Democrats In Full PANIC MODE Over NEW Email Drop, Joe Biden May Use Son As Go-Between In Shady Deals
Democrats In Full PANIC MODE Over NEW Email Drop, Joe Biden May Use Son As Go-Between In Shady Deals. A New email released by the post shows an email saying that "H" will hold equity for "the big guy"Its far from definitive proof of anything but the implication is that Joe Biden personally benefits from the shady dealings his son Hunter is engaged in.While we are far from proving anything it is likely that the Post will be trickling out more emails daily throughout the month.Meanwhile the censorship problem is skyrocketing. Recent stories show the Biden camp has been hiring top officials from Big tech firms and now these companies are actively working to protect him and help him win.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Over the past 24 hours, the Internet has been aflame in the aftermath of a major story from the New York Post about the Biden family and corruption.
In emails released by the New York Post, it seems Joe Biden lied publicly about whether or not he was discussing private business matters with his son in a new groundbreaking story from the New York Post.
They are showing emails revealing how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm.
But it gets worse.
The very best case scenario for what the Biden family was doing is that Hunter Biden was leveraging his name to get more money and equity from a Chinese company.
However, there's a suggestion, though they go very, very lightly on this, that Hunter Biden was getting extra equity in his name that was actually for his father, Joe Biden.
Now that is a bold assertion, but it is a bold assumption.
We do not have a smoking gun on that story.
It's just an email that says, H will hold equity for the big guy.
And then people make assumptions about what that means.
So we'll see how that plays out.
At the very least, it would seem that Joe Biden's family is crooked.
But it gets worse.
We've been dealing with the aftermath of mass censorship from Twitter.
Twitter has now shut down the press secretary for the White House, the Trump campaign account, and the New York Post itself, the fourth largest newspaper in the country, and the oldest newspaper to remain in circulation.
There are some older papers that kind of still exist.
But we're talking about the New York Post, one of the oldest.
And largest papers in the country being actively censored.
We're talking about on Twitter.
We can see them publishing lies on the Twitter trending tab, the what's happening tab, claiming Joe Biden had nothing to do no part in ousting a Ukrainian prosecutor.
But that is that is flatly false.
And it gets worse.
We have several stories.
Twitter employees joining the Biden campaign.
Facebook employees joining the Biden campaign.
And a statement from a Reddit CEO that they could swing the election if they wanted to.
Surprise, surprise.
Over on Reddit, not a word about the Biden family impropriety.
Not a word.
Over on the news section, there are no stories about Joe or Hunter Biden or anything.
None of the censorship.
Just not there.
This is the nightmare scenario we have all been warning about.
If you thought China was scary and how they censored the internet and restricted information, guess what?
You're living in the same scenario, or at least we're watching it happen now.
This may be the biggest story of our lives, and I mean that absolutely sincerely.
We are talking about the rise of massive, multinational, billion-dollar corporations censoring the U.S.
government, a presidential campaign, and hiding facts from the American people, which could cause them to say, we do not want the corrupt Biden family running this country.
Now I'm not here to defend Donald Trump.
I'm talking about what they're doing to help Joe Biden.
If you want to have a conversation where we criticize Trump, I'm more than happy to welcome you over to the IRL Podcast for Tea and you can talk all about it.
But right now we're dealing with something terrifying.
Like Trump or not, big tech companies are actively censoring information that could make China look bad and make the Biden family look bad.
That is how scary things have become.
Let's get started with this first story to try and figure out what they're actually saying with this and what the insinuations are.
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.
There's a P.O.
box, but the best thing you can do, share this video.
Because they're actively censoring the link to the story.
That's right.
This is one way that we can get the information out, because we'll see what they do to my YouTube channel.
Yesterday's video seems to be okay, but YouTube has censored my stories in the past, deleting videos without notice.
Sharing this video is the best way to get the word out and support my work if you think I'm doing a good job.
But also don't forget to like, subscribe, hit the notification bell, and let's read the breaking news from the New York Post.
But!
Before I do anything, I want to tell you this.
Do you not realize what the New York Post is doing?
To the Democrats and those working for these big tech companies, be warned.
They are slow-rolling the release of a massive trove of emails.
And they are trying to catch you in lies.
And that's what's going to happen.
Joe Biden's already issued a statement saying he's apparently happy about the censorship.
Well the New York Post is doing this one day at a time and we all assume that as we go throughout the month the stories are going to get crazier and crazier.
So how much you want to bet there's actually a smoking gun?
And I don't mean just a story about Joe Biden meeting with some guy.
Now we got one that's suggesting maybe Joe Biden is using his son as an intermediary to profit off his position in government.
Is it possible that in the next couple of weeks, the New York Post releases that smoking gun?
Yes.
But keep in mind, it's also possible this fizzles out and nothing happens.
Regardless of what we're going to learn from these emails, you need to realize the bigger story is the censorship of the story, and the fact that big tech companies are manipulating and interfering in the election to help the Democrats.
I don't care if you're a Democrat.
I don't care if you're a Republican.
If you don't see how scary this becomes, how scary this is, and the damage being done to our country, then maybe it's already lost.
Let's read.
The New York Post says, Emails reveal how Hunter Biden tried to cash in big on behalf of family with Chinese firm.
Hunter Biden pursued lucrative deals involving China's largest private energy company, including one that he said would be interesting for me and my family.
One email sent to Biden on May 13, 2017, with the subject line, Expectations, included details of remuneration packages for six people involved in an unspecified business venture.
Biden was identified as chair-vice-chair, depending on agreement with CEFC, an apparent reference to the former Shanghai-based conglomerate CEFC China Energy Co.
His pay was pegged at $8.50, and the email also noted that Hunter has some office expectations he will elaborate.
In addition, the email outlined a provisional agreement under which 80% of the equity is or shares in the new company would be split equally among four people whose initials correspond to the sender and three recipients, with H apparently referring to Biden.
The deal also listed 10 Jim.
10 held by H for the big guy?
Neither Jim nor the big guy was identified further.
Now, I gotta stop here and say, this is not verified.
And this is a fair criticism on this story.
Simply because they're saying H, you know, 10 for H, or whatever.
I believe actually it says 20 for H, with an additional 10 held by H for the big guy.
H could be Hunter Biden.
I don't see why it wouldn't be.
We're making assumptions.
But I would say this is grounds for an investigation.
What we're looking at is enough evidence to suggest impropriety.
Considering who is involved in the deal and who is receiving the email, Hunter Biden does make the most sense.
It could be Harry for all we know.
We just don't.
And it's important I have that clarification.
But I'll tell you this.
Think about the implications.
If H is Hunter Biden, because there's no other initials, why would Hunter negotiate a deal where he wants equity but then not list himself?
And then they say 10 held by H for the big guy.
Don't know who the big guy is.
But in the other emails we saw, Hunter Biden referred to Joe Biden as my guy.
It seems that they were very careful not to say Joe Biden's name in emails.
In my personal opinion, this is exactly what we were all expecting to have occurred.
When you look at the history of Joe Biden's interference in Ukraine, getting the prosecutor fired, which Twitter lies about now, he did it, he bragged about it.
His son's role in an energy company that Victor Shokin, the prosecutor, said he was going to investigate and had an inactive investigation on.
We all made the assumption that Joe Biden was likely using his son as an intermediary to peddle influence and make money.
This is not proven, it's just circumstantial evidence.
It certainly warrants an investigation and Joe Biden is innocent until proven guilty.
But at what point do we take this seriously?
At what point do we say we need to investigate this?
I absolutely was on board with the Russiagate investigation saying, this could be true and we need to see how it plays out.
My position has not changed.
Just because we're learning about it now makes no difference to me.
Of course, it's likely being released now as an October surprise to hurt Joe Biden.
But you know what?
I don't care.
If it's true, then Joe Biden should not be president.
And that creates a very, very difficult position for me.
When the accusations about Russia came for Trump, it didn't matter to me because I wasn't voting for the man.
I didn't vote for him.
And I entertained the investigation the entire time that turned out to be bunk.
We now have emails.
Actual emails showing impropriety, at the very least.
Biden, Hunter Biden, was using his name to make money.
Does this involve Joe Biden?
There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to say yes.
But it doesn't prove anything.
Take that very, very seriously.
We are not at a point where we can definitively say yes, but we can say special prosecutor, investigation, yes.
In my personal opinion, based on everything we've learned over the past several years, we had specific individuals in Ukraine trying to help the Democrats.
You had Joe Biden's interference getting a prosecutor fired because they claim he wasn't doing his job.
But the new prosecutor came in and cleared Burisma's founder of all wrongdoing.
Sounds to me like Joe Biden uses his son as an intermediary to remain clean.
Because think about it.
It is still a conflict of interest for Hunter Biden to be doing any of these deals, whether or not Joe Biden receives anything.
Anything.
You know why?
If your family member is benefiting, you're benefiting.
End of story.
And it's his son.
They say the email's author, James Gilliar, of the international consulting firm J2CR, also noted, I am happy to raise any detail with Zhang if there's shortfalls.
Zhang is an apparent reference to Zhang Jianjun, the former executive director of CEFC China.
The email is contained in a trove of data I'm not here to play games for anybody.
I'm not here to play games for Rudy Giuliani.
I'm not here to defend any tribe.
Mac MacBook Pro laptop that was dropped off in April 2019 and never retrieved.
The computer was seized by the FBI and a copy of its contents made by the shop owner shared
with The Post this week by former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
I'm not here to play games for anybody.
I'm not here to play games for Rudy Giuliani.
I'm not here to defend any tribe.
I'm gonna tell you exactly what I think.
I believe there's a good possibility this information was hacked and stolen.
But how do you launder stolen information to interfere in an election?
You can't just publish the information through WikiLeaks.
We all saw how that played out.
They question the veracity.
They say it's not legit, it's not legal, and it's hacked materials.
They created new policies.
You can't share hacked materials.
Now I'll tell you this first.
Occam's razor.
The simple solution tends to be the correct one.
I'll tell you what I think.
I think Hunter Biden is a rich dude, and probably had an assistant, and he was like, yo, I dropped my laptop in the bath, can you go get it fixed?
Then he forgot about it.
That's really the most likely scenario here.
And the assistant, not knowing or caring, dropped it off at a repair shop, and then the rest is history.
Probably at some point, Hunter Biden was like, I'll just get a new computer and start over, and didn't think twice.
It's possible his assistant or aide or whatever brought the laptop in, maybe got fired.
That was the end of it.
I've worked for big companies, computers go missing.
Hunter Biden's rich, he probably just went out and immediately bought a new one and said, whatever, this computer's better, and then totally forgot about it.
As for the emails on the hard drive, it's probably just because he was logged into his email accounts, and they were stored on the hard drive.
