Trump Tweets Video EXPOSING Illegal Vote Buying From Biden Supporters Who Quickly Delete Evidence
The video shows two women with one promising gift cards as prizes if people send in photos of them voting.While Democrats are claiming its a legal "get out the vote drive" according to the law offering cash incentives or something of value in exchange for voting or not voting is illegal.it doesn't matter if you tell someone to vote to for someone specific or not to vote for someone, simply saying vote in exchange for prizes is a crime.While this is not definitive proof of Trump's claims about the system being rigged it is still something that needs to be investigated and prosecuted.Bill Barr recently claimed that to date he has not seen evidence that would have changed the outcome but this doesn't mean it doesn't exist and it doesn't mean he stopped investigating
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Before we get started with the Tim Pool Daily Show podcast, make sure you check out TimCastIRL on all podcast platforms.
It's a show where I bring on guests from across the political spectrum and various fields to discuss cultural and political issues and the breaking news of the day.
You can watch the show live Monday through Friday at 8 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL or find the show on all podcast platforms.
Again, TimCastIRL.
That being said, on to the show.
Over the past day or so, Donald Trump has been tweeting videos of individuals explaining how they witnessed serious impropriety, irregularities, or even outright fraud at various hearings held by Republicans.
Trump, of course, has been tweeting quite a bit about voter fraud.
Now, a lot of people were confused, angry, upset, or just let down.
When Bill Barr came out and it was reported that Bill Barr said there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud.
But in fact, that is not what Bill Barr said.
What he actually said was to date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that would have changed the outcome of the election.
And from that, Bill Barr is actually saying quite a few things.
He's saying to date, which means we're still investigating.
He said to change the outcome of the election, meaning we've seen fraud.
And in fact, Donald Trump tweeted a video of several people who are apparently Biden supporters offering up a cash raffle in exchange for proof that you voted, which Well, according to some experts, it is absolutely illegal.
And other people are saying, no, no, it's actually not illegal.
But I think this actually falls into the it's illegal category.
You can't tell someone if you vote, I will give you cash or the opportunity to receive a cash prize.
That's effectively buying votes.
And the reason it's illegal is because you can argue, well I wasn't telling them who to vote for.
It doesn't matter.
You know why?
Because people would target certain areas, districts, or communities.
Which is exactly what we're seeing right now.
I believe It's entirely possible that Bill Barr is still looking.
There's some anger from conservatives saying the DOJ needs to do a lot more.
Trump is certainly saying it.
I don't think Bill Barr's statement is anything other than the facts that he has.
He's not saying there's no evidence.
He's saying so far we haven't seen evidence that would change the outcome of the election.
Well, allow me to present some of those who would contest that statement, because, Bill Barr, you probably need to look at some more of the evidence.
Notably, what's going on with Donald Trump and this tweet, which has 27,000 retweets.
And I actually want to break down.
You see, this story of people buying votes through illegal raffles or cash prizes, or even outright, tell us you voted, we'll give you cash.
That actually happened.
It happened in many different states and many states where, well, they were key swing states that Trump needed to win.
This could potentially be widespread fraud that could have changed the outcome of the election.
I'm not saying it did.
I'm just saying we need to look at this.
And perhaps I can be a little bit optimistic based on what Bill Barr said.
Maybe he will investigate this.
I got to tell you, though, I'm sorry.
I'm a bit of a pessimist on this one.
I don't know where this is going to go, but I'm not entirely confident it's going to go anywhere where we figure out what happened and we see these people actually get in trouble or be charged for what looks like overt voter fraud.
Well, let's start by taking a look at this tweet from Donald Trump and the story he tweeted from the Epoch Times.
Before we do, however, make sure you subscribe to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
We do the show Monday through Friday live at 8 p.m.
It's a different show from this one.
I have guests on.
We talk about the issues and different, you know, political stuff.
It's also on all the different podcast platforms, so check it out.
$25 gift cards to raffle off, so that's a lot of money cash here.
bell, hit that like button, and let's read this, let me play some audio real quick for
you from this tweet so you know exactly what they're saying.
unidentified
$25 gift cards to RaffleOffs, that's a lot of money cash here.
We have also four...
Make sure you get out here to vote.
We've got a $100 gift card to give away.
The tweet Trump is quoting is from the Epoch Times.
The posts have since been deleted, but not before they were archived.
I know a lot of people get tired of me pointing out NewsGuard, but Epoch Times is considered by NewsGuard to be, red exclamation point, saying, proceed with caution.
They do not adhere to several basic journalistic standards, but they do say, the Epoch Times does not repeatedly publish false content.
And that's one of the most important things, but...
Regardless of whether or not it's being certified as a factual news outlet, I actually did the fact-checking and this story is completely legit.
In fact, it was covered previously, in part, by just the news.
Nevada voting raffle targeting Native Americans opens door to Trump legal challenge.
Group's site offered chance to win hundreds of dollars in gift cards to those who had proof they voted.
Trump campaign argues it was an illegal incentive.
I believe, based on reading some of these stories already, that yeah, it does seem to have been outright illegal, incentivizing with cash people to vote.
The reason why, like I said, you can't do this.
Imagine people would go to an area that's like in Philadelphia, Democrat plus 80.
You want to swing a swing state?
You go into an area where you know 80% of the people are Democrats, and you say, if you vote, I'll give you cash.
And some of these states did just that.
We're not talking about raffles.
In one instance, according to the Epoch Times, they straight-up said, 20 bucks if you send a picture of you having voted.
That's it.
Guaranteed cash in exchange for you voting.
That's against the law as far as I can tell.
Now, I can fact check a lot of what Epoch Times is saying.
And I'll show you just the news.
They did this report a couple weeks ago.
But Epoch Times now is showing us it affected several states in the 2020 election.
I'm not entirely convinced we're going to get a deep dive by the federal authorities.
I'm sorry.
Call me pessimistic.
Call me jaded.
When was the last time we saw, when you see all this evidence coming out, the feds actually go in and do something about it.
When was the last time we actually saw one of these top-level politicians, who clearly broke the law, get some kind of penalty at any capacity?
I mean, Hillary Clinton, she had her, so, look, she effectively deleted 30,000 emails.
They were public record.
You can't legally do that.
Nothing happens to any of these people.
So forgive me if I'm a bit pessimistic.
But here's the story.
Epoch Times reports, The Nevada Native Vote Project posted photos on Facebook on Election Day of smiling voters holding $25 gift cards after handing over their ballots.
The posts have since been deleted, but not before they were archived.
The removal may have had something to do with the U.S.
Criminal Code, two distinct sections of which impose fines and prison sentences for, quote, Whoever makes or offers to make an expenditure to any person either to vote or withhold his vote.
And there it is.
Not to vote for a certain person.
Literally, just to vote.
And let me show you.
We got the archives.
From archive.is, we can clearly see.
An image of a man who appears to be smiling, but only with his eyes, because he's wearing a mask, we can't see it, and he's holding up what appears to be a Visa gift card from the Nevada Native Vote Project.
When you see them outright saying you can win gift cards, then posting a photo of them doing it, It would appear that they broke the law.
And how many votes did they net by breaking the law, considering that Nevada's vote margin was very, very slim?
Now, people will say, there's no way they got 10 or 20,000 votes for Joe Biden.
But think about this across the state.
Epoch Times notes that this community is about 60,000 people, and they weren't giving everyone money.
They were saying, you could win money.
Go vote!
Go vote!
They say, offering gift cards for ballots wasn't the only way the Nevada Native Vote Project enticed people to vote.
In a video that could be seen on Facebook on November 24th, Bethany Sam, the public relations officer for the Reno-Sparks Indian Colony, urged people to come out and vote by offering some extra swag that we can give out.
We have $25 gift cards to raffle off, so it's a lot of money in cash here, Sam said, adding that voters need only send a photo of themselves at the polling place to enter.
We have also four $100 gift cards to give away, so again, you want to make sure you get out here and vote, and then, we have four $250 gift cards to raffle, and our grand prize is going to be a $500 Visa gift card to the person or native voters who came out early this week for early voting.
I'm gonna stop right now and say it for the 50 billionth time, I am not saying this proves there is enough evidence to suggest Trump lost the election due to widespread fraud.
I think there are reasons to criticize Bill Barr, but I think he's being honest when he says, to date, we have not seen evidence that would have changed the outcome of the election.
That doesn't mean there's no fraud.
It actually kind of implies there is fraud.
And he says to date, meaning he's still investigating, but it's a fair assessment.
I know a lot of people think he's going to come out and say, I saw all of this.
It proves it.
