CNN Runs Segment Saying Trump COULD STILL WIN, Democrats Oblivious As Trump On Track For EC Victory
Fareed Zakaria laid out how Trump could win if enough states are disputed and no candidate gets to 270 Electoral college votes.While Democrats are gloating that Trump is losing his lawsuits the EC path to victory moves forward. Republicans in many states have publicly stated they are disputing the results and this is enough to pull votes from joe Biden.So long as there are questions over election results this Trump is on track It doesnt mean he will win, it doesnt mean his chances are anywhere near goodBut he is still on track.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Back in September, CNN ran a segment by Fareed Zakaria talking about how Donald Trump could lose the vote but remain in power, actually get a second term, even if he loses the general election.
This is called a contingent election, and it happens when they can't get a candidate to 270 votes, or votes are contested, and nobody is determined to be the winner.
It then falls to House delegations to vote for the president, but each state gets one vote.
And there are more Republican states than Democrat states, so Donald Trump could actually still win this.
Now, this segment is from September.
It's based on an article from July.
But it's going viral now as people started to realize, hey, wait a minute, it seems like this is actually starting to happen.
We have the PA state legislature saying the power to appoint electors is theirs, and due to widespread irregularities, they want to take the power back and declare that the PA state election is in dispute.
Now, that won't give Trump votes, but it could take votes away from Joe Biden, creating a disputed Electoral College vote.
Then come January 6th, we don't have a winner.
Donald Trump becomes president.
Or he remains president, I guess.
Now, like I said, I'm not saying it's going to happen, but I will tell you, Democrats are so obsessed with Donald Trump's legal challenges, his lawsuits, that they're not paying attention to what's really going on.
And that's why I think a segment like this is really important.
There are two things I want to hit in this segment.
Clarifying and breaking down exactly what's going on with the Trump contingent election victory.
And that it's entirely still possible and we're actually on track for it to occur.
It doesn't mean it will happen.
There are so many obstacles in the way for Trump to pull this off.
But think about it.
They had these hearings.
Well, they had one hearing in Pennsylvania.
where they discussed fraud. And you had some pretty serious allegations and some pretty
respectable individuals, veterans even. Now they're saying they're gonna do the same thing
in Arizona and other states. That is enough for many of the Republican state legislatures to say,
we dispute the results, thus we will not cast electoral votes, and then Donald Trump wins.
But the other thing I want to point out is there really are strange anomalies in this election.
And I've got a huge list of them from the spectators.
So let this video stand for all of the people who don't know these things.
If you have a friend or otherwise who doesn't know that first, Joe Biden is not president-elect.
He was not elected by the Electoral College yet.
He's just the projected winner based on the current media assessment.
That's it.
If you know somebody who doesn't know any of this stuff, and you want to show them, you want to explain to them why, it may be a long shot, it may be a lottery tickets chance, it may be astronomical, but Donald Trump could still be president, and these people are going to get a cold awakening if it happens.
A rude awakening if it happens.
Share this, but I'm also going to be breaking down, from the spectator, reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling.
If only cranks find the tabulation suspicious, put me down as a crank, and they go through a huge list of all of the weird goings-on.
And I'm going to break them down and even debunk some of the false claims, so you can share this.
Well, I'll put it this way.
Before we get started, Make sure you subscribe to youtube.com slash timcast IRL as well.
It's another channel.
Don't leave this channel.
Just open a new tab and do it.
We do a podcast Monday through Friday live at 8 p.m.
And maybe you've missed it or didn't know, but make sure you check it out.
Subscribe to that channel.
And if you really want to support.
This channel, sharing the video is one of the best things you can do, but like I said, I'm going to break down Fareed Zakaria talking about how the Constitution will allow Trump to win, and you should share this with your friends and family, because I'm sure many of you who have Democrat friends are saying, you're so dumb, Trump can't win, it's over.
And when you try to explain to them, it's not over, they say, oh, you're crazy.
Well, let me break it down, citing the Washington Post and CNN for you.
You may also have people saying there's no evidence of voter fraud.
Let me give you a list and even debunk some claims from the right because there are false claims coming from the right.
But I'm going to show you there actually is irregularity, anomaly, and these things need to be addressed.
But regardless of what you think, it may be evidence enough for Republicans to say we call the election in dispute and therefore Joe Biden does not win.
Let's get started with the Fareed Zakaria segment.
Now, he was kind enough to turn his segment from CNN into this Washington Post op-ed.
Allow him to enlighten all of us.
Trump could stay in power even if he doesn't win the election.
The Constitution allows it by Fareed Zakaria.
They say, by declining to commit to a peaceful transfer of power, President Trump has agitated many who fear he will refuse to leave office even if he loses the November election, and may even resort to violence.
Now, that's a bit absurd.
The terrifying reality is that there are also several mechanisms that are legal and constitutional that could enable Trump to stay in office without actually winning the vote.
The system of electing the president is complicated because it was not designed to be directly democratic.
The Constitution calls for states to choose the presidential electors, who in turn gather to vote for the president.
Over time, states have passed laws that ensured their state's popular vote for the presidency would determine the electors.
But those are laws, not a constitutional obligation.
I pointed this out in an earlier segment.
For those listening on the podcast, you'll hear this later.
If it comes down to electoral votes going to the federal government, the federal government recognizes the state legislator appointing electors, not anyone else.
It's possible that secretaries of state or governors send their own slate of electors, but that just gets the job done for Donald Trump.
A disputed election.
They don't need Trump to win the votes.
They need them to be disputed, and Republicans need only say, I dispute for that to happen.
It is the only thing standing in the way right now of Donald Trump and victory, based on what Fareed Zakaria is saying, is whether or not the Republicans will choose to do it.
It's really that simple.
It is.
But I'm going to splash some cold water on whether or not this is going to happen or not.
Just wait.
He says, now imagine the scenario during the election week.
Trump is leading on November 3rd, but Democratic nominee Joe Biden gains ground in the days following.
Republicans file objections to tens of thousands of mail-in ballots.
Democrats file countersuits.
Taking account of the confusion, legislatures decide to choose the electors themselves.
This is why it's going viral.
What you just read perfectly explains it.
It's exactly what's happening.
So, first, Donald Trump was leading on election night.
Over the next days, as mail-in votes came in, they said, oh, now it's switching for Joe Biden.
Republicans filed objections, saying, how did all of these ballots that came in were 90-plus percent for Joe Biden?
That makes no sense.
Or 98 percent.
How come these ballots weren't properly filled out?
Challenging tens of thousands.
In fact, hundreds of thousands.
Democrats file countersuits.
To a certain extent, they've done this.
Taking account of the confusion, legislators decide to choose the electors themselves, which is absolutely happening right now in Pennsylvania.
My friends, Senator Doug Mastriano saying, there is mounting evidence that the PA presidential election was compromised.
If this is the case, under Article 2, Section 1.2 of the U.S.
Constitution, the state legislature has the sole authority to direct the manner of selecting delegates to the Electoral College.
This power was given to the state legislature for the purpose of safeguarding the appointment of our president.
Specifically, contemplating corruption and ensuring that the people are not disenfranchised through a corrupt election process.
Therefore, we are introducing a resolution to exercise our obligation and authority to appoint delegates to the Electoral College.
This is a state senator.
We also saw that the House of Representatives in Pennsylvania has posted a memorandum on a resolution that will be submitted soon.
I know, it's right.
We're not quite there.
They haven't submitted it yet.
Again, I'm going to splash cold water on this, but the train is moving down the track.
The point I'm trying to say is, I'm going to show you some stuff after I read through this, breaking down why I think we are not at that point where I would be confident Trump is going to win.
But I do think there's one thing to guarantee Trump victory.
The Republican state legislatures in three states only need to just say, I object.
That's it.
No joke.
That's it.
Dispute the results.
They can.
They can create whatever fight they want.
They can get sued, whatever.
The Supreme Court of their state can say, F you, it doesn't matter.
They can just object.
Let's read more.
Fareed said, Here's the worry.
Of the nine swing states, eight have Republican legislatures.
If one or more decide that balloting is chaotic and marred by irregularities, they could send what they regard as the legitimate slate of electors, which would be Republican.
Democrats may object and file lawsuits.
In some of those states, Democratic governors or secretaries of state could send their own slate of electors to Washington.
That would add to the confusion, but that might well be part of the Republican plan.
When Congress convenes on January 6th to tally the electors' votes, there would be challenges to the legitimacy of some electors.
Congressional Republicans would agree that disputed states should not be counted.
That would ensure that neither candidate would get to 270 votes.
At that point, the Constitution directs the House of Representatives vote to determine the presidential election.
But it does so with each state casting a single vote.
If the current numbers hold, there would be 26 state delegations that are Republican and 23 with one tied.
So this outcome would be to re-elect Trump.
Trump does not need to do anything other than accept this outcome, which is constitutional.
Trump clearly understands this chain of events.
He has been casting doubt on mail-in ballots for months, insisting that the results must be the ones that reflect the tally on election night.
He said this week that without mail-in ballots, there would be no worries about a transfer of power because there would simply be a continuation of his rule.
He has also acknowledged that at a certain point it goes to Congress.
For this scenario to play out, state Republican parties have to put their desire to win above concerns that all voices are heard.
Unfortunately, recent history suggests that most will readily make this trade.
Fareed Zakaria predicted this in September.
Don't take my word for it, take his word for it.
I am not saying Donald Trump will win, but Fareed Zakaria, based on everything that's happened now, it sounds like he is correctly predicting what will happen.
And if he is correct that Republicans would choose to win above all else, then Donald Trump will become president again for another term.
I am not saying it's going to happen.
In fact, I'm not entirely convinced we're at a point where I can say confidently Trump's got a good shot of it.
I'm just saying, well, Farid is right based on my research.
I have looked at several different articles and statutes and it seems, yeah, far be it for me to claim that Farid or some of these other writers are incorrect.
Trump seems to have known this was the route they would go.
And now, it seems like he is on track to succeed.
Point being, look at it this way.
Imagine there's a train track.
Imagine on that track are twists and turns and loop-de-loops and barrels and fallen trees.
Just because the train is moving down the track does not mean it will successfully make it past all of the obstacles.
So I don't know what will happen, but I do know that each and every day it passes, the more that I see, the more I'm starting to think Fareed Zakaria and this other MSNBC, the co-founder of MSNBC, I believe it was, who wrote this article, they were correct.
And I remember I mocked it.
I said it was crazy.
These people are nuts.
And people said it was resistance lunacy.
But here we go.
It seems like we're moving that direction.
Farid says, many state Republican parties have been actively attempting to suppress votes.
Just a few examples, in 2011, Texas passed a law requiring a government ID for voting, and allowed gun licenses, but not student IDs.
Okay, that's ridiculous.
Okay.
He says, in 2017, Georgia passed a law blocking voter registrations with minor typos.
Also, I think it's ridiculous.
To claim that's voter suppression?
To have voter integrity?
Nice try, Farid.
He goes on to say, American democracy is getting warped because the Republican Party believes its path to power lies not in getting a majority of the votes, but through other means.
I'm gonna stop you right there.
You said it.
Fareed, you said it.
We are not a direct democracy.
And we never have been.