That's the likely scenario.
But it's possible, and I'll be fair, that very clever operatives hacked the information and knew, in order to clean it, you need to have it become the property of someone else.
And think about what we're dealing with.
Someone brings in a laptop to this repair shop.
And then forgets about it.
Or leaves it, for whatever reason.
The owner of the repair shop becomes the legal owner of the laptop, because that's how it works.
After a certain amount of time, the property becomes forfeit, and the laptop repair shop becomes the owner.
The information is now totally in ownership of the repair shop owner, who is authorized to give it to whoever he wants, cleaning the information.
I think it's fair to bring up that possibility.
I do.
I think it's important to do so, because we are dealing with dirty politics.
The fact is, this was released in October, and I don't like that they're doing this.
But if the information's true, and it appears to be, that's all that matters.
Now, like I said, I can entertain and speculate grand conspiracies about the Russians and Trump, but there's no evidence there.
I think it's an interesting thought.
But again, Occam's razor suggests the simple solution tends to be the correct one.
And I'll tell you this, man.
A rich dude dropped his computer in a laptop.
I'm sorry, dropped his laptop in a bathtub.
And then forgot about it.
Let me tell you a story.
I once bought a Surface Pro, and I was working for a big Disney company making some pretty good cash.
And I walked down the stairs, and I tripped, and it fell, and it shattered.
And so I folded it up, and I said, bring it to a repair shop, and I forgot about it.
Actually, turns out, it was sitting in a closet.
That was it.
Totally gone.
Everything on the hard drive.
No idea.
That is why I believe this is legitimate.
Let me walk you through what's going on here.
First and foremost, here's a story from the Wall Street Journal.
What we know about Hunter Biden's dealings in China.
Joe Biden's son owns a stake in a private equity firm that has participated in various transactions.
Hunter Biden flew to China in 2013 aboard Air Force Two while his father, Joe Biden, left, made an official visit as vice president.
Why was Joe Biden allowing his son to use government assets for private business dealings?
That already is a conflict of interest and very serious.
The Biden camp responded saying, here's what Politico wrote, Biden's campaign would not rule out the possibility that former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pazarski who wouldn't appear on Biden's official schedule.
They're not denying that Joe Biden met with his Burisma executive.
Let's check out some more stories in this vein, though.
The Biden campaign is glad Twitter and Facebook censored the New York Post's Hunter Biden expose.
Of course he is.
Of course he's happy.
Joe Biden hires Facebook executive Jessica Hertz for transition team.
Let's roll that boulder.
Let's get the chase going.
Let me tell you what's really going on, if you're ready to pay attention.
The New York Post reported October 1st, Joe Biden's transition team has hired top Facebook executive Jessica Hertz as its general counsel to oversee ethical issues, as the campaign tussles with the social media giant to get it to censor President Trump's posts, according to a report.
This will be the second hire by Team Biden of a former big tech executive following Carlos Mangi, Twitter's Director of Public Policy, brought on as co-chair of the transition team's Infrastructure Policy Committee.
Biden hiring Hertz, who worked on government relations with Facebook, has sparked fury on the left.
She will be responsible for enforcement, oversight, and compliance of the ethics plan the Biden transition team unveiled Wednesday.
It intends to follow the guidelines former President Barack Obama instituted to restrict the role of lobbyists in the administration.
The ultimate arbiter for ethics for the Biden transition team was a senior regulatory official for Facebook up until a few months ago, at a time when progressives and the Biden campaign are fighting against the right-wing agenda on Facebook, Jeff Houser, director of the Liberal Revolving Door Project, told Politico.
Please make it clear that I think the Trump administration is insanely corrupt, and I'm not equating the two, but this is deeply disappointing," he said.
So the left was actually upset about this, but I'll tell you what it really is.
Right now, Facebook is censoring this story on the Biden family.
Well, he's connected, isn't he?
It turns out Andy Stone, the man who announced they would be censoring the New York Post, formerly worked for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
This is what we call the revolving door of crony establishment incestuous politics in this country.
Someone from the Democrats goes to Facebook, someone from Facebook goes to the Democrats.
And you can see how they're all one big happy family tree, son.
And you know what?
This is what we're getting.
Reddit CEO.
I'm confident that Reddit could sway elections.
March 12, 2018.
From BGR.
In a recent interview with the New Yorker, Reddit CEO Steve Huffman took things to a very different direction.
Quote, I'm confident that Reddit could sway elections.
We wouldn't do it, of course.
And I don't know how many times we could get away with it.
But if we really wanted to, I'm sure Reddit could have swayed at least this election, this once.
Interesting.
Huffman's explanation on whether he sees Reddit as the dog or the tail is particularly enlightening.
I don't care too much about that.
I care about the comments made by the CEO of Reddit when he says we can sway the election, baby.
We wouldn't do it, of course.
Go to Reddit.
What do you find?
Here are the hot stories on the news section.
Does the word Biden appear at all on the front page?
No, it doesn't.
And to be fair, maybe it appears somewhere else on the site, probably on some more conservative pages.
But this is news with 22 million subscribers, one of the most prominent pages on Reddit.
And of course, when you go to all and look at every single post, you don't get stories about Hunter Biden or Joe Biden or his corruption.
It does not appear.
I wonder if we can find it over on the political subreddit.
Why don't we take a look in real time and see what we can find.
Maybe I'll prove myself wrong.
Okay.
Biden campaign manager.
Race is far closer than experts say.
Okay.
Barrett hearing.
Trump Michigan governor.
NBC.
The majority will vote for Biden.
Florida.
A crime in plain sight.
Oh, oh.
Lindsey Graham.
Oh, Lindsey Graham.
Lindsey Graham.
Lindsey Graham.
Lincoln Project.
Trump administration warned donors of COVID.
What's this?
Where's the Hunter Biden story?
It's political.
It's the New York Post.
One of the biggest papers in the country.
Doesn't appear.
Reddit can sway elections.
Reddit will sway elections.
I think this is what we should expect.
Now let me go back to what the Biden campaign said about the censorship.
I mean, they hired two executives, one from Twitter, one from Facebook, so they're certainly well connected.
And maybe they were playing the long game.
We can make fun of the Democrats for doing a failed job on many different things, but maybe they realized if we hire someone from Twitter and Facebook, they're going to know everybody there.
They're going to make, that's going to make these companies one phone call away.
And I'll tell you what I think happened.
In my opinion, when this New York Post story dropped, how much you want to bet?
What do you want to bet this woman from Facebook gives a phone call to someone at Facebook and says, take it down?
They do.
Let me ask you.
It's just my opinion, by the way.
But do you think that somebody who worked for Twitter maybe has the phone number of other people's who work for Twitter?
Other people who've worked for Twitter?
Yeah, of course, right?
And there's someone who works for Facebook.
She probably has the phone number of people who currently work for Facebook, right?
Yeah.
Do you know the phone number to Twitter or Facebook?
When you have a problem, can you call them?
Is there any anyone you can contact at Twitter or Facebook?
No.
You can tweet at them, I guess.
You can post on their pages, maybe.
The answer is no.
You can't.
Guess what?
Joe Biden can.
Here's the story.
Joe Biden's campaign said Thursday they had no problem with Twitter and Facebook's unprecedented censoring of the Post's bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden's business dealings, even admitting they were glad.
Biden campaign national press secretary Jamal Brown went so far as to claim the gagging of one of America's largest newspapers made clear the post reporting on Ukraine and China related documents from a Hunter Biden hard drive was untrue.
Quote, what is your campaign's response to this article?
And do you think that Twitter is doing the right thing here?
A Cheddar anchor asked Brown of the former forming political maelstrom.
I think Twitter's response to the actual article itself makes clear that these purported allegations are false, and they're not true, and glad to see social media companies like Twitter taking responsibility to limit misinformation.
Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans on Thursday said they will hold a hearing next week to compel Twitter's chief executive to testify, and have invited Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg to do the same.
The post reporting included an email from Hunter Biden indicating he had introduced his then vice president father to Ukrainian energy firm, an executive at Burisma, despite the elder Biden saying he never discussed his troubled son's overseas business dealings.
The Biden campaign has denied that the former vice president ever had such a meeting on his official schedule, but has not denied he has never met the man.
Another article published Thursday that describes Hunter Biden's alleged pursuit of China business deals was also blocked.
That's right.
The story I showed you in the beginning.
This story is actually blocked on Twitter as we speak.
It's censored.
And guess what?
More's coming.
There will be more information coming.
I don't think the New York Post got a trove of emails and then just published them on one day.
There's apparently a video of Hunter Biden engaging in lewd and illegal activities.
I can only imagine that'll come out later in the month.
Now I want to reiterate a point from last night's show with Jack Murphy over on the IRL podcast and he said, there's a photo of Hunter Biden with a crack pipe in his mouth.
It's some kind of, it's not a weed pipe, I'll tell you that.
At least it doesn't appear to be.
And Jack said, I'm not going to drag someone over addiction because addiction affects everybody.
And there are a lot of people right now who are suffering addiction.
You know what?
Jack was completely correct.
I'm not interested in seeing a video of Hunter Biden hooking up with some woman or doing drugs or whatever.
I'm not interested in that.
People have problems.
Those are private personal matters for Hunter Biden, not Joe.
Now, I think Joe Biden's irresponsible.
I think this shows that he's done wrong in many ways by his son.
But I'm not going to hold Joe responsible for the problems that his son is facing.
And I think it's fair to say that his son needs help.
He needs rehab.
And I think a lot of people go through hard times, and I'm not going to drag him for it.
You know what I am concerned about?
Foreign dealings.
How long?
Until one of these countries, China for instance, blackmails Joe Biden saying, here's what your son did and here's what we know.
Let's pretend for a minute that Joe Biden is not involved in any of this.
Okay, I shouldn't say let's pretend, let's operate under the assumption it's not true.
I mean, we don't have definitive evidence.
What happens when China goes to Joe and says, we have the hard drives from your son, we can show you the crimes he's been committing, and we can publish those things.
We can show the world who the Biden family really is.
And to be completely honest, I don't hold most people to such a high standard where I genuinely would believe they would be willing to sacrifice their child for the greater good.
I don't believe it.
Some people maybe.
Some people.
That's a tough call to make.
And I'm not dragging somebody for refusing to do it.
But think about it.
Joe Biden sees that his son could be about to fall on his own sword.
Who do you think Joe Biden's going to sell out?
Do you think he's going to say, well, Hunter, you've, you've, you've, you know, you've made your own bed.
Sorry.
Or do you think he's going to say, Hunter, you're my son.
I would fall on the sword for you to save you.
