Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Feb. 15, 2021 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:19:52

S535 - Trump WON Again, Democrats SLAMMED For Doctoring Evidence, Vandalize Trump Lawyers Home After Losing

Trump WON Again, Democrats SLAMMED For Doctoring Evidence, Vandalize Trump Lawyers Home After Losing Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:19:03

Appearances

Clips

michael van der veen

00:22

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		As predicted, Donald Trump has been acquitted in the Senate impeachment trial.
		Over this past weekend, the vote came in.
		Trump now, for a second time, not guilty for whatever they were charging him with.
		Now, I know a lot of people are going to say it was a waste of time.
		We knew this was going to happen, but my friends, it was not a waste of time.
		Don't get me wrong, trying to impeach and remove Trump was a waste of time.
		But the whole scenario actually, in the end, turned out to be greatly beneficial to all of us because it creates a very important moment where we can see Democrats for who they truly are.
		Now, again, there have been many instances where, if you are paying attention, you'd be shocked by the brazen acts of Democrats.
		And this is not a defense of Republicans.
		They're trash, too.
		No, but now we can see the truly horrifying things they're willing to do in the pursuit of power.
		They doctored evidence.
		More than once, they doctored evidence in effort to convict Donald Trump.
		We can't accept that.
		How do we stand for this?
		The media now lying, acting as though they didn't actually do this when they did.
		And I know already I can hear the left saying, it was just a tweet.
		I'm not talking about the tweet.
		I'm talking about the videos that they selectively edited to change the context.
unidentified		How stupid do you have to be to think that would work?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I guess it works enough, though.
		A lot of regular people blindly trust these psychotic Democrats.
		Notably Adam Schiff.
		That guy is as duplicitous as they come.
		Props, a shout out to Tulsi Gabbard, who referenced Brennan and Adam Schiff as domestic enemies more dangerous than those who stormed the Capitol.
		They say Trump incited an insurrection.
		But if you actually listen to what Trump said, he said, peacefully protest and cheer on politicians.
		I'm paraphrasing, but he did say peacefully protest, peacefully march or something like that.
		They edited that out.
		But worse still, they took a tweet.
		They altered, they tried to reproduce it, I suppose.
		They put a verification badge on a random Twitter user.
		Why?
		Well, the left may tell you that it doesn't matter.
		You know, I shouldn't say the left, I should say the Democrats, because I don't think actual leftists are enjoying any of this for the most part.
		The Democrats will say, it wasn't really even doctored.
		It was just, you know, it's fake.
		It's whatever.
		I got a story from Yahoo News.
		I believe it's actually Business Insider.
		And they're like, the tweet was never actually used.
		No, the Democrats didn't manipulate evidence.
		They totally did.
		Trying to turn some random account into a public figure to make it seem like the statement had more weight than it really did.
		They were trying to make you believe that high profile prominent public figures were calling for action on the Capitol.
		Now, there were many high-profile public figures who were calling for action at the Capitol.
		Not storming of the Capitol or anything like that.
		This account that Trump retweeted was not one of them.
		That's why it's significant.
		But it's remarkable because the hole is so huge.
		This is another instance where you can show people and say, explain why it would ever be okay in a trial to manipulate evidence for any reason.
		Just give me an example.
		And I'll tell you what happens next.
		We have this viral video where Trump's lawyer slams CBS News because he says they're trying to downplay the Democrats manipulating evidence.
		And it's not just about the tweet.
		Don't get me wrong.
		I don't think the tweet is the biggest thing in the world.
		I think it just shows they're willing to manipulate evidence.
		But the selectively edited videos where they try and make it seem like Trump just goes, go, go to the Capitol.
		And then they cut it off, ignoring the fact that he was like, and peacefully protest to have your voice heard patriotically, blah, blah, blah.
		Well, something else has happened.
		In the wake of this trial, we now have Trump's lawyer.
		His home has been vandalized.
		Do you see what they want for you?
		Look, the problem I'm having with all of this, and the reason why I just didn't care to cover the impeachment trial as it was going on, first of all, I don't think anybody cares, more importantly, I think everybody knows, right?
		Everybody knows the dice are loaded.
		Am I supposed to sit here and tell you to roll with your fingers crossed?
		Am I supposed to say, you know, oh, look at this instance of a double standard, of duplicitousness, of deceit, deception, manipulation, in the pursuit of power?
		I assume most of you watching this already know this, so what are we really getting out of it?
		Another video where it's like, oh, here we go again, they're doing the same thing.
		Here's what I hope.
		That with this video, along with any others, you can share it.
