Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Dec. 12, 2020 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:17:20

Texas GOP Calls For NEW UNION Of States After SCOTUS DENIES Lawsuit Disputing Election, ITS NOT OVER

Texas GOP Calls For NEW UNION Of States After SCOTUS DENIES Lawsuit Disputing Election, ITS NOT OVER Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:16:53

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The Supreme Court has rejected the Texas lawsuit that would have seen the election results overturned.
		The quick gist is that Texas said these four states violated the Elector's Clause of the Constitution by changing the election rules without approval of the state legislatures.
		All of a sudden, these states are pouring in 20 on one side, 20 on the other side.
		State lining up against state.
		126 members of the Republican House signed onto this, but it has been struck down.
		And with this, my friends, Men in the left are saying it's over for Trump.
		It is over and there is nothing he can do.
		But I'm here to tell you they're wrong.
		First of all, Alan West has alluded to seceding from the union.
		And that's the big story we'll get to in a second.
		But my friends, there's one very, very simple thing that Donald Trump and his supporters can do right now to guarantee that he wins come Monday with the Electoral College vote.
		While the Geminids are coming on Monday, and with 120 meteors per hour and 74 million Trump voters, and roughly about 10 hours of night excluding dusk and dawn, 88.8 billion wishes that Donald Trump somehow wins on Mo- I'm kidding, by the way.
		I just thought it was funny.
		What they can actually do is, I don't know, maybe win their appeal in the Wisconsin Supreme Court, considering the Wisconsin Supreme Court is conservative, it's my understanding, from NPR.
		Wisconsin Supreme Court will take up Trump lawsuit appeal to overturn Biden win.
		Look, the Texas lawsuit was very clearly the best shot that Trump had, and it was the biggest, with a rising tide on all sides, or both sides, rising up and saying yes and no.
		A major dispute of the election, the Supreme Court said Texas has no standing to sue based on how other states have their elections.
		I'm not a fan.
		I'm not a fan of that ruling.
		The way I see it is, imagine we enter into a contract that we're gonna contribute something to the, you know, to the, let's say we all live together in an apartment, and I say we're all gonna contribute to paying the rent, and we want everybody to pay the rent, you know, freely and fairly, but one of your roommates is dealing drugs.
		You're gonna be like, dude, no way, man.
		You can't be doing that.
		And they're like, you have no right to determine how he pays his rent.
		Technically, the truth, and maybe not a perfect analogy, but the point is, why should I be trapped in a contract with someone else who's doing unlawful things and then using that to get advantages over everybody else?
		So I'm not a perfect analogy, but the point is, I think Texas' lawsuit made a lot of sense.
		Not a lawyer.
		And there's left-wing pundits and right-wing pundits who completely disagree on the merits.
		But the important thing is that the Texas lawsuit was not ruled on the merits.
		It wasn't.
		They just said Texas has no standing.
		Already there have been emergency filings by other lawyers claiming that their clients—I believe Sidney Powell and Lynn Wood may have filed something saying—their clients do have standing.
		It's not—you know, look.
		It's not over.
		It is a fact that it is not over.
		On, what was it, on November 7th, when they announced Biden was the winner, they kept saying, it's over!
		Give up!
		You know what the most annoying thing to me right now is?
		Seeing journalists tweeting memes at the president.
		I'm like, you're not journalists!
		One dude posts a moving truck in response to Trump, and I'm like, are you gonna report the news?
		No, they're gonna lie.
		I'll tell you, it is not over until Joe Biden is in the White House, and even then, it might not end.
		They don't get it.
		They don't understand what's happening.
		They think the Republican Party represents what's happening.
		It does not.
		So all of these Republicans signed on to the Texas lawsuit, in my opinion, because they saw what would happen to Loeffler and Perdue.
		And so they said, okay, I'll voice my support for Trump.
		But short of that, Republicans ain't gonna do anything.
		And Trump supporters know that, which is why Well, maybe there are some Republicans, because here's the actual big news.
		Texas GOP Chair Allen West suggests law-abiding states should form a union after Supreme Court rejects lawsuit on election results.
		There's actually a statehouse rep in Texas who has proposed a bill to have Texas— I don't know if he wants them to secede from the union now, but to assert their right as a sovereign nation to be able to secede.
		Although I suppose many people are citing the first civil war as precedent that you have no right to secede.
		But this is the most important part because I believe that what we see here from Alan West better represents what people who support Trump are actually thinking.
		There have been, you know, so I have Luke Rutkowski of We Are Change on the IRL podcast.
		He says, we need a divorce.
		Then I have Michael Malice on the podcast as well.
		He wrote back in 2016, we need a divorce.
		Michael's a smart guy.
		He made a really great point.
		He said, Barack Obama Passes the ACA and then mandates everyone buy insurance.
		And that's considered acceptable.
		He says, then why not have a mandate that everyone buy a gun?
		Because that's starting the negotiation from the right-wing point of view.
	I think I'm probably getting the gist of his idea correctly.
	If not, you guys should follow him.
	He's a smart guy.
	We just had him the other night on the show.
	But it's an interesting point.
	Conservatives are always chasing the left.
	The left says, we're going to enact this policy, and the right says, no.
	How about the right says, we're going to enact this policy, and the left says, no.
	How about you get a Republican who goes to Congress and say, I'm proposing a universal government gun program.
	It is a right in the Constitution.
	Why won't a Republican do that?
	Because Republicans are just chasing after the left.
	And I feel like for the most part, for the longest time, Well, I don't know about the longest time, but at least for the recent history, Republicans have just been sitting there like lazily, you know, half, you know, their arms up and their eyes half closed like that Bugs Bunny meme.
	And the Republicans come in and say, I'm angry about this thing.
	And they go, oh, I'll yell at him.
	And then it goes to Congress and our public goes, you Democrats with your Obamacare.
	Okay, anyway, lunch, and then they leave.
	Take a look at what Trump said about Obamacare and all this stuff.
	He did get rid of the individual mandate, which was huge, but did they get rid of Obamacare?
	Did they create something new?
	They didn't!
	Trump did some stuff, but I think people on the right who follow Trump and support him have been actually waiting for their side to actually propose and do something.
	But what do we get?
	Demands for universal healthcare, and a big debate over whether that should be the case.
	Literally no debate from a right perspective on what universal program they would want.
	Perhaps it's because the Republicans don't want the government to be spending all of that money, because that kind of defeats the purpose, and that's probably, you know, one of the biggest problems with universal healthcare in general.
	But you don't get a right-centric proposal the left freaks out about, for the most part.
	For the most part.
	So check it out.
	Regular people now.
	Here's what we're seeing.
	The chairman of the Republican Party of Texas has suggested law-abiding states should form a union after the Supreme Court rejected the Texas lawsuit.
	The court's decision was made on Friday evening after the lawsuit was brought forth by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton this week and backed up by President Trump, 16 other attorneys, and 126 members of Congress.
	The lawsuit sought to throw out millions of votes in the four battleground states of Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
	The chairman of the GOP, Alan West.
	And this is, like, this is... Alan West is not some random dude.
	Like, Alan West is a prominent figure.
	He said...
	Quote, the Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by 17 states and 106 congressmen, let me slow down there, it's actually it was joined by 19 states and 126 congressmen, have decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law, resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law.
	While the guilty state suffers no consequences, this decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the U.S.
	Constitution and not be held accountable.
	This decision will have far-reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic.
	Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the Constitution.
	They say, West is a retired U.S.
	Army Lieutenant Colonel.
	And was a U.S.
	Congressman in Florida from 2011 to 2013.
	He was elected as chairman of the Texas GOP July 20, 2020, unseating former chairman James Dickey.
	Friday's decision was the second this week by the Supreme Court regarding requests by Republicans to get the nation's highest court involved in the election results.
	The court had rejected an appeal from Republicans in Pennsylvania on Tuesday.
	That's not true!
	I'm just so sick of the media and they don't try.
	They're going to say the Electoral College will meet on Monday, December 14th.
	So there is news in the Republican lawsuit pertaining to Act 77 in Pennsylvania.
	They denied emergency injunctive relief, which for all intents and purposes is probably a defeat for the Republicans, because if the election gets certified and the electors are counted, then the electoral vote—oh, let me slow down.
