Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 4, 2021 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:18:24

Democrats Call For Impeaching Trump AGAIN Over Leaked Call, Trump Responds With Lawsuits Against GA

Democrats Call For Impeaching Trump AGAIN Over Leaked Call, Trump Responds With Lawsuits Against GA Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:17:49

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Democrats are calling for the impeachment of Donald Trump again, as they've been for the entirety of his presidency.
		But this time, it's over a leaked phone call between Trump's legal team and the Secretary of State of Georgia.
		Now, yesterday, I did a segment about this on my main channel.
		At the time, only about four minutes had been released.
		But shortly after I recorded, they did release the full hour-long audio.
		And my friends let me tell you, of course, They take Trump out of context, which is the basis by which they're saying impeach Trump.
		And when you actually listen to the full hour-long audio, it certainly doesn't make Trump look like a saint.
		If you support the guy, you're going to agree with him.
		If you don't, you're going to disagree with him.
		But it does make the Georgia Secretary of State look really, really bad.
		I mean, I'll just tell you this.
		The Trump team says we have evidence of people who changed their addresses and moved out of state and voted, and the response from the Secretary of State is they moved back.
		Without evidence?
		They moved back.
		The Trump team says there's a national change of address database.
		Well, they moved back.
		That's not evidence.
		You can't just say that.
		Maybe it's true, fine.
		Well, the Trump team says we've asked for that data.
		Why won't you provide it?
		It's one of the reasons why they were suing in the first place.
		Well, the left, going off of four minutes that took Trump, I would say mostly out of context.
		I think, look, Trump said we just need to find 11,780 votes.
		We now know why.
		Trump said, look, we've got hundreds of thousands of votes.
		We've got 10,000 here, 10,000 here.
		You need to look at these that were counted multiple times.
		You can see it on camera.
		Why aren't you addressing this?
		But listen.
		We're not going to go nuts here, we just need 11,780.
		So what Trump was basically saying was, instead of doing a big investigation and lawsuit over all of these different instances, we can just target one of them, which will get us the votes we need to win.
		This is how it works in court, and the left doesn't seem to get it.
		You can prove fraud, okay?
		Like, if you say, look, look, I have a video of fraud, the first thing the court's gonna say is, would that change the outcome?
		And if you say no, they say, buh-bye, it's a waste of time.
		In fact, many of Trump's legal challenges have been dismissed.
		Not his personally, but challenges brought by, you know, other parties, because they said, If you challenge these 5,000 votes, it won't change the outcome.
		Have a nice day.
		Now, I've previously brought it as a problem.
		What if you've got a bunch of different instances you're suing over, and all together, it would?
		I guess you would need one big lawsuit pertaining to all of them, perhaps?
		And for the most part, the legal challenges have been dismissed on procedural grounds, as most of you probably know.
		But this is where it gets interesting.
		This leaked audio, apparently Trump is now filing a lawsuit against Georgia over the leaking of this audio.
		It does sound like the audio was leaked, in my opinion, by Brad Raffensperger.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, listen.
		Maybe you guys don't, maybe you're not familiar, or maybe you are.
		But I think the average person can tell when the person who's recording the call is talking and the person who's being recorded is talking, because when Trump speaks, it clearly sounds like it's coming out of a speaker.
		There's quality issues.
		And when Raffensperger speaks, it sounds like he's in the room, or at least the quality is a lot better.
		That's just my opinion.
		Now, I've actually done a lot of audio production work.
		I used to do it all the time.
		I've done audio editing for documentaries.
		I have a song I released where, you know, I didn't do any editing on it, but I'm very, very familiar with music mixing and editing and audio work, and it sounds like it came from Raffensperger.
		So Trump is suing them for releasing this saying.
		It was a confidential settlement discussion.
		They're trying to argue now that Trump has committed a crime.
		Experts arguing that Trump broke Georgia law, which he cannot self-pardon for.
		Oh, because it's a state law.
		Okay, sure.
		Look, Trump was having a discussion, and I'll put it simply.
		I listened to the audio, and then I was like, and there it is.
		We now understand the context.
		The other day I said it was really weird that Trump was saying we need 11,780 votes when Brad Ravensburger says you lost by 12,790 or whatever.
		Why would Trump ask for an amount of votes that doesn't equal the amount they claim he lost by?
		Well, we now know why Trump was asking for that number.
		In his belief, that's what he needed to win, so that was one of the possibilities I brought up.
		Maybe he thinks that's the number he needs to win, no matter what the Secretary of State says.
		But it was also that Trump was basically saying, There are 10 areas, you know, I'll give you a hypothetical.
		The gist of it is, you have all these areas where we could sue and get hundreds of thousands of votes, and he says this.
		He says, look, we've got hundreds of thousands here, we don't need them, we just need, so look, I'm just trying to find 11,780 votes, and there it is.
		Trump was pointing out.
		There's no need to spend all this money, and that, in my opinion, sounds about normal.
		Sounds about normal.
		Well, of course, the Democrats are claiming Trump is an evil monster, and the Trump supporters are saying, wow, this makes Georgia look really bad.
		Let me tell you, the reason the left thinks Trump is a monster on this one is because he's trying to overturn the results of the election.
		That's a fact.
		Look, listen.
		Trump himself tweeted, overturn, okay?
		Now what Trump is saying is there's evidence that he can find that would allow him to win.
		The problem here, okay, with the left is that that's just an argument.
		You can say he's wrong, but he's refusing to concede.
		Okay, so what?
		Democrats did something similar.
		You know, not to the same degree.
		Trump's certainly fighting way more than Hillary Clinton did, but the Democrat activists were nuts in 2017.
unidentified		2016, 2017.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So what we have with Trump is an argument.
		You can argue that the orange man is bad, fine, but I'll tell you what's really, really bad in this phone call.
		I think it makes Georgia look worse.
		In one instance, Trump says, in the consent decree you signed, which is like a no-fault settlement, but it's consent decree, it's a specific legal term.
		You made changes.
		You made changes to, you know, the law or whatever.
		It's a disgrace.
		And that's actually a constitutional argument as to the invalidity of the Georgia election and why the state legislature needs a special session to make a decision.
		I'm not saying it's the right argument.
		I'm saying it's the argument.
		Georgia actually says we don't have a consent decree.
		And I facepalmed when I heard this audio.
		You gotta be kidding me, dude.
		Wow.
		He says, nope, we have a settlement agreement.
		And Trump says, what does it say on the paper?
		It says consent decree.
		And he goes, I don't know.
		I don't have it.
		The Republicans in Georgia are completely inept.
		I mean, Trump supporters think that's criminal, but anyway.
		All right, let's do this.
		I won't rant too much.
		Let me just show you exactly what's going on.
		We got a couple stories here, which I don't think you need me to read.
		Business Insider says, Washington watchdog group calls for Trump to be impeached again over efforts to tamper with Georgia election.
		Tamper?
		He's filing a lawsuit, you crazy!
		I'll keep the rhetoric toned down.
		New York Times says, is it too late to impeach Trump again?
		The president showed this weekend that he still has Georgia on his mind.
		Trump files a lawsuit with Georgia.
		He's filing over a bunch of claims that he thinks, you know, need to be addressed that would get him a victory.
		That's the point of the lawsuit.
		He's contesting the election.
		And then he talked to them and said, here's what I want.
		Here's the goal.
		Yeah, that's it.
		Well, they released it.
		And now here we go.
		Trump files two lawsuits after phone call with Georgia Secretary of State is released.
		President Trump has filed two lawsuits.
		The announcement came Sunday night on Twitter by Georgia's Republican Party Chairman David Schaffer.
		He says, federal lawsuit and state lawsuit against the Georgia Secretary of State.
		The telephone conference call secretly recorded was a confidential settlement discussion of that litigation, which is still pending.
		During the call released Sunday, Trump assures Raffensperger, who certified the state's results for Biden multiple times, the people of Georgia are angry, blah blah blah.
		So we get all that stuff.
		So Trump is now suing because the audio was leaked.
		One of the most important parts is where he says, quote, I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we've won the state.
		That's actually part of the settlement.
		That's normal.
		It's a settlement discussion.
		It's absolutely insane how the Washington Post, of course, took it out of context.
		And I knew they did.
		Trump didn't call the Georgia Secretary of State and say, we've lost, what do we do?
		Can you just magically give us votes?
		Trump said, look at this change of address database.
		It's 18,000 people.
		Look at this.
		People were counting ballots in the State Farm Arena with no monitors available.
		And when you zoom in, you can see them scan ballots three times.
		And the only thing we get from Georgia's, that's not true.
		Well, that's not a refutation of the video.
		I've seen the video.
	You see, this is what the Democrats rely on.
	Low information individuals who just hear Georgia say, nope, you're lying.
	And they go, see, Trump was lying.
	They've entered this from the perspective Trump is wrong and Trump is always wrong.
	But Trump has his arguments, some of which are wrong.
	Trump talks about Dominion voting stuff.
	I do not believe that to be correct.
	I don't.
	And I've looked into all of this stuff.