		You can share it and you can explain to people what's going on and why it matters.
		You don't have to like Donald Trump, OK?
		You cannot like the man, but please recognize criticism in the other direction.
		We can criticize Trump for a lot of things and we often do, right?
		You've seen the TV.
		How many times has Trump been criticized?
		But what about?
		Yes, that's right.
		What about the Democrats?
		I don't care for any of it at this point.
		The Republicans are trash.
		I do have to say, how spineless of Mitch McConnell to vote to acquit Trump and then come out and be like, oh, Trump is so bad.
	Pick one, dude.
	Either you think he did it or you didn't.
	Just show me a spine which you don't have.
	The Republicans are trash, in my opinion, just as much as the Democrats.
	Don't get me wrong, there's a handful of Democrats that are all right.
	There are a handful of Republicans that are all right.
	In my opinion, there are a few more Republicans that I think are better than Democrats, and that's probably because Well, they're just libertarians.
	You've got, like, Thomas Massey, and you've got, like, Rand Paul.
	More libertarian than anything.
	But this is what I hope.
	I hope stories like this are a way you can share with your friends and family that the media is lying, and the Democrats are just trying to manipulate you to gain power.
	And I'll say it again.
	I'm not telling you to vote for Republicans.
	No, actually, I'll tell you don't vote for Republicans.
	They're trash, too.
	What do they actually fight for?
	Don't care.
	But the Democrats aren't fighting for anything either.
	So if you want to support a progressive, by all means, but the establishment Democrats are garbage.
	Before we jump into the big stories about Dr. Devins, head over to TimCast.com, become a member because, look, in the event that I get banned from all of these, you know, all my channels are wiped out, TimCast.com is being set up so we have a wider range of exclusive members-only podcast episodes and segments.
	They're around 20 minutes long or so, some are even over an hour.
	I believe we have one about an hour full bonus episodes.
	And becoming a member really does help support the channel.
	It is the safety net in the event that we get banned will still exist.
	And check out this stuff.
	We got cool stuff.
	We got talking about UFOs.
	We got crazy COVID rules.
	Luke blowing up, slamming the media.
	Matt Brainerd discussed his report on illegal ballots in Georgia, explaining the results.
	And that is a major bombshell.
	He makes a major announcement you should check out.
	So go to TimCast.com, sign up.
	Don't forget to like, share, subscribe.
	Check this out.
	I want to show you Yahoo News.
	Trump lawyer accuses House managers of manipulating evidence by pointing to doctored tweets that weren't used in the impeachment trial.
	Remarkable.
	This is fake news.
	This is a framing manipulation.
	Let me give you the breakdown real quick.
	Trump's lawyers pointed out that in a New York Times story, you have this photo.
	This is the house manager, Mr. Raskin, looking over at, I believe it's Adam Schiff's evidence.
	You can see the house manager looking at a Trump tweet and a tweet from someone named Jennifer Lynn Lawrence.
	On the left, you can see that the account that Trump is quoted has a blue verification badge.
	And just below, you can see it says January 3rd, 2020.
	This is what Trump's lawyers were complaining about.
	And instead of telling you the truth, Business Insider is manipulating you by omission.
	Here's what really happened.
	While it's true that specific doctored image was not used in the trial, there was almost the same doctored image used, but they fixed the date from 2020 to 2021.
	This matters because what Trump's lawyer was complaining about was not that they used that in the trial, but that you can see they were creating it in Photoshop.
	It is not a real tweet.
	So Trump did, I believe, I believe it is true, he quote tweeted this woman.
	But this was a fabrication.
	It is not real evidence.
	Now I have a problem with this.
	It's one thing to say Trump did this.
	It's another thing to say that because Trump was banned from Twitter, we're going to use Photoshop to recreate something.
	I think that's wrong.
	I think it's absolutely wrong.
	But I know many of you may be saying, well look, it's a near perfect recreation, right?
	The attempt was just to say like, here's what it looked like.
	The problem is, they added the blue verification badge.
	And that did end up going to trial.
	Business Insider is lying.
	They did use that tweet, they just made a change to it.
	So, let me give you the full Fact.
	Donald Trump's lawyers complained about the New York Times image.
	That tweet was eventually changed slightly and then used in trial.
	The date was corrected, but the blue verification badge remained.
	And then a lot of people, I guess, are saying it's not a big deal that they created a facsimile.
	I think it is a big deal.
	I think evidence that should be admitted should be the legitimate evidence, an actual screenshot, which you can get through like Google Cash or web archives, you know, anything like that.
	Instead, they used Photoshop to create it, and adding the verification badge changes the context.
	Did a high-profile public figure call on people to go to the Capitol, or was it just a regular user without a large following?
	That matters.
	Verification implies Twitter's endorsement.
	We've been over this argument for a long time.