Bill Barr may have investigated this.
They may have found, yep, people broke the law, refer it to prosecution, but it was how many votes?
How many people got to vote?
Hard to know for sure.
Can you say that this is hard evidence?
It's hard to say.
And Bill Barr seems to err on the side of, I can't.
Now, I know a lot of people really don't like Bill Barr as of late, but he did appoint John Durham as a special counsel, meaning Joe Biden can't fire him.
I mean, he can try.
If Joe Biden becomes president on January 20th, which again I've said is overwhelmingly astronomically likely, 99.99% or whatever, that's how I feel.
Trump may pull off something, I give him that chance.
But if Joe Biden becomes president, he's not going to be able to get rid of Durham.
That means the Russia origins probe will continue.
And it's gonna be a whole lot like Russiagate, just in the other direction.
But this is Bill Barr doing something that I think actually is good.
It's protecting the investigation, making sure it doesn't go away.
So in this capacity, I don't know what else you do.
If you don't trust Barr, if you don't trust any of these people, then who do you trust?
Maybe Bill Barr is in on it?
I don't know.
I don't think so.
I had a conversation with Ben Domenech the other day on the IRL podcast and he was saying, he made a really good point, that without Bill Barr, Trump would not have been able to do anything in his first term because Bill Barr just shuttered the ridiculous Russia probe, essentially, and there was no evidence.
It was a waste of time and Barr did help out Trump in many ways.
I just think Bill Barr's got, you can criticize him for a lot of the stuff in the past that, you know, people rag on him over I don't want to bring it up.
YouTube's going to get mad at me.
Defending law enforcement agents who probably did really, really horrifying things, to put it mildly.
But Bill Barr, I think, is not going to come out and just blindly support Trump the way the left claims he is.
It's just not going to happen.
And this is evidence.
Now they're saying, oh, look what Bill Barr said.
No, no, no, no, no.
You don't get to rag on Bill Barr, claim he's lying, and now claim he's saying something he didn't even say.
He didn't say there's no evidence and we're done.
He says, to date.
So, looking at all this, and let me go down, because you've seen this.
They mention endorsing the Biden-Harris ticket.
These individuals were seen, the Indian colony had endorsed Biden and Harris.
Quote, I think the Biden-Harris campaign is supporting tribal sovereignty.
So, look, this was basically Democrats and Biden supporters.
Epoch Times says there's an estimated 60,000 registered Native American voters in Nevada.
In a video filmed on Election Day, Sam encouraged them to vote because Nevada is a swing state.
Quote, I also want you to know that we do have a raffle going on, whether you're early voting or you vote today during the election, Sam said, instructing people to enter the drawing by sending her a screenshot of their cast ballot from a ballot tracking website or a photo of themselves.
with an iVoted sticker.
Some people were straight-up just given gift cards if they voted.
It wasn't even a raffle.
Epoch Times goes on to note many other states.
Michigan.
They say, the Lac Veau Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians in Michigan offered $20 gas cards to anyone who sent pictures of themselves voting.
The group also didn't immediately respond to a request sent to its Facebook page.
Quote, At this time, no evidence of widespread illegal voting activity has been reported in Michigan.
What does that mean, widespread?
And why do they keep using it?
If we've got people setting up across the country... Is it widespread when you have Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, Texas, Ohio, where they're all doing things like that?
Is that not widespread?
I have to wonder.
You know, maybe you guys saw that Project Veritas put out these leaked CNN conversations.
What you learn from listening to these private conversations is that most of these people are really, really dumb.
Maybe the problem is that people like you and me, you know, you all watching this video and people like me reading the news, we're paying attention and extremely active.
Is Bill Barr Maybe he's not.
Maybe Bill Barr hasn't seen that all of this stuff affected all of these states.
Or maybe he has.
And maybe he says, listen, in all of these states they maybe have gotten a hundred, two hundred votes, maybe a thousand votes, but it wouldn't have changed the results.
And that's a fair point.
And it's entirely possible.
But it does need to be brought up.
It does need to be prosecuted.
And I hope something ends up coming of this.
So check this out.
I mentioned in Michigan.
They say in Arizona.
Corazon, Arizona promoted a cash raffle for people who send in a picture of themselves with their ballot.
People, this is all you have to do to enter the raffle.
Post a ballot selfie.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We get it.
Washington, a video from Washington shows a native vote team in front of a Biden sign promoting a voter raffle for a $200 gift card and other prizes.
In Idaho, the Nez Perce tribe of Idaho raffled off gift cards worth $50 to $500.
A smart TV and iPad for people who cast an absentee ballot voted or registered to vote.
The tribe didn't immediately respond to an email request for comment.
In Texas, the American Indians in Texas on Facebook raffled off gift cards worth up to $250 and a 58-inch television.
In Ohio, Councilwoman Shayla Davis of Garfield Heights, Ohio posted on Facebook offering $25 gas gift cards, t-shirts, and masks for people who come out to vote.
Davis didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Now, some people might say the Epoch Times is biased, it's a bad source.
Just the News is considered a good source.
And I'm not trying to, as I often say, impugn the honor of Epoch Times.
I'm just trying to point out, this is easily verifiable.
Just the News covered this story on November 20th.
And I believe even before then, it was updated on the 20th.
Now, I'm not one to usually go back and pull up old stories, but the significance here is that Trump is tweeting this out and showing you people doing this.
So when you hear people say there's no evidence, now the narrative is changing.
When they say there's no evidence, they're wrong, outright wrong.
There's a video of a woman saying, you can get cash if you vote.
Okay, that's, you can't do that, right?
As my understanding, it's illegal.
But now the media narrative has been shifting.
They're no longer saying without evidence.
Now they're just saying baseless or unproven.
Well, now it's not even unproven.
Now, the claim that there is evidence of voter fraud is a fact.
I mean, there's videos of it.
We can talk about weird mathematical anomalies.
We can talk about database lists.
But we can show you a video where they're like, we will give you money if you vote.
Well, there you go.
Okay?
I mean, not to mention, we already had evidence of ballot harvesting from Project Veritas.
They all claim it's just fake news.
Now it's videos of apparent voter fraud.
To be as reasonable and fair as I can possibly be.
Apparent voter fraud.
People bragging about breaking the law.
Or, in this instance, this woman's clearly breaking the law.
I mean, I'm not a lawyer.
I'm not a prosecutor.
It looks to me like she's clearly breaking the law.
Here's what Bill Barr said.
Here's the news if you missed it.
Attorney General Bill Barr says no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.
But that's not the actual quote.
To date, we have not seen fraud on a scale that could have affected a different outcome in the election, Barr told the AP.
I gotta stop.
I'm seeing this, and I'm reading about these court cases Donald Trump is filing where they say, you know, I see that you're challenging 3,000 ballots.
That wouldn't change the results of the election anyway, so dismissed.
I see stuff like that, I'm like, but hold on.
If Trump's suing in a state where Biden's margin is like 10,000 or 20,000, and they've got four or five lawsuits targeting different suits, and they all get dismissed because individually they aren't enough, no, no, no, no, no.
If we actually win on the merits, then these votes get thrown out, Trump wins after several lawsuits.
That's the craziest thing to me.
Bill Barr, in my opinion, should have said, We've seen fraud.
We do not believe it would have affected the results of the election or cause a different outcome.
We will absolutely be continuing our investigation and prosecuting.
This is kind of a, you know, I'll put it this way, a precise statement, but I also think You gotta be more clear.
It's precise in the sense that he chose his words carefully to avoid, I don't know, getting dragged or something.
But all he did was create vague... All it is, ultimately, for most people, it's exactly what they want to hear.
That's why I say precise.
It's actually rather vague, but in terms of the words he chose, it serves a perfect function.
To the left, he's saying, No fraud!
Case dismissed!
And to everybody else, he's saying, We're still investigating and there is fraud!
This doesn't help anybody.
And I don't know, maybe he doesn't want to ruffle feathers and cause massive outrage or whatever, but what I fear is that because of these statements and things like this, we're not going to get an actual hard investigation into what's going on with our elections.
I had a comment the other day on the IRL podcast, a super chat, you know, user comments, and they said, They're from Latin South America, and that if the U.S.
doesn't do something now, and this becomes acceptable, then the U.S.
will never have a fair election again.
And they said, take it from me, I live down in these countries, and I completely agree.
Universal mail-in voting.
No excuse mail-in voting.
There's no chain of custody.
You don't know where the ballots come from.
They don't allow you to observe the ballots.
All of this stuff cannot be accepted.
And if it is, then it's normalized.
