Biden Email LEAK Shows Evidence Joe Biden LIED About Ukraine Dealings, Democrats Are Freaking Out
Democrats are corrupt and there are no two ways about it.In a trove of leaked emails published by NY Post from a computer purportedly owned by Hunter Biden, emails show Hunter using his family name and access to his then VP Father Joe Biden to make more money. In one exchange a Ukrainian Businessman from Burisma is thanking Hunter for introducing him to his father and giving him the opportunity to meet and spend time.Democratic allies in media are freaking out claiming its fake news. Facebook has announced they are censoring this story to prevent it from going far even though its from a reputable news source.Censorship is out of hand and the corrupt Democrats are desperate to steal back power by any means necessary. Trump and Republicans must win and reform section 230 to prevent this abuse
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, has had emails and photographs leaked in a major breaking story and exclusive for the New York Post.
Now, this scandal is so serious, Democrats and their allies in media are panicking, trying to claim it's not true.
There's no evidence.
It's fake.
Facebook even saying they are actively censoring the story.
That's how serious the story is.
Some of the emails show that Hunter Biden was leveraging his father's name and access to his father in exchange for more money from some companies.
And one of the email exchanges show that Joe Biden may have actually lied when he said he did not discuss this foreign business with his son.
In fact, Ukrainian businessman thanked Hunter Biden for introducing him to Joe Biden himself.
Now, this is far from definitive, but this is a major story and it flies in the face of everything we've heard so far.
And I want to stress this point.
We went through years of Russiagate collusion, conspiracy, absurdity with no evidence.
Now we actually have emails suggesting Joe Biden is lying about this.
And it actually provides circumstantial evidence that Joe Biden got a Ukrainian prosecutor fired because he knew it would benefit his family.
The timeline fits.
Circumstantial evidence, not definitive proof.
I think this is more than enough to warrant an investigation.
Of course, we won't get one now.
Many journalists are already saying this is a hit from the right, a coordinated effort to smear Joe Biden, and that the Republicans have been planning this for some time.
In fact, Donald Trump was nearly impeached for trying to manufacture the false story.
Well, I got the facts.
I got the emails here from the New York Post.
And I can show you the timeline.
Zlochevsky, the guy who actually owned Burisma, the Ukrainian company that appointed Hunter Biden to the board, when Hunter Biden had no experience, didn't speak the language.
This guy was under investigation in Ukraine.
Joe Biden intervenes, gets the prosecutor fired.
The prosecution against Zolchevsky disappeared after that happened, flying in the face of what they're claiming.
I think the Bidens are dirty, man.
And I think we got the proof.
And I'll tell you this.
One of the photos that's been released, it appears to show Hunter Biden with a crack pipe in his mouth.
No joke.
This is serious stuff.
Let's get started and read through this.
Because beyond the severity of this scandal, Facebook is actively censoring this video.
So I'm gonna stress this point.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you would like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
I got a P.O.
box.
But the most important thing you can do, share this video.
Facebook is actively censoring the story, saying they are reducing its distribution on our platform, even though there has been no complaint by any third-party fact-checker as of yet.
This story is being suppressed by Facebook because it's serious, and in my opinion, because it proves impropriety among the Biden family.
They are crooked.
They are corrupt.
For the longest time, we heard these stories.
Politico magazine talked about how Joe Biden was benefiting his family using political connections and his political power.
All of a sudden, when it became clear that Joe Biden was going to be running, these stories started to disappear.
They started claiming Joe Biden was clean.
He's not.
That's a lot to say about Donald Trump's family, for sure.
But this is the Biden family, and this is the evidence we have been waiting for.
It's now being suppressed.
Share this video.
Do not let the suppression stop people from finding out what is going on with the Biden family.
Also, don't forget to like, subscribe and the notification bell if you want to get more videos like this.
But let's bring it back to the serious news from The New York Post.
Smoking gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to his vice president dad.
Now, what you need to understand before we go through all of this, Hunter Biden, Does not speak Ukrainian.
Has no experience in the energy sector.
Was placed on the board of directors for a Ukrainian energy company.
Why?
We don't really know.
Maybe he's just really good at sales or something?
I don't know.
Or it could be that his last name is Biden and this company knew they would be protected.
As I mentioned earlier, a prosecutor was investigating the company and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky.
Joe Biden at some point intervened and bragged about getting that prosecutor fired.
Now, it's argued that there were international interests in getting the prosecutor fired.
Sure.
Well, Joe Biden personally did it.
And as soon as that prosecutor left, within a short amount of time, the prosecution against Burisma and Zlochesky disappeared.
If the argument from Biden was that the prosecutor wasn't going after the corrupt, wasn't going after this corrupt individual, then why did the new prosecutor who got appointed Drop the case.
And why didn't Joe Biden intervene again?
It was only after Donald Trump got into office that the case came back and Zlochevsky fled.
Joe Biden, in my opinion, based on these facts, crooked.
Here's the evidence.
Hunter Biden introduced his father, then-Vice President Joe Biden, to a top executive at a Ukrainian energy firm less than a year before the elder Biden pressured government officials in Ukraine into firing a prosecutor who was investigating the company, according to emails obtained by The Post.
The never-before-revealed meeting is mentioned in a message of appreciation by Vadim Pozarski, an advisor to the board of Burisma, allegedly sent Hunter Biden on April 17, 2015, about a year after Hunter joined the Burisma board, at a reported salary of up to $50,000 per month.
Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to D.C.
and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent some time together.
It's realty and honor and pleasure, the email reads.
Now perhaps, to be fair, this man doesn't speak proper English.
I'm not trying to disrespect him, but we can see there are several errors in what he's saying.
Thank you for inviting me to D.C.
and giving an opportunity to meet your father.
Doesn't mean he did meet his father.
But I think a colloquial understanding of giving me the opportunity to meet your father means you did meet the father.
Spent some time together.
Sounds like he actually met Joe, and spent time with Joe.
Again, to be fair, it could mean that he spent time with Hunter, and Hunter offered an invite that never followed through.
That is reaching.
The simple solution, understanding, this, this, this, Occam's razor would suggest.
The simple understanding is, thanks for meeting up with me and giving me the opportunity to meet your dad.
Thanks.
He met him.
Joe Biden lied, according to this story.
An earlier email from May 2014 also shows Posarsky, reportedly Burisma's number three executive, asking Hunter for advice on how you could use your influence on the company's behalf.
The blockbuster correspondence Correspondence, which flies in the face of Joe Biden's claim that he never spoke to my son about his overseas business dealings, is contained in a massive trove of data recovered from a laptop computer.
The computer was dropped off at a repair shop in Biden's home state of Delaware in April 2019, according to the store's owner.
Other material extracted from the computer includes a raunchy 12-minute video that appears to show Hunter, who's admitted struggling with addiction problems, smoking crack while engaged in a sex act with an unidentified woman, as well as numerous other explicit images.
The customer who brought in the water-damaged MacBook Pro for repair never paid for the service or retrieved it or a hard drive on which its contents were stored, according to the shop owner, who said he tried repeatedly to contact the client.
The shop owner couldn't positively identify the customer as Hunter Biden, but said the laptop bore a sticker from the Beau Biden Foundation, named after Hunter's late brother and former Delaware Attorney General.
Photos of a Delaware federal court subpoena given to The Post show that both the computer and hard drive were seized by the FBI in December after the shop's owner says he alerted the feds to their existence.
But before turning over the gear, the shop owner says he made a copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani's lawyer, Robert Costello.
Steve Bannon, former advisor to President Trump, told the Post about the existence of the hard drive in late September, and Giuliani provided the Post with a copy of it on Sunday.
I'm going to stop right there.
Why?
Why didn't Rudy Giuliani release this information sooner?
Why didn't he come out and say, we have the proof?
Well, okay, he did say he had the proof.
Why didn't he just reveal this?
You know what?
Dirty politics.
I'll say it right away.
Doesn't change the fact that it's true.
It doesn't challenge, it doesn't change the fact that this may be legitimate.
That's the point I'm trying to make.
A lot of people are now questioning the story, saying, no way, I don't believe it.
Rudy was sitting on this.
It's a political coordinated campaign.
Yes, I think that's obvious.
Welcome to October 2020.
The October surprises are going to be tenfold, and this is just one of them.
Now, just because they held this for release in October doesn't mean the information is fake.
And if I found out about this a year ago, I'd still be extremely upset and concerned about the dealings of Joe Biden and his son and their corruption.
Absolutely.
Perhaps we're just lucky it was done this way because now it's fresh in our minds as we approach election day.
I think we're playing politics here.
I think you're gonna see a lot of stuff get released in October, but it doesn't matter.
If it's true, it's true.
And I think it is.
Less than eight months after Pizarski thanked Hunter Biden for the introduction to his dad, the then-Vice President admittedly pressured Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenuk into getting rid of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin by threatening to withhold a $1 billion U.S.
loan guarantee during a December 15th trip to Kiev.
Remember that date.
I looked at them and said, I'm leaving in six hours.
If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.
Biden infamously bragged to the Council on Foreign Relations in 2018.
Well, son of a B, he got fired.
Shoken has said that at the time of his firing in March 2016, he made specific plans to investigate Burisma that included interrogations and other crime investigation procedures into all members of the executive board, including Hunter Biden.
Joe Biden has insisted that the U.S.
wanted Shokin removed over corruption concerns, which were shared by the European Union.
Meanwhile, an email dated May 12, 2014, shortly after Hunter Biden joined the Burisma Board, shows Pazarsky attempting to get him to use his political leverage to help the company.
The message had the subject line, Urgent Issue, and was also sent to Hunter Biden's business partner, Devin Archer, who also sat on the Burisma Board at the time.
Remember that date, December 2015.
I'm sorry, December 2015.
When they were pressuring the Prime Minister to get rid of the Prosecutor General.
First, I'm going to show you this.
Hunter Biden emails show leveraging connections with his father to boost Burisma pay.
No wonder they wanted to leverage his name.
He had already said it.
Check this out.
In a lengthy memo to his then-business partner, Devin Archer, who already sat on the Burisma board, Biden repeatedly mentioned my guy while apparently referring to then-Vice President Joe Biden.
Under Barack Obama, the elder Biden was the point person for U.S.
policy toward Ukraine.
And he held a press conference there with Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk on April 22nd, 2014.
Hunter Biden's email to Archer is dated a little more than a week later.
The announcement of my guy's upcoming travel travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking.
But what he will say and do is out of our hands.
In other words, it could be a really good thing or could end up creating too great an expectation.
We need to temper expectations regarding that visit.
Making money off his family name.
I bring you now to Wikipedia.
This is the Wikipedia entry for Mykolas Lachewski.
This man is the founder of Burisma, the company in question.
Let me show you something.
In April 2014, the Serious Fraud Office froze approximately $23 million dollars belonging to companies controlled by Slotchevsky.
At the end of 2014, Slotchevsky fled Ukraine amid allegations of unlawful self-enrichment and legalization of funds.
Interesting.
During his tenure in public office, in January 2015, Prosecutor General Vitaly Yarima announced that Zlochevsky had been put on the wanted list for alleged financial corruption.
