Trump Announces He Will INTERVENE In Texas SCOTUS Suit As Several States Vow To JOIN, THIS IS IT
Trump Announces He Will INTERVENE In Texas SCOTUS Suit As Several States Vow To JOIN, THIS IS IT. The big lawsuit is gaining steam as several states vow to join the lawsuit to overturn the election but will SCOTUS take the case?Democrats have been calling this suit crazy while Republicans cheer it on
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
And I am more convinced than ever that it is completely meaningless.
Because the left had been saying, if you don't challenge the results before then and get it resolved, then the electors count and Joe Biden wins.
But then many other pundits, many on the right, said, no, if you don't resolve the dispute, you can't count the electors because electors are currently in dispute.
Now, that one kind of makes sense, but at this point, I think it doesn't even matter because now we got the Texas lawsuit moving through.
A bunch of states have announced that they intend to legally support this lawsuit from Texas, but full stop.
They have not joined the lawsuit.
They are not able to join the lawsuit.
So far, Texas has requested permission to file a complaint.
So there's no process by which other states are piling on.
Now, my understanding, I had Will Chamberlain on the show last night.
He's a Trump-supporting lawyer.
He's rather pessimistic and all this stuff.
But he said that Alito and Thomas do believe that the Supreme Court is obligated to hear this case.
We don't know how the other justices Trump appointed will feel.
So that's Gorsuch, that's Amy Coney Barrett, that's Brett Kavanaugh.
They could feel obligated as well.
And the argument is, Texas has standing in this lawsuit because of the vice president, okay?
If Kamala Harris becomes vice president, then she is the tiebreaker in Senate votes.
Texas is basically saying, while everyone's concerned about the president, we're concerned about the vice president.
These other states changed the rules in violation of the Electors Clause.
They say, we didn't.
That's not fair.
We will not allow them to change the rules so they can get a favorable representation in violation of our rights.
Now, of course, here we go again.
The left is saying, no, no, it's never going to work.
It's crazy.
The right is saying, this is it.
And the big news right now, Donald Trump has tweeted this morning, we will be intervening in the Texas plus many other states case.
This is the big one.
Our country needs a victory.
We also have another Supreme Court case.
There are Republicans in Pennsylvania that have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Act 77, no excuse mail-in voting.
Well, they got denied.
Let me just show you what the Supreme Court said.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the court is denied.
Okay?
So the Republicans in Pennsylvania wanted to stop the certification process or whatever process, you know, just freeze everything basically.
Injunction.
Then they wanted to sue.
Now, SCOTUS has said they're not going to provide injunctive relief.
And many people on the right, many Trump supporters, are now saying, well, that just means the suit is still pending.
They'll still hear it on the merits.
They're just not going to provide emergency injunctive relief.
Now, I will throw it back to the conversation I had with Will last night where he said, if they're not going to provide emergency injunctive relief, And this does get heard later on, but they've already certified and counted the votes.
Then what relief could the Supreme Court possibly grant?
Maybe they just say, OK, in the future, you know, in the future, you can't use these mail-in voting without a constitutional amendment because it violates the Electors Clause or something to that effect.
Sure, but that means it probably won't have a big impact on the election now.
Well, Trump has responded by saying, this was not my case, as has been so incorrectly
reported.
The case that everyone has been waiting for is the state's case with Texas and numerous
others joining.
It is very strong.
All criteria met.
How can you have a presidency when a vast majority think the election was rigged?
Now that's a good point from Trump, but let me let me let me let me slow down for a second.
No other states are not joining in.
Technically, they are, in the capacity they can.
So, you know what?
Okay, let's not play any games.
A bunch of other states have announced they will be supporting Texas in this lawsuit.
And this is significant, and this is very serious.
But as of right now, there's no legal joining of that suit.
I'm not sure if that matters, because I think the people who bring it up are just saying all of these AGs are voicing their support for the suit, and that's what matters.
But, you know, Throwing it back to Will, who's a lawyer, last night.
He basically said, the amount of people, you know, the amount of individuals party to the lawsuit doesn't change the merits of the lawsuit.
But it does create a very, very interesting problem.
If we have, I believe it's being reported now, there are eight states who have voiced support.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry, there are seven states that have voiced support for taxes, creating eight states that are moving in this direction.
If the Supreme Court Refuses to hear the case from Texas.
Refuses to grant, I guess, you know, leave.
Allowing them to file the complaint and then refuses to hear it.
What do you think that means to the 74 million Republicans, Trump voters, who are watching this play out and then being told the Supreme Court cares not for your complaints.
We won't even hear them.
I think that shatters everything.
You have eight states right now expressing concern, okay?
And I say states, but officials within these states for the most part, expressing their concern over how the election played out.
Long story short, in places like Pennsylvania, the courts and the governors and the secretaries of state changed the rules as to how electors would be chosen in violation of The Elector's Clause.
That the state legislature is ultimately the one who decides.
Texas is not happy about it.
It sounds like, and I think it's fair to say, I'm watching them break the rules to win an advantage in Senate decisions.
That's what Texas is saying.
We're looking at, with the Georgia runoff race, a 50-50 split if Democrats win, in which case the vice presidency is extremely important, and that's where Texas says they have standing.
Here's the actual latest news, because I know a lot of people are saying all these states are joining, and here's the latest news.
Alabama and Louisiana AGs want to join Texas' election lawsuit against battleground states.
There are a few more states, but this is what I have so far, and then I'm going to show you where the Trump supporters are at.
The attorneys general of Alabama and Louisiana have expressed interest in possibly joining a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to have the Supreme Court invalidate election results in four key battleground states, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
The suit seeks to have each state's lawmakers decide their electors rather than having the electors reflect the will of their voting citizens.
Technically, that's not true.
You see how Newsweek tries to play these framing games?
What Texas is saying The legislature has the ultimate right to appoint electors, but there's been undue interference—illegal, essentially, unconstitutional—by other parties in the state.
The electors should not reflect the will of the governor.
They should reflect the will of the state legislature.
That's the argument.
Now, you can say the election was free and fair, whatever you want to say.
That's not the point Texas is making.
Okay?
You can argue they're wrong.
It's fine.
Quote, the unconstitutional actions and fraudulent votes in other states not only affect the citizens of those states, they affect the citizens of all states of the entire United States.
Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement published Tuesday on Twitter, He pledged to join Paxton's case if the Supreme Court takes it up.
So this is big.
In a separate statement, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry wrote,
some states appear to have conducted their elections with a disregard to the U.S. Constitution.
Furthermore, many Louisianians have become more frustrated as some in media and the political
class try to sidestep legitimate issues for the sake of expediency.
I completely agree with that.
That's what the media is doing.
Admit it.
Joe Biden is president-elect.
Technically, based on media projections.
Legally, not until January 6th.
Landry claims that because the Constitution leaves the power of deciding the time, place, and manner of holding elections to state legislatures, the four aforementioned battleground states made changes to their elections to prevent further spread of ongoing COVID-19 pandemic without passing these changes through the legislature.
Thus, Paxton's suit claims the changes were unconstitutional And the state's election results should be invalidated.
Louisiana citizens are damaged if elections in other states were conducted outside the confines of the Constitution while we obeyed the rules.
That is basically what Texas said as well.
The legislatures of the four battleground states named in Paxton's lawsuits are all Republican-led.
Thus, If the legislatures were allowed to choose who to cast their electoral ballots for, it's conceivable they might choose to cast their electoral ballots for Trump, the Republican incumbent.
Or they could say, we abstain because of the conflict.
And then nobody gets 270, contingent election, Trump wins.
You see the play?
Georgia has 16 electoral votes, Michigan has 16, Pennsylvania has 20, and Wisconsin has 10.
The combined total of 62, if taken from President-elect Joe Biden's current total of 306, and applied to Trump's current total of 232, that would give Trump 294 electoral votes, and effectively hand him the presidency, despite losing the popular vote by over 7 million votes.
Yeah, welcome to the Civil War, ladies and gentlemen.
However, this scenario would require the Supreme Court to take up Paxton's case, something that their recent rulings have suggested they're not eager to do.
On Tuesday, the court rejected an effort by Pennsylvania Republicans to invalidate Pennsylvania's popular votes and let the state legislature choose its electors.
Well, they denied injunctive relief, but I think it's fair to point out, again, if they're going to deny the emergency injunctive relief, what could the Republicans win, even if they do hear the case?
Because by the time the case is actually brought up and ruled on, it may be too late.
Maybe not.
