Democrat Loser DEMANDS Election Be Overturned Exposing Hypocrisy, It's Wrong For Trump but NOT Dems
Democrat Loser DEMANDS Election Be Overturned Exposing Hypocrisy, It's Wrong For Trump but NOT Dems. Refusing to concede Iowa Democrat Rita Hart has filed a legal challenge in attempt to overturn the results which have already been certified for the Republican.This is basically the same thing Trump is doing but some of the same Democrats supporting this effort are critical of Trump filing these lawsuits.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Demanding vote recounts, refusing to concede, filing lawsuits, claiming that he actually won the election.
You know what he's trying to argue?
That some of these ballots should count or shouldn't count, and it's all because he lost.
What a crybaby Trump is anyway, guys.
Now, here's a more important story.
And this one is all about the integrity and the honor of the Democratic Party.
You see, we have a Democratic congresswoman.
Now, they're claiming she lost the race.
But if we just file a lawsuit and claim the results should be overturned because some of these ballots should actually be counted, well, then she actually wins.
Now, that's totally acceptable.
But what Trump is doing is wrong.
OK, again, I'll drop the bit.
You get it?
Donald Trump challenges the result of the election, and he's running for president, so it's a nationwide race.
There's many different states, many different counties, and he's saying, here's my constitutional challenge, here's my legal challenge.
Now, the left has been primarily focused on claims of fraud, and partly because Trump is the one who keeps saying fraud over and over again.
But the Trump lawsuits, for the most part, have been about process, have been about ballot validity, and constitutional rights.
In some places, he's saying these votes should not count for these reasons or certain votes were thrown out for reasons they shouldn't have been thrown out.
Mostly, though, like the overwhelming majority of his argument, is that some votes should be thrown out.
Now, the Democrats are outraged.
The media says Trump won't concede.
They say this is sedition.
That's right.
Several outlets, several pundits, blue checkies on Twitter, saying that these Republican states and Republican Congressmen and women who were signing on to this Texas lawsuit were proving the Republican Party was a seditious party.
Ah, the Democrats say rabble rabble.
Well, I bring you now to a very important Iowa race.
Proving the absolute hypocrisy.
Not that I think Republicans aren't hypocrites either, for the most part.
I'll always clarify.
I like the new surge of populist, working-class-type Republican candidates, not the crony establishment millionaires.
And I'll say the same thing to a certain degree for the Democrats.
I just don't necessarily trust most of the progressives.
There's a couple of them I think have done some good things, and I'll definitely give a shout-out to Rashida Tlaib, although I've been critical of her in the past.
She voted no on this bloated garbage spending bill, and that deserves respect.
Credit where credit is due.
What we're learning now with this Iowa race is that it's all about power.
It's always been.
So I shouldn't say we're learning this now.
It's just sort of a slap in the face to remind us it's always been this way.
If Trump does it, it's wrong and it's sedition.
If a Democrat does it, well, that is honor and integrity.
You see, the media flows in one direction.
And it's about time I think Trump supporters, conservatives, libertarian types, disaffected liberals, You stop playing the game on the Democrats' terms, and by that I mean the media.
Because let's be real, for the most part, most of these news outlets are just Democrat advocates.
And all of us are constantly arguing on their terms about what is or isn't.
There was a meme I saw that was really fascinating.
It says, if you're a Republican, start here.
If a Democrat, start here.
And it was this graph saying, wild conspiracy theory, you know, unfounded claims, lack of evidence.
Basically, what it was saying was, for Democrats, if there's a scandal, you start by saying it's nonsensical and a wild conspiracy theory.
and ignore everything they're doing, and if you're a conservative, you have to eventually walk your way towards that there's actually evidence.
Actually, let me rephrase that.
When the Democrats make a claim that Trump is evil or whatever, or Russian, it's just true.
And then they work their way from there, and then over a year later, you'll find out it was nonsense.
When you get a story about Hunter Biden, they'll claim it's a wild conspiracy theory, and then a year later, it turns out it was true!
Because the media has rigged the game.
These are Democrat activists, and for obvious reasons.
They live in big cities.
Everyone around them is a Democrat.
They think they're speaking to all people or the regular person.
Gone are the days where they tried to actually understand the middle of the country.
When Trump won in 2016, we had the New York Times drive around the country trying to understand what they got wrong, and they got it wrong again.
It's only getting worse.
So this is the hypocrisy.
But my friends, there's a real reason why the Democrats are absolutely desperate to steal this seat.
You see what I did there?
They're demanding that certain votes get counted so that this Democrat can win because, in my opinion, for one, this Democrat wants to win.
She wants to be in Congress.
Democrats want power.
But they're in serious trouble after losing a large chunk of their majority.
The progressives have gained power and, thanks to Jimmy Dore, could actually force a vote on Medicare for All, which the Democrats don't want.
The weakness, the weakened state they're in now because of the Republican gains means they're desperate to cling to whatever power.
So let's go through all this and I'll explain to you why they're so desperate.
But let's start with some good old-fashioned hypocrisy from the Democratic Party.
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 got a P.O.
box if you want to send me some stuff.
But the best thing you can do is share this video.
And oh boy, please share this one because it's just funny.
Look, this lady running for the Democratic Party is trying to unseat a Republican filing a lawsuit.
The guy who filed the lawsuit is one of the principal voices complaining about Trump filing lawsuits.
It's just too good.
But I'll admit, she's not running for president, so I'll give her that much.
But still, come on.
You can't try and use the legal system to overturn an election while complaining that someone else is doing the exact same thing.
Please share this video to let people know how the system really works.
And again, this is not a defense of the Republican Party.
I've routinely said I don't like the establishment crony Republicans.
It's just that the populist wing of both left and right in this country, in my opinion, are better in many ways than the establishment.
The establishment is trash.
I'll put it that way.
From the Wall Street Journal editorial board, the House fight heats up.
An Iowa candidate asks Democrats not to seat the Republican winner.
Hypocrite!
How bloody-minded will Democrats be with their precariously thin House majority?
We're about to find out as Speaker Nancy Pelosi's caucus considers an election challenge from Iowa's 2nd Congressional District.
On November 3rd, I'm sorry, on November 30th, Iowa-certified Republican candidate Marionette Miller-Meeks, the winner of the district, which extends southeast of Des Moines and is currently held by a Democrat.
The margin was six votes.
If anyone ever says to you, oh, it's just one vote, it won't matter.
No, no, your vote definitely matters.
They say.
On Tuesday, Democrat Rita Hart submitted a brief asking the House of Representatives to overturn that outcome.
Authored by Democratic election lawyer Mark Elias, it says counting 22 mostly absentee ballots would give Ms.
Hart a 9-vote lead.
The brief asks the House to order another recount and use its constitutional authority to seat Ms.
Hart instead.
That is her right.
And if it gets overturned because the courts agree, that is her right.
But I will tell you this, if the courts in Iowa agree to take the case, you're going to see some very serious anger from Trump supporters because I fully expect this to be dismissed on procedural grounds just like many of Trump's lawsuits or the lawsuits from conservatives and Trump supporters.
We'll see how the game plays out. They say among the reasons the ballots were wrongly excluded,
the brief says, are signature placement, envelope seal, and timeliness. Ms. Miller-Meeks' campaign
must file a response, which could raise other ballot disputes within 30 days. Her campaign said
in a statement, Congresswoman-elect Marionette Miller-Meeks won the vote on election night,
won the 24-county audit and official canvas, won the 24-county recount, and was unanimously
certified by the state of Iowa as the winner of the election by a bipartisan council.
Could you imagine if we just substituted Biden with Trump and just play the game?
Okay.
People want to win.
But I'll tell you this.
I think she is allowed to do this.
I think she should get her day in court.
I think her challenge should be allowed.
And of course, they'll respond in kind.
You know, Miller-Meeks will file their response.
The campaign already issued that statement saying she won.
And if there is a judge who says, look, these ballots should not have been excluded, then so be it.
It will have its day in court.
But I wonder, will YouTube allow certain criticisms?
I wonder.
You know, I recently tweeted about another story.
RawStory.com published a claim, it's called Busted, why the numbers behind Mitch McConnell's re-election don't add up.
This story from RawStory alleges widespread voter fraud and argues that Mitch McConnell should not have won.
Yet Twitter did not flag my tweet and say it's in dispute.
Only when Trump does it.
Do you get how the game is played now?
Back to the Wall Street Journal, they say.
Among... So we read that part already.