	So Trump has his errors.
	But when Trump says, you've got the national change of address database, without any evidence, they just say, that's not true.
	Those people moved back to Georgia.
	What do you mean they moved back to Georgia?
	They didn't change their address back to Georgia?
	So you register to vote, you move, you change your address, and then later move back and then vote?
	Maybe, sure.
	But man, you're gonna have to actually provide some evidence because Trump supporters and the right actually have that list of names.
	Interestingly, the Georgia Secretary of State confirms dead voters.
	Two of them!
	Just two.
	So not enough to really do much of anything.
	And Trump asks, when he says we have thousands of dead voters, the Secretary of State says, well, actually there's only two.
	And then Trump goes, okay, how do you respond to that?
	Like, go for it.
	He tells his lawyer, like, say something.
	They confirmed their dead.
	How does that happen?
	Okay, how did dead people vote?
	Even if it's just two people.
	I mean, well, there you go.
	Thanks for confirming this.
	To me, that's probable cause that we need to investigate the other claims.
	Now, if you've confirmed this, they say, no, that's not true about the other dead voters.
	How do you, are you going to provide any evidence to this?
	The Trump camp says, we're asking you for the data.
	That's part of the request in the suit is to give us, they won't do it.
	So if I, I have personally corroborated evidence from a different state of people who have changed their addresses and are listed as voters.
	I have personally done this.
	It doesn't mean that it confirms Trump won or anything like that, because like I said, In court, you've got to prove what you have would change the outcome.
	I don't know if that's the case.
	And, you know, Trump supporters don't want to accept it.
	But what I keep saying over and over again is whether or not Trump wins will not be about the number of votes.
	It will be about institutional power.
	It is Trump versus the establishment.
	And these guys in Georgia are either woefully inept and really dumb or they're malicious.
	Absolutely malicious.
	Law and crime says, experts arguing that Trump broke Georgia law which he cannot self-pardon for.
	They say, Preet Bharara says, the odds of Trump declaring a self-pardon just went up a bunch.
	They say this all the time.
	Look at this.
	Jed Sugarman tweets, GA212604A1, a person commits criminal solicitation to commit election fraud when, with the intent that another person engage in a felony, he solicits requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.
	B. The Secretary of State or any employee willfully destroys, alters, or permits to be destroyed or altered any document described in a subsection, the Secretary of State or employee of his or her office shall be guilty of a felony.
	Oh, that proves it!
	Impeach Trump!
	These people are so dumb!
	They're so dumb, my friends.
	Let me explain something to you.
	If you go, if person A walks up to person B and says, yo, If you don't give me a million dollars, I will physically harm you, a friend or family member, or I will publish embarrassing materials.
	My stars and garters, that is blackmail.
	That is blackmail.
	Okay, now let me explain something to you.
	If somebody mows down up to you and says, I, sir, have filed a lawsuit against you.
	The lawsuit says you owe me a million dollars for you took, you know, you were in my house and we had an agreement, a contract, and you broke the contract.
	You took the million dollars.
	I am going to be releasing the conversations we have, which is going to embarrass and humiliate you, not blackmail.
	Seriously.
	If you're filing a lawsuit against someone seeking relief, OK, and you have a settlement discussion, it is not inducing them to commit a felony.
	These people are so desperate to claim Trump lost.
	The best example of this was yesterday when I when I or that Trump is evil.
	I'm sorry.
	The best example of this yesterday is when Frank Luntz, the pollster, tweeted about this.
	And I just said, is there a full recording?
unidentified		And he was like, if you can't find it, maybe you should remove journalists from your bio.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They hadn't released it.
		Oh, surprise, surprise.
		Simple question.
		I wasn't challenging him.
		I wasn't insulting him.
		I was just going into conversation.
		But these people are so pathetically desperate to claim that Trump committed some crime here.
		Or that, you know, or that it's the most damning phone call ever.
		That when you ask them, simply for the full recording, they say, how dare you?
		Somebody responded, one of these little Twitter, you know, people said, what context could be changed?
		What more do you need to know?
		Like Trump said it, give me 11,000 votes.
		And I'm like, I need to know why he said it.
		Trump could have said, did you see that guy on the radio?
		You hear what he was saying?
		He said, look, here's what I need.
		I'm looking for 11,780 votes because that's what we have.
		And we have way more than a lot, way more than that.
		Could you believe someone saying that?
		It's one of the most, the biggest, the easiest way to take someone out of context is when they quote someone else.
		And it's been done to me over and over and over again.
		And it's been done to numerous people.
		So forgive me if I'm not going to sit back and say, thank you for your jump cut clip where Trump says a sentence.
		I don't know why he said it.
		Imagine if you were like, did you hear what that lunatic just said?
		I hate pizza.
		How crazy is that?
		Everybody, you know, orders from Papa John's.
		Well, not Papa John's.
		I won't order.
		No, but from Pizza Hut.
		You get it?
		You say something that someone else said.
		Take it out of context.
		So let me put it simply.
		Claiming Trump broke the law.
		Okay.
		Trump telling them.
		That someone else broke the law and he wants it remedied is not inducing someone to commit a felony and is not an impeachable offense.
		But these people live in magic fantasy land where, for some reason, they want to impeach Trump even though, what, he's supposed to be out of office in 16 days and Kamala Harris still hasn't resigned from her Senate seat?
		Makes you think a little bit, huh?
		Well, my understanding is that Joe Biden didn't resign from the Senate when he was coming in to be vice president until the 15th of January, which, you know, would have been five days before inauguration.
		Still, many candidates resign their Senate seats well before January.
		I remember when this claim came out, when they were like, why isn't Kamala Harris resigning her Senate seat?
		She's VP-elect, right?
		Okay, resign, go.
		And some people said, well, look, it's not unusual that it's, you know, the end of November, early December, that Kamala Harris is not resigning because there are many people who wait until, you know, early, mid-December before resigning.
		Then December came and went, and now it's in January.
		Many of these stories are like, well, well, actually, some people do wait until January.
unidentified		Uh-huh.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think the fair argument is the Democrats have little power in the Senate anyway, because the Republicans have the majority, so that she wants to stay in to make sure.
		And they're also waiting to figure out who's going to replace her.
		That's fine.
		But I will point out, when they're trying to impeach the president, Trump, Why?
		It would take longer to impeach him and remove him, convict him, than it would to just wait the two weeks and let Biden be inaugurated.
		Unless, of course, Trump's claims in that phone call had merit, and it's going to be presented on January 6th.
		Now, listen, I don't think Trump's going to win.
		And the Trump supporters, a lot of Trump supporters, look, I browse it down a lot.
		I know what they're talking about.
		They don't seem to understand what I'm saying.
		I'm not saying Trump is losing by numbers.
		I'm not saying Trump is losing on a constitutional basis.
		You can make that argument fine.
		I'm saying the bigger picture here, regardless of all of that, Trump is at war with the establishment.
		Oh, I've seen the data.
		I think Trump has legal arguments that could help him win should they be proven in court, or should he get a settlement like he's trying to do here.
		But Trump is fighting the establishment, and it is way more than just about vote count.
		Can Trump get a hearing in the Supreme Court?
		Apparently, he can't.
		Will any of these courts hear the evidence?
		Apparently, they won't.
		And so the only opportunity Trump has is the objections on January 6th, which apparently are coming.
		We are going to see, what, 12 Republican senators, 140 or more Republicans in the House, objecting.
		And they're gonna go by each state.
		So it's gonna be, what, two hours per state?
		We've already seen a bipartisan group announce that they will block Trump.
		That's Mitch McConnell.
		I love it.
		You want to know what I love?
		I love the fact that Republicans will stand by Trump, the populist figurehead of the party, and AOC will not defect.
		She is a careerist who supported Nancy Pelosi in her vote for speakership the other day.
		Nancy Pelosi gets re-elected Speaker of the House.
		Well, I guess they didn't want Kevin McCarthy to be speaker, so fine, it makes sense, I suppose.
		I'd imagine most Republicans would vote for Perdue and Loeffler because they don't want the Democrats to control everything.
		And there's many of them who believe that.
		There's a larger faction of principled Republicans who would sacrifice the Senate and rather fight for Trump.
		Then the progressives have.
		The progressives hate the establishment, don't get me wrong, they don't like Joe Biden, but they're more than willing to prop up people like AOC who will support the machine and just play along with it and, you know, benefit themselves and their careers.
		I want to show you a couple things.
		This is the transcript.
		Here's some of the most important stuff we can take away from this as we start to wind down the segment.
		Trump says, when you look at this consent decree, look, he says, I hate to imagine what's going to happen on Monday, blah, blah, blah.
		It's very scary to people.
		That consent decree is a disaster.
		It's a disaster.
		A very good lawyer who examined it said they've never seen anything like it.
		Secretary of State Raffensperger says harvesting is still illegal and that settlement agreement did not change one iota.
		Trump says it's not a settlement agreement.
		It's a consent decree.
		It even says consent decree on it, doesn't it?
		It uses the term consent decree.