Honestly, at this point, I don't think any of these deadlines in the Constitution matter because no one seems to think they do either.
And that's kind of a freaky thing, I guess.
But, I mean, think about it this way.
If we get to January 6th, and then evidence comes out like, I don't know, China printed fake ballots or something ridiculous, like something really shocking and absurd, Then are we just gonna sit here and be like, well, you know, the rules are the rules.
It reminds me of that Simpsons episode.
You ever watch Treehouse of Horror, like way back in the day, where Kang and Kodos, the two aliens run for president as Bob Dole and Bill Clinton.
And then in the end, when it's revealed that both candidates are aliens, they're, you know, one guy's like, I believe I'll vote third party.
And they're like, go ahead, throw your vote away.
I bring that up because it's like, the joke was, even though they knew they were going to be walking into supporting an invading force, They're like, well I guess we have to do it.
No, I don't think that's how things would play out.
If it turns out that we have substantial evidence of some kind of craziness, shenanigans, foreign interference, like legit hard evidence, then come January 19th, even, there will probably be some, like, serious overhaul.
Like, could you imagine on January 20th, As Joe Biden, like, gets ready to put his hand on the Bible, like, hard documents and proof and witnesses and just irrefutable evidence comes out that he is working, you know, compromised by China or whatever, they'd just be like, nah, it's not, we're not, we're not doing this.
Something to that effect.
I can't imagine everyone would be like, oh no, now we have to swear in this guy who we know is doing something wrong.
I'm not saying Joe Biden literally has, there's also evidence against him, although I personally think the Biden family is compromised because We've heard it from his business associates.
We've heard it from a Chinese professor who's had in a video that they basically are.
And Joe Biden flew his son on Air Force Two to China.
But I digress.
Let's get back to the news about the Supreme Court.
Long story short, I don't think it matters what these deadlines are.
I think it matters the American people will decide.
And if that's the case, it means Trump needs as much legitimacy as possible.
They say, the Attorney Generals of the four battleground states mentioned in Paxton lawsuits condemned his legal filing as anti-democratic and without merit.
Absent any action by the Supreme Court, the Electoral College's electors are set to meet on December 14th to cast their final votes.
After that, the final vote count will be approved by the U.S.
Congress on January 6th, the last formal step to finalize the election results before Inauguration Day.
On January 20th.
Okay, so they're going to mention we've got Alabama, Louisiana, Texas.
All right, we've got Arkansas as well.
A.G.
Rutledge statement on recent Texas motion before U.S.
Arkansas and Americans across the country have real concerns about the lack of integrity in our federal elections this year.
After reviewing the motion filed by Texas in the U.S.
Supreme Court, I have determined that I will support the motion by the state of Texas in all legally appropriate manners.
The integrity of our elections is a critical part of our nation and must be upheld.
Attorney General Leslie Rutledge.
We also have Eric Schmidt of Missouri saying, So, there's a bunch of others.
Let me pull up Ali on Twitter.
He said, seven states have now joined the lawsuit.
That's not correct.
the effort in support of Texas SCOTUS filing today.
Missouri is in the fight. So there's a bunch of others. Let me pull up Ali on Twitter. He said
seven states have now joined the lawsuit.
That's not correct. He did correct this. But Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky,
Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota, he says he goes on to say in the end, I got ahead
of myself.
Keep making those phone calls working.
Big news will be public soon.
What is before the court is a motion for leave.
There is no procedural vehicle to join yet.
If slash when the court takes it up, more states are ready to intervene.
In the meantime, Amici is coming.
So I'm not, I can't tell you exactly what that means, but let's do this.
Let's just go to thedonald.win.
If you're not familiar, thedonald.win is quickly becoming one of the most prominent political websites in the country.
I'm not even exaggerating.
Their Alexa rankings are through the roof as Trump supporters flock to this location to get access to information.
And I will tell you this, it is an absolute Echo Chamber.
But I will also add, something really funny happened the other day.
I woke up, and this is when we got news about Texas filing the case, filing the lawsuit essentially, or permission for leave to file the complaint in the first place.
It was only Breitbart that reported it, and there was nothing on the website from Breitbart.
It was like, taxes file suit, and there was nothing there.
And so I reached out to Breitbart, and I was like, do you have the filing?
Because I can't find this story anywhere.
And so I need, like, whenever I, you know, cover something of this significance, I want the evidence, okay?
So I reached out to Breitbart, asked them if they had the filing available, and they published the filing to the website.
I was then able to read it and say, there we go.
I brought this up when I did my video because I was like, the only people reporting this are Breitbart, and that's kind of crazy.
Something funny happened, the Donald.Win people mentioned, that people on Reddit, r slash politics, which is far left, were like, how come only Breitbart is reporting this?
Shocked they didn't realize the mainstream media has been lying to them and covering up these stories.
They don't get it.
How insane is it?
I wake up in the morning and no one has covered possibly the biggest story in the election so far.
That's crazy.
And it wasn't for several hours until many of these different outlets started picking the story up because people noticed what was happening.
I bring that up because when you go to TheDonald.Win, they would show you that that was happening.
And so they may be hardcore Trump supporters biased in an echo chamber, but you need to be able to, you need to balance your news consumption diet.
If you're on Reddit going to r slash politics thinking you're getting a healthy view of what's going on, you are not.
You are getting leftist echo chamber propaganda.
And if you go to the Donald thinking you're getting the real truth, well, to be fair, you're probably getting a better view of what's going on than the politics people, but you're still in a hyper-partisan biased echo chamber.
That's why what you do is you read both.
To be fair, though.
I lean towards, uh, look, you go to the Donald, you're more likely to find underdogs who are challenging the mainstream narrative and often fact-checking a lot of what they say, and that's the reality.
To be, uh, reasonable, as I have to try to be, you will also get, you know, kind of silly, hyper-partisan comments and things like that.
But take a look at this.
On the Donald dot win, this is a massive Trump supporter community, they straight up say, massive disinformation effort on the Donald win ongoing.
They are correcting the record.
Look at what they do.
One, no other state has joined the Texas lawsuit.
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Missouri AGs have released statements appreciating or supporting the lawsuit, but no state has yet joined the lawsuit.
This could change, but for now, none has.
SCOTUS HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE TEXAS CASE.
THE CASE HAS BEEN DOCKETED, JUST LIKE THE PA CASE HAS BEEN DOCKETED.
SCOTUS HAS YET TO DECIDE IF THEY WILL HEAR THE CASE.
WHILE I DO EXPECT THEM TO, THEY HAVEN'T DONE SO YET.
SCOTUS HAS NOT REJECTED THE MIKE KELLY PA LAWSUIT.
JENNA ELLIS SAYS, THE SUPREME COURT ONLY DENIED EMERGENCY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IN THE ORDER.
It did not deny cert.
Mike Kelly PA suit is still pending before the US Supreme Court.
This means the merits of the case have not been rejected.
And the case not only is still active, but can also be merged with the Texas case.
It can also not be.
And the Texas case can be independent.
No certainties here.
Well, again, I had Will on and he's a lawyer.
That makes no sense.
That was his opinion when we were talking about this.
So I'm not a lawyer.
I can't tell you exactly what to expect from this.
But I can tell you, you go to thedonald.win, they're going to issue corrections.
They're going to say it's not this craziness that's going on.
But they also are very much into the Dominion voting stuff, in my opinion.
You may be familiar with the hammer and scorecard and Dominion voting machine stuff.
That was one of the worst things to ever happen to Trump during this cycle.
I'm sorry, I'll put it this way.
In this month, this past month or so, where Trump is fighting to win in the courts, the worst possible thing that could have happened to him was his supporters, was Sidney Powell and Lin Wood, pushing all this Dominion voting stuff.
I don't know if Lin Wood was, but Sidney Powell and his supporters were.
I'll tell you why.
Trump needs legitimacy.
In this fight, Trump needs to convince people to hear him out.
It's the most important thing.
If I've got hard evidence, I've got the murder weapon, I'm playing Clue, right?
We know who did it!
But if you start telling people there's this big, grandiose conspiracy originating with this Venezuelan company that was then, you know, run through these shell companies and now there's a grand conspiracy, it's called the Kraken, Trump loses legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
I know.
Many Trump supporters don't want to hear it.
They're absolutely convinced it's true, and that's fine if you are, but you can't go to a regular person and say, Dominion voting machines, blah, blah, blah, and hammer and scorecard, because they're going to be like, you sound crazy!
Absolutely crazy.
Let's stop and think.
