Republicans DEMAND Emergency Session In PA As NEW Evidence Of Fraud Emerges, SCOTUS Getting Involved
Several whistleblowers have come forward with serious allegations that require investigation.One driver says he drove 100,000 ballots from New York To PA and the Republicans in PA say there is no explanation for why that would happen.Democrats have repeatedly said its too late as December 8th is the deadline for dispute resolution but now the Supreme Court is involved.SCOTUS has docketed a lawsuit challenging Act 77, no excuse mail in voting, and Alito has ordered the state's lawyers to respond by December 9th.
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.
Last night, we got a major shocking development when surveillance video was released showing Georgia vote counters pulling boxes of ballots out from under tables after they had booted everybody from the room.
Now, this is already in dispute with these really weak and Pathetic attempts at debunking the claim, which you can't really do because there's also sworn affidavits corroborating what we saw, my friends.
We now have video surveillance evidence of what appears to be, what is it, was allegedly ballot stuffing.
Around the same time we saw, it was, oh, I should say it was reported, That Joe Biden gained an amount of votes equal to the amount expected to be counted in those boxes.
Very, very crazy news, mind you.
But this segment is not about that.
I did talk about that earlier today, but there is still more major breaking news.
The Pennsylvania GOP has called on Governor Tom Wolf to call a special session disputing the 2020 election results because there's widespread irregularity, Many unanswered questions, but more importantly, a whistleblower has come forward, a truck driver, claiming that they drove a truck full of ballots in October, raising a ton of questions about why this is done, who ordered it, and who is this whistleblower?
He certainly needs to testify.
This is clearly calling Pennsylvania in dispute.
Now, it is unlikely the governor will actually convene the session.
And a lot of the Democrats are saying, it's too late!
It's been certified and December 8th is the safe harbor!
You have not enough time to do anything!
But wait, there's more.
The Supreme Court has docketed the challenge to Act 77 brought forth by Mike Kelly, Sean Parnell, and many other Republicans.
This is the suit arguing that mail-in voting in Pennsylvania is unconstitutional.
It has been docketed by the Supreme Court, meaning it wasn't dismissed outright.
And Justice Alito has called on the Supreme Court to give their answer on this, to make a statement on it, by December 9th.
Now, of course, many of the left are saying it's too late.
If it happens by the 9th, then it's done.
The safe harbor provision in the Constitution says, by December 8th, you've got to resolve your conflicts.
Okay?
Sounds like the conflict won't be resolved if the Supreme Court of the United States is waiting to give their opinion or decide whether they'll accept or dismiss this case.
Sounds like Pennsylvania still—there's still a possibility this flips Trump, but more importantly, The way I see all of this, you gotta understand, it's not so much about this hard, rigid letter of the law issue, it's that the election is being disputed in many different ways.
The reason I bring up Georgia, even though we're going to be talking for the most part about Pennsylvania, is that we now have two states, maybe more, where it doesn't even matter if it comes to December 14th and the Electoral College votes for Biden.
On January 6th, When we have a joint session of Congress, anybody can raise objection, and we might get a wave of objection from federal-level Republicans saying, no, especially those who represent Pennsylvania, saying, we dispute this, we do not believe this is correct, and these votes should not be counted.
I have no idea where we go from there, but my friends, let me give you this major breaking news from CBS Pittsburgh.
Now, before we get started, make sure y'all check out YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
It's another one of my channels.
It's different from this one.
Subscribe to it.
We do a Monday through Friday live podcast with a bunch of different guests from across the political spectrum.
Of course, the staunch lefties tend to get a little bit more thumbs down than anybody else for a variety of reasons.
Mostly it seems like personality issues, I guess.
But we have conversations around political issues, topical events.
So again, youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Subscribe.
But don't forget, on this channel, hit the like button, subscribe, notification bell.
Let's read the news from CBS Pittsburgh.
Pennsylvania Republicans want Governor Tom Wolf to call a special session on the 2020 election.
They say.
The term for the Pennsylvania Legislature ended on Monday, but Pennsylvania Republicans want to go back to the Capitol before years end.
32 Republican lawmakers are calling on Governor Tom Wolf to call a special session on the 2020 election.
The group of Republicans calling for the special session are largely made up of the same lawmakers that have been disputing the results of the election.
They are calling for a referendum to have Congress pick Pennsylvania's electors.
However, it is unlikely that Governor Wolf will honor their request.
But I believe this will potentially break the safe harbor provision.
If there is a dispute and the governor has not taken actions to resolve this, then your electors are going to get objected to.
It's gonna get spicy, but I got the list.
Check this out.
From Daryl Metcalf, serving PA's 12th Legislative District.
Press release.
Lawmakers call on Wolf to convene PA General Assembly for special session on election oversight and integrity.
They're going to mention Article 4, Section 12 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania provides that the governor may, on extraordinary occasions, convene the General Assembly.
Additionally, Article 2, Section 4 of the Constitution provides that a special session may be called by the governor whenever, in his opinion, public interest requires.
Now...
We previously heard from about 26 members of the PA House that they intended to call this election in dispute, essentially nullifying any electoral votes from the state.
If Joe Biden loses Pennsylvania and two other states, he does not get to 270.
He does not win.
Ladies and gentlemen, it's never going to end, is it?
I think the only time this really we can say for sure is over is when on January 20th, Joe Biden puts his hand on that Bible and becomes the president.
But maybe something else happens, I got no idea.
That's the real hard deadline.
To be honest, I think January 6th is where things will ultimately get spicy.
People have said, it's gotta be done by December 8th, safe harbor.
Not necessarily true.
Okay, well, counting the votes on the 14th, or casting their votes on the 14th, we've said that too.
January 6th.
When Congress counts the votes, and they could object, and it could go into pure chaos.
But check this out.
Why is it That they want to convene this special session.
It is not just because they are angry Trump lost and they want him to win.
Though, I think any reasonable human would conclude that's probably a large motivating factor.
They're Republicans, they want to win the fight, and they'll find a reason to do it.
But the truth is, there are many irregularities, and more importantly, a whistleblower has come forward straight up saying they were driving pallets of ballots.
Pounds of ballots!
Between, I think, uh, two different cities.
And this needs to be investigated.
But they gave us a list.
I don't know if I can, it's a big, it's 15 points, they say.
Logs indicating when Dropbox ballots were collected and delivered.
The log of persons who made these deliveries, and who had access to the Dropbox keys, and when the access was obtained.
Okay, well, there's the following questions, they say.
Let me read the previous sentence to make sure I can understand how they're framing this.
They say, There are numerous unanswered questions regarding the election that require a sitting General Assembly to examine and fulfill our duty to conduct oversight.
A General Assembly in session is necessary to seek answers to these questions to help restore our citizens' faith in the electoral process.
Interim State Government Committee Chair Seth Grove sent a list of such questions to Secretary Bookvar.
In addition to his requests, we request the following information and answers to the following questions.
So that was the first one.
They want the logs indicating when Dropbox ballots were collected and delivered, the log of persons who made these deliveries and who had access to the keys, when it was obtained.
Two.
When local officials created a two-person per-key system with ballot Dropboxes.
Three.
The logs indicating when ballots were collected and delivered from temporary satellite offices.
Four.
The list of all private persons deputized to collect ballots through the mobile pickup efforts.
So I'm not going to read through all these.
These are just the demands they have for, you know, what they want to have happened.
And it's rooted in just impropriety or allegations of it.
But they add.
In addition, yesterday, a Pennsylvania whistleblower revealed new information.
A truck driver working for a subcontractor of the United States Postal Service revealed that he transported well over 100,000 completed absentee ballots from Bethpage, New York to Harrisburg, PA.
There is no logical explanation for this to happen.