The Constitution allows this.
There are multiple paths towards winning the presidency.
This is a part of our country.
Just because you grew up with traditions and formalities doesn't mean Trump is doing anything illegal, wrong, or immoral.
It is literally in the Constitution that Trump can do this.
They're called safeguards.
Safeguards.
The reason this is allowed and the reason someone in Congress can challenge an electoral vote is because we are not a direct democracy and we want to prevent someone from stealing an election.
Now, let me tell you, you may be thinking to yourself that this is just Donald Trump stealing the election.
But let me tell you, the conservatives are saying the exact same thing.
Now maybe you're right, maybe you're not right.
The point is, the Constitution has these provisions to prevent someone from fraudulently winning an election.
I am now going to show you that there is actually evidence that there was some kind of irregularity or discrepancy.
It doesn't mean it's absolute.
It doesn't mean that it cost Trump the election.
But it does exist.
And the problem is, the Democrats did not take this seriously.
And because they didn't take it seriously, it now gives the Republicans the ability to say, oh well, too many irregularities that went uninvestigated.
Imagine if in Pennsylvania, when Trump filed his lawsuits, the Democrats immediately said, anything you want, anything at all, let's make sure this is all done cleanly.
They didn't.
They blocked it.
They blocked observers.
They did block observers.
Now, the media keeps saying that observers were in the building.
That's correct, they were.
But the true goal of an observer is to look at the ballot.
You may remember the Bush v. Gore incident where people were holding up the ballots and staring at them and arguing over the hanging chads.
Now we have people 50 feet away, and the judges said, well, as long as you're in the building.
You might think fine, but I'm sorry, regular people are probably going to look at that and say, what?
What's the point of an observer if they're just sitting in a building doing nothing?
Which creates uncertainty.
Let me show you this.
Reasons why the 2020 presidential election is deeply puzzling.
This is the reason that Trump may actually win, and it's the fault of the Democrats.
From Spectator, they say, To say out loud that you find the results of the 2020 presidential election odd is to invite derision.
You must be a crank or a conspiracy theorist.
Mark me down as a crank, then.
I am a pollster, and I find this election to be deeply puzzling.
I also think that the Trump campaign is still well within its rights to contest the tabulations.
Something very strange happened in America's democracy in the early hours of Wednesday, November 4th, and the days that followed.
It's reasonable for a lot of Americans to want to find out exactly what.
First, consider some facts.
President Trump received more votes than any previous incumbent seeking re-election.
He got 11 million more votes than in 2016, the third largest rise in support ever for an incumbent.
By way of comparison, President Obama was comfortably re-elected in 2012 with 3.5 million fewer votes than he won in 2008.
Trump's vote increased so much because, according to exit polls, he performed far better with many key demographic groups.
95% of Republicans voted for him.
Catholics also supported Trump in higher numbers.
He did extraordinarily well with rural male working-class whites.
He earned the highest share of all-minority votes for a Republican since 1960.
Trump grew his support among Black voters by 50% over 2016.
Nationally, Joe Biden's Black support fell well below 90%.
The level below which Democratic presidential candidates usually lose.
Trump increased his share of national Hispanic vote by two-thirds to more than 4 in 10, with 60% or less of the national Hispanic vote.
It is arithmetically impossible for a Democratic presidential candidate to win Florida, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico.
Bellwether states swung further in Trump's direction than in 2016.
Florida, Ohio, and Iowa each defied America's media polls with huge wins for Trump.
Since 1852, only Richard Nixon has lost the Electoral College after winning this trio.
And that 1960 defeat to John F. Kennedy is still subject of great suspicion.
Midwestern states, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, always swing in the same direction as Ohio and Iowa, their regional peers.
Ohio likewise swings with Florida.
Current tallies show that outside of a few cities, the Rust Belt swung in Trump's direction.
Yet, Biden leads in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin because of an apparent avalanche of black votes in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee.
Biden's winning margin was derived almost entirely from such voters in these cities, as coincidentally his black vote spiked only in exactly the locations necessary to secure victory.
He did not receive comparable levels of support among comparable demographic groups in comparable states, which is highly unusual for the presidential victor.
Put it simply, Joe Biden got resounding minority support in swing state urban centers and nowhere else.
Possible.
The Democrats just knew those were the states they needed to win, and that's where they focused their outreach.
But it's an anomaly.
That's about it.
We are told that Biden won more votes nationally than any presidential candidate in history, but he won a record low of 17% of counties.
He only won 524 counties as opposed to the 873 Obama won in 2008.
in 24 counties as opposed to the 873 Obama won in 2008. Yet Biden somehow outdid Obama in total
votes. Victorious presidential candidates, especially challengers, usually have down ballot
Biden did not.
The Republicans held the Senate and enjoyed a red wave in the House, where they gained a large number of seats while winning all 27 toss-up contests.
Trump's party did not lose a single state legislature and actually made gains at the state level.
Stop.
Right now, I can hear the Democrats saying, how does it make sense that we're going to accept the result of the election where the Republicans won, but not Joe Biden?
Because the concern being brought up by Republicans is that there are many votes.
These are in sworn affidavits where only Joe Biden was chosen.
A vote was submitted, it was for Joe Biden, and no one else.
It's called undervoting.
And people said, how does that happen, that Joe Biden gets tens of thousands of votes for him, but no one else?
Simple solution?
People hate Donald Trump, voted for Biden, and didn't care about anything else.
But I don't think that entirely makes sense, to be completely honest.
Because most of the Democratic outreach is going to be literally for all Democrats.
Certainly the Democrats would want to win.
This raises suspicions around votes that many people in sworn affidavits said were, they looked machine-printed, they looked like they had different ink, the signatures all looked the same, and there's currently litigation going on in many different counties saying just this.
And if we don't have time to investigate, what do we do?
They're going to dispute the results.
Another anomaly is found in the comparison between the polls and non-polling metrics.
The latter include party registration trends, the candidates' respective primary votes, candidate enthusiasm, social media followings, broadcast and digital media ratings, online searches, the number of especially small donors, and the number of individuals betting on each candidate.
Despite poor recent performances, media and academic polls have an impressive 80% record predicting the winner during the modern era.
But when the polls air, non-polling metrics do not.
The latter have a 100% record.
Every non-polling metric forecasts Trump's re-election.
For Trump to lose this election, the mainstream polls needed to be correct, which they were not.
Furthermore, for Trump to lose, not only did one or more of these metrics have to be wrong for the first time ever, but every single one had to be wrong, and at the very same time.
Not an impossible outcome, but extremely unlikely nonetheless.
Let me just put it simply.
Joe Biden did not campaign.
I'm not being hyperbolic, okay?
He was running a campaign, but in terms of any colloquial understanding, he wasn't campaigning.
He was calling a lid every single day, one time for a week.
That means no press events.
He was barely appearing on TV.
He did not have any ground support.
So there was no ground campaigning.
No one was going and knocking on doors.
Yet somehow, a man who was mostly calling a lid, not doing interviews, and not sending out volunteers, beat Barack Obama's popular vote totals.
I voted for Barack Obama in 2008.
69 million votes.
It was historic.
I didn't vote for him a second time around.
I'm one of those people he lost.
Joe Biden beat that?
After not campaigning?
I find that very strange.
They say, Atypical voting patterns married with misses by polling and non-polling metrics should give observers pause for thought.
Adding to the mystery is a cascade of information about the bizarre manner in which so many ballots were accumulated and counted.
The following ten peculiarities also lack compelling explanations.
One.
Late on election night, with Trump comfortably ahead, many swing states stopped counting ballots.
In most cases, observers were removed from the counting facilities.
Counting generally continued without observers.
I am familiar with many of these stories and the sworn affidavits.
This appears to be true and correct, based on allegations.
They did say, we're going to stop counting, we'll pick it up later.
The Democrats on the left have said they had to count absentee ballots afterward.
It doesn't explain why they stopped counting and booted out observers.
2.
Statistically abnormal vote counts were the new normal when counting resumed.
They were usually large in size, hundreds of thousands, and at an unusually high 90% and above Biden to Trump ratio.
Very weird.
Late-arriving ballots were counted.
In Pennsylvania, 23,000 absentee ballots have impossible postal return dates, and another 86,000 have such extraordinary return dates they raise serious questions.
Some were requested and returned on the exact same day.
4.
The failure to match signatures on mail-in ballots.
The destruction of mail-in ballot envelopes, which must contain signatures.
Historically low absentee ballot rejection rates despite the massive expansion of mail-in voting.
Such as Biden's narrow margin that, as political analyst Robert Barnes observes, if the states simply imposed the same absentee ballot rejection rate as recent cycles, then Trump wins the election.
In Delaware County, Pennsylvania, 50,000 votes held on 47 USB cards are missing.
If you can't audit them, I say get rid of them.
Matt Brainard's Voter Integrity Project estimates that 20,312 people who no longer met residency requirements cast ballots in Georgia.
Biden's margin is 12,670.
And Matt Brainard has an actual list of names and addresses.
Hard data.
It's currently going through litigation.
8.
Overvotes.
Pennsylvania mailed out 1.8 million ballots, but 2.5 million ballots were returned.
I'm gonna stop here.
Fact check.
Not true.
Going back to a story from October 19th, 2020.
Pennsylvania mail-in ballot requests hit 2.8 million, including 700,000 GOP voters.
This is a misconception I see flying around.
It's just not true.
9.
Serious chain of custody breakdowns.
Invalid residential addresses.
Record numbers of dead people voting.
Ballots in pristine condition without creases.
That is, they have not been mailed in envelopes as required by law.
These are from sworn affidavits.
Witness testimony is evidence.
Period.
We bring up witnesses in murder trials.
It's evidence.
Period.
10.
Statistical anomalies.
In Georgia, Biden overtook Trump with 89% of the votes counted.
For the next 53 batches of votes counted, Biden led Trump by the same exact 50.05 to 49.95% margin in every single batch.
It is particularly perplexing that all statistical anomalies and tabulation abnormalities were in Biden's favor.
Whether the cause was simple human error, or nefarious activity, or a combination, clearly something peculiar happened.
If you think that only weirdos have legitimate concerns about these findings and claims, may the weirdness lie in you.
I agree.
I do.
But I'm not convinced Trump is going to win.
Sorry.
He might.
He's on track.
But he's got many obstacles.
I showed you this tweet earlier from Senator Doug Mastriano, saying that they're going to be making this move.
Well, it is good news.
The problem is, so far, there are only 26 people in the House and only 8 senators on board.
Let me show you the hard numbers.
In the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, there's 203.
203 individuals.
26, not nearly enough.
In the Pennsylvania Senate, there are 50.
Now, the Republicans do control this.
They absolutely can make these moves.
But so far, they don't have total support.
And Trump needs three states to do it.
Here's the point.
Are we on track for this to happen?
For the millionth time?
Yes!
And many Trump supporters are going to tell you, see, he's winning.
Perhaps.
But Trump could have been winning in the actual election.
Trump could have been winning in actual court cases.
The fact that he is now on the last thread and his track to victory is winning doesn't mean things are going well for him.
In one case, recount in Wisconsin County demanded by Trump increases Biden's margin, and many on the left are laughing at Trump and mocking him.