I've heard stories and I've talked to parents and I'm willing to bet that Joe Biden, and I can respect this, loves his son too much to ever see his son take full responsibility for his actions.
It's a shame.
I've had some pretty powerful conversations with dads.
I'm not a father myself.
But maybe many of you are.
I'm assuming many of you are.
And ask yourself this if you are.
What lengths would you be willing to go to save your child?
I know some people who would run into a burning building and have their skin seared off if it meant saving their kid.
I know parents who would jump in front of a grizzly bear.
I think most parents probably would.
I mean, think about how the grizzly bear reacts when you go near the grizzly's kids.
Yeah, parents will do a lot for their children.
And this is what scares me about Hunter Biden.
Now we can talk about Don Jr.
and Eric and the things they've done, for sure.
But it's not nearly as bad as the things we've seen of Hunter Biden.
I'm not going to drag Hunter over his problems and his addictions.
But what if it comes to a point where Hunter owes some bad people some money?
Foreign interests.
Governments.
Unofficial organizations, if you know what I mean.
Mafioso types.
You think Joe Biden's gonna be like, sorry Hunter, come on man, you shouldn't have done this?
Or do you think Joe's gonna be like, I can't believe you'd do this, but I have to save my son.
And I mean this with a bit of respect.
I think Joe Biden is the kind of man who absolutely would save his son.
But that's also a problem for the American people.
The president needs to be able to put the American people above his personal interests, and I don't think Joe Biden can do that.
I think he's protected his son for far too long.
And I think, to be honest, I think Joe's involved.
But I don't think he should be our president.
That's just my opinion.
I'm sure there's gonna be more news coming.
Stay tuned.
But for now, the next segment I have for you is coming up at 6 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastnews starting at 6 p.m.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Yesterday, the New York Post published a groundbreaking expose on the Biden family, mostly on Hunter Biden, coming from emails they received from a laptop.
The emails seemed to show that Joe Biden himself was lying when he said he wasn't talking to his son about foreign business dealings, and that Hunter Biden was being enriched off the family name and influence he gained by being the son of the vice president, Joe Biden.
According to this new evidence, and other evidence, may have actually been trying to interfere in foreign countries to benefit his family and become wealthy.
Now, I'm very careful on the language I use.
I believe, personally, the evidence shows us enough that Joe Biden, at the very least, was helping his family get rich.
We have a story from Politico magazine called Biden Inc., where they talk about this very detail, and that was last year.
I believe the Bidens are crooked.
I believe Hunter Biden is very crooked.
And I think Joe knows all about it.
But I tell you now, we're in an episode of Black Mirror, baby.
You see, this story got censored on social media.
I'm now hearing this new thing in journalism.
People are saying, well, did we verify the story yet?
Is the story verified?
The story is unverified.
What do you mean unverified?
The emails were published.
I can read them.
Unverified.
Nobody verified the New York Times story on Trump's tax returns.
And they didn't publish any evidence.
The New York Post put the emails out there.
Or some of them.
And photos.
And a bunch of other outlets have the photos as well.
Some pretty damning photos.
Let me show you this right here before we get started.
This is the most important thing you're ever going to see.
For now.
Because who knows what's going to happen later.
House Judiciary GOP tweeted, Twitter has blocked users from tweeting the link to the New York Post story on Hunter Biden.
So we put it on our website for you to read and share.
Click share and retweet.
Yes, this is the House.gov website.
Let me repeat that for you.
House.gov.
The United States government website.
Let me click this link for you.
And this is what happens.
Twitter is now actively censoring and blocking the U.S.
government's... the U.S.
government website.
Amazing.
And take a look at what it says.
The link you are trying to access has been identified by Twitter or our partners as being potentially spammy or unsafe.
In accordance with Twitter's URL policy, this link could fall into any of the below categories.
Malicious links that could steal your information or harm your devices.
Spammy links that mislead people or disrupt their experience.
Violent or misleading content that could lead to real-world harm.
Certain categories of content, if posted directly on Twitter, are a violation of the Twitter rules.
What about a house.gov website?
Is any of those things misleading?
Who in the ever-living are you to say the US government is misleading?
Now, hey, hey, hey, I'm right there with you, Twitter!
Let's talk about all the ways the government misleads us.
Hey, is that what your official stance is?
Because I'm down.
Hey, I'll tell you what.
How about we get Jack Dorsey to talk about all of his fears over the government lying to him, and he can hang out with Alex Jones and Rachel Maddow, and they can screech about all their conspiracy theories.
This is a whole new level of depravity.
But to be fair, You can ignore this warning and continue, which I will do.
Welcome now to the Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives Ranking Member Jim Jordan.
House.gov.
Smoking gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad.
Okay, I'm scrolling through this, and guess what?
Are there any photos?
No.
Any images or personal information?
No, not at all.
It's literally just the text.
From the story posted to the GOV website.
So why is Twitter taking this down?
Twitter issued a long statement saying commentary on this stuff is fine so long as you don't show it.
What do you mean?
This doesn't show it?
This, this, why is this being blocked?
Because dude, let me say it for the 50 billionth time.
Social media companies are manipulating you and they're doing it to help Joe Biden win.
If you haven't already, I know it's a bit outdated at this point, it's almost coming on two years old, a year and a half old, check out the Joe Rogan podcast I did with Jack Dorsey and Vijaya Gadi of Twitter.
Their goal is for a global community.
And that's all well and good.
Except you have to abide by rules, laws, and norms of the country you're in for the country you're in.
And that's Twitter's policy!
You know how many times I get emails where they're like, Your Twitter account has been reported, but we found no violation of German law.
Why do I care about German law?
Oh, because in these countries they have to abide by the rules and their norms.
I've also, not me personally, actually no, I think I did get one of these, I'm not sure, but a lot of people will get notifications saying that they're blasphemers because they've said things about Islam.
And then I see them post and say, like, why is Twitter telling me, you know, that in this country, in Pakistan or whatever, it's because you broke the law in Pakistan.
Don't go there.
If you get a notification from Twitter saying you broke the law in this country, don't go to that country.
So why is Twitter upholding the rules, norms, and laws of foreign countries for American citizens, but not the other way around?
They want Joe Biden to win.
They are cheating to help Joe Biden win.
They are cheating to help Democrats win.
They've been cheating for years.
They are manipulating the public.
And this is why I've been screeching like a banshee that they need to be regulated.
Look, free speech, yes.
But when they take over and monopolize the comments, that's when the regulation steps in.
I don't think antitrust is necessarily going to solve the problem, because Having a bunch of little Twitters won't change the fact.
But a federated Twitter universe, or the Fediverse that actually exists, is a much better way to do things.
The problem is, they've monopolized the space.
And that's just because humans choose to do it.
And that's a serious challenge.
But guess what?
I've always been leaning left on many of these issues.
I've always been in favor of regulating these companies.
When it comes to a point where the dominant communication platforms are censoring the government, Now that is something special.
Well, of course, Donald Trump is none too happy with this, and we'll get to that in a second, but I want to show you some, you know, we have Saurabh Amari.
He says, this is a big tech information coup.
This is digital civil war.
I, an editor at the New York Post, one of the nation's largest papers in circulation, can't post one of our own stories that details corruption by a major party presidential candidate.
Bravo.
I want to show you the glorious response Twitter had to this.
You know, what I really wanted to do was play circus music, but I can't.
Just, you know, copyright and stuff.
This is what Twitter is posting on everyone's page.
Well, maybe not everybody's, but when I go on Twitter, there's a What's Happening section.
And it says, Joe Biden did not push out a Ukrainian prosecutor for investigating his son.
The Washington Post confirms.
Oh!
The Washington Post confirmed it!
Therefore, it must be true.
There's no ulterior motive here.
The great journalists of The Washington Post are just trying to make sure that we know the truth and that they endorse Joe Biden for president September 28th, 2020.
2020 is great, man.
Cue the circus music.
That's what I'm talking about, baby.
The Washington Post endorses Joe Biden for president and confirms that Joe Biden is okay because we here in the pro-Democrat camp investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong.
This is what you're going to get.
You know, I had some friends say, like, what is the story verified?
And I was like, did you verify any story you've ever read?
When the New York Times or the Washington Post, did the Washington Post verify the story?
Is it, is it, did they verify their confirmation?
They didn't.
So until we get more outlets verifying it.
You see, over at Politico, they actually asked the Biden camp and Biden refused to deny it.
So what does that mean?
They said, we looked over Biden's schedule and we couldn't recall anything.
And then later it says, but it could have happened because, you know, Joe Biden does things like this.
And it's fantastic, ain't it?
So we have this from Emma Jo Morris, who is the deputy politics editor for the New York Post.
The New York Post Twitter account is still locked.
And what do you see right here on what's happening?
Joe Biden did not push out a Ukrainian prosecutor for investigating his son.
The Washington Post confirms.
Let me tell you something.
I'm going to go and say the opposite.
There was an affidavit released by Victor Shouk and the prosecutor who said he was going to investigate Burisma.
There were some instances in Ukraine where Joe Biden was named in a criminal complaint for interfering.
Joe Biden himself bragged about flying to Ukraine and withholding a billion dollars in aid to get a prosecutor fired.
I don't care what the EU thinks.
I don't care what Britain thinks.
I want to know why a vice presidential candidate was going to Ukraine and telling them, Fire a prosecutor, otherwise you're not getting U.S.
money.
I don't care about... You can take whatever else you want from that.
Let me tell you, I don't like the idea of the United States buying politicians in foreign countries, but I get it.
Statecraft, whatever you want to call it.
We're trying to win these conflicts, you know, win and peddle influence, and that's what America does.
I still take issue with it.
I don't think we should be going to foreign countries and gloating about how wealthy we are, and we can give you a billion dollars if you fire this one guy we don't like.
They say, but it wasn't Joe Biden who wanted to do it.
It was the European Union and Great Britain.
Why are we acting at the behest of the European Union and Great Britain?
It's not an answer.
No excuse.
So here's what ends up happening.
Joe Biden.
Let me see if I can click this and I'm going to read this for you.
Let's debunk some bunk BS.
They say, Joe Biden did not blah blah blah confirm.
Let me read this.
A series of emails obtained by the New York Post were published on Wednesday in a story alleging that Hunter Biden, the son of Joe Biden, introduced his father to a top executive.
I mean, you can argue they alleged it, but they published an email where the guy said, thanks for the opportunity to visit and meet your father, blah blah blah.
They say, however, according to the Washington Post, then Vice President Biden played no role in pressuring Ukraine officials into firing the prosecutor, who was also not investigating the energy firm.
That is a whole new level of psychotic lies.
Man, Joe Biden's on video saying, I went there and said, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you ain't getting the money.
Well, son of a B guy got fired.