We call on you to exercise the authority granted to you in our Pennsylvania Constitution to call the General Assembly immediately in a session so that we can provide the election oversight the public deserves.
I do not believe that the governor will actually do it.
I don't.
But let me read for you the Constitution.
It says, December 8th, the safe harbor deadline.
This is from congress.gov.
The U.S.
code provides that if election results are contested in any state, and if the state, prior to election day, has enacted procedures to settle controversies or contests over electors and electoral votes, and if these procedures have been applied, And the results have been determined six days before the electors' meetings?
Then these results are considered to be conclusive and will apply in the counting of the electoral votes.
This date, known as the safe harbor deadline, falls on December 8th in 2020, which the contest was decided... The governor of any state where there was a contest, and in which the contest was decided according to established state procedures, is required to send a certificate describing the form and manner by which the determination was made To the archivist, as soon as practicable.
You see what I see here?
I'm not a lawyer and maybe I'm wrong about this, so by all means, if you are, comment below and let me know what I'm missing.
But they basically say, if there are controversies, and you have enacted procedures to settle them, and it has been determined, then they'll count your votes.
There are controversies, there are contests, there are challenges, they are active, there are lawsuits, they are saying, no, you have not done anything to rectify this, so why would you get your state to actually have its votes counted?
It sounds to me like they're straight up, what we're seeing right now is, nah, there's gonna be a dispute, your votes won't count.
It's happened before and it's happened recently.
Check this out.
Whistleblowers share first-hand accounts of election irregularities.
I couldn't go to my grave knowing.
Three whistleblowers allege disturbing Election Day voting irregularities on Hannity as the Trump legal team forges out with lawsuits in various states.
Ethan Pease, a United States Postal Service subcontractor from Wisconsin, claimed at a press conference earlier Tuesday that he was informed of plans to backdate 100,000 mail-in ballots in order to circumvent the deadline for submission.
Peace made the accusation in a sworn affidavit, despite Attorney General William Barr saying earlier they found no proof of widespread fraud, no Fox News.
They said, to this date, they haven't found fraud that would have changed the outcome of the election.
I think 100,000 mail-in ballots.
You could argue, we don't know who those ballots were for, so we can't make a determination, but I think it's likely it would have changed the outcome in one way or the other.
Quote, I had no ballots to take on election day, Peace told Sean Hannity.
The day after the election, I didn't really think anything of it until the postal service supervisor asked me if I had forgotten ballots the night before.
And I didn't have any, so I was like, that's kind of a weird question, no?
Peace said he was told that 100,000 ballots were supposedly missing in the state of Wisconsin, and an order came down to look for them in the Wisconsin-Illinois-USPS chapter.
P said that while he identifies as an independent or libertarian, he felt compelled to speak out because he couldn't go to the grave knowing what I knew and just keeping that to myself knowing that something went wrong in this election.
Jesse Morgan, who also works as a USPS subcontractor truck driver, claimed to have driven nearly 300,000 completed mail-in bouts across state lines.
Quote, I can tell you I took 24 pallets, Morgan told Hennedy.
This happened on October 21st, and I picked them up in Bethpage, New York.
And drove them to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
And from Harrisburg, I drove them to Lancaster, dropped the trailer in Lancaster, dropped my truck off, and went home.
Say, what?
From New York to Pennsylvania?
Yo, we got a serious dispute here.
How in good faith could this state be processed?
I do not believe so.
But I tell you, there's a good reason it won't matter.
Like I said, the governor's not going to convene this session.
He's going to go to the federal government and say, we've resolved all disputes.
Those were not brought up in session.
We have no reason to bring them up.
The whistleblowers are meaningless.
People can say whatever they want.
No formal contest.
No formal complaint.
And maybe they'll say yes.
But there's something else here, my friends.
Supreme Court again asked to block Biden win in Pennsylvania.
This is an Associated Press report posted to the Washington Post that says, Fresh off another rejection in Pennsylvania's courts, Republicans on Thursday asked the U.S.
Supreme Court to block President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the battleground state.
While the state's lawyers say fatal flaws in the original case means justices are highly unlikely to grant it.
Perhaps, but perhaps it doesn't matter.
Alito said, check this out.
Okay, let me just read this.
This is heavy stuff.
Seriously, you need to let people know this is happening.
This could be a game changer.
Republican U.S.
Rep.
Mike Kelly of northwestern Pennsylvania and the other plaintiffs are asking the high court to prevent the state from certifying any contests from the November 3rd election and undo any certifications already made, such as Biden's victory, while the lawsuit is considered.
They maintain that Pennsylvania's expansive vote-by-mail law is unconstitutional because it required a constitutional amendment to authorize its provisions.
However, in a sign that the case is likely too late to affect the election, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the state's lawyers to respond by December 9th, a day after what is known as the safe harbor deadline.
That means that Congress cannot challenge any electors named by the date in accordance with state law.
That doesn't seem to be what I read from congress.gov, but maybe I'm wrong about this.
He says they have to respond by December 9th.
They have to respond by December 8th.
That's the deadline.
There is an active dispute docketed with the Supreme Court.
If there's nothing done to resolve this, I don't understand how that is good for the Democrats.
They need to actually respond as soon as possible to get this resolved as soon as possible.
But I tell you this.
In this lawsuit, a lower court judge in Pennsylvania already ruled they will likely win on the merits.
So he wants the state lawyers to respond.
I guess we'll see how it plays out.
If they respond by the 9th, then the dispute was never resolved.
No action was taken to resolve the dispute.
It's docketed with the Supreme Court.
How could they claim it's good to go?
Maybe what they're really saying is that because they've certified Biden, nothing else matters.
And you've got to decertify if we're going to get any changes.
But I think that's kind of absurd.
They say that after certification is when you can actually contest the election.
And they're contesting the whole system right now.
Ultimately, I'll tell you this.
People think it is a rigid computer code style world we live in where they look at the law and go, it says we got to do it by the 8th.
No.
Supreme Court is the law of the land, and they might say, due to extraordinary circumstances, we are, you know, overriding this.
It's all about people.
If the Supreme Court says it, what are you going to do?
They could just say, in this circumstance, there was an active contest, our opinion is such, and so be it.
And on January 6th, people can raise objections.
They go on to say that Biden beat Trump by 80,000 votes, blah, blah, blah.
The Supreme Court threw out the case Saturday, but on narrow grounds, they said that it was too late.
Kelly's lawyers sought an injunction Tuesday in the Supreme Court, then withdrew it while they asked the state's high court to halt any certification until the U.S.
Supreme Court acts.
The state's justices refused Thursday, and Kelly's lawyers promptly refiled the case to the U.S.
Supreme Court.
In the state's courts, justices cited the law's 180-day time limit on filing legal challenges to its provisions, as well as the staggering demand that an entire election be overturned retroactively.
Nah, that's BS.
Mike Kelly won.
If they overturn the election, which is not what he's asking for, he would risk losing a race he won.
You see how that works?
In reality, me, having talked to, I reached out.
A lot of the left, they try to play games.
They say that I don't do journalism.
No, no, no, no.
I reached out for comment to individuals involved in this.
Let me put it this way.
I spoke with an individual involved in this.
I had Sean Parnell, one of the plaintiffs, on my show talking about this, and I reached out for comment.
They are not actively trying to overturn the results of this election.
They're trying to get a ruling and stop anything from moving forward.
Now, you could argue that would undermine the election.
It would prevent it from being, you know, transmitted or certified.
But if the Supreme Court ruled on this, on its merits, immediately giving a victory to the Republicans and offering the relief of, in the future, we will have a constitutional amendment to approve Act 77, mail-in voting, then it would be done.
But they did not do that.
So this is big!
They keep saying, the Washington Post, the AP, whatever, that, no, no, no, no, it's not passed, it's gotta be, it's gotta be, you know, the safe harbor provision, all that stuff.