I'm not convinced that these recounts and these lawsuits are anything other than a distraction.
So let me put it this way.
Here's what we have on paper.
Trump is fighting tooth and nail, a full salvo across the board, in every possible way, and he's losing most of them.
He is still on track for the contingent election victory, and it is possible he pulls it off.
Now, that being said, my personal opinion is, if Trump won the courts, he'd be happy he did.
But I do think... I think they're going for this victory.
They've been going for this victory.
That was their backup plan.
And I think Trump has... I think he believes he's gonna win.
But I gotta say, man, to see Trump overcome all these obstacles, that would be... I don't know.
Impressive.
Impressive, to say the least.
But it's constitutional.
So let me know what your friends think.
Send it to your Democratic friends or parents or whatever, because they're probably not going to see this otherwise.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCastNews.
It is a different channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
It's getting harder and harder to track exactly what's going on with all of these lawsuits in the post-election legal battle.
But last night at 11 p.m., we got serious breaking news.
Republicans scored a massive victory with their lawsuit to find Act 77 in PA, mail-in voting, unconstitutional.
Not only did the judge say that their previous rulings, putting an injunction on certification, was appropriately ordered, They said, it seems that the petitioners, the GOP, the Republicans filing suit, have a legitimate claim and will likely win on the merits when they say mail-in voting in Pennsylvania violated the Constitution.
This is downright crazy.
Because the defendants on this case are the Pennsylvania Republican Legislature, the Secretary of the State, and I believe the Governor.
And they're being sued by other Republicans, so it's all very weird, but...
This is happening when we were also hearing just the other day that a state senator in Pennsylvania said they're going to file a joint resolution, which I have.
I have the preliminary write-up arguing that they should get the power back to appoint electors.
Do you know what this means?
It's all very strange.
It's kind of freaky.
It means the Republicans in Pennsylvania, they passed a law, it's called Act 77, that expanded mail-in voting.
In fact, they began the process to enact a constitutional amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution in order to do so, but abruptly stopped that process.
The law was then passed, then it got signed off on by the governor.
That says to me at least, and I think any reasonable person, they knew the law they were passing was unconstitutional.
That's why they stopped, because they were like, it's gonna take too long, and if they wanted to do an amendment, it had to appear on the ballot, meaning there would be no mail-in ballots this time, it would be for next time.
So they likely, in my opinion, what they did was they stopped the constitutional amendment process knowing if we want mail-in votes now, we have to do it now and bypass the Constitution.
Well, the judge said no.
Here's where it gets crazy.
In 2016, Pennsylvania certified their results in the presidential election on December 12th.
Like, just before the Electoral College was supposed to vote.
A little bit before.
Today, or in this election, they seemingly just rushed it through while there was ongoing litigation.
I think that kind of... Well, let's just say the judge is mildly perturbed by the idea that they were in the middle of litigating a case that was filed days before, and then the governor rushes through certification and then says, oh, we certified?
The lawsuit is pointless.
And the judge said, nah, nah, nah, nah, nah, there's two things here.
First, They only claimed to have certified the president and vice-presidential elections.
Nothing else.
The judge says, I'm not even sure you can certify in piecemeal.
You gotta do the whole thing.
You can't just run out and say you did it.
More importantly, they said, there's no officiation.
There's no official process by which they actually did this.
Meaning, they said they did.
They went over everything.
But where is the actual certified official stamp document done?
I don't know the full details on how they get to that point, but the judge says, I don't see it.
Therefore, we stop you now.
And I believe, I could be wrong, we'll read through this.
I believe they're even saying, you cannot appoint electors so long as this injunction stands.
Well, this injunction got issued, I believe it was on the 25th, and then there was an emergency appeal that overturned the injunction, and now the judge says, no, no, no, no.
No, I was right in my initial assessment.
Most people are having trouble tracking this because there's like 50 different, it's like back and forth, nonstop, trying to figure out what's going on.
Here's where we stand.
Pennsylvania state judge upholds halt to certification, finds likelihood mail-in ballot procedures violate PA constitution.
This is crazy.
The Republicans pass an unconstitutional law.
They now want to sue to get... I'm sorry, not sue, file a resolution to take back control to appoint their own electors, citing widespread voter irregularities.
But they're being sued because they passed an unconstitutional law that made mail-in voting happen, and that actually, if they lose... Okay, let me start over.
This is crazy.
There's different Republicans here.
They're not all the same thing.
The state legislature, Republicans, passed an unconstitutional law.
They're being sued now by other Republicans saying you can't do that, it's unconstitutional.
Judge says, likely you're going to win on the merits.
Yep, that's legit.
Okay.
That means the state legislature that passed the unconstitutional law can now cite the fact the law was unconstitutional and say, whoopsie, we made a big mistake, election over, we give the electoral votes to Donald Trump.
Think about how broken that is.
That's crazy, right?
That's going to result in mass riots if that happens.
I don't know what's going to happen yet, but the latest update is absolutely nuts.
Check this out.
A Pennsylvania state court judge has issued a preliminary injunction preventing Pennsylvania from taking any further steps to perfect its certification of the election, including but not limited to appointment of electors and transmission of necessary paperwork to the Electoral College.
Pending further court hearings and rulings, the ruling upholds an injunction from earlier in the week and is significant because of the findings made in the opinion released tonight.
The case has been somewhat under the radar because it doesn't involve claims of fraud.
It appears to be a pretty straight legal argument.
This is not the federal court case that has received a lot of press attention and in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals denied relief.
The issue in this case is whether legislative expansion of absentee balloting to broad mail-in balloting violated the Pennsylvania Constitution.
It's not clear what relief would be.
The petitioners seek to preclude the Secretary of State from transmitting the certification or otherwise perfecting the Electoral College selections.
Earlier in the week, Judge Patricia McCullough issued a temporary halt to the certification process and that now is on appeal to the PA Supreme Court.
The judge issued this opinion to extend the halt pending further hearings and to set forth the basis for the injunction, which could be relevant to the appeal.
Quote, as this court's November 25th order of an emergency preliminary injunction has been appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, this opinion shall set forth the basis for said order and shall also satisfy the requirements of Rule 1925 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Here's the judge's description of the claim.
In petition, petitioners allege that the Act of October 31, 2019, No.
77, Act 77, which added and amended various absentee and mail-in voting provisions to the Pennsylvania Election Code, is unconstitutional and void, A.B.
initio, because it purportedly contravenes the requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Petitioners allege that Article 7, Section 14 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides two exclusive mechanisms by which a qualified elector may cast his or her vote in an election.
One, by submitting his or her vote in propria persona, At the polling place on election day and two by submitting an absentee ballot, but only if the qualified qualified voter satisfies the conditions precedent to meet the requirements of one of the four limited exclusive limited exclusive circumstance under which absentee voting is authorized under the Pennsylvania Constitution.
Petitioners allege the mail-in voting in the form implemented through Act 77 is an attempt by the legislature to fundamentally overhaul the Pennsylvania voting system and permit universal no-excuse mail-in voting, absent any constitutional authority.
Petitioners argue that in order to amend the Constitution, mandatory procedural requirements must be strictly followed.
Specifically, Pursuant to Article 11, Section 1, a proposed constitutional amendment must be approved by a majority vote of the members of both the House and the Senate in two consecutive legislative sessions.
Then the proposed amendment must be published for three months ahead of the next general election in two newspapers in each county.
And finally, it must be submitted to the qualified electors as a ballot question in the next general election and approved by a majority of those voting on the amendment.
According to petitioners, the legislature did not follow the necessary procedures for amending the Constitution before enacting Act 77, which created a new category of mail-in voting.
Therefore, the mail-in ballot scheme under Act 77 is unconstitutional on its face and must be struck down.
Petitioners seek, inter alia, a declaration and or injunction that prohibits respondents from certifying the general election results, which include mail-in ballots that are permitted on a statewide basis and are allegedly improper because Act 77 is unconstitutional.
Long story short, They needed to publish this amendment in two newspapers in each county.
That's crazy.
I mean, wow, talk about strict procedures.
But it had to appear on the general election.
They can't change the rules before the election happens.
People have to vote to change the rules.
That's incredible.
And right there, The judge says it seems like they're going to win this one.
This is huge.
It has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
If you want, if this is something important to you, you need to check out Sean Parnell.
I had him on the IRL podcast.
Sean Parnell is one of the people who's he's running for as a Republican for Congress in Pennsylvania.
And this may have a huge impact on his race.
What's interesting, let me read a little bit more, they say.
The judge found, among other things, the plaintiffs were likely to prevail on their PA constitutional claims, and that the matter was not moot even though PA had certified, quote, the results because there were more steps to be taken.
The judge expressed grave concern as to what a remedy would be if she were to rule the mail-in balloting unconstitutional.
So even if she ruled for the petitioners on the merits, it's not clear that would change the result.
The judge concluded, for all the reasons above, the court respectfully submits that the emergency preliminary injunction was properly issued and should be upheld pending an expedited emergency evidentiary hearing.
This is not a final ruling on the merits.
It's meant to prevent Pennsylvania from taking more steps until the court finally rules.
Given how the PA Supreme Court has ruled previously on election matters, expanding procedures beyond what even the legislature adopted, I don't see how this survives the PA Supreme Court, and I agree with that.
From there, the next stop is the U.S.
Supreme Court, where we know John Roberts and the three liberal justices will defer to the state Supreme Court.
But the court is now 6-3, so a Roberts defection would not result in a 4-4 deadlock if the five conservative justices voted together.
There we go.
What's really amazing about this, uh...
This lawsuit is that they note that the judge notes that Mike Kelly who's running is actually putting himself at risk because he won.
So let me show you the list of names and I'll break this down for you.
The Honorable Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, Thomas A. Frank, Natsi Kirzak, Derek McGee, Robin Sauter, Michael Kincaid, and Wanda Logan.
Mike Kelly won.
If this lawsuit actually stops or nullifies or voids the election, he doesn't win.
And the judge says he's facing irreparable harm to his career by filing this motion.
A lot of people are trying to claim that Sean Parnell, who is projected to lose but not yet certified, is only doing this because it would help him win.
But it doesn't explain Mike Kelly, who's going to lose if he wins this lawsuit.
Or, maybe the lawsuit's relief, like they say, okay, this was unconstitutional, what we're gonna do is we're gonna, uh, we'll certify this time and we'll change it later.
That would be shocking.
That would be horrifying for what it means for this country.
Based on what the judge has already said, we are facing a very serious crisis in this country.
I mean, we have been for quite some time.
Now, the left is hyper-focused on Trump losing these appeals.
I have been saying over and over again that I believe Trump's lawsuits are buying time.
It's a distraction.
The left is jumping up and down, dancing and cheering, Trump's losing!
The ACLU put out a tweet saying, we need to raise money to stop Trump's lawsuit.
The one Trump is losing.
Meanwhile, what's going on on the other side?
We have this lawsuit, which may actually, so far, has blocked the transmission of certification to the Electoral College, meaning certification ain't happened yet.
Oh, they can say it happened, but they can't do anything right now with it.
They can't appoint electors.
It's been blocked.
Now, legal insurrection says PA Supreme Court's previously ruled in favor of the legislation, so they're likely going to, you know, they're likely going to rule in favor of the Democrats on this one.