At the end of January 2015, the Central Criminal Court in London released the $23 million that were blocked in accounts of Zlochevsky due to inadequate evidence.
In June of 2018, the Serious Fraud Office stated the case was closed.
Slotchevsky returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after investigations into his Burisma holdings had been completed in December 2017 with no charges filed against him.
Interesting.
The guy responsible for Burisma was under investigation.
Joe Biden came in December 5th, 2015, and said, fire the prosecutor, who would have potentially investigated this guy.
And then we found out, eventually the charges were dropped.
Joe Biden has said the reason they wanted the prosecutor removed is because he was not pursuing charges.
I've covered this in great detail in the stories we're breaking, but think about what this means.
If the man had his charges dropped eventually, and Joe Biden was demanding an investigation into him, well, at the very least, Joe Biden got a guy fired for not investigating an innocent man.
Now that's bad, right?
Okay.
Investigations, sometimes you need them, even if the person is innocent.
But think about what it may actually mean when we realize the fraud charges were brought back in 2018, I believe.
They say on April 18th, 2018, an alleged recording or part of a conversation between Poroshenko and fugitive lawmaker was released, implicated Zlochevsky in graft.
I'm not going to get into the full details and read you this.
the Solom Solomiansky District Court in Kiev had annulled the ruling of the special prosecutor
anti-corruption prosecutor's office to close criminal proceedings against him.
Volchevsky was accused of having illegally issued. I'm not going to get into the full
details and read you this. It's a it's a it's a bit in the weeds, but let me just put it this way.
Joe Biden says the prosecutor wasn't doing his job.
Fires him.
The guy who comes in clears Lachevsky of wrongdoing.
Donald Trump gets elected.
Now he's being accused of crimes again.
He fled Ukraine.
He came back.
I'm not saying that proves anything.
I'm not saying it proves Donald Trump is the anti-corruption leader.
I'm just saying Joe Biden's excuses make absolutely no sense.
You add this to the new existing evidence and the things we're seeing, and I'm going to tell you right away, it really does seem like Joe Biden is corrupt as they come.
Will it matter though?
I don't know.
People have made up their minds right now, but this could be the October surprise Trump maybe needs for a big boost because we've got more information here.
We got tons of information pouring out about this.
A Senate committee is investigating a bombshell cache of documents about Hunter Biden's foreign dealings acquired by a Delaware computer repairman and exposed Wednesday by the Post.
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee confirmed it is working with the repairman, whose identity was confirmed by the Post, to verify the documents.
An email from the cachet indicates Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden met with Vadim Pozarski, an advisor to the board of Ukrainian energy company Burisma, while it employed his son.
At the time, Biden led the Obama administration's Ukraine policy.
Biden said last year, very famously, I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings, including his reported $83,000 monthly pay on Burisma's board.
Now, the reason that number is different from the $50,000 is that I don't believe all of the money came in in one payment.
So there's been speculation as to whether it was $50,000 or $83,000.
There's a lot we don't know.
There's a lot we still don't know.
This isn't definitive proof.
It is circumstantial evidence.
It is evidence.
It's more than enough in my opinion, at least, and I'm not a judge or prosecutor or an investigator.
But I believe what we're looking at here needs to be investigated.
I mean, if they're going to go after Trump and Flynn and all these people on the flimsy and scant evidence and the false FISA warrants, this needs to be absolutely investigated.
And now I'll tell you where the nightmare dystopia part kicks in.
Andy Stone works for Facebook, Communications at Facebook, and formerly House Majority PAC Senator Boxer, the DCCC.
That's the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
And he posted this on Twitter.
While I will intentionally not link to the New York Post, I want to be clear that this story is eligible to be fact-checked by Facebook's third-party fact-checking partners.
In the meantime, we are reducing its distribution on our platform.
What?
The level of depravity and evil from Facebook, from Andy Stone, is beyond denial.
There's no denying it anymore.
A former Democratic staffer, now working at Facebook, is saying that they are censoring a major breaking story on the Biden family before it has been fact-checked, even though it's been published by a reputable news source, the New York Post.
This makes no sense.
What gives Facebook the right to have a former Democratic staffer suppressing breaking news on their platform?
We're in trouble.
I want you to imagine you make a phone call to your friend and say, did you see this major breaking story?
And the phone line disconnects.
But we're just reducing the likelihood that this story spreads, says AT&T or Verizon.
That would be horrifying.
Now some would argue, but that's a private phone call.
Did you know that Facebook removes posts from private messages on its platform?
Facebook is actively suppressing information that hurts political candidates it likes.
You need to regulate these companies before it is too late.
I think it is too late.
At least for now.
Because if this manipulation and this censorship costs Donald Trump and the Republicans the election, well, it's their own damn fault.
I've been saying for years now, the Republicans are too stupid to have solved this problem.
It's unfortunate.
They had the opportunity.
They failed.
The DOJ has issued guidelines on reforming Section 230.
But for too long, feckless and pathetic politicians, Democrats and Republicans alike, didn't do anything about it.
Now, Democrats seem to be cheering it on because it's hurting the Republicans because this guy Andy Stone, he's a Democrat.
And he's suppressing information that's bad for Democrats.
The Republicans weren't smart enough to see it coming.
They had, in 2016, a majority.
They could have easily passed 230 reform.
They didn't.
Now it's 2020.
And it may, unfortunately, be too late for Republicans.
Maybe the Republicans in 2016, the crony establishment, didn't want to.
They didn't like the fact that Trump won.
They hate him just as much as the Democrats do.
That's why you get the Lincoln Project, which is former Republicans now helping Democrats win.
Why?
Because their allegiance is to the establishment, not to principle.
The goals of the likes of the Lincoln Project and these never-Trump Republicans is not policy.
It's not pro-life.
It's not lower taxes, deregulation.
It's power.
Crony establishment power.
And they will get it from Democrats if they have to.
Not from the principled individuals who are trying to come in and fix things.
We already saw how bad this gets.
Facebook removes Trump ads about Joe Biden, COVID-19, and refugees.
Facebook has removed 216 Trump ads that claimed, quote, despite the health risks of COVID-19, Joe Biden will increase refugees from Somalia, Syria, and Yemen.
They said, We rejected these ads because we don't allow claims that people's physical safety, health, or survival is threatened by people on the basis of their national origin or immigration status, a Facebook spokesperson told CBS News via email.
But what if people want to vote based on those issues?
You can't talk about them anymore.
Facebook has removed Donald Trump's advertisements on issues that Americans absolutely care about.
That's it.
We're there.
Right now we have a story that provides clear-cut evidence that Joe Biden is crooked.
He lied to us.
He was using the power of office to enrich his family and in turn himself.
And Facebook is suppressing the news.
It's only going to get worse from here.
Republicans had their chance.
Right now there's one thing that needs to be done.
I'm sure most of you are familiar with that famous poem, you know, first they came for, you know, communists.
I don't believe in censorship for anybody.
I believe there are limits to speech like don't incite violence.
But I believe people have a right to express their opinions.
Facebook is an open public platform for everyone and thus everyone should be allowed to share their opinions.
That's not what's happening right now.
Right now censorship is taking hold.
I believe the Republicans need to win.
Because only a clean sweep by Republicans will actually allow them to reform Section 230, end this censorship, and prevent corrupt Democrats from taking hold of the reins.
In a previous segment, I talked about the potential for escalated riots.
We will see that too.
Joe Biden doesn't care.
He doesn't care about you.
He doesn't care about anybody.
He cares about winning.
That's all the Democrats care about.
You know, they put out this rap battle video that really, really shocked me.
In it, there are two black men rapping at each other.
One saying, I don't want to vote, Trump sucks, but I don't want to vote for Biden.
The other saying, here's why Biden is good.
Interestingly, in it, it's just lies.
The one guy says, I don't care to vote because black unemployment is so high.
It's only been high this year along with everyone else due to COVID.
This is what they're doing.
They're lying to the American people.
We had a great economy.
Donald Trump's economy was fantastic.
If that's your issue, then you should vote for Trump.
Most people actually see that.
And when it comes to the approval rating of Trump on the economy, he's actually beating Joe Biden.
But politics is a dirty game, so of course Joe Biden's going to lie, cheat, and steal to try and win.
Of course the far-left extremists are going to lie, cheat, and steal, and threaten violence to get what they want.
I don't like the Republicans very much, at all.
But at least when I look at Republicans, I see some semblance of American policy and American politics.
When I look at Donald Trump, I see somebody who has got a bad attitude, and I think he's got his problems, and he has a lot to criticize him for.
But at least what he's talking about is still America.
At least he's not doing what Joe Biden did for 47 years.
I can't believe there are people right now suggesting that what we need to solve the problems is the corrupt crony establishment back in power.
What were they doing for anyone?
Selling out our factories to China?
Trying to enforce the Trans-Pacific Partnership?
Get assigned into that?
NAFTA?
These failed agreements cost us jobs, hurt the middle class.
And made everything worse.
Under Donald Trump, the economy was skyrocketing.
Life was getting better for people.
And then COVID happened.
Did people really forget that?
Under the Obama administration, we saw more war, drone strikes, civilians dying.
Flint never got fixed.
We saw the rise of Black Lives Matter in the beginning of these riots.
Why would we want that back?
Donald Trump was obstructed for his entire first term and he's still got a lot done.
The Russiagate investigation was bunk.
And now here we are.
I believe at the very least, in order to be fair, Joe Biden must be investigated now for these claims.
It's beginning.
But we'll see where that leads us.
Because I have a feeling, with Facebook suppressing the story, with the crony Democrat media protecting Joe Biden, I don't think we'll get it.
We'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastnews.
It is my other channel.
I will see you all then.
Again, 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out.
We have two major breaking stories in the Kyle Rittenhouse case, and I'm just going to come right out and say it.
I think Kyle Rittenhouse is going to walk on the most serious charges he's facing.
I think it's very likely that in Wisconsin, the only real penalty he pays is due to carrying a weapon under the age of 18.
I think when it comes to intentional homicide, I think he's gonna win.
We have two stories.
The first from the Gateway Pundits, Cassandra Fairbanks.
Man who fired first shots behind Kyle Rittenhouse in Kenosha has been charged.
That's right.
Kyle did not fire first.
Someone fired behind him.
He turned around.
This guy, Rosenbaum, tried grabbing his weapon, and that's when Rittenhouse returned fire.
Only upon believing that he was being shot at and then seeing someone lunging for him and attacking him as he was fleeing already, I think we've got a very clear-cut case of self-defense.
Now, he wasn't supposed to be carrying that weapon.
However, we also have another huge story coming out of Illinois.
Kyle Rittenhouse won't face charges in Illinois for Kenosha shooting.
Now, of course, people are probably asking, what does Illinois have to do with a Wisconsin shooting?
The narrative from the left is that Kyle Rittenhouse took this weapon across state lines.
Not true.
Confirmed now.
Illinois will not press charges.
Kyle Rittenhouse did not carry a weapon across state lines.
This straight up debunks the left's fake narrative, and Illinois will not be pursuing charges because of it.