I'm pretty sure that's not the case.
I've reached out to some other individuals, asked their opinions, and I tell you this, on the right they say it's not the case, on the left they say it is.
So I tell you what, what that really means is, the Supreme Court will decide no matter what.
Of course the left is gonna claim, no, no, no, no, no, you can't do it, we're gonna win.
Of course the right's gonna claim, of course we can, of course we'll win.
All that really means is there's no definitive answer.
The courts will have to decide.
They say in addition to challenging the state's mail-in voting law, Kelly's lawyers question whether the state's justices violated their clients' constitutional rights by throwing out the case on the basis of time limits and barring them from refiling it on the same grounds.
Lawyers for Governor Tom Wolf, a Democrat, said in court filings that Kelly's lawyers never before argued that the U.S.
Constitution provides a basis for their claims, making it highly unlikely the U.S.
Supreme Court will grant what they are seeking.
In the underlying lawsuit, Kelly and the other Republican plaintiffs had sought to either throw out the 2.5 million mail-in ballots submitted under the law, or to wipe out the election results and direct the state's Republican-controlled legislature to pick Pennsylvania's presidential electors.
That's not true, at least according to a direct statement made by one of the plaintiffs, saying, they don't know what the relief will be, it may be that, or they might advise us on what relief could be.
Like I mentioned, they've said, Sean Parnell himself, Maybe what they'll say is, in the future, we will have to seek a constitutional amendment, but for now, this election will stand.
Okay.
The media doesn't want to frame it that way.
They want to make the whole thing about Donald Trump.
Look, to be fair, okay, I say this all the time, and it's because I'm a milquetoast fanciter, you know this.
It is about Trump.
Now, this lawsuit is about the constitutionality of mail-in voting, but it does have a bigger-picture impact on the whole Trump election.
If this does get frozen, there is a contest to the election.
There is a dispute.
No electors are going to go anywhere.
And that seems to be the case.
Let me show you some comments.
Lawrence Hurley, a Reuters reporter covering the U.S.
Supreme Court, says the GOP challenge to PA election results has now actually been filed at the Supreme Court.
This happened after the PA Supreme Court rejected a similar request.
The case, brought by GOP Congressman Mike Kelly and other Republicans in PA, claims that the expansion of the absentee voting in the state was unlawful.
Actually, unconstitutional.
Kind of different.
They're asking SCOTUS to prevent any other steps being taken to certify the results, to the extent it hasn't been already.
Notably, this lawsuit challenging the expansion of absentee voting was brought after Election Day, not in the months prior.
My personal opinion?
I don't think it matters, because as the judge earlier noted, Mike Kelly, he's hurting himself by doing this.
It's not an argument.
They're saying, well, they should have brought it beforehand.
Maybe, or maybe they're honest when they said they didn't know, and Mike Kelly won, and now he's bringing the suit, and it's going to impact him in a way that will negatively, it'll be detrimental to him and his career.
Judge ruled, uh, recognized that.
Lawrence says, ultimately this legal effort hopes to toss out up to 2.5 million absentee ballots.
We've been through that.
Justice Alito has asked PA officials to file a response due December 9th.
From Steve Vladeck.
Now, I defer to Steve.
He's a University of Texas law professor.
I'm not going to pretend I know better than him.
He's actually putting some cold water on this by saying, Pennsylvania has already certified its electors, and the timing of Alito's order means SCOTUS wouldn't even be able to act on this nonsense before the federal safe harbor deadline, which is December 8th.
Pretty clever of Justice Alito, and also a clear sign that this has no chance.
And that's in response to the tweet I just showed you.
Liam Martin, a Morning Acre on WBZ, says, Doesn't Alito's timeline create a problem for the state because it can't clear up the legal challenges before December 8th?
Or am I misreading the Safe Harbor law?
Steve Vladeck says, You're misreading it.
The electors have been certified, and now there's no way that certification will be disturbed before the Safe Harbor deadline.
Liam says thank you.
Far be it from me to question an actual legal expert on this, for sure.
I would defer to him, for the most part.
But he's calling it nonsense.
I think he's clearly biased.
He's probably very much not a fan of Trump, and that may be the case.
Maybe it's not.
Maybe it is nonsense, sure.
But I have to question what he's saying.
You know, the problem I have is people want results.
They want Trump to win or lose.
They want this to be thrown out.
Maybe you can accuse me of bias.
Fine.
Then I'll give you my, you know, other side take on this.
And again, not a law professor, so don't weigh my opinion more so than this guy.
He's certainly... So I would just ask that question then.
Just because the electors were certified doesn't mean that the electors aren't being disputed still with nothing to resolve that dispute.
When I read that, I said, okay, let's actually pull up what it says about the safe harbor deadline.
And it says, if the election results are contested in any state, and if the state prior to election
day has enacted procedures to settle controversies or contests over electors and electoral votes,
if these procedures have been applied and the results have been determined six days
before the meetings, then they're considered to be conclusive.
I don't think I'm misreading this.
I think this guy might be wrong, but again, I'll say it a million times, I'm not the law professor, he is.
But it straight up says, if there is a controversy or contest over electors, of course the electors have been certified.
And now there is a controversy and a contest over the whole election and the electors.
Nothing has been done or applied to rectify this controversy.
So if by December 8th they haven't resolved anything, Then what?
How can you count the ballots?
I think Alito knows what he's doing.
I think the dude is one of the supreme justices, you know, like literally, of this country.
Now, my understanding, as I've been told by some individuals involved, is that they normally would have expected the Supreme Court to say, you have two to three weeks to decide.
By giving them only, like, four or five days to issue a response, they're taking it very, very seriously.
It doesn't mean the full Supreme Court will take this up.
It doesn't mean they will win.
But I don't see how, when I read this, it means good things for Pennsylvania.
The electors have been certified.
But there is a challenge to them right now.
There's a challenge to the whole election, and there's a challenge from the Republicans over the certification of the election.
For me, it feels kind of like the ball is moving, Trump is on track, and he's making his way towards that path of actually overturning this.
And the media is going to tell you over and over again it's never going to happen.
My opinion is that it's astronomical that Trump pulls it off.
To be reasonable, I just... But every day something happens that is still good news for Trump.
I just don't know if it's enough.
It's not just in Pennsylvania.
I started this with Georgia, I'll end with Georgia.
This story from the Epoch Times.
Now, of course, you can see, Epoch Times is not considered to be credible by NewsGuard.
It doesn't matter.
This is easily verifiable.
Georgia polling manager tells lawmakers about box with pristine ballots.
A polling manager in Fulton County, Georgia told state lawmakers on Thursday she opened up a box of ballots to find a batch of 110 that were pristine and not folded.
Most of them were pretty worn until we came up to a batch that is, in my words, pristine.
It was white.
It was so white.
Most absentee ballots are folded because they were sent through and received back through the mail.
Quote, but the thing is, but the thing that really jumped out at us besides the feel of these ballots, there were no folds, was the fact that the first one that was bubbled in had almost a little eclipse of white in the bubble where you would bubble it in.
What we began to notice was an overwhelming amount were exactly, not possibly, but exactly the same.
So these absentee ballots had no folds in them, yet they were presented as absentee ballots.
Even if they'd have wound up as a provisional ballot, it would have been exactly the same.
There would have been folds in them.
In the middle of the stack, Voiles and her counting partner found a single ballot that appeared to have been pulled from a printer or copier too soon because the image wasn't square on the paper.
They say that Voiles previously tested under penalty of perjury, that she saw 98% of the batch in question were for Joe Biden.
There was a lot of evidence presented.
There is a dispute in many states.
If they don't resolve these disputes, which I'm telling you now, some of these are actually going before Democrats and Republicans on oversight committees and panels.