One political vulnerability for the Hart campaign is that it did not exhaust its Iowa court challenges before asking the House to intervene.
The campaign said there wasn't time for judicial relief in the one-week window between certification
and the December 8th deadline for a five-member state contest court ruling.
But if only 22 ballots are at issue, the complaint could have been presented to Iowa judges.
So it looks like they'll get thrown out on procedural grounds, which I would expect.
Same as Trump.
They say.
They say Meanwhile, the counting continues in New York's 22nd congressional district upstate, where a state judge ordered a re-canvas this month after Republican Claudia Tenney, led by 12 votes in the initial count, now she leads by 19.
But the process is unlikely to be completed before the new Congress is sworn in.
If Ms.
Tenney comes out ahead, Mr. Elias' firm, which is at work in the district as well, could also ask the House to seat its client.
Mark Elias is on Twitter all day talking about lawsuits and a critic of Donald Trump's attempts at suing to overturn the results.
But it's because he's a partisan player in this.
Look, if I see two people fighting, and I don't know who they are, and I'm like, I see you guys hitting each other, and they both point each other and scream, he started it, what am I supposed to do?
Okay?
Now, we all have our biases.
If you're a Trump supporter and you see Trump fighting, you'll be like, nah, Trump's right.
This guy's saying, nah, Biden's right.
But don't come out and pretend like you're, like, he was swinging punches.
Swinging punches is wrong.
It's like, bro, You're swinging punches too, man!
Your argument is meaningless to me.
If you want to engage in lawfare or legal challenges, you are free to do so, and with respect, I will say, carry on, good sir.
Just stop pretending like it's wrong for Trump to do it when you do the exact same thing.
Rest assured, we already know that if Joe Biden did lose, They would not concede.
And Hillary Clinton said Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances.
Well, as I've said before, Trump must have assumed it was great advice and he's following through with it.
Thanks, Hillary.
The last time Congress overturned a state-certified House election result was when the Democratic majority didn't seat an Indiana Republican in 1985.
The GOP anger over that decision may have contributed to Newt Gingrich's populist success in the House, and overturning an election in 2021 would also guarantee a backlash.
The stakes are also high because Joe Biden has appointed three Democratic House members to his administration, meaning that if Republicans hold the seats in Iowa's second and New York's 22nd, the Democrats could temporarily have a mere 219 seats at the start of the term, with 218 needed for an absolute majority.
Oh boy, does it get spicy.
Because now we see the progressives starting to salivate, realizing now's their chance to pressure Pelosi.
And I think Pelosi is awful.
And I think she should not be Speaker of the House again.
And I know they'll probably still end up voting for her because as much as we got progressive populists who are supposed to represent the people and the left, they more represent themselves as snapback politicians who are tweeting too much and not actually doing anything.
AOC goes on Twitter and says, this COVID relief bill is so awful we had no time to read it.
I vote yay.
What?
Okay, at least she spoke, I'll give her that much she spoke up against it.
Rand Paul says, how could you do this?
We have no time to read this.
I vote no.
Hey, that makes sense.
Rashida Tlaib voted no on this, and I give her my respect.
Not that she wants it or needs it, but, you know, I give credit where credit is due.
If someone does something good, I will say it.
The only way you encourage people to do the right thing is by praising them for it.
I hope she continues down that path of challenging this garbage.
I don't like that she was very bombastic and screaming, you know, impeach Trump, impeach the MF, and things like that.
But I hope she improves, and, you know, look, People gotta do better.
We gotta make sure that when they do good, we respect them for it, to encourage them to keep doing it.
They say, that could create the potential strike at their majority, could create an incentive for Mrs. Pelosi to abuse House rules for fear of falling short in key progressive votes.
Alternatively, the GOP's House success in 2020 might remind Democrats of the public's wariness of their tactics and the political risks for 2022 of stealing a House seat.
Perhaps.
But something interesting has been going on for some time.
It's called Force the Vote.
Ignited in part, or I believe Jimmy Dore is leading the charge.
If you're not familiar with Jimmy Dore, Jimmy and I have a lot of the same criticisms for the Democrats.
But he's coming from the left, and I'm coming from, to be completely honest, more so the center.
Center and probably, you know, in some capacity, a right position.
Policy-wise, I actually do lean slightly left, center-left.
But if you think the Democratic Party represents moderate, independence-centrist individuals in this country, you are wrong!
That is absolutely not the case.
For Jimmy, he wants Medicare for All.
And I'll tell you straight up, I'm actually...
When I'm presented with two ideas, a free market solution or Medicare for all, I'm actually more left on the issue.
Medicare for all.
My concern is, can a government actually pull it off?
And that's the problem.
Like, if you were to tell me we could guarantee everybody basic level healthcare, I'd say, like, I'm totally down for that.
But I don't think we can.
Recently, the CDC was issuing guidelines that we should give up the vaccine based on race.
And right away, I'm like, that's why I don't like the system being controlled by the government.
So I'm actually kind of a moderate on the issue.
I am not necessarily for a total free market solution.
I think maybe a public option, but I'm not here to debate healthcare.
I'm here to show you what's going on and why the Democrats are freaking out and why they're desperate to keep their majority as strong as possible.
It's called Force the Vote.
They say fewer than 15 House reps can determine if Medicare for All gets a vote.
Withhold your vote for Pelosi, for House Speaker, unless she commits to bring Medicare for All to a floor vote.
It doesn't mean it will pass.
But Jimmy Dore brought this up and said, I don't care.
I want to know who is going to vote against healthcare in a pandemic.
And I'm like, Yes!
No, this is one of the best things ever.
And I think Trump supporters and conservatives should get on board with this as well.
First of all, you could argue that Republicans have an opportunity to hurt Nancy Pelosi by supporting the progressive action.
But I'm not even about that.
I don't want that to be what this is about.
I want to support this move because I want to expose the liars.
I want these people who dance around claiming that they're a populist progressive and they want all these things, Put up or shut up.
Show me what you really believe in.
Do you actually support what you're claiming or are you a liar?
Yeah, because I know what's going to happen.
People like AOC I don't think would support it.
Okay, maybe she would.
Okay, that's, you know, but there's going to be a lot of Democrats who are like, I'm in favor of this.
If only we could get it done.
And then you're like, yeah, you're lying.
So go vote.
Force the vote.
And the only reason this is possible is because the Republicans gained ground.
Think about how crazy that is.
The success of the Republicans at the House level Have opened a door for the progressives to now push on Pelosi.
And you'll love to see it.
In the 117th Congress, which will be coming in January, I believe January 3rd, 2021, the Democrats have only about 10 votes above the Republicans.
The Democratic Party will have 222 seats and three non-voting members.
There will be one independent, probably who is going to be supporting the Democrats, and there will be 212 Republicans with two non-voting members.
Democrats, ten votes.
Nancy Pelosi could lose Speaker of the House.
Not only that, they're three votes away from losing an absolute majority, so things could get particularly spicy.
But let's wrap it back up and talk a bit about that hypocrisy.
How about that?
Raw story.
Mitch McConnell.
And they want to publish this story, claiming that the numbers don't add up, and I'll tell you this.
I think they fundamentally misunderstand why it is regular people switched from Democrat to Republican.
That's what they noticed.
They said, it doesn't make sense.
How could these Democrats be voting for Republicans?
I'm like, it's actually really obvious because look what the Democrats do.
Even Ocasio-Cortez is saying she doesn't want to force a vote on Medicare for All.
Why?
What's the worst that can happen?
You have the vote, it gets struck down, and then you point the finger at Democrats.
End of story.
That's not gonna help Republicans!
You know, if anything, it'll help the moderate Democrats.
Because if you get a moderate Democrat who says no to Medicare for All, Republicans certainly aren't running on that.
So it's only good for progressives.
Why wouldn't AOC do it?
And why are the Young Turks opposed to this?
Well, mostly Cenk Uygur.
It makes no sense.
What I can't stand is the hypocrisy.
I may disagree with them on a lot of policy issues, because I'm more of a moderate, mixed economy type, not a far-left, socialized medicine type.
But I at least believe in integrity and principle.
And if you, if, look, if the Democrats and the progressives really believe in this stuff like they claim to, by all means, prove it.
Because what I like, what I hate more than anything, liars and hypocrites.
Now, as for Donald Trump's mission, interestingly, Donald Trump summoned Pennsylvania state lawmakers to the White House for mystery luncheon as more House Republicans join his lost cause bid to overturn election.