		It doesn't say settlement agreement.
		It's a consent decree.
		It's a disaster.
		Raffensperger says it's a settlement agreement.
		Trump's response?
		What's written on top of it?
		Raffensperger says, Ryan?
		The lawyer.
		The lawyer says, I don't have it in front of me, but it was not entered by the court.
		It is not a court order.
		Trump says, but Ryan, it's called a consent decree.
		Is that right?
		It's on the paper.
	Is that right?
	I don't know.
	I don't believe so, but I don't have it in front of me.
	Okay, whatever.
	It's a defense.
	Oh, I can't believe this.
	Amazing.
	Take a look at this.
	This is an article from November 16th.
	Trust Index finds Trump claims on Georgia voter signature checks is wrong.
	Okay.
	Pull this up.
	We reviewed the consent decree, and it contains nothing that would prevent Georgia elections clerks from scrutinizing signatures.
	So, I love this.
	Trump doesn't understand what's in it, for sure.
	Like I said, he's got some things wrong.
	But how insane is it to read this and hear from their legal counsel saying, it's not a consent decree, I don't even have it?
	Wow!
	That, to me, is absolutely insane.
	Let me see if I can find this.
	Uh, change of address.
	Or let's do this, let's do moved.
	Mitchell says the number who have registered out of state after they moved from Georgia, and so they had a date when they moved from Georgia, they registered to vote out of state, and then it's like 4,500.
	I don't have the number right in front of me.
	You definitely should have that, because I'll criticize them for not having the consent decree, but at least they can cite this.
	Trump says, and then they came back and voted.
	Germany says, we've been going through each of those as well.
	And those numbers that we got, Ms.
	Mitchell was saying, they're not accurate.
	Everyone we've been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately, and in many cases, Trump says, how many people do that?
	They move out and they say, ah, you know, hell with it, I'll move back, you know?
	It doesn't sound like a very normal, you mean they moved out and what, they miss it so much they wanted to move back?
	Sure, Trump.
	Yes, sometimes people move and sometimes people move back.
	However, Trump, we have documents of people changing their addresses.
	Why didn't they change their address back?
	Okay, you see the problem here?
	This is they moved back years ago.
	This is not like something they just did before the election, so there's something about that data.
	It's just inaccurate.
	Trump says, well, I don't know.
	All I know is that it is certified and they moved out of Georgia and they voted.
	It didn't say they moved back, Cleta, did it?
	Mitchell says, no, but I mean, we're looking at the voter registration.
	If you have additional records, we've been asking for that.
	But you haven't shared any of that with us.
	You just keep saying you investigated the allegations.
	Cleta, a lot of it you don't need to be shared, I mean, to be honest, they should share.
	They should share, yadda yadda yadda, you get the point.
	Ryan Germany says, and then they go and talk about Dominion.
	Amazing.
	The response from Georgia is, nah, they moved back.
	Okay, well, you need to prove that.
	Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
	Trump has made an extraordinary claim, but there is an actual database proving it.
	I have not reviewed the data pertaining to Georgia.
	I have reviewed some data pertaining to Arizona, and I have been able to independently, external to the databases presented by the legal challenges that are working on behalf of Trump, I have been able to look through my own databases and confirm address changes for these people who voted.
	And I was like, there it is, wow!
	It doesn't mean it was enough, because I looked at a handful of voters, and I was able to corroborate information, confirming a lot of what we know.
	Now, it is incumbent upon these other states to say, here's the evidence they moved back.
	And I'll say, you got it, no problem.
	But I'll tell you some of the crazy stuff I've seen.
	Some of these people moved, like, due to COVID, it seems.
	They didn't just move back, they changed their addresses and registered in other places, and it looks like they voted twice.
	Now that's what I was able to look at.
	As it pertains to people moving out of Georgia, the Georgia Secretary of State will need to, in my opinion, in court, say, here's evidence they moved back.
	Because if you go to a judge and say, here's them changing their registration to a different state, then they voted.
	And they say, oh, it's because they moved back.
	Sure.
	You can say that.
	You have to prove it.
	If Trump has the evidence, you need to back up your claims that Trump is wrong.
	If Trump came out and said, I have no evidence, we just know it happened, I'd say, get out of here.
	And Trump is talking about dominion, and I say, okay, yeah, I'm not having it.
	I'll tell you.
	Let me leave it with this.
	Why do they want to impeach Trump again?
	Why isn't Kamala Harris resigned her Senate seat?
	I think the Democrats are aware that Trump does have a chance.
	They don't want to admit it.
	A big key point, and a lot of the things that these, like, these leftists who don't actually watch my videos keep saying is, Tim still thinks Trump can win.
	Trump could win in a lot of ways.
	A million and one different ways.
	Because we are a system of people, not machines.
	Like, Trump could Parachute down through the White House, you know, halo drop, and then storm the White House.
	Who knows what he could do?
	Constitutionally, the objection process could theoretically win.
	I doubt it will.
	That's my opinion.
	But the left likes to say simply because Trump is still fighting and there's a path, it's impossible and you're crazy for thinking so.
	But the real reason these resistance Democrats types are saying this is because they want to demoralize.
	The reality is, Trump has legal claims.
	I'd like to hear them answered for.
	They've not been.
	Now when they say they want to impeach him, and Kamala Harris won't resign, I wonder if they're hedging their bets.
	Just a little bit.
	Not that they think Trump's gonna win, but it's smart to always do, right?
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
	D.C.
	has announced that they will be banning guns for the duration of this pro-Trump rally starting tomorrow and on the 6th.
	Now, I find it kind of weird they've announced this, considering it's already, it's basically impossible to have guns in D.C.
	anyway, but sure, nonetheless, they're ramping up security.
	And we're now learning that law enforcement, FBI, Capitol Hill security, well, they've been working diligently to make sure they can keep everybody safe for this event, but there are fears among some.
	That there are pro-Trump law enforcement and even leadership in politics that may restrict police to allow the Trump supporters to do what they want to do.
	I don't know if Trump supporters are planning on bringing guns.
	That, to me, is actually one of the more scary outcomes, because... I say scary, but let me just put it this way.
	The potential for violence increases if a bunch of angry people feel like the government is being taken over by a puppet of the Chinese Communist Party, and they show up in the hundreds of thousands with guns.
	That would be a particularly unique moment in U.S.
	history.
	I mean, even during the Revolutionary War, I'm not sure that, you know, a million-plus people marched around with guns.
	And I don't know if they'll all have weapons, but D.C.
	is saying no guns allowed during the protest, probably because they realize people are going to be angry.
	And I don't think—I think y'all need to realize Trump's followers and Trump supporters They believe what they believe.
	I mean, many of you are probably Trump supporters to varying degrees.
	I know a lot of Trump supporters are particularly mad at me because I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid.
	And I'm sure that statement enough is probably getting them angry.
	But listen, man, when Lin Wood, one of the lawyers supporting Trump, is getting tens of thousands of retweets and he's saying crazy things like Pence is in on it and he's going to get arrested and they're going to arrest George.
	I'm like, dude, that is so far out there.
	Is it possible?
	Yes, sure.
	I mentioned this before.
	We're not talking about someone claiming the moon is made of cheese.
	Like, we know the moon's a rock.
	But yes, sometimes there are corrupt politicians.
	They can be arrested.
	It is physically possible these things happen.
	I just really, really doubt it.
	But there are a lot of people who believe this stuff, and they're going to be angry, and there's a lot of people in government who support them.
	There were recent reports that the Secret Service is going to be adding detail to Trump's presidential detail over fear that his agents are actually loyal to him.
	Many people have said that's a bunk story.
	It's a normal thing to do for every transition process.
	Others have said it's not even happening at all, it's fake news.
	But the reports have certainly gone out there, suggesting there are people who either want it to happen, maybe in media they want Trump to stage a coup or something, Or they're really scared it's going to happen.
	I want to read you this story, this exclusive from Newsweek about the fears that law enforcement and FBI have about what may happen.
	But let me just tell you, I'm planning on being there, but I received an email from my hotel letting me know that starting tomorrow morning, roads are going to be closed.
	Now, there is a very, that's going to make it almost impossible, to be honest, for me to do what we want to do.
	The initial plan was to go to D.C., set up in a hotel, and have the TimCast IRL show live from D.C.
	during this event.
	We'd be able to look out the window, see the huge crowds.
	We'd be able to bring people into the room and interview them live all night.
	But now that the roads are closed, which I probably should have anticipated, and this is my fault, it's going to be particularly difficult, nay impossible, to actually bring in the equipment we need to do the show.
	We don't need that much, honestly.
	So we are still looking at... we have a way to get things done.
	See...
	We actually have a standard setup we can bring in.
	You pull your car in, you pull out a desktop, and you have it set up.
	It's a normal thing.
	People do it relatively often.
	I used to do it at Vice and stuff all the time.
	But we also have some backup laptops that can function, so I think we might be able to do it.
	It's going to be really difficult to get through a bunch of closed roads and masses of people, so we'll figure it out.