The Democrats are doing nothing to resolve these disputes, so I can't see them making it past the safe harbor deadline.
My head says Joe Biden's got this.
But something in my gut says Donald Trump is going to pull a fast one.
A lot of people want to believe it.
A lot of people do believe it.
My head is telling me it's impossible.
But I'm telling you, in 2016, my gut knew Trump was going to win.
But I was like, there's no way!
That's just wrong!
I had this gut feeling.
I think the odds, the actual logical breakdown is Joe Biden won.
You can call it the fraud, you can bring it all up, but it's not about just the election.
It's about Trump versus the establishment.
And Joe Biden, he's won.
But there's something there, isn't there?
Something feels weird, especially with all this happening.
The Supreme Court just called on Pennsylvania to answer to this suit.
And it's on the docket.
This is crazy.
The lower court judge in the Pennsylvania case said they will likely win on the merits.
The Supreme Court might say, yup, electors out.
And if they do, it's done.
And then what?
That's just one state.
Joe Biden would need to lose another 17 votes.
That would mean just Georgia and maybe Nevada or Arizona and Nevada or Michigan or any of those other states.
We're talking about Trump pulling off a major hat trick.
That's why I just can't see it.
I just don't believe it.
But my gut says, don't count Trump out.
Don't.
We'll see, though.
Trump did say—this is recorded—he said, we're trying really hard to get another four years, but if not, I'll see you in 2024.
So it seems like Trump isn't even sure.
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
The next segment will be tonight, live.
Oh, no, no, no.
Actually, check out youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
We'll have segments up at 6, 6.15 and 6.30.
And then we'll be live tonight with Luke Rudkowski of We Are Change at 8 p.m.
YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL, where we're going to go over the latest breaking news of the day.
So I hope to see you there hanging out, and also don't forget to check out all of these shows, the Tim Pool Daily Show and TimCastIRL on iTunes, Spotify, etc.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Bombshell testimony coming out of Georgia, which could change the game for at least this one state.
And there's a ton of other news coming out of other states.
The legal battle for Donald Trump is far from over.
From CBS, lawmakers hear bombshell allegations of Georgia election fraud.
The image you see, President Donald Trump's attorney alleged votes in Georgia were counted without supervision.
That's an understatement.
In the video presented that CBS is covering, there is a black table for some reason in position, and once everybody leaves in the surveillance footage, they pull out a box of votes and begin counting.
Now the allegation is that the people working here told all the observers, we're not counting anymore, you guys need to leave.
People left.
They then pull out ballots from under a table and begin counting.
There are attempts to debunk this, but I don't think the attempts to debunk it actually do any debunking.
One of the statements that these fact-checking organizations got claiming how this is fake news doesn't even reflect what's on the video.
Like, some guy said, oh, no, no, no, that was next to the table, and they had put ballots in it and then put it next to the table, and it's like, There's a video.
We all watched it.
They pull a box out from under a table after everyone leaves and start counting.
Why aren't there observers there?
Well, they don't legally have to be observers there.
So you mean that Donald Trump, the Republicans who have been screaming about fraud, couldn't get a single Republican to be like, I'll stay and watch?
No.
It sounds like Occam's razor would suggest They told the observers to leave, as the Trump campaign alleged, and then started counting ballots they pulled out from under a table.
What's your explanation for this?
We gotta break this down, my friends.
There's a bunch of news coming out of PA.
Alito has issued a statement calling for a decision on this case that could declare votes in Pennsylvania unconstitutional.
I gotta break this down, so we'll get to that one later.
Maybe at 1pm.
This story, this is one of the biggest stories of the year.
I'm sorry, it is.
CBS reports.
Thursday, a Georgia Senate Judiciary Subcommittee heard new jaw-dropping allegations of alleged election fraud in the state from several people, including Trump's attorney, Rudy Giuliani.
The supposed videotape evidence alleges proof of ballots being counted without oversight.
A subcommittee comprised of both Republicans and Democrats held a hearing at the state capitol for perhaps the biggest bombshell presented to lawmakers from inside State Farm Arena.
For the first time, the president's legal team, led by Giuliani, presented surveillance video from the state's largest voting center.
The video allegedly shows people taking out at least four boxes of ballots from underneath a table and then counting them after hours with no election supervisors present.
Sorry, you ain't getting past this one.
I don't know what we do from here.
Four boxes.
How many votes is that?
I believe they're actually saying boxes contain thousands of ballots, and this is way more than enough to overcome Joe Biden's lead in the state.
Well, I gotta be—I'll wait for it.
We'll read the story and see what they say.
Quote, the same person that stayed behind, the person that cleared the place out under the pretense that we are going to stop counting, is the person who put the table there at 8.22 in the morning.
I saw four suitcases come out from underneath the table, Attorney Jackie Pick said.
So we can see here in the video, it's this black table right here, people leave.
Let's read on.
It is believed that each box consisted of about 6,000 ballots, if accurate.
That would amount to about 24,000 potential votes.
However, at least one state lawmaker questioned the validity of the video.
Quote, the question is, since this has been debunked repeatedly, what evidence can you
give to us that counters what our election officials have presented with only an hour
Wait, what?
Attorney Pick said, you just saw it.
Your officials need to watch the video.
Giuliani and his team also introduced witnesses to verify additional fraud.
Each witness claimed to have signed sworn affidavits.
Let's play a game.
Who do you trust?
Random lawmakers who didn't watch the videos and issued these blanket statements that are meaningless.
People who've signed statements under penalty of perjury where they could go to prison.
There is a video of them pulling the ballots out from under a table.
What is this?
It's been debunked repeatedly?
Sorry, no, that's hard evidence.
This is the most substantive and significant evidence we've seen yet.
But let me move on to a more in-depth view.
This is from American Greatness.
Again, I could pull a bunch of these right-wing sources that are not certified by mainstream media's favorite News Guard.
Now people say, why do you always bring up News Guard, Tim?
Because if a Microsoft-funded, left-biased mainstream media source says, this source is good.
Try and debunk it now when I've got legitimate, certified sources.
I use CBS.
Don't play games.
American Greatness says video from election night in Georgia shows suitcases of ballots being pulled out from under a table after poll watchers were sent home.
Now, these aren't suitcases.
That's incorrect.
You can clearly see that they're standard black ballot boxes of some sort.
They were, however, pulled out from under a table.
They say the blockbuster surveillance video was presented during a hearing before the Georgia State Senate Committee, where Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, presented his case to Georgia lawmakers.
Jackie Pick, an attorney assisting Trump's legal team, said the highly suspicious activity took place at State Farm Arena, where absentee ballots and military ballots were tabulated.
We have the tape from the first thing in the morning all the way to the close of the polls," she said, adding that two Republican field organizers had been sent here to observe.
At no time were they permitted to observe in any meaningful way.
Pick explained that the GOP observers were roped off all day with the media.
According to their affidavits, a poll worker, a woman with blonde braids, announced at about 10 p.m.
that they were done for the night and everyone needed to leave.
The GOP observers said in their affidavits that they were told counting would resume at 8.30 in the morning.
Multiple sworn statements corroborated by video evidence of the person talking or telling them something, and then the people leaving.
Who am I going to trust?
Some random person who's like, no, no, you're mistaken.
This is fake news.
Or the people who swore under penalty of perjury with corroborating surveillance footage.
I don't know if this is enough to overcome what's going on.
I don't know if it'll be what Trump needs to win, but you cannot deny this.
I'm not saying this is evidence of widespread fraud, but 24,000 potential votes This is a serious problem for us.
I mean, it's good news for Trump supporters.
You got your evidence.
You got hard evidence.
Video surveillance evidence of people literally pulling out ballots from under a table after talking to people who then swore and swore in statements they were told to leave.