But they will probably then move to the Supreme Court.
The challenge is, the Supreme Court, as they note, is going to say, it's a state issue, so why should we take this up?
But it was a 4-4 deadlock before.
Now you've got Amy Coney Barrett, and they're likely going to say, the PA Supreme Court is violating the Constitution of its own state, and... and...
This election does not just affect the people of Pennsylvania, it affects the people of the entire country.
So their constitution and their rules must be upheld.
More importantly, we have this House co-sponsorship memoranda.
They say in the immediate future, we will be introducing the following resolution.
A resolution declaring the results of statewide electoral contests in the 2020 general election to be in dispute.
It's all so weird, isn't it?
Okay, so let's try and slow this one down.
The PA Supreme Court's probably gonna block this injunction and try and get them to certify.
But it'll be rushed to the Supreme Court where I think they might actually win now because Amy Coney Barrett's on the Supreme Court.
In which case, PA may just be blocked and Biden will lose 20 electoral votes.
I do not believe there is grounds here to say Trump won.
If they're arguing that the election was unconstitutional, then there's no electors to be cast.
Sorry.
Now, what the House of Representatives and the Senate want to do in a joint resolution, they want to reclaim the power to appoint electors.
So, maybe they appoint Trump.
I don't think that's the appropriate political play if they want Trump to win.
If they truly want Trump to win, what they need to do is say, we can't send electors because it was unconstitutional.
Then, it goes to the Electoral College, and if Trump can get two other states to do something similar, maybe, maybe not, then we get a contingent election and Trump wins.
But let me go back to that previous point I was making about the left.
Right now, if you go on Reddit, you go on Twitter, they're laughing and gloating about how Trump is so dumb and he's losing.
About how crazy crackpot conspiracies are popping up in these, you know, lawsuits.
And that's what they're dancing and cheering about.
Trump is getting his enemies to prematurely celebrate and dance.
They're running in the wrong direction.
I'm not saying Trump is going to win.
There's so many hurdles here.
I'll put it this way.
Trump is like, you ever play the game where the person's running and you gotta constantly jump and dodge things?
That's basically what we got going on.
Donald Trump is trying to do a, like, a super difficult video game speedrun right now with just tens of thousands of obstacles in his path.
And getting through is possible, in my opinion.
It's very unlikely.
But I'll tell you this, each and every day when I'm like, oh, you know, they're doing so bad, I look at this stuff and I'm like, Wow.
They're actually making, you know, victories.
They're getting victories in the areas they need to.
And right now there are two big victories for Trump.
The fact that this exists, this memorandum that will be, they'll say they'll introduce it soon.
Okay, we'll see if they do.
The fact that the PA legislature is going to try to appoint electors.
And the fact that this lawsuit might actually void Pennsylvania and has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
The left doesn't get it.
They're not paying attention.
They don't realize what's happening all around them.
I go on Reddit and I see all these stories where it's like Trump loses appeal and they're all laughing in the comments saying, how many times has Trump lost now?
Meanwhile, there's this stealth campaign, not for, I say stealth in the sense that like it's not, they're not paying attention.
It's not from the Trump campaign, and it's plowing ahead and might actually void Pennsylvania.
And they're also ignoring the Electoral College of Playu.
We're starting to see the shift.
For a long time, they were laughing and gloating, saying, Biden won, submit.
First, they laugh at you.
Or was it, first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then you win, right?
So first they were like, no, no, no, Joe Biden won, it's over, stop, stop, Joe Biden won.
Now they're saying, you know, now they're laughing, Trump's so dumb, Trump's losing, he's over and over again.
We're not starting to get angry, actually, so it doesn't really fit that flow.
We're starting to see people, you know, like Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks screaming, Trump is trying to steal the election, it's gonna happen, things like that.
And yeah, Trump is plowing ahead.
So it may seem astronomical that Trump actually succeeds, but he's gaining ground in every place he needs to gain ground.
That's the best way to put it.
So while it may be astronomical that Trump wins, like a lottery ticket chance, He's actually succeeding.
And so I'm sitting here, it's like, man, how do you describe it?
It's like watching someone that you think is not gonna lose.
You know what it reminds me of?
It reminds me of election night 2016, where everyone said Trump was gonna lose, he'll never win.
And then the New York Times meter slowly started flipping.
It was like 99% Hillary, then like 60% Hillary, then 50-50, then 60% Trump.
And everybody started sweating, like, wait, what's really happening?
But it's just being drawn out over a month or two.
We'll see how long it goes.
Because you gotta understand, January 6th is when Congress counts the electoral votes, and objections can be raised.
This is crazy.
Even if all of the states certify, the Republicans in the House can raise 200-plus individual objections on a bunch of different grounds and jam up the process, and then force it to go to a contingent election.
There's a lot of ways Trump can jam this up and actually take the win.
But let me show you something.
So, I'm not gonna read all of this.
They say, You know, the Pennsylvania election code requires all mail-in ballots to be received by 8 o'clock p.m., blah, blah, blah.
There's one really important part.
Check this out.
They say, whereas in 2016, Pennsylvania's general election results were certified on December 12, 2016, and on November 24, 2020, The Secretary of the Commonwealth unilaterally and prematurely certified results of the November 3rd election regarding presidential electors despite ongoing litigation.
And whereas the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has the duty to ensure that no citizen of the Commonwealth is disenfranchised, to insist that all elections are conducted according to law, and to satisfy the general public that every legal vote is counted accurately, therefore it is resolved The Pennsylvania House of Representatives recognizes substantial irregularities and improprieties associated with mail-in balloting, pre-canvassing, and canvassing during November 3rd.
Disapproves of the infringement on the General Assembly's authority pursuant to the U.S.
Constitution to regulate elections.
Disapproves of and disagrees with the Secretary of the Commonwealth's premature certification of the results of the November 3rd election regarding presidential electors and declares the selection of presidential electors and other statewide electoral contest results in this Commonwealth is in dispute and urges the Secretary of the Commonwealth and the Governor to withdraw or vacate the certification of presidential electors and to delay certification of results in other statewide electoral contests voted on at the 2020 general election And urges the U.S.
Congress to declare the selection of presidential electors in this commonwealth to be in dispute.
They're going to be filing that soon.
Here's what a lot of people are saying as it pertains to the Supreme Court.
The left is saying it doesn't matter.
The PA Supreme Court has already ruled.
So that's done.
The U.S.
Constitution doesn't say that the Supreme Courts of States can overrule the legislature.
It says the legislature allows for the regulation, controls the regulation of elections.
If they weren't allowed to, the federal government can say, we don't accept these results because they weren't done in accordance with the legislature as per the U.S.
federal constitution.
Others have highlighted a court case, a Supreme Court ruling, that said all laws that try to subvert the Constitution are void.
I don't know if that's true or that precedent will stand, but basically the idea is the state legislatures appoint the electors, no matter what laws they've passed.
If they say, no, here's what we're doing, the U.S.
government won't recognize electors appointed by someone other than the legislature.
To put it simply, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a judge, this is the argument that I'm seeing from a lot of Trump supporters.
In 1938, the PA legislature gave the power to appoint electors to the Secretary of State.
They're now saying that power is ours.
The Secretary of State may say no, the governor may say no, we're not going to approve this.
But what do you think happens when the federal government sees what's happening?
They're going to say, according to our agreement, not yours, we only negotiate with the legislature.
So, you see how it works?
Imagine it this way.
I have a deal with a corn farm, and they say, we only negotiate with you on sale price.
I say to my buddy, no, no, no, you can deal with it.
And they do for a long time.
And then one day I say, no, no, no, I'm going to go talk to the corn guy, and I'm going to buy corn for myself.
The guy at the corn factory is going to be like, look, I don't know who your boy is.
He was just coming and picking the stuff up.
If you tell me this is the deal, that's the deal.
End of story.
And you can cut out.
So long story short, The Supreme Court might say, we don't care what agreements you had.
We only take electors from the legislature.
In which case, I think they're likely to block it.
I don't think they're likely to give it to Trump.
I think they'll just say, it's in dispute.
End of story.
And it is in dispute.
End of story.
We'll see.
We'll see.
I don't know.
This right here could already be enough.
Imagine the governor appoints electors.
Imagine if it goes to December 14th and they vote.
And they're like, nope, nope, Biden won.
But then on January 6th, when the Congress has a joint session to count the electoral votes, and then Republicans raise objections saying, Pennsylvania has disputed these votes, and that's not in question.
They've straight up disputed it.
We can't accept these.
Trump just needs two more states to do the same thing.
It's a long shot.
It's difficult.
It's possible.
I don't care about Trump's lawsuits.
These are silly.
They've been silly the whole time.
I've been looking at it like, what are they doing?
This is the play.
There's supposed to be hearings on fraud in two other major swing states.
I think this is the play.
And I think it probably always was.
Fareed Zakaria of CNN pointed this out.
MSNBC, a co-founder of MSNBC, pointed this out as well.
And I've been warning about Trump's electoral college play for quite some time.
Contingent election.
The state legislature's block certification, or the transmission of the electoral votes, and there we go.
I can't tell you the odds, man.
I can't predict that stuff.
But I'm telling you, you might think you've won.
And this is the story of the tortoise and the hare, man.
The Democrats are sitting there dancing, you know, celebrate good times and all that stuff, and they're not paying attention to Trump slowly pulling ahead, and they're just too busy partying.
They're laughing as Rudy Giuliani dances around, and he's like, look at me, look at me, I'm Giuliani!
And they're like, look how dumb Giuliani is!
And then Trump's walking right past him.
I'm not saying Trump is going to win.
Far from it.
I'm just saying he is pushing forward and he is gaining ground.
Y'all best pay attention.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
Recently in Europe, riots have been erupting and massive protests breaking out over the draconian lockdowns and insane rules being imposed on people due to the coronavirus pandemic.
In the United States, however, we have a special gift laden upon us by our founding fathers, and my friends, it is called the Constitution.
And because of this document, it is increasingly difficult for these despots to lock us in our homes.
Which is why this news is actually kind of funny.
Lockdown in L.A.
L.A.
County asks its 10 million residents to stay home for three weeks, but churches and protests are exempt.
It is asking them to stay home.
A lot of people are going to do it.
Sure, fine, I guess.
But you do have a fundamental and constitutionally protected right to gather as you see fit and to worship as you see fit.
You know the funniest thing about the First Amendment is?
It doesn't say that you can protest.
It says you can peaceably assemble.
It doesn't say why.
Me and my friends want to peaceably assemble for a party where we all get drunk and eat pizza.
Yup.
Constitutionally protected.
Now, I don't drink, and no, I'm not having a party where I'm gonna drink or eat pizza, but you get the point.
There are many places where they're trying to use certain language to make people think you're being mandated to stay home when they can't actually do it.
And there have been governors who have tried to do it, and the courts usually get involved and say, you can't.
The biggest setback to many of these draconian, authoritarian governors and mayors or whatever is the Constitution.
So I am eternally grateful that we have one.
But we do have another update outside of this lockdown for 10 million residents.
We got a fact check over here.
The other day I covered a story.