What would happen if you went to someone and said, did you hear what's going on with this lawsuit with Texas?
Apparently, like in the Constitution, it says the state legislatures are the ones who get to decide.
And so Texas is suing because the other states changed voting rules.
Without going through the legislature.
That's crazy.
That's a provable fact and a real argument.
Now, from there, if you want to start introducing people to other bits of evidence and other big stories, you can.
But Trump needs legitimacy.
He's not getting it when you yell that there's an international conspiracy by, you know, China or Iran or whatever to alter votes and that Joe Biden's in on it.
I got no problem saying that I think Joe Biden's compromised.
I think through his son.
That's fine.
We heard the same thing about Russia, so I don't think anyone else should have a problem with it either.
Of course, they probably will.
But there's evidence behind that.
And I understand that going to someone and telling them that, they're going to be like, what?
That's a huge leap for a normie who doesn't know what's going on.
Trump needs people to make phone calls.
He needs people to come out and make demands.
And if they think it's some crazy crackbot, you know, the moon landing never happened kind of conspiracy nonsense, they won't do it.
Regular people don't know about this.
That's why it was bad news.
But I want to wrap up with something.
And I think this will segue into a segment for later.
But let me ask you something.
Let me just gloat here for a second.
Remember how Tim Pool was all like, you know, Civil War and, you know, all that stuff.
And then people were like, it's never going to happen.
And then John Podesta suggested Joe Biden should encourage the West Coast to secede from the Union.
And everyone said it's still not going to happen.
And they said, when's it going to happen, Tim?
Why don't you talk about it?
I have a lot of people saying that since the election, Tim, you haven't talked about Civil War.
Yes, I have.
First, we are in fifth-generational warfare.
Information war.
If you want to gain control of resources, you need to control people.
And you don't do that with force these days.
You can.
But these days, it's information war.
Propaganda and manipulation.
It's why the media is lying about everything, and it's why there's hardcore Trump-supporting communities.
This is the battleground of our political civil war.
I'll give you one simple example.
Judge Sullivan and Michael Flynn.
I know maybe you're not super familiar with it, maybe a little bit esoteric, hard to follow.
Michael Flynn was coerced into pleading guilty to something that made literally no sense, lying to the FBI even though he wasn't under a formal investigation and it was an informal conversation.
They threatened his family if he didn't plead guilty, so he did.
When Bill Barr came in, when Trump finally got past the Russiagate stuff, They tried to dismiss the case.
The DOJ did.
Bill Barr said, we're going to get rid of this.
Judge Sullivan said, no.
Whoa.
Wasn't that weird?
That is political civil war.
When you have a former national security advisor for Trump, the acting national security advisor, I believe he actually was at one point.
They're trying to put him in prison and he was, he's a general.
Let me just stop and explain something very, very simply and break everything down.
One side, one faction, was trying to put a former general in prison.
One side was trying to keep him out.
You see what this is?
They're trying to lock someone up, and it was completely arbitrary why they were trying to do it.
This is fifth-generational warfare.
Convincing you Trump had done something wrong, while locking up someone who dared oppose the establishment elites.
My understanding is that Michael Flynn kind of ratted out Obama for supplying resources to really awful groups in the Middle East.
I'll put it that way.
Terror groups.
And so they went after him.
And Trump defended him.
That's political civil war.
But let me slow down for y'all.
And I think we're going to do a bigger segment on this later today.
When you have right now officially one state filing suit and four more joining, and now there's rumors that many more states will join as soon as the Supreme Court accepts this, what happens when you have 20 states challenging the presidential election?
We've got fighting in the streets.
We've got a Supreme Court battles over the election.
You've got many states lining up against other states.
What happens if Texas files suit and the Supreme Court says, we accept it, let's hear it.
And then all of a sudden a wave of more states come in and say, we're joining the suit.
And then what happens when a bunch of other states join, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia, and say, we're defending, we're joining them.
Or they'll file amicus briefs or whatever, however it works, in defense of, or rejecting, or fighting back, or even suing these other states.
Political civil war.
I am not saying that Texas is going to send in the National Guard to other states.
I'm saying the states are lining up against each other in fifth generational warfare.
Now, final thought on this.
Last night, Will Chamberlain told me that he didn't think the Supreme Court would take this up because possibly, you know, they wouldn't want to open the door to this kind of serious state against state tensions and battle.
And I said, if you have eight states that are demanding to be heard, and 74 million people who are lined up behind them, and the Supreme Court says, we refuse to hear what you have to say, you have just disenfranchised those states, and that could be substantially worse.
People want to be heard.
They want their complaints heard.
And if you tell them no, they'll feel powerless, and then they'll say, then why bother?
But if you hear them out, even if they lose, at least they'll feel they had their chance.
We'll see.
Stick around, next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I will see you all then.
Now, she didn't go as far as to direct a specific act, but I think we understand what this is.
It's a threat and likely a threat of violence.
It's the only way I can really interpret it.
But of course, it is vague enough to where it didn't get her banned on social media, as far as I can tell.
This is another escalation in the ongoing conflict between the warring tribes in this country and, in my opinion, another sign that we are headed towards some kind of major conflict.
Call it a civil war, call it what you will.
A lot of people have told me, Tim, there will never be a civil war.
Bill Maher put out a segment where he said, the Mason-Dixon line would go through Nana's living room.
It can't happen.
There's no dividing line between states.
Not that I think you need a dividing line between states for there to be a civil war.
But hey, have y'all been paying attention to the fact that Texas is trying to sue several other states in this federal election, and now I believe five or so other states have expressed their intent to join the lawsuit, although it may be more than that.
We actually have about five states that have straight up said, we are going to throw our full weight behind this.
It doesn't mean it will happen.
It does mean that we are getting closer and closer to whatever it is you want to call it.
When a Democratic elected of a Democrat elected official says, make them pay.
When a Trump lawyer says Chris Grebs, a cybersecurity official, should be drawn out and shot.
Don't you realize where we're headed?
Now, recently, YouTube announced this policy change where they're going to delete videos, ban videos, if you claim that Trump lost the election due to widespread voter fraud or error.
That is going to purge many large, right-wing channels with massive followings.
The CEO of Axios, a news organization, said that the two Americas are going to decouple.
And that's it.
I think we're starting to see it.
When YouTube comes out and says, for four years, you can scream that our elections were stolen because of Russia, that they hacked the election, they changed the rules, or whatever.
They flipped votes.
That's fine!
But now Trump supporters have a complaint, and they say, shut your mouth.
When you see calls for direct violence, you start to realize that things are getting spicy, to say the least.
Now, when we see a handful of states starting to line up in a lawsuit against other states, you can see that the red and blue states are preparing for some kind of legal fight.
But recently, the Arizona GOP, Republican Party Twitter account, retweeted a tweet that was asking people if they were ready to die in this fight, and now the media is running with it.
Are you ready to give up your life for Donald Trump?
That's how extreme things have gotten.
And let me just put out a warning to everybody who thinks they're going to enjoy this, they want something like this to happen.
You will not enjoy it.
I certainly think many on the right understand the severity of what this means when people say these things.
But I also think that people on the left, many of them, don't realize they're not going to be able to handle this.
I think the right would be more equipped to handle this.
But take a look at how the lines of communication are being severed.
It's the right that is suffering the most in terms of censorship.
Now this woman, this Democratic lawmaker, who issued this statement to make them pay, she didn't just randomly say it.
She said it because she says she received an email, and I believe voicemails, threatening her directly saying that her time would come, there have been threats that these politicians would hang in the gallows, and so it's a tit-for-tat at this point.
It's going back and forth.
Look, I don't know what you believe or what you want to believe.
You're entitled to believe it.
But I can tell you, none of it matters as to who's right or wrong.
Now, certainly you might think your side is right, and that's why it matters to you, and that's fine.
What matters is that both sides think they're right, and both sides are gearing up for a fight in some capacity.
I don't know if it just ends here, and maybe it does, but let me just say this before we get into everything, and I'm going to go through a lot of stuff.
Two years ago, when I said I felt like we were heading towards a civil war, people said that's ridiculous.
It's just Antifa fighting the Proud Boys.
Okay, now we're at the point where several states are lining up in lawsuits against other states.
Calls for violence have escalated to an extreme degree.
Can you now say that we're dangerously close to whatever that might be?
I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen.
I'm just saying we're closer than we were two years ago, at the very least.
I predicted that, I guess.
Well, let me do this.
We have a lot going on.
Autonomous zones.