That says to me.
The charges that are most likely to stick is just the single charge from Kenosha of carrying a weapon under the age.
I think self-defense is a separate issue.
And based on the legal analysis I've seen from left and right, they suggest that simply by having the weapon illegally does not negate a self-defense claim.
So...
In that regard, I think it's very likely he's going to walk.
But let's take a look at this story.
The first thing I want to say, as I often say, I am not a fan of the Gateway pundit.
I actually think they do a fairly bad job.
However, Cassandra Fairbanks does a fairly good job, and they do have the actual arrest charging documents here in the article.
So, in rare circumstances, I'm willing to use Gateway, particularly when it's Cassandra Fairbanks, because I know her and I trust her that she's doing a good job and she has the facts.
Here's the story.
Cassandra writes, The man who fired the first shots from behind Kyle Rittenhouse during the fatal incident in Kenosha has been charged.
Joshua Zeminski, 35, has been charged with disorderly conduct and use of a dangerous weapon for firing his weapon during the incident on August 25th.
According to the charging document obtained by the Gateway Pundit, while investigating the shooting by Rittenhouse, Kenosha detectives obtained videos in which Zeminski was holding a black handgun.
So there's actually a video put out by Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team where you can see, I believe you can see this man holding the weapon.
He was able to see the defendant and Kelly Zeminski in and around multiple other people
on the streets.
And the defendant was seen holding the handgun down at his side in said videos.
So there's actually a video put out by Kyle Rittenhouse's defense team where you can see,
I believe you can see this man holding the weapon.
Here's a quote.
In another video, the defendant and Kelly are seen walking near a fire in the area of
the ultimate gas station lot.
In later video, the defendant's right arm is seen on the video which is taken near 63rd Street and Sheridan Road in the city and county of Kenosha, state of Wisconsin.
Detective Howard reports that, uh, reports the defendant's arm pointing the gun upward toward the sky.
The document explains.
Detective Howard observed a muzzle flash emit from the handgun and heard a gunshot at the same time.
In another video, the defendant is clearly seen at the same location.
The defendant is seen walking in the same area, holding his right arm upwards and firing off one shot from his handgun.
The defendant and his wife are seen leaving the area.
Several other people are in the nearby vicinity when the defendant fires the handgun.
I hate to say it, but I called this.
I predicted this.
My fear over the past several years was that with more and more people bringing guns to these events, eventually what will happen is someone will fire a shot in the air, and they've done it before, and that would result in someone believing they were being shot at.
That's all it takes.
Someone, uh, it's this man, Zeminsky, who lit the powder keg.
He lit the fuse on that powder keg.
Kyle Rittenhouse running from someone chasing him.
Hearing a gunshot, turning around to assess the threat, getting attacked, and then firing clearly in self-defense.
That's the story we have for now.
Let's read more.
The police go on to report that when speaking to Zeminsky and his wife, who was present at the time, both admitted that he had fired off a warning shot into the air.
That is not legal!
There is no such thing as pointing a gun in the air and shooting it.
These people watch too many movies.
Warning shots you fire.
Well, first of all, I don't think you're supposed to fire a warning shot.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, because many of you probably are gun owners with gun experience and, and, and, you know, understanding of the law.
My understanding, with any kind of warning shot, if for whatever reason you're going to do it, is into the ground.
And my understanding is that typically you don't fire warning shots at all.
Okay?
If you truly fear for your life, and so you're going to use your weapon, you wouldn't be shooting up into the air.
And guess what?
Bullets come down.
So no, these people are not firing warning shots.
They're being reckless.
This strengthens the case that Rittenhouse had reason to fear for his life and was acting in self-defense when he shot and killed two rioters.
A New York Times timeline of events of the shooting states.
While Mr. Rittenhouse is being pursued by the group, an unknown gunman fires into the air, though it's unclear why.
The weapon's muzzle flash appears in footage filmed at the scene.
Mr. Rittenhouse turned towards the sound of gunfire, as another pursuer lunges toward him from the same direction.
Mr. Rittenhouse then fires four times, and appears to shoot the man in the head.
The Times Report continues.
I actually sat down and spoke with DC Riot Squad for the IRL podcast, who explained what, uh, Richie McGinnis, who was there on the ground, he was the first person there to, uh, render aid to Rosenbaum as he lay dying.
And he said... Actually, I don't know if it was Richie who told me this.
My understanding is that Kyle was shooting as the man was falling.
It may have been Richie, but it may have been someone else in the riot squad.
Somebody who was there.
I don't want to misattribute quotes to individuals.
That's why I'm trying to be careful.
But that Rosenbaum got hit and was falling down as Kyle was shooting.
But that was when Rosenbaum reached for his gun.
We then see these tweets from Robbie Starbuck showing, yes, that Kyle Rittenhouse was fired up.
Someone fired first.
Gateway says, Rittenhouse 17 is charged with first-degree intentional homicide.
He is currently in a juvenile detention center in Lake County without bond and is due to appear in court again on October 30th.
It was reported on Tuesday that Rittenhouse will not be charged in Illinois for the weapon used during the riot.
Rittenhouse is a community lifeguard who was working in Kenosha the day of the shooting.
In a previous statement from Rittenhouse's defense team, they explained he was acting in self-defense, saying, Kyle stopped to ensure care for the wounded attacker, but faced a growing mob gesturing towards him.
He realized he needed to flee for his safety and his survival.
Another attacker struck Kyle from behind as he fled down the street.
Kyle turned as the mob pressed in on him, and he fell to the ground, his legal team says.
One attacker kicked Kyle on the ground while he was on the ground, yet another bashed him with a skateboard.
Several riders tried to disarm Kyle.
In fear for his life and concern, the crowd would either continue to shoot at him, or even use his own weapon against him.
Kyle had no choice but to fire multiple rounds towards his immediate attackers, striking two, including one armed attacker.
The rest of the mob began to disperse upon hearing the additional gunshots.
Considering this story and the story out of Denver, where an unlicensed leftist, uh, I guess we'll call him a security guard, killed a Trump supporter, we've, uh, me and the crew have been looking at gun laws in various states.
And I'll tell you this.
From our general understanding, in many places, to say the least, because we didn't go through every single jurisdiction, but it seems in many places, if you try to grab someone's weapon, that is considered a lethal threat against you.
Reaching for a weapon of their own or yours will put a person in reasonable fear of death.
In which case, when they tried taking his gun from him, He was firing in self-defense.
Now these leftists believe they were trying to disarm a mass shooter.
That's insane.
And I'll tell you what, I mean, there is an argument that in these chaotic situations there is a risk to everyone being armed.
You know, so one of the things we often hear about is when you have a mass shooting incident, And you have a bunch of people who may be armed.
Who do they shoot at?
How do they know who the threat is?
Look, I'm not going to pretend that every single person who has a gun knows what they're doing with it.
I think it's a decent argument, because in this circumstance, these leftists, you know, I'm not going to call all of them rioters, but they were pretty much all rioting.
And I'm saying that because we're dealing with individuals who died, the presumption of innocence, and, you know, I think it's important to have the details as straightforward as possible.
But if you have this guy, Anthony Huber, who took a bolt to the heart, thinking that this guy is a mass shooter and he's gotta get his gun away from him, well, that's just chaos.
It's just chaos at the scene.
I think the problem is mob mentality.
These people are all attacking a guy who's got a gun instead of leaving.
I wonder...
You know, there was that viral internet post where apparently the third guy who got his bicep blown off said that his only regret was not killing Rittenhouse.
It makes me wonder about how you avoid situations like this.
I'm not gonna pretend to know how, you know, what the laws should represent, what it's like to even be in a situation like this.
I wasn't there on the ground.
I have had a lot of people tell me that they thought Kyle Rittenhouse did a good job in terms of assessing the threat, fleeing, and from, you know, you couldn't...
I've criticized him saying he was foolish.
And what I mean by that is I don't think he should have gone out there with a gun because things like this are too likely to occur.
Others have said there's a duty from individuals to guard their community, and that when presented with people with their hands up, he lowered his weapon, and it would seem that he was acting coolly and calmly, and seemed to have been doing a good job in that regard.
I'm not saying that.
I don't know.
That's what I'm saying.
What I am saying, however, is that based on this charging document right here, we can see it.
Disorderly conduct and use of a dangerous weapon.
I think it's fair to say this is tremendous evidence for self-defense for Kyle Rittenhouse.
But this one right here debunks the entire leftist narrative on Kyle Rittenhouse.
Share this story.
Share this one.
For every single person who says he brought a gun across state lines to go hunting.
Nope.
Illinois said no.
He did not possess this weapon in Illinois.
Check it out.
Cal Rittenhouse accused of killing two protesters.
Protesters?
We'll call them unresters.
That's the AP guideline, right?
Days after Jacob Blake was shot by police in Kenosha, will not face charges in his home state of Illinois, prosecutors said Tuesday.
An investigation revealed the gun used in the Kenosha shooting was purchased, stored, and used in Wisconsin.
The Lake County State's Attorney's Office said, there is no evidence the gun was ever physically possessed by 17-year-old Rittenhouse in Illinois.
I'm sick!
Rittenhouse of Antioch remains held in juvenile detention center in Lake County without bond.
We understand this.
His arrest became a rallying point for some on the on the right with a legal defense fund
that has attracted millions of dollars in donations.
But others see Rittenhouse as a domestic terrorist whose presence with a rifle incited the protesters.
I'm sick.
I am sick of this equivocation.
For three nights in Kenosha, they were burning down buildings, calling Kyle a domestic terrorist.
That's disgusting.
Look, I said he was foolish, but that is a very, very tame criticism.
He's a 17-year-old kid who came out, wanted to defend his community.
I get it.
I don't think it was the right move.
Law enforcement needs to handle these things.
As for his skills, his, you know, his trigger discipline, all that stuff, I hear that he did a good job in that regard.
I would have preferred him not to have to be there.
But let me just tell you, before I would ever criticize Kyle Rittenhouse, I'm gonna criticize the police for not intervening and stopping the rioters.
I'm gonna criticize the rioters for being there before I criticize the police!
There's a video from Kenosha, where I believe the man's 70 years old, an old man, watching his store be looted and burned down.
Runs up with a fire extinguisher and starts spraying people with it.
Not in any way a harmful threat to anyone.
More of a nuisance.
And someone runs up with a rock and bashes him over the back of the head with it.
Leaving him laying on the ground in a pool of his own blood.
That's what was happening in Kenosha.
Previously, in Wisconsin, people were tearing down statues of Union soldier heroes, Hans Christian Hegg, and attacking people going into stores.
I'm not surprised Kyle Rittenhouse wanted to defend his community.
I am extremely upset with the governor of Wisconsin, and this is a failure at the highest level.
We cannot.
We need two things in this country, in these circumstances.
One, the police need to be able to make arrests, and they need to be arresting these people immediately.
And two, we need our government, our law enforcement, to take these situations seriously, prosecute these individuals, accept help where it's due.
The police needed to come in.
They needed to shut this down.
For whatever reason, they didn't.
These people were pushing a flaming dumpster towards a gas station.