Now listen, I know you've probably heard it from me, I'm not convinced Trump's going to be able to pull anything off.
I know, uh, the reason I would say a lot of Trump supporters don't like hearing that is, whether it's true or false, you need to maintain morale among your base.
So one of the things the Democrats and the left have been trying desperately to do is convince Trump supporters it'll never happen.
They'll say it's over, it's over, it's over every single day.
They claim Biden won every single day because something keeps changing.
But if Biden won, there would not be a persistent fight from Trump, because the reality is Biden didn't win.
Though I think it's 99.99% likely that Joe Biden is going to be inaugurated on the 20th, that doesn't mean Trump lost.
And we're far from normal right now.
So it's hard to... I would call this my normalcy bias.
I see no reason why the establishment and the machine would allow Trump to do anything.
He theoretically could.
Perhaps, as we're hearing that in Arizona, the legislature might certify the results for Trump.
These state-level legislatures have final say.
They could theoretically, before January 6th, special session or the next session, vote.
When Mike Pence, when it comes time to count, could be presented with two certified envelopes from the legislature or the governor.
And he could say, Constitution says, the legislature has final say.
Totally possible.
Trump could theoretically invoke the Insurrection Act and change the game outright, but I'm not entirely convinced he would do something like that because Trump needs to win legitimacy.
And that's the reason why calling out the hypocrisy and the double standard is so important.
You cannot claim Trump is illegitimate for four years.
You cannot then claim that his attempts at legal challenges to the election are illegitimate when you are doing the exact same thing.
But that's a big problem.
It's a big problem in that you have two parent factions, which break down into like four or five maybe, more than that if you really want to get into the nitty gritty, pointing the finger at each other but both believing they're the good guys.
Now, of course, as you know, I tend to believe that the right is more correct than the left, And there's really simple examples of why.
I mean, in an op-ed, Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks incorrectly stated the amount of lawsuits Trump has lost.
And I'm like, when they get basic facts wrong that you can actually look up, I don't trust them.
But more importantly, what the right has right now is not just Trump sycophants.
Of the 74 million votes for Trump, you have disaffected liberals, Democrats to deplorable, like Jack Murphy's book, if you've read it.
People who voted Democrat before or who are independent voting for Donald Trump.
I'm far from right-wing in terms of politics.
Be it traditional societal values, no, I'm actually center-left.
Economically, I'll be honest with you guys, and I say this all the time, as much as many of these far-left and resistance Democrats don't want to admit it, I'm actually rather left economically.
I took some economic tests and I'm like, You know, 60-70% left and like 30% right wing.
I actually lean left on a ton of economic policy issues.
A ton.
But I'm very, very anti-woke, anti-critical race theory and all that stuff.
And so when I look at the current opportunities in this country, you had Joe Biden, who is warmonger, crony, you know, corporate politician, and Trump.
And I'm like, Trump's definitely the better option for a lot of reasons.
Not for right-wing policy or anything like that, for ending wars, which is pro-America and libertarian type.
So I'm actually more of like a center-left libertarian.
Left libertarians is the easiest way I can explain to people.
Like hippie living on a farm sharing watermelon kind of vibes.
Not authoritarian far left.
But you look at someone like Bernie Sanders, and they would tell you that Bernie is, you know, left libertarian.
He's not.
He may be slightly on the libertarian spectrum, But the challenge with true libertarianism on the left is encouraging people and convincing them to cooperate.
That's how it has to be done.
With right libertarianism, it's actually easy.
Offer them money.
Hey, I'll give you this money.
You exchange this, that, or this.
With left libertarianism, it's like, would you be willing to work with me on this?
If you say no, you gotta keep trying to convince somebody.
It's a very difficult position, and that's why most leftists aren't actually libertarians.
They want to impose things through the authoritative process.
Yeah.
I can't agree with that.
It's very, very difficult.
But I ultimately become more of a liberal on issues.
Donald Trump is making moves.
The Democrats voted earlier this year to restrict his ability to invoke the Insurrection Act.
I don't know if Trump is going to do anything spicy or crazy, but I will tell you something funny is going on.
Trump White House staffers received conflicting messages about their departure.
Staffers were first told they will start departing on the week of January 4th.
They were later told to disregard the memo.
I wonder if these staffers received this bye-bye message because it's kind of a default process, and then Trump saw it and said, no, we're not leaving.
Or maybe Trump really is just trying to milk all of this to the maximum degree, but he knows he'll be out.
In a statement he made on the COVID spending bill and direct payments, he said, if you don't get it done, the next administration will have to, and maybe it'll be me and we will.
And it sounded to me when he said that, like, he does acknowledge the likelihood that he's the next administration is not likely.
It could be maybe the American people revolt when they see what Congress is doing, and then they demand Trump do something.
Or maybe Trump really does believe he won in a landslide, and thus he has popular support for any action he would take.
Perhaps he believes that the American people, for the most part, the overwhelming majority, want him to be president.
It doesn't matter if it's true.
It matters if he believes it.
If Trump believes he has the support, then he'll act.
Well, I'll put it this way.
He needs to really believe in his support for doing this, and of course he'll act, but I'm not convinced he will get there.
January 6th, there's supposed to be a big, you know, event or whatever in D.C.
Now, leftist groups are saying they're going to show up to oppose the right.
Alex Jones says there's going to be 10 million patriots occupying D.C., and they won't let Joe Biden become president.
And we'll see.
I think that'll be a very important day.
You know, Trump is having these meetings.
Trump is saying we're not leaving.
On January 6th, if Trump supporters show up and prove to Trump they're willing to travel from all over this country in support of him, Then Trump probably will take action.
But if people don't show up, then Trump is gonna be like, I don't have the backing to do anything.
That's why it's so important the media claims he's illegitimate.
That's why it's so important that the media says, you know, these Democrats say he's already lost the race.
Because demoralization will prevent people from supporting him.
And it's already working within his own administration.
Many people advising him to just sort of walk away and give up.
It's over and things like that.
At least the media's reporting.
I don't know if Trump cares.
And I wonder what Trump would be willing to do to, in his mind, save this country.
What you need to understand, and a lot of people, especially on the left, don't get.
If I say something like that, I'm not talking about what's true or not.
I'm talking about what Trump believes is true.
That will be the determination, or that will give us a better understanding of what he's willing to do.
If Trump believes he needs to save this country from a Chinese communist takeover, well then Trump's going to do a lot.
Trump is going to insurrection act.
Trump is going to put key loyalists in the Pentagon.
Trump is going to start advising his staff and others that they're not leaving.
His chief of staff will come out and make a public declaration that there will be a second Trump administration.
Trump will keep saying we're going to win.
Yeah, kind of like the things he's already doing.
Will he go one step beyond?
I don't know.
If Trump believes he does not have any support for this, then he's not going to do anything.
He's going to say, what's the point?
It won't work.
That's why January 6th is going to be the most important day.
Do Trump supporters have the political willpower to show up?
I'm not convinced.
You know, I'm not trying to be disparaging or disrespectful.
I'm just not convinced.
I think I lean towards like 55 to 60 percent probability that the Trump supporters will show up en masse and you'll get that 10 million, you know, man marched.
But they had about 200,000 the last time.
And they kept saying it was a million or more.
It was 200,000.
And that's the moderate estimate.
Many Democrats were mocking him, saying they called for a million, they got 200,000.
Not bad.
Some said it was only 100,000.
Either way, it's a lot of people.
The difference between then and now is that January 6th is the last day.
If Trump supporters aren't willing to travel, they're not willing to step up to the plate, then Trump didn't have the support in the first place.
So it's really an issue of whether or not Trump supporters are going to, say, you know, fly from all these different states.
What you've got to understand is that a lot of Trump supporters are in rural areas and they're in the center of the country, in the Midwest.
It's not easy.
That's the challenge.
It's not easy.
Will the Trump, you know, I see the Trump supporters saying Trump should cross the Rubicon, you know, and that's where, you know, turning back when, you know, in Rome, Caesar crosses the Rubicon, etc.
Will Trump supporters cross the Rubicon is the bigger question.
You can talk about Trump all day and night.
I think Trump's willing to go the extra mile.
But he needs people to do it.
So if you were to ask me, will Trump supporters, you know, fight tooth and nail and make sacrifices for Trump?
I'd probably say yes.
But will we see it on January 6th?
I lean towards yes, but it really is the hard maybe.
That's when we're gonna see.
But also, don't forget, the left is planning on showing up to this as well.
So it's gonna get bonkers.
I'll leave it there, though.