	Challenging the election law in Pennsylvania may not actually have anything to do with this election.
	Kind of, we'll see.
	Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell are plaintiffs on this, among other people, and Sean Parnell said they don't know what the relief will be.
	Maybe it won't be to throw out this election, but to say in the next election you need a constitutional amendment to do mail-in voting, which would still be a really good thing for Republicans.
	What the Supreme Court said is they denied emergency injunctive relief.
	This means Biden electors will go to the Electoral College on Monday, likely cast their votes, and that's it.
	But the Supreme Court has not dismissed the case.
	It's still pending.
	Does that mean they'll pick it up?
	Still, probably not.
	But now the latest development is that Parnell and the other plaintiffs have asked for a, I forget what it's called, a writ of cert or something.
	They've requested cert.
	They want the case to be ruled on the merits regardless of emergency injunctive relief.
	What happens if, come the 14th, They send 20 electors from Pennsylvania, just for Biden, and then they cast their votes.
	But then, between December 14th and January 6th, when the votes start to be counted, the Supreme Court actually says, yes, this is unconstitutional.
	Toss it out.
	Well, then on January 6th, the Republicans are going to raise objections, saying the Supreme Court ruled that your votes don't count.
	The left keeps saying it's over.
	There are a few leftist personalities.
	With respect, I don't want to drag him, but they've been warning the left.
	It is not over until Joe Biden is in the White House.
	And you also need to understand, just because Joe Biden's in the White House doesn't mean that Trump goes away and his supporters give up.
	I don't think they will.
	I think Trump is leading the charge of something that's not just about the Republican Party.
	It's a right populist movement.
	And I mean, look at what Alan West said.
	About a union of states forming their own, you know, union that will abide by the Constitution.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What if Trump said, I would like to be that leader?
		And then you have a fraction of, you know, faction is a factionalization or a divorce or splitting.
		You know, Michael Malice said the other day on the IRL podcast, there's this blue-pilled view that civil war is always violent, but there could be a peaceful decoupling of the United States.
		I don't know.
		I think that's a really, really bad thing for a lot of reasons.
		We're a great nation.
		And many Republicans have said, you can't take our states, these big cities.
		But there's interesting points to be made about what goes on in this country and the different cultural issues.
		Look, You have one side that says children that are trans should be able to get chemical treatments to affirm their identity.
		On the right, they say absolutely not.
		You know, no way.
		Joe Biden supported this specifically saying there should be no discrimination if a child chooses to be transgender.
		Without condemning or condoning, I'm just pointing out, I mean, that is a very, very, like, disparate, these are so far removed from each other.
		When I was talking to Jack Dorsey and Vijay Gadain on the Joe Rogan Podcast, one of the most important things brought up was that their rules are biased for the left.
		They have a misgendering policy on Twitter, that if you call someone who is trans by the, you know, not the correct pronouns they... by pronouns they don't want, you've broken the rules.
		And I said, that is only a thing in the left.
		The right doesn't... the right has an inverted view of misgendering.
		Thus, we have two very different realities here.
		So what do we do?
		Keep fighting each other until both sides, like, you know, politically, until both sides just take it, you know, it comes to street clashes, which apparently there was fighting last night in D.C.
		and there's going to be huge rallies today in D.C.
		as well.
		They're marching in the Supreme Court and through D.C.
		for Trump, stop the steel rally, all that stuff.
		We're getting to a point where the cultures are so far removed from each other.
		Seriously.
		The right to bear arms, the right to run your business.
		One side says, the pandemic.
		Lock everything down.
		Nobody works, government pays for it.
		The other side is saying, let me live my life and take my own risks.
		Those can't work together.
		And now you're getting people essentially rising up in the streets and saying no to this.
		Maybe what makes the most sense is a union of states that tends to agree with each other.
		The issue is, the East Coast and the West Coast, the Blue States, the Red States, there's no clear dividing line like North and South.
		So what?
		The West Coast becomes its own place, the East Coast becomes its own place?
		You wouldn't just get two countries, you'd get three or four.
		I remember that old internet meme from, I think it was John Titor or John Titor, I can't remember, I don't know how to pronounce his name.
		For those that aren't familiar, it was this old meme where somebody claimed to be from the future, they weren't, it was probably just, you know, a blog where a guy was making stuff up, but predicted that the U.S.
		would fracture into four different countries.
		The East Coast would be very much aligned with Europe, The Midwest, the northern Midwest areas would be aligned with Canada, the West Coast would be aligned with China, and the South would be fairly independent or working with Mexico.
		I think it's just silly internet memes from back in the day of people speculating.
		But it seems that there's something that could be a real possibility of this.
		If the U.S.
		was to actually break up, as to what Alan West was saying, We would no longer be a global power.
		There would be questions as to who controls the military bases around the world, who would be in charge of them.
		Probably Washington, D.C., and the other states would say no.
		There are many economists who are saying, if the red states broke away from the blue states, they would be a third world nation.
		Uh, sure, except you're now miscounting the fact that the blue states have destroyed their economies and aren't producing much, but they're dragging everybody down.
		The GDP is tanking in many of these places, and New York just shuttered indoor dining.
		So is Philadelphia.
		I believe Los Angeles has.
		So, uh, and outdoor.
		So at this point, I think the red states might just be okay.
		But, you know, there is something to be said about red states being sparsely populated to a certain degree and not having as large of urban centers.
		But you also got to understand that places like New York, New York State is, you get rid of New York City and it's a red state.
		You get rid of Chicago and Illinois is a red state.
		And for California, you've got San Francisco and you've got Los Angeles.
		But it's very much red in a lot of ways.
		So if these cities, which are, you know, massive portions of the population, were not included, you wouldn't have a blue state.
		Of course, these cities literally can't sustain themselves without support from the agricultural and rural areas.
		Let me tell you what's going on, alright?
		The other day when I talked about 44 states disputing the president, and now we're learning Supreme Court said no, the specific point I was trying to make is, no one cares.
	Like, they do, they do, right?
	The Trump supporters were hoping the Supreme Court would intervene and say, you guys, aight, alright, Trump wins.
	The left was like, no, they'll dismiss it.
	Well, the Supreme Court effectively sided with the left on this one.
	Does that mean the Trump supporters are gonna be like, well, good game, guys?
	No.
	It means they're gonna start defying.
	What I think we're going to start seeing is, in the next six months or so, into the next year, Stuart Rhodes of the Oath Keepers has already said they won't regard anything out of Joe Biden's mouth as legitimate.
	Not just him, like half the country.
	So that certainly means at least the Oath Keepers won't.
	Joe Biden wants a nationwide lockdown.
	He didn't say personally, he said, I'll follow the science, and his chief advisor, the guy he brought on, said six weeks lockdown.
	But Joe Biden did say national mask mandate.
	I think because of the draconian edict that is being passed down by these governors and what's soon to be Biden, plus with the lawlessness from the far left, you're going to have areas just saying, we object, we reject.
	So you're going to have a bunch of people on the right in rural areas saying, we don't do that here.
	And what's the US government going to do?
	Send in, you know, federal agents to enforce mask laws?
	Probably not.
	So Joe Biden's plan just will not work.
	But let's say there's a more densely populated area, not particularly large, but maybe a decent-sized city of a couple hundred thousand in a red state.
	Maybe they just say, you know what?
	We're done.
	Lockdown's over.
	Biden is not the president.
	Something like that.
	Well then, Biden may actually send in DHS or some kind of enforcement.
	You will probably then start end up seeing right-wing militias or even local sheriffs setting up checkpoints and saying, you can't come in here.
	These rules can't be enforced.
	I think maybe the first thing you'll see is some kind of federal enforcement, maybe the CDC, might go to an area and then tell these restaurants, you have to lock down, the restaurants will say, get out.
	The sheriffs are gonna be like, these are, you know, this is our town, they'll say no.
	The fear I have, and I'm not saying it's extremely likely, I'm just saying, I view this as a strong possibility.
	People will start rejecting this edict as unconstitutional and a violation of their rights.
	But then a bigger question emerges.
	If we can reject this, why not anything else? You know, interestingly, the other day,
	when we were on, last night on the IRL podcast, we did a show, it was Alex Jones and Michael Malice,
	the round two, because they banned, they took down the first one. So we did it again.