	But the worst case scenario, we're probably going to have a crew on the ground, and they're going to be streaming to their own, you know, devices and stuff.
	And then we can maybe show that stream on our stream.
	It's not ideal.
	It's not going to... It's the bare minimum I can pull off.
	It's one of the reasons why I don't do Skype interviews in the show, and I've had a ton of people who've wanted to come on TimCast IRL and Skype, and I won't because maybe once we get the... I don't know if you've been following the internet saga, but we're still waiting for the internet to show up, so until then, we don't have really great means of doing any interactivity stuff.
	Internet's pretty bad here.
	You may have noticed if you watch a show and the internet cuts out, but anyway, I digress.
	We're planning on being there.
	A lot of people are planning on being there, and law enforcement is particularly worried about what might happen.
	Newsweek says exclusive threat of pro-Trump violence in Washington overshadows inauguration security plans.
	They say while federal law enforcement agencies prepare for the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden in two weeks, of which the National Guard will be there, They see this coming week as far more dangerous.
	Wary of the threat of Trump-instigated and Trump-supported violence in the Capitol.
	Oh, I just love the depravity of these news outlets.
	When did Trump tweet, go get violence and instigate violence?
	Trump said, be there, it'll be wild.
	What does that mean?
	I'm having a party, everybody, you gotta be there, it's gonna be wild.
	What does that mean?
	Does that mean we're gonna bring guns and it's gonna be violent?
	No, it means we're gonna have a party.
	Trump said there's going to be a rally.
	Be there.
	It'll be wild.
	That's it.
	As Trump said, you should go do X. The media in this country, it is fractured.
	Let me tell you this.
	The Trump world is... You know what?
	Let me tell you.
	Trump supporters, many of which, not all of them, are moving further and further right.
	But it's a fracturing.
	When you see people like Lin Wood tweeting about Mike Pence going to prison, and then you see even Nick Sandman, you know, one of the Covington kids, saying like, this is a dumb tweet.
	You realize there are most Trump supporters, regular people, who don't believe the crazy conspiracy nonsense.
	But the mainstream media may as well be the same as Q for all I care.
	The way they just manipulate and lie.
	They like to claim that the QAnon people are, you know, dangerous and, you know, whatever, and putting out lies and fake news, and I'm like, what do you think it is you do all day?
	Trump instigated violence.
	Shut your mouths.
	All right, they say, see you in DC, the president ominously tweeted.
	I'm sorry.
	See you in D.C., ominously tweeted on New Year's Day, referring to Wednesday's congressional counting of electoral votes and Trump March, which is advertising a wild protest on January 6th.
	OK, is that instigating violence?
	See you in D.C., everybody.
	How dare you incite violence?
	The FBI is working furiously with Metro DC police behind the scenes to understand just how many pro-Trump supporters will flood the Capitol, and whether they plan to resort to violence.
	Resort to?
	It's like, what do you think they're gonna do?
	I mean, maybe, but have we seen massive events where, like, you know, middle-aged Gen X-er and boomers were smashing up windows and starting fires?
	It's so stupid.
	They say, the effort is made all the more complicated, according to official sources directly involved in security planning and intelligence gathering, by the potential for Republican leaders in Congress who may choose to stand down or hold back U.S.
	Capitol Police, and by a Department of Homeland Security that has become politicized and partisan in support of Donald Trump.
	Maybe.
	Maybe January 6th is the day Trump stages his coup.
	I mean, honestly, sure.
	The left has been screaming that Trump is gonna stage a coup forever, so far be it from me to say you're wrong.
	Maybe on the 6th, Trump says, no, we won, the courts won't listen, my people are here in D.C., D.C.
	is ours.
	And then maybe he's got, I mean, the military's gonna support Trump.
	I really don't believe that if push came to shove, the military's gonna be like, Biden!
	That's what a lot of people don't get.
	You need to understand when it comes to the military, and I can't speak for the U.S.
	completely, but with the chain of command, you could have the generals saying, F. Trump, and then issuing orders.
	But you could have, like, commissioned officers and non-commissioned officers who give orders, and the people below them will follow them because they don't know, okay?
	I'll give you an example I gave before.
	In Turkey, a bunch of soldiers went up to the Bosphorus Bridge.
	This was during what they say was a coup attempt.
	The soldiers, according to some reports, were just ordered to go there.
	So they have a superior officer that says, hey, we're going to go guard the Bosphorus Bridge.
	There's a bridge in Turkey.
	It connects Europe to the Asia portion.
	So these soldiers go there and they're standing around like, I don't know what's going on.
	And then all of a sudden angry people run up and start beating them to death.
	Why?
	Because the media reported those soldiers were staging a coup.
	What would happen?
	If there's some commanding officer, what would happen if this?
	What would happen if Trump just says, we've got a lot of people coming in, it's gonna be dangerous, can we get the National Guard to come out and stand guard?
	And they say, okay.
	And the media says, National Guardsmen join Trump, they're staging a coup.
	They wouldn't know they were staging a coup, that's the point I'm trying to make.
	Politics is, it's not so cut and dry.
	Who is staging a coup and who is not is a matter of trust and political opinion.
	So let me just make something clear, okay?
	They mentioned some Republicans may, you know, hold back the police.
	We're at the precipice, okay?
	I know I say we've gone over the edge, we've hit the ground, but it depends on, you know, the context.
	Let me put it this way.
	We've long since fallen off the cliff and smacked the ground.
	And what I mean by that is, we see two different realities, completely.
	In the Trump world, they have their version of events, and I actually think, for the most part, Trump supporters are actually more likely to be correct than the left.
	The left tends to be low-information individuals.
	Democrats manipulate.
	They want 16-year-olds to vote.
	People who don't know what's going on.
	So when you read the Newsweek article and it says Trump is instigating violence, you just believe it.
	But in actuality, it's not true.
	Now, you have that section of the Trump world, which is the Q and kind of the people who are really out there believing crazy things.
	There's no evidence for that.
	And so, certainly, every side has their people who believe crazy things for crazy reasons.
	But it doesn't matter.
	When the audio tape leaked of Donald Trump talking to Raffensperger in Georgia, the right said, wow, Georgia's crazy.
	The left said, wow, Trump is crazy.
	That's all that matters.
	Next, what happens is Trump has the executive authority.
	It doesn't matter how much.
	It doesn't matter what he does, believes, or wants to do.
	The next thing that will matter will be how the media portrays events and what the Democrats respond with.
	To put it simply, Trump could order National Guard to come out to protect businesses.
	The media could report Trump is deploying National Guard in support of his troops to seize power.
	And that's it.
	You would know.
	That's not true.
	Trump didn't do that.
	Trump said it was because of the pressure for violence.
	And the people who follow Newsweek will be like, Trump is staging a coup!
	And that's it.
	People will believe it.
	And then crazy people will come out and there will be mass fighting in the streets.
	It is a delicate situation.
	And what matters is what people believe and who they trust.
	That's it.
	Right now, if there is someone in the National Guard who has given an order, that's not crazy, okay?
	This is what you gotta realize, man.
	People seem to think it's gonna be like a bunch of National Guard guys sitting there, like, you know, cleaning their weapons and getting ready, and then some gritty guy's gonna come with an eyepatch and be like, pull out a cigar, listen here, soldiers.
	We're gonna save this country from Chinese Biden, from Beijing Biden, and we're gonna make sure Trump stays in the presidency.
	You ready?
	And they go, hoorah!
	And then they all run out and they kick in doors and they're like, this is America!
	That's not gonna happen.
	It's gonna be really simple.
	A guy's gonna walk in and be like, we've got orders to set up a perimeter to guard these businesses, and they're gonna go out there, and that will be enough.
	Maybe, if Trump really wants to stage a coup.
	I'll put it this way.
	Let's say Trump really does want to stage a coup.
	Trump could just say, you know, someone could just give an order.
	Someone high-ranking enough and say, we've got reports that Antifa or some groups have occupied a building and we need security assistance.
	The police can't handle it.
	And to a regular person, that's not an order you would object to.
	You know what I mean?
	Like if someone went to you and said, you know, commit an atrocity.
	We want you to take this person and, you know, do something awful to them.
	You'd be like, I refuse to do that.
	But what if they said, can you do us a favor and just stand guard in front of this gate right here just to make sure no, you know, protesters break in?
	Oh, that sounds reasonable.
	Then you're standing there, and that is all the person needs, whether they're the ones committing the coup, or the media then puts out lies, or the opposition party puts out lies.
	It can be as simple as that.
	People, you need to understand this.
	There might be some innocuous, innocent action that the media claims is Trump staging a coup.
	I digress.
	Let's read.
	They say, Newsweek spoke to a dozen Congressional Law Enforcement, Military, Intelligence, and Homeland Security participants in the 59th inauguration of the President of the United States of America.
	None wanted to go on the record regarding specific contingency plans or the delicate balancing act that this transition period demands.
	The White House, a Biden inaugural team, and Joint Forces Headquarters, National Capital Region, responsible for the military role, did not respond to queries.
	Every inaugural has a different security problem or theme.