The hypocrisy of the Democratic Party, I tell you what, huh?
Next segment will be coming up tonight, 8 p.m.
live at youtube.com forward slash timcast IRL.
Come check it out.
It's gonna be a whole lot of fun.
And then I'll let you know for the next couple of days, Christmas and Christmas Eve, I'm gonna be off because it's a holiday and, you know, to be completely honest, I'm not doing anything too special.
I'm gonna have, you know, Christmas, open presents and stuff.
But it's just, it's just incredibly impossible to do work on these days.
Because everyone else kind of stops working, there's not much to do and talk about, so you work twice as hard, and then everyone's, you know, doing family stuff, so it really is just better to hang out with friends, family, crack open some presents, have some gingerbread cookies, some eggnog, and have a good time.
So with that being said, I'll say, wish y'all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, and check out youtube.com forward slash Timcast IRL tonight at 8 p.m.
live.
We'll be hanging out, and hope to see you there.
Trump supporters believe that Donald Trump is playing fourth dimensional chess.
It's like when you play chess and you got different levels of the board.
Meanwhile, the Democrats foolishly are only playing checkers.
My friends, with Donald Trump's latest move, he has entered into a higher state of dimensions that we cannot even comprehend.
It is a number that if I were to display on the screen would only look like a twisted foreign shape.
Confusing you!
Because Donald Trump is playing a dimensional level of chess, which is just profound.
Progressive Democrats signal support for Trump's direct payment request.
Bravo, Donald Trump!
For those that aren't aware of what's happening, there is an Omnibus Spending Bill attached to the COVID Relief Bill, or vice versa, whatever you want to call it.
Now, many people are referring to this Omnibus Spending Bill as the COVID Relief Bill, and Donald Trump did.
And the media is saying that's not fair because the Omnibus Spending is random garbage, and the COVID Relief Bill is for COVID relief.
Okay, now, the whole thing's the COVID relief bill.
The COVID relief is the gun to the head during the hostage situation, where they're telling you, you want your $600?
Well, then we're gonna give $10 million to Pakistani gender programs.
Shut your mouth and accept it.
And people are saying no.
Progressives and Trump supporters.
And this word, a populist wing, really starts to shine.
Because if you were to separate establishment elites from populists, you'd find Well, from Bernie Sanders progressives to Donald Trump supporters, they agree on a whole lot.
As much as they're typically the ones fighting with each other, the establishment, mostly the Republicans, they don't want to give $2,000 per family.
And that's what Donald Trump has called for.
In a tweet, where he put out a video, he said, I want $2,000, this was last night, for each American.
And progressives are loving it.
But see, Nancy Pelosi also comes out and she says, let's do this.
But here's what I love.
Nancy Pelosi, you are a crooked corporate crony politician.
Same as Mitch McConnell and many of these other Republicans.
Same as all the Democrats.
Now, to be fair to the Republicans, I will give them some credit.
Because there was 50, I think the number is 57 or 56 Republicans who voted no on this, and only two Democrats.
Rashida Tlaib and Tulsi Gabbard.
Good for them.
My respect.
There are many more Republicans, like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Rick Scott, etc., and Marshall Blackburn, who voted this down.
And that was the right move.
They voted it down because the COVID bill, the relief bill attached to this omnibus bill, is garbage full of nonsensical garbage.
Now, the progressives think, and Pelosi thinks, that they're going to just add an amendment to the bill saying, give everyone an extra $1,400 on top.
No, I'm sorry.
Maybe you weren't paying attention to what the president said in his video on Twitter.
Donald Trump said, get rid of the bloat and the corruption.
He actually goes through a whole bunch of the trash, reading out where this money is going.
And I gotta say, that's Donald Trump at his best.
That is Donald Trump shining to the American people.
When he comes out and he says, why are we giving $10 million to Pakistan?
No, I'm sorry.
$25 million is what he says.
$25 million to democracy and gender programs in Pakistan.
I have to wonder how many regular Americans are sitting right now, looking at their past-due mortgage, saying, I need to work, and the Democrat governor shut us down, and then they see this video from Trump where he's like, 25 million just went to Pakistani democracy and gender programs.
And I have to imagine, many regular Americans are going, what?
I think it's hilarious.
Progressives need to fight harder.
The problem is, AOC, these progressive Dems, I see them as in line, for the most part, with Nancy Pelosi.
Take a look at the fight with Jimmy Dore, alright?
I've been talking about this a little bit, but you may have seen it.
Jimmy Dore is, I guess you'd call him a progressive, but he's very populist.
He's a good dude.
And he was saying the progressives need to pressure Pelosi to vote on Medicare for All.
They won't do it.
Even Cenk Uygur, who's not in politics, was like, No!
It's not the right time!
We can't do this!
And then you have AOC saying, we don't have the votes, we can't do this.
No political willpower.
At least there's some political willpower from Republicans.
Now these Trump Republicans who are getting in, this new wave, this new batch of Trump-supporting Republicans, the 15 or so plus who are going to object to the Electoral College vote on the 6th, these people have spines.
These are the people who are like, I'm going to object to the Electoral College vote.
Do something.
What are the progressives doing?
Agreeing with Nancy Pelosi.
Okay.
They're saying right now they're going to put out their amendment that's going to increase $600 relief to the American people to $2,000.
Let me just say one thing before we read this story.
Why is it that when the Democrats come out with a bill, Trump or the Republicans negotiate on Democrat terms?
Why doesn't Trump say this?
We should have $2,000 to the American people, no bloat, which is basically what he's saying, and then reopen the economies.
That should be included in the stimulus.
We can't just keep mass printing money.
It makes no sense.
But I get it, man.
Right now, what we're being told is that, you know, we're facing serious economic collapse.
People are already behind on average like $6,000 in rent and mortgage payments.
The bill is going to include a moratorium on evictions, but we are just being driven further and further into communism.
Think about it.
If you're a landlord, the left says you don't have a job.
Landlord isn't a job.
Well, that's not true.
There's a lot of paperwork.
There's a lot of administrative work.
There's repair.
There's a lot that goes into being a landlord.
Now, of course, you can always hire out management companies.
So, in a sense, landlord I wouldn't consider to be a full-time job.
It certainly does require some work.
But that's not really important, the argument about it.
What's important is, if people don't pay rent for a year, the landlords can't pay their mortgages, and then what happens?
Well, in New York, they're saying they're going to start buying up a lot of these empty buildings at dirt discount prices.
Interesting.
And then they're going to convert it into housing.
Interesting.
So, the government of New York destroyed the economy, seemingly against the science, against the wishes of the people, and now that the property value is worthless, they're buying it up.
My friends, this is martial law.
This is a violation, in my opinion, sort of, of the Third Amendment.
People don't often talk about the Third Amendment.
You can't quarter soldiers in your house.
Okay, that's not what they're doing in New York, but you get the point.
The government is using unconstitutional and downright illegal activities to destroy property value to seize property from private individuals.
Bravo.
And you know what?
They're gonna get away with it.
Because I'm sitting here watching everything they're doing.
The progressives saying, Trump, okay, we'll increase the spending.
But did you hear what else Trump said?
Cut out the garbage.
They won't do it.
We got this story here from the Daily Mail.
They say, Donald Trump appeared to suggest he would veto the $900 billion relief package.
I'm sorry, I gotta stop you guys.
Trump appeared to suggest he would veto the $2.3 trillion omnibus spending package, which includes the relief package, unless they tripled from $600 to $2,000 for the American people.
In a video address posted to his Twitter page, Trump said it had taken forever to get the bill passed and called the outline terms a disgrace.
Send me a suitable bill, or else, the next administration will have to deliver a COVID relief package, and maybe that administration will be me, and we will get it done.
Maybe that will be- You know what?
I have to wonder about all this.
I mean, look.
I don't think AOC is perfect.
I think there's some things that, you know, you can give her credit for, but I think she's far from perfect.
I think, you know, she challenged big tech surveillance and stuff.
I like- I appreciate it, you know?
I always give respect where respect is deserved.
But she doesn't go far enough in what the American people want.
But Trump has found widespread support.
I shouldn't say that he's being supported, necessarily, but that he's found that path.
You know, I know a lot of people, and I was mentioning this the other night on the IRL podcast, who are just like, I want more than $600.
I don't know or care about deficit spending and the printing of money and inflation and, you know, debt to GDP or anything like that.
And they just want the cash.
Well, Trump supporters believe in Trump.
Trump supporters don't like government bloat.