When Trump sued in Pennsylvania and lost several times, went to appeal and loses, they said, we weren't allowed to have observers watching the votes be counted.
And the judge said, too bad.
Pennsylvania election code says so long as there's an observer there and you were in the building, we're covered.
But observers are supposed to actually observe the vote.
There's a photo going viral of two people holding up a vote in Florida and pointing to a hanging Chad.
And there's a question being brought up by many conservatives saying, what happened to this?
This was how we observed the votes.
Now judges are literally saying, so long as you're sleeping with a dunce cap in the corner of the room, that's observing the vote.
No, it isn't.
We cannot allow this.
Then you got the lawsuit from Sean Parnell, which I believe is now going to the Supreme Court, where No excuse mail-in voting in Pennsylvania violates the Pennsylvania Constitution, but they're gonna allow it.
The PA Supreme Court said, on narrow grounds, you were too late.
Case dismissed.
With prejudice, you can't bring it back up.
They can't sue again.
So they're gonna appeal to the Supreme Court, we'll see how that plays out.
But that's insane to me.
How can we see all of this evidence, whether it's enough to have changed the outcome of the election, and ignore it?
To be, uh, look.
I say it a lot, to be fair.
In Pennsylvania, they weren't allowing Trump's supporters, Republicans, in Michigan, in many of these states where Biden needed to win, Republican observers were not allowed to actually observe the votes being counted.
And now we're supposed to trust these things.
It's really interesting.
In the Michigan hearing, evidentiary hearing on fraud, one guy brought up all of this could have been solved if they just had Republican poll workers.
That's it.
Why not?
It's ridiculous, isn't it?
In one of the videos that Trump tweeted out, following this one about the vote buying, a woman said that, I believe this was in Michigan, when she was watching them count votes, there was one vote that was, they've checked off both Biden and the Green Party.
It's disqualified, you can't vote for both.
And so, what the poll tabulator said was, I'm gonna give this to Biden.
The witness said, I challenged this saying, you can't do that, it's a disqualified vote.
And the supervisor came in and said, get out of here, you can't do this.
She said there were numerous instances where they'd be like, I can't tell whose vote is for, so I'm gonna mark it down as Biden.
And then it just was.
Maybe Trump didn't win because people hate him.
I can understand that.
I talked to my friends.
They don't know anything about this stuff.
They hate cancel culture.
They hate the wokeness.
But they don't know what's going on, and they think Trump is causing it.
I know.
You might guess, but it's true.
I'm not saying that three people I know represent everybody.
I'm saying I know people who just really don't get it.
I know people who don't know anything about politics and were like, Biden's the answer.
I'm like, weren't you upset with politics a little while ago protesting?
You're gonna vote for the guy who created all those laws?
They just don't get it.
I can believe it.
But what I'm saying is, instead of sitting here saying, Trump won, Trump won over and over again, which, look, by all means, you can say it if you want.
The path towards an actual Trump, you know, turnaround in this case, is to say, here's evidence of fraud, here's evidence of fraud, here's evidence of fraud.
There's a website.
It's called, um... I forgot.
It's a YouTube, like, uh... They categorize YouTube channels.
TransparencyTube, that's what it's called.
And they have one category about voter fraud, and they say, supporting, opposing, and other.
And you don't know what's really funny?
All of my channels, they're in every category.
TimCast IRL supports Trump's claims.
TimCast is other, doesn't support or oppose.
And then, you know, TimCast News opposes.
It's the most ridiculous thing.
They're trying to quantify it, but the issue is there is fraud.
There's always fraud.
I think it's fair to say there's always some kind of fraud because it's a massive country with a lot of people.
We have evidence of widespread fraud.
We don't know if it changed the results of the election.
Other is the best position to be in.
You want to convince someone that we need to investigate the fraud and you're hoping it'll help Trump?
Start from the beginning.
Hey, take a look at this stuff from the Voter Integrity Project where they say they found all these names.
Well, that's not enough to change the election.
I didn't say that.
I just said take a look at it and let's figure out what this is, right?
No reason to deny that.
Maybe it doesn't mean anything.
Maybe Trump didn't win.
Let's start with the evidence because the evidence will lead us where we need to be.
And maybe Joe Biden won.
And maybe we didn't.
But the best place is just follow the evidence.
You believe in science, right?
There's gonna be many leftists who don't want to hear it, who won't believe it, instead of going to them and saying, look, I've seen the Facebook fights.
People are like, Trump won, you're just too stupid, you don't know, or if only you read the evidence.
A lot of anger.
And then the Biden people are like, give up, you've lost, copium, you're coping, blah, blah, blah.
My response to these people is often like, y'all are both on the same level, take a look at this news story.
How do you deny breaking news?
Here's a video of a woman saying, I'll give you cash if you come and vote.
And that was, well, okay, that video was, you can win cash if you prove you voted.
You've got the one where they're offering up the gift cards.
You can't deny it.
Oh, well, that wasn't enough fraud to change the election.
So you admit there's fraud now.
You see how you explain to people there's fraud?
We got a video of it.
What are they going to say?
It never happened.
Well, I guess, well, that's not really fraud.
It's just, you know, I don't know.
No, it happened.
It's been reported on by credible sources, and we've been tracking things like this, but let me show you where we're at right now.
Chris Krebs.
He's the guy who got fired.
He says, Aw, jeez.
Transition starts now.
And as a reminder, still no evidence that election systems and votes were manipulated.
All Americans should have confidence in the security of their vote.
But the disinfo likely won't stop.
Keep on the lookout and don't fall for it.
We are Perseus.
Oh, geez.
Do you know what that reference is?
It's because Sidney Powell said she's going to release the Kraken.
And everybody said, release the Kraken.
Anybody who knows anything about the mythology or has just watched the movie, you know, uh... Have you seen, which one is it, uh, Wrath of the Titans, and then, what's the other one?
I don't know, basically in the movie, and in the mythology.
The Kraken is summoned, and Perseus uses the head of Medusa to defeat the Kraken.
Okay, so we are Perseus!
We're gonna defeat the Kraken!
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
What is we are Perseus?
Chris Krebs says, for the record, anyone who describes their side of any conflict as the Kraken clearly hasn't seen enough movies.
The Kraken always loses!
Comes off as scary at first, of course, but always loses.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Accept.
Wasn't the Kraken also in Pirates of the Caribbean?
The Kraken did kill Captain Jack Sparrow, so there's always that.
Whatever that means.
I don't know.
It's just so silly.
Well, Matt Brainerd of the Voter Integrity Project said, Chris, do you have a minute?
And then we see Jack Posobiec showing a stuntman with fire all around him.
Yes, yes, yes.
I get it.
Matt Brainerd appeared on Lou Dobbs' Illegal Votes.
Former Real Donald Trump data strategist Matt Brainerd discovers thousands of illegally cast mail-in ballots and hands over evidence of electoral fraud to the FBI.
In fact, Matt Brainerd is testifying as to the evidence he discovered.
I am not saying it proves that Donald Trump actually won the election.
I don't know.
But the evidence exists.
And we need to investigate.
The biggest challenge we face right now is that following this election we have what?
A couple weeks to do a large-scale investigation of hundreds of millions of ballots?
150 million votes?
Across all these different states with all these different agencies?
It's not physically possible.
So what do we do?
I don't know.
Perhaps we need a percentage failure rate that causes like a tripwire, a circuit breaker, where the election has to be contingent or, you know, go to the House delegates if a certain number of errors or anomalies are detected at a certain percentage.
Not necessarily to say that... Look, I'll put it this way.
We're never gonna have the FBI, they don't have the manpower, to investigate every county, every precinct, every voting machine.
It's not possible.
It is absolutely not possible.
I also personally don't believe there's a grand conspiracy.
I don't.
I think it's a standalone complex.
What that means is a bunch of people acting in concert to help Joe Biden win, and engaging in illegal activity or impropriety.
You can call that widespread fraud.
I believe it absolutely plays a role in this, but I'm not saying it changed the results.
I just don't know.
I have not seen any evidence.
Isn't it funny that Bill Barr says this, and it's all of a sudden everyone's screaming?
But I could say the same thing.
To date, I personally, Tim Poole, have not seen evidence of wide-scale voter fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election.
However, I have seen tons of evidence of overt fraud that needs to be prosecuted, and starting from there, and with evidence like what we've seen from Matt Brainerd, we should absolutely be investigating, because the possibility it happened, there's actually a strong possibility.
Bill Barr hasn't seen the evidence yet, because it's not possible for the FBI to do that investigation.
But I'd like to present to you one tidbit that I find particularly interesting.