They have the nerve right here to say he was not.
He played no role in pressuring Ukraine officials to firing the prosecutor.
Biden did not push out a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his son, the Post confirms.
The New York Post story had several red flags and holes that raised questions about its authenticity, according to journalists.
Well, according to journalists at the New York Post, it didn't.
So shut your mouth.
They are cheating, they are stealing the election, they are doing it in front of your face, and they are colluding with big tech monopolies to shut down news stories to do it.
But I want to give some credit to Jack Dorsey and the morons over at Twitter for inflaming the Streisand effect.
A story that probably would have gone through its traditional speedy news cycle, and then Trump would have said something dumb, and then we'd all be like, what was that thing about Hunter Biden again?
Instead, they pull this, because I really, I want to say, it sounds like they're trying to lose, but look like they're trying to win.
We actually want to suppress the information, so we'll do everything in our power to actually make the story bigger.
You see, When Joe Biden went to this guy, and he said, if you don't fire him, you don't get the money.
Well, son of a B. Guy got fired!
And then, the new prosecutor cleared Mykola Slotchevsky of all wrongdoing.
And that was the guy who founded Burisma.
Cleared of all wrongdoing, and he came back to Ukraine with a clean slate.
And then in 2018, under the Trump administration, I'm not saying it had anything to do with Trump, but, you know, once Biden's out, charges reemerge against the guy, and he fled to Monaco.
So let me ask you something.
They're saying they fired this guy because he failed the investigation.
I mean, the next guy that came in, thanks to Joe Biden, cleared the dude of wrongdoing.
So what's that all about?
Was Joe Biden going after an innocent man and getting Victor Shokin fired because he wouldn't prosecute an innocent man?
Was Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden, on the board of an energy company where he was receiving $83,000 per month for no reason, for an unknown reason.
He didn't speak Ukrainian, didn't work in the energy sector, but his name was Biden.
And then Victor Shokin says there was an inactive investigation.
Shokin says he did want to investigate Tsiolkovsky.
Oh, it's unfortunate for him that Joe Biden stepped in, I guess.
So the question is, who do you trust?
Do you trust the crooked, influence-peddling Bidens?
Or do you trust the, you know, crooked, oligarchic Ukrainians?
I'm not a fan of either.
To put it more neutrally, you could say something like, do you trust a prosecutor in Ukraine, or do you trust the Vice President of the United States?
And I think a lot of people in that circumstance would say, I'm not going to trust Ukraine, and so that's fair.
It absolutely is fair.
Maybe Viktor Shokin really wasn't doing the investigation.
Maybe he's just trying to use this now to go after Joe.
And maybe a lot of this is kind of like political revenge for the actions the U.S.
took in Ukraine, and we were taking many.
It has a lot to do with Syria, natural gas, Gazprom in Russia, and the Qatar-Turkey pipeline.
This whole conflict has a lot to do with getting natural gas into Europe.
I'll tell you what, man.
The Bidens are crooked.
That's just, that's fine.
And I'm not saying the Trumps ain't crooked.
I'm just saying, hey man, the Bidens are crooked.
But I'll tell you this.
The New York Times put out a story.
They put out a story about Trump's taxes.
And they lied.
They say in the opening line, Trump only paid $7.50.
Then later in the story they say, actually he paid $5.2 million, but you know, that's a whole other issue.
His tax liability was only $7.50, but he let the IRS keep the money for future liabilities.
So Trump paid a lot more than he actually owed.
But that's not what the New York Times said.
More importantly, the New York Times never published any evidence.
Like no images, no proof.
We don't even know where this information came from.
Not a single person in these circles said, well, the information's unverified.
For years, Russia collusion conspiracy trash.
When has Twitter ever intervened to this level?
They've not.
And look at the brazen lie.
Vice President Biden played no role in pressuring Ukraine officials into firing the prosecutor.
That's crazy to me, man.
There's video of this.
There's video of Joe Biden saying he did.
And Twitter is putting out this lie.
It's scary, man.
It's Black Mirror.
Here's a story from Daily Mail.
Twitter boss Jack Dorsey apologizes.
Yeah, but he just said we should have had more communication.
That was it.
So Jack Dorsey tweeted, You know what they're saying?
Twitter is saying that you can't share information, you can't share content that was obtained without authorization.
with zero context as to why we're blocking unacceptable.
You know what they're saying?
Twitter is saying that you can't share information, you can't share content that was obtained
without authorization, which is the weirdest, most absurd thing they could ever have said.
What does that mean?
So I can't post memes?
Nobody authorized me to post any fair use content.
Nobody authorized me to show any of these tweets.
Can I not post someone else's tweet because it's content without the owner's authorization?
They put in place someone who was solid at the time, but who cleared the founder of Burisma of all wrongdoing.
You know what?
Fine.
I'm not gonna go... We don't even need to go into more detail on what happened with Ukraine.
You heard that.
You heard it with your own ears.
You see the video.
I just played it.
Twitter put out overt false information that Biden played no role in this.
It's Black Mirror, man.
It is absolutely a level of depravity and insanity.
Now, I'll tell you what's funny.
Jonathan Swan, he's the guy from Axios who did that really cringey interview with Trump where his brow was furled the whole time and he was like, like every single thing Trump said, he'd go, And it was really just cringe-inducing.
However, that being said, he tweeted, Yeah.
Twitter Safety said the policy established in 2018 prohibits the use of our services to distribute content obtained without authorization.
We don't want to incentivize hacking by allowing Twitter to be used as distribution for possibly illegally obtained materials.
Hacking?
That's not the story.
The New York Post came across the information because it was leaked to them.
What they're saying right now, what Jack Dorsey is saying, I'm gonna say straight up, they've banned journalism.
I'm not kidding.
They have straight up banned journalism.
If I came out and said, I have proof of X, Y, and Z, and someone said, show me the proof, I'd say, I can't.
Twitter says I'm not allowed.
Journalism, leaked information, whistleblowers.
No good.
So why was the New York Times allowed to publish that story?
Donald Trump tweeted, So terrible that Facebook and Twitter took down the story of smoking gun emails related to sleepy Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, in the New York Post.
It is only a beginning for them.
There is nothing worse than a corrupt politician.
Repeal Section 230.
Section 230, for those that aren't familiar, is the Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which says that you can't hold a digital... Internet platform or whatever.
Internet content provider, you can't hold them liable for the comments made by third parties through their service.
What the intent was, if I post a comment on your website, or if you post a comment on my website, I can't be sued because of what you said.
They would sue you.
It also included provisions that allowed for content moderation in good faith.
Obscenities, lewd videos and things like that, and things that were considered objectionable.
Under that protective guideline, that good faith provision, You have Twitter banning people and news outlets.
This right here is not objectionable.
There's no way in my, I think in any reasonable view, that someone would interpret censoring the New York Post as good faith moderation.
In which case, I think Twitter has already forfeited their Section 230 protections because they are well outside the boundaries of what they were protected on.
You know what I think needs to happen though?
People need to start suing Twitter, the company, for what the individuals on Twitter are saying.
So if someone insults you, you file a suit.
I've often thought about this.
You've got, how many users on Twitter?
300 million?
I don't know how many are in America, but imagine this.
Imagine 200,000 American conservative individuals who were smeared by someone on Twitter, and they all filed lawsuits against Twitter.
Eventually something's gonna break through and crack the facade.
Eventually someone's gonna get an argument through that Twitter has no Section 230 protections because they're censoring news organizations.
That is not good faith moderation.
Thus, they should not be protected.
The New York Times is responsible for what the New York Times publishes, not their authors.
Although maybe there's an argument that's true too.
That's how crazy Section 230 is.
Repealing it's a bad idea.
Trump is wrong.
If you repeal Section 230, it just means conservative and independent media will get purged instantly.
Finger snap.
Gone.
Like Thanos.
However, reforming Section 230 is a good idea.
So look, there's a lot to go through here, but I do have to keep these segments limited to a certain time frame, and I'll just tell you this, man.
The most important thing.
We just watched an international multi-billion dollar corporation censor the U.S.
government, the government, from sharing information.
They've done it to Trump, and that's shocking.
And there's an argument to be made in certain circumstances about what Trump says.
If he says something that's an opinion that's kind of, you know, I don't know, if he says something, an opinion on medical advice and people are like, well, we can't share that, fine.
This is a breaking news story, not an opinion, about major corruption from a US politician published by government actors on a government website being censored.
Welcome to Black Mirror, my friends.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Maybe we'll have some developments on this.
And I'll see you all then.
The son of a vice president was using his name and access to his father to make money.
His father, according to some emails, appears to have known about what was going on, and his access to the president and his position in government was enriching his family.
In 2019, Politico magazine ran a story called Biden Inc., talking about how Joe Biden's connections and influence were enriching his immediate family.
Right now, a major presidential candidate, Donald J. Trump, is trying to highlight the corruption of his rival, who also is running for president.
The Twitter account, one of the best ways the Trump campaign can reach the American people and warn them about this crooked, 47-year incumbent, crony, corporatist, corrupt individual.
That Twitter account has been shut down.
Twitter shut down the account of the Trump campaign because they called out the fact that Joe Biden is a crooked, duplicitous, Crony.
Establishment politician.
Imagine that.
Warning the American people.
Listen.
Here's the evidence.
This man is corrupt.
Do not vote for him.
And so his allies in big tech, social media, and the media do everything in their power to shut down Donald Trump.
Trump's family's far from perfect.
Trump's done a bunch of really dumb stuff too.
And I think the main issue is, for me at least, I find it very hard to know who's right, who's wrong in many of these circumstances that deal with personal opinion over which story is worse.
Trump in the golf courses with the military, or Trump trying to do the G7 at his own golf course, or Joe Biden and his son, or Joe Biden's son peddling influence and connections to his father and his father lying about it.
But I think it's worse.
I think the Joe Biden scenario is worse for one simple reason.
Donald Trump was a very, very rich man.
He still is a very, very rich man.
He's in the top 200 wealthiest people in the country.
His net worth I believe now by Forbes said is about $3.2 billion.
Something around there.
It's gone down quite a bit.
Donald Trump is losing net worth and money trying to get elected.
And I had someone say to me, why would you want to vote for a guy who's so desperate to get elected that he's dumping insane amounts of money just trying to get the presidency?
And I was like, that doesn't mean anything to me.
Why would you vote for a guy who's desperate to become president to make money?
And he's been criticized for some of the things he's done.
He's been criticized for his bankruptcies.
He's been criticized for failing to pay out contracts or shorting contracts because he knew he had these people backed into a corner.
Some people say that Donald Trump is a wolf.
Okay.
And now he's sacrificing the wealth he's gained.