John Hopkins University ran a story saying that they were exaggerating COVID deaths, and in fact, reducing the number of heart disease deaths and counting them as COVID deaths, potentially.
That story got deleted.
And now we have this weird fact check.
This is really funny.
Check this out.
They say, COVID-19 deaths not overblown.
John Hopkins student paper not censored.
And then they actually get a quote from the people who wrote it saying, we got censored.
Our story is sound.
Our research is sound.
That's right.
John Hopkins University ran a study where a researcher compared the amount of deaths from previous years to this year and found that the only difference, because the average deaths have stayed the same, is that heart disease deaths are down and COVID deaths are up.
And there's a simple explanation for it.
I mentioned this in the segment I did yesterday, just so that we're clear.
If someone has heart disease and they might die in six weeks, COVID might kill them in a few days.
So it becomes a COVID death, not a heart disease death, but you get the point.
What they argue is even if that's the case, and they bring this up, then we're not seeing a substantial increase in the number of people dying.
We are seeing people die sooner, but these are many people who are facing death anyway, like they were on, you know, on death's door.
So let's read what's going on in Los Angeles with a lockdown of 10 million people, and then I'll read you the quote from these people because, look, I think the other story with the COVID deaths being exaggerated is more important, but I want to show you what they're doing in the name of what appears to be faulty research.
Well, let's read.
Daily Mail says, LA County announced a new stay-home order Friday as coronavirus cases surged out of control in the nation's most populous county, banning most gatherings but stopping short of a full shutdown on retail stores and other non-essential businesses.
The three-week order takes effect Monday and advises residents to stay home as much as possible and to wear a face covering when they go out.
It bans people from gathering with others who aren't in their households, whether publicly or privately.
However, exceptions are made for church services and protests, which are constitutionally protected rights, the County Department of Public Health said in a statement.
Bravo, good founding fathers.
My friends, how about y'all go worship?
Whatever you want.
My friends have decided to worship Sam Adams and Stella Artois, or whatever.
I don't know.
I don't know if those are good beers.
I don't really drink beer.
I've got some, like, IPA stuff for the guests.
Homebrew, or whatever they're called.
I don't know.
Small batch.
Whatever it is the hipsters are drinking.
Anyway, the point is, I disagree with that statement.
Churches and protests?
No, no, no, no, no.
It says peaceably assemble, period.
Peaceably assemble.
It doesn't say why.
It says you can do it.
Anyway.
It came as the county of 10 million residents confirmed 24 new deaths and 4,544 new confirmed cases of COVID-19.
The county had set a threshold for issuing the stay-home order, an average of 4,500 cases a day over a five-day period, but hadn't expected to reach that level until next month.
However, the five-day average of new cases reported Friday was 4,751.
We know we are asking a lot from so many who have been sacrificing for months on end.
Acting with collective urgency right now is essential if we want to put a stop to this surge.
No, I think what they're trying to do is extract wealth from the poor to give to the rich.
It is the greatest transfer of wealth and everything they're doing guarantees that.
Even a massive stimulus devalues the currency that, listen, If you have millions of dollars and they devalue your currency, you're fine.
You can still keep investing.
Power attracts power.
That's why I've often talked about why I'm in favor of a progressive tax system with larger brackets.
However, the problem there is, while we want to constrain an imbalance of power, I don't want to give more power to the government because that defeats the purpose.
So, therein lies the greater challenge, which is why I'm typically just a centrist, you know, mixed economy, I guess.
Anyway, the point is, If they issue a stimulus, it devalues the money.
Because you're not putting it, to put it this way, printing money in exchange for nothing, with no value, basically just devalues currency.
And so that means people who have savings and people who are broke are going to be losing out on their labor and resources to people who are not producing anything.
And I get it, most people, you know, a lot of people, I shouldn't say most, but a lot of people have lost their jobs and are on the verge of eviction and are suffering.
But, This means that if you're wealthy, you're probably going to be fine.
In fact, when these people are desperate and poor, you buy up their properties and they get evicted, you take their buildings, all that stuff.
Now, when they do the vaccine, they're saying the government's going to pay for it.
That just means we all pay for it out of the labor pool.
Once again, all of that is going to go to big pharmaceutical companies.
Bling bling.
Those CEOs are gonna make a fat, fat stack, right?
And then when people are broke and have no jobs, and everything's shut down, the money all goes to Target, Walmart, etc., the stores that are allowed to stay open.
They say indoor retail businesses, which make much of their profits during the Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday seasons, are allowed to remain open, but with just 20% of capacity, including nail salons and other personal care services.
Restaurants in the county already were recently barred from in-person dining.
They can still offer pickup, delivery, and takeout services.
Beaches, trails, and parks will remain open with safety requirements.
The order, which runs through December 20th, is more modest than the statewide closure order issued by Governor Gavin Newsom in mid-March.
That order closed schools and most businesses and severely restricted movement except for essential workers or to perform essential chores such as buying groceries or picking up medications.
Daily case numbers in California are going up, yadda yadda, listen, okay.
We're hearing about all this stuff.
We're hearing about the lockdowns.
I am going to show you the definitive fact check from Lead Stories.
And Lead Stories, my friends, is actually just partisan garbage.
Like, if someone wrote an article saying, you know, Donald Trump didn't lose the election, Lead Stories would be like, actually, Donald Trump did lose the election.
And then you'd be like, well, the election, in what capacity?
Like, the Electoral College hasn't voted yet.
There's a really funny story.
Candace Owens just tweeted this out.
She said that she made a tweet saying Joe Biden is literally and legally not president-elect, and she got fact-checked on Facebook, so she got lawyers involved, and then it was PolitiFact, I believe, retracted saying, no, no, no, okay, okay, it's true, Joe Biden is not legally or literally president-elect.
Isn't that funny?
Had to get a lawyer involved because they were lying.
But anyway.
The point is, I'm showing you lead stories because they got a statement from the people who wrote this article saying COVID deaths are overblown.
The reason I'm showing you these stories in this order is, look at the lockdowns.
10 million people, they're saying, stay in your home.
Now, they're not saying you have to, because they don't have that power.
Thank you, Constitution.
But they're trying to, and they did it before.
Joe Biden says we are going to be facing a very dark winter.
Which has all the conspiracy-minded people kind of laughing and freaking out because of Operation Dark Winter, which was a simulated bioterror attack.
Which is funny, by the way.
I'm not saying they're related, I'm just saying portraits of words Joe Biden.
But the point is, all of this is being done in the name of a virus that, according to John Hopkins research, is not increasing the number of deaths per year.
It is causing problems.
You don't wanna get this.
I got no problem wearing a mask.
That being said, this is coming from John Hopkins, and they deleted, look at this, not censored.
That's not the statement that they received.
So this is what's really funny about something like lead stories.
They say, fact check, COVID-19 deaths not overblown, Johns Hopkins student paper not censored.
But when they actually got a comment from the authors, they said it was censored and the deaths are overblown.
So how is that a fact check?
It's not.
They just want you to be desperately quivering in your boots at a disease where 99.9% survive.
You know what, man?
I'm just done playing games with this.
Here's what they say.
Is it true the lethality of COVID-19 is being overblown by government mortality data?
And was a Johns Hopkins University student paper censored when it posted a story about that claim?
No, that is not true.
There's no evidence that official COVID-19 death tallies have hidden some other cause of unexpected deaths in 2020.
The student's papers retracted article contained inaccuracies that should have been caught during the editing process, errors that led to online sharing of misinformation, according to the John Hopkins Newsletter Managing Editors.
A version of the story can still be found online, and the newsletter staff kept a PDF version, eradicating censorship concerns.
They actually placed a fact check on the source I used to start the story.
It's not thebee.com.
There's a satirical website called The Babylon Bee.
They write satirical news.
It's comedy bits.
It's not real news.
They also have another website called Not The Bee for news stories that are true, but you'd think were satire.
In it, they said, John Hopkins published an article saying COVID is no big deal, then deleted it.
You can read the story for yourself.
All factually correct, and lead stories put a fact-check on it because this is not a legitimate fact-checking organization.
It's just partisan propaganda.
So when you see the story from Not To Be, which was completely true, just saying, here's what they said, they put a fact-check label on it to make you think it's not true.
They've done it to me before.
It's fake news.
They say.
The claim about it being exaggerated, a version of this story can be found.
The claims about deaths being exaggerated was found in an article archived here, published November 22nd by the Johns Hopkins Newsletter and titled A Closer Look at the U.S.
Deaths Due to COVID.
They mention what I mentioned earlier on, that heart disease deaths were going down while COVID was going up, thus they believe they sort of replaced it.
This is false and a misstatement of deaths to make it data, according to the CDC and other medical experts, including John Hopkins, which keeps an updated count of coronavirus cases and COVID-19 deaths.
The Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Center reported November 27th that 264,241 deaths had been reported in the U.S.
due to the disease.
241 deaths have been reported in the US due to the disease for its part.
The CDC reported a little more than two hours earlier, 263, whatever.
The paper initially posted a tweet about the retraction, which was done late on November
26th, and it drew quick accusations of censorship.
They said, though making clear the need for further research, the article was being used
to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic. We regret
that this article may have contributed to the spread of misinformation about COVID-19.
They say, as for user JustPhil's claim of some breach of academic and press freedoms,
the paper's two managing editors, Marvis Gutierrez and Ariella Shua,
wrote to Lead Stories to say they had not been censored.
The article in question was retracted last night as it was being used to spread misinformation about the pandemic.
We have preserved the article as a PDF and posted an editor's note with full clarification about our decision, highlighting the inaccuracies of the story.
We were not censored, but decided to retract the article based on the reasons outlined in the editor's note.
They say.
We decided on November 26th to retract the article to stop- stop- blah, we get it, misinformation.
Brian's study should not be used exclusively in understanding the impact of COVID-19, but should be taken in context with the countless other data published by Hopkins, the World Health Organization, and the CDC.
As Assistant Director for the Master's in Applied Economics Programs at Hopkins, Brian is neither a medical professional nor a disease researcher.
At her talk, she herself stated that more research and data are needed to understand the effects of COVID-19.
Brand was quoted in the article as saying, All of this points to no evidence that COVID-19 created any excess deaths.
Total death numbers are not above normal death numbers.
This claim is incorrect and does not take into account the spike in raw death count from all causes compared to previous years.
According to the CDC, there have been almost 300,000 excess deaths due to COVID-19.
Additionally, Brand presented data of total U.S.
deaths in comparison to COVID-19-related deaths as a proportion percentage, which trivializes the repercussions of the pandemic.
This evidence does not disprove the severity of COVID-19.
An increase in excess deaths is... Okay, okay, you get the point.
Here's the point I'm trying to say.
Any dissenting opinion Any data, any research that challenges the narrative will be retracted, taken down, whether it's true or not isn't the point.
The point is, they aren't even retracting when they make mistakes.
The articles about why you shouldn't wear masks still exist.
Yeah.
Earlier this year, they said not to wear masks.
Fauci said not to wear masks.
They don't retract any of that stuff.
But if you come out and say, hey, we checked the total death numbers.
They're the same.
Nope, nope, nope.
Must be retracted.
And that's what I've been saying time and time again.
For whatever reason, they retract these articles.