Eric Cunningham on Twitter, not entirely familiar, I saw some journalist, it's an App State alumni, founder of Elections Daily, says, Looks like Trump had the best performance in New York City of any Republican since 2004, and if you disregard the 9-11 factor, 1992, And if you disregard 9-11, then it's 1992.
And the most raw votes of any NYC Republican since 84.
Okay, check this out.
In 2020, Trump got 22% of the vote in New York City.
Republicans got it.
You go back to 2004, it was 24%.
But of course, 9-11 played a huge role in this.
Going back, 1992 would have been the only other time.
In 1998, it was 32%.
And 88... 84 was the big landslide year, I believe.
mattered in these big cities and these swing states, it didn't happen.
That to me is just odd.
I'm not saying it's evidence of, you know, of a widespread conspiracy or anything like that.
I'm just saying it's a statistical anomaly that should be included in an investigation as we look into it.
It's probable cause.
It makes me question how it is a man like Joe Biden, who didn't campaign, beat Barack Obama.
Simple answer is people hate Trump that much.
Politics became pop culture and people were voting against Trump.
But man, I voted for Barack Obama.
I voted for Barack Obama in 2008.
And this time I voted for Trump for much the same reasons.
Ending the wars and all that stuff.
Trump is one of the first presidents in like 150 years or something to gain votes and lose re-election.
I think Trump might be the first president in history to have complete down-ballot success, winning state-level legislatures, winning House seats, and defending the upper chamber of Congress, but still losing.
That's remarkable.
Makes me question everything.
But I'm not saying I know.
I'm not saying I agree with Trump.
I'm saying I would like to see an investigation.
I'm not convinced we're going to get one.
And that's the scary thing.
Because now people are already questioning the Republicans, saying if... This is what we saw with Ronald McDaniel.
They said, if this is rigged, why bother voting in Georgia?
Yes.
Throwing it back to that comment from IRL where the guy said, if you accept this now, it will be here forever.
I refuse to accept this.
I'm not saying Trump won, but I'm saying we better have a hard and serious investigation.
I think Donald Trump should appoint a special counsel to investigate the results of this election so that Joe Biden cannot fire this person, and they investigate for the next two, three years, however long it takes, and they can give us a definitive answer.
And I absolutely would prefer if he comes out and says, No, there was not widespread fraud that shifted the results.
Our elections are secure, you're safe.
The American people had their voice heard.
I would love to hear that.
It would make me feel better about everything.
Because the last thing I want to hear is them coming out and saying, we've proven it.
The election was a scam.
That would be a nightmare scenario.
But it's irrelevant.
All that needs to happen is special counsel, investigate the election, give it a couple years, spare no expense.
We went through Russiagate, we can go through this.
And audit, hard audit, forensic analysis.
We need secure elections and the confidence of the American people in knowing it's legit.
I'll leave it there.
The next segment, actually, yes, I'll tell you this, the next segment's going to be at 6pm over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
That's right.
I'm no longer going to be doing the 6pm segments on TimCast News.
I have three channels.
But also make sure to check out at 8 p.m.
live YouTube.com slash Timcast IRL where we do the live podcast show Monday through Friday at 8 p.m.
I'm going to be focusing a lot more of my time on that show, putting more energy into segments into that so that I can free up more time during the day so I can actually grow the business beyond just me, hiring more people, doing more content, producing cultural content.
So stick around.
Thanks for hanging out.
And I will see you all tonight at 8 p.m.
live YouTube.com slash Timcast IRL.
CNN has called the cops on Project Veritas.
You may have seen the news.
James O'Keefe live-streamed a morning 9 a.m.
editorial call from CNN and said that they were going to begin releasing audiotapes they've recorded for months of CNN's 9 a.m.
editorial meetings.
Well, in response to this, CNN said that this is apparently a violation of the law, and we're referring it to law enforcement.
I don't believe that's true.
I think James O'Keefe knows what he's doing, and he has good lawyers who planned everything out, but we'll talk about it.
But Donald Trump calls it suppression media, because in the audio, you can hear them saying, you know, we can't cover Trump.
We can't give him a platform.
You can hear things where they say things like, we got to go after Lindsey Graham.
We can't let him, you know, he deserves this.
CNN, literally, just Democrat news.
And look, we've only got a couple of audio releases from Project Veritas, but so far it paints a really obvious picture.
You know, whenever you see stuff like this, I know a lot of people thought there was going to be some mustache-twirling secret audio.
Maybe there is.
Veritas hasn't released everything.
But usually it's just really dumb people saying really dumb things.
The one thing you discover when you get to hear these calls, because I've been in editorial calls, is that these people are really dumb.
And there's a case in point.
Tucker Carlson did a segment the other night where he talked about a CNN employee having nothing to do with Project Veritas.
Well, CNN apparently didn't even watch these videos and just said, Tucker and James, you ID'd the wrong person.
Tucker Carlson responds saying, what are you talking about?
I have nothing to do with this story.
We showed a video of him speaking.
Then you get the Daily Beast.
Cue leftist, progressive, whatever, trash media.
And they're like, James O'Keefe secretly reveals that Tucker Carlson's a racist.
Well, the calls reveal that they were calling Tucker Carlson a racist.
The funny thing is, though...
The story from the Daily Beast goes on to say that CNN called out Tucker Carlson for falsely IDing this guy or whatever, but they literally have the video segment from Tucker Carlson where he doesn't mention Project Veritas.
He shows a video of a guy from CNN.
Welcome to the stupidity of today's modern media.
CNN, who should be doing serious investigations, is just reality TV trash saying, well, we're calling the cops on you because you, it's illegal.
Undercover journalism is legit journalism.
Now, it may be that James O'Keefe did incorrectly identify an individual, and if that's true, regardless, I'd like to see James issue some kind of statement as to whether he was right or wrong, because CNN has made that accusation, and if he's wrong, I would be absolutely shocked if James didn't say, oh, we made a mistake on that one.
He would just say, we incorrectly identified this person.
But let's read this, and we'll go through what's going on, and then I'll show you the hilarity of this.
But what I really want to get to here is, Did James O'Keefe really break the law?
Did Project Veritas commit a felony?
Actually, maybe.
But I don't think so.
I think James O'Keefe probably knows better.
He's probably got great lawyers, like I mentioned.
And we'll go through this.
I'll show you the law.
Because you've got to understand, there are felony eavesdropping laws, like wiretapping and things like that.
The Daily Mail reports CNN has reported Project Veritas founder James O'Keefe to police over his latest undercover investigation in which he secretly recorded network president Jeff Zucker's morning conference calls for months.
O'Keefe, 36, on Tuesday announced he was releasing audio recordings of several network meetings which he claims will expose Zucker and other CNN executives expressing their political biases.
The calls O'Keefe had been listening to over two months are the network's daily 9 a.m.
editorial meeting with senior staff from CNN's main bureaus, which is run by Zucker.
Main bureaus.
That's the important factor in whether or not this was illegal.
We'll get to that.
The move by Project Veritas is the latest sting operation orchestrated against the news station by the conservative operative who has long targeted CNN over claims of liberal and anti-Trump bias.
Well, if that's the case, good news for James O'Keefe, you've proven it with just a couple of video segments.
Now, I gotta stop there.
Just because James O'Keefe released a couple segments where they're very clearly biased against Republicans doesn't mean there aren't other conversations where they're biased against Democrats.
I just think it's fair to say probably not... I've been... Listen.
I used to work for some of these companies.
I worked for an ABC News company.
It's called Fusion.
It's ABC News Univision.
And I was in some of these calls.
I was in many of these meetings.
And I'll tell you, man, they don't care about what's true.
Let me give you a quick example.
There's a movie that came out, Ghost in the Shell.
You remember this one?
It's a popular, very famous anime.
And I happen to be a fan, to a certain extent.
Not a die-hard fan, but I like the show.
And so this movie's coming out.
Scarlett Johansson, a white woman, is playing the main character, who's supposed to be, you know, Japanese or whatever.
All they cared about was that it was a violation of social justice principle.
And when I explained to them the concepts in Ghost in the Shell like transhumanism and downloading your brain and how this actually makes sense and was a key, you know, could be a key component of the plot, they said, oh, we don't care.
We just want to run that narrative.
They didn't care.
I was sitting in the meeting.
I'm like, I am a fan of this show.
The show is about an individual who transfers their mind to another body.
It's like a normal thing, a prosthetic body.
So, this can be a thing.
They didn't care.
Not to get off on a tangent, but these media companies, when they do editorial meetings, they're not talking about the news.
They're not saying, here's the facts people need to know to better understand what's going on.