And I never... I'm not saying Donald Trump's a good person.
But why would Donald Trump want to give up so much of what he's earned to be president?
Honestly, I don't know.
You can come up with your own reasons, to be fair.
Come up with your own reasons, whatever.
Why would Joe Biden?
Because Joe Biden's worth millions of dollars now.
Millions.
And how is it that these politicians, they get into office, and when they leave, they become millionaires?
Doesn't that sound a little weird?
Now Donald Trump's donating his salary, but Donald Trump's costing the federal government a ton in flying around and doing things like that.
So I'm not going to pretend like Trump's perfect, but I'll tell you what.
If I'm hearing from left and right all this crazy stuff about both sides, and then I look and I see a guy like Trump sacrificing in order to become president, you can call him whatever you want.
I'm like, dude's losing money for this.
You look at Joe Biden, I'm like, you can call him all the names in the book.
The dude is making money off this.
I'm not saying it's the biggest indicator of anything in the world, I'm just saying.
Take a look at this story.
We are now above and beyond this level of depravity from mainstream media, from social media.
Twitter locks Trump's campaign account for posting Biden-Ukraine story after shutting down Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany despite apology from Jack Dorsey.
There's another story I'm going to cover in the next segment.
More emails are being released by the New York Post and it runs deep the corruption of the Biden family.
And Twitter is once again already censoring this information.
So let me make this very clear for you.
Evidence has emerged that Joe Biden is crooked.
And evidence has been coming out for quite some time.
Republicans in the Senate.
The Senate Judiciary.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, this is the House.gov.
Government website.
Censored on Twitter.
The Press Secretary for the White House.
Censored on Twitter.
One of the largest and oldest newspapers in this country.
Censored on Twitter and Facebook.
That's amazing.
And now the president himself, his campaign, is being locked down.
Twitter has now locked the account of Trump's re-election campaign for posting the Joe Biden Ukraine story after shutting down the White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany's account over the same thing.
Conservatives on Thursday said the extraordinary move, taken just 19 days before the election, gives Biden's campaign an unfair advantage.
Imagine this.
Imagine a debate was happening, and Donald Trump pulled up a newspaper and said, look at this paper from the New York Post.
Joe Biden is crooked.
So they cut his mic, cut the lights, and kicked him off stage.
The American people don't deserve to know.
That's what Joe Biden said recently in an interview.
When a journalist asked him, don't the American people deserve to know, he says, no, they don't deserve.
No, they don't.
Joe Biden, crooked, mafioso, corrupt, crony establishment politician.
I'm not a fan of Donald Trump for the most part, but I'm going to vote for him for a lot of reasons.
I've mentioned this several times.
I'm not here to play games where I'm going to say Trump's the best, Trump's perfect.
I absolutely do not think that's true.
But I'm not going to sit here when social media is actively cheating to help the Democrats win.
That's what I'm angry about.
I'll tell you what, you want to complain about Trump?
Put a kettle of tea on, and I'll sit down and we can talk all about it.
And I can tell you the things I like and the things I don't like.
But if you come to my house, and you tell me the orange man is bad, and I say, I'm listening, and then I say, I also heard that the crazy crackpot is bad, and you go, shut your mouth!
I'm going to say, whoa, whoa, whoa.
I'm having a conversation here.
You see, the problem is, The big tech oligarchs got it in the bag that they're putting it.
They're setting up Joe Biden to win.
They've been cheating the whole time.
They have been cheating the whole time from Bernie Sanders till today.
Broken mail-in voting backfiring in their faces, shutting down the president's campaign account.
And I'll tell you what, man.
We've all seen it coming.
And this is what happens if Joe Biden wins.
Imagine this stuff tenfold.
Imagine all the negative stories that'll make Joe Biden look bad.
You see, the thing is, you got a lot of people who are making money off these free trade agreements, international deals, and, you know, crooked money, storing money in foreign countries.
Anybody remember the Panama Papers?
Well, Donald Trump started changing things.
Tariffs, peace agreements, border security, bringing back jobs, and that threatened the bottom line for a lot of these crooked crony crackpots.
In comes Biden.
In comes big tech.
They're here to save the day and make sure that their interests and their money in the bank is secure.
Well, I got an update for you.
You see, the Senate Republicans on Twitter said, see you soon, Jack.
And now we got the breaking news.
Josh Hawley tweeting, pleased to announce the full Judiciary Committee will vote on subpoena to Twitter and Jack on Tuesday.
That subpoena should include Facebook.
Bravo, good sir, I'm glad to hear it.
We got the news now from CNBC.
Facebook and Twitter CEOs will have to answer to Senate Republicans after Biden-NY Post controversy.
And you know what's going to happen?
Nothing.
Nothing.
Look, I think Josh Hawley's alright.
I think he's pretty good.
Because he's talking about important issues having to do with freedom.
I think Ted Cruz calling this out is good as well.
We've got a bunch of others on the Republican side that are calling these things out.
And I'll tell you what, man, nothing's gonna happen.
They're gonna subpoena Jack Dorsey, Jack Dorsey's gonna lie, he's gonna say whatever he wants, and nothing will happen.
And this, I tell you, if Trump loses, If he loses because of this, you know, I have a feeling people are going to snap.
I think it's hilarious that, you know, if you look at my Wikipedia page, it says, according to Al Jazeera, Tim Pool shares, you know, the views of conservatives that they're persecuted at the hands of social media companies.
Am I wrong?
Have I been wrong?
I think it's funny that people like to say, Tim, you said the Republicans were going to sweep in 2018 and you were wrong about that.
Ha ha, you're going to get everything wrong.
It's like nine out of 10 things I've said were going to happen have happened.
I remember a year ago when I was like, race rides are coming.
A year later, race rides happened.
I remember I said they're gonna start coming to people's houses.
They start coming to people's houses.
I said they're gonna start arresting the people defending their homes because it's easier to do, and then they start doing that too.
Because it's obvious!
One domino falls down, you can see the trail of dominoes in front of, you know, what comes down next.
I don't think Trump or any of these people are actually going to get anything done in terms of censorship.
They had their chance.
They missed their chance.
And now this is what you're going to get.
Republicans are going to be wiped out in terms of politics.
How long ago did I tweet this?
I made a video back in 2018.
Republicans are too stupid to know their last chance to save themselves.
Here we are.
Now, of course, Republicans, a lot on the right, are saying we must regulate Repeal 230 and a bunch of ideas that don't seem to bear out any, you know, won't bear fruit.
And the subpoena thing, while it's interesting, ultimately will do nothing.
Can you believe that Kayleigh McEnany, the White House press secretary, got suspended on Twitter?
For no good reason.
Let me show you some stuff.
Let me show you what's going on.
First of all, we got some more censorship.
YouTube bans QAnon and other conspiracy content that targets individuals.
YouTube said it would be enforcing the updated policy immediately and plans to ramp up in the weeks to come.
Immediately.
You know what that means?
Without warning and with no strikes, many channels purged.
I'm no fan of QAnon stuff or conspiracy theories.
But don't you think you should warn people and say we're not going to allow this anymore and then give them a chance to say okay or no?
Nah.
No warning.
No strikes.
Just gone.
So what happens in six months when they say anyone who dares challenge mail-in voting will be banned?
I'm not going to get a warning.
There's not going to be a, hey Tim, don't talk about this Thursday.
Nuke them.
Boom.
Gone.
It's only a matter of time before my channels get wiped out.
And I've been saying that for quite some time.
It's happening in front of our very eyes.
They've suspended one of the largest and oldest newspapers in this country, the fourth largest in circulation.
Should be shocking to anybody.
They banned the White House press secretary, Kayleigh McEnany, attacks Twitter for not banning articles that accuse Trump of collusion with Russia and reveals she won't have her account back until she deletes the story about Joe and Hunter Biden.
It's really amazing, isn't it?
Glenn Greenwald.
Glenn's been doing a great job.
He says, look carefully at what Twitter is saying to justify censoring the Biden story.
If applied consistently, it'd mean that some of history's most consequential journalism, the Pentagon Papers, WikiLeaks, Warlogs, Snowden Docs, Panama Papers, and our Brazil archive would be banned.
So much of the important journalism you read is based on a source providing to journalists content obtained without authorization.
Beyond the above examples.
Why doesn't Twitter ban links to the New York Times stories based on Trump's tax returns obtained without authorization?
Hard numbers about Trump's tax returns.
Unauthorized access.
Nothing.
Welcome to the game.
Glenn says, Please don't be deceived.
The authoritarian mindset expressed below celebrating mass censorship of journalism they dislike is absolutely a significant strain in current U.S.
liberalism, which is why so many of them cheered the stunning censorship yesterday.
There is literally zero daylight between many, arguably most national journalists reporting on the election and the Biden campaign.
Does this sound like a journalist or a DNC operative?
And of course, they're going to the Russia playbook again based on anonymous CIA claims.
Well, it's a brave new world.
It's Fahrenheit 451.
It's 1984 all rolled into one.
Did you guys see the story recently about Melania Trump?
Secret recordings going viral showing Melania complaining about some of the stuff that are going on and Oliver Darcy from CNN tweets about it.
No one seems to have issue with that.
That was obtained without authorization.
It's clearly fake.
Look, I'll be completely honest.
You've got Project Veritas.
Their stuff is obtained without authorization.
Now, they're filming people in public, so I guess there's an arguable difference.
But then you have the Melania recordings, obtained without authorization.
Okay, fine, we'll use the Veritas example.
What about Trump's tax returns?
That wasn't supposed to go public.
It's a game.
You know, I'm looking at what happened the other day with the Amy Coney Barrett thing and the phrase sexual preference.
And we had Jack Murphy on the podcast last night, the IRL podcast.
And he said, if you're wondering who's losing, look to who is changing the rules.
It's weird.
The polls all say that Joe Biden is winning by massive margins.
I tell you what, man, I don't believe any of it.
You know why?
Because we can see how they lie.
I want to show you this one more time.
I showed this in an earlier segment.
This is outstanding.
I don't mean in a good way.
I mean, this is just, I am absolutely impressed by Twitter's willingness to brazenly lie.
When they say, the Vice President, then Vice President Biden played no role in pressuring Ukraine officials into firing the prosecutor.
That is a bold lie.
Beyond a lie.
I mean, we've all seen the video.
The arguments we've had over the video of Joe Biden saying that he's, you know, you don't get the billion dollars unless you fire the guy, was whether or not it was improper or proper.
Twitter is just erasing history.
That's the world we're living in now.
That's what you can expect in the future.
If these media companies are willing to put out lies so obvious, is it possible the pollsters are lying?
Yeah?
Now, I would say Rasmussen probably isn't, but they're showing Trump is doing fairly bad.