	In the inauguration of Barack Obama, counter-terrorism officials prepared for an attack by al-Qaeda or the Somali-based group al-Shabaab.
	And continuity of government officials worried that this was the first presidential transition since 9-11, paying particular attention to having a strong, experienced national security leadership in place.
	In 2017, for Donald Trump's inaugural, threat concerns had shifted to lone attackers unaffiliated with any particular group.
	Vehicle rammings were a particular concern given, you know, things that had happened in Berlin and Nice and things like that.
	This year's official inaugural period, the 15th to 24th, has been designated a national security special event, attracting the standard large security response.
	But that period does not include the next 11 days.
	In fact, the FBI-led special event threat assessment prepared last month for the inaugural doesn't even mention protesters and says there are no specific or credible threats.
	Let me tell you, Trump supporters got jobs.
	But, because of the economy being totally disrupted and shut down, many of those jobs are gone.
	Or I should say they had jobs.
	Many of those people had jobs.
	What happens if they come for the 5th, and they stay like Occupy Wall Street?
	I went to Occupy Wall Street, planning on being there for only a few days.
	And I ended up staying there for months.
	What happens if Trump supporters show up there and they're like, I got food, I got shelter, we got resources, we've got a mission.
	That's more than I've got back home.
	And so they stay.
	And they stay throughout the inauguration.
	What happens if Congress can't get to the Capitol building because of the protests?
	This is where things truly light up.
	I booked my hotel because I thought the event was going to be the 6th.
	Well, I decided to book a little bit early to have some extra time, so I have previous days planned.
	Thinking, you know, I want to be there way before everyone else gets there.
	But now people are saying they're going to be there on the 5th.
	There's going to be a massive protest on the 5th.
	What happens if the protest is so large, Congress can't convene?
	And then, what?
	I'm sure they'll find a way.
	But I mean like if the protest is really, really, really large, what happens if they can't convene?
	You can see here, this is a map that was sent to me by my hotel.
	All of these purple lines you can see on this map are road closures.
	What if...
	The members of Congress and the Senate are unable to actually have the joint session to count the votes.
	What would happen?
	I don't know if that would actually happen.
	I'm sure they can find a way to get in, but what if some Democrats aren't able to get in?
	What if a decent proportion of them aren't, and so it results in Trump actually winning?
	What if all of the Trump supporters in D.C.
	stop the constitutional process?
	This is the important part.
	They say Tuesday, January 5th, 12.01 a.m.
	A.M.
	Which means in only about 10 or so hours from the time of publishing this video, or I think 11 hours, the roads are going to be closed.
	How's Congress gonna get in?
	Well, I'm sure road closures—it's restricted vehicle traffic, so there's probably some capacity for having vehicles drive through that'll be okay.
	But what if the protests are just too—there's too many people?
	What if all of these roads are blocked and jammed up?
	What if a million people really do show up?
	No one's getting in anywhere.
	I have no idea what to expect if that's the case.
	I don't know about violence.
	I actually think the more people that show up, the less violence will occur.
	We've seen this with many other leftist protests as well.
	The more people you get, the less likely it is that violence erupts.
	For whatever reason.
	When you have a small sized group, you'll get a lot of antifa and no one to stop them.
	But when you have- I was at the women's march and I think it was like 3 to 5 million people.
	It was insane how massive this was.
	It wasn't even a march, it was a loop.
	There was no end of the march because it was connecting to itself.
	Just like walking in a big circle.
	There was, I didn't really, uh, I could be wrong, but when I was there, it was just a bunch of people walking around and nothing really ended up happening.
	There were some sporadic moments, but nothing like what we saw in January, I think it was, uh, January 20th in, uh, 2017, when the people were rioting around D.C.
	and burning things, and that was, that was crazy.
	I think it's gonna get pretty nuts in, uh, in D.C.
	I don't understand necessarily what they mean by banning guns, but I want to show you anyway, just so we can get the general idea, because my understanding is you can't really get guns in D.C.
	anyway.
	But they say that Fox 5 photojournalist Jesse Burkett Hall snapped a photo of notices near Freedom Plaza saying, starting tomorrow, all firearms will be prohibited in D.C.
	ahead of the January 6th event.
	It says, First Amendment activities, all firearms prohibited within 1,000 feet of this school or whatever, D.C.
	code, yada yada yada.
	I wonder if that's legal.
	It's in effect the 4th to the 7th.
	Another thing I'll point out as well, D.C.
	is enacting lockdowns, but apparently they only last for a couple weeks and they end on the 15th.
	This is all kind of weird, to be honest.
	My hotel is telling me, if you want to eat at the restaurant, you can order food and bring it to your room, because indoor dining is now banned.
	So what are people going to do?
	I'll tell you one thing.
	When Trump supporters show up en masse in D.C.
	and they occupy streets, assuming they do, it won't matter if you can eat indoor or outdoor.
	What you really got to... You know what, man?
	You ever see that photo of a horse and he's tied to a lawn chair, like a plastic lawn chair that weighs a pound, and the horse doesn't move?
	There's a meme where it's about like, you know, overcoming what's holding you back.
	It's not as strong as you think.
	There's an old proverb about, or it might be a legitimate story, a large elephant and they're tied to tiny little stakes in the ground, tiny little ones, and someone asks the trainers, they're like, The elephants don't leave, like they're tied to this tiny post.
	They could just pull it out.
	And the trainers say, when the elephants are babies, they tie them to posts they can't get out of.
	They fight and they struggle, and they struggle until they finally give up, realizing they can't win.
	By the time they're adults, they don't realize they now have the strength to break that post out and leave.
	They assume they're still trapped.
	So that's what I'm saying.
	The point I'm trying to make is people don't realize the system in place is delicate and it's easy to disrupt.
	And that is actually very worrying to me because when you see the likes of Antiva disrupting things, I'm like, y'all don't realize how delicate this system is.
	It's really easy to break a system.
	It's really hard to build a system.
	If a million people descended on DC and said, no, we are in charge, they'd be in charge.
	What are you going to do?
	Is the U.S.
	going to call the National Guard and start firing on armed American citizens?
	I really don't think so.
	Will they just allow armed Americans to occupy buildings?
	I don't think so either.
	What would happen to this country if a million Trump supporters did show up?
	Many of them were armed.
	Militias were there.
	And they stood around buildings and said, do something about it.
	Trump is president.
	Well, the only way to stop armed men refusing to leave is with conflict.
	And there you go.
	You get your conflict.
	I'm not saying it's going to happen.
	DC is banning guns, however, which is interesting.
	It sounds like they're worried there's a possibility it could happen.
	We're gonna have to wait and see.
	Starting at midnight, around midnight.
	Tonight.
	For those that are watching the day that I published this.
	The roads are gonna be shut down.
	We're gonna be sending some people in to try and get set up and do some tests to see if we can do the show.
	And my intent is to be there.
	There's a strong possibility I don't.
	I don't make it.
	Simply because of logistics.
	What we'll try to do then is just capture someone's, you know, we'll have someone on the ground and they can use the internet that we've set up with this hotel to be able to broadcast some of what's going on.
	Let me explain real quick just the general concept.
	When you get too many people in one area, the cell networks don't work.
	It's just one big mass of everyone trying to squeeze through and it doesn't work.
	But if we get internet at a hotel, We will have connection.
	Now the hotels are probably going to be full, and that means the connection's probably going to be bad still.
	So it's very likely we can't get signal out.
	There are things called BGANs, Broadband Global Area Networks, that can't get you enough for a legitimate stream, but you can get an audio stream.
	They're just really expensive.
	So it is rather difficult to get a legitimate broadcast.
	You need a solid 3 megabits up, which means you actually need buffer room of like 5 to 10 megabits, and even then your quality is going to be sinking.
	You really, really want a strong connection.
	So it's going to be very, very difficult to pull off.
	My guess right now, I think we're going to see a really big rally.
	I think we're going to see a lot of people, and I think that's going to be it.
	I don't know what to expect with the joint session.
	It's entirely possible it doesn't even happen because too many people show up and block off the roads.
	I'll tell you this.
	If Trump supporters don't show up, then it's truly, truly, finally over.
	That's it.
	The only thing that's gonna change anything right now is the will of the people.
	Do the people have the willpower to actually show up to DC?
	I gotta be honest.
	I'm not entirely convinced.
	Now, I'm not saying that there's no people with, like, no one has willpower.
	Obviously, there's a lot of people who do, and they will be there.
	What we're talking about is, Will this be the event that inspires people who don't leave their homes to protest to fly, to drive, to get to D.C.
	to make their voice heard?
	I've seen a lot of things in my day, and forgive me for being a bit pessimistic.
	I always wondered this, you know.
	All these waits, these servers, I remember I had friends who served in restaurants, you know, waitstaff, complaining about the minimum wage, saying, we don't get paid enough.
	They pay us three bucks an hour, you know, or two bucks an hour, and then we get tips.
	Tips are great, but we want to get a base rate.
	And I said, so quit?
	And they were like, no, I need my job.