They say, how can we make people angry and drive a narrative and get cash?
That's typically what it's all about.
Oh, they'll deny it.
That is absurd.
How dare Tim Poole impugn our honor and say, yeah, please.
I've been in these meetings.
I've been at these companies.
I've been in the higher tier meetings with the president, the CEO, with many of these people at many of these companies.
I know exactly what they talk about.
Now, they'll try and hide and justify what they do, saying, well, you know, Donald Trump is bad and we got to hold him to account.
That's what journalists do.
It was this emergence, they called it mission-driven storytelling.
Where they were like, we got a mission.
We're not just here, you know, there's no such thing as objective journalism.
That's the name of the game.
I'll tell you what's really going on.
People like Jeff Zucker have found a way to justify the fact that they just want to drive a narrative.
They want to push their opinions at an editorial level, commanding those below them to make money.
I'll tell you the reality.
I'll tell you the gosh darn truth.
I mentioned this the other day when I said I'm working on some changes to this channel.
I might have a way to keep up content but we'll see what happens.
But anyway, the point is I was talking about how We always focus on these negative things.
You know, you go to my main channel and it's typically like the Democrats are bad.
But here's the thing.
I recognize it's a problem if you go to my channel and it's all you see.
I don't like it.
I've never liked it.
But it's my honest opinions about what's going on in the news that day that I think are important, that I think people should know about.
And my personal bias, as I've said a million times, is I don't like the Democrats.
By the way, subscribe to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Anyway, Hotep Jesus said, you know, he was ragging on the Democrats, and I'm laughing because I'm like, I'm there with you.
I said, what about Republicans?
And he said something to the effect of, I don't know that Republicans are doing anything that I can be, you know, particularly worked up about.
And I'm like, I agree!
Like, they sit on their hands, they do very little right now.
So anyway, the point is, I'm an individual, okay?
I'm one guy, I got my opinions, I see the news, and I'm like, Jeff Zucker going after Veritas?
Come on.
That's David versus Goliath.
Like, they're gonna send him to law enforcement or whatever.
But, I'm just one person.
I have an honest opinion.
When I see news like, Bill Barr did a thing, I'm like, oh man, this is the biggest story.
I pick that.
It's me.
When Jeff Zucker gets on a phone call and tells his whole staff, this is what we're doing, that to me is where things get creepy because Jeff Zucker is a reality TV producer.
That was his bit.
And so what he's doing is he's the money guy.
Oh, he'll feign the editorial guy, but he'll get on that phone call and he'll be like, you know, Donald Trump is a bad dude.
You know, we got a report on him.
Yeah, we're gonna do more Trump.
Then it's gonna turn around, go to the money guys, and be like, more Trump segments means more money.
You know, CNN used to do a lot of on-the-ground reporting.
As bad as it was.
I was in Ferguson during the riots.
CNN was there.
Now, we actually learned this from Project Veritas.
They got undercover footage of a guy saying, we used to go on the ground, now it's just panels about Trump.
So I don't know how they're going to survive now that the Trump era seems to be closing.
We'll see.
You know, Trump actually, at a party, said he's trying to get another four years.
If not, he'll see you in another four.
So it seems like Trump is acknowledging that, you know, we don't know what's going to happen, but he could potentially run.
The point is, When you have massive corporations, and you have the money guys, the money people, because it could be women, okay?
And they're saying, this is the kind of stuff that makes us money, we want more of it.
And then you say, okay, and you go to your staff and say, write me stories about this.
That is, in my opinion, what is destroying everything.
Because you'll look, there's a lot of journalists that are leaving Vox.
Look, you got Matt Taibbi from Rolling Stone now on Substack.
It's like, you can write your own thing and people can subscribe to it.
Glenn Greenwald quits The Intercept.
You got people from The Verge leaving.
This guy Casey Newton, he started his own Substack.
I believe he did.
You got Matthew Iglesias and Ezra Klein.
And you know what?
My respect to all of them for doing their own thing and breaking away from that corporate machine.
Because I'll tell you this, these people are going to do better work on their own.
They're going to write what they care about.
They're going to write how they feel and what they think is important, the same as I do.
And I respect that infinitely more than when you work for a progressive company and they say, this is the kind of article that generates traffic.
Report that.
Anyway, I don't want to rant too much because we got to talk about, did Project Veritas break the law?
So anyway, Donald Trump says suppression media in response to James O'Keefe.
Bravo on the quote tweet, Mr. O'Keefe.
O'Keefe teased the expose on Twitter by sharing a live-streamed video of the moment he ambushed Zucker during a phone call, telling him he was planning to make the footage of his rundown public.
Mr. Zucker, are you there?
Hey, this is James O'Keefe.
We've been listening to your CNN calls for basically two months and recording everything.
I just wanted to ask you some questions, if you have a minute.
Do you still feel you're the most trusted name in news?
Because I have to say, from what I've been hearing on these phone calls, I don't know about that.
We have a lot of recordings that indicate you're not really that independent as a journalist.
After a few seconds of silence, Zucker replies, uh, thank you for your comments, before quickly scrambling to cut the discussion.
So everybody, I think in light of that, we'll set up a new system and we'll be back with you.
We'll do the rest of the call later, he said.
The video quickly drew thousands of responses, including one from CNN's communication division, which accused O'Keefe of breaking the law.
Legal experts say this may be a felony.
We refer it to law enforcement, the network said.
O'Keefe, however, shrugged off the threat in a tweet, mocking the network, saying, My friends, do you think that James O'Keefe didn't... Okay, let me tell you.
I'll tell you what I think exactly happened.
A whistleblower who works at CNN, disgruntled, angry with the company, says, James, here, I have the information for our calls.
I would like you to hear them, record them, whatever, giving their consent.
James then said, OK.
Went to his legal team of probably many lawyers, and they went through everything with a fine-tooth comb and said, you're good to go, buddy.
And he went, all right.
And then he started recording.
So there's a thing called a one-party consent, two-party consent, those wiretapping laws.
And the question is, did James O'Keefe break the law?
Now, there are some pitfalls, okay?
Let me show you this.
Digital Media Law is a website.
They say, New York Recording Law.
New York's wiretapping law is a one-party consent law.
New York makes it a crime to record or eavesdrop on an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents.
NY Penal Law is code 250.00, 250.05.
Thus, if you operate in New York, you may record a conversation or phone call if you are a party to the conversation or you get permission from one party to the conversation in advance.
That said, if you intend to record conversations involving people located in more than one state, you should play it safe and get the consent of all parties.
That's the important part.
I still believe James covered his bases, but CNN has bureaus all over the place.
And here's the real pitfall for Veritas.
I don't think it's possible to know everybody who was on these calls and where they were calling from.
You see?
There are certain states that are two-party consent, or even all-party consent.
I view these as typically the more corrupt states, but there's a good reason why you need all-party consent.
In Illinois, There is, if you record someone without their consent, for any reason, they can charge you with felony eavesdropping.
I actually have a story about this.
About 15 years ago, some security guards at a mall falsely accused me and my brother of shoplifting, we did nothing wrong, and they immediately started just basically beat us up.
My brother was on the phone calling a friend of ours as we were leaving, and it went to voicemail as they attacked us.
Well, it turns out they were in the wrong, the case ended up getting dismissed, but We had evidence.
They knew we weren't the suspects because the phone fell to the ground and it went to voicemail recording everything.
Recorded everything.
And they tried arguing that if we admitted that as evidence, they would have charged us with felony eavesdropping.
Maybe just a threat.
But it was absurd, and our lawyer was like, are you kidding?
It was an accidental recording.
Now, it doesn't matter.
It was a phone call made by him, the recording was initiated, and you record my clients, you know, without, or I'm sorry, you recorded these individuals without their consent.
That's Illinois.
It's a crazy place.
Let's say James O'Keefe gets on the CNN call.
It's a New York-based call.
He's also in New York.
It's one-party consent.
Whoever gave him the information consented to it.
He's probably good to go.
I would imagine his lawyers covered this stuff, but what if?
You know, CNN's probably got an office in Chicago.
I think that's probably extremely likely.
Or at least some employees who are in Chicago.
What if they're on this phone call as well?
Maybe all that really matters is they're not part of the conversation, you see?
It might only be that the people who are talking are covered by this, and simply because someone is listening.
But if that were the case, then whoever gave O'Keefe the information wouldn't be party to the phone call either, or party to the conversation.
I think his lawyers covered his bases.
But I do think there are potential pitfalls for Veritas.
I can only imagine that he's got good lawyers.
James has won every defamation case, I believe.