They don't allow us to talk about it.
The only direction we can go is negative.
Meaning, more and more people will keep freaking out, will keep screaming and keep thinking the end is nigh, even if data suggests it may not be the case.
That's not rational or reasonable.
They say, lead stories called a university spokesperson.
The author, Yanni Gu, getting her neuroscience and German majors at the Baltimore-based university, wrote a response on LinkedIn, saying, Today, on November 27th, the newsletter officially posted their reason for retracting the article, stating inaccuracies in the analysis.
I am frustrated at the explanation, and I think it is disrespectful to Dr. Brien's hard work, putting data together and doing an honest analysis.
If her analysis was to be contradicted, then at least an equal-level analysis should be done to provide more data and thus a new conclusion.
Dr. Briand and her work deserve such respect.
I have received many messages asking the reason for taking the article down, and so I would like to officially express my opinions here.
I even got emails saying that thanks to me, people now will not be wearing masks or practicing social distancing.
They called me a COVID denier and a minimizer.
And then I have no idea the damage and the lives cost in me writing such an article.
I was devastated to receive such accusations, but I stand my ground.
The goal is never to undermine the effects of COVID, but to suggest a possible over-exaggeration in death numbers due to the pandemic.
In a November 27th email to Lead Stories, Professor Briand did not challenge the characterization of her findings in either the original article nor the retraction, saying, Their decision to retract the article was their own.
Yanigu did an excellent job at reporting the content of the presentation.
The full presentation is available at COVID-19-this-a-look-at-US-data-youtube.
I explained during the presentation where I found and downloaded the data from, so anyone can easily replicate my analysis.
They then go on to say, it's misinformation, it's misinformation.
Even though the author says, no, I'm standing my ground.
And even though the professor herself, I believe it's a woman, said, you can go look at the data yourself and compare it.
This is a problem.
And I think COVID has become overtly political.
Now, I think we should recognize COVID is a serious thing, okay?
You know, look, the people who are trying to claim it doesn't exist, it clearly does.
We've seen legitimate problems caused by it, and I think the real issue is that many people don't know anybody affected by it, because we're not talking about, you know, 1 in 3 having it.
We're talking about, I think, like 1 in 10, or actually, I'm sorry, like 1 in 30.
I actually know people, good personal friends, people I hang out with every day, who have family who went to the hospital recently.
Like, we were going through this, like, talking on the phone, they're in the hospital, they're going through the symptoms and all that stuff.
But there also have been really shoddy bits of reporting.
Here's what happens.
Bad reporting comes out.
And they say, as long as it scares people, then you get reporting like this, whether it's good or not, and they take it down and claim it's fake news.
So the only information anyone gets is, the sky is falling and the end is nigh, and then no one takes a reasonable approach to how we actually deal with this.
We know the World Health Organization said lockdowns are a last resort, so why is California doing another lockdown?
It absolutely makes no sense.
10 million people.
Look, I'll say it, man.
I just think, earlier in the year, we had a serious spike of a novel virus, coronavirus, and it led to a lot of people dying.
It led to lingering health effects, and we locked down, and we slowed the spread.
But they never released the lockdown completely.
Many states remained partially locked down to varying degrees, and now we're just locking down again.
Now what's happening is we're getting a massive increase in cases and not deaths.
They say, oh, it's because therapeutics are working better.
Look, when research like this comes out and says that people who, you know, the number of heart disease deaths are way down and COVID deaths are way up, and also we're finding that flu, instances of the flu have gone way down, but COVID's gone way up, people are going to start asking questions.
And if we don't have an opportunity to have real conversations about this, then you're not going to be able to actually solve any of these problems.
Let me put it simply.
I believe the lockdowns are a huge mistake.
I believe that we should be carrying on as normal and just protecting the vulnerable as we normally do.
This, uh, the COVID death rate I believe is like double the flu.
So it is pretty bad.
Flu is already really bad.
Flu already kills a ton of people and that's why we do flu shots and it's why we take precautions during flu season.
COVID is twice as bad, so it makes sense that we would take precautions.
It doesn't make sense that we would destroy the entire economy of our country over something like this.
It's just not the way to deal with it.
And it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says because, look, I can get banned from YouTube for talking about this stuff, and I say it every time, but it's true.
You see how they do these fact checks?
They don't want people to say this because they're scared they'll be held responsible.
When videos like mine come out where I say things like this, the media says, see, it's YouTube's fault.
YouTube's spreading misinformation.
And that's exactly why big tech says just ban them, just ban them outright.
Listen, wear your masks please, social distance.
It is substantially worse, like double worse than the flu in terms of death rates.
So we want to take it seriously.
But to destroy the country makes no sense in my opinion, and the World Health Organization are the ones who said it.
I'm quoting them.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on my main channel, which you can find by typing in youtube.com slash Timcast into your address bar.
It is a different channel.
I understand it says Timcast down on the player.
Don't ask me why YouTube did that.
Just type in youtube.com slash Timcast and you will find a new channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all there at 4 p.m.
We may have our answer to what happens in the post-Trump era.
There won't be one, at least not in the near future.
Because according to a story from the Daily Mail, Donald Trump is planning a MAGA campaign event during Biden's inauguration, and he thinks the networks will keep covering him because Democrats are boring, first and foremost.
I'm not sure I actually believe this story, because it's anonymous sources and things of that nature.
And also, it suggests that Donald Trump doesn't plan on winning, and I think he does plan on winning.
So I'm not entirely convinced that Trump is going to set up or organize or plan a campaign event when he's actually expecting to win.
This story reads like what the left thinks is happening, whereas the right is adamant that Trump is going for a full-on victory.
And Rudy Giuliani just put out an episode of his podcast where he says, this is how we win.
The left doesn't know what the right is talking about.
So this story doesn't make much sense to people who are in the right bubble.
But if you're in the left bubble, you're going, that Donald Trump trying to steal Joe Biden's thunder.
Now, it might be true.
It sounds like something Trump would do.
And in the event that Joe Biden is on his, on the, you know, about to be inaugurated and all that, I hope Donald Trump does do this.
But I feel like Trump wouldn't be planning this right now.
I just, it doesn't seem like the kind of guy.
Well, here's the story from the Daily Mail.
They say, Donald Trump is said to be considering holding an event during the president-elect's inauguration to announce his 2024 run, and has boasted that he thinks the networks will continue to cover him after he leaves the White House because Joe Biden is boring.
Okay, that last part is true, alright?
But Joe Biden is not the president-elect.
Sorry, that's a fact.
The media keeps saying it, and it's kinda creepy.
He's not even gotten one vote from the Electoral College, because it hasn't happened yet.
So no, not President-elect.
They say three sources close to the President told the Daily Beast he is plotting various ways to boycott Biden's administration and steal his thunder when he is sworn in as the 46th President of the United States in January.
I somehow just don't believe it.
Two of the sources said Trump is considering timing a kickoff event for his 2024 White House campaign to clash with Inauguration Week or with the ceremony itself.
This would be a marked departure from protocol, with the outgoing president traditionally attending the incoming president's inauguration as part of a peaceful transition of power, a grace then-President Barack Obama and Vice President Biden both afforded Trump in 2017.
It comes as Trump took a break from his election legal battle over Thanksgiving weekend to play around a golf at his club in Sterling, Virginia, Saturday for the second day in a row.
He saluted and sported a MAGA hat as he disembarked Marine One at the Trump National Golf Club with his sons Eric and Don Jr.
and Don Jr.' 's girlfriend Kimberly Guilfoyle in tow.
Don Jr.
on Wednesday claimed he was cleared of COVID-19 in time for Thanksgiving, despite only announcing his infection the Friday before.
Okay, I get it.
Trump celebrated Thanksgiving and then he played golf.
Will Donald Trump stage an event as such?
I do believe so.
But more to the point, the reason why I thought this story was interesting is kind of what I was alluding to just a minute or so ago.
There are two universes right now.
The left and the right.
And they are so far from each other, it's crazy.
On the left, they say Tim Pool is a Trumpist trumpet and all of his Trump supporter followers and blah blah.
And then when you go to the Donald dot win, it's a bunch of memes of me calling me a bald cuck.
So, sure.
It is what it is, I suppose.
But this, look.
The right knows what the left is thinking.
The left doesn't know what the right is thinking.
The left thinks the right is evil, but the right thinks the left is misguided.
These are very common tropes.
And I think the issue is that the left is defined by people who just watch mainstream media, and they are low information, or at least they tend to be.
There are priests of the cathedral, to cite Michael Malice's... You may be familiar with Michael Malice.
He calls it the cathedral.
It's the establishment.
I'm probably getting it wrong, but it's like the political and media establishment.
And they have their preachers and their priests.
They have their religion, as it were.
And while most of the people may be Low information, having no idea what's going on.
There are people who certainly do know what's going on and manipulate the large masses using, you know, the mainstream media apparatus.
Which is why you get stories like this.
If you were going to see a story from Rudy Giuliani, from Donald Trump, or from any of these people who actually would come out and say something, because keep in mind, this is from three unnamed sources close to the president.
I don't buy it.
The people close to the president are screaming that they won the election.
They're not going to be going, we're planning an event because Trump lost.
That to me is weird.
However, let's read more.
They say in another sign he may be coming to terms with his election defeat. The sources told
the Daily Beast Trump is already planning for his comeback run for the 2024 White House race.
They said the president is in close talks with advisers on specifics, including the timing of
its launch in efforts to continue to keep the spotlight firmly on him and away from his Democrat
successor. Trump allegedly boasted to his aides that he is confident he will continue to stay in
the public eye, and the media will continue to provide him coverage because he said Biden is
boring and doesn't bring the ratings he does.
His plot to draw the attention away from the inauguration day on January 20th would be a dramatic disregard for the process of a peaceful transition to power from one president to the next.
On January 20th, 2017, when Trump was sworn in the Oval Office, Obama and Biden were in attendance with their wives, and the administration tried to create a smooth transition to Trump in the lead-up.
That's just a bald-faced lie.
Obama's administration, and look at it, Obama's not, that's not a real smile, this is, it's fake, look at it, look at Michelle Obama with that look on her face.
I'm kidding by the way, I'm joking.
But no, the Obama administration held that meeting where they tried going after Trump, his advisors, they accused him of being, you know, a Russian agent, and then jammed up his administration.
For a long time, people had been claiming that Barack Obama was running some kind of shadow government because he lived like a mile away from the White House.
Now they're claiming Trump is going to do the same thing.
Things ain't looking too good right now in the political landscape in this country.
Go over to thedonald.win if you are a Trump supporter, and you will see what they're talking about.
I'll tell you this.
You spend some time lurking the Donald dot win.
You will become firmly convinced Donald Trump not only did win, except they cheated, you will become convinced that he is going to be declared victorious.
And may be true.
Personally, I have a normalcy bias, so I just look to the way things, you know, are like, I just can't imagine some crazy historical turnaround.
But it is entirely possible.
But that's the important factor here.
The disparate universes.
Unfortunately for the left, well, I'll put it this way.
The Donald.Win is hyper-partisan to the most extreme degree possible.
I'm not saying they're extremists, I'm saying you cannot love Trump more than the people over at the Donald.Win.