	Michael Malice mentioned that he thought all cops were corrupt and he wants to abolish the police.
	And he actually made a really important point.
	He says the Constitution guarantees his right to bear arms, and because of these police, he cannot protect himself in New York City.
	It's a good point.
	Every single cop in New York will violate the Second Amendment as it's written.
	What happens when people think like Michael does and they live in a city and they say, I'm not going to follow this edict and that law is unconstitutional and we all know it, and they no longer have confidence in those officers?
	Or in that law.
	What happens when even the cops in these smaller towns say, good point.
	Because we already saw sheriffs all across Virginia say, when Virginia tried passing these gun control laws, they wouldn't enforce it.
	Well, what about the big cities that do just blindly enforce their gun control laws in violation of the Constitution?
	The blue cities, if they don't want to have weapons, then by all means, you know, they can choose not to do it.
	But the Constitution guarantees the people who live there the right to do so.
	To throw back to Michael's point, two different countries.
	There are people who live in these cities who say I have a constitutional right to bear arms, and many who vote away that, but you can't because the Constitution says you can't.
	Apparently the Constitution is meaningless, as we're learning now, sort of, with this Texas lawsuit.
	The important thing is, The Supreme Court ruled, the Constitution itself says, you know, Article 3, they don't have standing.
	We'll see if these new lawsuits that have been filed will actually get heard on the merits because the individuals do have standing.
	Or, they'll say, you know, for those unfamiliar, standing basically means, like, If I enter into a contract with you, like, my neighbor can't sue you if you break it.
	They're like, you're not party to this contract.
	Texas is, and it's interesting that, you know, the Supreme Court made their decision.
	They did.
	We'll see how that plays out.
	In the meantime, we're seeing things like this.
	Andy no tweets.
	Arrested at police raid on Portland Antifa squat on 8th of December.
	Police recovered stockpile of guns.
	Antifa and other extremists then built an autonomous zone.
	Now we have this tweet.
	Antifa's Portland Autonomous Zone has a militia who are armed with semi-automatic rifles and other firearms.
	So let me go back to what I said about right-wing individuals setting up checkpoints saying, y'all can't come here.
	You think I'm just making that up and just throwing something at the wall?
	Just, I don't know, maybe some magical thing will happen?
	No.
	I'm looking at a video of the far left having already done this.
	Twice now.
	Setting up autonomous zones in cities where people with guns set up checkpoints and say, y'all can't come in.
	These are our rules.
	And they've killed people.
	In Seattle, a couple teenagers in a truck, they pumped 300 rounds in over a few minutes.
	You can hear the audio.
	It's crazy.
	So when I say, you will likely see right-wing individuals, militias in certain areas, set up checkpoints and say, this is an autonomous zone.
	Don't be surprised if you see more of this, and you see the right doing it, because they're destroying the businesses of regular Americans.
	How many regular people are going to be like, these CDC types, you can't come in here, we don't respect that.
	And maybe it's by design.
	Maybe it's what everybody wants.
	A divorce.
	Now interestingly, the left and the right populace have got a lot to agree on.
	The left came out and said, we're not going to allow this eviction.
	They set up an autonomous zone, and they have guns.
	And they're guarding it, and they're winning, and they're expanding.
	Why wouldn't the right do that when I'm talking about a community that has a sheriff who's already been given powers of law enforcement, and the community tells the sheriff, we demand you protect the right for us to work and live.
	In my opinion, it makes way more sense that the right would do something like the left is doing in a more controlled, organized, and legitimate fashion than the left is even doing.
	But I'll put it this way.
	If the left is already doing it, it's not a long shot, and it's not far-fetched to assume, at some point you will see right-wing individuals doing something like this.
	We've already seen it.
	When the riots erupted, regular people, I didn't want to say right-wing, took out their guns and were standing around their communities standing guard.
	It's already happened.
	We may see the decoupling of this country because I'll tell you this, if there's one thing the populace left and right completely agree upon, over a hundred million people probably at this point, is that Joe Biden is awful.
	Not necessarily illegitimate, that's the Trump supporters who think that, but the left, they hate Joe Biden too.
	They just didn't like Trump, uh, they hated Trump more.
	These progressives absolutely detest Joe Biden, but wanted him to win.
	Why?
	As many have said on social media, it's easier to overthrow a feeble old man than it is a fascist.
	They use the election as a way to take away the power of the right and Trump so they can more easily get what they want.
	Seizing land, you know, it was like a three or four block radius in Portland.
	And they're armed.
	And they're standing guard.
	And with Joe Biden in the presidency, nothing will stop him.
	Perhaps top cop Kamala Harris might, but I'm not entirely convinced.
	And if it comes down to the federal government trying to assert authority over these areas, when Donald Trump was trying to stop the violence, Trump supporters agreed.
	If, in a few months, Joe Biden is president, and the autonomous zone in Portland has expanded completely out of the control of the local authorities, If Joe Biden tries sending in DHS, do you know what's going to happen?
	Trump supporters are going to laugh and say, we don't support any of you.
	You're on your own.
	We don't care.
	The left will say, get out.
	The feds will have absolutely no support in their action.
	And that's when legitimacy falters.
	Now, I'll wrap it up with this.
	Maybe everything goes back to normal, everybody got it out of their system, we're all tired, we just want to play video games and just say, fine, whatever, it's Biden.
	High five, shake hands, go about our business.
	Maybe.
	I don't think so, because they're going to be locking everybody down, and it's going to be getting, uh, they're going to be locking everybody down.
	That's going to make people lose it.
	While they're locking down conservatives, the left is freely going about their business and seizing territory with guns.
	At least in this small scale, sure.
	You think conservatives and Trump supporters are gonna be like, aw geez, the feds are coming in to oppress us and letting the left get away with it?
	No, they're gonna be like, get out!
	But we can only wait and see.
	Maybe Alan West is right and people are going to follow suit.
	Maybe Trump would be that leader and that will be freaky.
	I have no idea what's going to happen.
	I just want to wrap up.
	One more point.
	You know, when I kept saying I felt like we were on the track for a civil war and people kept saying no.
	At what point do you say, okay, okay, at the very least we've been on the track.
	Maybe now we're going to get off it.
	Sure.
	But when I said two years ago, And now we're at the point where all these states are lining up against each other.
	The left is setting up autonomous zones with guns.
	Aren't we closer than we were then?
	So I was certainly right then, and I'll say it today.
	I think we're still on this track, but I don't know what's gonna happen.
	Maybe everyone does calm down.
	People are tired of this stuff.
	They're just tired and they're gonna say, I don't care.
	But you know, it was a very tiny fraction of people who fought in the Civil War.
	We'll see how it plays out.
	Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
	I'm sure by now many of you have heard that Texas GOP Chair Allen West has essentially called for secession from the United States, saying that law-abiding states should perhaps form a new union, one that abides by the Constitution.
	At the same time, we're seeing a state rep pushing a bill that would allow for a vote on secession, Texas leaving the United States.
	We're coming off of a request to file a complaint to the Supreme Court.
	That's basically what happened.
	Texas said, please allow us to complain about the election.
	Twenty states on one side challenging the results.
	Twenty states on the other side also challenging the results.
	And four split down the middle.
	44 states in this country disputing who the president should be and whether or not the constitution was being followed.
	64% of the U.S.
	House of Representatives Republican Party supported this suit.
	Many other legal scholars and organizations also either defended or supported it.
	It's the closest we've been to some kind of dividing line in what you could call a civil war or pre-civil war, I suppose.
	Though many have said it's a cold civil war for some time.
	I know I've talked about it quite a bit.
	You probably know that.
	But something else is happening right now.
	The pursuit of criminal charges against Donald Trump.
	Now, I've often said many times, I really don't think they're going to go after Trump, but that's at the federal level.
	You know, Joe Biden might say, I'm not going to arrest Trump after he leaves office because it's horrifying precedent.
	And Donald Trump didn't arrest Hillary Clinton, although many people at his rallies were chanting, lock her up.
	At the state level, however, Democrats are ramping up their criminal investigations or potential criminal investigations of Donald Trump.
	And this does not bode well for him.
	And more importantly, it does not bode well for us.
	You know, I saw a quote on Twitter.
	It was a passage written by Ulysses S. Grant about secession.
	And I'm going to read it for you because it's truly amazing.