We've got the states lining up against other states.
We've got calls for martial law.
Let's read what this Michigan Democratic lawmaker said and why, and then I'm going to show you just how serious things are getting.
Before we get started, head over to timcast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
There are many ways you can give.
I've got a P.O.
box if you want to send me some stuff, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
Let people know what's going on.
Maybe you think that you agree with what I'm saying, or at least you think people should hear an opposing opinion.
Please consider sharing this video to support the channel.
Don't forget to like, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
A Detroit, Michigan lawmaker appeared to threaten supporters of President Donald Trump during a Tuesday livestream, coming after she published a series of racist voicemails she had received, with people calling her things such as the n-word and some saying she should be lynched.
In the 38-second video clip from her Facebook Live session, state rep Cynthia Johnson urges her supporters, whom she referred to as soldiers, to make them pay, and them referring to Trump supporters, saying, quote, So this is just a warning to you Trumpers.
Be careful.
Walk lightly.
We ain't playing with you.
Enough of the shenanigans.
Enough is enough.
And for those of you who are soldiers, you know how to do it.
Do it right.
Be in order.
Make them pay.
In the video she also said, I wish I could be talking to y'all in a private room because, uh, I wish I could but we're public so...
Johnson has yet to publicly address her remarks.
I do believe she issued a statement later saying she was talking about soldiers of Christ and talking about a more religious, you know, connotation in her statement.
I'm not entirely convinced that's what she meant.
Now, as to the voicemails she published of people saying horrifying and awful things to her, I absolutely condemn all of them.
I think all of us should.
That's abhorrent and ridiculous, and that's why she said what she said.
I don't think she should have said it.
This shows you the problem of escalation, because people refuse to back down.
She gets voicemails saying horrible things, so she says, She redirects the anger from a small handful of people towards everyone.
And that's one thing I want to make sure people don't do with this.
This is one lady.
This is one state Democrat who is saying this.
It doesn't mean all Democrats.
But again, I'm not here to say that either side is right or wrong.
I'm here to point out both sides, whether you think you're right or wrong is not the point, feel adamant that they are, and they're refusing to back down, and they're calling out those who would threaten them.
When a Democratic state lawmaker says Trumpers and points her threat at every Trump supporter, I'm not going to be surprised when they respond and say, this is a Democratic party, this is an individual who represents them, she needs to resign or be booted, otherwise it absolutely does represent the rest of the party.
I don't think what she saw represented Trump supporters, but she went after him anyway.
And I don't think what she's saying represents all of the Democratic Party.
But I don't know how you stop the sentiment, right?
When people feel like they're being targeted, they're going to respond in kind.
Take a look at this story from CNN.
Trump attorney issues call for violence against truth-telling former election cybersecurity official.
Now, I'm not interested at all in CNN's silly framing.
Truth-telling?
Are you kidding me?
This is part of the problem.
CNN very clearly is a part of an ideological tribe.
The truth-telling former official.
Sure.
Now, let's read what happened, and of course I condemn these threats as well.
An attorney for the Trump campaign on Monday issued a call for violence against Chris Krebs, a former cybersecurity official who was unceremoniously ousted from his post by Donald Trump after he rejected the president's unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud.
Doe DeGenova.
The attorney for Trump's campaign said during an appearance on the Howie Carr show, quote,
anybody who thinks the election went well, like that idiot Krebs, who used to be the head of
cybersecurity, that guy is a class A moron. He should be drawn and quartered, taken out at dawn
and shot. A day later, DeGenova tried to walk back his remarks by portraying them as a joke.
For anyone listening to the Howie Carr show, it was obvious that my remarks were sarcastic
and made in jest.
I, of course, wish Mr. Krebs no harm.
This was hyperbole in a political discourse, DeGenova said Tuesday in a statement distributed by the Trump campaign.
Of course, that's what we often hear.
Someone will say something and they'll say, I didn't mean it like that!
Or maybe, just like this Democratic state lawmaker who tried walking it back, saying, no, no, no, no, I just meant Soldiers of Christ.
People are going to hear you say these things.
And people are going to listen.
Now, I'm not saying it's his fault if someone goes and does something, because he didn't say, go do it.
That lady in Michigan literally said, you know, make them pay, it's a call to action.
But the escalation, it exists.
This is a crazy story right here.
Arizona GOP asks followers if they're willing to die in effort to overturn election results.
AZCentral reports, the party's official Twitter account on Monday night shared a post from Ali Alexander, an activist with an organization called Stop the Steal that has protested election results.
Quote, I am willing to give my life for this fight, Alexander wrote.
When sharing his comment, the GOP asked followers, he is, are you?
The party then posted a clip from the movie Rambo, highlighting the quote, A handful of users replied.
They were indeed willing to give their lives to the cause, but the majority of respondents, which included voters, lawmakers, and pundits, decried the post as the latest escalation in violent rhetoric this campaign season.
It's not something that only I'm noticing.
And I'm pointing it out not because I want it to happen, quite the opposite.
I want people to chill out and stop saying these things.
Don't blanket every Trump supporter because you got a few bad voicemails that were ridiculous and disgusting.
And don't blanket every Democrat because one Democrat lady said something insane and stupid.
I don't think it matters.
I think people are going to say, you don't understand.
This is an existential threat.
I understand.
I do.
I think in my personal opinion, Joe Biden is compromised.
They said that Donald Trump was compromised by Russia for a long time, but we didn't have The Hunter Biden emails, the Hunter Biden report, and a former associate saying this is happening.
And yes, he's compromised.
That's how extreme things have gotten.
Now, that's just my opinion.
And I'm not entirely sure exactly what that means for Joe Biden.
But I do know that people have already started saying this.
Reuters reported Trump supporters said they're ready for action.
They've got weapons and those guns are getting polished and ready to go.
Lubricated and stuff.
We've heard that people are willing to take up arms to defend Donald Trump, and now we see the bias, the extreme bias.
So, you know, look, I had a conversation with someone at Google.
I was following up on what was going on and asking for, you know, what's happening, clarify these things for me.
Doing journalism, you know?
I tweeted about it.
And, you know, I told them, listen, I don't know why YouTube is saying that Trump supporters aren't allowed to talk about widespread fraud and this or that, but I'll tell you the one thing it's going to do is it's going to inflame tensions and make everyone go nuts.
Because for years, the left has said Russia stole the election.
They interfered.
They even flipped votes.
YouTube does nothing.
Now they're saying Trump supporters better not say it.
Well, these people are getting fed up with not being heard and being suppressed and oppressed.
And yes, they are.
And they're going to snap, especially when you see things like this.
Of course, they're going to say that they're willing to die for this fight.
One person said recently, in a chat on my other podcast, the IRL podcast, they said that they refused to allow a president who was compromised by China to be in office.
Well, the left said that Trump was compromised by Russia, but the left didn't really do anything other than, I guess, riot and cause legal problems.
It's entirely possible Republicans do the same thing.
It's entirely possible that this doesn't go anywhere!
But let me tell you how I feel, okay?
You wanna know how I feel?
I've been talking about the possibility of civil war for a long time.
Why?
Because the Atlantic, I think it was the Atlantic, or it was New Yorker, I mix them up, ran a story that said the probability of a civil war in this country in the next 10 years was 35%.
It was because they asked a bunch of national security experts and international security researchers, and they published the story.
Maybe they're wrong, but I saw that and I was like, wow!
With the fighting between, you know, the factions in the streets, now we've got a Trump supporter who was stalked and killed in Portland, and the other guy in Denver got shot in the face.
It seems like the violence is absolutely there.
They're setting up a new autonomous zone in Portland.
It seems like the potential for clashes and violence, it's coming.
Especially as the government issues these draconian lockdowns, and then the police are losing support from even conservatives.
It feels like it's all coming.
Then I saw Well, I saw the latest.
Calls for martial law and U.S.
military oversight of new presidential election draws criticism.
You want to tell me that it's absurd to think a civil war is possible?
I'll agree with you!
Normalcy bias, optimism bias, it can't happen here, right?
But I can't deny what's literally happening.
So when I talked about this years ago and people said, you're dumb, stop talking about it, or all these lefties posted memes saying I was stupid for talking about it, it's only escalated in that direction to a more extreme degree.
We have these lockdowns.
Resistance Democrats, Mainstream Moderate Corporate Dems, whatever you want to call them.
They call them, I guess, default liberal.
They don't really know a whole lot about news, but they love Joe Biden.
They hate Trump.
Supporting lockdowns.