Where was the governor when the police said we needed the National Guard?
I don't know what to tell you, man.
But because of these things, because of the failures of the Democrat governor who refused Trump's offer for federal law enforcement assistance and National Guard, because the police did not go in for whatever reason, Because the rioters are not being prosecuted.
Kyle Rittenhouse came out.
You know, when I say, what do you think is going to happen in these circumstances, people on the left try to criticize me saying that I'm extremist rhetoric inciting this stuff.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
First of all, I can say 50 million times, we need a neutral, objective law enforcement to stop conflict.
That's above all else, right?
This is why police need to be the ones to shut this down.
The police need to be a non-partisan, no-violence, enforce-the-law system.
That's not what's happening.
But the left doesn't like it when I say, what do you think's gonna happen if the police stand down?
What do you think's gonna happen if the police are defunded?
What do you think happens when the governor refuses to bring in the required or requested amount of National Guard and federal law enforcement?
When you see businesses burned to the ground and people's lives destroyed, which we have seen over and over again, don't be surprised when you see a Kyle Rittenhouse.
And let me be clear, Kyle Rittenhouse was rendering first aid to the rioters.
Yeah.
You see, he came out not with the intent to kill anybody, which is clear, in his providing first aid to the injured.
He came out with the intent of helping maintain some order in his community.
And I think, ultimately, Things fell apart.
It went really, really bad.
And I'll tell you why.
You can't expect Kyle Rittenhouse or a handful of armed individuals to maintain the peace.
It's not enough.
Otherwise, I'll tell you what happens.
People die.
Let me make something clear.
A lot of people talk about demilitarizing the police, and I think there is an argument for this escalation that we're seeing.
The problem is demilitarizing the police first requires a de-escalation from extremist tactics.
If the far left are throwing molotovs and trying to push flaming dumpsters into gas stations, which could blow it up, the police need protective gear.
The more options the police have, the less likely people are to die.
Case in point, chokeholds.
Think about what a chokehold does when properly applied, it makes someone pass out.
They call it a chokehold but I think in many circumstances if you put your arm around someone's neck and you're putting pressure on their carotid or their jugular or whatever, I'm not a doctor, whatever the veins in the neck are, they pass out.
Neutralized threat, minimal harm to the individual.
They can then put on the handcuffs, put them in the vehicle, and the person can spit and yell and kick and do whatever they want in the back of that vehicle.
If they can't do chokeholds, just because some people have died in chokeholds, well then, what are their options?
Now they've got Taser, which sometimes fails, now they've got lethal ammunition from their handgun.
The police need resources to stop riots, and the police need the numbers to stop riots.
This is what you get right now when the police can't come in and do their job.
Large amounts of police.
Not enough.
So you get a small group of individuals who want to help render first aid and also protect themselves.
But if you've got a hundred rioters, and you've got four dudes with guns, and the rioters start attacking the dudes with guns, do you think the dudes with guns are just going to sit back and say, well, guess I'll die?
No.
They're gonna say, I have to neutralize the threat before me.
Now, what if you had 200 riot police and 100 rioters?
The 200 riot police easily overwhelm them, have less lethal munitions, tear gas, and can shut down and disperse this without causing loss of life.
What do we hear from the left?
They're getting injured.
The cops are firing beanbags at them or rubber bullets and it's hitting people and they're getting bruises and abrasions.
This is one of the problems that humans have.
It's a bias.
Because we don't see the worst when it's prevented, we assume what we're facing is the worst.
The worst that could possibly happen in a riot, in my opinion, would be a small handful of tactical officers with guns firing live ammo and just killing rioters.
That doesn't happen.
Why?
Because we've equipped the police with options.
Less lethal munitions to not kill people.
And I think it's a good thing.
But what happens when you give these officers tear gas instead of bullets?
Well, now the protesters are like, they're tear gassing us and this is wrong!
What's the alternative?
Let them burn down the neighborhood or blow up a gas station?
I think if someone was going to blow up a gas station and a cop was there and his only option was his handgun, he'd probably shoot the person.
And we don't want that to happen either, but that's the point of having weapons so you can act in defense of yourself and others.
Here's what we really want.
The rioters to stop.
You do not win with riots.
You're helping Donald Trump and the data shows it.
Riots hurt your cause.
So why are these leftists pursuing this over and over again?
I don't know.
No reason.
They're stupid.
They're angry.
They want to smash things.
And it's only going to make things worse for them.
It's going to result in people voting for more law enforcement.
And when the law enforcement can't do their job because they're being defunded and attacked, or because feckless Democratic governors refuse to bring the National Guard, it's going to result in people like Kyle Rittenhouse coming out and saying, something has to be done.
But you know, I don't know about every jurisdiction, but I'll tell you, regular citizens can't buy less lethal munitions.
I mean, you can buy paintballs, but you can't get beanbags, pepper balls, or stuff.
Apparently, this is not legal for civilian use.
I wonder why that is.
The only option a civilian has is a lethal weapon when going out and dealing with these things.
If the police are defunded and gone, they will be replaced by neighborhood watch with lethal munitions.
We do not want that.
We want the police to be funded, trained, to be able to shut these riots down with minimal damage, injury, or loss of life?
And we want the riots to stop!
They're gonna keep rioting though.
They're still doing it.
Tearing down statues.
I mean, I got a ton of stories on this today.
I got a ton of stories.
It's crazy.
But I felt the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff was probably the most important, so I think we'll leave it at this one.
There's some other stories out of people in Portland.
A lot of out-of-state individuals traveling around causing this violence.
We got a big story from Project Veritas coming up later in the day because this is relevant to the election.
There's a big question pertaining to whether or not the left will riot if Joe Biden wins.
And the answer is, if Joe Biden wins, we now know, thanks to Project Veritas, it will be worse than you realize.
Why?
I'm gonna go through all of this in a later segment.
But it seems, under Donald Trump, the rioters will be marginalized and crushed by law enforcement.
I mean, Trump is trying to do it now.
Under Joe Biden, the rioters have pledged to riot any time he doesn't do what they want.
And considering the Democrats won't do anything about it, it means the riots will get worse.
Unless, of course, the Democrats just give them what they want and give in to the extremists.
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.
A question I get asked often is, if Joe Biden wins, do you think the riots will keep going?
And it's a complicated question because it has a lot to do with Trump's rhetoric and Joe Biden's rhetoric, where we hear Trump say, in Biden's America, you will get more riots.
And he shows images of riots that are happening now as Trump is president.
But many people on the left say that the riots are because of Trump.
Now, there's some truth to both sides.
However, I believe things will be substantially worse if Joe Biden wins, and I'll tell you why.
First, let me say this.
If Donald Trump wins, the left will riot, hands down.
They're gonna get a bunch of, you know, regular lefties who are just angry and they don't know why, who will join the ranks of, say, Antifa.
If Joe Biden wins, we have this story right here from Project Veritas showing this guy, a Democratic operative, saying they will keep rioting to make sure Joe Biden signs the legislation they want.
The reason I believe it'll be worse if Joe Biden wins is that the Democrats have done almost nothing to stop the riots.
And if the if we replace Trump, the only in the federal government, the only one trying to stop the riots, you get rid of him, you put a Democrat in.
Well, now you're going to have these people saying we're going to keep riding until Joe Biden signs what we want.
And if he doesn't, we'll be at his house.
Then you're going to have Joe Biden, who's too weak, like most Democrats, to actually deal with the riots.
Now, someone said to me, but maybe the Democrats right now are just opposing Donald Trump.
So when Trump says the riots and the protests are bad, the Democrats say, no, they're good.
And I said, that's absurd because that helps Trump.
So yes, maybe the Democrats are just that stupid.
Trump said the protests and the rioting is bad.
Mostly the riots, not the protests.
The rioting and lawlessness is bad.
And therefore the Democrats decide rioting is good?
Okay.
Then I really think Democrats should not be in power, because that's insane.
Either way, the Democrats have shown they do not have the ability to deal with this.
Which brings me to this story, a major breaking story from Project Veritas.
Colorado Democratic operative Chris Jacks, 2020 is a political revolution, want to change this country with violence.
There's only one way to do it, guillotine's mother effer.
In fact, he calls them slicey boys, which is actually kind of funny if it wasn't so nightmarish.
That's the idea the left has.
Violence.
Now, the crazy thing about this Project Veritas release... First of all, this guy is a Democratic operative.
More importantly, they got this guy for almost a year.
I mean, some of these clips are from January going into October.
They're releasing it now.
Of course, Project Veritas has been accused of deceptively editing content.
As far as I can tell, Project Veritas does what every other undercover news outlet has ever done.
News outlets that do undercover journalism.
So if you want to claim that this video is wrong, you must provide me with evidence.
For now, what we have is a dude saying things.
There's always a possibility that things are taken out of context, and I want to make sure this is clear.
Someone could say something like, did you hear what John said?
I don't like, you know, jelly doughnuts.
Crazy.
And then you clip the part where the person says I don't like jelly doughnuts and attribute it to the individual and not to the person who's actually attributing it to.
I'm not here to actually drag Project Fairdust, I think they do a good job, but I am trying to at least say Stories like this are very, very difficult because, you know, unless Veritas releases, like, the entirety of the raw footage, it's hard to know for sure.
Maybe they should.
But I'll tell you this.
One of the only outlets actually doing this investigative work, finding these individuals, and hearing what they have to say, is Project Veritas.
The media will talk about the Proud Boys all day and night, and they will lie about it.
So I'll tell you something.
If I can sit down with the Proud Boys, knowing they're not white supremacists, and criticize them, I don't know if you saw the interview I did with the chair of the Proud Boys, Eric Atario, but I was critical, and I brought up things they've been accused of, and he was there to answer for them.
If I can do that and the mainstream media can't do that with Antifa, well then I'm sorry, Project Veritas is our best bet right now in covering this kind of revolutionary extremist rhetoric.
And you know what?
We got the guy saying it.
He's showing the dude saying it, so take it for what it is.
Project Veritas released a video today from its investigation into the radical and violent agenda of a prominent member of our revolution, a partner of the Democratic Party coalition.
Quote, I am going to do everything morally acceptable to win.
I will lie, I will cheat, I will steal, because that's morally acceptable in this political environment.
This is what Christopher Jacks said.
Absolutely, we are pirates on a pirate ship.
Christopher Jacks functions as a trainer, mentor, and on-the-ground quarterback at our revolution protests.
I want to make this point very loudly and very clearly.
I said it nicely before, but I'll say it more curtly now.
2020 is a political revolution, said Jax.
James O'Keefe, the founder and CEO of Project Veritas, said, We've been following Chris Jax for a long time.
We first met him during the presidential primary race.
Now we have caught up with him in Colorado.
O'Keefe said Project Veritas journalists recorded Jax with hidden cameras to capture the true nature of his violent political agenda.
Quote, Jax represents the radical wing of the Democratic Party in Colorado.
He is someone most Americans should be afraid of, O'Keefe said.
O'Keefe said Project Veritas cameras recorded Jax talking about justified violence to gain
complete political control.
Here we have some quotes.