Fairly.
Not the worst.
And there are some other polls that are showing Trump doing bad as well that we trust, and there are some polls that are saying Trump is doing well.
I think the polls are just nonsense at this point.
If they're willing to lie about this, why would I trust that they're giving us real results?
Why wouldn't they just make up poll results and tell us Biden's gonna win to convince everyone Biden's gonna win?
I gotta be honest.
I can't actually imagine a scenario where Joe Biden wins.
I can't.
I mean, I know what FiveThirtyEight said.
He's favored, you know, 19 out of 22 scenarios he wins.
I don't, I can't see it.
I can't.
Can you imagine?
Fumbling, bumbling Joe?
Nah.
I can barely imagine Trump as president.
But Joe Biden's worse.
I'll throw it back to Johnny Rotten.
Legendary punk rocker who said he voted for Clinton in 2016, he's voting for Trump now.
Because Joe Biden's just not there.
Look, there's a lot of problems with Trump.
A lot.
And Trump's got his diehards that will support him no matter what.
And Joe Biden's got his anti-Trump people that would vote for a log, a stump in a swamp, if it meant beating Donald Trump.
They'd vote for a jelly donut or a ham sandwich.
Joe Biden's got those people.
Just play fair.
That's all I ask.
You want to rag on Donald Trump?
We can rag on Donald Trump all day and night.
But play fair.
They're not.
That says to me, Joe Biden's losing.
I think so.
You know, what's funny is we got another story coming up, and I've got to dig into the details, but Hunter Biden, more emails coming out from the New York Post, peddling influence to China.
To make money off his name and access to his father.
Twitter is now censoring that story as well.
Paradoxically, promoting the story.
They don't know what the Streisand effect is, or maybe they do.
Look at this.
Trending in the US.
Eric Trump's Ukraine scandal.
Alright, let's play.
What's Eric Trump's?
Eric Trump visited Ukraine in 2014 and nobody knows why.
Why is this story allowed to go viral?
Why are they allowed to say, in rebuttal to the story about Joe Biden, that you've already suppressed, we can put out unhinged conspiracies?
Why?
Scott Dworkin says, here's a video of Eric Trump in Ukraine over a decade ago.
What was he doing there?
Was he paid to be there?
If so, by who?
Was anyone from the Ukrainian government there?
Did he do meetings outside this event?
So many questions.
2,300 retweets.
You see how the game is being played?
When the New York Post publishes a story that makes Joe Biden look bad, they block it.
When people then respond to the outrage by claiming it's the Trumps who are bad, Twitter allows it.
Twitter is evil.
Facebook is evil.
This is what happens when you get unfettered, unregulated, mass corporate power.
That's why I've never been a laissez-faire capitalist.
Because I've read the stories about, what was it, the Cuyahoga River bursting into flames?
Yeah.
Then we decided to regulate what you can put in the water, because you were starting it on fire, and that's kind of crazy.
Now you have big tech actively saying, people who support Trump are banned, and people who criticize Trump are promoted.
Where do we go from here?
What's the next step in this?
What's the next escalation?
I can't imagine it getting much worse than this.
I mean, they suspended, they locked out the New York Post, the Press Secretary, the House.gov website.
I'll tell you what, man.
You want to subpoena Jack Dorsey?
Go for it.
Is that going to do anything?
No.
Our politicians are pathetic, they're weak, and I'll tell you this, Jesse Kelly tweeted the right has lost the culture war.
Or he said we lost the culture war.
Liberalism.
And I mean that in the truest sense of the term, not the colloquial sense.
I mean like rights of the individual, freedom of speech.
It's over.
You know, look, not to be too pessimistic, but it's been years of us, all of us, warring.
This is coming.
And it was gonna get bad to the point where they banned newspapers.
We're 19 days away from an election.
And if Joe Biden wins, that's it.
This is the last rallying, the last ride of the free speech, individualist, classical liberal, social liberals, the true American spirit of freedom.
It's the last ride.
And if those who believe in free speech and fair media and honest media, if we do not win in November, that's it.
It's over.
Joe Biden and the Democrats taking the Senate.
They'll start passing laws.
They'll ban hate speech.
It'll be, it'll be chaos.
And I'm worried about, you know, when you see a story this shocking, they've banned the Trump campaign itself.
Suspended.
I'm sorry.
What do you think people are doing right now?
What do you think they're thinking about?
I think people are now seeing just how bad things are getting.
I hope it's enough to get people to wake up and make a change before it's too late.
I'll see y'all at 4pm in the next segment.
Thanks for hanging out.
For the last day or so, we've been dealing with the fallout from the New York Post story.
Censorship running rampant, Joe Biden's campaign having a massive conflict of interest with several of his staff members having worked for these companies, and now we have two big updates.
Senator Josh Hawley has issued letters to the CEOs of Twitter and Facebook, and Ajit Pai of the FCC says he's going to be issuing clarification on Section 230.
And I'm going to tell you right off the bat, it's bunk.
It's BS.
Nothing's going to happen.
It's the same thing they do every single time, and nothing happens.
Now look, for Josh Hawley, my respect, I don't think he has the power to actually do anything.
Unless the Republicans win back everything, it's not going to change.
I want to show you the letters Josh Hawley sent to Dorsey and Zuckerberg.
I want to show you what Ajit Pai is saying.
And I want to stress, nothing will change from these letters.
First, let me show you the tweet from Senator Hawley.
Senator Josh Hawley has formally requested Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg to appear before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism in a coming hearing titled, Digital Platforms and Election Interference.
In the first letter to Mark Zuckerberg, he writes, Dear Mr. Zuckerberg, I invite you to testify on a date to be determined before the election at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism hearing entitled, Digital Platforms and Election Interference.
As your company is no doubt aware, corporations are forbidden from contributing anything of value, financial or otherwise, to support the election of candidates for public office.
Accordingly, this hearing will consider potential campaign law violations arising from your company's decision, on October 14, 2020, to support the presidential campaign of Joe Biden by suppressing the distribution of a New York Post article entitled, Smoking Gun Email, reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad.
Committee rules require that you provide your testimony and curriculum vitae for distribution to members of the committee and the press at least 24 hours before the hearing is scheduled to begin.
Please send an electronic copy of your testimony and curriculum vitae to Jason Covey, and then they give the government email.
Please contact him.
We have another letter that went out to Jack Dorsey.
Holly writes, Dear Mr. Dorsey, I invite you to testify on a date to be determined before the election at the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Terrorism hearing entitled Digital Platforms and Electronic Election Interference.
As your company is no doubt aware, corporations are forbidden from contributing anything of value.
This is basically what he said to Zuckerberg.
He mentions the same thing.
He says the hearing will consider potential campaign law violations arising from your company's decision on October 14, 2020, to support the presidential campaign of Joe Biden by asymmetrically applying its terms of service and restricting the distribution of a New York Post article entitled, Smoking Gun Email Reveals How Hunter Biden Introduced Ukrainian Businessman to VP Dad, as well as by suspending the official count of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump for discussing the story.
It will also consider your company's decision to double down on the potential violation by, on October 15th, suppressing the post's follow-up story.
Committee rules require you submit your information.
Here's the email.
Okay, I like what I hear, right?
He says potential campaign law violations.
Oh, you get him, Holly!
You get him by inviting them to testify?
Okay, we may actually get some subpoenas.
The Daily Mail reports, Republicans say they will subpoena Jack Dorsey over Twitter locking Trump campaign account and blocking users and could target Zuckerberg next.
These letters, I'm sorry, mostly meaningless.
Unless a subpoena actually goes out and they're served, we're not gonna get much.
But let me ask you, what do you think's gonna happen if they actually do serve Zuckerberg and Dorsey, and Zuckerberg and Dorsey show up?
Nothing.
Nothing is gonna happen.
It's too little too late.
It's a show.
I don't think the Senators actually have the power to do anything, so I can respect Hawley for trying to do something.
Let me just tell you, man.
Nothing's going to change.
Ajit Pai of the FCC had ample opportunity to clarify the Section 230 rules.
He did not do it.
The Republican Congress people and all these politicians had ample opportunity to do something about this.
But you know what?
They're all just too stupid.
Listen, with all due respect to Matt Gaetz, to Josh Hawley, Thomas Massey, there are several Republicans who have been trying, so they get a free pass on this one.
But unless we have a consensus and an effort by all of our politicians and officials, nothing will change.
And I think this 11th hour attempt at some kind of show hearing won't do anything either.
Now, ultimately, I think the real benefit that we'll get from this hearing, should it be televised, is it, one, will stride and affect the story about Hunter Biden.
You're going to see the Republicans reading the Hunter Biden story.
And the real strategy strategy may be not to actually do anything with Section 230 or not to actually do anything With any of these, you know, policies.
It may just be an attempt to grandstand.
Now, that could benefit Donald Trump and the Republicans.
It could result in hearings where the story goes viral, where each and every senator then starts saying, in the story, they said this, that, and this.
In the story, they said this, that, and this.
And it could create positive coverage and negative coverage.
Positive for the Republicans, negative for the Democrats.
Well, Ejit Pai says he wants to clarify Section 230 issued a statement.
Let's read a statement and then I'll probably be criticizing this.
Statement of Chairman Pai on Section 230.
Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ejit Pai issued the following statement today on Section 230 of the Communications Act.
Quote, Members of all three branches of the federal government have expressed serious concerns about the prevailing interpretation of the immunity set forth in Section 230 of the Communications Act.
There is bipartisan support in Congress to reform the law.
The U.S.
Department of Commerce has petitioned the Commission to clarify ambiguities in Section 230.
Earlier this week, U.S.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas pointed out that courts have relied upon policy and purpose arguments to grant sweeping protections to Internet platforms that appear to go far beyond the actual text of the provision.
As elected officials consider whether to change the law, the question remains, what does Section 230 really currently mean?
Many advance an overly broad interpretation that in some cases shields social media companies from consumer protections laws in a way that has no basis in the text of Section 230.
The Commission's General Counsel has informed me that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230.
Consistent with his advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning.
Throughout my tenure at the FCC, I have favored regulatory parity, transparency, and free expression.
Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech, but they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.
This may be the most fruitful effort.
But please tell me why he didn't do this a long time ago.
There's no answer.
And that's why I'm not confident anything will really change.
And take a look at this.
As I look at this tweet from Ajit Pai, you can see Twitter censorship trending in the United States.
It's been a problem for a long time.
It was first reported on, I think, by Gizmodo, a left-wing publication, pointing out the one-way nature, you know, the one-directional nature of the censorship on these platforms.
So why has nothing been done about it?
And why now are we getting these empty platitudes?
Election's coming up.
They want to act like they're doing something.