Supporting violations of our constitutional rights.
And that's going to lead to a lot of people saying no to the government.
You have the far left going around rioting and smashing things and destroying small businesses at a time when people are already under extreme duress and the violence is escalating.
Now we have calls for martial law.
Come on.
What do you think would happen if Trump actually did that?
Now, he probably won't.
That's my normalcy bias, optimism bias.
It can't happen here, right?
Well, the other things weren't supposed to happen here either, and they did.
Okay?
A mass lockdown of our economy is not supposed to happen here, and then it did.
I remember that day, and I'm watching the news, and Trump comes out and says we're banning travel to Europe, and I was like, wow.
Never expected anything like that in my lifetime.
It can't happen here, they said.
The pandemic happened.
It's been a hundred years.
Well, we've seen other things like that, you know, in terms of restrictions, but we've all just grown complacent thinking it can't happen.
Now, there are legitimate calls for military oversight and light martial law by prominent individuals.
Notably, Michael Flynn published a tweet linking to this group who said Trump should declare martial law just like Abraham Lincoln did.
And you say it can't happen here.
I say to you, it can happen here.
As much as I don't want to believe it would or could, it can.
I don't know the probability that it will, but people are literally calling for it right now.
From the American prospect, prosecuting Trump is the only way to heal the nation.
Letting him off the hook for multiple crimes would reinforce Trump's own contempt for the rule of law.
Amazing.
Remember when Trump had his crowd chanting, lock her up, in reference to Hillary Clinton?
And on the debate stage, he said, you'd be in jail to her when mentioning, you know, if he was president.
He said, well, you'd be in jail.
The media and the left screamed, saying, we can't talk about jailing our political rivals.
This is crazy.
Now they're saying we have to jail Donald Trump.
It's the only way to heal the nation.
What do you think would happen if Donald Trump, on January 21st, normal guy, gets arrested?
Some state attorneys general start prosecuting, making claims because they have Trump derangement syndrome, and they arrest Donald Trump.
It's the only way to heal the nation, of course.
Do you think Trump supporters are gonna sit back and be like, well, he's our favorite guy who fought for us, but we're gonna do nothing?
Or do you think people are going to snap and lose it?
Yeah, I think if they arrested Trump, it would be an instant civil war.
I think if Trump declared martial law, it'd be an instant civil war.
And quite honestly, I'm not too confident about what happens on the 14th, the 6th, and the 20th, because I know that there are people who are snapping like crazy.
I mean, I tell you, the stuff that's happening in this country is freaking out a lot of people.
Now, it could be we're hyper-political.
But I don't think that's disqualifying.
We have a state rep, a Democrat, saying, make them pay.
We have this Trump lawyer saying, drawn and quartered, you know, dragged out and shot.
We have states lining up against each other.
Mississippi joins Texas election lawsuit from WTOK.com, a NewsGuard certified local news outlet with a 92.5 out of 100 score, definitively saying that Mississippi has joined the Texas election lawsuit.
The state of Mississippi has joined a lawsuit filed by Texas against several other states on the grounds those states made unconstitutional changes to 2020 election laws.
I'm sure you know most of the story for the most part.
We also have Alabama and Louisiana, Arkansas has also issued a statement, and I believe many other states, South Carolina, South Dakota, what am I forgetting, um, I think Mississippi as well, have issued statements in support.
Now I believe this local news outlet is incorrect.
I don't think Mississippi has joined the lawsuit, because right now Texas has requested leave, meaning they want permission to file this claim.
Supreme Court could say no outright.
Let me tell you what happens, in just my opinion.
There's a few parent tree possibilities before we can look at all the other variables.
Supreme Court says, no.
Conservatives roll over and say, oh well.
Or, with eight states expressing discontent, Supreme Court says, no, we won't listen to you.
And then all of these Trump-supporting conservatives say, we've seen the evidence.
We are angry.
Our voice is not being heard.
And the Supreme Court is refusing to even listen to us?
Enough.
And they snap.
Or, maybe the Supreme Court does take the case, hears them out, and then says, we don't think the merits warrant overturning the election.
I think that's the safest way out of all of this, because then Trump supporters say, our voice was heard, we just didn't win in the courts.
They'll still be angry, tensions will still be high, but at least they were listened to.
It's also possible the Supreme Court takes the case, says, you know what, you're right, overturns it in favor of Trump, and then the left erupts into absolute psychosis.
And then I think we're headed towards, you know, we're headed in this direction that ultimately results in, I guess, some kind of conflict or civil war.
What you gotta understand about all this Civil War talk is that killing people is not the most effective way of winning a war.
It's not.
YouTube banning the ability of people to say that widespread voter fraud, you know, altered the outcome, banning the speech eliminates the idea in the long run.
That's why the left opposes free speech.
They're fighting a war.
Conservatives are just defending themselves.
This is the easiest way to put it.
Think about it.
If you're in an information war, and the best way to gain control of resources, a country, a government, the world, is by manipulating people into believing what you want, free speech is a problem.
YouTube restricts that speech to the best of their abilities, and so does many other social media platforms.
Conservatives say everybody has a right to speak!
Free speech must be defended!
And then they allow the left to say crazy things about Russiagate.
The left, on the other hand, says crazy things about Russia and Trump, but then calls for conservatives to shut up and to be banned.
And it works, for the most part.
There are many leftists who get banned as well, and there are many conservatives who don't get banned, but most of the censorship is on the side, it's targeting the conservatives and the right.
If you're in an information war, and the big tech companies control what is allowed to be said, then you've already lost, for the most part.
YouTube wants to excise any and all ideas that oppose the establishment machine.
The international players and compromised individuals like Joe Biden, whose son was... Joe Biden flew to China, government property, for his son's private equity deal with China.
I don't see how that's allowed.
That's absolutely insane to me.
But it happened.
And now that person is on track to be president.
Trump supporters reject this.
And they're being systematically and slowly excised from the conversation.
But I'll tell you the one thing that I think results in possibly things calming down.
Conservatives are frogs in a pot being boiled.
If YouTube came out all at once, Facebook, Twitter, and absolutely censored and banned anybody talking about Trump and Trump winning and all the prominent Trump supporters and even channels like mine, people would snap!
It would be a revolt!
But they've done it ever so slowly.
A couple years ago, I think it was.
It was a couple years ago, right?
Where they banned people like Paul Joseph Watson from Facebook.
And people like Alex Jones from YouTube.
To slowly get rid of these people, but just enough to where people would complain, but not really do anything else.
Now they say they've banned 8,000 more channels this year.
They've just enacted new rules.
The Conservatives are the frogs in the pot, slowly being brought to a boil, who aren't going to do anything because it's slow enough.
What they're doing is they'll make a change, Conservatives calm, get angry, but then slowly calm down.
Make a change, Conservatives get angry, and then slowly calm down.
They keep doing it.
Today was serious, with YouTube's rules against anybody who dares speak up about the election.
But is it enough to ignite fervor?
No, people will complain about it, then they'll slowly get accustomed to it, and then they'll give up.
And that's what's happening.
So it's entirely possible all of this just gets washed away as people finally lay down and say, I'm not mad anymore.
I give up.
There's one reason to believe that's not going to happen, and it's this, the Donaldot win.
You see, Republicans, I think, are being pushed too hard.
Trump supporters are being pushed too hard, and so they're not effectively boiling the frogs.
More importantly, the frogs are in the pot watching you turn the knob and increase the heat, and they're getting angrier and angrier about it.
The Donald.win is what I'm referring to.
It's a website where Trump supporters are able to gather and express their ideas and make sure these ideas do not get censored.
You also have BitChute, Minds.com, and places where people can express ideas without censorship.
This means that in the battle for ideas, fifth generational warfare, we're not going to see people killing each other in the streets for the most part.
We're going to see people trying to fight over control of infrastructure and information, financial institutions, etc.
Well, the establishment controls many of these.
The left controls the cultural institutions for the most part.
But now we can see that Donald.Win on Alexa.com is ranked 475 in the United States.
Of course, not the biggest website in the country.
I think websites like Reddit are infinitely more influential.
Reddit, I think, is ranked like number 20 or so.
And it's almost exclusively leftist.
They banned the Donald four months after the Donald left.
For BS reasons.
Now, there's still r-slash-conservative and r-slash-Trump that try to be like the Donald, but they're nowhere near as influential.
The Donald is creating a space where the ideas will not be stopped, and they are absolutely saying that widespread fraud exists and things like it.
The reason why this is significant?