That being said, they do often get things right, and they do deeper dives and investigations, but it all usually is pro-Trump.
So that does muddy things up a bit, but If you were to follow both mainstream news and TheDonald.Win, you would be the best informed there is.
If you were to only follow TheDonald.Win, you'd probably be getting a hyper-biased view, but you'd still be better informed than the average person.
And if you only watch the mainstream media, well, then you're a low-information belligerent in the culture war, and you have no idea what's really going on.
You look at stories like this, and I'm sorry, I just, I really don't think it's true.
It does sound like Trump, but maybe that's all it is, something that sounds like Trump.
You know what I see when I see Trump's tweets, when I see what his legal teams are talking about?
The Republicans in Pennsylvania want to flip the electorate, they're calling in dispute.
There's a resolution on the table for the House and the Senate in Pennsylvania that would claim their elections in dispute.
That is great news for Donald Trump, and it could mean that Trump is going to win.
To be reasonable, however, Trump did approve the transition, so maybe Trump is, you know, hedging his bets.
He's saying, OK, we got to try a victory, but, you know, we're going to start the process anyway.
I'm not entirely convinced Trump thinks he's going to lose, because what does he have to lose?
If Trump actually thought there was a chance he wasn't going to win, I think he would just throw his weight a hundred per- like he wouldn't let Biden transition, that makes no sense.
You gotta understand there are subtle things Trump does, and you might not get it.
I'm not saying he's playing 4D chess, but look at it this way.
Giuliani and Jenna Ellis, Trump's advisor and lawyer, issued a statement saying Sidney Powell was not on Trump's legal team.
Everyone then laughed and mocked Sidney Powell.
And then Trump pardoned Michael Flynn a couple days later!
Sidney Powell is the lawyer for Michael Flynn.
Sometimes, a lot of people, if you don't keep up on the news and watch every video, you might not know these names, but Sidney Powell was said to be on Trump's team by Trump himself.
They clarified she wasn't.
If she was, and Trump pardoned her client, and it's his lawyer, that's a huge conflict.
The point I'm trying to make is, Often, there are moves made by Trump that seemingly you don't understand, or they might seem innocuous, and they turn out to be actually fairly significant.
In this case, pardoning Michael Flynn.
I'll tell you this.
Donald Trump has a lot to lose if he does lose.
He does.
Because the woke leftists, the resistance Democrats, we are in political war right now.
This is political war.
Trump has to win.
They've tried accusing him of being a spy.
They've tried impeaching him.
They literally impeached him.
They are going after him with everything they have.
And I really do believe at the state level, they'll try and lock Trump up.
Because this is no longer about For the past four years, we have not been dealing with normal government.
And a lot of people don't want to say civil war or anything like that.
But Mother Jones called it political civil war.
I think that's where we're at right now.
Trump is going to do literally everything in his power to make sure he wins.
And that means getting Republicans to just dispute the election so Trump can get the Electoral College victory.
That's it.
Because the alternative is worse.
We may... January 21st is going to be a crazy day.
Let me tell you that.
January 20th is gonna be a crazy day, and the 19th!
Oh man, January's gonna be crazy.
I hope you're ready.
Stick around.
I got a couple more segments coming up in just a few minutes, and I will see you all shortly.
This is what ego, arrogance, and narcissism looks like.
From Caitlin Collins of CNN, the crew that got President Trump to answer his first question in over three weeks!
Proud to be a part of it.
Happy Thanksgiving!
All of these people I find to be detestable.
Look, maybe there never was real journalism, because I've certainly never been involved in whatever it is they claim is journalism.
So maybe it never really existed because the major corporations were never journalists.
But I like to think that my job and what I did, mostly before I started doing more political commentary, was real journalism.
And that's why I rejected these organizations and rejected things like this.
You know what a journalist is supposed to do?
A journalist is supposed to collect and disseminate information.
We used to refer to it as public intelligence.
There's government intelligence, you know, you get classified information and public information to a certain degree.
You have private intelligence, which is, there's firms, I won't name any of them, but what they do is they gather intelligence from around the world and they share it for a cost with top, you know, very wealthy clientele.
You might have somebody who wants to invest in, say, oil.
So they go to these private intel firms and say, what's happening on the ground in these countries?
And they'll say, here's what no one knows.
Top secret stuff.
Because if people find out it could change the circumstances, and they want, you know, rich people might want to exploit circumstances.
Then you have public intelligence.
That's what me and my friends did, and we didn't consider it journalism, because journalism, like CNN, is garbage.
This was the goal.
We would collect information, we would try and figure out what was true, and then just let it out.
The idea was that if humans had proper data on what was going on, the decentralized network that is the human mind and human society could figure out ways to solve our problems better than any individual could.
That's what journalism's supposed to be.
You got a democracy, or some kind of democratic institution.
Maybe you're voting for a representative, and then journalists make sure that you know enough to make an informed decision.
Instead, this is what we get.
And you know what?
Maybe we deserve it.
This is a selfie of a bunch of people, I guess, who are the journalists, let's do air quotes, in the White House.
This is their priority.
Hey everybody, let's take a selfie together.
Now to be fair, I wonder how many of these people knew what she was going to tweet.
I guess they did, maybe they didn't.
Maybe she was like, hey guys, let's get a selfie together, and they were like, okay.
Now they're getting dragged for not social distancing, they're indoors, sure, fine, whatever.
But this is the perfect example of what journalists have become.
I give you from the Daily Mail a reporter's revenge how CNN White House correspondent who has repeatedly clashed with Trump took humiliating picture of him behind tiny desk that sparked Diaper Don memes.
And we have this tweet from Caitlin Collins.
President Trump is holding a video teleconference with members of the military throughout the world.
He's calling in from the diplomatic reception room.
To be fair, I say that a lot, don't I?
It's just a picture of Trump.
She's not the one who put him at the desk, so I don't know why they're acting like she's the one who got revenge on him.
That's kind of dumb.
You have this other photo from Reuters, which is actually a much better photo.
They got low and they took a photo, and it still does kind of look ridiculous for Trump.
Let's be reasonable here.
Why was Trump sitting in that very low chair with this tiny desk that was a little too tall?
It's just weird.
But I really don't care.
It's not news that's going to affect my life, nor am I at all concerned about it.
They say Colin's photo was not the only one taken of the tiny desk, but hers had the most impact.
This is the news they write about.
Bravo, Trump sat at a tiny desk.
Okay, fine.
Remember when they were like, Trump's salt shakers are bigger than everyone else's?
This is what we have today in terms of journalism.
Can you tell me about what Joe Biden's plan is with his new foreign policy advisor?
Who's going to be his foreign policy advisor?
What are we doing?
Do we get that?
Sure.
From some people.
But it's not the lead story.
So it brings me back to the previous segment I just did where it was alleged Trump said the media will be more entertained by him, Joe Biden is boring so they'll keep covering him.
In the event that Trump doesn't win the White House, that sounds like something Trump would say and do.
And it's true.
These are not journalists.
This is one big reality TV show that's keeping us all just constantly angry for whatever reason, I guess to make these companies money, and you get people like Caitlin Collins whose only real job is to stir up controversy.
That's it.
Can you tell me, has Caitlin Collins relayed information to you that's helped you understand the world?
Some of you might say yes, but then I would argue that you probably aren't exploring the news if you're only getting it from her.
What she and Jim Acosta do is reality TV.
They're bit players.
The whole goal is like, can we get screen time where we fight with the president to generate ratings?
You see it all the time.
Instead of saying, you know, they'll go to ask Trump a question and they'll argue with him.
Instead of saying, Mr. President, you recently announced that there's going to be a troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Will that be a total withdrawal or are there going to be remaining troops in Afghanistan in the near future?
And then, uh, thank you.
Yes, we will be leaving in a few hundred.
Thank you for clarifying, Mr. President.
That's what journalists are supposed to do.
Trump could say, I'm going to ban cookies.
And then everyone can freak out.
And a journalist is going to say, are you banning every kind of cookie?
Are there some cookies that won't be banned?
Why are you banning cookies?
And then Trump will say, yes, we're only banning Oreo cookies because it's actually not really food.
It's made of cardboard.
I'm kidding, by the way.
I like Oreo cookies.
Forgive me.
But, uh, you know, to get clarification, we don't get that.
What do we get?
Jim Acosta fights with the White House aide and they, like, wrestle over a microphone.
Caitlyn Collin takes a selfie.
She's like, look at us!
We got Trump to answer a question!
So what?
He's a guy.
He doesn't have to answer questions or do press briefings.
You didn't get him to do anything.
He chose to do it.
How stupid is all of this?
And then, look, look, look at this.
They show a bunch of tweets.
I mean, the desk is actually kind of tall.
graders desk and borrowed the presidential seal from his golf cart.
When I was leaving my job and training my replacement, I had to sit at a folding table
while my replacement got my office.
LOL, my crappy folding table was twice this size.
I mean the desk is actually kind of tall, I don't know why.
These tweets are exactly what Kaitlin Collins and Jim Acosta and CNN are trying to do.
It's exactly what Brian Stelter tries to do.
So long as these people... You know what?
I'll say this.
To Brian Stelter's credit, he does try to debunk things, but he often... It's like a game of tennis.
It's like bad information comes his way and he swats it back with even worse information.
Sometimes he does debunk things but doesn't clarify them so he's factual but not truthful.
But I don't understand how he thinks he can step up and claim that their network is doing a good job, and that they're the ones who are fact-checking and giving you the honest, gosh darn truth, when you have this.
When you have tweets like this.
You know, I don't take selfies.
Go to my Instagram, it's like, never a picture of me.
Nah, I don't.
I think I may have posted one, because someone took a picture of me with a guest.
Honestly, I don't think so.
I think other people post it.
Even when I post skate videos, it's like, I'm posting it, well, to be honest, I have a head-mounted GoPro I'm trying out.
But I usually film just first person because I want to film skating and post something, but I don't like posting pictures of myself.
You know what it is?
It's like that meme.
There's a meme where it says how guys take pictures, and it's like a picture of a bike, and it's like how women, and it's like the bike, but the women's face is like blocking the bike, you can't actually see it.
That reminds me of what this is.
They're so obsessed with themselves.
They're the stars.
You're there to hear them.
They want to be the center of attention.
News media has become the lowest denominator in being a public figure.
People who want to be famous realized all they got to do is tweet stupid things about the president and claim, I'm a journalist!
That's what it is.
I go to protests, I see activists, I'm a journalist!
You go to the White House, what do you see?
Caitlin Collins, I'm a journalist!
They're not journalists.
None of them are.
Now, the left says, well, Tim, you're not a journalist.
I never said that what I'm doing in every single piece of content is journalism.
I'm doing political and cultural commentary, which is literally what I've said over and over again.
However, I do journalism.
I would never go to the White House and argue with Trump.
That's ridiculous.
I would never go to the White House and argue with Biden or Barack Obama.
That's ridiculous.
But I do reach out to people for comment, I do fact-checking, and that's all journalism.
In many of my segments, I actually do a ton of journalism.
Collecting and disseminating information, making sure it's all certified, verifiable, all that stuff.
These shorter segments are usually just me talking about opinions or reading an article and stuff like that.
Not as journalistic.
