's just like, confused.
The funny thing about this is that people are now like tweeting things like, whoa, is this what the cops do when someone's having like a mental health issue?
It's like, Yeah, dude.
Yeah.
But I think the left, the people who are criticizing the shocked conservatives, it's one of the biggest problems that we have when it comes to politics.
Dude, if Brad Parscale was having this episode or whatever, which I don't see any evidence right now.
We'll read the story.
Then the police need to be very careful how they deal with him.
The dude was calmly talking to the cop, clearly not a threat.
I mean, he's Brad Parscale.
Come on.
He's probably totally Blue Lives Matter.
They had no reason to tackle the guy.
But they slammed him to the ground.
It's kind of crazy.
Let's read a little bit.
I got some video and we'll go through this.
From the Daily Mail, Brad came out of his office and cocked his handgun.
Moment bruised wife of ex-Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale flees their home in bikini and tells cops he's armed and hit her before SWAT officers slam him to the ground.
Now, I don't I don't I didn't see it in the video.
I mean, maybe In the video, it's just her talking to the cops.
Let's read. The wife of Donald Trump's demoted campaign boss, Brad Parscale, fled screaming
into the street in just her bikini before telling a passerby, I think my husband just killed himself.
Police raced to Parscale's Fort Lauderdale, Florida home Sunday afternoon after the Good
Samaritan bundled Candace Parscale into her car and dialed 911.
As many as 20 police cars and boats swarmed the waterfront property after the distraught wife told cops she heard a revolver being cocked and a loud boom after her 44-year-old husband began ranting and raving.
Candace, 41, then buried her head in the stranger's lap and sobbed uncontrollably until officers revealed he was still alive and asked for his cell number so they could begin negotiations.
Police dispatch records reveal Marksman could see into the $2.4 million property where Parscale was sitting shirtless on the floor with his dog drinking beer and talking to himself.
Okay, let's read.
The witness, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals, told DailyMail.com she also noticed evidence of bruising on Candace's upper arms.
Further reports and police body camera footage made public on Monday confirmed Candace had revealed injuries to officers and told them she suffered them in an altercation with her husband of four years, adding that he hits her.
If that's true, not cool.
Innocent until proven guilty, but if she has the bruises, then so be it.
Dude's gonna get arrested for it.
The chaotic scene ended without tragedy about an hour and a half later, when Parscale was dramatically tackled by a SWAT officer after he ignored five demands to get on the ground.
He was involuntarily committed to a hospital by Fort Lauderdale police.
So, here's a dude just standing there, drinking a beer, and they throw him on the ground.
Uh, there's video, there's his wife, okay, so we can see, you know, they got photos, blah blah blah.
The president announced in July he was replacing Parscale.
Okay, I'm gonna stop right here and then we'll go through the video.
When I first heard this story, my assumption was that Brad Parscale was losing it because he got fired by Trump.
The media was saying, you know, he was like the go-to dude for Donald Trump, until I think it was the Tulsa rally.
They announced that Trump had 1 million RSVPs to this big rally.
They had this huge outdoor area for overflow, and then only like 6,000 or 7,000 people showed up.
Trump said it was a lot more.
City Estimate said like 6,000 or 7,000.
It wasn't that many people.
And then, I guess the scuttle, but the rumors were that Trump got really mad with Parscale, saying like, you messed this up, and then effectively fired him.
Assuming that stuff's true, then the narrative becomes that Brad's having a breakdown, and like, maybe, I don't know.
But in the video, it doesn't seem like any of that really happened, right?
So you can see, he comes out, he's talking very calmly to the police, just having a beer, and he's just, that's it, now watch.
So here he is talking, and then all of a sudden, very quickly yelled, get on the ground, and then it just throws him to the ground.
He says several times they didn't do anything.
They cuff him, they're armed.
This to me seems, seems crazy.
And this is why I'm, you know, in favor of police reform.
I get it.
It's difficult.
I don't know exactly how the police should respond in circumstances like this when it's, it's, it's, it's effectively a swatting.
I haven't seen evidence that Brad Parscale committed any crimes or was actually, you know, going to shoot himself.
The cops apparently saw him sitting with his dog drinking a beer.
Not holding a gun, I guess?