If the Trump supporters have an organizing base, and they're sharing a shared narrative and they believe it, then the censorship on the left cannot stop them, and the propaganda and censorship will be ineffective.
Trump supporters can share ideas among themselves using alternative platforms, and they are.
And I think it's going to work out very well for them.
I don't know what the best thing for this country would be is.
I'm sure many in the establishment and the left think the most appropriate action would be silence these people, shut them down, so that they can't effectively organize or communicate.
And then, in a year, two years, three years, you have a mainstream, establishment, and acceptable conservative movement.
But that's what they've been doing.
They've been slowly eroding the right, calling conservatives far right, then centrists conservative, and the wheel keeps spinning.
The Overton window keeps shifting.
It's not about who's right, who's wrong.
It's about the fact that there are two factions, the left and the right.
The Trump supporters are not far right.
They're not fringe right.
They're just conservatives.
But the left is trying to excise them to pull the Overton window to the far left as much as possible.
Now, in the left bubble, they're claiming the opposite is true.
But it's not.
It really isn't.
I'm very clearly, by traditional standards in this country, left-leaning on many issues.
Yet they say I'm right-wing, or even trying to accuse me of being far-right in some scientific studies, or I shouldn't say scientific, research studies.
Clearly makes no sense.
Not true.
But that's what's happening.
They're pulling the Overton window as far left as possible, and then trying to compare the U.S.
to Europe.
I don't think people will just lay down and accept it.
So let me put it this way.
Trump supporters have their areas to organize.
And that's the most important thing.
Communication and organizational power.
It's substantially weaker than the left.
States have started to line up against each other.
It doesn't mean they'll continue.
It doesn't mean it'll escalate to 25 on 25 states.
It could be 20 states versus 30.
It could be 8 states versus 4.
But this is the biggest escalation we have seen in the past several years.
If I were to tell you, in 2018, when I said I fear there's a good possibility of civil war in this country, that in two years, eight states would be filing a lawsuit to challenge the election results to help Trump win, people would say, get outta here!
That's never gonna happen, nobody would believe that!
Eight states would file federal lawsuits to the Supreme Court saying they want the election overturned.
Never gonna happen.
That's ridiculous.
Here we are.
We're entering that place right now.
Again, Trump has filed for leave, meaning permission, and other states have supported this, but we're not at the point where the lawsuit's actually been filed.
It's just been docketed.
We'll see how it plays out.
What if I told you that, two years ago, I said, in 2020, there will be a handful of states issuing support for a lawsuit, and the Supreme Court will shoot them down and say we refuse to hear this, while 74 million people claim that there was a fraud in the election.
Or that polls came out showing that 80 plus percent of Republicans believe fraud affected the outcome of the election, and 30 percent of Democrats believe the same thing.
You'd say, get out of here.
No way.
It sounds like Russiagate nonsense.
Sure.
But it happened.
Maybe because of Russiagate, people would say, yeah, I certainly can believe it.
If Trump loses, they're going to claim all this crazy stuff.
But do you ever think we would see the states stepping up and filing these suits themselves?
You know, in Portland, during the Antifa stuff, the hundred-plus days of rioting, the Attorney General in Oregon sued the federal government to reject their ability to enforce the law.
And I said, this sounds like how the Civil War starts.
One state defying the federal government and many other states joining in.
Well, now the right is doing the same thing.
It's not the first time the states have challenged federal authority.
And the last time was only, what, four or five months ago?
It could all end here.
That's what I'm saying.
I have no idea.
What bothers me, though, is it seems to be escalating.
Maybe this will be the end of it.
Maybe, you know, I thought it could have ended a while ago.
But it's just getting worse.
I know, cue the memes, Tim Pool talks about potential for a civil war, but let me just stress as I wrap this up.
Fifth generational warfare.
Okay?
Just Google it, look it up.
I've talked about it before.
It means that it is more effective to manipulate people to control them through propaganda than it is to actually force them at gunpoint.
In the information age, war is based on what people think, what they're allowed to think, and what they know.
And I feel like we're going through it right now, and it's not just Civil War, it's almost World War III.
Fighting for control and influence using ideas and propaganda.
It's better than chemical weapons and getting shot, I'll say that.
But we're in it.
We're absolutely in it.
There absolutely is a fight for control.
People are going to prison.
Donald Trump got elected, and then they went after him with these ridiculous claims of Russia, and then arrested a bunch of the people who worked for him to destroy his chance of being president.
Hopefully that's all it is, but I don't think that's all it will be.
I'll leave it there.
Stick around for the next show coming up for the TimCastIRL podcast tonight at 8 p.m.
We'll be live, YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
I'll be talking with a progressive, a political candidate, and it'll be an interesting conversation.
So again, YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Maybe some of this stuff will come up.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all tonight at 8 p.m.
YouTube has just announced that if you claim widespread fraud or error changed the outcome of the 2020 election, your content will be removed.
Naturally, on Twitter, this is blowing up.
People are calling it draconian despotic.
I agree with these things.
But let me just first start by saying in no uncertain terms, I do not believe widespread voter fraud or irregularity changed the outcome of the election.
Is it possible?
Sure.
Has it been proven?
No.
Does evidence of fraud exist?
Yes.
Does evidence of widespread fraud exist?
Yes.
To what degree is widespread?
That's an opinion.
It's up for you to decide.
Does error and impropriety exist?
Yes.
Is it enough to have changed the outcome of the election?
That, I do not believe so at this point because no one's presented me enough evidence to make that claim.
I also want to make sure people realize, this is insane and draconian what YouTube is doing.
People are entitled to their opinions based on how they assess information.
But I also want you to realize, just hold on a minute and hear me out.
I believe what YouTube is doing is going to help Donald Trump.
I really do mean it.
I don't think it's going to help him as much as he might want.
I think YouTube is wrong.
I think their legal assessment is wrong.
I think they're despotic and authoritarian.
But I think Trump needs legitimacy to overturn the election.
I can already hear the Trump supporters saying, we're not overturning anything.
That's what they've claimed.
Because they're saying that, you know, they actually won.
Well, Donald Trump actually himself tweeted overturn.
OK, sure.
I don't know what that means other than overturn the election.
Fine.
But listen, I'm going to read this for you.
I'm going to break down what's going on.
They sent me an email.
I'm going to debunk some of what they say.
We're going to challenge Section 230.
But let me just tell you right off the bat, I believe this does help Donald Trump.
There are certain things that could help him build support.
Claims of fraud, for instance, and saying that it changed the outcome and all this stuff could get a lot of people riled up behind him.
But I believe that would isolate people and only get Trump his most ardent supporters.
Regular people who are watching the news are not as likely to understand or believe these claims about hammer, scorecard, dominion, whatever that stuff is.
And I'm not a fan of them either, because for one, they are outlandish.
Sure, maybe there's some evidence.
I've talked about some of the weird goings-on, like WikiLeaks, a release from Cablegate.
There are some weird things about these voting machines and stuff, but it's delegitimizing Trump's legal challenges to victory.
Let me just stop and say this.
Texas is suing right now.
Texas's lawsuit is not focused on fraud or regularity.
It's focused on definitive facts that four states changed the rules of their election without going through the state legislature in violation of the Electors Clause.
That is a constitutional, legally sound argument that has many Trump supporters cheering because it is legit, it is strong, and many more states want to join in.
If you focus the conversation on the unprovable, the esoteric, or to many people what they would view it as absurd, you lose the argument.
Now, just because I think it's going to help Trump doesn't mean what they're doing is good.
What YouTube is doing is insane, and I'll tell you why they're doing it.
YouTube is trying to remove the likes of channels like mine and many others, and they're trying to go about it slowly enough To where they don't destroy the floor out from under them.
They are bleeding users to many other platforms.
That's a fact.
I don't know if it's going to be enough to actually upend YouTube's monopoly in the space because of the partner program.
But they want to be Netflix.
They want to make Game of... Well, I shouldn't say Game of Thrones.
There was a time when Game of Thrones was good.
They want to make big shows and good shows.
And they want a decentralized network to only a certain degree.
YouTube wants enough free and independent thought where they get good content rising to the top, but not enough to where people are, I don't know, say, challenging an election.
Let me read what they said, and then I'm going to read you the email they actually sent to me.
That's right!
We got some real journalism here.
YouTube Rights.
Over the past weeks and months, we've seen people coming to YouTube to learn more about where and how to vote or learning more about a candidate or an issue.
We've seen news organizations grow their audience.