	He basically says that if you want to secede, though it is not your right, it is your right to enact revolution.
	Ulysses S. Grant says this.
	But you will put your life, your property, and your guarantees as a citizen on the line to fight for this revolution.
	That's what he called the South seceding from the Union.
	If the criminal, if the district attorneys, if these investigators in New York and other states really want to force Trump to put his life on the line, they've made the decision for him.
	And at a time when we're having 44 states dispute the presidency and Alan West and another member in Texas basically saying secession, it is extremely irresponsible.
	But therein lies the big challenge.
	As I've said before, if there is a crime committed by, say, Hillary Clinton, then I believe she must be charged and prosecuted.
	Because if there's no rule of law for the ruling class, then there's no rule of law, then what's the point of the Constitution and the Union anyway?
	If Trump did commit a crime, crimes, then he must be prosecuted because letting people go out of fear of destroying the union, in fact, destroys the union outright.
	The best thing we can do is charge those who we know to have committed crimes and then hope for the best.
	But what if Trump didn't commit any crimes and these people just absolutely hate him to the point where they're going to force his hand?
	It's almost like they want conflict.
	And going after Trump in this way would absolutely ignite it.
	That's the news today.
	Let me go through this.
	I know many of you have already seen the Alan West story.
	I'm going to briefly go over it for those that haven't, so I can show you what's going on right now with the Manhattan investigation into Trump ramping up, and some suggesting perhaps Trump will be charged as soon as he leaves office.
	What do you think will happen then to every Trump supporter, every individual who loves this man?
	You are asking for trouble, and you are forcing people to put their life and their property on the line.
	My friends, with the COVID lockdown, people's property is already on the line.
	Going after Trump, you incentivize something worse than we've already seen.
	We are in one of the most extreme circumstances this country has ever seen.
	Save the actual Civil War.
	Let me show you what's going on, and I want to read you this quote from Grant.
	It's amazing.
	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.
	Got a P.O.
	box if you want to send me some stuff, but the best thing you can do?
	Share this video!
	If you think I'm reasonable, rational, or I'm connecting the dots in an interesting way and showing you the bigger picture, then please share this to help support my channel and help it grow.
	Also, don't forget to like, subscribe, hit the notification bell.
	First, I want to show you this story from the New York Times.
	Very simply, Manhattan DA intensifies investigation of Trump.
	Prosecutors have recently interviewed employees of President Trump's lender and insurance brokerage in the latest indication that he still faces the potential threat of criminal charges once he leaves office.
	They've been calling for Donald Trump to be arrested over and over again.
	And it's not just the Manhattan D.A.
	launching these investigations.
	It's the likes of Jimmy Kimmel saying Trump should be arrested after despicable election speech.
	November 6, 2020, a high-profile late-night personality of low information, mind you, saying something extremely dangerous.
	Quote, we are watching a presidency bleed out in real time right now, the host said on his eponymous late night show.
	They say Stephen Colbert was not the only late night host to express anger and outrage over Donald Trump's attempt to subvert the election.
	On Jimmy Kimmel Live, host Jimmy Kimmel also went hard after the president for his speech at the White House on Thursday night.
	Which Kimmel said was Trump's latest attempt at choking democracy to death, saying, I'd like to provide the American people with an update on our efforts to protect the integrity of our very important 2020 election.
	If you count the legal votes, I easily win, Trump said falsely on Thursday night.
	If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.
	His speech was so filled with groundless allegations, claims Vanity Fair, that ABC, CBS, and NBC stopped broadcasting his comments.
	We have to interrupt here because the president made a number of false statements according to Lester Holt.
	That's a different type of concession speech, Kimmel joked on his late night show.
	I won't bore you or give him the pleasure of showing what he said that night.
	But the only thing he didn't do was pull off his wig and reveal that he's been Vlad Putin all along.
	He added, it was a litany of lies, threats, just a despicable and incoherent attack on democracy and the United States.
	At the end of that speech, he should have been arrested.
	If they could find handcuffs small enough to take him away, they would have.
	Now, was he seriously calling for the arrest of Donald Trump?
	Maybe not.
	Maybe he was being hyperbolic or making a joke.
	But the conversation exists.
	From The Independent, November 7th, just after Kimmel made his statements.
	Will Trump be arrested as Biden gets sworn in as president?
	President Trump may soon be former President Trump alone with the legal decisions he made in front of federal investigators.
	They have floated this quite a bit with the independent saying, imagine the scene come 20th January.
	It's a frigid day in Washington, both inside and outside the White House Capitol.
	The latter, iconic building is decked out in American flags and socially distanced dignitaries and even a few former presidents, but one man is missing.
	Joe Biden has been sworn in as the 46th president of the United States.
	He has exited the presidential limousine and is waving to bystanders on Pennsylvania Avenue.
	Donald Trump earlier that morning reluctantly left the White House on his own accord.
	But instead of having tea with Joe Biden and his wife Jill, as is an American custom for an outgoing commander-in-chief, the 45th president and wife Melania took Marine One to Joint Base Andrews to link up with Air Force One.
	Mid-flight, it would become Executive One.
	That is the official moniker of the Boeing 747-200 used to fly former presidents to their next destination, after a new one has been sworn in.
	As the plane Trump long wanted to slap with a red, white, and blue paint job on touches down in South Florida and taxis to a stop before hundreds of his remaining loyalists is met by a caravan of black U.S.
	Secret Service SUVs.
	But then, the other direction on the tarmac comes a smaller number of gold government suburbans, perhaps with New York plates inside.
	Agents from the Justice Department's Southern District of New York The lead agent on the SDNY team approaches the newly minted head of Trump's post-presidential security detail, which is afforded to all former chief executive.
	They would like to have a word, no, a few days worth of them with the now former president.
	Once Trump and Melania walk down that mobile stairs and onto Florida soil to begin the next phase of their lives, there's confusion.
	Where will the questioning be taking place?
	There's no lack of intimate venues, a federal building in the greater Palm Beach area, Trump's new residence inside Mar-a-Lago during a not-so-friendly round of golf or working lunch at his nearby hotel.
	After a heated scuffle caught on camera by tens of local, national, and international media outlets on hand at Palm Beach International Airport to chronicle the return to civilian life, the FBI team and a Secret Service detail agree he will ride in the USS Suburban with the federal agent's vehicles falling in behind a mixed motorcade.
	They go on to say, Trump himself has said, imagine the ratings.
	Is Trump really going to be arrested?
unidentified		I don't believe so, but I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I can't predict the future.
		And when Jimmy Kimmel made these statements, perhaps it was just a joke.
		Now, when The Independent wrote this story on November 7th, probably the day before, but published on the 7th, perhaps it was just a bit of hyperbole.
		But now we get the New York Times reporting the Manhattan D.A.
		is ramping things up.
		At a time when the Texas GOP floats secession for law-abiding states after Supreme Court defeat.
		At a time when a Texas state rep proposes a bill to allow vote on secession from the U.S.
		And at a time When we are looking at people call for martial law, when the lockdown has destroyed the lives of many people, and this country is divided worse than we've seen since the Civil War, with 44 states disputing the outcome of this election, they say on the left, it's over.
		My friends, I'm sorry.
		It's not over.
		There are still emergency filings.
		There is going to be an Electoral College vote on Monday.
		But even if they do vote, there can still be objections to the vote on January 6th.
		More importantly, as I stated earlier on, the fear I have as they say to Trump, we will destroy you.
		We will imprison you.
		What do you think Trump's best chance is if this threat is looming and it's a legitimate threat?
		Well, on the political side of things, or the selfish side of things, Trump might say, you know what?
		I'm not going to prison.
		I'm going to call on my supporters.
		And then he might.
		In a viral post, now being covered by many outlets, Enrique Tarrio of the Proud Boys said he had a secret invite to an undisclosed location, with a picture of him standing in front of the White House.
		Now, I think that was probably just a joke.
		He was on, according to a White House spokesperson, a Christmas tour of the White House.
		I don't think Enrique Tarrio was trying to be serious.
		I think he was being silly.
		Or maybe he really was on a secret meeting, and they're denying it.
		Because as Trump said, Proud Boys, stand back and stand by.
		Perhaps Trump, seeing the looming threat of imprisonment, says, if I must make a choice, I will choose freedom.
		against these cronies who have staged a coup.