Here's what this dude, August Takala, says.
Parscale, who is having a calm conversation with a police officer, is assaulted by five other police officers armed with automatic weapons.
Is that a new treatment for people with mental health issues?
Or is it just for Trump supporters?
All right.
All right.
It's not new.
No, the cops do this.
And I wonder if, you know, like, many Trump supporters know that.
I'm assuming they do.
I mean, that's probably why the Republicans offered up police reform, because people know this, and they know you shouldn't treat it like, you know, they shouldn't engage in this behavior.
There's a story, man.
There was a black social worker who got a report of a homeless guy acting sporadically, and he went out to try and help him, and the cops showed up, and they told the guy to get on the ground, and the dude is laying on the ground with his hands up, and he still gets shot and killed.
And so, look, when police are dealing with tense situations, very awful things can happen.
The problem?
Well, most of us are for police reform.
I think we typically agree that there's always better ways to do things.
We have to explore this and try and figure it out.
But what the left then comes out with is, yes, we literally mean abolish the police.
And that's what we actually saw in the New York Times.
That's literally a story they wrote.
Yes, we mean abolish the police.
Okay.
I look at this.
I feel bad for Brad and his family.
It's troubling that, you know, this happened to him.
I don't know exactly what the details are.
I hope if he is unwell, he gets help.
And hopefully he wasn't falsely accused or anything like that.
We don't have anything to go off of.
And I already know there's going to be people saying, oh, there goes Tim trying to claim he's falsely accused.
That's not what I'm saying.
What I'm saying is, we don't know a whole lot about this.
And a lot of people on the left are gonna be like, dude's losing it.
Maybe.
Maybe it's a private matter.
And the only reason we're hearing about it is because dude worked for Donald Trump.
And he lost his job.
Well, let's, here we go.
They say a police report obtained exclusively by Daily Mail reveals that Parscale had 10 weapons inside the home, including two rifles, two shotguns, five handguns, and a small revolver.
And what does that mean to me?
That's not a big deal.
The witness, who just happened to be passing by the swank home, said, I was on the phone to a friend when I noticed this woman coming towards me with virtually nothing on, just her bathing suit.
She knocked on the window and says, I think my husband just killed himself, oh my god, oh my god, come get in my car, I said, and hung up on my friend and dialed 911.
She was hysterical, she was hyperventilating, she nearly collapsed, but I caught her and pulled her into the vehicle.
She had her head in my lap and was just sobbing.
When she was in the car and we were on hold, I saw both her arms had bruises.
She is just a tiny thing.
She seemed so sweet and distraught.
As the two women huddled into the vehicle, cops surrounded the property, stationing marksmen with shields.
A video obtained by DailyMail.com reveals Candace, by now wrapped in a white towel, peering over a line of police cars as officers call up her husband's cell and negotiate a surrender.
The police presence was huge.
They were being extra protective in case he started shooting.
Once he answered the phone, they knew he was alive, the Good Samaritan said.
We can see photos of it.
There's a police report.
This is kind of an intense standoff for whatever it is they're accusing him of.
I didn't see him come out of the house because they made everyone stand so far back, but it was over quickly.
Maybe an hour and a half to two hours.
The police were very calm, very professional.
The wife was sat on a gurney for a while while she seemed to calm down.
There had clearly been some stress for a while, and she seemed just relieved it was over.
Her husband has got a lot going on, he's a mess.
A Trump insider told DailyMail.com that Parscale went into a tailspin after he was demoted in July and replaced by his former number two, Bill Stepien.
It was widely reported that the president lost faith in Parscale after a much-trumpeted campaign.
This is what I was saying earlier.
I don't need to rehash all this stuff.
But after the campaign rally in Tulsa.
Ultimately, I'm just trying to figure out what's going on, but I'll put it this way.
I don't want to make this one too long.
You get the point.
Uh, we get what happened.
And I hope him and his wife can, you know, solve things on their own.
I don't... I think it's unfortunate you get involved with Trump and the media's gonna go nuts on you and publish all of your stories and everything about you.
But in the end, I don't know what to say.
Other than, uh, cops should probably deal with reform, because I don't think Brad should have been thrown to the ground like that.