	And I was like, dude, if everybody who worked at this restaurant just said, we all demand a higher wage, you'd get it.
	Assuming they can afford it.
	But they don't do that.
	They don't.
	They go and complain to government and then demand the power of the state impose that for them.
	I don't know if Trump supporters will be different.
	Will they say that only they are responsible?
	That's the big question.
	Right now I'm sure there are many Trump supporters, many of whom are probably posting silly memes and insulting me on Twitter or whatever because, you know, I've been critical of Lin Wood and the Q stuff.
	I'm not saying every Trump supporter, I'm saying there are Trump supporters who are saying these things.
	No, I think most Trump supporters are actually rational and reasonable.
	And I think that's true of many liberals, I just think they're low information, they're ill-informed.
	My question is, will these moderate types, will disaffected liberals and run-of-the-mill conservatives, you know, sitting in their house in the Midwest say, I need to get to D.C.?
	If the answer is yes, then I think we're going to see four more years of Trump.
	I'm not convinced that answer will be yes.
	I think the answer is going to be that Trump's most ardent base shows up and it'll be massive, but you won't get the general population.
	So that's the important distinction.
	By all means, left, take that out of context and make some ridiculous claims.
	I mean, me saying Trump can still win.
	I believe it's a 99.999% chance that Biden is president.
	And I think most of these Republicans, people like Ted Cruz, are just trying to placate you, to bide time, to calm you down, calm down.
	Look, we're doing your hearing.
	We're not going to give you anything, though.
	Just don't worry about it.
	That way, you get tired, you go home.
	That's the name of the game.
	They're not going to fight for you.
	The Republican establishment doesn't care about fighting for you.
	They haven't fought for you.
	They've complained about censorship while y'all have been banned, and they've done nothing to help you get reinstated.
	So, bravo.
	Many of these people, even progressives, they say, oh, this omnibus spending bill is so awful.
	I'm just going to sign it, yes, and approve of it.
	Thank you.
	But I hate it.
	Yeah, okay.
	They don't care.
	They're not fighting for you.
	We're getting close.
	We'll see how it plays out.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	over at youtube.com forward slash timcast.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
	Tomorrow, starting early in the morning, there is going to be a massive protest event taking place in Washington, D.C.
	in defense of Trump.
	Now, the actual event is scheduled for the 6th, which is a couple days from now, when there will be a joint session of Congress.
	Many of you probably already know this.
	The latest news on this front is that D.C.
	will be calling in the National Guard to help assist police in keeping the peace and controlling the crowds as they come to Washington, D.C.
	And there are bigger questions about what the military will do, what the National Guard will do, if Donald Trump seeks to use them to stay in power.
	We've already heard from some of the most ardent Trump supporters that Trump should use the Insurrection Act to hold new elections in several states.
	I have not been a proponent of that, but I have mentioned that Trump could use the Insurrection Act to restore constitutional protections in states that have curtailed them, notably in New York, where they have suspended people's rights to worship and peaceably assemble, and in many other states that have done the same.
	Protecting someone's constitutional rights is actually grounds for invoking the Insurrection Act.
	Well, from that argument, many Trump supporters have said, to protect our constitutional rights under the Electors Clause, Trump should have new elections.
	Perhaps going a bit too far, but there are many people who are concerned Trump might actually do it.
	In a new opinion piece for the Washington Post, a joint opinion piece by all 10 living former defense secretaries, they say involving the military in election disputes would cross into dangerous territory.
	They call on the acting Secretary of Defense to uphold their oath and allow for a peaceful transition of power.
	Why would they write this?
	Well, look, normally I'd say the media is writing clickbait nonsense in an effort to rile you up and make some claims that may or may not be true and make you think the world is ending.
	But, however, many on the left would probably accuse me of doing the same thing, so what more can I say?
	I will mention, however, that these are former defense secretaries.
	I don't think they're writing this because they hope to make money.
	I think they're actually worried Trump may call upon the military to support him in somehow staying in power.
	And he might do it.
	I mean, I can't speak for, you know, currently serving members of the armed forces.
	My general understanding is that they mostly support the president.
	We've heard polls, however, throughout the past several months that Trump has lost the support of the military.
	I don't know if I believe those polls, but far be it from me to question the experts, right?
	I mean, the polls were just spot-on for the past several years.
	No, I really don't know what's gonna happen.
	Maybe they like it, maybe they don't.
	I think my assumption, same as most people, is that rank-and-file military members, not the high-ranking political members, you know, the generals and the high-ranking individuals, I think regular service members like President Trump.
	Not every single one, but I'm sure a lot of them do.
	The question is, how does the National Guard feel?
	Because there's already reports coming out about the National Guard coming into D.C.
	to defend and support Joe Biden's inauguration.
	I guess you could put it that way.
	They're probably just doing their job in keeping the peace and protecting, you know, our society, I guess, or our system, the establishment, whatever.
	Not in a bad way, just, hey, look, we're having a transition and sometimes someone you don't like wins, right?
	But what if Trump does call the National Guard?
	And what if the National Guard actually supports him?
	What if Trump calls on his high-ranking individuals and they don't support him so the orders never get conveyed?
	What if Trump puts in his own acting Secretary of Defense who then goes and directly gives orders?
	More importantly, what if certain service members are instructed to report directly to the acting Secretary of Defense?
	Those things have actually happened!
	Trump has replaced civilian leadership at the Pentagon with loyalists to, well, to himself.
	Maybe he will really call in the military, and thus we're seeing the other side now come out and say, don't do it.
	All that matters in the end is, who does Trump have the support of?
	And more importantly, is Trump really going to do it?
	Well, beyond this, I think he might.
	You know why?
	Because in New York, for instance, they're launching forensic financial analysis in a criminal probe against Trump.
	Democrats are now calling for a criminal investigation into Trump over the leaked phone call in Georgia.
	Y'all are giving Trump very little choices.
	He can peacefully leave the White House, like you've asked, and then just walk into a prison cell, so you've claimed, or he can stand up and he can fight back.
	I know what Trump supporters want him to do.
	Let me read a little bit of this op-ed and tell you what they're saying, because the interesting thing about this story is...
	They're actually calling on Trump's subordinates to defy him should he tell them to invoke military power.
	Many news outlets are reporting that they're just saying the military shouldn't be involved or that they fear Trump himself may stage a coup.
	You know, a lot of people on the left say, Tim, why won't you, you know, the leftists are like, Tim needs to use more left biased sources.
	Well, they're saying, you know, military fears Trump will stage a coup.
	I don't know if that's the right way to put it, but let's read this.
	Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com slash donate if you'd like to support my work.
	There are many ways you can give.
	I've got a P.O.
	box if you want to send me some stuff, but the best thing you can do is share this video.
	If everybody who watched my videos and liked them shared them, I'd be bigger than CNN in no time.
	Unfortunately, most people don't share, and that's really the best thing you can do.
	And that's okay, you don't owe me anything, but it's greatly appreciated.
	It really does.
	It's better than any marketing anyone could buy.
	But don't forget to like, subscribe, hit the notification bell, and let's read, just a little bit first from this, and I'll tell you what's going on.
	The Washington Post says, as former secretaries, I'm sorry, this is all 10 former, living former secretaries of defense, which is Ashton Carter, Cheney, William Cohen, Mark Esper, Robert Gates, Chuck Hagel, James Mattis, Leon Panetta, William Perry, and Donald Rumsfeld.
	They say, as former Secretaries of Defense, we hold a common view of the solemn obligations of the U.S.
	Armed Forces and the Defense Department.
	Each of us swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic.
	We did not swear it to an individual or a party.
	American elections are the peaceful transition of... transfers of power that result... that result are hallmarks of our democracy, with one singular and tragic exception that cost the lives of more Americans than all of our other wars combined.
	The United States has an unbroken record of such transitions since 1789, including in times of partisan strife, war epidemics, and economic depression.
	This year should be no exception.
	Fascinating that they've invoked the Civil War in this conversation.
	They go on to mention that other elections have occurred, recounts and audits have been conducted, and they push the establishment line.
	The courts have found nothing.
	The results have been certified.
	But they haven't actually answered any of these questions.
	When you listen to that leaked phone call from the Washington Post between Trump and Brad Raffensperger, In Georgia, they acknowledge, first of all, there were two dead voters.
	I would like to have that answered for.
	Can you give me some clarity?
	I mean, two isn't a big number, right?
	It's kind of concerning.
	But they don't explain why the other numbers from Trump's lawsuits are irrelevant, which includes thousands more, so they claim.
	They don't explain how they know that people who changed their addresses moved back into the state.
	They provided no evidence to that.
	The claim is there, the evidence supports Trump, and they've provided nothing to counter that.
	And now, these ten former Secretaries of Defense are repeating the same lines.
	They go on to say, As senior Defense Department leaders have noted, there's no role for the U.S.
	military in determining the outcome of a U.S.
	election.
	Efforts to involve the U.S.
	armed forces in resolving election disputes would take us into dangerous, unlawful, and unconstitutional territory.
	Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable, including potentially facing criminal penalties.
	for the grave consequences of their actions on our republic.
	You know what this is?
	Civilian and military officials who direct or carry out such measures would be accountable.
	When Donald Trump was on the call with Brad Raffensperger, he said something similar.
	You can't certify bad numbers.
	Why?
	That could be criminal.
	Who knows?
	And the left said that's Trump threatening and pressuring them with criminal prosecution.
	What do you think this is?
	These former secretaries of defense issuing this statement.
	This is a propaganda war.
	They are counting heads.
	They are fighting over influence, and this statement to me is actually quite shocking.
	The fact that they would warn civilian and military officials against supporting Trump should he give them orders says a lot.
	They think it's possible, and they are putting out that warning.
	If they didn't think it was possible, there would be no point to it.
	They want to make sure you know.
	If you follow Trump's orders, and you're wrong, they will come for you.
	In the end, it really comes down to conviction and principle of what you think is right.
	And this escapes the confines of legality.
	It does.
	Donald Trump is the president.
	If he gives a lawful order, like, go and guard this building, I assume you'd have to go do it.
	You could defy the order.
	And then all that really happens in the end is which side wins.
	Now the left can say whatever they want.
	They can talk about how you must support the establishment.
	I'm telling you, we've seen it throughout history.
	What happens to these individuals if Trump ends up winning?
	I don't know.
	Actually, I really doubt anything would happen to him.
	But they're telling you right now, if you support the president, even if the order... I mean, this is the serious problem, right?
	That I brought up in a previous segment.
	What if you get an order, as a National Guardsman, and it's just an innocuous order?
	Like, we need you to form a perimeter around this place to prevent protesters from getting in.
	But then it turns out, that order is actually you providing cover for someone to go in and destroy documents or something.
	Then they're going to claim you were in on it when you were just following a boring normal order.
	You see how that works?
	That's where things get crazy.
	They go on to mention transitions, blah, blah, blah.
	But here's what they say.
	They say acting Defense Secretary Christopher C. Miller and his subordinates are each bound by oath, law, and precedent to facilitate
	the entry into office of the incoming administration. They say we call upon them in the
	strongest terms to do so, as many generations of Americans have done before them.
	This final action is in keeping with the highest traditions and professionalism of the U.S. armed
	forces in the history of the democratic transition in our great country." This letter is not for
	Trump. They are not saying, in my opinion, although it's, I'll put it this way, on its face, they're
	saying to Trump and to Trump's people, don't do this.
	But it sounds like the op-ed is actually to the men and women of the armed forces.
	Do not follow these orders from Trump should you get them.
	They're telling Christopher C. Miller, they are calling upon him, Trump's subordinates, not to do it.
	Interesting.
	They think he actually could.
	Well, over at Military Times, they say the military would put down Michael Flynn's proposed insurrection.
	They mention, less than two weeks after being pardoned, retired Lieutenant General Michael Flynn took to the airwaves to suggest President Trump could impose martial law and deploy the military to rerun the election.
	Could is doing a lot of work there.
	When it comes to the Constitution, you can do a lot of things, and then they're challenged, and they go to the Supreme Court.
	It's called checks and balances.
	But, yes, Trump could.
	Does it mean he will?
	I don't think so.
	Does it mean he would win?
	I don't necessarily think so.
	There is an argument, like I mentioned earlier, that the Insurrection Act allows you to send in the military or federalized National Guard to defend the constitutional rights of citizens should they be oppressed by a state.
	And that's happening due to COVID lockdowns.
	Whether you want to agree with the lockdowns or disagree with them, that's not the point.
	The left, I'm sorry, doesn't seem to get this.
	They love taking these clips of me and saying, oh no, look what Tim is saying.
	I'm not saying he should declare martial law.
	I'm saying Trump could.
	There's a lot of work there.
	Just because he could doesn't mean he should, will, or would win in court.
	You see how that works?
	Anyway, they go on to say, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Army Chief of Staff General James McConville quickly responded by issuing a statement that implicitly disavowed both Flynn and his suggestion of martial law.
	They stated, there is no role for the U.S.
	military in determining the outcome of an American election.
	The statement echoed similar ones that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Mark Milley, has been making since the summer.
	A handful of retired generals and admirals have also criticized Flynn, but the overall response from this group has been muted, perhaps out of fear that such criticisms could backfire by goading the President into taking this action precisely because he is being told he should not, or more importantly, what if most of the people who are silent Are the ones who support the president.
	And that could be.
	Confidence is everything.
	If right now every American woke up and just believed Trump is the president and they had confidence in the system, that would be the case.
	And I'm talking about members of Congress.
	It would be the case.
	Right now, the country is split in terms of their confidence.
	You have fake news, leaked images, and nonsense garbage flooding the mainstream media and the airwaves.
	This results in Democrats being confused and wrong about so many things.
	You take a look at the leaked audio, the leaked phone call, and there's a lot that's in it.
	In the snippets put up by the Washington Post, it takes things out of context.
	They say, this is grounds for Trump to be investigated.
	Well, I tell you.
	If you want Trump to feel backed into a corner, this is the way you do it.
	From NBC News, Democrats ask FBI Director Wray to open criminal probe into Trump after leaked phone call.
	Reps Ted Lieu and Kathleen Rice wrote that they believe Trump engaged in solicitation of or conspiracy to commit a number of election crimes.
	That's not true.
	But how many people read NBC News and will just believe this because, say, you didn't share a video like this?
	Ah, share this video to support my work.
	No, but I'm kidding.
	But in reality, yes.
	Let me explain something to you.
	The phone call, as per the Republican Party in Georgia, was a confidential settlement discussion.
	Trump is suing because Trump believes he has a genuine grievance that fraudulent votes were in Georgia.
	When Trump said he needed to find 11,780 votes, what he was actually saying is, we have all of this evidence of hundreds of thousands of votes, but we only need 11,780.
	That was the full context.
	So, as I explained in a different segment, and I'll explain again, it's not a crime when you're saying, you've wronged me, I have been wronged, and I would like a legal remedy.
	The Democrats telling their supporters this Well, they're wrong.
	And maybe that's it.
	Maybe Ted Lieu and Kathleen Rice just didn't actually listen to the full call, or they don't care.
	Nobody cares.
	Because you can point out that Trump said some things in that call that were incorrect, or he was not sure of.
	The Trump supporters are going to say that's not important.
	The Democrats are going to say it's very important, and vice versa.
	I happen to think that, for the most part, the call was not that big of a deal.
	It's Trump doing what Trump has been tweeting about.
	There's nothing in that call that we didn't already know Trump has said or done before.
	He's even tweeted at them, you could go to prison!
	Some of that effect.
	Or Lin Wood has.
	So how is it all shocking when Trump says, oh, it could be a crime?
	What we learn from this is that the country is fractured.
	There is no reason for me to believe that there is any difference between military service personnel and a regular American when it comes to their politics.
	Now, I know a lot of people have said that, you know, they believe military personnel tend to be conservative.
	My understanding is not necessarily true.
	I lived on a military base, briefly, at Fort Carson, Colorado.
	I knew a lot of people.
	Many of them were fairly traditional Democrat or liberal types, not staunch conservatives.
	And there were some people who were pretty conservative.
	I know people, I also lived in Newport News, briefly, and knew many people at Fort Eustis.
	So I've had my experience with people, regular people.
	That's it.
	Now maybe they're more conservative, maybe they're not.
	Maybe they support the president, maybe they don't.
	But I don't think we can know for sure.
	And more importantly, it comes down to who would support the president.
	Does it matter if retired generals and former secretaries of defense are opposing Trump?
	Honestly?
	A little bit, but not that much.
	What matters is, do the lower-ranking commissioned officers and the higher-ranking non-commissioned officers, so there's like, I'm not an expert on military rank, but NCOs reach a certain point where they can't progress, you gotta get a commission.
	But let's say you've got some, you know, officers, and they support the president.
	So they give some orders.
	Let's say that there's Chris Miller, acting Secretary of Defense, issues some orders.
	Let me explain.
	I'll say it again, innocuous sounding, but support the president.
	We want you to go out and stop this group from doing this thing.
	What happens if it's overt?
	What happens if Joe Biden's to be sworn in the National Guard says no?
	Here's what we're seeing now.
	DC National Guard to respond to pro-Trump protests this week.
	We will not allow people to incite violence, intimidate our residents, or cause destruction
	in our city, Mayor Muriel Bowser said.
	Members of the DC National Guard will respond when supporters of President Donald Trump
	protest the 2020 election results in downtown this week.
	The DC National Guard will assist the Metro PD with crowd management and traffic control.
	MPD's acting chief, Robert Conte, said in a news conference Monday morning, the department
	is expecting a crowd larger than at two pro-Trump events in DC.
	last year.
	Anyone who carries a gun at the protest or more than 1,000 feet of a protest will be arrested, in line with D.C.
	law, the acting police chief said.
	Police posted signs this weekend at Freedom Plaza, so many people know this, but let me tell you something.
	They think it's going to be bigger.
	What happens if all the Trump supporters show up?