He's got a wall of retractions.
I actually think James knows what he's doing when he goes up against these big dogs because he's been around this stuff for a long time.
And I think he's got lawyers and he can afford it.
This is what James does.
He literally does undercover journalism.
I couldn't imagine there's a circumstance where he was like, oh no, I made this mistake and now I'm gonna go to jail.
Nah, I don't believe it.
They say.
He also doubled down, saying he planned to release clips of the recordings daily, like a December advent calendar.
I look forward to this.
It is unclear how O'Keefe managed to tap into the conference calls.
This is yet another investigation Project Veritas has conducted into CNN, and once again they've demonstrated their partisan political agenda and total disconnect with journalistic ethics, O'Keefe said in his report.
These statements made by high-up executives at CNN prove that they are simply not interested in being unbiased when reporting the news.
That's what we've seen so far.
To be reasonable, I think I would like to see all of this recorded raw.
I would like to see the raw recordings.
I want to hear what they're saying about everybody and anything.
James, of course, is going to do what literally any news organization does and make editorial choices.
I think that's a normal part of the news process.
If James says this is the important information that I care about, well then my criticism for CNN flows in a similar direction.
If James is telling people this is what we want to cover because this is the juicy stuff, then I think we have a problem.
But this is what news organizations do for the most part.
The question is, is it because you think it's going to be a good thing for this country or do you think it's going to be good for your bottom line?
Project Veritas is a non-profit and Project Veritas Action also, he's got two different non-profits.
You can argue he's driven by fame and money or whatever, but in the end, All I can really say is that any criticism you would levy at him is equally applicable to CNN.
In which case, the point is moot.
So, if they're going to come out and say all these things, and James is going to expose them, okay then.
Good.
He exposed them.
How can you complain about him exposing them when they're doing comparable things?
I think it's important to note CNN is a powerful, massive, you know, billion-dollar corporation, of which is probably losing tons of money, but I digress.
Project Veritas calling them out is a good thing.
I think if there's evidence that James O'Keefe was doing something wrong or was engaging in corrupt behavior, it'd be great if we got that exposed too.
But who watches the Watchmen is the question.
If the news organizations claim to be the watchdogs of democracy or whatever, well, we want to expose them when they clearly aren't.
And that's what we're getting right now.
Now here's where things get silly and funny.
CNN Communications responds to James O'Keefe saying, James and Tucker, the voice you ID'd tonight as Marcus Mabry is actually GA resident and CNN General Counsel David Vigilante.
We're certain you'll want to correct the record and apologize to the black executive for assuming he was the voice raising concerns over white supremacy.
Tucker's PR says, This is a lie.
We never ID'd any voice or aired audio recordings of CNN executives.
Check out tonight's segment, which is of Marcus Mabry on camera.
Facts first, right?
And then a link to the video.
Now, over at the Daily Beast, this is actually really funny.
Because they have the clip from Tucker Carlson.
They don't tell you the truth.
And that's the name of the game in the media.
And that's what I'm talking about with impropriety.
The Daily Beast could be honest to you and say, CNN respond— Let me read it.
They say, CNN's PR account, meanwhile, responded to Project Veritas.
Legal experts say it's a felony.
Later, that same account revealed that Mabry was not even the staffer who made the comments.
James and Tucker.
The other big revelation from Veritas appeared to be that Zucker did not want his staff to normalize Trump's delusional claims about the election.
You see, they kind of gloss over it.
They have the segment from Tucker, but they don't tell you that after CNN said James and Tucker, that CNN was in fact wrong.
And that's why we're not getting... that's the problem with the current news industry today.
And why I applaud the efforts of Project Veritas.
I think Project Veritas has their biases.
I've said it over and over again.
They're like any other news organization in certain capacities.
They have their view, they have their missions, they have their bias, and they do undercover journalism.
Like every other outlet?
Well, not really, because very few actually do any journalism.
But there was a Channel 4 in the UK investigation, undercover recordings of right-wingers, and the left was cheering for it.
Now you get James O'Keefe doing the same thing and say, how dare you?
Yeah, because he's pointing at you.
You don't like it.
Calling out these establishment organizations is important, especially when you see how they do this.
Tucker called them out.
Daily Beast, you should include the fact that Tucker called them out.
Now, look, I don't know what's going to happen, but I can tell you, I say that a lot, don't I?
James O'Keefe is going to be releasing a lot more recordings on CNN phone calls.
I wonder if the reason that CNN brought up GA, Georgia resident, is because they're trying to make, you know, some point about Uh, wiretapping laws or something, perhaps.
But one thing's for sure, James O'Keefe is consistently going to be exposing the powers that be.
And you know what?
As far as I'm concerned, if the left wants to tell me that you're not supposed to punch down, you're supposed to punch up, And that's where the... it's about power and privilege and all that?
Okay.
Well, James O'Keefe is, you know, David, and CNN is Goliath.
Okay?
If he's going to be punching up at this massive, multinational, billion-dollar corporation that is acting in a biased way, that is bad for our democracy, then good for him.
Keep doing it.
And I'll tell you this.
If it ever emerges that, you know, Project Veritas becomes a multi-billion-dollar major media conglomerate, I would expect anyone else to go after them and expose them all the same.
For now, we'll just sit back and wait till 7 p.m.
tonight, I guess, when James O'Keefe starts releasing more of their 9 a.m.
phone calls, and we'll see if the feds get involved.
I'll leave it there.
I got more segments coming up later.
I might actually have segments at 1 p.m.
So, the other day I mentioned that I'm going to be changing the format around to try and maximize my time so I can expand my business.
Me, as the individual reading news all day every day, Means that I'm kind of the captain of the ship in this company I'm trying to build, but if all of my time is spent reading the news, I have no time to administrate and expand and bring on new talent, bring on new channels, and grow the culture around it.
In which case, I've got to find a way to maximize my time.
So there might be a solution where I think I can still produce several segments, maybe even more throughout the day, but just... I'll put it this way.
I usually have to read the news all day and wait to record just before publish time to make sure that we have the most relevant, but maybe I just have to record earlier in the day.
It won't be the fastest breaking news, but at least I'll still have segments that are relevant within an hour or two.
Maybe I'm pushing it, trying to be, you know, breaking, breaking, breaking.
So I think I might be able to still produce a lot of segments, which means next segment likely coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, so stick around.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Oh, wait, wait, wait!
Don't forget, subscribe to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Go there right now, type into your address bar.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Subscribe, and I will see you all at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Donald Trump has announced that he will veto the defense bill unless Section 230 is terminated.
Terminating Section 230 will destroy independent media as we know it.
It will be the end of social—well, actually, it would be the end of Twitter.
It's not all bad, huh?
It would destroy the internet as we know it.
Couldn't function without 230.
Now, a lot of people say to me when I bring this up, Tim, Tim, come on, you know Donald Trump is pulling off a big ask, right?
You know what a big ask is, right?
You should read the art of the deal.
Basically, you ask for more than you really want, so you're in a stronger negotiating position.
In this instance, many people are saying what Trump is really doing is saying, terminate Section 230 or I'll veto this bill.
That way, they say, okay, how about we reform 230?
And Trump goes, fine, you win.
I'm not entirely convinced that's the case, though.
The reason why I'm not sure it's a big ask, or it doesn't matter if it is, is that the leftists, the authoritarians, and I'm not saying they're the same thing, but there's an overlap, they want Section 230 terminated.
They don't like the internet.
You got CNN and MSNBC and these big companies, they don't want competition.
So when Trump comes out and says, I want 230 terminated, they go, no, wait, stop, Trump, oh no, I guess you win.
Getting rid of 230 would mean that my channel couldn't exist.
Well, you know, YouTube might create a special provision for people who have already made it past a certain line, but it would be the end of new channels.
There would be no new commentary, and this would affect the left and the right, and the right probably more.
Although leftists, for the most part...
You know, like bread tube types on YouTube don't like mainstream media.
Mainstream media and left have more of an overlap than the right does.
So the right really does need to have a space where they can speak and express their ideas because they're not going to make it to the likes of CNN.
And what networks are there right now?
Fox News?
Well, there is OAN and now Newsmax, and they're growing in ratings.
For the most part, the media is dominated by a leftist narrative, which means If you get rid of 230, which shields companies from liability, if a user makes a comment, the company would be responsible for everything that anyone says, and they would be sued into oblivion, and then it just wouldn't function.
The long, the gist of 230 is this.
If I tweet something, you can't sue Twitter.
You have to sue me because I'm the one who said it.
That's a great law.
It makes a ton of sense.
The problem is these companies are abusing the law.