And I'll put it this way.
If you took $900 billion, divided it by 330 million Americans, you get about $2,700.
That includes babies, okay?
That includes babies.
That means if you are a family, and you've got three kids, you're gonna get $2,700 times five in your family.
So, you know, one for you, your spouse, your kids.
Now, I don't like the idea of mass printing money.
I don't like the idea of government lockdown, but let's put it this way.
The problem I have with the mass printing of money is that you're essentially devaluing the wages, the labor, the savings of individuals.
You are borrowing against their assets to give money to other countries, for foreign programs like gender studies in Pakistan, and for major corporations.
Why are you leveraging my savings, my wages, my earnings for other interests and massive corporations who don't need it?
Makes no sense.
But what if, instead of this 900, what if this 900 billion dollar relief package was direct payments, 2,772 or whatever dollars?
What if that went to the individuals?
As much as I still don't like the idea of just mass printing money, if you're borrowing against your own buying power, you're not losing anything.
It's just allowing you to essentially buy some stuff now, pay your rent now, so you don't have your life destroyed.
It will, in the long run, devalue your wages and labor and things like that, but you are getting the money yourself.
Now, ultimately, it would have a negative impact on higher earners and taxpayers, people who pay a lot more money.
Still, a direct payment to the people, which is leveraging their own personal value, is much better than giving it to a bunch of major corporations.
That, I think, is acceptable, probably, to many Trump supporters.
Don't give it to anybody else.
Probably not the ideal circumstance, but it's also extremely acceptable to the progressives.
In which case, Trump has actually got progressives cheering him on.
And regular people saying, Trump trying to give me two grand!
Let's do it!
Pelosi embraced the call, saying, let's do it.
In a tweet responding to the video, House Speaker Pelosi appeared to call the president's bluff.
Republicans repeatedly refused to say what amount the president wanted for direct checks.
At last, the president has agreed to $2,000.
Democrats are ready to bring this to the floor this week by unanimous consent.
Let's do it, she wrote.
Two grand?
That ain't nothing, I'll tell you that.
Now, here's a funny thing.
You know who really loses out in all of this?
It's not just the Republicans.
I mean, they really are on the short end of the stick on this one.
But it's the entire establishment.
What happens when Trump puts out another video saying, I told them to get me a clean bill to send two grand to the American people and they give me bloat?
No one's gonna support that.
Well, progressives will support it.
You know, Donald Trump can just keep increasing the number, and that'll keep the progressives happy.
But if he doesn't cut out the corruption and the bloat, then Trump supporters and conservatives will not be happy.
Now, here's what I love.
Lindsey Graham tweeted, The COVID-19 package, while imperfect, will save jobs and lives.
The sooner the bill becomes law, the better.
It will allow millions of businesses to avoid bankruptcy, deliver vaccines even faster, help those unemployed, and provide money for families who are struggling.
Lindsey Graham, you swamp monster.
The omnibus spending package has more money for trash than it does for the American people.
I think it's like $200 billion would go to the American people out of $2.3 trillion.
These people are spineless, corrupt, they're crooked, and that includes Lindsey Graham and Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell and all of them.
I like the Trump Republicans because they fight for what they believe in and they fight for the people, and I have some respect for the progressive left in the sense that they're at least not the establishment, and some of them have actually done some good things.
Notably, right now, Rashida Tlaib, my respects, I've been very critical of her, but this is the right thing to vote against this bill.
It was the right move.
Graham says, appreciate the fact that Speaker Pelosi supports President Donald Trump's idea to increase direct payments to $2,000 per person.
The American people are hurting and deserve relief.
I know there is much bipartisan support for this idea.
Let's go further.
What does that mean?
Let's go further.
More than $2,000?
Well, like Rand Paul said, why not $20,000?
Why not universal basic income?
I'll tell you this.
I like the idea of UBI.
I like the idea.
I like the idea of Medicare for All.
Can we build the system to implement something that's sustainable and works?
I'm not so sure about that.
That's the challenge.
We don't want to fall into these utopian pipe dreams of just like, give everybody money and deficit spend forever.
Because progressives have actually suggested, let's just deficit spend forever because it won't matter.
It'll matter to those trying to retire, I guess.
Suppose it's fine if you dump all your money in some ridiculous, you know, stock scheme or something and you can find a way to ride the train up.
But I love that Lindsey Graham, he wants to go further.
Why?
Because the bill is full of garbage, and this is their chance to extract more from the American people to send that money to the wealthy elites.
Oh, Trump said 2,000.
Oh, we better triple the bill across the board.
Just amend every number to go up.
No, that's not what Trump is saying.
Donald Trump says Republicans in the Senate so quickly forget right now they would be down eight seats without my backing in the last election.
Rhino John Thune, Mitch's boy, should just let it play out.
South Dakota doesn't like weakness.
He will be primaried in 2022, political career over.
Trump is turning on the Republicans, but it's because many of these establishment crony Republicans turned on him.
I like to see the new wave of populist Republican politicians who are coming in, those who are willing to stand up and fight for what they believe in.
So Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweets this.
Let's do it.
Rashida Tlaib and I already co-wrote the COVID amendment for $2,000 checks, so it's ready to go.
Glad to see the president is willing to support our legislation.
We can pass $2,000 checks this week if the Senate GOP agrees to stand down.
Ah, ah, ah, hold your horses there, Ms.
Ocasio-Cortez.
In this, her proposed legislation reads, in Section 6428A of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as proposed to be inserted by Section 272 of Subtitle B of Title II of Division N of the matter proposed to be inserted by the Rules Committee Print... Jeez.
1.
In subsection A1, strike $600, $1,200 in the case of eligible individuals filing joint return, and insert $2,000, and $4,000 in the case of eligible individuals filing a joint return, and 2.
In subsection G, strike $600 each place it appears, and insert $2,000, and strike $1,200, and insert $4,000.
in the case of eligible individuals filing a joint return, and two, in subsection G,
strike 600 each place it appears and insert 2,000 and strike 1,200 and insert 4,000.
That is just a simple two-paragraph amendment that will not get rid of the insane, psychotic trash that Trump was calling out.
In his statement, Trump said, the bill contains $85.5 million for assistance to Cambodia, $134 million to Burma, $1.3 billion for Egypt and the Egyptian military, which will go out and buy almost exclusively Russian military equipment.
$25,000,000 for democracy and gender programs in Pakistan.
$505,000,000 to Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.
$40,000,000 for the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., which is not even open for business.
$1,000,000,000 for the Smithsonian.
An additional $154,000,000 for the National Gallery of Art.
Likewise, these facilities are essentially not open.
I'll tell you what we should do.
We got all this money?
What is that?
We got $505 million to Belize.
Okay.
Let's choose 500 random Americans.
Give them a million dollars.
I'd rather do that than give the money to Belize.
I actually am in favor of a foreign assistance and foreign aid.
And many people have been critical of this saying, America should be paying the bills.
I'm against the waste of the money in the war.
And I think we got to get our, clean our own room before we start changing the world.
Maybe fix the pipes in Flint with some of this money.
Assuming it's not been done, I guess.
Right now, as we are struggling, I would much rather see Americans get this money than... I'll tell you what, 1.3 billion dollars for Egypt.
Billion.
We can take 1,300 Americans and give them all a million dollars.
How about that?
Why don't we just do that?
Wouldn't that be great?
One day you wake up, it's like, congratulations, you're the person, and then everybody's on TV and they're like, what are we gonna do with this money?
And there'll be deep, serious pressure for them to donate and assist people and pay medical bills and help others out, not just keep the money for themselves.
But I don't care.
I don't care if we gave a billion dollars to one random guy, one random lady.
We find a family, we find a family that's struggling to pay their bills, congratulations, you're billionaires.
Now, with stipulations.
You don't just give large sums of money to people, they don't know how to manage it.
But you give it to them like a breakdown, in a way where it's like they get a certain amount of money over time.
That would be infinitely better than giving it to Belize.
I'll tell you this, I'd rather all of this money, the 2.3 trillion, go out as numerous paychecks over the year.
We could have done a thousand bucks a month for nine months!
Why not something like that?
Just about.
Now, I want to throw things over to my good old friend, Rand Paul.
I'm kidding, I don't actually know the guy, but I like Rand Paul.
He says, I just spent all year writing a Festivus waste report, and he just tweeted it out.
This is a plantum journalist who tweeted about Trump, and he was like, I've been working all year on this story, and then Trump just tweets it out.
Yeah, welcome to the Trump era.