Christopher Jax says, I think the right wing...
Right-wing is a monopoly right now on strong, violent rhetoric.
And I think they underestimate how many people on the left are organized, trained, armed,
and ready to go should they decide to do their S. And I think all it will take is our numbers
and a reminder that, yeah, there's a reason you guys feared the communists more than you
feared the Nazis.
I just think that's not true.
I think, you know, the United States feared the Nazis more, enough to actually invade.
And even though, well, I mean, it's nuanced.
The communists were taking over, and we did see Vietnam, Korea, you know, there were skirmishes, proxy wars, Mujahideen, it's a complicated, long Cold War history.
A lot of proxy wars between the US and the Soviet Union.
But the United States directly invaded, you know, landed on the beaches of Normandy to stop the Nazis.
It kind of feels like a little bit more worried about the Nazis than the communists, but sure, whatever this guy's saying.
Now I want to point something out, too, to the right.
You know, I hear these right-wing individuals saying if there was ever a civil war, we would win.
I think that's absolutely incorrect.
To think that the revolutionary leftists are unarmed is absurd.
They're armed.
They brag about it.
There are armed groups patrolling around.
The assumption that the right is... You know, here's what happens.
Conservatives think because liberals are for gun control, the left probably is not about having guns.
And because the right is for gun ownership, but this is a misconception.
I know not every Trump supporter, conservative, Republican thinks that.
I'm just saying it seems to be there are individuals who do.
You have revolutionary leftists who have guns, who train, and they're organized, and they know how to hide.
Truth is, when you're dealing with collectivists versus individualists, the collectivists know what they're doing.
Take a look, you know, I'll cite the Proud Boys incident in New York City, where the Proud Boys got into a fight with Antifa.
Sparing most of the details, I'll just put it this way.
After the fight was over, Antifa lost.
The Proud Boys cooperated with police.
Antifa told the police to F off and ran away.
The DA charged the Proud Boys with gang violence and said they'd do the same for Antifa, but we don't know who they are and they got away.
You see?
That's an organized tactic.
They know why you don't talk to cops.
And the bias from the Proud Boys is probably like the cops are good guys who are gonna help us out.
Cops are... No, they don't care.
The DA was looking for something, so they went after the right.
This was a mistake of the right.
The Proud Boys should... Listen, I don't care if you're left, right, up, down, Christian, Muslim, whatever.
There's a reason why lawyers tell you to shut up and don't talk to cops.
This is why you have the Fifth Amendment.
It's why you have the right to a lawyer.
You say nothing, you let your lawyer deal with it.
The Proud Boys made that mistake.
There are other mistakes I've seen the right make in terms of underestimating the organizational power of the left.
If it truly came to widespread violence, civil war, whatever you want to call it, I think the left would win in minutes.
MINUTES.
Of course, there are people who have countered this and said, Tim, You have no idea the strength and coordination of some of these militia groups.
That's a fair point.
I'm not trying to underestimate the right either.
But I do want to point out who controls the means of communication?
The left does.
Who controls the financial institutions?
The left does.
And so there are people who have said, yeah, but there's ham radio.
And another really good point that was brought up to me was like, you think like Twitter HQ is going to fend off even a couple violent right-wing militiamen?
And I'm like, that's a good point.
They could immediately seize any of these communication subs.
So maybe it's wrong to say the left will win in minutes.
But I think it's it's wrong to underestimate the left's willingness to be violent, to be armed, to be trained.
Now, again, the question I brought up in the beginning was, are people going to riot if Joe Biden wins?
Yes.
One hundred percent.
Yes.
I don't know if they have it.
Let me let me let me read you the quote here.
Joe Biden was presumably left-wing, and he's got a functioning signing hand, Jack said.
As long as there's progressive legislation that comes across his desk, I am confident we can occupy his house.
We know where he'll live.
And yeah, he wants to veto Medicare for All.
Let's let him veto it.
He's never leaving that house again without protest.
Jack said the previous four years of violent protests have just been practice.
Quote, journalist asks, That's what I'm saying, the Green New Deal, Medicare for All.
What do you think's going to happen if he does?
Jack says, if Biden does veto, it will be mass protest in the streets because that is the... We're already ready to do it.
We're on.
The left is already geared up.
We've been practicing for four years against somebody who doesn't listen.
Now we're going to go up against Democrats who are the world's biggest pansies, I'll say that, who fold all the time.
There it is.
Why would they stop writing if writing works?
If Joe Biden wins, you will no longer have a leader standing up to them.
Joe Biden will just sign whatever they want to make the protests stop.
That's what the Democrats have been doing over and over again.
I love it when I go on Reddit and there's a story about riots and the comments are like, well, if you just addressed the needs of the protesters, maybe it would all go away.
Oh, that's right.
Tell the people threatening you with violence that you will keep giving them things so long as they remain violent.
Oh, that'll make the violence stop.
You know why the U.S.
doesn't negotiate with terrorists?
Because they don't want to set a precedent that you can.
Do you know why the U.S.
doesn't pay ransoms for kidnapped Americans?
Because they don't want to set a precedent that you can kidnap Americans and make money.
Do you know what you are guaranteed if you kidnap an American overseas?
A State Department-sanctioned raid by SEAL commandos or something, jumping out of a helicopter and killing every single one of the kidnappers.
I have covered stories in some North African, Middle Eastern countries.
Well, I should say North African, for the most part.
I've never been to the Middle East.
Well, no, that's not true.
I've been to Israel, if that counts.
I think it does.
Anyway, I've talked to journalists.
I've done security trainings and planning missions for other Middle Eastern journalists going on the ground.
And I'll tell you this.
One of the things they say all the time, and definitely fact check me on this one because I don't have it pulled up, but this is a common thing that we would talk about.
I think it's Spain and Germany pay ransom.
So when you're in a country like, you know, Morocco or maybe even Egypt, somebody sees you, they think, well, not so much Egypt because Egypt gets too much money from the U.S.
government.
So they're, you know, they're working with the U.S.
government.
But if you're in some of these countries, you can get kidnapped.
And then they'll try to get a ransom.
Spain and Germany pay out immediately.
Just pay for the person because they don't want to deal with the conflict or whatever.
So among many of these kidnapping groups, whatever you want to call them, they're not necessarily terrorists.
They're just, you know, criminals.
They know.
Kidnap the Spanish person or the German person?
What about an American?
Oh, you better not, because you hold an American.
And they have, and the extremists have killed Americans.
But these people know, not only will you get no money, you will get a helicopter above your house at two in the morning, and a bunch of armed dudes coming and kicking the door in.
So I've actually done hostile environment training where they put us through a mock kidnapping.
It was really crazy.
They blindfolded us and they made us sit, uh, like they brought us in, you know, from random vehicles.
We couldn't see anything.
And they put us up against the wall while we heard screaming and gunshots.
It was, it was pretty nuts.
I'll tell you what the craziest thing was.
They had us standing up against the wall for several hours.
That's what was crazy.
It was, it was, it was an intense training.
Uh, it didn't feel like several hours just standing there and then eventually they're like, okay, we're done.
It's been, I think it was like two or three hours.
And I was like, wow.
That's crazy, it's crazy.
It ended with, it was really cool, the training was really cool, it ended with us just all of a sudden hearing bangs outside, yelling, then we hear the door break open and yelling, everyone on the ground, hands on your head, everyone on the ground, and so we all get on the ground, hands on our head, and then we get carried out, blindfolded, and then we get our restraints cut off, our blindfolds released, and it's, you know, the Americans came in, and they explained to us, these security guys, they were British security, Explain how this works.
I don't want to get too much into the stories about that stuff, although it is really, really interesting.
But I bring this up because in this training they explain to us, most of the time, like 90 plus percent, especially as an American, you will be rescued, which is why they advise to survive.
Their thing, they say, find out what you need to do to survive and it will be different in every circumstance and survive.
Draw the clock as long as possible.
The reason I bring this story up, aside from the fact that I find the story fascinating and is a cool story, negotiating with terrorists doesn't work.
It makes things worse.
Joe Biden will negotiate with terrorists.
These people who are going around smashing up stores, smashing up businesses, threatening people's lives, they are telling you right now, if Joe Biden wins, they will continue What has Donald Trump done?
The feds right now under Trump have deputized Portland police and Oregon police and the local politicians are like, no, stop this.
You can't do that.
It's cheating.
Yeah, you know why?
Because when those cops arrest you, the feds charge you.
Donald Trump's administration, the DHS under Trump, is going after these extremists and telling them there will be no negotiating.
We will use every resource at our disposal to legally apprehend you, charge you, and you will face trial.
The Democrats in these jurisdictions, namely Portland, but also New York, Chicago, Fort Worth, Are releasing the rioters and dropping their charges.
Telling them outright, you are free to do what you want.
I don't want that.
I want the rioting to stop.
I'm not going to pretend like the rioting is every city everywhere, but we did see that.
In June, it was insane.
The helicopters near my house, excuse me.
Yeah, it was absolutely nuts.
Joe Biden's going to negotiate with these people because it's easier to negotiate than to deal with the violence.
So I want you to ask yourself this question.
If someone comes to your house, a bunch of Antifa, and they're screaming, threatening you, and the cops show up, it'll be really hard for those cops to arrest Antifa.
It'd be really easy for the cops to arrest you.
Which would you prefer?
Yeah, I'd prefer that the police stop the mob and let me lead my life and, you know, not step on anybody's toes.
I want to stay in my house, I want to do my thing, I want to be left alone.
That's what needs to happen.
But we're already starting to see what will happen under a Joe Biden presidency.
Right now, we have police in several jurisdictions who have arrested and charged, well, the police have arrested the homeowners defending their own property.
The rioters get no charges.
What do you think's going to happen if Joe Biden wins?
Do you think Joe Biden is going to have his DHS deputize the police to arrest these people?
No.
He's going to say, what do you guys want?
Just please stop rioting.
And they're going to say, arrest the guy in his house.
Okay, okay, okay.
I don't want to live that way.
Let me show you something.
Most people don't.
Antifa rioters who targeted Portland Cafe solidified his Trump vote, military veteran says,
quote, when I first came here to Portland about 10 years ago, it was one of the most accepting
cities that I knew of, the cafe owner said. We are Americans. We are a country founded on defiance
that if you screw with us, we will give you the finger and we'll go do our own thing.
It's like like the Cartman of the world almost screw you guys, I'm going home. When we were
getting messed with by the British, we said, yo, we're into our own government.
We gave them the finger.
And they came, and we fought, and we won.
We had help, of course.
The French came and intervened.
That was fantastic.
And we stand defiant.
We are a country founded on the principle of leave me alone.
That's the challenge we face every day as Americans.
Because as we get closer and closer together in more dense, you know, urban centers, the boundary of our freedom is curtailed a little bit.
Let me explain.
We're, uh, out in the middle of nowhere.
You know, basically where I'm living now.
You can, uh, you can go outside, play loud music, I can skate, I can, uh, I set up a little archery range.
People out here are firing guns all the time.
I hear them just going off.
You can't do that anywhere in a city, man.