	And there's a million of them.
	Many of them have guns.
	The National Guard are blocking roads and supporting the police.
	What happens if Trump comes out and Chris, or I should say Chris Miller of the Pentagon, issues an order to the National Guard in D.C.
	to pull back?
	That's it, that's it, that's it.
	We got too many people, we're gonna pull you guys back.
	That's it.
	What if they just tell the National Guard you've been ordered to leave?
	Are they going to defy that order?
	Are they going to stay?
	What happens if some ranking individual who supports Biden gives them contradictory orders?
	You see how this could become problematic?
	Trump's still president.
	Trump can still give these orders.
	And my understanding, D.C.
	is a federal jurisdiction, so the National Guard and the police there technically should be following the orders of Trump.
	I'm not entirely sure how it would work with the police.
	My understanding is that he does have military police and such in federal jurisdiction.
	He should have authority over.
	What if they defy him?
	What if they say, we won't take orders from the president anymore?
	What if they say, we choose to ignore the president?
	What will Trump supporters do?
	You can argue that Trump has lost the election, and that he should not use the military, but what if, before Trump is actually out of office, within two weeks, he no longer can command the armed forces, and then we see a fracturing of executive authority?
	I honestly don't know, I'm just saying.
	I don't know.
	I'm just saying it's possible and would be interesting.
	the military defy lawful and legal orders from the commander-in-chief? I
	don't know. I'm just saying it's possible and would be interesting. More
	importantly, the National Guard is going to be on the ground for Joe Biden's
	And they say thousands of National Guard troops prepare to support Biden's inauguration.
	I like how they say prepare to support.
	I'm sure they're just being ordered to stand guard and they're doing it because they're serving the country and, you know, and D.C.
	and where they live and things like that.
	And that's honorable.
	The question I have now is...
	Whether or not they're there to support the president, the police or otherwise, we know that many police and military will just follow orders, and they won't think twice.
	This is what people need to really understand about what it means to be just following orders.
	I remember asking somebody in the military, if you were ordered to fire on a child, would you do it?
	And a lot of people I know who are... I got varying answers.
	Some said absolutely not.
	And then others pointed out that in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, they actually use kids for this reason, and that if you're given an order, you take it.
	However, killing a kid may be illegal, and you may be killing a civilian, so typically they won't do it.
	That's my understanding, they wouldn't.
	But some people actually told me they would, and they said it depends on the context, depends on the conflict.
	If you've got a report that, you know, kids are being strapped with bombs or stuff, they actually, well, my understanding is they just keep going.
	They don't stop for them, because the kids might be, you know, strapped to be like, you know, it's horrifying stuff, it's horrifying stuff.
	But outside of, like, that question, and the reason I bring it up is, it's obvious and it's extreme.
	Like, what person is gonna actually, like, I got no problem with this.
	No, most people are gonna be like, dude!
	And they're gonna have, they're gonna take serious issue with it, right?
	But some people point it out.
	You could get an order from someone and you don't know what the full context is.
	You just trust your commanding officers and if the order itself is not on its face crazy, you would do it.
	Like if you saw someone with a weapon running towards a group of people and they told you to stop the guy, you probably would stop the guy.
	But like I mentioned earlier, what happens when those orders are just Innocuous.
	They'll probably just do it.
	And that's the important thing here.
	What if Trump gives, or someone gives the National Guard orders pertaining to Biden's inauguration which weakens security?
	What happens if they order them to do something which actually stops Joe Biden?
	You see the interesting conundrum here.
	Trump is still the president.
	Should they defy him?
	You can call it a lame duck or not.
	That's an important issue.
	And it's gonna come down to the... It may come down.
	to Trump giving an order, or someone giving an order, and these guards, having read this op-ed from the Washington Post, fear they could get criminally prosecuted by the incoming administration, and then they just do nothing.
	And what if it's a legitimate order?
	What if it's a real threat?
	You need to understand that when it comes down to anything, we are human beings, not computers.
	So their warning, these former Secretaries of Defense, you'll be criminally prosecuted if you do the wrong thing.
	What's the wrong thing?
	You don't know for sure.
	I'll tell you one thing, though.
	If you really want to make sure that Trump pushes it, You do this.
	From the Washington Post.
	New York prosecutor hires forensic accounting experts as Trump criminal probe escalates.
	This story from just December 29th, only about a week ago.
	They say, District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance Jr.
	opened the investigation into 2018 to examine alleged hush money payments made to two women who, during Trump's first campaign, claimed to have had affairs with him years earlier.
	Excuse me.
	The probe has since expanded, and now includes the Trump Organization's activities more broadly.
	They're going after Trump because they hate him, and we know this.
	Now, many people say, they're not going to arrest Trump.
	You know, Biden has said, Biden has said, blah, blah, blah.
	Biden has said, blah, blah, blah.
	Mm-hmm.
	These are state-level charges.
	Trump is looking at leaving office and having zealots in blue states go after him.
	Should Trump believe that his life is in danger, he has nothing to lose.
	Now, you might think Trump is the best guy in the world or the worst guy in the world, or you might just think he's not that bad, right?
	Typically where I'm at, these people are nuts.
	Trump's not that bad.
	I don't think he's the God Emperor.
	It's a funny joke, but he's not that bad.
	But do I think Trump will fight for self-preservation?
	Oh, absolutely!
	I don't think Trump's the kind of guy to be sitting there saying, man, the country's on the verge of falling apart.
	I better just let them arrest me and put me in prison because I don't want the country to be in strife.
	No, I think Trump's the kind of guy to be like, Joe Biden is crooked.
	They're not going to lock me up.
	I'll lock them up.
	Guards!
	And calling out those who would support him.
	Trump has called on supporters to be in DC.
	The National Guard is going to be deployed to protect the city and work with police.
	To what extent is Trump willing to go?
	I don't know!
	I don't.
	But I know that he's currently facing criminal probes, and boy, do these states want to go after him.
	And that, to me, is why it's interesting, when you go back to the Washington Post article, how they bring up the Civil War in their opening, I believe, second paragraph, mentioning, the one time in history things didn't go as planned.
	Blue states would seek to imprison a president, an ex-president, after he lost an election, just because they hate the guy.
	They're accusing him of all these things, and look, if Trump committed crimes, by all means, then lock the guy up.
	I don't care if it's Trump or Hillary or anybody else.
	You commit a crime, you do the time, right?
	But going after Trump from blue states, not red states, is interesting.
	I mean, Florida could go after him, they're not.
	It shows you it's political, either because Trump's allies defend him, or because Trump's enemies attack him.
	That's where we're at.
	The blue states and the red states are in a legal war, a propaganda war, a culture war.
	At what point does the talking stop?
	What do you think would happen if they actually arrest Trump?
	What do you think Trump supporters would do?
	I mean, they'd lose it.
	There's talk that Trump will run again in 2024 if he doesn't find some way to actually stay in power.
	Even Trump himself is on video saying, you know, we're trying really hard to keep it, but if not, I'll see you in 2024.
	So even Trump has said to donors at a party, I think it was, I think it was donors, that he's gonna try and stay, but if not, you know, he'll run again.
	What if New York arrests him?
	Files a criminal indictment?
	Then he can't.
	And then what?
	The people who are coming to protest in D.C.
	They don't stand by the establishment, and it's interesting that the progressives do.
	That's weird to me.
	It's weird to see people like... I won't call them out, but there's a very high-profile leftist commentator who was mocking Lauren Boebert for wanting to carry Concealed in D.C.
	And I'm like, if you're a leftist, and you're an anti-fascist, and you think the U.S.
	government is imperialist, How are you anti-gun?
	That's the crazy thing.
	Most of the Antifa people I know are actually pro-gun.
	So it's really funny to see establishment pro-Biden leftists claiming to be, like, progressives, and then also saying, haha, guns are bad.
	I'm like, you're certainly not the revolutionaries.
	I wonder what Antifa thinks of you.
	Tomorrow's the start of the protests, man.
	We're gonna see how it plays out.
	Will Trump invoke the military?
	I honestly don't think so.
	Normalcy bias?
	But I think the man's been backed into a corner and he's certainly angry enough to say, why not?
	If he's gonna go to prison anyway because they're gonna come after him, what does he have to lose?
	Nothing.
	No, seriously, nothing.
	They're not just going after him, they're going after his organization, which includes what his family has.
	If Trump wants to save himself and his family and his grandkids, then he's got no choice but to do something drastic.
	And I'm not saying he should, I'm saying you push someone like this, you're asking for it.
	You're asking for him to become desperate.
	Desperate people do desperate things.
	I guess we'll have to just wait and see, but I'll be honest with you.
	I don't think anything crazy is going to happen.
	I really, really don't.
	I think it'll end with Joe Biden being president, and it really feels a lot like an inversion of 2017 when Trump won in the first place, and now we're seeing Biden win.
	We're seeing a mirror image in many ways.
	We'll see how it plays out.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment will be tonight, 8 p.m.
	live over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
	Check it out.
	Hang out with us live.

▲