		Because Trump certainly thinks they did.
		I don't know what's going to happen.
		Maybe it's all just fanciful, you know, thinking or fantasy.
		And Trump's going to leave and everything's going to go back to normal or whatever.
		Like Hillary Clinton.
		She never got arrested either, okay?
		Trump said, you know, you'd be in jail.
		The crowds were chanting, lock her up.
		Nothing really happened.
		But there's more than just Trump and the threat to his livelihood.
		There are the individuals who have seen their property and their protections stripped away.
		The right to bear arms?
		But a joke in many of these cities.
		The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
		Gone under these lockdowns.
		And although many may justify them for the greater good, many more do not agree.
		74 million people, at the very least, don't agree.
		They voted for Trump, and Trump's been saying no to the lockdowns.
		Which brings me now to a very interesting post I saw by Ryan Cooper on Twitter.
		Ryan Cooper is national correspondent for The Week and the producer of the Left Anchor podcast.
		Now these quotes that were put forward from Ulysses S. Grant, I'm seeing shared by many people to explain why they can't secede and why, you know, we're going to move forward and otherwise it would be revolution.
		I don't care what your opinion is on the statement, whether it's in favor of your view or opposed to it.
		I think he just makes a very interesting point, that if you were to secede, you would be putting your property and life on the line, and your guarantees as a citizen.
		There are many people in this country whose lives have been completely destroyed by the lockdowns.
		They've lost their property.
		They've lost their rights as a citizen.
		We're under effective martial law with these edicts.
		The government is violating several constitutional amendments, and has been for some time, in a variety of ways.
		So why would anyone feel like they're actually risking these things?
		No, they might feel like they're actually trying to take them back.
		In the first section, from Ulysses S. Grant, he says, Doubtless, the founders of our government, the majority of them at least, regarded the confederation of the colonies as an experiment.
		Each colony considered itself a separate government.
		That the confederation was for mutual protection against a foreign foe, and the prevention of strife and war among themselves.
		If there had been a desire on the part of any single state to withdraw from the compact at any time, while the number of states was limited to the original 13, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted.
		The problem changed on the ratification of the Constitution by all the colonies.
	It changed still more when amendments were added.
	And if the right of any one state to withdraw continued to exist at all after the ratification of the Constitution, it certainly ceased on the formation of new states, at least so far as the new states themselves were concerned.
	It was never possessed at all by Florida or the states west of the Mississippi, all of which were purchased by the Treasury of the entire nation.
	Texas and the territory brought into the Union in consequence of annexation were purchased with both blood and treasure.
	And Texas, with a domain greater than that of any European state except Russia, was permitted to retain as state property all the public lands within its borders.
	It would have been ingratitude and injustice of the most flagrant sort for this state to withdraw from the Union after all that had been spent and done to introduce her.
	Yet, if separation had actually occurred, Texas must necessarily have gone with the South, both on account of her institutions and her geographical position.
	Secession was illogical as well as impractical.
	It was revolution.
	Now there's more, and the most important part comes next.
	But a very interesting point.
	The original 13 colonies, yeah, they could have left at any time.
	But once they had the Constitution, and all of the states were pooling resources, and they used those resources to purchase new territories which became states, it was unfair to the original states if those states were to leave.
	Hey, we pitched in to support your involvement in the Union and to guarantee you certain rights.
	I'm paying the bill for that!
	We get certain things in return.
	I can freely go into your territory in your state, That you'll pay taxes into our state?
	I'm not gonna give you money to set up your state, then you leave, and then we're left holding the bill.
	Makes a lot of sense.
	However, he goes on to say that people still have the right of revolution, and that's where things get interesting.
	He continues, Now, the right of revolution is an inherent one.
	When people are oppressed by their government, it is a natural right they enjoy to relieve themselves of the oppression, if they are strong enough.
	Either by withdrawal from it, Or by overthrowing it and substituting a government more acceptable.
	But any people or part of a people who resort to this remedy stake their lives, their property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship on the issue.
	Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror, must be the result.
	That's an amazing passage.
	He's straight up saying the American Civil War as he viewed it was a revolution of southern states.
	And it makes sense.
	Many of these states were not the original 13, and it was blood and treasure which allowed them to join the Union.
	Blood and treasure paid for by people in other states opposed to their secession.
	So when they tried, he said, it was revolution.
	And it's interesting because many people who, uh, many conservative types would actually say the same thing.
	That it was a second revolution, the South was saying, we don't want to be involved.
	And the North actually invaded the South, and many people call it the, what do they call it, the War of Northern Aggression, I believe, many in the South called it.
	But it makes a good point.
	The most important part of which, if you want a revolution, if you want to break away, you must stake your lives, your property, and every claim for protection given by citizenship on the issue.
	Victory, or the conditions imposed by the conqueror, must be the result.
	Let's think about that for a second.
	The consequences of doing nothing right now for many of these states and for Trump and for Trump supporters is the conditions imposed by the conqueror.
	Joe Biden wants to enact crazy extreme gun laws.
	And there's many laws that and many cultural issues put forward that conservatives will not abide by.
	Notably that Joe Biden said there should be no discrimination for an eight-year-old who chooses to be trans.
	Now, I don't want to use that as like a hard wedge issue necessarily, but it is a stark dividing line between the left and the right, the views on trans issues.
	I'm not asserting a position one way or the other, I'm just noting.
	It exists.
	That's a divide.
	You'll get banned on Twitter for making the wrong statement.
	Thus, many conservatives are already living under the conditions of a conqueror.
	But let's talk about staking the protections granted by citizenship.
	Do people have a right to bear arms?
	In many places, no, even though the Constitution says it.
	Do they have a right to free speech or assembly?
	The answer is no, because they've already broken up churches.
	Now, of course, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of many of these groups, often, but in many circumstances.
	The Constitution is absolutely being violated, and the rights afforded by people as citizens are often violated.
	Let's talk about their property.
	The COVID lockdown has taken the property away from so many people that they're struggling to get by, and they're watching their lives be destroyed.
	And finally, their lives.
	If you can't feed yourself or your family, and you are being told, these are the conditions by which you will live, don't you think people have already realized, whether they've chosen it or not, all of these things have been put on, have been staked in this great gamble, this circumstance?
	The choice is not being given to the people.
	They either, well, to an extent there's the choice, but not the initiation of it.
	They're being told, lose your property.
	Lose your protections.
	Live under our conditions and potentially lose your life.
	Or what else?
	Stand up and resist.
	That seems to be the only thing we're seeing and that's why people are taking to the streets.
	But in order for something to truly happen, you would need organization, and you would need some kind of leadership.
	Which brings me back to the main point about all of this.
	Donald Trump.
	A quote from Ulysses S. Grant.
	Well, Donald Trump is certainly facing his life on the line.
	His property, his claims of protection on citizenship, and living under conditions put forth by people he thinks have stolen the election from him and are subverting this country.
	What do you think Trump would choose if he truly believes he will go to prison and his life will be over?
	I certainly believe Trump will choose to resist.
	And the people who know, support, and love Donald Trump will also choose to resist.
	Which is why it's shocking to see Allen West say that law-abiding states should have their own union, one that abides by the Constitution.
	I certainly think the state should be abiding by the Constitution.
	An interesting point I mentioned earlier, that was brought up by Michael Malice, is that the Second Amendment guarantees our right to bear arms, to protect ourselves, and to defend our state.
	Yet in so many cities and states, you're not allowed to.
	They have infringed upon your right.
	Now, whether you agree completely with it isn't the point.
	The point is, there are people who say it's wrong, and people who say it's right, creating stark cultural differences.
	Why would one person who believes in their right to individual sovereignty, as a member of the larger nation and community, why would they just give that right up?
	If you are forcing someone to sacrifice these things, then I believe you're forcing them to choose the only thing they can, resistance.
	I'm sure the left would say exactly the same things.
	And I don't mean the Democrats.
	I mean the far left, the Antifa types, the tankies and the anarcho-communist types.
	They're probably sitting there saying, Tim, maybe now you understand why they don't like cops.
	Because the right of revolution, etc, etc.
	They don't want to live under the conditions set forth by who they view as their conquerors.
	And therein lies a big challenge based on what Ulysses S. Grant said.