They're granted a provision in Section 230 that says they can moderate in good faith.
I say get rid of, clarify the language, reform the bill so that legal speech is protected.
But there's a simple solution for all of this.
If Twitter doesn't like the fact that people might post, you know, like, naked women or something, which is legal and protected speech, then they just create a not-safe-for-work category that you can turn on or off.
It's really that simple.
Look at it this way.
Imagine you got someone saying naughty words and posting awful memes, and you're like, I don't want to see this!
Click, and then Not Safe for Work filter turned on, and then all those posts go away.
And the worst thing that could happen is that if you break a rule, they say you're now being
flagged as not safe for work.
Anyone can still follow you if they choose to, but most people won't see your content.
It's really that simple.
You turn it on or off.
This is what I think Minds.com does.
If you break a rule, they don't ban you, they don't delete your content, they just put a flag on it.
And people then have to click, I would like to see this.
That's the best solution.
The problem is, when it comes to 230, people have brought this up.
What if I'm like a Christian blog?
And the goal of my site is to create a space where Christians can talk about their values and family values.
And then if you get rid of my ability to moderate content, people can come in and post a whole bunch of really awful stuff and I can't do anything about it.
So they do need to be able to moderate, but we need to be able to set certain standards.
So it is a very, very difficult question as to how we solve this problem.
Right now what's happening is that the big tech companies have two things going for them.
First, they're leftists and they're using this law to ban conservatives for the most part.
They also ban anti-war progressives.
Surprise, surprise.
But conservatives get the brunt of it because, you know, they're pro-Trump and the establishment doesn't like them.
The other thing they have going for them is that by promoting these leftist activists and pushing this culture, they've got to cancel culture cudgel.
So whenever a new upstart arises, Parler for instance, they unleash the hounds and all these media companies accuse them of all this other total BS to get the company shut down and banned, and that is the biggest problem.
But my friends, I believe we have shattered through the veil.
Parler is now approaching, um, normalcy.
You know, they'll try and ban it, and I-I-I-I definitely, we-we gotta read the news, I'm gonna rant too much, but I gotta show you this, man.
Some of the most incredible news I have for you is this.
EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler says, starting today you can find me and the EPA on Parler app.
Follow along and join in the celebration as EPA turns 50 today.
Parler now has an official government account.
Now maybe there's other official government accounts, but this is exactly what Parler needs.
Bravo, I am glad to see it.
I'm not saying Parler is the best platform in the world, no.
It's just a platform with a different rule set that allows people to speak and that's all that matters.
If you are on Twitter and they ban, say, InfoWars, well, InfoWars is on Parler.
Because so long as they're following the broadcast standard rules Parler has, they're allowed to be here.
That's important.
Now the problem here with Parler is that, and it's not Parler's problem, it's the problem of social media, So long as they keep segmenting everybody into these, you know, parallel universes, the polarization will only get worse.
They say, Parler has become an echo chamber.
Oh, please.
The left has been in an echo chamber much longer than the right has.
The right knows what the left is thinking.
That's a fact.
I'll give you an example.
When there was a hashtag, Proud Boys, when the Proud Boys came up during the debates, the left started showing a bunch of photos of homosexual men kissing and hugging and smiling together.
And they were like, take that, Proud Boys, the hashtag is ours.
And then conservatives started posting pictures of Proud Boys founder Gavin McInnes making out with Milo Yiannopoulos.
Clearly not knowing what they were talking about, thinking that the Proud Boys were homophobic.
It's like, nah.
I had Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the Proud Boys on my show, and he's like, we have gay members, we don't care.
Like, they don't know what they're talking about.
So they're the ones in the echo chamber for the most part.
They don't pay attention, and they still have access.
This is the craziest thing about Twitter, is that conservatives are on Twitter, they're tweeting things, and the left doesn't know what they're talking about.
So will it matter if they move to Parler?
Probably not.
You may have heard that story where the book publisher employees were crying because the publisher, I think it was like, I don't name the company, but they were going to publish Jordan Peterson's book.
So all these leftists started crying about it.
And I'm like, they didn't even read the book.
They don't even know what Jordan Peterson is talking about.
Jordan Peterson is controversial in name only.
He's a very tepid, Moderate, milquetoast guy.
I can relate.
Milquetoast Spencer over here.
Jordan Peterson has strong opinions, but he's a very, like, I gotta be honest, and I mean this with the utmost respect, tepid.
He's not an extremist.
He's not far left, far right.
He's just a guy who's like, maybe you should take some responsibility, clean up your room before you go do your thing.
And it's like, that's like a very typical message of responsibility and not extreme in any capacity.
But they cry about it.
These people are in a bubble.
They have no idea what's going on.
But let's, you know, now that I've ranted quite a bit, let's see what's happening and if Trump's really going to pull off termination of 230.
I really don't think so.
Most people don't think so.
So it's just, it might just be bluster and rhetoric.
Fox News says, President Trump tweeted late Tuesday that he will veto the National Defense Authorization Act unless Congress repeals Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which critics say unfairly shields social media platforms from liability over items posted on their platforms.
These opponents have been vocal that tech behemoths like Twitter and Facebook should no longer be shielded as a neutral platform when they operate more like a publisher.
The criticism seemed to reach its tipping point during the Hunter Biden scandal in the weeks prior to the election.
Trump tweeted just the other day.
Section 230, which is a liability-shielding gift from the US to big tech, the only companies in America to have it, corporate welfare, is a serious threat to our national security and election integrity.
Our country can never be safe and secure if we allow it to stand.
Well, we want it to stand.
It just basically means people can comment.
That's it.
If Twitter starts editorializing... So I put out a tweet, right?
And then Twitter puts a message on that tweet?
That's a violation, in my opinion, of 230.
If I tweet, that's on me.
You can come to me for saying it.
But if Twitter adds something to my tweet, well, now they've officially published.
Now I think they're responsible for the content of this tweet.
Plain and simple.
What they're doing is they're adding tags.
This is in dispute and things like this.
There's two things here.
When Twitter says this is, you know, in dispute or election fraud, these claims of fraud are in dispute, that's a statement of fact, but to say something is in dispute, you can't really sue them for it.
But that is their statement.
Twitter said it.
You can sue Twitter for what Twitter says.
On my tweet, however, it's what I said.
I would argue, if Twitter takes my individual tweet with one URL, And they add words to it.
That whole tweet is now published by Twitter because they've added their editorialization to it.
In which case, they should be responsible for what you say as well in that capacity.
They shouldn't be doing this.
Reform of 230 is the right move.
Fox News goes on to say the New York Post ran an explosive report that purported to show emails from Hunter Biden that linked his father to Ukraine business dealings.
A bunch of Republicans came out, called it out, right.
This is election interference and we're 19 days out from an election.
Cruz said.
He's correct.
I completely agree with this.
The fact that Twitter shut down this story, there are numerous polls that have come out now showing that if the American people knew about this scandal, there was a slight percentage shift away from Biden likely enough to have given Donald Trump a hard victory.
Trump, who has refused to concede the election, and has a legal team investigating allegations of fraud, has maintained a fraught relationship with these companies.
So I read this already, he says, Trump tweeted, If the very dangerous and unfair Section 230 is not completely terminated as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, I will be forced to unequivocally veto the bill which, when sent to the very beautiful Resolute Desk, take back America now.
Thank you.
Facebook did not immediately respond to an email from Fox News.
Let me tell you what we're looking at here.
Maybe Trump just wants an excuse to veto the defense spending bill.
How many populists are going to laugh and cheer for that?
I know, I know, I know.
Conservatives and right-wing populists like the military want them funded.
But at the same time, I was reading a great tweet from Matt Taibbi and Glenn Greenwald.
Where they talk about when Republicans realize how much money is going to the military and where it's going, about half say, nah, we gotta cut that out.
Because I think most people, rational people, conservative or otherwise, not the far leftists, will agree having a strong and powerful military is a good, good thing.
But you gotta look at where that bloat's coming from, or where that bloat's going, right?
Because what happens is, someone gets a no-bid contract, the government says, here's a million dollars to go build a bunch of houses, and they're like, that's Biden Inc.
Joe Biden's brother started building houses in Iraq, making millions of dollars, conveniently around the time that Joe Biden came into office and was overseeing the military operations in Iraq.
It was just a big scheme, in my opinion, to funnel money to their buddies, and yeah, probably a bad idea.
I'll tell you this, I think our military is great.
I think the Marines are awesome.
I think every branch is awesome.
Space Force!
How cool is that?
I love the fact that we have people who are willing to serve this country and sign, you know, several years of their life to the betterment of all of us.