And, uh, maybe they don't need to show up with all these weapons and guns.
They need to show up with a smaller unit, you know, group first of officers, figure out what's going on, then make any changes or call in more, uh, more units, depending on what they need.
The challenge is, you know, you get to call the guys armed is what you're going to do.
But swatting has become a big problem.
I'm not sure there is an easy solution.
I really don't know.
And if the cops didn't show up with weapons and what if he was armed and what if he'd go crazy?
So what do you do?
Things are tough.
Everybody made it out okay, so I guess there's no real issue here, right?
Except, maybe he should have been thrown to the ground.
But I'll leave it there.
I got a couple more segments in just a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
You know what time of year is better than Christmas and the Super Bowl and the World Series combined?
It's October of an election year because all of the most absurd and
insane stories start bursting from the scenes from the seams and everything goes nuts.
Nothing makes sense.
And it's only getting crazier as the Internet becomes more and more prominent.
Maybe the Clintons won't get away with it after all.
Trump retweets message after federal prosecutor John Durham's probe into the FBI's Russia investigation expands to look into corruption allegations at the Clinton Foundation.
You know, they're taking massive donations from foreign governments and, you know, politically connected individuals, to put it mildly, while Hillary Clinton was at the State Department, and I just don't like the loopholes, whatever, fine.
But now the Durham probe is looking to the Clinton Foundation.
October surprise!
Bring it on, man!
I don't want to wait two weeks.
Trump, drop what you got.
Durham, where you at?
Let's see some indictments.
We get Trump's tax returns apparently at the last minute.
I don't care about that.
What do you got on the Clintons?
Now that I want to see.
Daily Mail says, Donald Trump last night retweeted that maybe the Clintons won't get away with it after all, after federal prosecutor John Durham's probe into the FBI's Russia investigation expanded to look into alleged corruption at the Clinton Foundation.
Durham, put in charge of the Russiagate review by Attorney General William Barr, has sought evidence about federal investigations from around the same time which were looking into the Clinton Foundation, sources told the New York Times.
Durham's team has revealed that they are comparing the two investigations as well as looking into whether the Russia inquiry investigators broke the law.
It was not clear whether Durham's officials were looking into similar allegations at the Clinton Foundation or to what extent it would feature in the conclusions of his inquiry.
Trump last night retweeted conservative commentator David J. Harris Jr., who shared a link to an article about the latest developments, writing, maybe the Clintons won't get away with it after all.
They say John Durham left.
Is that John Durham?
It doesn't look like him.
I don't think that's John Durham.
Maybe it is.
Maybe it's an old photo.
I don't know.
Does he have like a big bushy beard now?
A goatee or something?
Whatever.
Durham's approach is highly unusual, sources told the Times, and the inclusion of the Clinton investigation suggests that his scope is much broader than previously thought.
The Russia probe into foreign election interference and the Clinton Foundation inquiry into alleged bribery and corruption differ substantively and have involved largely different investigators and prosecutors.
It comes amid fears by Trump's opponents that Durham's work is being weaponized politically.
I mean, you commit a crime, you get investigated, right?
I don't know, whatever.
It's really simple.
Um, if there was a Russia probe on Trump and it involved members of the Obama administration and members of the Obama administration were connected to the Clinton Foundation, then it would overlap.
I mean, look, if you have 10 people and they're doing a bunch of things, well, then, you know, it overlaps.
How is it?
Maybe it's unusual.
Sure.
I can't say I'm all that surprised, however.
Democrats last week called on the Justice Department's Inspector General to look at whether Durham's inquiry was impartial after one of his top lieutenants resigned reportedly over concerns that their findings would be dropped before Election Day.
The Clinton Foundation probe started five years ago under the Obama administration and has not resulted in criminal charges to date.
In a statement, the foundation said, The Clinton Foundation has regularly been subjected to baseless, politically motivated allegations.
And time after time, these allegations have been proven false.
Republicans have claimed that the FBI's top brass in the DOJ under Barack Obama gave preferential treatment to the Clintons.
They accused the organizations of taking an overtly political stance against Trump, while showing reluctance to investigate allegations about the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton, particularly her use of a private email server as Secretary of State.