And we've seen people turn to YouTube for the latest election results or simply to follow an historic event with the highest voting turnout in over a century in the U.S.
Our main goal going into the election season was to make sure we're connecting people with authoritative information while also limiting the reach of misinformation and removing harmful content.
The work here is ongoing and we want to provide an update.
Removing content that violates our policies.
Now, before I read this, I want to say...
YouTube, in my opinion, has long since violated the Good Samaritan provisions of Section 230 and should be able to be sued for defamation and be liable for this.
And I'll explain this and we'll go over Section 230.
I'm actually going to show you the law and explain it.
Here's what they say.
Our community guidelines prohibit spam, scams, or other manipulated media, coordinated influence operations, and any content that seeks to incite violence.
Since September, we've terminated over 8,000 channels and thousands of harmful and misleading elections-related videos for violating our existing policies.
Over 77% of those removed videos were taken down before they had 100 views.
We also work to make sure The line between what is removed and what is allowed is drawn in the right place.
Our policies prohibit misleading viewers about where and how to vote.
We also disallow content alleging widespread fraud or errors change the outcome of a historical U.S.
presidential election.
However, in some cases, that has meant allowing controversial views on the outcome of process of counting votes of a current election as election officials have worked to finalize counts.
Yesterday was the safe harbor deadline for the U.S.
presidential election, and enough states have certified their election results to determine a president-elect, given that we will start removing any piece of content uploaded today or any time after that misleads people by alleging that widespread fraud or errors change the outcome of the 2020 U.S.
presidential election in line with our approach towards historical U.S.
presidential elections.
For example, We will remove videos claiming that a presidential candidate won the election due to widespread software glitches or counting errors.
We will begin enforcing this policy today and will ramp up in the weeks to come.
As always, news coverage and commentary on these issues can remain on our site if there is sufficient education, documentary, scientific, or artistic content.
Well, I've not asserted that, although there have been, uh, there's a, there's a research project that claims mostly my content fall in the category of other.
There's supporting Trump's claims of widespread fraud and opposing them, and I'm mostly falling in other.
Why?
Because if you're just reporting the facts, you're not asserting what is true without evidence.
So when Trump says it was rigged or there's widespread voter fraud, I say, that has to be proven.
My position the entire time has been there's more than enough evidence, signs or indications something may have occurred to warrant an investigation.
Short of an actual investigation, I don't know what you expect.
I can't come here and tell you something that's not been proven.
So, other it is.
But here's what I can tell you.
Donald Trump did lose the election due to changes made to the voting system over the past year or longer that is in violation of the Electors Clause, as per my opinion, and violates the supreme authority of the state legislatures in how they appoint electors.
This is evidenced by actual letters signed by state legislation saying they dispute the results and they seek to reclaim their right to appoint electors.
What does it really mean?
I gave you kind of the bombastic version.
The way I've described it over and over again is that Trump got oceans elevened.
People right now think that there was this grand heist of votes switching and all that stuff, and people went in and it's like they're putting on sunglasses and they're palming USBs and stuff.
And we've seen some stuff like that, like palming USBs.
We don't know why.
It appears in some instances to be illegal.
It doesn't mean the election was changed because of it.
There's a video going around where Trump supporters say, they hear a woman say something like, we're probably going to get caught.
They believe that's evidence that she was rigging the election or something like that.
It's possible, but come on.
Unless you can do an investigation and get some evidence, she might be saying, the guy might have been like, hey, you wanna go sneak out and get some pizza?
She goes, we'll probably get caught.
You don't know the context.
And that's why I don't make conclusions unless I get hard evidence.
Of course, that means many people make predictions more often than I do.
And I make predictions, too, based on available evidence and, you know, educated guesses.
But a lot of people definitively want to say, one thing is true, I know it.
I won't do that if you don't like it.
I'm sorry, that's just me.
I'm the milquetoast fence-sitter.
You get it, probably by now.
I hope you do.
But here's what I can say.
If they start getting rid of all the videos that allege fraud and, like, widespread fraud and error, and all that remains is the Trump supporters saying things like, these states violated the Electors Clause, and we can definitively state they did, we can definitely- I think at this point, it's a fact.
I mean, there's no factual basis to argue against it.
If the Pennsylvania Republicans passed Act 77, no excuse mail-in voting, it's currently being challenged, I'm not sure how far it's gonna go, They say, here's what we expect.
They later complained that the courts, the Secretary of State, and the governor added more provisions, like extending deadlines and ballot curing, something they never intended.
Thus, there is a, there, you can clearly state, the state legislator did not pass those provisions, and they were enacted anyway.
In many states we saw things like this, where there was an executive order, say in New Jersey for instance.
Not that New Jersey matters because it's a blue state.
It's always going to be blue.
Or I should say it's predictably blue, very heavy blue.
The governor issued an executive order for mail-in voting.
That would violate the Electors Clause, but I don't think the New Jersey state legislature actually cares all that much and probably would have agreed with them anyway, so they didn't challenge it.
But in some states, there's a conflict.
A Democratic governor and you have a Republican legislature.
Well, in that case, the Republican legislatures are saying, we have the right to choose.
That right was taken from us.
Texas is suing on those grounds, the strongest possible grounds to actually disqualify some states.
It's not likely going to happen.
I'm not saying Trump's going to win.
I don't think so.
But I will tell you, what we're seeing right now is YouTube trying to isolate and cut off many prominent channels.
Right Side Broadcasting Network, for instance, broke a million subs.
Well, they're likely going to get the axe.
You have Newsmax, for instance, who has just surpassed Fox News in television ratings.
They're gone.
You see what they're doing?
They're isolating and getting rid of the hardcore Trump-supporting platforms on this website.
I guess I can get by on the fact that I don't assert things for the most... I'm not perfect.
I get things wrong all the time.
But I try to avoid asserting things that I don't have definitive proof of.
When the Voter Integrity Project came out and said, here's a list of people who voted in more than one state, I say, okay, now we have evidence.
That's not definitive proof, but I'll point it out if it exists.
And Matt Brainerd has testified, I believe he's provided extensive sworn testimony.
So under oath, that's legit evidence, plus hard data.
Very serious.
Not evidence that the results were changed because of it, but it's evidence that in my opinion warrants an investigation.
We'll see how close I'm getting to them saying they're going to ban me or remove my content, but here's the email I received.
We just shared an update on YouTube's election efforts, including how we're handling community guidelines pertaining to election-related misinformation.
Our policies disallow content alleging that widespread fraud or errors change the outcome of a historical U.S.
presidential election.
We allow this type of commentary for current elections.
So I did read this.
I'll skip over this part.
It's basically what I already said.
As such, starting today, we will remove new content uploaded on or after December 9th, alleging that widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
For example, very much the same thing, right?
It's very similar to what I already said, but here's the important part.
If your content is impacted, you'll receive automated emails from our system regarding this content.
As we ramp up our enforcement, we'll initially remove violative videos without giving a strike.
We will begin issuing strikes for new content uploaded after Inauguration Day, January 20th, 2021.
That is the most important bit here.
You will not get a strike.
They're just removing any and all videos that make those claims.
I'm not sure who is making those claims, to be completely honest.
Maybe people like Steven Crowder, who I think has gone pretty heavily into these accusations, but I also kind of view... I haven't watched Crowder's videos in entirety.
I've seen some clips.
But I also think he's not someone who would assert something to be true without, you know, being able to prove it.
But again, the main issue here is that, for one, YouTube is wrong.
Safe harbor deadline.
Let's play a game.
They say, That is nonsensical in its opinion.
If I want to have an opinion, why can't I have one?
YouTube doesn't want to be YouTube.
It wants to be kind of a EliteTube.
their election results to determine a president-elect.
That is nonsensical in its opinion.
If I want to have an opinion, why can't I have one?
YouTube doesn't want to be YouTube.
It wants to be kind of a elite tube.
If you say the things they like, if you don't cross certain boundaries,
then you're allowed to be on the platform, they'll promote you or whatever.
Certain platforms they don't like, like, uh, the amount of views we've been getting on clips over on the IRL podcast haven't been doing as well because we host people who YouTube isn't a big fan of, you know.
YouTube likes me because, uh, there's a lot of reasons.
I basically talked about how I'm able to capture enough of the audience that is affected by this without crossing the line, so they tolerate.
And in many instances, I actually help promote and appreciate my content.
On the IRL podcast, we have guests who they don't like as much, so, you know, we've been getting a little knocked down a peg or two, but that's fine, whatever.