Okay.
PICS said that after the press and poll watchers cleared out, four remaining election workers remained behind and continued counting and tabulating well into the night.
Quote, they will continue counting unobserved, unsupervised, not in public view, as your statute requires, until about 1 in the morning.
She explained that the reason they know the counting went on until 1am is because the GOP observers went to the tabulation center after they were forced to leave and were told by a news crew that the counting had actually continued.
This shocked them.
So they returned back to State Farm Arena at about 1 a.m.
in the morning, where they confirmed that people had in fact just left.
After the press and poll watchers were told to go home, it took until close to 1030 for the room to clear.
Pick noted.
Then at around 11 p.m., one of the women pulled a suitcase full of ballots out from under a table covered with a tablecloth.
Grant Stinchfield says, this is a total game changer.
Sure looks like ballot stuffing in Georgia all caught on camera.
Pick said when Trump's legal team first saw the video, they weren't sure if it was normal to store suitcases full of ballots under tables.
So they viewed surveillance video from earlier in the day to see if that was the routine procedure.
Indeed, it was not.
She said that what they saw happening earlier in the day were ballots coming from boxes stored in an open area or coming through a door, not from suitcases hidden under the tables.
Pick question the claim.
Okay, so I don't know what they mean by suitcases in the video.
They look like big black ballot boxes.
So perhaps I'm wrong.
Pick question the chain of custody of the hidden ballots.
Where did they come from?
Who put them there?
When did they put them there?
She said the surveillance video shows that about 8.22 that morning, the woman with blonde braids had put the table with the hidden ballots in place.
She pointed out that the culprit was the same operative who had kicked everyone out at 10 p.m.
Quote, So the same person who stayed behind, the same person who cleared the place out under the pretense that we're going to stop counting, is the person who put the table there, Pick declared.
She told the lawmakers that she saw four suitcases full of ballots in all pulled out from under the table.
What are these ballots doing there, separated from all the other ballots, Pick asked?
And why are they only bringing them out when the place is cleared out with no witnesses?
Pick noted that machines can tabulate about 3,000 votes per hour, and there were multiple machines in the room.
And they were there for two hours, you do the math.
How many ballots went through those machines when there was no one there to supervise, to be present, consistent with your statute and your rules?
She estimated that the number could easily be beyond the margin of victory in Georgia.
When Team Trump posted the surveillance video onto Twitter, the platform slapped a warning label on the tweet saying, this claim about election fraud is disputed, even though it was a breaking story and no one had yet had time to dispute it.
Let me just stop for a second.
Okay, listen.
There are already attempts by the left to try and debunk this.
They're saying it's not true.
The story's not true.
They've done nothing to debunk this other than just say they did.
And that's a common thing we see in the media.
They get a quote from one official saying, no, that's not true.
And they say, debunked!
Sorry.
They have surveillance footage.
They say that going back throughout the day, they're counting ballots like normal.
Then they only pull this one out after everyone leaves.
That alone, to me, is a massive red flag.
But then you add in two sworn affidavits, maybe more, from the GOP observers saying they were told to leave, and then you have the surveillance footage of the person telling them to leave, and then pulling the ballots out.
It makes no sense.
I can only say that, to me, this is overwhelming evidence of legit, serious voter fraud.
Is it definitive proof?
No.
But this is well beyond anything we have seen in terms of hard evidence.
Witness testimony only goes so far.
Sworn affidavits are good, but imperfect.
Some people just misunderstand, they get things wrong, but it is evidence.
Now we have this.
We have video footage showing it happening.
What do we need now?
I guess we need some kind of legit and hard investigation, but I'll tell you this.
This might be enough to throw Georgia into dispute.
The left keeps putting up these excuses, these reasons why it doesn't matter.
Certification's already happened.
It's done.
It's done.
No, it isn't.
It is not done.
On January 6th, votes can be disputed by Republicans.
Man, there's just too much to go through here, but I gotta follow through on this story, because with Pennsylvania, they're calling on the Supreme Court.
Alito has already answered, and they're saying, no, no, no, you can't do this!
They might overturn Pennsylvania.
I'm gonna cover that in the next segment, because we gotta go through this.
I got so much to go through here.
This is huge news, by the way.
Okay, let me say this.
This is the story that you need to absolutely share.
If you want to support my channel, sharing this video really does help.
But let people see this.
And I'm going to show you the fact check.
I'm going to show you, and I'm going to dispute it.
Lead story says, fact check.
Video from Georgia does not show suitcases filled with ballots suspiciously pulled from under a table.
Poll watchers were not told to leave.
This is insane!
Sworn statements under penalty of perjury.
What gives them the right to say they were not told to leave?
How do you fact check that?
It does not show suitcases full of ballots.
Oh, why?
Because they're actually ballot boxes.
That's how the fact check works.
They're not suitcases.
No, that's a semantic error.
So I can say...
I'll do this.
Fact check.
Video does not show illegal ballot stuffing done while someone was wearing a clown suit.
Oh, it might show actual illegal ballot stuffing, but nobody was wearing a clown suit.
That's what they do.
Because one of the things they go on to say is that they weren't suitcases.
But check this out.
Check out one of the... I think this is a... Let me show you some of the quotes.
One quote says, election workers known as cutters are being told to leave, blah, blah, blah.
If you look at the videotape, the work you see is work you would expect, which is you take the sealed suitcase-looking things and- Whoa, wait, whoa!
So they are suitcases, okay.
You place the ballots on the scanner in manageable batches and you scan them.
They go on to say Francis Watson, Chief Investigator for the Georgia Secretary of State, told Lee's stories during a phone call on December 3rd that the ballots were in standard containers and the work during that time in question had nothing to do with pulling ballots from under a table, she said.
There wasn't a bin that had ballots in it under the table.
There's a video of them.
There's a video of them.
You can watch the video of them pulling it out.
I watched it.
It was an empty bin, and the ballots from it were actually out on the table when the media were still there, and then it was placed back into the box when the media were still there and placed next to the table.
There's literally a video of them pulling it from under the table!
This is insane.
This is not a fact check.
This is desperate.
You know what I think this is?
This Lead Stories website, what they do is they flag things on Facebook.
I think this is just fake news, in my opinion.
I mean, this is not debunking anything.
Poll watchers were not told to leave.
Two sworn statements say otherwise.
You can't assert that.
We have sworn statements saying otherwise.
How is this?
This is nuts.
Let me read a little bit more of this.
They say, Nobody told them to stay, nobody told them to leave, nobody gave them any advice on what they should do, and it was still open for them or the public to come back in and view at whatever time they wanted to, so long as they were still working.
Sworn affidavits.
A video corroborating the sworn affidavits.
A video showing a woman pulling the box from under a table.
I believe four boxes.
And this website saying, nope, didn't happen.
You know why?
Because this is going to pop up false on Facebook when people see it.
And then you'll get this garbage website.
I'll tell you this, Lead Stories, they get certified by NewsGuard.
This is why I say, if NewsGuard's got a certified, you know, source saying it, then you know it's true, right?
The reason why I say that is, Lead Stories did a fake fact check on a tweet of mine.
What they do is, they took a tweet of mine that was 100% factually accurate, and my opinion, and then someone posted on Facebook, they said it was false.
But when you actually click the link, it corroborated and proved everything I said, but added fake context to my tweet in an effort to debunk.
That's the point I often say how they do these fake fact checks, right?
So let's say you say something like, My dog did a backflip.
And there's a video of a dog doing a backflip.
If they want to put a false label on it, they won't say, did John's dog do a backflip.
They'll say, did John's dog do a backflip on Sunday afternoon?
And they'll give you this big, long-winded, here are the claims, it's not true, it's not true at all, and at the very bottom it says, he did do the backflip, but not on Sunday.