There was a clear double standard by the Department of Justice and FBI when it came to the Trump and Clinton campaigns in 2016, Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham said in August.
Durham's investigation has produced one criminal case so far against an FBI lawyer for attempting to secure a wiretap to eavesdrop on a former Trump adviser.
This may be.
Dirty politics.
I mean, look.
Maybe there's no real connection.
I think it's fair to say that reasonably there could be an overlap.
Maybe somebody working on Russiagate was working with someone else and then made a phone call and that somehow connects it, but I'll tell you what, man.
I don't really care.
You know why?
It's October, baby!
What are we gonna see?
We're gonna see, like, everything.
There's gonna be clowns jumping out of the White House, rolling on the ground, bursting into flames.
There's gonna be, like, planes, like, flying through the air with, like, people, like, water skiing on the back.
I'm kidding.
But it's gonna get crazy.
Donald Trump's tax returns were at least, ooh, it was nothing.
They're gonna try every single thing they can to win.
Now, I don't know if the Durham investigation is going to be politicized.
I'm gonna go ahead and say it probably will be.
You know, is there a legitimate case for a lot of these investigations?
I really do think so.
And maybe that's my bias, but let me tell you this.
When you see how Russiagate was complete nonsense, lunatic, just ridiculous conspiracy, you gotta wonder about why some of these things happened.
Why the investigations were carrying forward, and what are these... We just saw the text message released by this one FBI agent.
They bought insurance!
They bought liability insurance because they knew what they were doing was not legit.
That they were probably going to get sued because, you know, malpractice.
So, when you see something like that, it stands to reason, on the Trump side, they probably actually have some investigation.
The worst thing you can say about Trump is that he's like a sleazy business guy who, like, talks dirty.
But he's not the same as the crony, capitalist, you know, corporate establishment people.
The lying media.
You know, these news organizations that falsely frame things.
And I went over this in my main channel segment, if you didn't see it.
The New York Times opening paragraph, Trump only paid $750 in his taxes.
There's the lie.
Because they're going to say, actually he paid $5 million, but he was only responsible for $750.
How is that narrative that he only paid $7.50?
They are going to poll every single stop.
Every single one.
And it's going to be nuts.
We'll see how it plays out.
They say former FBI attorney Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty in August to falsifying a document to justify surveillance of Trump campaign advisor Carter Page as part of the Russia probe.
It was not clear at the time whether Clinesmith had flipped and was assisting Durham's investigation.
Senator Graham last week teased the newly reported scope of Durham's investigation, telling Sean Hennedy on Fox News to stay tuned.
You think you are mad about the phones being wiped, Graham said?
We'll talk in about 10 or 12 days, and we'll see if there's something else you can get mad about.
Ooh, I don't like Lindsey Graham, but I like what he's got to say there.
So maybe you didn't hear about this one other story.
This stuff's all very important.
There were I think like 13 to 31 phones, maybe I'm getting the numbers wrong, but like 30 phones or something that were wiped before being handed over.
Now that to me sounds like they're tampering with evidence.
Hillary Clinton smashed up her phones with hammers, wiped her computer server.
How is it that we know all of these things and these people have not been charged?
Rules for thee, but not for me.
Tell this country works, man, haves and have-nots.
That's why I'm more than happy to sit back and let Trump romp around and smash up the ivory tower like a bull in a china shop.
You think I'm going to want to give the keys back to Joe Biden?
He was in the previous administration.
Like, I'm grateful for term limits.
Otherwise Obama would probably got re-elected.
I know the left is probably saying, huh, if only Obama did get re-elected, they'd be cheering for it.
That's right, while he's blowing up kids in foreign countries.
Nah.
The establishment's crooked.
They're all crooked.
Trump's crooked in some ways, in different ways, but I don't think... They try to pretend like he's this mafioso mobster.
I don't see it.
I just see he's a sleazy business guy, okay?
You know, he's entertaining, he's funny.
I think he's done right by this country in a lot of ways.
I think he's messed up in many ways, too.
It's whatever.
Nobody's perfect.
But Trump isn't, at least on the surface, one of these crony establishment crooked... crooks!
Crooked crooks!
Trump used tax loopholes to reduce his tax liability.
Clinton Foundation, Durham Investigation Probe, They're looking into things where you actually have people using the power of government to enrich themselves.