I'm gonna do my thing, and I'm not super concerned about, you know, them promoting me.
I want to show you something.
This is from congress.gov breaking down how the election works.
January 6th, they say, blah, blah, blah, joint session, 1 p.m., has the results, they say.
If one of the tickets has received a majority of 270 or more electoral votes, the vice president announces the results, which quote, shall be deemed a sufficient declaration of the persons, if any, elected president and vice president.
Vice president elect, president elect are determined on January 6th, more importantly.
I believe they're incorrect because the safe harbor provision says that if If a state has enacted procedures to settle controversies, 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.
The problem right now is, you have state legislatures openly saying, we dispute this.
So you can argue, but you can't definitively state.
The left is saying, they have the procedures, they've gone to the courts, and they've lost, the results are certified, we're done.
The right is saying, you certified the results, but now, after certification, there's a contest.
Oh, the results are contested, right?
There are many Republicans who are saying, I say this is illegally certified.
So the argument there is, they have not determined.
Just because the governor or secretary of state says this is true, doesn't make it so because the Electors Clause states the state legislatures have ultimate say in how these things are determined.
What it really means.
We're gonna be going to the Supreme Court, baby.
That's really what it means.
And look, Donald Trump, as I showed you recently, tweeted, overturn.
Which sounds like he's now saying that he didn't just, not that he won, but that the results are in, and it's for Joe Biden, and he wants them overturned.
It's hard to fact check a lot of these claims, so I'll take it with a grain of salt.
That the Supreme Court has ordered these four states to respond by, I think, Thursday.
I don't think these deadlines matter because they're going to be argued and there will be probably some precedent set, maybe a landmark case, is that what it's called?
I'm not a lawyer.
But we'll see.
I've long said, over and over again, 99.9% likelihood Joe Biden becomes president.
Earlier on, I said 90, 95, maybe 90, and that was because Trump hadn't yet filed any lawsuits challenging any of the results in any of these states, and it was like, he got all these lawsuits out, maybe something's gonna happen, and then it's just my prediction as to the probability of Trump pulling it off gets slimmer and slimmer as the days go by.
I'm gonna tell you this.
YouTube's rule change actually makes me think Trump's chances of winning have ticked up slightly.
Granted, it's still like 0.1%.
I'd now say it's like 0.15%.
I don't think it's very likely that Trump pulls it off.
There are Trump-supporting lawyers like Will Chamberlain, we had on the show last night, who said he doesn't think Trump will pull it off or the Supreme Court wants to hear it.
But I think if the conversation is now focused around the Electors Clause, you have a constitutional challenge to these states changing the rules.
That's what I mean by Oceans 11.
You know, Trump got Oceans 11.
The changes to the rules put forth months ago, a year ago in some instances, afforded Democrats massive benefits.
We've been talking about it for quite some time.
They were able to do a lot of things like democracy in the park, which actually was illegal, and, you know, these voter turnout programs.
But outside of the things we've seen that are legal, I can't say that, you know, having a voter registration thing in a park, convincing people to vote, would generate enough to actually change the outcome.
I can say, they were legally going door-to-door and asking people, did you vote yet?
And that was enough when you have no excuse mail-in voting in many states, and widespread absentee, they go canvas, knock on door and say, did you vote?
Now, many people say Joe Biden didn't have ground game, but other groups did.
Political action groups were going out, and they were doing this.
I've spoken to some people who said Democrats showed up at their house and said, have you voted yet?
And that maximized Democrat turnout, and it really helped them.
And it could explain why Joe Biden got votes, but no one voted down ticket.
Because they didn't know or care, and just said, I don't know, I'll just vote for Joe Biden, I guess.
Because they know, they've heard about Trump.
So look, I'm not going to pretend to know exactly how things are going to play out or what's going to happen.
I do think, however, it is partially beneficial to Trump in that his supporters are now going to be going on and on about constitutional legal challenges which have merit.
The Act 77 lawsuit has merit.
The Texas lawsuit has merit.
Will they actually win?
I really don't think so.
Forgive me for being a pessimist.
But let me throw it To the most important bit here, YouTube has issued editorial guidelines about your opinions.
Okay, if you have the opinion, the sky is green.
And you say, I can actually argue that the sky is green and everyone's like, it's blue.
You're allowed to be stupid, okay?
One of the things I've long since complained about with all this censorship on social media is they're telling people you're not allowed to be dumb.
Look, I'm not saying people who think there's fraud or whatever, I'm dumb.
I'm saying people see different things, they have different opinions.
But in many instances, if they say, this is the truth, and someone's dumb and doesn't know, nah, the sky is green, well, that's misinformation, so you're banned.
It's elitism.
I'm not a fan.
I like the idea of a free and open internet.
Internet.
We're not there anymore.
We're now at the era of elitism.
You can sign up for a YouTube channel.
You can apply for the partner program.
But if you are not one of the established elites who produces something of value for the establishment, well then they will remove you.
We are not a country... It is an ongoing battle between populism and elitism.
To these people, they've long viewed me as acceptable, but not good enough to be in that big club.
And mostly it's because... Actually, I think that's wrong.
They keep trying to get me in the club.
I'm not even kidding.
They've asked me to play ball, I've worked for Disney, and I care more about liberty, individualism, and the will of the people being respected.
You can respect the will of the people while telling people no.
A bunch of people can demand that we, you know, destroy the dam.
It's like, the water will kill you, so we're not going to do that.
That's why we're a constitutional republic with representatives and not a direct democracy.
A direct democracy is where the valley town says, blow up the dam, and then you're like, the water is going to wipe the town out.
Shut up, you're crazy.
A republic is when they elect a representative, and they say, we want the dam blown up, and he goes, I'm not gonna do that, we'll die.
And then they get all angry and rabble in protest, but then you don't blow up the dam.
So, I can understand why there is not absolute populism.
But I can also tell you that YouTube was given special protections.
I read you now.
Section 230, subsection C. Protection for Good Samaritan Blocking and Screening of Offensive Material.
They say, No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.
Full stop.
Right there.
YouTube is protected.
Period.
That's it.
No matter what I say, you can't sue YouTube.
However, Civil liability.
No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected, or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access, blah, blah, blah.
Long story short, Section 230 provides protection in good faith.
You can't be sued because someone else said something.
However, what happens when YouTube is the publisher or speaker?
I'm the speaker on YouTube, but I would argue right now that YouTube is the publisher because YouTube has issued hard editorial guidelines, like a publisher.
And if they are, then they are the ones responsible for the content, more importantly.
Civil Liability says they can't be held liable on account of action taken to restrict content Any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access or availability to material that the provider considers to be blah blah blah otherwise objectionable.
They're not removing contents that's otherwise objectionable.
Under what good faith argument is an opinion about an election objectionable?
To the Democrats?
Well, not to the Republicans.
So if 74 million people say one thing and 80 million say the other, I think you can't just make a pop, you know, a majoritarian determination of, well, more people think one thing so therefore it's a fact.
No.
I would argue that YouTube has issued hard editorial guidelines about something that has nothing to do with being objectionable, or lascivious, or violent, or harassing.
It's literally just an opinion on politics.
In which case, they are telling you what they will be willing to publish outside of things that would be shocking, or lewd, or obscene, or whatever.
The point of this is if somebody goes on YouTube and posts, like, really awful, like, really just criminal act videos, they can remove it.
We get that.
But if someone goes on YouTube and says, here's my opinion, and then YouTube removes it, YouTube is the publisher.
YouTube is choosing what to promote.
YouTube is choosing who to give money to.
In fact, there's been an attempt to make YouTube legally responsible as an employer.
That I don't agree with.
But think about it.
YouTube says you can get paid and you can't.
If you say the things we like, we'll allow you to make money.
Now hold on there a minute.
We are very, very much so in a publishing contract.
Okay.
If I'm a freelancer for the New York Times, and I write something and they agree to put it on their website, they can't go, but we didn't write it, that person did!
You paid them.
You had an agreement with them about how much money they would make.
Some websites actually do contingencies upon ad sales, saying we'll give you a percent of ad sales.
Guess what?
The newspapers still get sued over this.
They're the ones who published it.
Will YouTube get sued?
Probably not, but...
It's just one more step in the ongoing insane censorship war.
I guess I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
If you want to watch the video at 4 p.m., go to your address bar and type this website in and press enter.
Go to youtube.com slash timcast.
As soon as you press enter, you'll actually go to a different YouTube channel.
No joke.
Don't ask me why YouTube does it, but give it a shot.