I'm not convinced the Democrats and the Republicans will actually agree to come together on any of this stuff.
I don't think so.
But you can clearly see with Trump's statement, he represents the American people.
And it's a shame people voted for Biden in their ignorance.
Trump's got a lot of problems and he's a lot of things, but the one thing he is not is a crony corporate elite.
The left and the Democrats will tell you that that's not true.
Trump doesn't want U.S.
dollars that we earn and we pay taxes on to go to gender programs in Pakistan.
Even if you're an intersectional, you know, woke leftist, I have to imagine you're wondering why you don't get $10 million to create your gender programs here.
I'll tell you what, let's compromise.
I actually would be fine.
I would, I don't know, I'll put it this way.
I don't care for the gender programs.
I don't exactly know what the specifics are.
But I would still rather see the $10 million in gender programs here in the United States.
You know why?
That money would go into our economy.
I guess some conservatives would probably disagree because they're like, nah, we don't want it at all.
Let somebody else have the gender programs.
And they'd prefer to see the money leave as opposed to, you know, seeing gender programs here in the U.S.
But I'd rather all of this money, at a time of crisis when people need cash, be invested in the American people, American small businesses, and that's not what's happening.
And although the progressives are coming out and they're saying, we agree with Trump, are they really going to get rid of the crap that's all throughout this bill?
I do not think so.
My friends, I would like to bring you to what I love so much about Twitter.
This is what I tweeted.
Jen Perlman, a progressive candidate who was running against Debbie Wasserman Schultz, tweeted, Wouldn't it be great if Trump just decided to executive order Medicare for All before he leaves?
I actually think that would be a really, really smart move.
So I saw that and I was thinking about it.
4D chess.
Trump signs executive order mandating Medicare for All.
Trump supporters cheer because Trump did it.
Biden has to rescind the order immediately because his corporate donors revolt.
Democrats defend Biden because orange man bad.
Progressives defend Trump.
This is not a serious tweet.
I responded to the tweet saying, like, my favorite people on Twitter are the ones who take everything literally and seriously all the time.
My friends, without you, none of this would be possible.
The tweet is meant to be nonsensical on purpose.
No, Trump supporters wouldn't blindly be cheering because Trump did it.
That's part of the joke.
Many of them would.
And no, not all Democrats would defend Biden because they hate Trump.
That's just part of the joke.
It's a silly and ridiculous tweet that will never happen, but it would be hilarious trolling everybody at the same time.
Yeah.
Well, we're not going to get that because, you know, people on Twitter... Well, people on Twitter don't know how to use Google, journalists don't know how to use Google, and it's a really, really interesting thing.
You know, I'm going to get off topic a little bit, but, you know, in the general conversation of helping out the American people, I want to show you just one more tweet that, you know, for those that have made it this far, you will enjoy.
We have this tweet, a series of tweets, and it starts with Jack Posobiec, well-known Trump supporter and conservative, tweeted, What if instead of a vaccine, we just were able to get exposed to a weak version of the virus that enabled us to build the antibodies we need to fight the real thing?
This is one of the most brilliant tweets I have ever seen!
Jack Posobiec, I am not kidding.
Brilliant.
Let me explain.
Most of you right now are probably laughing going, but that's what vaccines are!
Vaccines are weakened versions of the virus and they inject it into you so you can build the antibodies.
Jack is so dumb!
I see two things.
The people on the left like this guy, Dave Jorgensen from the Washington Post, who tweeted, The funny thing is, the tweet from Jack Posobiec is a copy and paste from a tweet he did earlier, where they all said the same thing.
And Jack has crafted a brilliant tweet.
I bring this up in the context of my tweet, and the problem with getting anything done.
And it's that, did you know that the current COVID vaccine does not use a weakened version of the virus or germ or bacteria or anything like that?
It's an mRNA virus.
I'm sorry, it's an mRNA vaccine.
So take a look at what this Washington Post guy says.
It's real anti-serious.
It reminds me of those flat earthers accidentally proving the earth is round.
I can't imagine cognitive dissonance.
To those who believe he was joking, I'm glad we agree vaccinations are effective.
Is Jack Pasopic anti-vax?
I don't think he is.
Here's the best part.
The COVID vaccine is an mRNA vaccine.
And so I responded with, to this guy, This image that says, mRNA vaccines are a new type.
To trigger an immune response, many vaccines put a weakened or inactive germ into our bodies, not mRNA vaccines.
Instead, they teach our cells how to make a protein, or even just a piece of a protein, to trigger an immune response in our bodies.
Jack Posobiec was perfectly trolling.
Because what he says is, in the context of COVID, an interesting point.
How about instead of the mRNA vaccine and reprogramming our cells, you just do a traditional vaccine?
And these leftists who don't know how to use Google and don't know how to use... I shouldn't call them leftists, they're crony establishment Washington Post types.
They don't know how to actually Google search.
So let me tell you, you know what I did?
When I saw this tweet from Jack, first thing I assumed was he was joking and trolling people, because Jack is not stupid.
It's quite successful, actually.
The next thing I did was I said, is there something missing from this context?
Well, I know that the vaccine is called an mRNA vaccine, so how about I Google search what mRNA means, and then I discovered Yes, this new vaccine does not use weakened viruses.
Anyway, I just want to tag that onto the end of this to make a point about how our journalists and media people do not actually do any research.
Now of course they're trying to deflect, saying, no, come on, you know, Jack's dumb!
These people are insane.
And they're the ones trying to tell us how the world works.
That's scary.
Y'all need to step up.
I mean, start doing journalism, start a blog, I don't know, do something, man, I don't know.
But we'll see how the Democrats and the Republicans move forward with Trump's call for $2,000.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
I can already see the fake news fact checkers jumping on this story because of a simple mistake.
And instead of telling you what's really going on, they'll just say fake news.
The question, are Democrats seeking to remove the president's power to invoke the Insurrection Act?
Yes.
Well, sort of.
They would require the president to certify with Congress that certain states couldn't stop the insurrection and thus they need help from the president, which we'll read through this to make sure I'm getting the language correctly.
The Insurrection Act is for the President.
The Insurrection Act has been used many times, notably by Abraham Lincoln, during the Civil War.
Could you imagine if Abraham Lincoln was like, I hereby invoke the Insurrection Act to stop the secession of these states, and then Congress was like, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Can we at least talk about whether or not Texas can solve the problem on their own first?
Now we need to have a debate about this.
There's a reason for the Insurrection Act, and I gotta tell you, When I see executive authority curtailed, I'm not really going to cry about it.
So I'm not all that angry.
My bigger concern, I guess, is it's an emergency power that's been used for legitimate reasons and typically only in extreme circumstances.
And it's hard to know where that line is between too much federal authority and not enough.
Taking away the president's ability to act quickly and decisively in the event of insurrection might be a mistake in the long run.
But before we get into all this and I show you what's happening, let me just say, my friends, you gotta stop getting your news from just tweets.
With Chuck Colesto, I believe this is where the official, the start of this rumor happened.
He tweeted, and I got the actual tweet here from Chuck, breaking report hidden in the 5,893 page bill
that real Donald Trump is anticipated to veto is a provision that says nullifies the president's use
of the Insurrection Act.
But he links to an image of H Amendment 833 from Escobar for HR 639.
Let me lay it down simply for you.
That's the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act.
Now, I think Chuck was correct in the spirit.
He just confused the bills.
I got the number wrong.
So I'll put it this way.
Chuck made a mistake.
It's fine.
I believe he deleted the tweet.
It no longer exists.
And that was... I don't know if that was actually the right thing to do.
He probably should have just attached a correction to it.
But the stimulus bill isn't even 5,893 pages.
So here's what's happening.
I saw this tweet when he tweeted it.
A lot of people were sharing it saying, whoa, they're trying to take away the president's powers to invoke the Insurrection Act.
I noticed the image he posted is from July, and it's HR 6395.
That's not, I believe the spending bill is HR 133, I'm not entirely sure.
And I saw that right away, but everyone kept sharing it.
It got 21,000 retweets.
All you had to do was a Google search, but people, you know, they don't trust the mainstream media, so when they saw this, they believed it.
Now, we can see this tweet just below it.
This is just a general search for Insurrection Act.
John Basham corrected it, said it was the NDAA, and many people started to point this out, but a lot of people were repeating that same bad number, 5,893.
I believe the COVID Stimulus Bill slash Omnibus is 5,543 or something like that.
So even the page number was wrong.
Everybody started sharing this.