They want you to feel like it's now or never.
I don't respect this.
The idea is, hey, if we lose, it's all over, but right here, right now, 11th hour, you better vote us back in!
I'm offended by that, to be completely honest.
You had ample time to solve this problem.
You had 2016, 2017, and 2018.
When the Republicans had everything.
And did they do anything about it?
Nope.
And Ajit Pai.
Now he's been the chair of the FCC for some time.
Has he done anything about it?
Nah.
Why should I believe them now?
I don't.
I think, you know, truth be told, I see a lot of these people and they like how this works.
All the politicians do.
Like the Democrats.
They pretend to be anti-war.
They love war.
They pretend to be pro-regulation of big businesses, then as soon as they're getting a benefit, nah.
I'm not entirely convinced Republicans want to do anything about this either.
I think it's all one big crony establishment game.
I'll clarify.
I think Hawley cares.
I respect Josh Hawley, and Rand Paul, and Thomas Massey, and Matt Gaetz.
But I think, for the most part, the overwhelming majority don't care about any of this.
And that's why they're gonna lose.
There won't be Republicans.
I mean, think about Donald Trump's position.
He's a moderate.
There's no far right.
There's no staunch conservatives in office, if you were to ask me.
It's a lot of crony establishment rhinos.
People pretending to be conservatives.
But that opinion's been wiped out.
It's been purged.
Now we have moderate conservatives and center-right individuals who are making up the most of what we would call the right, for the most part.
On the left, you have wackaloon wingnuts who believe ridiculous nonsense and change the definition of words at a moment's notice.
Social media allows that.
So the change isn't coming, I don't think so.
Now maybe, maybe they'll make the change right after getting elected, I don't know.
Maybe Ajit Pai will actually do something about this.
But I'm sorry if I'm a bit pessimistic on this.
Even Trump has been complaining about it, but come on, let's be real.
Donald Trump could just sign up for Minds.com or Parler, put out one post, and boom, the whole system changes.
So I'm not convinced he cares either, to be honest.
Or maybe he doesn't know, and maybe he's got bad people around him, but I'm not buying it.
We'll see how it plays out.
You know, maybe they'll get something done.
I got a couple more segments coming up in just a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
How bold and brave of Miriam Webster to change the definition of the phrase sexual preference, because Amy Coney Barrett said the phrase.
I'm not joking.
That's the story from Fox News.
Let me just read it for you, give you the context, and then we'll have a good old conversation about how nothing means nothing, nothing, anything, garbage, garbled, clown show, circus music.
There's no definitions anymore.
Words are meaningless, and you're a bigot, apparently.
That's where we are.
Beginning Wednesday, the fifth definition for sexual preference included the words offensive, because it wasn't offensive before, and they're lying to you.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary changed its definition of sexual preference to include the word offensive as Democrats slammed Supreme Court nominee Judge Amy Coney Barrett for using the term during Tuesday's Senate confirmation hearings.
Prior to Tuesday, the fifth definition listed for preference referred to orientation, as in sexual preference.
But as of Wednesday, the fifth definition for preference included the word offensive when used to describe sexual orientation.
Steve Krockauer says.
says.
As recently as last month, Merriam-Webster included a definition of preference as orientation.
Today, they changed it and added the word offensive.
Insane.
I just checked through Wayback Machine and it's real.
Our scheduled updates, which add new words and also add new definitions, usage guidance,
and example sentences to existing dictionary entries, take place several times per year.
From time to time, we release one or some of these scheduled changes early, when a word or set of words is getting extra attention, and it would seem timely to share that update.
Peter Sokolowski, Merriam-Webster's editor-at-large, explained in a statement to Fox News.
In this case, we released the update for preference when we noticed that the entries for preference and sexual preference were being consulted in connection with the SCOTUS hearings.
A revision made in response to an entry's increased attention differs only in celerity, as always.
All revisions reflect evidence of use.
No they don't.
This is a lie.
On Tuesday, Senator Mazie Hirono slammed Barrett for saying she would not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, saying that preference is an outdated and offensive term.
It is used by anti-LGBT... Oh, shut up.
I'm not reading any more of this.
Sexual orientation is a key part of a person's identity.
I had a conversation earlier on Twitter with this leftist.
And I said, essentially and politely, I respect your explanation of the word preference, and I personally actually do take offense to the phrase orientation.
I completely mean it.
I literally take offense to the phrase sexual orientation.
Because orientation is not a Latin word.
Orient is a Latin word.
I did talk about this a little bit, but I'll go through this, and I want to show you what Glenn Greenwald and some others had to say.
Matt Taibbi, for instance.
Actual liberals.
Listen, Orient is the Latin word meaning rising from the east.
And I believe Occident is rising from the west.
So in European cultures, they refer to Asia as the Orient, where the sun rises in the east, the land of the rising sun, etc.
However, over time, it came to reference stereotypes.
Now listen, what I take offense to, not that anyone cares, is that they can just arbitrarily change definitions like that.
And I said, OK, well, hold on.
Preference doesn't literally mean choice.
Like, I prefer, you know, strawberry ice cream over, say, vanilla ice cream.
I didn't just choose to feel that way.
I just actually was like, I like this better.
I'll tell you what.
I do not like cilantro.
I prefer my guacamole without cilantro.
It's not a choice.
I detest cilantro.
Make it all illegal.
I'm kidding, by the way.
I don't like it.
It's just how I am.
So they decide to change the word to orientation.
Now what makes me sort of angry is that not that I care about the origin of the words orientation, but that they don't.
That they look me in the eyes and say, we don't want to use this word because of the potential ramifications for what it may mean.
Okay, well what about the potential ramifications for what orientation means?
At least when the word orientation is said, you can understand orient is in it.
And the stereotypical use of it, not its Latin root, because there are other words that are rooted in Latin that I can't say, notably the word for a bundle of sticks.
I'm not going to say the word because it's offensive, right?
So they get to arbitrarily decide, you are not allowed to say this word.
And my response is, okay, well, then how about some reciprocity?
Please choose a different phrase to represent this because I think if you're being honest, we can look to the connotations of the word orient.
And they say, F you.
I'm not interested in playing this game.
It's all lies.
This phrase is not offensive to anybody.
Shut up.
These people are despicable.
Now check it out.
We got this fun tweet thread from Matt Taibbi.
And the reason I'm highlighting this in reference to this is because I want to show you what real liberals say.
And I'm using liberal in the colloquial sense, meaning people who used to be on the left probably aren't anymore.
Steve Krockauer's tweet saying they changed the definition.
Matt Taibbi, formerly, I believe formerly of Rolling Stone, I don't know if he's still there or not, said, The Ministry of Truth in Action, to which Glenn Greenwald responded, reminds me of that time when I spent years hearing from Democrats that Obama and Clinton's overt opposition to same-sex marriage was misguided but benign, justifiable and understandable.
And then the minute he evolved, opposition to same-sex marriage was proof of malicious bigotry.
I love this part.
Somebody responds to Glenn Greenwald.
This is Dr. Ned.
He tweets, Matt doesn't get to shame me for what I find offensive.
The term has a history of being used to justify all sorts of oppressive nonsense for people who grew up in conservative Christian households.
Senator Hirana was wrong in the first instance, not the second.
Glenn says, so Senator Hono is allowed to opine on whether preference is offensive but Matt's prohibited?
Why is she allowed but he is not?
What do you think of all of this?
I'm gonna stop right there.
Uh, I'm pretty sure Glenn Greenwald is a gay married man.
I don't know if he's married, but I know he's a gay man.
I'm pretty sure he's allowed to opine on whether or not he finds the phrase offensive.
I don't know what this other guy Dr. Ned is, maybe he's gay too, and, you know, apparently those are the rules.
Dr. Ned says, Senator Hirono recognizing it is an offensive term, especially as historically wielded by conservative Christians, is different than recognizing the offensive nature of this term is thought police.
Glenn Greenwald responded, so straight people are allowed to weigh in on these questions as long as the opinion they're expressing is the same as yours, otherwise it's inappropriate.
Of course it's how it works.
Also, are you saying it's okay for Dems to use this term like they did in that video but not Amy Coney Barrett?
He said a straight person can recognize a term as offensive and tell their friends about it.
Matt isn't opining on its offensive nature.
He is saying recognizing its offensive nature is Orwellian.
If he said, I don't think it's offensive because that is the difference.
Glenn Greenwald said, having a dictionary change the definition of terms to accommodate the daily view of democratic politicians and your decreeing that it's okay for your political allies to use a term but not your adversaries is kind of the very crux of what Orwellian means in this context.
When I got into a discussion with this person saying, how about a little reciprocity?
I don't like that you would use a derivative of Orient to protect yourself when you're offended.
Because what about me?
Don't I get say in what I find offensive too?
No.
Because you're not arguing in good faith.
Neither are you, you duplicitous cronies.
But I'll tell you what.
I did not approach you saying that you were not arguing good faith.
I said, okay, I hear what you have to say.
Let's play a game called Reciprocity and Cooperation.
Personally, I think Orient is offensive.
I think that you overlooking the history and the root of the word is offensive.
So how about I agree not to use the phrase preference, and you agree not to use the phrase orientation, and we'll agree upon something that is good for everyone!
Doesn't work that way, does it?
And I started to realize upon seeing this.
This is proof.
The problem is the left and not the right.
You know why?
You see that graph I tweeted about and PragerU posted about from Pew showing that The Democrats are moving left and the right is only moving a little bit to the right.
What that chart really shows is that Republicans are still negotiating a bit, a little bit less than they used to, but that Democrats are refusing.
It's consistently liberal versus consistently Republican.
It's mapping how often they actually work with each other and compromise.
I see it here.
I can tell you that white supremacists are bad.
I can tell you Antifa is bad.
And they're bad for different reasons.
But they're both bad.
The left can't do that.
The left won't cooperate.
The left won't negotiate.
And that's it.
That's what you get.
Now, I love it.
Republicans won the presidency in the Senate.
And that's their victory for them.
Congratulations.
You've lost the culture war.
That's what Jesse Kelly was saying, if you guys know Jesse.
I'll tell you what, man.
When the dictionary just changed the definition on the whims of some angry senators, there it is.
I'll tell you what.
I get a hundred million views per month plus.
I'm not saying to brag.
I'm saying that to reference.
If I can get that kind of viewership and tell you the word orientation is offensive, let me explain why.
Orientation is not Latin.
Orient is Latin.
Orientation derives from a 19th century use of Orient, referencing Asia, at a time when the stereotypes of Asia was savage and weak.
I don't care too much.
I'm not going to think about it.
The issue is, if I don't like it and I tell you, then by your rules and logic, we will not use the phrase.