But often I do.
So let me just tell you this.
When I see CNN and the rest of these White House people taking their selfies, they're not doing journalism.
There really are good journalists in the White House press corps.
They exist.
You'll listen sometimes to these press briefings and someone will say, you recently announced that there was going to be, you know, some troops in Syria to guard the oil.
Was this because of, you know, pressure from the Democrats or Republicans?
And then Trump will say yes or say no.
And that's like sometimes has real questions.
CNN.
The New York Times.
It is partisan garbage.
There was a poll that was released not too long ago that shows that Republicans like their Fox News, Democrats like their CNN, and regular people just watch like ABC, CBS, and NBC.
Not that those outlets are much better.
Well, not that they're not partisan, but they're way better than CNN.
You see, CNN is being run by Jeff Zucker.
Jeff Zucker is a reality TV guy.
He worked with Trump.
They know the game they're playing.
So you know what?
No matter what happens, Trump's alive.
And so long as he is, they're not turning the cameras off.
They're going to point them in his face, and even when Trump— even if slash when Trump leaves, they're going to follow him around, and CNN will become celebrity Hollywood gossip with Donald Trump.
Sorry, sorry.
Florida Mar-a-Lago gossip with Donald Trump.
And they're not going to cover Joe Biden.
They're going to be like, what's Trump doing today?
And they're going to be like, did you see Trump driving that convertible?
Like, whoa, because they're obsessed.
I'll leave it there.
I got one more segment coming up in a few minutes.
Stick around and I will see you all shortly.
A viral claim has been going around that one town in Michigan had 780% voter turnout.
This is not entirely correct, but it's kind of correct.
And I want to talk about how, yes, there were strange circumstances where voter turnout exceeded 100%, as we know, and there are several media outlets trying to do fact checks, falsely framing things to make it seem like this didn't happen.
First, let me just say, voter turnout never exceeds 100%.
There are some possible reasons why it could happen.
The official explanation, in many circumstances we've seen in this election cycle, is that people who were not previously registered registered on the same day.
Thus, if you take a look at their registered voters a day before, compared to how many people voted, it'll be higher than 100%.
Others say people changed their addresses, thus altering the numbers, or whatever.
I try to give excuses or reasons or justifications, whatever.
However, it's noted that even in places like Australia with compulsory voting, you can vote online or by mail, that's my understanding, they still don't reach 100%.
Only around 90-95% and the reason for it is that some people move and some people die.
And those people will be on voter registration rolls even after it happens.
You can force people to vote, you can't force dead people to vote, but I guess those accusations are floating around as well.
So let me show you exactly what's going on with this claim first, and break it down what it actually means.
It is suspect.
Bill Posey, a congressman from Florida, says, According to an affidavit in the Michigan lawsuit, one Michigan precinct township had 781.91% turnout.
How does this happen?
See exhibit 14, page 3, link to Michigan lawsuit exhibits, which includes just below.
And we can see City of North Muskegon, 781.
Zealand Charter Township, 460%.
Grout Township, 215%.
Muskegon, 205.
Detroit, 139.
So, yeah.
It's there.
215% Muskegon 205 Detroit 139 so yeah it's there but let's pull this up and
let me show you what they actually say they say another statistical red flag
can be observed in Michigan where even the very limited remaining public data
limited 643 precincts where voter turnout was above 80% according to county records.
443 precincts where voter turnout above 80% Accord voter turnout was above 80% according to county
records further if these very limited remaining public data votes were
Normalized to 80% turnout still 15% plus or minus above normal the excess votes are at least
36,000 812 over the maximum that could be expected We anticipate that precincts with excess voter turnout will be even higher with complete public data.
Some larger precincts in Wayne County and others are no longer publicly reporting their data.
They're not saying.
Turnout is.
They're extrapolating.
Turnout was around 80 or so percent in many of these districts.
What they're saying is, if you actually took the full data, because we only have a little bit, you would likely see voter turnout exceeding 100% in many circumstances.
Well, there you go.
So yes, they're basically saying, we believe voter turnout exceeded this number, but we don't have the number definitively saying it.
The reason I'm bringing this up is that the claim is going viral.
It is important.
And the left is saying, it's not true.
It's a projection.
It's not true.
And the right is saying, did you see voter turnout was over 780?
It is a projection, but it's still statistically significant for those that are questioning what went crazy in this or what's going on in this election.
It is very, very weird.
But I give you the fact check.
Let's break things down to better understand what's really going on.
Thank you, USA Today, for informing me.
Fact check.
States don't have more than 100% voter turnout in an election.
I was worried for a minute.
They say the claim.
Several key states had more ballots cast than registered voters.
I'ma stop you right there.
That's not the claim.
But let me read.
They say, even as Joe Biden prepares to enter the White House as President-elect, the President and the Internet are spreading misinformation about the election.
A recent meme uses outdated data to argue fraudulent votes have undermined the integrity.
Huh.
It just so happened that we are on track to have more votes than registered voters in every single state that could potentially win Trump the election.
Claims an image posted to Facebook on November 4th.
You've been caught, Dems.
The meme includes a table with the number of registered voters, projected votes, and voter turnout rate from several battleground states.
Of the states listed—Nevada, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, North Carolina, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Georgia—voter turnout is above 100% for all but Georgia.
The data is attributed to RealClearPolitics and World Population Review.
They're fact-checking the specific meme.
Okay, okay.
Alright.
I want to be reasonable.
Yeah, that meme is likely not correct, as far as I can tell.
But the problem is, people see stories like this, they see the headlines, and they miss what the bigger claim is.
Also, it's always easier to go after low-hanging fruit, isn't it, USA Today?
How about you fact-check this claim?
In every major swing state... Alright, okay, let me be even careful.
In several major swing states, there were precincts or counties that reported or projected greater than 100% turnout, for some reason.
Let's step it up.
In some important precincts in key swing states, turnout did exceed 100%.
In Wisconsin, in Michigan, in Florida, for instance.
How do you explain those?
Now, the viral tweet that I showed you earlier from Bill Posey, It's a projection based on the limited data they have.
Warrants and investigation as far as I'm concerned, right?
Most people, any honest person would say, sure, why not?
Check this out.
Analysis.
How UCF's polling site managed to exceed 100% turnout.
How did that happen?
This is just one story.
One.
There's several.
There's stories about it happening in Michigan and Wisconsin.
I mentioned this.
And it makes no sense.
It defies logic.
If you can't explain this, don't be surprised when the Republican legislature say, we are going to appoint our own electors and here's why.
Here's the reality.
The left and the right don't care to agree.
They don't.
The staunchest of Trump supporters say Trump won, period, shut up, you're wrong.
The left says Joe Biden won, shut up, you're wrong.
And there's no point in arguing because you're not going to convince anybody.
It's just never going to happen.
I tweeted something about the economy.
Like, the economy's doing really well.
And they said, see, the economy's doing really well thanks to Joe Biden.
I'm like, Trump's still president.
I did not argue in 2016 that the good economy was because Trump got elected.
Some people did, and now they're saying the good economy is because Trump is still president.
It's contradictory.
I didn't say that.
I'm saying Trump is actively the president, and Operation Warp Speed brought about this vaccine, which is giving investors confidence.
And I get a response from famed comedian, actually I think he's a funny guy, Jemaine Clement, saying, Joe Biden won or is your president elect or something like that.
I don't care!
I don't care!
I'm not playing a tribal game.
Isn't it funny that you point out these facts and this is what you get?
I'm reminded of a tweet from Chris Raygun.
He tweeted something like, there's always some, you know, Trump sycophant who's gonna come out and just claim Trump did something.
And then to make a point about the media, I responded with, kinda like the media claiming Trump didn't penny taxes when he paid millions, and Chris goes, right on cue, or something like that.
These people are tribalists, and it pains me to say Chris Reagan has definitely become... I don't know if it's like he's just like a low information, he's not paying attention, he doesn't care, or he never did, but he really doesn't understand what's going on.
The point I was making was that he was right, that tribalists just want to claim their right.
I don't know if... I've never, you know, followed him all that much, just some of his music videos and stuff like that.
But I'm like, I DM'd him afterwards, I was like, I'm not wrong, like, why are you acting like I'm here to defend Trump?
It's a fact.
The New York Times ran a story saying Trump didn't pay his taxes, and then you drop down several paragraphs and it says, he did.
And I'm like, that's so dumb.
Or when Jemaine Clement tweets at me, Joe Biden's your president, or whatever, I'm like, who do you think you're tweeting at?
Do you think I have a MAGA hat somewhere secretly hidden?
I don't care!
If Joe Biden wins, like I said, I'll laugh.
Trump supporters don't like it, they mock me for saying it.
They post memes about me on Donald dot win.
Look, man, I can't control the win.
I can only direct my... I can't... I can't control the win.
I can only change the direction of my sales as it goes.
So if Joe Biden wins, what am I supposed to do?
Cry about it?
No, I'll speak up about it and do my thing, but I'm gonna laugh because... Yeah, okay, I guess.
We'll see who wins.
I think it's gonna be Joe Biden, but Trump does have a path because of things like this.
But I tell you, man, We're at the point where it doesn't even matter anymore.
People just want to be in their tribe.
They want to believe what they believe, and they don't want to have the responsibility to actually do any research.
You want to know why there's a... First of all, let me tell you this.
You know why there's a meme, Tim Pool is a milquetoast fence-sitter?
It's because someone commented on one of my videos a couple years ago saying, Tim Pool is a milquetoast fence-sitter, and I thought it was hilarious, and so I kept saying it.
I thought it was great.
You wanna know why I thought it was great?
Because I don't know everything.
So I'm not gonna come out and say, definitively, this, that, or otherwise.
I'll show you a source, and say, based on this source, here's what seems to be the case, and here's what we've heard before.
But for the most part...
I don't come out with political opinions on like... You may notice this.
When was the last time you saw a video where I was doing just strict arguments on fiscal policy for the year 2021 and the deficit?
And whether or not we should have pro-choice versus life and Planned Parenthood?
I don't.
You don't see that stuff from me.
I don't know everything.
I just can tell you what's going on with the news as it pertains to the culture war.
Not necessarily the political opinion on the individuals and what their policies are.
In fact, I've praised Biden because he announced he wanted to pardon nonviolent drug offenders.
I said, Trump should do it because Biden's going to do it.
It's a good thing.
But the tribalists don't care.
And here's the point.
I think the right has a tendency to be correct because the left is low information.
So, of course, when someone like, you know, Chris Reagan tweets Trump sycophants, and then I just make a point agreeing with the tribalism, he takes issue with it.
Yes, that's, that's low information tribalism.
The right will tell you, yes, I read the New York Times' story, it clearly states Trump paid 5 point, I think it's 5.2 million dollars in taxes.
The left will say, Trump didn't pay any taxes!
So that's what we're left with.
The right will say, here's the fraud, here's the strange anomalies, this is in question.
And the left will say, nuh-uh, Joe Biden won.
I don't know how you solve for that.
I really don't.
But whatever.
I'm not gonna rant on it.
I'm done.
It's Saturday.
Whatever.
Hope y'all are enjoying your holiday weekend.
I will see you all tomorrow at 10am on this channel in the next segment.