You can't play loud music, you can't play the drums, you can't play the guitar, you can't yell.
I can go outside and scream at the top of my lungs, nobody's gonna care.
I go outside and I hear crazy loud music from really far away.
Nobody cares!
So as you start cramming closer and closer together, trying to respect other people's freedom, it becomes more and more difficult.
So that's the challenge that we face.
But we are, for the most part, a nation of leave me alone.
And it's partly a good thing.
I mean, there's some negatives to it, but for the most part, it's a good thing.
It just means that I'm gonna do my thing so long as I'm not infringing on the rights of others.
And this can extend to, like, you know, maybe you've got, like, a sewer line, your company's a sewer line draining into, like, the water.
Well, now you're messing with others.
So we have regulations.
But I like that idea.
I like that.
So I'll tell you what.
I'm not going to come out of my house.
I'm not going to go to somebody's show.
I'm not going to throw things at them or yell at them.
I want to be left alone to do my thing, live my life.
Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
But when you start getting violent mobs that are demanding political change and social change with violence, well therein lies the serious problem because it's the antithesis of who we are as Americans.
When they come to my house and threaten me, they are in direct violation of like a core tenet of what it means to be American.
Leave me alone!
Let me do my thing.
I'm not coming to your house.
That's what Antifa does.
So what do you think will happen if Joe Biden wins?
It's just that simple, man.
Do not let these people use terror to get their way.
Right now there are a lot of people that are thinking, just give it to him, just let Biden win and they'll stop.
How pathetic.
Absolutely not, they won't stop.
You're wrong.
You know, it reminds me of, like, you see all these movies where you got, like, a kidnapper and he's like, pay me a million dollars and I'll release your child.
It's like, how do you know they're gonna actually do it?
And then you see, like, okay, here's the money, but release him first.
No, you give me the money and then I'll release him.
It's like, you've got to do, like, a mutual exchange or whatever at the same time.
There's no guarantee that giving Antifa what they want will actually stop them.
In fact, quite the opposite.
You give them what they want and prove their violence works, they will do it more and more.
Donald Trump has found a very clever way to deal with this without sending in the National Guard, without sending in the feds, without, believe it or not, without sending in federal police, without invoking the Insurrection Act.
It's simple.
Deputizing police.
Joe Biden won't do it.
He'll back down in two seconds.
He'll give Antifa everything and anything they ask for.
I don't want to live like that.
It's not just that, though.
The lies from the media, the threats of violence from Antifa, and I tell you this, the more you threaten me, the more you make me want to do the opposite.
That's what it means, in part, to be American.
You come to me and say, bend the knee, and I'm going to say, no.
You come to me and say, vote for Biden or else, I'm going to say, screw you, I'm voting Trump.
Is that what you want?
It's like a Chinese finger trap.
They don't get it.
You screw with me, I will do the opposite.
I would rather see Trump win than terrorists.
Now imagine this.
Imagine the Democrats came out and immediately condemned Antifa.
All of them are bad.
Get them out of there.
By name.
And to the Black Lives Matter activists who are not calling out the extremists, we implore you, please do.
And to those extremists that are getting violent and rioting in the name of Black Lives Matter, please stop.
Wow.
I'd be like, I'd consider it.
I'd consider a Democrat at that point.
But they're not.
They're duplicitous.
And they support the extremists because they're scared, and they only want power.
And this proves it.
I think that's what we're going to get if Biden wins.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is my main channel, which is different from this one.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
I was reading a story over at The Hill that said if any other Republican president had nominated Amy Coney Barrett, she'd easily receive 70 votes from senators.
It would be, you know, a bipartisan effort.
We've also had many Supreme Court justices, I noted them in yesterday's segment, Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that were overwhelmingly supportive.
I mean, Scalia was unanimous, 98 to 0.
And Ginsburg was 96-3.
Yet we're in such ridiculous partisan political space, a partisan political space, we're getting just insane paranoid delusion, fake news smears, a desperate attempt to smear Amy Coney Barrett.
Who seems, I gotta tell you man, I watched some of this hearing with ACB, I think she might be one of the most qualified people to serve on the Supreme Court.
You know why?
You see that viral meme where she was asked, are you taking notes?
Do you have notes in front of you?
And she holds up a blank notepad.
Amazing.
She was citing references to cases and correcting senators from memory.
I mean, my understanding is she's a professor at Notre Dame.
Wow, I was impressed.
Very, very intelligent, excellent recall, smart, principled.
I'm very, very impressed.
And I'm not a fan of, you know, I was Catholic when I was little, never been a big fan of organized religion growing up, and I have tremendous respect for Amy Coney Barrett.
Which brings me to the absurdity of today's story.
And a little bit of disappointment, but I understand.
So first of all, Democrat Senator Mazie Hirono is slammed for asking Judge Barrett if she ever sexually assaulted someone.
I cannot believe they subject Amy Coney Barrett to this.
And look, the Democrats in these hearings have done a good job for the most part.
This is not one of them.
But the media on the outside and the far left and the leftists that are trying to smear Amy Coney Barrett are making everything worse.
I want to read this story to you and talk about what people are saying.
What a ridiculous thing to ask someone.
I am offended for Amy Coney Barrett, though I don't think she cares because she knows the extent to which the insanity is going to ensue with these things.
But take a look at this.
I'm disappointed.
Amy Coney Barrett apologizes for calling sexual orientation a preference.
I certainly didn't mean and would never mean to use a term that would cause harm to any, uh, would cause any offense to the LGBT community, she says.
This is, this is complete BS.
First of all, I'm gonna tell you right now.
Orientation?
This is kind of the half-joke I made on my main channel the other day.
Do you know what orientation derives from the word?
From orient.
You know what orient means?
Asia.
It's an offensive term.
It is considered to be racist to refer to Asia as the Orient, or as people as Oriental.
But orient actually derives from the Latin, from the East, and I believe it's Occidental, I could be wrong, from the West.
Oriental.
If preference is offensive because it implies choice, orientation is offensive because it implies weakness of Asian individuals.
Which, literally, I pulled up an article, because you can find anything racist.
This is such an absurd thing, and I'm disappointed to see, you know, Amy Coney Barrett apologizing for this.
It's not real.
They're lying.
And I have proof.
Do a Google search with a time range starting before the Amy Coney Barrett hearing, and you'll find tons of websites saying sexual preference.
These people just make us up.
Take a look at this.
The Advocate on September 25th.
Quote, to come from that history to be able to now, as a director, be telling these stories about young people who are just comfortable with who they are, no matter their sexual preference, is, it's just glorious and so satisfying.
The advocate on, uh, just the other day, a revealing moment, Amy Coney Barrett blasted for anti-LGBTQ plus term, sexual preference.
It is such insane fake news.
Is that how desperate you are to smear a good person?
You sick, sick people?
Dirty, dirty smear merchants, I think Sargon of Akkad called it.
Here's the first story.
Maisie Hirono, you lunatic.
Amy Coney Barrett has been asked, in a Supreme Court nomination hearing, whether she has ever sexually assaulted someone.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held its second day of hearings for the 48-year-old federal judge on Tuesday.
Maisie Hirono, a senator from Hawaii, asked Barrett a question she said she asks of all Supreme Court nominees.
No, just Justice Kavanaugh.
Hirono quoted Chief Justice John Roberts, who in 2017 acknowledged that the judiciary is not immune from the problem of sexual misconduct.
She then asked, Since you became a legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual favors or committed any physical or verbal harassment or assault of a sexual nature?
Barrett replied, no, Senator Hirono.
Can't believe it.
Hirono asked, have you ever faced discipline or entered into a settlement related to this kind of conduct?
No, Senator.
Hirono's line of questioning drew parallels with the hearing for the most recently appointed Supreme Court judge, Brett Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh was nominated in July 2018, and we know all about the fake allegations against him.
Hirono asks Kavanaugh, since you became a legal adult... Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
The same question.
Some saw Hirono's line of questioning as amounting to a perjury trap.
The idea that if it later emerges that sexual assault was committed, the nominee would have committed perjury.
Oh, please.
It's so stupid.
Amy Coney Barrett did not assault anyone, and neither did Brett Kavanaugh, you crazy people.
Here we go.
Random guy says, Hirono has two goals.
A perjury trap for ACB in regards to a religion.
Laughable.
Wow.
That's depravity, man.
thinking she will hit on religion but go after decisions.
He says Mr. D. D. M. I. A. should have all options covered.
They will go after her decisions, not just faith.
Others objected strongly to her own his question.
Are they really going here?
As to Neshte Souza.
I kid you not.
Wow.
That's depravity, man.
This is what's happened to to to the Democrats.
Republicans are sort of puffing up Amy Coney Barrett saying she's great and all the stuff.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get it, but come on, seriously?
I I said this the other day, you know what I would do if I was in politics?
Honorable Amy Coney Barrett is her title.
You are a professor at Notre Dame.
Sounds like you're qualified.
Case closed.
That's a yes vote for me, everybody.
I'm gonna go get lunch.
She's a professor at Notre Dame.
Her qualifications are clear here.
I gotta say, that's impressive.
No notes?
Seriously.
She's recalling specific cases, precedent.
Very, very smart woman.
Very smart.
Look, I have concerns about how the Supreme Court will rule on certain cases, but I'm not gonna sit here and panic and think they're gonna overturn the right to gay marriage or anything like that.
That's crazy.
I'll tell you what.
If they start overturning fundamental rights, I'll be as mad as anybody, and I'll vote.
I'll vote for somebody else.
Let me tell you something right now.
I've never been this hardcore partisan individual.
I'm a fence-sitter for obvious reasons.
I don't have strong enough opinions one way or the other on the way the country should be run, and I like hearing what people have to say.
It's why I started doing journalism.
As for Amy Coney Barrett, the only thing I can say is that she's absolutely qualified and probably more qualified than any other justice on the Supreme Court.
She seems to be tremendously excellent at her job.
You know, explaining things, breaking things down.
I recently saw a segment, she was talking about stare decisis and some other things.
I'm not a legal person, I'm like, wow!
Like, this lady knows her stuff, man.
And savvy.
Qualified.
But we're not in that world anymore.
Right now, the Democrats are trying to do, and of course Republicans, They believe that justices are supposed to be legislators, and that's not the way it's supposed to be.
Now, I think it's fair to say that most Republicans just want constitutionalists.
That the justices that conservatives are nominating and request are those that would uphold the Constitution as it was intended, not as it's interpreted.
Whereas Democrats just want to pass new legislation and affect the law of the land.
Take a look at this fake news.
Amy Cooney Barrett said, I certainly didn't mean and would never mean to use a term that could cause any offense to the LGBT community, Barrett said after questioning by Maisie Hirono.
So if I did, I greatly apologize for that.
I simply meant to be referring to Obergefell's ruling with respect to same-sex marriage.
Barrett made the remark, blah, blah, blah, and it was fake news.
It's not an offensive thing.
The Democrats are desperate to find a way to smear her, and this is Maisie Hirono's big mistake.
This is Democrats falling into a trap because they can't help themselves.
The American people are watching this and they're probably confused right now to hear the phrase sexual preference is considered offensive.