By adding that one little tidbit, they try and use it as a way to debunk the entire thing.
That's what they're doing.
We got a quote from someone, therefore it's fake news!
No.
They say, in addition she explained the only ballots that were scanned after the media and other observers had left were those that had already been opened in front of these observers.
So what's the video we watch?
What are they pulling from under our table?
Why did these people say that they were told to leave?
And I'll tell you this, why do we have this story?
Some ballots will not be counted until Wednesday in Georgia following water main break.
Oh no!
From November 4th, this was 1.20 a.m.
CBS reports.
They had to stop counting because of a water main break.
Oh, jeez.
Oh, no.
Oh, wait.
Hold on.
What's this?
From news.com.au?
Slow leak.
Text messages cast doubt on Georgia officials' burst pipe excuse for pause in counting.
An unprecedented decision on election night caused outrage, and now texts have blown apart the official story.
Raising more questions.
From November 13th.
Oh my, it wasn't a water main break.
They told everyone to leave and they stopped counting, supposedly, because of a slow leak on a toilet, which people questioned because you can just turn the knob on the base of the toilet and shut the water off.
What is this?
This is not fake news.
These are from official, well-known news outlets.
I pulled up news.com.au.
There's a bunch of other outlets that say similar things.
No, they're going to tell you that it's fake news.
They're going to tell you not to look behind the curtain.
But it seems like we actually have legit evidence.
My friends, we have a major update here.
Check this out.
Georgia Governor Kemp is calling on Secretary of State Raffensperger to call for a signature audit of votes.
Kemp appeared on the Ingram Angle in the wake of damning security cam footage that showed poll workers in Fulton County illegally processing ballots with no observers coming from under a table.
I show you the fact check, but let me just put it this way.
If you're a skeptic, if you don't want to believe it, fine.
Let me ask you a question.
Would you trust an individual who is not present, was not there, did not watch the video footage, and has not sworn a statement under oath?
Or would you trust the people who were there, who sworn a statement under penalty of perjury, That they were told to leave, with a video then showing a person talking to them, and then they leave, and then pulling out ballot boxes from under a table and then counting?
Come on.
It is absolutely unreasonable.
You know, the other night on the IRL podcast we had Destiny.
uh... destiny is well i i i see your first of his relatively far off the
model a lot of issues
and i i i couldn't believe it because otherwise think he's he's he's an okay
dude uh... aside whatever country so no i don't know i don't
know him that well but we had a good conversation you know clearly disagreed
in pennsylvania a judge ruled
that so long as an observer is in the building then the law is satisfied
When we all know the purpose of observers is to look at the ballots, to scrutinize them as they're being counted.
And he didn't agree.
He was like, well, no, I don't know, whatever.
Whatever the law says, if they should have sued beforehand, I'm like...
This is the crazy thing to me.
When you have an instance where the observers leave, they just come out and say, well, that's their fault.
Okay, well, they sworn under penalty of perjury, they were told to leave.
And they were playing by the rules.
A lot of these people in a bunch of different jurisdictions say that they were being abused, they were being kicked out.
They were scared that if they ruffled too many feathers, they wouldn't be allowed to observe at all.
And for the most part, they weren't.
Why is this happening?
Why in these very important states are we hearing all of these stories?
Is it because in New York, it's not a swing state so nobody cares to look at the evidence?
Perhaps.
In Georgia and Arizona, it's like the first time in 40 years they voted Democrat.
Why are we hearing these weird stories?
Why do we have so much of this?
Possibly.
It happens all the time.
And that's actually quite scary.
It's possible that Joe Biden isn't actively seeking out any evidence.
One question being raised is why are all of these mistakes beneficial to the Democrats?
All of these, you know, errors, the glitches, the vote flipping, whatever.
Always beneficial to Democrats when they happen.
Could be that Biden's not looking for it, but that doesn't explain Georgia and the several counties where votes were found uncounted for Donald Trump.
I now give you, or I should say uncounted in general, which leans Trump.
I now give you the final and most important kind of bit on this.
We have this video of them pulling out ballots from under a table and counting them.
People aren't there.
We also have stories that several batches that ultimately gave Trump a huge lead, a historic gain in a recount, were discovered not to have been counted.
So, these things happen.
These errors, this impropriety, it literally happens.
At what point do you need more evidence that something is broken in this?
To clarify, I'm not saying Trump is correct that the election was changed by widespread fraud.
I am saying you cannot deny what we are seeing in this, and it needs to warrant a hardcore high-level investigation of some sort.
Well, they're gonna do a signature audit.
I don't know if that'll be enough.
We'll see.
I guess they're gonna keep fighting.
I've got news on Pennsylvania and I'm like trying to figure out which story do I do, but this broke before the Pennsylvania story broke.
So I'm like, okay, I'll do this story first at 1 p.m.
I will cover this on this channel.
So come back, share this video, subscribe, hit the like button.
There has been an official request to the Supreme Court and Alito is requesting an official response from SCOTUS by December 9th.
This could break Pennsylvania.
Stick around at 1 p.m.
I will be back with that story.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
California is going for a hard lockdown of three weeks.
Joe Biden said in an interview on CNN just 100 days of wearing our masks to finally be done with this nearly a year after it was only 15 days to slow the spread.
The hard lock on California is a stay home order.
Stay inside your home for three weeks, you can't leave.
Well, that's insane.
And the problem is, first of all, it didn't work in the first place.
We locked down, and then what?
It came right back.
But why?
Well, many on the left say it's because we opened back up!
So you mean to tell me that if we lock down, we can get it under control, but then no matter what happens, at any point, reopening in any way, is gonna bring it back?
It's all gonna come back?
Sounds to me, then, the problem is, COVID exists, we can't do nothing about it, can we?
However, there's a vaccine on the horizon, and maybe that's when things finally end.
But for the time being, to tell people they have no right to support themselves and to feed their families, or to compare it in any way to killing people or drunk driving, for instance, is absolutely incorrect.
And I did talk about this the other night on the Arrow podcast.
That's why I reference it now with Destiny.
You may be familiar with him.
He's a lefty kind of commentator.
And he said that we should lock down hard for two months.
People should get compensated.
There should be a stimulus to make sure people can cover all their bills and everything.
The problem is there's no such thing as a total and complete lockdown.
Somebody still has to work because people still have to eat.
And the issue I brought up then was don't we have rights?
The argument that I was given was Well, if you, right to go what?
To go out, you'll get people sick.
Like, do you have a right to drive your car drunk?
The difference is, you don't, because you don't need to drive drunk.
We do need to go out, buy food, work, and make sure that we can pay our bills, feed ourselves, clean ourselves, and take care of our health.
Now we see what's going on in Europe.
In Europe, there was a woman, it was a viral video, a woman goes to a mental health facility with her mother, because her mother was ill.
The cops detain and tase this woman.
Suicide is skyrocketing.
People are not dealing with this well.
And if you're telling me the lockdown did not work and simply because we reopened it came back, then there's nothing we can do to stop it, can we?
Save the vaccine.
So perhaps we should have had some kind of measured protect the vulnerable plan, allow people to live and work and not just destroy everything and cross our fingers a vaccine would happen.
Well, my friends in California, sheriffs are telling Governor Newsom they will not fully enforce stay-at-home order.
And they shouldn't.
Because Newsom is the one who defied his own rules, and it's all of these Democratic politicians who are defying their own rules.
So I'll tell you this, I refuse to live in a system where you think you can take away someone's right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, but more importantly, survival.
Just life.
You can take that away, and then you, Newsom, think you get life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, while everyone else barely gets life?
Sorry, no.
People need to be able to survive.
They need to work, support themselves, and maintain their businesses.
That's pursuing life.
Beyond that, I think we can all make some sacrifices to try and fend off a pandemic.