	Will anyone ever feel like they're truly being represented?
	You know, there was a time when we had unity in this country, and we had a strong community.
	We went to the moon, something we worked together on.
	But there was still dissent, there was still protest, and really bad stuff too, like the Kent State Massacre.
	These things happened.
	But there seemed to have been an overarching community agreeing that we were all American.
	Today, we don't have that.
	We have multinational, billion-dollar corporations that say, we're beholden to an international community, not the United States.
	And the people in the U.S., Trump supporters, feel that we are a nation.
	You know, we are a community unto ourselves that must protect itself and support itself.
	America first, as they would say.
	Many on the left don't believe that.
	They believe we should be giving foreign aid to third world countries while Flint is left struggling for clean water.
	Many people, neoconservatives and neoliberal types, believe we should be in war in Afghanistan and Iraq, building streets and cities, but ignoring the pipes in Flint.
	This is, I think, something that populists probably recognize right now, what they're going to risk to actually help their own communities.
	The people who are running the show, the big tech billionaires, the media companies, they're absolutely interested in making money and gaining power in other parts of the world.
	It just makes sense.
	Why be a rich American when you can be a rich internationalist, go where everyone on the planet, and have control over whatever you want?
	So that means they're not here to support you as an American citizen.
	No, they're here to make money off of everybody and assert control over everybody.
	That's just what powerful elites have always done.
	At a certain point, people realize either you live under the rules of your conqueror and lose your rights as a citizen and lose your property, or you resist.
	It's really funny, then, when you see things like this.
	This is from MilitaryTimes.com on October 23rd.
	How the President Could Invoke Martial Law, they said.
	And then we got this on December 2nd.
	Calls for Martial Law and U.S.
	Military Oversight of New Presidential Election Draws Criticism.
	There's a decision being put forward in front of the American people.
	The culture war divide has become so extreme, there's two disparate realities.
	The CEO of Axios said a decoupling may occur.
	And I think it is.
	And then I see them trying to punish Trump.
	That's a bad idea.
	As history has told us, what happens when you persecute and prosecute a popular leader with 74 million supporters?
	At the very least.
	There's still probably a lot of people who are kind of semi-neutral who didn't vote but still like the guy.
	And he's got a lot of opposition as well.
	Should they risk the Manhattan D.A.
	fracturing this nation because they want some kind of Trump derangement comeuppance?
	Or should we say, let's let everyone settle down.
	Let's let Trump live his life and work with him to keep him in the fold.
	I hope the latter.
	But there's also another important question.
	What if Trump really did commit these crimes?
	What if there's legitimate reason to arrest him?
	They'll have to.
	They would absolutely have to.
	And if they don't, then there's no rule of law anyway.
	So you just get elites and tribalists who retain power.
	I don't think any of this ultimately matters in the end.
	Whether they charge him or not.
	Because the fact that there's a disparate worldview, the fact that there are two distinct cultures fighting each other, trying to gain power, refusing to live under each other's ideology, just says enough for me.
	I don't know what happens.
	Perhaps a peaceful divorce.
	Several states say, we out.
	The Democrat states say, what are we going to do about it?
	I think about the UK and how Scotland came to be a part of Great Britain and then eventually became the United Kingdom.
	And I'm not a big history buff on the UK or anything like that.
	But wasn't it that Scotland was effectively conquered?
	Either way, you look at certain Commonwealth nations, Canada.
	Canada doesn't really, you know, work at the behest of the Crown anymore.
	These things have long since passed.
	We're no longer a world of bloody revolutions, for the most part.
	Could it be that we're past the point where anyone could effectively stage a counter-revolt?
	If several states seceded from the Union and stopped abiding by federal law, would anyone tolerate National Guard going in and oppressing and killing people?
	I don't think they would.
	I think that if several states had We Out, people would shrug and say, what can we do?
	Because no one will tolerate actual war and murder.
	I ultimately don't know.
	And I think my normalcy bias says this is all silliness and everything is just going to go back to normal, I suppose, and we'll carry on with our lives.
	But that hasn't been the case for years.
	It's only escalated.
	So why assume anything else?
	It's one of those big challenges where I just don't know the future.
	I can't read the stars and I have no idea.
	But I do have a fear that if they try to lock Trump up, they will force his hand and then what will he say other than, my supporters come and protect me.
	And they will.
	They absolutely will.
	And will anyone tolerate the police shooting protesters?
	I don't think so.
	That would only accelerate things.
	I guess we can only wait and see, and I'll leave it there.
	The next segment will be tomorrow at 10 a.m.
	over at youtube.com slash timcast.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
	I did not vote in 2016, and this is why.
	I grew up in a world of revolving door politics, where the heads of big corporations would get cushy positions in government, and the whole game was just What's the right word?
	I'll say the game was rigged.
	Take that for what it is.
	Glenn Greenwald tweets this.
	If, during an election, tech giants take unprecedented steps to censor the internet to prevent the spread of incriminating reporting about a candidate, then of course that candidate, upon winning, should turn key government posts over to them.
	Anything else would be ungrateful.
	You see, Glenn Greenwald is talking about this tweet from Matt Stoller.
	The Biden transition is quietly putting Google and Facebook employees into its transition landing teams.
	That's right.
	Quite possibly one of the biggest stories of the past decade, maybe even to some people of our lives, the former vice president's son and brother were under federal criminal investigations, plural.
	Because of illicit business dealings that in some cases were facilitated by the former Vice President Joe Biden.
	Twitter, Facebook, Google acted to suppress this information in a variety of ways.
	And thus, many people did not know that the man they would later go on to vote for was crooked, corrupt, and according to a family confidant, Tony Bobulinski, compromised by China.
	The story was suppressed.
	Well, thank the lucky stars for Joe Biden, they did.
	And as Glenn Greenwald says, the only appropriate thing to do is to reward these people.
	They saved you.
	Such a good display, a beautiful display of loyalty from Joe Biden.
	Biden transition quietly brings on Facebook and Google employees.
	The tweet says, from Matthew Stoller, when the Biden transition team released the names of hundreds of personnel on November 10th, there were zero current Facebook or Google employees among them.
	That's changed.
	The transition website quietly added four Facebook and Google employees to its agency review teams on or close to Thanksgiving.
	The hawk-eyed Stephen Overly noticed all four continue to work at their companies while on the transition administration.
	Zayed Zayed, a Facebook public policy official, joined the State Department and international development teams.
	Why?
	It was Andy Stone who said Facebook was suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story.
	Remember that?
	A lot of people might not because the story was suppressed, and you wouldn't have learned about the crooked, crony corruption of the Biden family.
	You know, Politico reported over a year ago about Biden Inc.
	We know that he's been Corrupt, using the government to empower and enrich his family, then feign ignorance.
	But we all get it, okay?
	If your brother's getting million-dollar lucrative contracts, and you're flying your son to China for private equity deals, come on.
	We know exactly what's going on.
	Facebook suppressed the story to make sure this man got in, and now these people are getting jobs.
	Christopher Upperman, a Facebook manager, was added to the Small Business Administration team.
	Rachel Lieber, a Facebook Director and Associate General Counsel, now sits on the Intelligence Community team.
	Dion Scott, a Google Program Manager and alum of Obama's Homeland Security Department, will serve on the DHS team.
	Oh, that's even better!
	He was part of the DHS under Obama!
	Then went to go work for Google, and now is going back home.
	How beautiful.
	Silicon Valley critics have pressured the incoming administration not to hire people with ties to the tech industry to senior posts, particularly individuals associated with Facebook and Google, which are fending off massive antitrust lawsuits.
	There are a number of former Facebook leaders already in top positions on the transition.
	Let me tell you how things are going to play out.
	Serious action is being taken against these big tech companies, okay?
	Antitrust, accusations of censorship and bias, demands that Section 230 be removed outright or reformed.
	Reform makes the most sense.
	Repealing is bad.
	So what does Joe Biden do?
	Well, I wonder why it is these companies supported Joe Biden.
	I'd be willing to make a bet.
	I believe the most likely outcome is that there will be some kind of action to placate enough of the masses to simmer things down.
	You got too many people who are angry.
	74 million people voted for Trump and even more than that who don't believe the election was free and fair.
	That's true as several polls showing that.
	It's kind of freaky if you think about it.