You know, he deleted it.
We have GRR Graphics.
That's Ben Garrison, I believe.
And he said, nullifying the President's Insurrection Act powers has to go along with 5,000 pages of garbage.
It's not in that bill.
Now, Donald Trump is expected to veto the NDAA.
And I gotta say, really interesting that they wanted to get Trump to sign off on this after taking away his powers to invoke the Insurrection Act in one of the stupidest ways imaginable.
Like, certification of states to make sure they have the ability to, you know, quell the insurrection defeats the purpose of what the Insurrection Act is.
And I have a historical, an article from history.com, you know, History Channel.
Of course, we trust them because they make ancient aliens.
That's a joke, by the way.
We also have this tweet from Laura Witzke.
She says, Why did Congress bury an Insurrection Act nullification provision in a 5,893-page bill?
Why did Congress also originally pass the bill without reading it?
Not the correct bill.
Lauren is a former Republican nominee.
So a lot of people saw that tweet, and they got it wrong.
Fact check.
Does the stimulus bill nullify the Insurrection Act?
Fact check says no.
No, that's the NDAA.
Newsweek says, you know, the bill prompted bipartisan fury for a lot of reasons.
We get it.
Trump says 2,000, not 600.
We all know this.
The President and many of his supporters are still promoting baseless conspiracy theories, says Newsweek.
Soon after the stimulus bill was passed, claims began appearing online suggesting that the legislation, which Trump said he would veto, included a measure to stop the President from invoking the Insurrection Act.
This power allows the Commander-in-Chief to deploy military and federalized National Guard troops within the U.S.
to maintain order.
Right-wing extremists and conspiracy theorists are urging Trump to use the act to rerun the election and prevent Biden's inauguration.
The claim centers on a screenshot detailing a proposed amendment to H.R.
Among those sharing the screenshot was Chuck Colesto, an unsuccessful Republican congressional candidate from Florida.
He has shared right-wing disinformation in the past.
Social media entrepreneur Mike Corddry also shared the misleading image.
Corddry later realized the mistake and posted another tweet explaining, This was a secret provision added to the NDAA, the National Defense Authorization Act, not stimulus bill.
There was nothing secret about the amendment, which was passed with a majority Democratic but also one Republican vote.
That's true.
That's not a secret.
It's from July.
Nobody noticed it.
So, it's a good thing that Chuck did notice it now.
Trump is set to veto the bill.
He said he would veto it unless they repealed Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which would be a huge mistake.
So, signing it Uh, not signing it, whatever.
230, yeah, rockin' a hard place for the American people.
Mitch McConnell, however, is planning something, uh, well, he's planning to override Trump's veto.
Senate to return December 29th for potential Trump veto override vote.
And this is about the NDAA, the Mammoth Defense Bill.
McConnell, speaking from the Senate floor, said that he had struck a deal with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer for the chamber to return for a rare post-Christmas session, during which he said they will process a veto override.
My intention was and is to ensure the Senate continues fulfilling our obligation to the men and women of our armed forces.
I hope the President will not veto this bill.
In the event that President Trump does not elect to veto the bipartisan bill, it appears the House may choose to return after the holidays to set up a vote to consider the veto.
In the event the President has vetoed the bill and the House has voted to override the veto, the Senate would have the opportunity to process a veto override at that time.
This is really interesting stuff, I tell you.
The Insurrection Act is an important power used by many presidents, and I'll break this all down.
They're going to take it away.
That's, well, that's quite unprecedented.
The Insurrection Act goes back to 1807.
Alexander Hamilton, I'm sorry, let me just get the names right.
It was after Aaron Burr That's a pretty important presidential power.
Let me break all this down for you and explain what's really going on with this amendment, who voted for it, and why.
law 1807 to foil a plot by Aaron Burr who was trying to claim lands in the
Southwest. That's a pretty important presidential power.
Let me let me break all this down for you and explain what's really going on
with this amendment, who voted for it and why, but I'll just tell you there's a
reason why we have an executive branch, a judicial branch, and a legislative
branch.
There's a reason why the Founding Fathers decided for three branches of government.
It's very, very, very smart.
The problem with a pure democratic legislative governing body, you know, just a Senate, is that they can easily be overrun by a foreign military or adversary when they can't act fast enough to solve problems.
Now, Founding Fathers gave Congress sole power to levy war, and that's a good thing.
The people must decide to go to war.
The president, however, can act swiftly and decisively to defend the country from threats.
That's why the president leads the executive branch, can give executive orders, and is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
The judicial branch is essentially like a council of elders, of better men.
It's actually a phrase used by Founding Fathers back in the day, whether you agree with it or not.
So you have three branches that, you know, the Supreme Court's supposed to be balanced by the President nominating and the Senate confirming, and then the Senates represent the states, House represents the people, and the President is an individual, so he can be like, pull the trigger, defend our nation.
Taking away the Insurrection Act from the President, without approval from Congress, nullifies the point of the, uh, partly, the point of the Presidency, the ability to act decisively and quickly to defend this country.
Now, that being said, can powers be abused?
You betcha.
And does that mean that Joe Biden could get in and be like, I invoke the Insurrection Act and now I'm taking over, you know, California?
Something ridiculous.
I mean, he doesn't talk like that, but you get the point.
Yes, any president could try to invoke this and do something ridiculous with it.
Perhaps Donald Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act, as many are calling on him to do, and then force new elections or just stay in office, I guess.
Well, this is the GovTrack bill that was highlighted by Chuck, which he incorrectly described as the COVID bill.
It's actually the NDAA, and this specifically is an amendment to the NDAA.
It's H Amendment 833, to require certifications be made to Congress when the President deploys active-duty military within the U.S.
during civil unrest by amending the Insurrection Act in Title 10, Chapter 13 of U.S.
Code.
Now, what about this date?
What about this date?
July 20th, 2020.
Are they trying to pass this bill to take away Trump's powers so that he can't invoke the Insurrection Act and stay in office?
No.
This amendment was added shortly after mass rioting swept across the country, and many people were saying Trump should invoke the Insurrection Act.
That's why this amendment makes no sense.
And I'll read it for you to explain why it makes no sense.
You see, pulling up the text of the actual National Defense Authorization Act, this is not in it.
Not only that, the National Defense Authorization Act, I believe, is about 1,800 pages, also an absurdly large document people are expected to sign.
But this has been out for—the NDAA has been around for quite some time.
I mean, it was put forward, I think, March or so, or, you know, whatever.
Several meetings on it.
There was an amendment made to it in July.
That's what we're talking about.
This is H Amendment 833.
They say, requires certifications be made to Congress when they deploy military within the U.S.
during civil unrest by amending the Insurrection Act in Title 10, Chapter 13.
Well, Here we go.
Here's what it says.
Curtailing Insurrection Act Violations of Individual Liberties.
Section 10, Subsection A reads, Federal Aid for State Governments, Section 251 of Title 10 U.S.
The President may not invoke the authority under this section.
Unless the President and the Secretary of Defense certify to Congress that the state concerned is unable or unwilling to suppress an insurrection described in subsection A. A certification under paragraph 1 shall include the following.
A description of the circumstances necessitating the invocation of the authority under the section B.
Demonstrable evidence that the state concerned is unable or unwilling to suppress such insurrection, and a legal justification for resorting to the authority under this section to suppress.
And C. A description of the mission, scope, and duration of the use of members of the armed forces under this section.
B. Or, that's, and then subsection B, I guess.
Use of militia and armed forces to enforce federal authority.
Section 252 of Title 10 United States Code is amended to read as following.
Whenever unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the U.S.
make it impractical to enforce the laws of the United States in any state by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, the president may call into federal service such of the militia of any state and use such of the armed forces, as the president considers necessary, to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.
But, also, the same certification applies.
So, that's actually quite interesting.
I don't know if that's an addition, giving the president the ability to call upon right-wing militias or so, or militias in general, even left-wing ones, to assist in enforcing federal authority.
But they do add the certification process, which doesn't say that Congress has to vote on approving it.
It basically is just saying the president and the Secretary of Defense have to write these things out and present them.
I don't actually think, in the long run, That will curtail, for the most part, the Insurrection Act powers, but it may be enough of an inhibition that does stop the President.
Or, this could be used as justification to then say, Congress must approve.
Therein lies the problem.
The President doesn't need to certify swift and decisive actions to protect the Union.
Let me tell you about the Insurrection Act, because this stuff is very, very interesting stuff.