Trump's losing money.
So what do they say when Trump loses money?
Oh, he's a national security threat now.
It's like, come on, man.
There's no right way for Trump to do literally anything.
If he loses money as president, they say, well, now he's a national security threat.
If he's making money, he's enriching himself by being president now.
His companies, excuse me, are not doing so well.
He's losing lots of money.
And maybe once he leaves the office, you know, presumably in four more years, we'll see what happens, you know, come next month, maybe he'll be out.
And then he'll start making a bunch of money again.
And it really is that simple.
Pay off his debts, it's whatever.
But when you combine what we see here with these stories, they got one guy, he's pleaded guilty, we'll see if there's actually going to be an October surprise.
You combine with how the media protects Joe Biden, and I'm just not having it.
I don't know if you guys saw, there was an Axios interview with Biden, and there was a CNN interview with Joe Biden, and they cower.
They cower before these people.
It is so pathetic.
When Jake Tapper, I think it was Tapper, he's talking to Jill Biden.
And he's like, so your husband gaffs?
And she goes, nope, nope, not doing it.
And he's like, OK, I won't ask any questions.
When you get the guy from Axios, he was like, you know, Joe, your son Hunter.
And then Joe's like, how dare you?
My son is like, well, you know, I just, he's like, oh, you're going to.
So, so, so scared.
What did the guy do when he was interviewing Trump on Axios?
He was like, no matter what Trump said, he was like, huh?
What?
Trump, you're so dumb.
I can't stand the media, dude.
You want to, you want to throw tough questions at Trump?
Do it.
I don't care.
If Trump commits a crime, arrest him, lock him up with the rest of them.
I don't care.
But these crony Democrats have been doing this nonstop forever.
And you got the bull, which is Trump, just smashing everything up, running through their house.
I mean, he's done right by the country, you know.
TPP was their house.
He got rid of that.
NAFTA, that was their house.
He got rid of that.
So I'm laughing.
I'm like, ha ha ha.
The corrupt cronies, they're gonna get their comeuppance.
Maybe nothing will come of this, I have no idea, but I'm just, I'm so over it.
I'm ready, I'm just ready to move on, and listen, the night is always darkest before the dawn.
I just don't understand why the progressives don't sit back and laugh about the bull rampaging through the establishment's house.
And then you can come back once we've gotten rid of the crooks.
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.
Well, I know this is probably bad news because it reflects poorly on our society, but at least we can laugh about this next story, right?
From Good Morning America, Cream of Wheat says it will remove black chef from box that some consumers found offensive.
Was this image of the chef on the Cream of Wheat box, I don't know, a former slave or anything like that?
Not that I'm aware of, no.
Was he in any way, I don't know, subjugated or...
I mean, I guess under just how America functioned at the time, you know, we didn't have civil rights law or anything like that.
But who is this guy?
Apparently his name was like Frank L. White or whatever, and he was actually a chef in Chicago who died in 1938, and he's just become the chef on the cream of Wheatbox.
They're offended by that.
They want to get rid of him.
Do you know who else gets offended when they see a black person on their name brand products?
Neo-Nazis.
White supremacists.
Oh.
They're probably the same thing.
The people getting offended and claiming to be on the left.
That's the secret, right?
When you see people like Richard Spencer, you know, the most prominent white nationalist probably in the world.
Well, maybe, maybe, yeah, maybe.
I mean, he's probably the most notable.
When you see him agreeing with someone like Ibram X. Kendi, you're like, they agree on these things.
So it's no surprise then when you see people getting offended at a cream of wheat box and saying that they don't want the black chef on it.
That's messed up, dude!
They got rid of- apparently they're gonna get rid of Mrs. Butterworth's.
She's not even black!
Mrs. Butterworth is just maple syrup!
It's a woman!
And it just so happens that maple syrup is like a dark amber color.
Can't have it!
Mrs. Butterworth isn't really even syrup anyway.
It's like, what do they call it?
Table syrup?
It's like a mixture of different syrups and like, I don't know, whatever.
It's not maple syrup, I'll tell you that.
I love the old school commercials where they were like, it's extra thick compared to maple syrup.
Sure.