	30% of Democrats believe that there was fraud.
	Now that's nuts.
	So what they have to do is, they can't just come outright and be like, we're no longer going to break apart these companies and go after them.
	Joe Biden is just the president, he's not Congress, he's not Senate, okay?
	So what he can do is potentially veto certain bills that might come through and provide favorable protections.
	Why is he bringing these people on?
	Well, the simple solution is that birds of a feather flock together.
	These people are probably just connected.
	But that's kind of the issue.
	People running Joe Biden's campaign are connected to people at these big tech companies who are protecting him, helping him win.
	He's going to return the favor to the best of his abilities.
	It won't be overt and outright to an extreme degree in my opinion, but they will basically put their thumb on the scale to protect these massive multinational corporations and these big tech companies that allow them to stay in power and would silence the will of the people.
	What I mean by that in terms of silencing the will of the people is suppressing information so that people cannot make the correct assessment.
	The way that journalism is supposed to work is that you give people the information they need so that they can decide.
	That's not what we have today.
	And worse still, we have these big tech corporations that just don't let it happen anyway.
	But there is still some good news, everybody.
	I know, I know.
	There's still some good news.
	Perhaps you're concerned that with these people leaving Facebook, who will stop hate speech if the Facebook employees go to Joe Biden's administration?
	Well, now they're constrained by the First Amendment.
unidentified		And that means no one's going to stop the hate speech on Facebook.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm being sarcastic.
		I hope you realize.
		Well, more facetious than anything.
		After the U.S.
		election, key people are leaving Facebook and torching the company in departure notes.
		A departing Facebook employee said the social network's failure to act on hate speech makes it embarrassing to work here.
		And that's the point.
		Even with these people leaving, There's still going to be this, well, these people are, yeah, right.
		There's still going to be a serious pressure on Facebook to ban speech people don't like.
		There's clearly two different distinct cultures going on in the United States, and they're not going to get along all that well.
		But when these people leave Facebook, these people who want to ban hate speech, you wonder what the culture of Facebook is, and you wonder who's going to be in that Biden administration.
		I want to read this for you.
		But I want to show you an example of, I guess, the severity of where we're at.
		Why, this is just a Facebook— I'm sorry, this is just YouTube, and there's nothing here.
		It's just YouTube, and it says this video has been removed for violating YouTube's community guidelines.
		This link was once an advertisement from Donald Trump complaining about Vodafone.
		YouTube has removed it.
		The other day we learned that Scott Adams, a pundit, commentator, personality, had one of his videos removed as well.
		YouTube is suppressing information and opinions they don't like, and we all know it.
		And now some of these employees are going to be working with Joe Biden.
		These people believe they're smarter than you, they're better than you, and they have a right to control what you know.
		Why?
		We're all allowed to have our opinions and draw our own conclusions.
		Let me put it this way.
		YouTube's new rule is that if you meet two criteria, they take your video down.
		And that is, you have to claim the first criteria.
		Claiming there's widespread voter fraud or error.
		If you say that, you're fine.
		But, if you combine that with the second criteria, that because of it Trump lost, that is a bannable offense.
		The video will be banned or removed.
		On January 20th, they'll start issuing guideline strikes for those that assert this.
		Donald Trump puts out a video complaining about fraud, and they remove it.
		The issue I have here is, if you look at all the evidence, particularly Matt Brainerd and the Voter Integrity Project, where he says, we have evidence of potentially illegal ballots.
		He's very precise with his language.
		They're currently in litigation, so once this all wraps up, then we'll have probably a bigger conversation.
		He says that.
		Let me just add something.
		And this is a shout-out to David Pakman.
		I want to make sure he knows this.
		He tweeted that voter fraud was essentially like religion, that people just believe it exists without evidence.
		First, the big main reason why hard evidence isn't just being dropped on Twitter, for anybody who's interested in a good-faith argument, is because judges really don't like it when you litigate the case in public before they get a chance to see it, because it creates undue pressure on the courts, and it's just, if you're gonna bring a case, bring it to the judge, not to Twitter.
		In many of these circumstances, Matt Brainerd could not just publish people's names and addresses, he would be banned outright.
		That's doxing.
		The courts also don't want him publishing this stuff, but he has offered up the data to journalists.
		I've had the privilege to actually look at some of the data he's presented, and I can say I independently corroborated some of the evidence he's had, and I believe that he is accurate in his assessment.
		Now, based on that information, I am not saying Trump should have won by no means.
		We've not had the day in court, there's not been anything proven definitively, but I think it exists and it warrants an investigation.
		Now I can say all that, but based upon seeing the evidence and saying this, would it be unreasonable for someone to conclude in their opinion that they feel something else?
		That they believe Trump should have won?
		I believe that's perfectly rational and reasonable to conclude, though I personally wouldn't because I want to see... Look, I looked at some evidence.
		I corroborated it.
		It doesn't prove Trump lost the election because of fraud.
		It just doesn't.
		Trump comes out and says it.
		I do not agree with him.
		But I do agree that there needs to be more of an investigation, and we've not yet even had that in any of the courts, a review of evidence.
		That's no good.
		But I've looked at it.
		If someone concludes in their opinion they feel one way, that's just an opinion.
		It is.
		You can say your opinion is that, well, I think based on the amount of touchdowns by this quarterback that this football team's gonna win.
		Well, you can't say that because it's not been proven.
		Gotta wait till they do win.
		No, you can make predictions, and you can give your opinion.
	There's, there's, you know, many instances in sports, things not of consequence, where someone might be like, I don't know, man.
	You know, they bring on this guy, he gets his big PR pitch, and then all of a sudden they're having him start?
	Yes, you're alluding to some kind of non-criminal conspiracy.
	Happens all the time.
	It's a normal and rational opinion to say, I've seen a couple of things, now I believe thing is the result of this.
	YouTube has said you cannot have that opinion.
	They will remove it.
	How is that in any way protected by Section 230?
	There's nothing objectionable about having an opinion.
	People are allowed to be dumb.
	People have dumb opinions.
	I'm not saying everyone's dumb, I'm just saying.
	Well, to varying degrees, people have stupid opinions.
	I certainly have stupid opinions, because most of you have probably recognized something I've said where you're like, Tim's dumb for saying that.
	I certainly think my opinions aren't dumb.
	The point is, this is the censorship we are now seeing, and Matt Taibbi makes an excellent point.
	The YouTube ban is un-American, wrong, and will backfire.
	Silicon Valley couldn't have designed a better way to further radicalize Trump voters.
	I completely agree.
unidentified		100%.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		My friends, I spoke with Google on the phone.
		I say Google like Google's a person.
		I spoke with an employee at Google about this to get a better understanding of what the rules are and what you can or can't say.
		I believe you are allowed to say absurdities like due to aliens, you know, firing a laser at voting machines, Trump had the election was changed or something like that.
		You can say like ridiculous nonsense.
		I was told, you can say Trump actually won, you can say that the election was stolen from Trump, you just can't combine those two things.
		In this conversation I had with them, I asked them, Look, the people that I talk to at Google are not the bosses.
		They don't make these decisions.
		So it really is just the messenger coming, and I'm not going to... Well, I won't use any analogies, because I won't be like 300, where the guy comes in, he goes, this is Sparta, and he kicks, you know.
		No, I get it.
		The person I'm talking to can't do anything other than tell me what they've been told.
		But I said to them, are you intentionally trying to make everyone lose their minds?
		For four years longer, we've had insane comments and videos on social media about Russian interference.
		To this day, videos that claim Donald Trump did not legitimately win the election and due to Russian manipulation, interference, and hacking, Hillary Clinton lost.
		That was all acceptable?
		Always?
		Do you think people are blind?
		Stupid?
		So now they wrote this new rule, and I said, all you're doing is signaling to conservatives you will not respect them.
		And you will never allow them a fair chance at understanding or communicating or sharing their ideas.
		So yes, I said I believe you have just created the fastest path towards radicalization because BitChute, Minds, and Parler still exist.
		Platforms with which many people are still communicating and sharing videos.
		Now they're telling each other how insane things have gotten and dangerous they've gotten.
		How these people at Google, guess what?
		After they do this, Joe Biden gives some of them a job.