But they've told me to shove it.
You'd think, with a certain level of influence, you know, I could say to people, you know, do you agree or not?
And then the people who watch me might say, we agree, therefore a large enough group of people have said, we've heard this, we understand it.
I'm not trying to boast about my viewership.
What I'm trying to say is, how is it that the tribe of the left can arbitrarily change definitions, like that, But when I say, please don't insult me by using that word, they tell me to go F myself.
You see, that's why the game is broken.
Because my response was, I agree.
Thank you for explaining it.
I will no longer use the phrase.
I'd like to point out it's also offensive to me when you use this phrase.
And they say, shut up.
Shut up.
Okay.
Then why would I bother negotiating with you or cooperating in any way?
I'm not.
So I tried.
The problem is the left.
End of story.
I got one more segment in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
Friends, we got one hot off the press here.
The C-SPAN journalist, we'll do air quotes for journalist, who got caught seeking advice from one of Trump's staunchest critics when he was supposed to moderate a debate, has finally confessed!
And now he's being suspended from C-SPAN.
Good riddance.
For those that aren't familiar with the story, Steve Scully was supposed to moderate the second debate with Trump and Joe Biden.
But Steve Scully accidentally tweeted to Anthony Scaramucci saying, should I respond to the president?
Everybody said, yo, why is the moderator, who's supposed to be neutral, tweeting to a Trump hater for advice?
Well, he ignored it for quite a bit.
Some funny stuff happened where apparently he nuked his account in a panic, and then he came back and said, I was hacked!
And guess what?
The media rolled with it, like, in just the most ridiculous manner possible.
unidentified
We're like, well, you know, he said he got hacked, so it wasn't a real thing.
Well, the dude finally confessed, and now he's gone.
But let me warn you right now.
He was trying to DM.
Anthony Scaramucci.
That's what we think.
Imagine how many journalists do communicate with people and are clearly biased, liars, manipulators, and they get away with it.
It reminds me of, uh, what do they say when you see a cockroach on the wall?
For every one you see, there's a thousand behind the wall you don't see.
Now, I know many people may be saying, how dare you, Tim, compare people to insects!
Okay, okay, let me walk that back.
I am a journalist, and I did work for some of these big companies, so consider it one of those things where I'm allowed to insult myself.
I'll put it that way.
Well, I'll put it this way, actually.
Journalists call themselves vultures.
It's a phrase, vulture.
Circling around, waiting for death to go and get the information.
They call themselves vultures, and there are groups that refer to themselves in that way.
So, let me... Sure, sure.
I'll tone it down a little bit.
But I'll tell you what, man.
These journalists... It's anti-journalism.
That's what it is.
That's what I call it.
Anti-journalism.
It's not enough for them to not be journalists.
They are actively anti-journalists.
Trying to suppress information and make it harder for you to understand what's happening.
I want to show you this quick tweet from Cigar and Jetty.
He said, when you boomer so hard that you mistakenly tweet a DM and can't figure out how to delete the tweet so you nuke
your whole account.
Apparently, when he did this back on October 9th, he deleted his entire account, and I find that kind of funny.
But let's read the story from the AP.
They say, C-SPAN suspended its political editor Steve Scully indefinitely Thursday after he admitted to lying about his Twitter feed being hacked when he was confronted about a questionable exchange with former Trump aide Anthony Scaramucci.
The news came on the day of what was supposed to be a career highlight for the 30-year C-SPAN veteran.
Scully was to moderate the second debate between Trump and Biden, which was canceled after Trump would not agree to a virtual format because of his COVID-19 diagnosis.
Which I will point out, by the way, he's doing a town hall for NBC.
They've deemed it safe.
You couldn't do the debate.
Had to be virtual.
That's a lie.
They're protecting Biden.
A week ago, after Trump had criticized him as a never-Trumper, Scully tweeted at Scaramucci, Should I respond to Trump?
Scaramucci, a former Trump Communications Director and now a critic, advised Scully to ignore him.
Scully said that when he saw his tweet had created a controversy, I falsely claimed that my Twitter account had been hacked.
And you know what's really funny about this?
People are like, he's gonna say it!
Say the thing!
We all knew he was gonna do it!
Because it's what they always do.
Joy Reid, I was hacked!
Yeah, right.
He had been frustrated by Trump's comments and several weeks of criticism on social media and conservative news outlets about his role as moderator, including attacks directed at his family, he said.
Oh, please.
Excuses, excuses.
These were both errors in judgment for which I am totally responsible for, Skull.
He said, I apologize.
He said he let down his colleagues at C-SPAN, fellow news professionals, and the debate commission.
I ask for their forgiveness as I try to move forward in a moment of reflection and disappointment in myself.
I'm gonna stop you right there, buddy.
I forgive you.
And I hope everyone else does, too.
It's important that we remember we must learn to forgive and forget.
I know it's hard!
I remember Anonymous, you say, we will not forgive, we will not forget.
Maybe that was the start of dark times for this country.
We absolutely must forgive.
We must.
We must tell Steve Scully that for admitting to your faults, you have done the right thing.
And you, sir, in my opinion, have regained your honor.
I know a lot of people don't want to hear it, maybe don't want to believe it, maybe don't accept it, but I think it's true.
Imagine if every journalist, every individual who did wrong, fessed up to it and said, I will try to be better, please.
And we said, we gratefully and humbly accept you back in.
Don't do it again.
I believe that's the right thing to do.
Because if you approach Scully and tell him to shove it and we'll never forgive you, his only alternative is to go the other direction.
We don't want that.
We want him to come back and be a better journalist.
Now maybe you're saying, Tim, this guy's claimed to have been hacked in the past several times.
Yup.
He's only saying it because he got caught.
That's true.
But you give people more than one shot.
I think you give people three strikes.
That seems like a good number.
Three strikes and you're out.
This guy made a mistake.
He fessed up to it.
Okay, we're gonna stop right here.
I say, sir, you did the right thing by admitting it.
I respect this tremendously.
It was probably not an easy thing to do.
I mean, he could have just carried on saying, nope, I got hacked.
Shut up.
Nope, I got hacked.
But he confessed.
He's lost his job over it.
That was the right move.
I absolutely respect that.
I hope you'll recognize that as well.
And I hope we can do this for more people.
And I hope Steve from this comes back better and never does it again.
Because I have goodwill.
I'm willing to extend it to someone like Steve.
And therein lies a weakness for...
Liberals, moderates, conservatives, we do extend goodwill.
Not every single person, of course, but there's a tendency to extend goodwill on our side, and there's not on the left.
I'm sick of cancel culture.
That's a left-wing thing.
Some right-wing people have tried and have done stuff like that, but it's usually in kind.
You know, the left will do something and the right will respond.
Let's knock it off.
I don't like cancel culture.
I don't want this guy getting fired.
I'll tell you what, don't suspend him indefinitely.
He fessed up.
What you do is you give him a garbage routine or whatever.
You say, okay, your beat's officially gonna be, you know, I don't know, covering the interns or something.
Here we go.
C-SPAN said Scully confessed to lying about the hack on Wednesday.
He understands that he made a serious mistake.
We were very saddened by this news and do not condone his actions.
The debate commission did not immediately return a message seeking comment.
Scully has led the network's presidential election coverage since 1992, but the suspension means he won't be part of C-SPAN's election night programming.
Scully has been the moderator of the Washington Journal, the weekly call-in program, and regularly
hosted other C-SPAN programs.
The network said Scully has consistently demonstrated fairness and professionalism, and built a
reservoir of goodwill.
After some distance from this episode, we believe in his ability to continue to contribute
to C-SPAN, the network said.
I'm glad to hear it.
So they say he's suspended indefinitely.
Maybe he'll never come back, I don't know.
I'd like to see him return, and I'd like to see us return to a period where it's like, you do something wrong, you get your job back.
Because I'll tell you what, that same goodwill I want for Scully, I want for Roseanne.
I can't believe what happened to her.
She did some dumb tweet in the middle of the night, and they fired her from her job?
They killed her off on her show?
How gross.
That to me was pathetic, and this is too.
But I'll tell you what, I'm biased.
I'm biased and I'll admit it.
When Roseanne Barr, a comedian, made a crude joke, I said, sometimes comedians make crude jokes, man!
And if you don't like it, well, we can let them know, and we can talk about it.
But I gotta be honest, when I see Roseanne make a crude joke, I just say, I don't care.
I didn't care for the joke, it was a bad tweet.
I'm not gonna cry about it, I'm not gonna yell at her, but if she ever asked me, what'd you think about that tweet, I'll be like, that was kinda bad, like, not funny.
And she'd be like, oh, okay, maybe I'll try something else.
There you go, that simple.
Steve Scully betrayed the people of this country.
He lied.
He doubled down on his lie.
He betrayed the people of this country in what was supposed to be a fair debate.
Now, I take personal offense to that to a great deal.
So I want to let you know that part of me wants to say, get these journalists out of here.
I mean, come on.
You guys watch my content.
You know I rag on the media all day, every day, non-stop.
It's all I do.
And I'm willing to forgive this guy.
Maybe it's naive of me.
Maybe it's naive.
But I'll tell you what.
It's called reciprocity.
It's called cooperation.
I tell you what.
How about we all chill down and have a conversation?
Left.
I'll trade you a Roseanne Barr reinstatement and give you a Steve Scully reinstatement.
How does that sound?
We're all good then, right?
I mean, I don't think it's ever gonna happen.
And maybe Roseanne isn't the... I think maybe she's too big.
They're gonna be like, no way, Roseanne's famous and she's got a huge following.
Like Steve Scully, he's like a C-SPAN guy.
They're gonna be like, we want a bigger person who got cancelled on our side.
No, I don't think the left cares about the journalist.
I don't think they care about him at all.
I think they want to cancel everybody.
I think they want to cancel him, too.
But for that matter, I think, you know, cancel culture is gross.
And Roseanne's the easiest example because she barely did anything, you know what I mean?
We can see this guy, what he did directly impacts a presidential election.
Serious, serious stuff.
Policy, people's lives, people's rights.
And what Roseanne did was made a bad joke.
There's a bunch of other people I could think of to name in terms of cancel culture and all that stuff, but I gotta be honest, Roseanne's the one that comes to mind because I think it's the most shocking and offensive.
And when I see these ads for the Conners, I'm like, get outta here.
Like, I know, I don't want to take their jobs away either, but no one should have been canceled over this.
Look, maybe I'm too forgiving.
Maybe you let this guy back in and he just does it again.
And, you know, fool me once, shame on me.
Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.
But I think... I think we gotta be more forgiving, man.
I think we gotta learn how to get past this ridiculous cancel culture age.
And we gotta start by accepting, you know, people's apologies.