But I don't like these excursions into these other countries for what?
Nation building?
I think most people don't like that.
So I'd love to see good funding for our military, but you know what I want to see?
I want to see our military doing infrastructure projects, going and fixing pipes in Flint, securing our borders, building roads.
Not building roads in Afghanistan and Iraq!
So anyway, you get me going on a foreign policy tangent.
The point is, if Trump vetoes the National Defense Authorization Act, I don't know.
I mean, I might just laugh, and that might be the real excuse, because I don't think they're going to terminate 230, but we'll see what's more important to them, their Section 230 or funding the war machine.
I have to go back to what I said early on.
The reason why this is dangerous and it's a mistake is they want to get rid of 230, okay?
Give YouTube an excuse to say, oh no, now we can't allow anybody to speak up, we have to ban all these channels unless you're approved by us.
They've already been moving in that direction.
Twitter will cease to exist except for all the blue checks.
That's right.
What will happen is Twitter will likely say, if you have a verification, we've cleared you, and then you'll assume, like, they'll give you a contract about liability or something.
For regular people, they'll say, we're not going to risk liability for a random user who just signed up today.
Most websites will have some kind of filtration sign-up process where you can't post, but there will be some kind of mid-tier social system, social media system, where Only the certified, verified people of note will be allowed to speak.
That means channels like mine would never exist.
Well, you know, I, yeah, no, absolutely, because I was live-streaming during Occupy, and then I only kind of weaseled my way into that corporate world to get that blue check.
You want to know how I got verified on Twitter?
I'll tell you the secret.
Vice called Twitter and said, verify him.
Boom, it was done.
That's it.
That was it.
Maybe they'll take it away from me.
I don't know.
That was what happened.
It was, uh, I was at a party once in San Francisco and they said, most of these journalists, it's like their company will call and say, can we get them verified?
There you go.
And they'll do it.
Now there's a good reason for this though.
It's not, I don't want to say it's nefarious.
I'm just saying it's, it's, you know, nepotistic in a sense, but it does make sense.
Hear me out.
The idea was that journalists who are sharing information who aren't verified, people won't trust it, and so they wanted you to know this person is who they say they are when they put in their bio they work for this news company so you can trust what they say.
I'll give you an example that affected me and why I ended up getting verified.
I was covering a criminal trial and a judge issued his verdict.
I ran out of the courtroom, pulled out my phone, I tweeted breaking news, Bond said it a million bucks or whatever, and the response I got was, can we get verification on this?
We don't know who this person is, who do they work for?
After I got verified, people said, this person's gone through a process, I'm more likely to trust them.
I'm not saying it's a good thing all around, I'm just saying that it does help when you're doing journalism because people see that badge as some kind of, well, how do I put it?
Twitter's endorsement, I guess we can say.
That they've vetted you.
There's pros and there's cons to it.
But anyway, let's read some more.
They say the Department of Justice sent a letter to Congress in October that advocated for changes to the 25-year-old law that essentially protects these companies from being sued by content posted on their sites.
The DOJ's letter, which was addressed to several congressional leaders, read, Today's large online platforms hold tremendous power over the information and views available to the American people.
It is therefore critical that they be honest and transparent with users about how they use that power.
Zuckerberg and Dorsey respectively talked about the law in front of the Senate Committee in October.
Jack Dorsey is correct.
There will be no more user reviews.
There will be no more Amazon book reviews.
In removing Section 230, we will remove speech from the internet, Dorsey said during the testimony.
Jack Dorsey is correct. There will be no more user reviews.
There will be no more, you know, like Amazon book reviews. None of that. These companies
will say we can't allow anyone to post without editorial filtration.
And that's where things get creepy.
I think the internet is good.
I think YouTube is a good thing.
I think there are problems with it.
For all of the things I've complained about with censorship, I always say, but think about this.
YouTube might censor people.
We have to keep fighting to make sure we can protect speech and allow all ideas to be challenged and brought up.
But, YouTube's an overwhelmingly good for all of us.
The fact that I'm allowed to speak as I am, they've never let me do this.
When I worked for Fusion, they basically were like, report, you know, social justice, or have a nice day.
They didn't say it like that.
They said, Tim, side with the audience.
And I said, I'm gonna tell the truth.
And they were like, okay, well, do your thing, I guess.
If it wasn't for YouTube, I would not be here.
You would not hear from me.
You'd get nothing but mainstream leftists, whatever.
I don't know what's gonna happen, and I say that a million times, but I can tell you there are some good things coming out of potentially getting rid of Section 230.
Manchin.
Ocasio-Cortez more active on Twitter than anything else.
And he's right.
You know, one of the problems that we have is that Politics is becoming clapback culture war.
Ocasio-Cortez, I'll tell you this, she has my utmost respect for her ability to... her PR skills as a millennial influencer are...
I mean, just the best.
I mean, look, you might want to hear bad things about somebody all the time.
She has done such a good job of doing this, and now she's in Congress.
But that's the problem.
I got no issue with a political influencer who's able to rile people up and clap back at Republicans and do all that stuff.
Congratulations.
But the fact that she's in Congress is where things get bad.
This kind of culture we're building, the political culture we're building, where we're gonna have people like, we're gonna get Instagram influencers in Congress being like, yo, AOC, she was at his party, right, man?
It was so dumb.
She was trying to play beer pong and she lost.
Why would you vote for that?
That's where we're headed.
I know, I know, I'm exaggerating.
But we're literally getting to the point where AOC, you may have seen that exchange between her and the head of ICE, I think it was ICE, where she was like, Legal asylees are not committing crime.
And then the dudes like section, you know, whatever of the law of entering the country illegally.
If you want to be a refugee, you come to the border and you apply.
You get these emotional, nonsensical arguments.
You get AOC led the charge getting Amazon booted from New York City.
She went down to the protests in the financial district.
She led the charge, even though it wasn't her district.
Because it was clap back social media influencer, man.
So when she comes out and criticizes Amazon for making massive profits, I completely agree.
I think Tucker Carlson did too.
Hannity disagreed.
I don't like the idea that small businesses are being destroyed.
I'm actually a bit of an economic populist as well, and I think it's funny because I think Steve Bannon talks about that, and it's like, I guess that's the issue with The populace in general, it's all about can we help the working class people and not the establishment elites.
They just, the left and the right have a different view of how they get there.
I think one of the bigger problems is, on the right you've got people who are like, here's how we get there through hard work, dedication, and a slightly, you know, a freer market.
They're not all laissez-faire capitalists.
But then you have on the left, Ocasio-Cortez, clap back.
That's not gonna help us understand and solve these problems.
So I think, you know, ultimately what it comes down to is, what we're building right now, what I'm worried about, is that with social media as it stands, we are going to get influencer politics, which is a bad thing.
Which is why getting rid of Twitter might be a good thing.
I joked about it in the beginning, but like, yeah, Twitter's awful.
But we need people to be able to communicate, and we need to be able to communicate openly and fairly about all ideas.
The problem is, Twitter has strict editorial guidelines.
I don't believe they should have these protections.
I should be allowed to criticize any idea without fear of being banned.
If they're going to be shielded from liability, they shouldn't be allowed to editorialize by posting things to my content, which they've done.
They shouldn't be allowed to curate, which they do, but they should be allowed to moderate.
The problem is, they claim this is objectionable and this isn't.
Well, that shouldn't be allowed.
Moderation should, in my opinion, specifically be Legal or illegal.
Yep, I said it.
And guess what?
If you don't like someone posting pictures of nudity or whatever, block.
You have a block button.
That's on you.
They could potentially do the not-safe-for-work filter thing, but that's the real solution.
Hopefully, they don't actually repeal 230.
I don't think it's likely, because that would destroy all of these companies and the internet as we know it.
But I don't know, maybe Trump vetoes the NDAA and then we laugh about it, because that's a smack in the face to the military-industrial complex.
I'm not going to complain, right?
So I'll take what I can get.
I want the military to be funded.
I want these guys to get their salaries.
That's the big fear I have about vetoing the NDAA.
It's the National Defense Authorization Act, so it might result in service members not getting paid.
I'm not entirely sure, but we don't want that.
We don't want that.
What we don't want is massive waste, bloat, and no-bid contract trash, nation-building garbage.
So I'll tell you what.
Bring it on, Trump.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's gonna be at 4 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCast.
It is a different channel from this one.
I'm not kidding.
Here's what you do right now.
First, hit that like button, share the video, subscribe if you haven't already, but go up to the URL bar, type in YouTube.com slash TimCast, and then as soon as you press enter, boom!