Why can some random weirdos in news say, actually, preference is offensive?
Okay, well then I hereby declare, as an Asian person, orientation is offensive.
Stop saying it.
It has nothing to do with rising in the East.
It has nothing to do with Eastern alignment.
And it stems, partly, from this idea that Eastern men are weak.
Orient.
So Oriental was the idea that they were meek and timid, among the ideas of what the Orient was supposed to mean.
Meek and timid Asian men.
I'll have you know.
Okay?
We invented the compass a thousand years before y'all in Europe.
Gunpowder.
Brutal murder and warfare.
And then you've got the crazy Japanese experiments, man.
The East is anything but meek.
But look, I really don't care about what words you use.
If you're offended by preference, well, too bad.
If you're offended by orientation, well, too bad.
It's just words used to describe things.
What I take issue with is the hypocrisy of them saying, we're going to say orientation instead of preference without considering the origin of the word orientation is.
You don't get to declare a word is offensive and then not look at the words you're using.
I can play the same game they're playing.
I'm sad to see Amy Coney Barrett having to apologize for that.
That's stupid.
But I'm more sickened by Maisie Hirono asking this ridiculous question, an extremely offensive question, that should... I hope Americans wake up to what's going on.
How psychotic has everything become?
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
I couldn't believe it.
I'm still a bit flabbergasted by the whole thing.
I love that word, flabbergasted, by the way.
I'm shocked.
Wolf Blitzer getting into it with Nancy Pelosi.
Nancy Pelosi losing her mind.
Because the Democrats want the stimulus package passed to help the American people, but Nancy Pelosi, being a feckless psychopath, wants to win!
She wants to win!
She wants people to suffer!
She wants you to suffer!
She wants you to feel pain!
So that she wins!
Because the Orange Man is bad!
Donald Trump said, you get me a clean bill that says $1,200 per American, you know, per family, and we'll do it.
Pelosi goes, no.
I want all of these things.
Other Democrats apparently were like, dude, Nancy, just let's negotiate.
Let's get a stimulus package and worry about the rest later.
And she goes, no!
Because she wants to win.
And she will sacrifice you to do it.
I'm sure some might argue Donald Trump is doing the same thing, but let me tell you, Trump has said, if you get me a bill that gets the stimulus to the American people, it will be signed.
What Nancy Pelosi wants are a bunch of crazy election provisions.
She is a despotic lunatic.
But Wolf Blitzer of CNN actually got into it with her, and it was amazing.
Let me read this for you, from the Daily Mail.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi slammed veteran CNN host Wolf Blitzer as a Republican apologist in a fiery meltdown on Tuesday evening.
During the heated live segment on The Situation Room, Blitzer pushed the Californian congresswoman to say why she is holding up President Donald Trump's $1.8 trillion COVID-19 relief bill, leaving Pelosi fuming that he didn't know what he was talking about.
Blitzer hit back by asking why Pelosi's Democrat allies are calling on her to get the deal done, citing the likes of former Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang and fellow California Democrat Ro Khanna.
The 80-year-old speaker has found herself increasingly isolated in recent days as she has pushed from within her own party to reach compromise on a deal to bring further economic relief to the American people.
They have said that the people struggling as a result of the coronavirus pandemic and the subsequent economic fallout cannot wait until February for another deal to be passed.
Here we can see the exchange.
Ro Khanna.
Bravo, sir!
I'm going to give a really great bit of respect and shout out to Ro Khanna.
My understanding is that he voted in support of Donald Trump to withdraw our troops from the Middle East.
I know you guys hear me rag on this all the time, but I really do mean it when I think it's one of our most pressing issues.
Ro Khanna as a Democrat has done things I've disagreed with, and I don't like the Republicans either.
But let me read this for you.
He said, People in need can't wait until February.
$1.8 trillion is significant and more than twice Obama's stimulus.
It will allow Biden to start with infrastructure.
Obama won in 08 by doing the right thing on TARP instead of what was expedient.
Make a deal and put the ball in McConnell court.
Bravo, Mr. Kahnem.
Thank you very much.
I really do respect this.
I am wary of the stimulus, the results of the stimulus, and the problems we've seen arising from it, which have been copious, to say the least.
But I've always been in favor of them.
Because the alternative is the collapse of this country.
We've got this opportunity to pass a stimulus which will have negative effects.
I really do think so.
But I think the alternative is worse.
People losing their businesses, people losing their homes, getting evicted, getting sick.
Pass the stimulus, and we'll deal with it later.
Look, I've done pretty well for myself and my business, and I'm still in favor of appropriately taxing the rich.
Now, I haven't asked what that means, but I'm a bit left leaning on a lot of these issues.
Listen, I don't think a wealth tax makes sense.
I don't even think maybe 50% makes sense, but I'll tell you what I do think makes sense.
Increased tax brackets.
So what we do is we should spread out how we handle taxes.
Anyway, I digress.
The reason I bring that up is, I would be absolutely willing for myself, doing well for myself, to pay more in taxes if it ensures that the American people have stimulus, because if the country doesn't exist, then I have nothing.
That's why I've always been rather left-leaning.
I'm a big fan of the progressive tax system, not a flat tax, and I think what we need to do is, the idea of taxing the rich is, just to elaborate on what I was saying, it's not to just be like, we're going to increase taxes to 90%, that doesn't make sense.
What it means is, from $250,000 to $500,000, from $500,000 to $2,000,000, from $2,000,000 to $5,000,000, et cetera, et cetera, on income.
And of course, wealthy people find loopholes and make money in other ways, I'm not even talking about that, I'm just talking about income.
So it's not this, you know, ridiculous, far-reaching proposal.
It's just kind of, we have a progressive tax system, but we need to recognize inflation happens, and so we need more brackets.
But anyway, I digress, I digress.
Nancy Pelosi is so desperate to win, she will cause pain and suffering to so many people.
To see Ro Khanna just come out and be like, dude, just get the stimulus, I respect that tremendously.
Quote, I don't know why you're always an apologist and many of your colleagues apologists for the Republican position.
Pelosi responded as Blitzer mentioned Khanna's comments.
Ro Khanna, that's nice.
That isn't what we're going to do.
And nobody's waiting until February.
She said that she could not accept the Republican deal as it is because child tax credits and earned income credits were eliminated.
They minimize the need for child care, which is the threshold with which people, mothers and fathers can go to work if they have that.
I want this very much now.
Because people need help now.
But it's no use giving them a false thing just because the president wants to put a check with his name on it in the mail.
How pathetic.
We know the problem out there, Blitzer interrupted.
But there are millions of Americans who have lost their jobs, they can't pay their rent, kids need the food.
That's right.
And that's what we're trying to get done, Pelosi fired back.
The fireworks began early in the interview as Blitzer, off the bat, asked Pelosi why she wouldn't accept the Republican Party offer.
I think it's stupid if the Republicans are going to be like, yeah, we're not going to do it.
But listen, if the Republicans are offering you a proposal in the Senate and the presidency, and you have an opportunity in the House to say, give us one or two things, and if they say no, take what you can get for the American people.
I don't think the issue is... I don't think Nancy Pelosi is being honest.
I think what she wants is this weird voter stuff.
That's been the problem with the HEROES Act in the past.
They want universal mail-in voting nationwide.
Like, that's insane.
Blitzer asked her to look Americans in the eye and explain why you don't want to accept the president's latest stimulus offer.
I hope you'll ask the same question of the Republicans on why they don't want to meet the needs of the American people, Pelosi responded.
But let me say to those people, because all of my colleagues, we represent these people and their needs are not addressed in the President's proposal.
So when you say to me, why don't you accept theirs?
Why don't they accept ours?
Because they're in the majority, because they have the Senate, they have the Presidency, and you have the House.
Therefore, they have negotiating power.
That's who got elected.
These are the people representing America.
And not every American wants the Republican deal, but the easiest thing to do now, because you lost the elections, is to say, OK, and make sure the American people get the stimulus first and foremost.
And if it's not enough, you can continue to say we didn't want to stand by as Americans suffered.
But tell let let us know if you think the Republicans didn't have what you needed, because we were fighting for more the whole time.
Learn to do your job.
Eighty years old.
Pathetic.
And for her, even rant at Wolf Blitzer at this point is shocking.
And I'm not a fan of CNN.
Blitzer also asked Pelosi why she wouldn't call President Trump directly to work on the deal.
Why not work out a deal with President Trump and don't let the perfect, as they say here in Washington, be the enemy of the good?
Well, I will not let the wrong be the enemy of the right, Pelosi answered.
What's wrong with 1.8 trillion?
Blitzer asked.
You know what?
Do you have any idea what the difference is between the spending that they have in their bill and what we have in our bill?
An increasingly frustrated Pelosi said, With all due respect, you really don't know what you're talking about, she snapped.
Your own party is telling you to pass the bill.
I hate Nancy Pelosi.
I despise this individual.
She needs to get out.
She needs to be voted out.
Full disclosure, I donated to Progressive Challenger in the primary because they reached out to me.
And I expressed to them I was concerned about their progressive politics.
I don't agree with, but I gotta be honest.
I'll take anything if it means Pelosi is just out.
San Francisco is disgusting.
Their rents are collapsing because people are moving out in exodus.
There's feces all over the place.
She represents a disgusting district.
And I mean in the human waste and the homelessness, not the individuals.
It's the politicians who won't get the job done, including herself.
And then she has the nerve to go on TV holding up this Extremely important stimulus package for her personal feelings while she shows us her refrigerator with her fancy expensive ice creams.
She's just awful.
Absolutely awful.
I don't know if term limits are the answer.
I've had a lot of conversations about term limits, but I'll tell you this, man.
Nancy Pelosi is 80 and she doesn't care.
I don't think she does.
I don't think she cares about you.
I don't think she cares about me.
I don't think she cares about the American people.
I think she cares about winning.
I think she wants to own Trump.
I think she wants emotional satisfaction.
She takes it all personally.
And I think people like Ro Khanna and some of these progressives really do mean what they say.
I think so.
I think AOC is celebrity-driven.
But I do believe there are progressives who believe what they're doing is good.
I really disagree with some of the things they're proposing.
But I would rather have someone wrong and willing to listen and debate than someone like Nancy Pelosi who just wants emotional victories and doesn't care that she is causing suffering to so many people.
The Republicans may be offering up a garbage bill, fine, but get it done and then negotiate after the fact on the next step.
What she's doing now is just causing suffering, and she's yelling at Wolf Blitzer over this.
I'm impressed.
I'm impressed that even when CNN says, can you please, she just freaks out.
Well, Nancy Pelosi, all you're doing is looking worse and worse every step of the way.
And I hope that the progressive challenger lost.
Her name was, um...
I'm sorry, I can't remember her name.
I feel bad.
But she was very progressive, and she had a few things I was supportive of.
She was very anti-war, and I said, you know what?
If we get rid of Pelosi, and we get an anti-war progressive, it is better than Pelosi.
And I defended Pelosi in the past.
I absolutely did, and now I regret it.
She's just awful.
I got one more segment for you in a few minutes.
Stick around, and I will see you all shortly.