The Insurrection Act of 1807 is a U.S.
federal law that empowers the President to deploy U.S.
military and federalized National Guards within the United States.
We get it.
There are constitutional exceptions to Posse Comitatus.
Posse Comitatus was, you know, limits the use of military personnel under federal command for law enforcement purposes within the U.S.
So, how would certification work in this capacity?
The Act empowers the U.S. President to call into service Armed Forces and National Guard
when requested by a state's legislator or governor if the legislature cannot be convened
to address an insurrection against the state.
So how would certification work in this capacity?
A state would literally be like, y'all, we need help, invoke the Insurrection Act.
unidentified
And then Congress would be like, well, we want you to certify for us first.
The purpose of the executive branch is swift and decisive action.
If the state says we're under duress and we need help, the president can say, send in the troops.
Not, okay, we hear you loud and clear, let's go to Congress and see what Congress has to say.
There's a reason we have three different branches.
They say to address an insurrection in any state, which makes it impractical to enforce the law, to address an insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy in any state, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses to protect said rights.
Oh, let me stop right there, my friends!
Did you hear what I heard?
Did you hear what I read?
Trump may invoke the Insurrection Act to address in any state which results in unlawful combination or conspiracy, which results in the deprivation of constitutionally secured rights, and where the state is unable, fails, or refuses To protect said rights.
My friends, there are constitutional challenges to what's happening in many different swing states.
It is correct to say, at least as we're reading right now, Donald Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act citing constitutionally deprived rights of individuals.
And I'm not talking about only, well I say swing states, but it won't just be, it doesn't have to just be these states.
California, New York, many other places that have said you can't go to places of worship.
Trump could invoke the Insurrection Act because of that and say you are depriving constitutionally secured rights.
That is not allowed.
He can then send in the military, which he probably won't do because I'm not convinced Trump has the... Look, I'll be the first to say, Trump's got a spine.
And then some.
He's got ego.
But is he bold enough and brave enough to actually invoke the Insurrection Act?
I don't think so.
I don't.
Because theoretically, he'd go to New York and be like, you have to stop.
And it's kind of nightmarish what New York is doing.
I mean, think about it.
Against the science, New York has destroyed the economy, private businesses.
It is dictatorship.
No joke, no exaggeration.
They're now saying that as these buildings' value collapses and everyone flees the city, the city's like, we're going to buy them up, turn these office buildings into housing.
That's insane.
That is some kind of evil, government, authoritarian, psychotic, despotic behavior.
Really, really crazy.
But let me give you some more context.
They say this.
The 1807 Act replaced the earlier Calling Fourth Act of 1792, which had allowed for federalization of state militias, with similar language that allowed either for federalization of state militias or use of the regular armed forces in the case of rebellion against a state government.
So let me show you the application.
They say the Insurrection Act has been invoked throughout American history.
In the 19th century, it was invoked during conflict with Native Americans.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it was invoked during labor conflicts.
In the 20th century, it was used to enforce federally mandated desegregation.
So here we have, in April 19th, 1808, Thomas Jefferson.
Affected area was Lake Chaplin.
Embargo Act violations.
In August 23, 1831, Andrew Jackson, it was state-requested in Norfolk, Virginia, Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion.
January, we saw Williamsport, Maryland, Labor Dispute, now the most significant one.
April 15, 1864, Abraham Lincoln invokes the Insurrection Act in the affected areas of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas in the Civil War.
And it goes on.
The last time it was used was in L.A.
under George H.W.
Bush for the L.A.
riots.
It was used in 1968 at the Chicago—1968 Chicago riots.
It's been used quite a bit—Baltimore riot of 1968.
Why didn't Trump invoke the Insurrection Act when we saw the nationwide rioting?
It's certainly in line with what we've already seen over and over again, and he could have shut things down immediately.
Because Trump is not the fascist they are claiming he is.
And you know what?
Honestly, it might be a bit of a problem.
Presidents going all the way back to 1808, nearly at the start of this country, have used the Insurrection Act to stop, you know, rebellion, violence.
Not always a good thing.
You know, but it seems to be, for the most part, a fairly good thing to do, stopping a lot of riots and, well, the authority by which Abraham Lincoln declared war against the South, who had been seceding, and fought to end slavery.
Now, I tell you this, the Civil War, it's a really, really interesting conflict.
A lot of people might oversimplify everything about it and say, slavery versus not slavery.
That was the ultimate catalyst, the ideological split between these states, new states coming into the Union and then deciding whether they were going to be free or slave states.
Slavery was, for the most part, the major catalyst.
People might tell you it was states' rights, but then the question is, the states' rights, yes, Under that, the principal right being fought over was literally slavery.
Abraham Lincoln, in an attempt to destabilize the South, signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and it is true that Abraham Lincoln was very racist, as were basically everybody at the time.
So anyway, look, I digress.
It's really interesting.
The kind of authoritarian and nightmarish things Abraham Lincoln did, but we look back on and say he was a hero.
Suspending habeas corpus, shutting down newspapers, arresting congressmen?
That's crazy!
Could you imagine if Donald Trump did that right now?
People would lose their minds.
But people probably lost their minds when he was doing it.
And that's why, you know, there are a lot of people who are critical of the legacy of Abraham Lincoln, not in its totality, but just in these actions.
The question that arises, was it the right thing to do?
I read Ulysses S. Grant on secession, and I think he was spot-on correct.
Many states spent blood and treasure to admit new states into the Union, and that means there was almost a debt to leave after that, after we pitched in for the common defense and to defend territory.
That's not cool.
It'd be like moving into someone's house, not paying rent, and then skipping before you did.
We'd be like, nah, you're not going anywhere until you pay rent, right?
You can't do that.
We paid for you to be here, you gotta pay us back.
Or at least contribute.
So it really is interesting whether or not, you know, Abraham Lincoln did the right thing.
But I bring up Lincoln in reference to the Insurrection Act because of those who would call on Trump to do the same thing.
Dan Scavino posting a photo of Trump looking at a portrait of Abraham Lincoln and all of a sudden the Trump supporter said, he's gonna do it.
So it's no surprise then that we're now seeing concern over whether or not Trump will have the authority to, with the NDAA being put through some kind of certification process, if Donald Trump, right now, signed the NDAA.
And then on January 6th or 7th, Invoke the Insurrection Act and said there's a fraud, the rights were deprived, or probably before then.
I mean, listen.
It's not... I don't think it's in dispute that the constitutional rights of many individuals in many states were deprived.
To explain.
Mail-in voting in Pennsylvania, according to a lower court judge, on the merits, did violate the Constitution of the state.
And in turn, it violates the Constitution of the United States.
And by not following state legislature, many of these states that changed their election rules violated the Elector's Clause of the Constitution, depriving people of their rights.
Now, when Trump and many others brought these challenges to court, they were thrown out for procedural reasons, not on the merits.
Trump may actually Invoke this.
I really don't think it's the case.
It would be unprecedented, but I tell you, so is having Joe Biden, who, in my opinion, is absolutely compromised by China becoming president.
Everything happening is unprecedented.
I'll tell you this, my normalcy bias says Joe Biden becomes president, everything just kind of chills out, whatever.
You know, we'll see a dramatic escalation in the next few years towards populist left and populist right.
Something like that, maybe.
Normalcy bias just means, like, people can't expect these things to happen.
Optimism bias is that people assume the good things are going to be what's happening.
But we are in an unprecedented circumstance in our history.
The collapse of the economy, the 35% of all U.S.
dollars being printed in 10 months, and with COVID restrictions and lockdowns, a new strain emerging, it is all unprecedented.
My friends, I don't know what normal means anymore.
So maybe, when you see Congress, Republicans and Democrats, spending our money, trillions of dollars, on garbage nonsense like Pakistani gender programs, ask yourself, if you're on the left or the right, ask yourself, why, at our weakest and most desperate moment, when our lives are being destroyed, are we giving our money away?
I'm for foreign aid, just not in a crisis!
Maybe then, if Trump did invoke the Insurrection Act, he would have popular support.
Maybe not, but I'll tell you this.
If Trump truly believes that he won in a landslide, then invoking the Insurrection Act, in his mind, would be popular.
So why wouldn't he do it?
I guess we'll see, but I wouldn't bet on it.
Next segment's coming up over at YouTube.com forward slash TimCast, which is in fact a different channel from this one.
People look down, they see the name TimCast, and they think this is, no.
This is YouTube.com slash TimCast News.
I have another channel.
If you type in YouTube.com slash TimCast, you get it.