		I'm not saying this guy from Google worked on any of these projects, but it is a massive conflict of interest to be directly benefited by the manipulation of search, by the manipulation of autofill results, or suppressing YouTube content.
		And then say, you're gonna hire some guy.
		Because we don't know the connections.
		I know Google's a big company with a lot of employees.
		Conflict of interest still.
		Matt Taibbi says, Start with the headline.
		Supporting the 2020 US election.
		YouTube and its company blog can't even say banning election conspiracy theories.
		They have to employ the Orwellian language of politicians.
		Healthy forest, clear skies.
		Supported elections.
		Because Google and YouTube are now political actors who can't speak plainly any more than a drunk can walk in a straight line.
		This announcement came down at roughly the same time Hunter Biden was announcing that his tax affairs were under investigation by the U.S.
		Attorney in Delaware.
		Part of that investigation concerned whether or not he had violated tax and money laundering laws, as CNN put it, foreign countries, principally China, That news was denounced as Russian disinformation by virtually everyone in reputable media who often dismissed the story with an aristocratic snort a la Christiane Amanpour, one of the worst of the worst and snooty fake news journalists.
		I'm not going to read through everything because you get the point, what that Matt Taibbi is trying to make.
		They suppressed information that would have hurt Joe Biden.
		Facebook directly stated, we were limiting the reach of this story.
		They said it outright.
		They were removing content and leaks.
		There's still a name you can't say on YouTube and Facebook.
		And Joe Biden rewards employees at these companies with jobs.
		It's not the first time he's done it.
		I believe there's also like Twitter employee and another Facebook employee who have made it.
		Ultimately, where this leads us, Right-wing individuals, conservative individuals, and anybody not... I don't know.
		I don't know what you'd call it.
		I don't know what the factions are.
		Call it right, call it left, whatever.
		They're aware that we are being lied to and manipulated, and effectively, they are spitting on us in our faces and laughing because no one's gonna do anything, and no one ever has.
		What can be done?
		Republicans like to play politics, go through the courts, and most Republican politicians literally do nothing.
		It's the best, isn't it?
		Regular people.
		You know, I think it's funny, Andrew Yang has a book called The War on Normal People, and I'm like, I wonder what he thinks The War on Normal People is.
		Because I think it's this.
		I think it's regular people being restricted from communicating.
		I think it's anti-scientific lockdowns that destroy the livelihoods of working class individuals.
		And when these people try to stand up and speak out, they are smacked in the face, spat on, and laughed at.
		They think that electing a Republican is going to help them.
unidentified		Psh!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Silly, silly, naive fools.
		Sorry, I hate to say it.
		I'm not trying to be mean to anybody.
		But if you think electing a Republican is going to help you out as the Democrats play crony politics and are cheating, you're sorely mistaken.
		Okay, these Republicans, almost all of them, are part of the exact same political establishment.
		It's a fact.
		It's always been.
		And now, you had, what, 126 Republican House members?
		I will say outright, you know, okay, good on them, I guess, for signing on to support Donald Trump in his Texas suit, which ultimately didn't make it.
		Maybe something will change, I don't know.
		But just that?
		That's 64% of the Republican House.
		What about the rest of them?
		You see, even the ones who signed on, in my opinion, only did it because they saw what happened to Perdue and Loeffler.
		When these Republicans were not coming out, going to war for Trump, many people said, I'm not going to vote for them.
		Trump supporters are not Republicans.
		The Republicans had their day and they've lost it.
		I think at this point, many people realize they're worthless.
		Except for, I think, you know, like Rand Paul, for the most part.
		Rand's a cool dude.
		I've always been a big fan of Rand and Ron Paul.
		Not even completely in agreement with their policy positions, but more of the general ideology of freedom, liberty, and individualism.
		I definitely respect, so.
		Ron, you get a free pass.
		You're a good dude.
		And there's a handful of others.
		Tulsi Gabbard continually proves that she is of principle, and she's rad.
		She's just awesome.
		She's come out with a couple bills recently that I believe shows that she is a good person with integrity, standing for what she believes in, in the face of this ridiculous political tribalism.
		Certainly neither are perfect.
		And, you know, not like I'm playing favorites, but, you know, Rand Paul is...
		Legit, you know what I mean?
		Tulsi Gabbard's cool.
		She's also legit, but I, you know, Rand Paul's, I don't, you know, I'll leave it there, all right?
		I clearly, uh, I think Rand Paul is one of the best politicians we have.
		Oh, not that I completely agree with him, but, uh, props to Tulsi as well.
		She's my second favorite without trying to be disrespectful.
		Anyway, long story short, This is what we had before.
		This is what I've seen throughout my life.
		You get some guy works at this big, conglomerate, nasty company, and then he retires, and then he gets appointed to a government position.
		I mean, there's an argument there.
		That person probably has experience with these companies, but he's gonna hook up his crony buddies.
		Look at Dick Cheney.
		Look at Hal Liburton.
		Look at the war in Iraq.
		And then what happens?
		Barack Obama gets elected.
		Joe Biden's overseeing Iraq.
		He puts his brother in charge.
		Well, okay, his brother gets a bunch of Bunch of lucrative contracts, huh?
		Makes a lot of money.
		That's the name of the game.
		They are extracting value to enrich and empower themselves so they will always be on top.
		And this is just another example.
		Joe Biden is obligated.
		He's obligated to support those who helped him win.
		In some way or another.
		And at the very least, these individuals taking these jobs, the Biden transition team, are going to be very well connected to these big tech companies.
		And that's the point.
		It's not just about rewarding them.
		It's about Joe Biden saying, who do I call?
		Who do you call?
		When you got your Twitter post censored, when you got your Facebook post censored, when YouTube banned your video, who did you call?
		No one.
	That's right.
	You got no one to call.
	Joe Biden brings these people on because they worked in these offices and now he's got someone to call.
	Now, when they see a video from Donald Trump and Trump says there's fraud, Joe Biden looks over to this guy and says, uh, give a call to some, you know, make a call to somebody over at Google.
	Will you do it?
	Like, oh yeah, I know tons of people at Google.
	Gives a call to one of his buddies.
	Hey, yeah, yeah, yeah, we had this video from Trump.
	Can you do something about it?
	There you go.
	Plain and simple.
	That's how it is done.
	That's what it's about.
	Strategic positioning.
	They don't care about you.
	It's a big club and you ain't in it.
	And it's the same club they used to beat you over the head with.
	That's what George Carlin said.
	I think it was a great bit.
	He said something else that I can't repeat in that joke, but you know, it's a family-friendly show for the most part.
	Look, I expected things like this.
	I expect more like this.
	I'd be surprised if you thought anything else was going to happen.
	And I'll just wrap it up with, if you think the Republican Party is going to do right by you, and voting for them is your best bet, I think that's nuts.
	I do think it's fair to point out, you know, having the Republicans control the Senate will slow things down.
	But I do think it's fair to say that if Perdue and Loeffler, only one of them needs to win, but I mean, look, the runoffs are happening basically at the same time.
	So, I don't know who's going to win.
	I do think it's interesting, people are saying that only people who voted in the first election, who are eligible to vote, can vote now, so no new registrations, it's not going to matter.
	But they're going to try and rile up people who are already registered.
	It's going to be both or none.
	I don't think it matters if the Republicans win the Senate.
	I think it might slow things down, but the Republicans aren't going to do anything.
	It's like I was saying earlier on.
	How come we don't get... I think maybe I said this in the previous segment, but the point was, how come we don't get Republicans advocating for universal gun ownership?
	We get the left advocating for universal healthcare.
	Where are the Republicans saying there should be a law passed that says it is mandatory to own a gun?
	They say it's mandatory to buy insurance.
	That wasn't.
	Check this out.
	When the left passed the law saying, when the Democrats did, you must buy insurance or get a fine.
	Where are the Republicans to pass the law saying you must buy a gun or pay a fine?
	Why not?
	Why?
	Because Republicans don't do anything.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	over at YouTube.com slash TimCast.
	Yes, yes, I know, you may be saying, but I'm on YouTube TimCast.
	No, you're not.
	It might say TimCast down below because YouTube did that for some reason.
	But if you go to YouTube.com slash TimCast, it is in fact a different channel.
	Check it out, subscribe, type it in the address bar, press enter, and I'll have another video up at 4 p.m.
	today.

▲