But when you have these people like Newsome, like Pelosi, like Lori Lightfoot, like Gretchen Whitmer...
These people clearly don't care about any of these rules.
They don't even fear COVID at all.
They go out in defiance of everything because they don't care.
I wonder what it is they know that we don't.
Or maybe they're just reckless and insane.
But the only way to put it right now is that clearly the lockdowns did not work, are not working, probably will not work, and even the World Health Organization said it is a very, very last resort.
Well, sorry.
We tried lockdown for months, and if it's coming back no matter what, then this is not the solution.
It is going to result in more death and suffering.
But of course, I'm sure many of these crony corporatist political elites don't mind, because the money is slowly being siphoned away to the ultra-elites.
But at least we can count on some cops to say, F, no.
In New York, we have, in Staten Island, this bar owner gets arrested.
He stands up and he says, I got nothing left to lose.
He opens his business, free food and drinks, please donate.
They arrest the guy.
And I call these people, I'm not gonna call them cops.
I'm gonna call them maybe like the de Blasio's Praetorian Guard or Oathbreakers.
I really like that, Oathbreaker, right?
It sounds good.
The police officers in Staten Island Who are barring this restaurant, I'm sorry, this bar from allowing people inside are oath breakers.
These are people of no moral standing, no ethics, and they are corrupt, as corrupt can be.
So my understanding is that the NYPD swears an oath to the Constitution, and the Constitution says we have a right to peaceably assemble.
Could you imagine, you know, 1774 or whatever, when we're doing these constitutional conventions and stuff, then there's like a decree from the king, there's a pandemic, no one can gather, no more, you know, go home everybody.
And they were like, okay, no.
They were meeting in secret, and it was, from the crown's perspective, seditious, treasonous against the crown.
Today, people want to peaceably assemble, as is their constitutional right.
Well, New York City has a large swath of oath breakers who are willing to take any and all cash they can.
Ooh, if it means they can!
Ruin your life.
He's gonna swear.
These are truly some of the most despicable people on the planet.
People of no conscience, of no morals, no ethics, no integrity.
Oathbreakers.
But what do we have here with these California sheriffs?
My friend, these people are Oath Keepers.
Not the Oath Keepers in the sense of like the actual militia group.
Though, that's a reference to their oath to the Constitution.
I'm saying that these sheriffs who are saying, we're not going to enforce a stay-at-home order, it's in violation of the Constitution.
I'm sorry, I understand all of these lefties are saying, these right-wing morons think they have a right to go die.
They do!
Quite literally, the saying is, well, in New Hampshire, live free or die.
And I believe it was in Virginia in the late 1700s, give me liberty or give me death.
Do you understand what that means in this country?
It means that people would prefer to choose for themselves or be dead.
That's crazy.
That's bold.
Man, that's what this country was founded upon.
But now in these big cities, we have a sentiment of, give me security and tell me what to do.
I don't know.
That's basically what they're saying.
Newsweek reports, a number of sheriff offices in Southern California have warned Governor Gavin Newsom they will not be strictly enforcing the new stay-at-home order, which is expected to be imposed across the state.
The new strict order will see the closure of non-essential businesses such as hair salons, movie theaters, and other indoor recreational facilities.
Restaurants will only be able to serve takeout, with outdoor dining also banned, and retail operating at 20% capacity.
Newsom said that the stay-at-home order is needed, as the state of California is currently at the tipping point in its fight against the virus.
You wanna know why I think Newsom is lying?
Because he went out and partied, like, twice, I think it was.
He clearly doesn't think it's that bad, and he's not scared of it.
He's...
Probably lying.
I think people take it seriously.
I get it.
You know, they warned us earlier in the year that we were going to have on and off lockdowns.
Clearly, that doesn't work.
I don't know what the solution is, but that doesn't work because the economic lockdowns are also bad for people.
Suicides, my friends.
Tragedy.
11-year-old boy takes his own life during Zoom class.
Why?
They say it's really simple, actually.
These children are suffering from anxiety and isolation, and suicide is on the rise.
This is nightmarish.
I'm sorry, you know, if my choice was, we're going to see more death among people over 70, but it will save our children?
At a certain point, I think we prioritize our children, and I think that's something the elderly would agree with.
You know about Fukushima, Japan?
The nuclear reactor, the meltdown, all that stuff, the tsunami?
They were trying to go in and stop this meltdown, stop this radiation leak.
And the elderly chose to go in and do it, risking their lives, saying, because we've lived our lives, now we must do what we can to protect the next generation.
That is honor.
That is integrity.
No, I don't want anyone to die, and I don't want anyone to be sacrificed for anybody else.
I'm just saying that at a certain point, it seems like we're willing to accept the death of our children to save people who are, you know, in their 70s or older.
It comes down to an issue of, well, it's very much a deontological versus utilitarian approach.
I think we must protect the rights of all individuals and do everything in our power to protect the elderly and make sure they survive, which is why the solution is actually quite simple.
If we were to say, protect the children at the cost of the elderly, we'd say reopen, don't lock down, end of story.
Most people under 70 are absolutely fine, 99.9%.
But 97.5 for those above 70.
Okay, so we found the solution.
We don't want kids taking their lives, so we reopen, but we protect the elderly.
We have social distancing, we wear masks to make sure we don't spread diseases to those who are vulnerable, not just the elderly, those who have comorbidities or are overweight.
We protect them.
We protect those who are vulnerable.
We don't sacrifice healthy children and see the destruction of the economy in order to protect the elderly because we can do both.
That's not what's happening.
These people are despotic.
Newsom announced on Thursday that the state of California will be split into five sections, and all counties within that area will abide by the same coronavirus guidelines.
The new order will be triggered if a region's intensive care unit bed availability drops below 15%.
Southern California is currently at around 20.6% ICU availability, with Newsom warning that the area is expected to hit the trigger point by Saturday.
Northern California, Greater Sacramento, and San Joaquin Valley are also expected to follow suit.
Newsom's new order officially goes into effect on Saturday, December 5th at 1pm.
Once an area drops below the 15% threshold, it will have 24 hours to implement the necessary arrangements.
Coming from him, I say, yeah, right.
But isn't it strange, the system that we've enacted, where we are basically saying that those who are healthy and safe should be isolated, and those who are sick should as well?
The meme goes something like this.
A quarantine is when you take those who are sick and vulnerable and you isolate them for theirs, their, and our safety.
A tyrannical despotic fascistic power grab would be more when you just lock everyone up in their homes under threat of law.
Good on these sheriffs for saying no.
I like it, I like it.
New York City's got their oath breakers.
Look man, you know what's funny is I spent a lot of time this year defending police during the riots and all that stuff, saying defund the police is stupid.
But I'll tell you what, NYPD, if that's how you want to roll, then I'm going to sit back and say, good, defund them.
You know what I want to see?
That cop, all of them, standing outside that bar, I want to look them in the eyes when they announce they're going to strip their pensions away.
That's what I want to see.
Ooh, it would feel so good, wouldn't it?
I would like a Civilian Oversight Committee with the power to strip away, for one, to fire and strip the pensions of officers that engage in unconstitutional activities.
Maybe within reason, like if they violate the Constitution a couple of times, like maybe get three strikes and you're out, and then we're like, you've been found by a Civilian Oversight Committee to have violated constitutional rights.
It would be hard to figure out what that process is, right?
Obviously you've got the left saying, Detaining somebody is a violation of their rights.
Like, no, cops have a right to do that.
But, you know, the right to peaceably assemble.
Standing in front of the bar, I'll tell you this.
If there's an unlawful assembly because you've got violent riots or something, okay, then I understand.