Here we go.
Cream of Wheat is the latest food brand in a growing list of consumer packaged goods to make a permanent change to its imagery, slogan, or name amid continued calls for racial equality.
For years, the image of an African American chef appeared on our Cream of Wheat packaging.
While research indicates the image may be based upon an actual Chicago chef named Frank White, it reminds some consumers of earlier depictions they find offensive It's just a picture of a black dude!
What is wrong with you people?
You're racist!
Stop!
Chef Boyardee, who is that offending?
Are the Italians going out and flipping tables because Chef Boyardee has pretty low-grade ravioli?
That depiction of the Quaker guys back from, what, like the 1700s?
Where are the complaints about that?
There is one reason they're complaining about this.
One, because the dude is black.
But he would... You see?
That's racist.
You can have anyone else you want on your product, and it's no big deal.
What about Mr. Clean?
Bald, white dude.
Is that offensive to anybody?
Apparently not.
I don't know what you'd say about Mr. Clean.
The decision comes three months after the brand first said that it would immediately evaluate its packaging and proactively take steps to ensure that we and our brands do not inadvertently contribute to systemic racism.
Ben's Original, Mrs. Butterworth's, and Aunt Jemima have also taken action to address racial stereotypes in their packaging and names.
B&G Foods also said it recognizes the importance of diversity and inclusion in the culinary community and started a new philanthropic initiative by building relationships with several top culinary schools to help support, aid the development of African American and Latinx candidates through various scholarships and other initiatives.
I love it so much.
The absurdity.
It's nightmarish in a sense, like it's dystopian, and we're probably headed towards some kind of creepy future, but hey, you know, it's kind of funny, right?
It's just the sheer absurdity.
You know what I love about the word Latinx?
Is that it sounds like Kleenex, and it's used overwhelmingly by white people, and Latinos and Hispanic people don't like the word.
I think it was something like 6 or 7% know what it is and, like, are okay with it.
And the overwhelmingly, like, rest of these, you know, of Spanish-speaking people or Latinos are like, what?
Could you imagine talking to somebody and saying, like, I don't even know how you speak Spanish if you're replacing O's or A's with X's.
Like, if you were to talk, if you were to say, like, perra.
Like, a female dog.
No, it's perrex.
Or mi perro.
No, it's perrex.
You can't speak a language that way.
So why do they say Latinx?
That's, like, the most ridiculous thing.
The problem they have with that word is that, I'm getting to the language thing, but I have to, is that Latino is male and Latina is female.
And so apparently, like, it's offensive to do.
So are you, like, never going... What about words that, like, don't need to be gendered?
Like, Spanish has a lot of words.
That are like male or female and there's no real reason why.
Some people just like, you know, pointed out like, I don't know, it'll end with O or end with A. You're gonna make everything end with X?
It's not even a language anymore.
You can't speak that way.
It's almost like Wimmickson.
Do you know what Wimmickson is?
So, um...
You can't say women.
You can't say women with a Y or with an A. It's offensive.
They replaced the E in women with an X. So, Wimixin.
Apparently now they're saying it's pronounced Wiminks, which makes no sense because the X is before the N, so, like, the N should be before the X. Fine, whatever.
But, uh, I know, I'm going off on a tangent on language.
I actually got more on the product department.
Fred Perry stops selling polo shirt after it becomes associated with far-right group.
The clothes brand has described the issue as incredibly frustrating and condemned the far-right views.
You know what?
I don't know exactly where my beliefs would overlap with the Proud Boys.
Probably, like, free speech and, you know, like, supporting America.
I remember I met a bunch of Proud Boys.
They asked me if I would say, you know, the saying, it's like, you know, I refuse to apologize or whatever.
And I said, no.
I was like, I'll apologize.
I don't think we're perfect.
I'm not gonna, you know, march around and say, like, America's perfect.
I think we're the best in a lot of ways.
I think we've made mistakes.
So, like, if someone came to me and said, yo, your country drone-striked my country and killed a bunch of kids, I'd be like, man, I'm really sorry they're doing that.
We don't vote for that.
Like, most Americans vote against that stuff.
Some people vote for it.
We don't like those people.
For the most part, we're anti-war as a country.