These past couple of weeks, these past few months, have been increasingly Tumultuous, to say the least.
Violent, terrifying.
And I recently got a call, uh, actually from a, I actually spoke recently with a CNN reporter, who asked me how I felt about what was going on.
As many of you know, I interviewed the chairman of the Proud Boys, Enrique Tarrio, uh, Enrique Tarrio on Monday.
And of course, that's led to a lot of, uh, angry leftists, I suppose.
You know, I tried to do a good job.
I wasn't trying to give him a softball.
I asked him some tough questions and some direct criticism.
I called out some of the things he says.
He got to answer for, you know, his point of view and what he believes.
And I try to do my best not to just, you know, give someone a free pass.
But I was actually talking with some reporters, notably a CNN reporter who just asked me, what do you think is going on and where do you think it'll lead to?
Do you really think that there's going to be mass civil unrest, chaos in the streets, violence, escalation, or even civil war?
And my response is, honestly, I just don't know.
Well, I think there's this desperate attempt to try and smear me over Civil War conversations when all I do is respond and give my opinion on stories that already exist.
So, the best I can say, in my opinion, and for my defense is, I always have the stories pulled up in front of me, as you can see right now on the screen.
You can always see the NewsGuard citation in the top.
That's on purpose, because there's rare instances where I don't use certified sources.
Like Project Veritas, for instance, though I actually trust Veritas for the most part.
I do this because I want you to know whether or not there's credibility behind the sources I use, and I want you to know that everything I'm saying is backed by whatever it is I'm reading.
So if you're upset over a certain fact I point out, that's me commenting on something.
And so there are these cringey left-wing channels that will try and drag me for talking about, say, civil war.
Here's the story.
A threat to democracy that could lead to civil war.
Big Tech is slammed by a former Facebook chief and star of a Netflix documentary, The Social Dilemma, who is calling for social media reform to end online tribalism.
I agree with him. 100%.
I think he's completely right.
And I think he's the expert.
Should there be criticism of me for simply pointing out that this guy is in a major documentary on Netflix where he's saying these things?
Is that my fault for talking about it?
Y'all, if you think there's a problem there, then I need you to go to Netflix and bring that up.
I need you to talk to Spike Lee.
Because I don't just randomly bring this up, shriek about Civil War.
To be fair, there's been a few instances where I've asked that question, but it's only because I was primed by some of these mainstream media articles.
But that's the point I want to get to with this.
There are some videos that have popped up recently where they're trying to drag me.
Often they're over things that have nothing to do, nothing relevant, nothing recent.
But however, there are some left-wing personalities who have tried dragging me over segments from months ago, even a year ago, and these people don't actually watch my segments.
They don't actually watch my show.
They're given out-of-context clips by people, and they use it to attack me.
This isn't about me.
This segment isn't about me, and I'm not complaining about them.
It's about online tribalism.
You'll find that on my shows, I am not going to do a segment about left-wing personalities.
Maybe I have in the past.
I definitely have some videos that were probably, you know, lowbrow, and I probably, you know, I'll never do something like that again.
I probably shouldn't have at the time.
But in the past few years, I've tried my hardest to avoid this kind of tribalist drama.
Now, of course, I'm critical of Democrats.
That's my genuine opinion.
Of course, I'm critical of social media and media in general.
Those are my opinions.
But you're not going to see me call out individuals.
There are a lot of people like to scream, like, Dave Rubin, blah, blah, blah, you know.
I'm never going to make a video about those people.
It's not going to happen.
But it exemplifies what this man is saying.
You see, these channels and the drama videos they make, their goal is to drum up tribalist rage.
I recently tweeted a lot about it, because I've been trying to book left-wing personalities to come on the IRL podcast, which is now going to be very, very guest-driven.
We're just going to have conversations and hang out.
And this is really just due to the fact that my workload is too great and there's a ton of other projects I'm working on.
But I don't want to spend too much time, wow I can't believe I've been talking about that for four minutes, but the point is I think some of the worst things that exist on YouTube right now are when you see these left-wing personalities or right-wing personalities attack other left-wing or right-wing personalities.
I believe that if they're not in a position Of some kind of authority in corporations or government, it's irrelevant for me to talk about.
But there's a lot of people who drum up hate.
This hate is fueling tribalist rage.
It's fueling conflict in the streets.
It's fueling people getting killed.
Let me read you some of this from ex-Facebook chief Tim Kendall.
They say, A former Facebook CEO is warned that big tech companies are a threat to democracy and could create a civil war unless they're reformed.
The moment CEO Tim Kendall, who sounded the alarm about social media in the Netflix documentary The Social Dilemma, warned that companies encourage online tribalism, which exacerbates societal divisions.
Kendall, who was formerly the director of monetization at Facebook from 06 to 2010, called for big tech companies to be reined in by the government.
Yes!
Adding that extreme outcomes were the only logical conclusion if no action is taken.
Documentary The Social Dilemma features a series of top tech experts issuing stark warnings about the addictive qualities of social media, how it's designed to keep users coming back for more, and manipulates emotions.
I want to stop right there and say I think we understand this.
I've talked about it before.
But you know what?
Let's get a little personal.
I've done videos about, say, Carlos Maza in the past.
Now, my videos about him were not... I don't target the individual because of his opinions.
The reason why I highlighted someone like him, he's the guy from Vox who got Crowder temporarily restricted on YouTube.
is because what he did caused an adpocalypse affecting the entire YouTube community and it was major news what was going on with him and the issues that he was bringing up.
I think I'm trying to do better and be probably less crude in my criticisms of certain individuals but I'm not perfect so by all means criticize me if I don't do a good enough job.
Recently, there is a prominent Black Lives Matter activist that everyone seems to hate now, who referred to me as a white supremacist and a neo-Nazi.
And this is the escalation in the extreme nature of what we're seeing.
Obviously, none of those things are true, because I routinely rag on white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and I come from a mixed-race family.
So, you see, all these people are like, Tim Pool talks about Civil War, Tim Pool says he's mixed-race, all these things, blah, blah, blah.
Well, yeah, there are reasons for it.
It's what they try and do.
It's the smears they try and bring up, and it's preempting them.
In response to this prominent activist's Twitter post, even his own followers started dragging him, saying, like, jeez, dude.
Like, Tim Pool's a moron, but come on.
Like, neo-Nazi?
Wow.
The reason I like this, again, look, I can only really use my experience on this one because I don't go hunting down the criticisms of the likes of Dave Rubin or whatever, but it shows you how there's escalation in the rhetoric.
And perhaps this Kendall guy could be wrong in that this activist who smeared me went so far and so over the top, he jumped the shark to where even his own followers are kind of like, I don't know, Tim Pool's not the neo-Nazi dude, that's kind of crazy.
And you could have legitimate criticisms.
But so far what we see is that in a desperate attempt to rile up people's bases, they lie, they cheat, they steal, they play dirty games.
And I think it is going to result in tribalist conflict.
I made a tweet about booking leftist guests on my show because they always ignore or decline.
These are not YouTubers I'm inviting.
We want to invite academics, journalists.
They won't do it!
They always say no.
I can't do it, I can't do it, I'll get cancelled, people come after me.
And in response to my post about this, you get these grifters.
And I mean it, I hate using the word, but they're grifters.
Who pop up and say, I'll come on your show!
And then I say, okay, let's do it, because we really want to have you come on and talk your opinion.
And we had the guy from Black Guns Matter, and a lot of people didn't like what he had to say, but it's all about hearing the perspectives of individuals, whether they're right or wrong.
That's what an interview is for.
And what they do is, they'll publicly say, I'll go on your show and debate you.
I don't do debates.
And then as soon as I privately message them and say, let me know when, we'll schedule everything, they go, oh, I'm not actually coming on your show.
The whole point was to get internet points from a fervent and angry base on social media so they can gain more followers and they can create tribalist sensationalism, conflict, and rage.
Then they accuse me of doing the same.
So you know what, I'll tell you this.
I think social media has been a mass detriment to society.
There's a lot of benefits, and Facebook is right about this one, that you get to hear from me, you know, and without a censor, without a boss, so there's positives here.
The problem is the tribalism that is growing from everything.
Now of course the Trump supporters like me because I said I'm going to vote for Trump.
I think it's the right choice.
The Occupy Wall Street people liked me when I defended the Occupy Wall Street protests and I got criticism from the right.
And now that I'm out here saying the Democrats are insane, the left is mad at me.
I will stick to my principles and tell you what I think is right or wrong regardless.
I have said over and over again, it's only a matter of time before the right gets mad at me again, and times will change.
I'm not going to just defend Republicans for the sake of Republicans.
I don't like Republicans!
I like them less than the old-school Democrats.
Of course, Democrats of today are insane, in my opinion.
So, of course, the tribalist right likes me.
And I think it's fair to point out, too, a lot of really staunch Trump supporters don't, and the left tries to claim that's true.
It's not.
I think a lot of the people who are watching, like those of you who are watching, are probably more moderate.
The biggest faction, when I did a poll, was actually libertarian, general libertarian, followed by center-right and Trump supporters, followed by center-left and liberal.
And then I actually had a few people in this poll who said, They said that they were like progressive and social justice warrior and that was like a small percentage.
They do watch.
They're the ones who probably give me the thumbs down or just watch in general.
I've actually gotten text messages from progressives who are fans.
No joke.
Progressives, you know, because I think...
There's a disdain for Democrats across the board.
And just because we don't agree on the outcome doesn't mean we can't share in our criticisms.
And so I think if you look at someone like Jimmy Dore, he's very critical of the Democrats in the exact same way.
I think he's fantastic.
And we disagree on policy solutions.
But I think Jimmy's an extremely good dude.
I think he's rad and he's smart.
And I think he's got different ideas than me.
That's the way things should be.
Instead, what we end up getting is Twitter especially.
Tribalist conflict, which results in people showing up for a rally for the police, and then the opposing tribe shows up and then someone dies.
I think social media is driving this.
I think the desire from many of these personalities to grift is driving this.
Internet blood sports is stupid in my opinion.
There are some legitimate debates that happen that I think are pretty good.
There are some lefties who do some good debates.
I appreciate that.
And there are a lot of leftists who have reached out to me who are, I think, lowbrow, and I'll be completely honest, because they just make rage videos where they're like, isn't Tim Pool so dumb?
I'll have them on.
I'll have them on the show, because we need to have these conversations.
But it's tough, because the more academic, journalistic, and industry professional leftists will absolutely not have these conversations at all.
And maybe it's because they're lying?
I don't know.
I can't tell you.
Anyway, I don't know.
This is kind of a ranty segment, but I'll just put it this way.
I saw this story.
And I wanted to highlight that Tim Kendall is correct.
What's happening is that people are being rewarded by being nasty to each other.
Twitter is designed, whether intentionally or not, to make you hate.
HATE!
That's terrible.
I hate it.
I think Twitter's trash.
Something needs to be done.
And when we saw the censorship of Donald Trump, and now this ad, uh, the censorship of, um, the Hunter Biden story.
Facebook censored it.
Check out my main channel segment over at youtube.com slash timcast.