But an edict passed, declared by the governor, without the legislature, without approval, and you come out and say, I'm gonna go follow whatever order he gives me, then I would love to see that officer crying his eyes out as they say, All your hard work, all the money you've saved or earned, is gone.
You are fired, and you will never be allowed to be back on the force in the state.
I would like to see some hard accountability for those that violate the Constitution.
Don't, don't, don't, don't, don't, don't interrupt me yet, Left!
That absolutely includes killing innocent people. 100%.
I think the issue when it comes to Black Lives Matter and talking about police and defund the police is that they often assume that legitimate, justified uses of force are violations of civil liberties and civil rights and things like that.
No, that's a challenge why I would say I'm in favor of reform.
I'll tell you this, if a cop walks up to a guy who's filming, and we've got all these videos, and he attacks the guy, well that's strike one, buddy.
That's strike one.
I'm not going to defend police officers who do that.
I will, however, defend a cop who's stopping someone in their vehicle, and they say, buddy, can you keep your hands on the wheel for me?
And the guy says no, and they're like, put your hands where I can see them, and the guy leans down to grab something, the cop backs up, the guy gets out of his car, and then there's a shot.
I would say in that instance, like that specific example, maybe the man was unarmed.
Maybe he wasn't reaching for something, we don't know.
But that's a tough situation to be in.
And I recognize that.
We've seen situations like this.
I look at the story of that man, I believe his name was Philando Castile.
I was furious about this.
The guy driving, and Philando informed the cop he had a weapon.
The cop shot him anyway.
That is not defensible, in my opinion.
But very, very different from what we're seeing in, say, Staten Island.
And therein lies the serious conundrum.
No one should be blindly supporting cops.
No one.
We should support the institutions, we should call for reform and accountability, and we should recognize, on the left, they're like, well, this cop, the guy was running at him, screaming, and the cop shot him.
Yeah?
The cop was being threatened.
Someone doesn't show their hands and a cop freaks out.
I don't think that's criminal.
I think that cop should probably lose access to their firearm or something like that.
I tweeted about this before and all these conservatives got so mad at me saying I was so dumb.
If a cop panics and shoots an unarmed guy, maybe they shouldn't be someone with a gun.
I understand they're scared, but we're talking about having people out there who are taking a serious risk and need to understand that risk.
It's tough.
Look, don't get me wrong.
I've seen all the videos where Where, you know, the cop, like, walks into the car and they're like, can you get your license for me?
And the dude just shoots the cop.
It happens.
So we need reform to protect cops, to better incentivize cops, and to prevent people from losing their lives.
But this kind of stuff happens.
Understanding that, I kind of, you know, begrudgingly say in some circumstances a cop maybe panicked and was, you know, unnecessarily freaking out and killed an innocent person.
It's very, very different from willfully saying, I'm going to violate the Constitution.
Don't care.
You cannot just blindly march to the orders of Governor Cuomo.
He says, executive order, do it.
And the cop goes, okay.
There's got to be at some point some kind of oversight.
In fact, maybe what we need is not some oversight where they strip the pensions from these cops.
Maybe it's something like there's an oversight board literally inside the department, and when a cop says, we're sending out, you know, seven people, we need to go to the bar, they say, no, no, no, no, no, no, you can't do that.
And then they actually make it an argument.
You can't do it.
You can't go and shut these people down.
Can't do it.
I'm not going to print out the answers.
And maybe that's just an emotional reaction that's not really going to solve anything.
I recognize that.
But I tell you, man, nothing boils my blood more, first and foremost, than scared, you know, cops killing innocent people.
And I'm talking about non-justified use of force.
I'm talking about a cop.
I'm talking about, you know, innocent people dying.
Makes me angry.
Sometimes I can recognize justified use of force.
I should say, when it's justified use of force, I can recognize it.
Sometimes I'll still argue because I probably have a higher threshold than, say, like, the, you know, investigatory boards might have.
When I watch these videos, there's one video where a guy was filming cops, and the cop walks across the street, walks up to him, and smacks the phone out of his hand and arrests him.
Tons of videos like that.
That boils my blood.
You know what boils my blood?
Violating our constitutional rights.
And I tell you what, that absolutely includes the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, the Fourth, the Fifth, all of that stuff.
So when I see these cops enforcing these lunatics, let me show you something.
ABC finally reports on Democrats violating their own COVID rules but won't call them Democrats.
Uh-huh.
Newsome.
The nerve of this man.
The nerve of Chris Cuomo on CNN to pretend to be quarantined.
These are sick, sociopathic individuals, and they are only able to commit these crimes, like DeBasio stealing taxpayer dollars to graffiti the streets with a political campaign slogan, because they have oath breakers guarding them.
Villains.
That's who these people are.
I don't fly the Blue Lives Matter flag.
I don't fly the Black Lives Matter flag.
I respect police.
Overwhelmingly.
Because I've been in many circumstances, I'll tell you this, I've been in more circumstances with bad cops than good cops.
But first of all, we have problems with policing for sure.
Quota systems, all this dumb stuff.
Whether it's, like, legal or they actually have it on paper.
The idea that people are generating revenue by ticketing people.
We gotta have hard reform.
We do.
I know people who live in, like, fairly well-off suburbs, who are constantly complaining about all the... Like, there's no crime in their area.
I have a friend who lives in a very, very small, sleepy suburb, and they say that the sheriff's department just tickets people because they're making money.
I'm like, I hear you, dude.
I hear ya.
Well, here's the problem.
My friend, you live in a Democrat-controlled area, okay?
And maybe that's the real issue.
In the areas that lean more Republican, maybe you have more integrity.
You have people who, I guess, care about the community, have empathy, respect loyalty and authority in the right way.
In these blue areas, you have people who say, I don't know you, I don't care about you, give me my paycheck and you can F off.
You know, growing up in Chicago, that's how the cops were.
They don't know me.
They didn't care about me.
And they said, tell it to a judge.
And when I was like, dude, I got, I told you the story the other day.
I got pulled over.
It was a BS pullover.
They accused me of speeding when I was not speeding.
And that got my license suspended.
And the cop said, tell it to a judge.
I can't afford to tell it to a judge.
So I totally get, you know, I did a documentary on Ferguson.
I understand the anger for many people who are not well-off, who can't afford to deal with these fights, and end up getting abused by bad cops.
I've been saved by a cop, a couple cops one time, and I recognize just because they're bad experience in big cities doesn't mean the institution of policing is wrong.
It means we need hard reforms, and defunding ain't it.
Pulling the rug out from under departments ain't it.
What needs to happen is a better culture built around upholding the Constitution, respecting the community, and understanding.
Sometimes you take big risks.
I don't like what we're seeing with all this lockdown stuff.
And I expect it's only going to get worse.
I'm not going to stand for it.
And I got no problem ragging on cops all day and night who violate the Constitution.
I'm going to say it again.
Oath breakers.
The lockdown's a bad move.
I made my point.
I think it's only going to escalate.
But I'll leave it there.
Y'all, uh, I'm sure there's a lot of people who probably don't want to criticize the cops or whatever, but you know, I gotta be honest, I'm not, I'm not here to just play defense for tribes, for Blue Lives Matter, for anything like that.
And I think if you're a Trump supporter and you're a constitutionalist, you better come out and criticize the oath breakers when they violate the rights of these small business owners.
There is nothing more fundamental to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness than running your business to feed your family.
And the only reason these people are having their rights violated is because of oath breakers.
Like the regulars of the British Empire who said, we don't care about your rights, we care about our cash from the crown.
These people care not for what it means to be an American.
I'll leave it there.
I said I was going to do a segment on the PA constitutional suits going to SCOTUS, but I got some updates.
So I'm going to push that to 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
It is a different channel.
So right now, do this.
Hit the like button, subscribe, notification bell.
Go to the address bar, type in youtube.com slash timcast and press enter.