So, I'm totally down to apologize when my tax dollars fund a war machine I absolutely hate.
Hence, Donald Trump, peace agreements, withdrawing troops, I like it.
I don't want to be, I don't have to be the person who goes to...
You know, to these foreigners and be like, oh yeah, I'm responsible for this.
I don't want to be.
I don't want our country doing this stuff.
Yeah, they do.
Anyway, I digress.
The Proud Boys believe a lot of things.
I don't necessarily agree with them, but I'll tell you what.
I think they should keep wearing a shirt.
You know why?
Because they're just wearing a shirt!
And now Fred Berry is freaking out because these polo shirts with the black and gold, it's like the Proud Boys uniform, basically.
Let me tell you something funny.
I was at an event.
It was in Berkeley.
And it was like right-wing groups showed up.
Ben Shapiro was speaking, I guess.
And I saw a dude wearing a black polo with yellow trim, gold trim or whatever.
And it wasn't a Fred Perry shirt though.
And so I noticed him and I asked him, I was like, are you with the Proud Boys?
And he's like, who?
And I was like, the Proud Boys.
He was just passing through.
And I was like, the shirt you're wearing, it's like what the Proud Boys wear.
He's like, I don't know what that is.
And I was like, oh, there's like a thing going on with like, you know, Antifa and like they're fighting.
It's like, oh, he ended up getting attacked by them.
I don't know to what degree, but like apparently he was like, I don't know.
And he just like went about his boop-doop-doop, walked through and they were like, Proud Boys!
Cause he was wearing a shirt.
So yeah.
It is now a part of the image.
I think it's hilarious they're getting rid of the shirt, they're not gonna sell it anymore.
Dude, the Proud Boys will just keep wearing the same style outfit.
But how stupid is it that we live in this world where these leftists claim to be anti-racist?
Well, no, I'm sorry, anti-racism is legit racism, okay?
Like, it's just a trick they do.
Anti-fascist doesn't mean they oppose fascism, it just means they're authoritarian wingnuts who don't like a different kind of authoritarian wingnut.
And anti-racism means they believe in all the tenets of racism, they just want a different outcome.
It's really that simple.
So when you have, like, the alt-right and you have the identitarian left, they believe all the same things, their goal is a slightly different outcome based on the same principles.
Right?
That's about it.
So anyway, you have these clothing companies that are going to get rid of a product because someone wore it.
So how insane is it that we live in a time where the Proud Boys can, I don't know, Proud Boys, hey, put on McDonald's hats.
Start using the McDonald's logo.
Apparently Fred Perry is investigating how they can get them to stop doing it, like some kind of legal action.
Dude, you can't.
You can't.
People can wear clothes.
Who are you gonna sue?
These people aren't part of, like, some financial structure.
It's some of the stupidest thing I've ever seen.
They say, The brand has long been associated with skinheads, who
originally denounced fascism, although the group divided in the 1970s as a small number of its
members swung to the far right.
The clothes brand has spoken out against far-right views on numerous occasions, after its wreath-emblazoned
polo shirts were used by controversial groups.
The Fred Perry shirt is a piece of British subculture uniform, adopted by various groups of people who recognize their own values in what it stands for the brand says.
We're proud of its lineage and what the laurel wreath has represented for over 65 years.
Inclusivity, diversity, and independence.
Despite its lineage, we have seen the black-yellow-yellow-twin-tip shirt is taking on a new and very different meaning in North America.
As a result of its association with the Proud Boys, that association is something we must do our best to end.
The brand revealed it is discontinuing the shirt in North America, so they'll order them from Europe, dude!
I was in Europe and I saw this.
People were walking around wearing these shirts.
And there was Antifa everywhere, so I was like, look, whether you want to accept it or not, you're allowing any one of these people to assume a symbol, and then you give in.
They take it from you.
I'll tell you what.
Red hats?
That's Trump's now.
They even say the red- Okay, so someone wants to make a red hat?
Nope.
It could be a sports team?
They're still gonna assume it's a Trump hat from behind.
Now you're letting them take your shirts away?
Okay.
Now what are you gonna do?
They wear blue jeans, huh?
Levi's?
What are you gonna do about that?
I love how stupid everything's become, but I'll leave it there.