	I am not trying to argue that it's the end of the world or it's the apocalypse because they did that.
	I'm saying it's bad.
	And now the media is trying to lie to cover up, or at least their allies in media.
unidentified		So here's what they say.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They say in his presentation he displayed a photo in a New York Times article of lead impeachment manager Jamie Raskin looking at two tweets dated January 3rd, 2020, on a computer screen.
		One was a Trump retweet of a supporter writing that she will proudly stand beside Trump, blah blah blah.
		But the House impeachment managers never presented the doctored tweets at the trial, which Schoen himself noted.
		Instead, they presented a screenshot of Trump's retweet.
		No, they did not.
		That is a lie.
		That is absolutely not true.
		There was no screenshot.
		And as you can see, check this out.
		This is what they said.
		This is the legitimate from Reuters.
		January 3rd, 2021.
		They said it was just a screenshot.
		Jennifer Lynn Lawrence isn't verified.
		This is the doctored tweet.
		Business Insider is lying.
		International Business Times says, did Rep.
		Eric Swalwell, I'm sorry, it wasn't Adam Schiff, though he's bad too, it's Eric Swalwell, he's also extremely duplicitous, alter Trump supporters' tweet, change its meaning during impeachment trial.
		Trump supporter Jennifer Lawrence claimed Rep.
		Eric Swalwell added a verification badge to her tweet and used the word cavalry instead of Calvary.
		Did they just put cavalry twice?
		During his testimony.
		So check this out.
		It says, We have been marching all around the country for you, Mr. President.
		We will now bring it to D.C.
		on January 6 and proudly stand beside you.
		Thank you for fighting for us.
		Here's the tweet.
		Best day ever.
		Thank you, Real Donald Trump, for the retweet.
		It has been an honor to stand up and fight for you and nation, and we will be standing strong on January 6 in the D.C.
		We are bringing the cavalry, Mr. President.
		Do you know what Calvary is?
		It is a representation of the Stations of the Cross.
		It is not the cavalry, which would be a bunch of people on horseback, I guess, with guns.
		International Business Times says, on Wednesday, February 10th, one of the House impeachment managers presented his arguments to convince the Senate to convict Trump.
		During his presentation, Swalwell pointed out how the former president used social media to rally his supporters and urged them to stop what he believed was a stolen election.
		According to a transcript, here's what he said at one point.
		On January 3rd, another supporter tweets, We have been marching all around the country for you.
		We will bring it to DC on January 6th and stand beside you.
		Thank you for fighting for us.
		When President Trump reposted her tweet, she wrote back, Best day ever.
		Thank you for the retweet.
		It has been an honor to stand up and fight for you in our nation.
		We will be standing strong on January 6th.
		We are bringing the cavalry, Mr. President.
		We are bringing the cavalry.
		She said Calvary.
		Swalwell is not smart enough to use Google.
		And don't get me wrong, I think a lot of people saw that and just, if you're not familiar with Calvary, then you don't actually know.
		And he walked right into that one, I guess.
		Here's what's crazy to me.
		Fine.
		Swalwell is duplicitous, and he's not that smart.
		He probably got elected, if you look at the story about Fang Fang, the spy who was propping him up and helping him run, because Chinese interests wanted him to be in office, and here he goes, misunderstanding what Calvary was, and this is what the Trump's lawyers really went off on.
		Look, you can see PBS NewsHour.
		They legit use this.
		Why is the media lying and saying they didn't?
		They didn't even use it, they say.
		That's not true.
		What they pointed out is that the media was so intent on helping them with this that they staged this photo.
		Look at this photo with Raskin sitting at his desk and looking at these tweets.
		They staged that.
		No joke!
	A New York Times photographer came in, and he was sitting there, and he's reading it, and they're like, you know, let me get a picture, and... It's fake.
	It's all fake.
	They are lying.
	Okay.
	Now that we made that clear, let's talk about the ramifications.
	Home of Trump attorney, Michael Van Der Veen vandalized.
	Traitor was spray-painted in red on his driveway.
	They say, the Philadelphia home of Trump defense attorney Michael Van Der Veen was vandalized Friday night.
	His wife discovered the word traitor spray-painted in red on the couple's driveway with a red arrow pointed at their house.
	My home was attacked, Van Der Veen said on Fox News Saturday.
	To answer your question, my entire family, my business, my law firm are under siege right now.
	I don't really want to go into that though.
	The Van Der Veens have since hired private security for their home.
	Detective Scott Pezek of the West Whiteland Township Police Department told Fox News that several patrols have driven by the home today and haven't noted any disturbances.
	No arrests have been made, and there are currently no suspects in the case.
	The Philadelphia Enquirer reports that protesters also gathered outside Van Der Veen's office, chanting, When Van Der Veen lies, what do you do, convict, convict?
	Bruce Castor, another one of Trump's defense attorneys, said his home was also vandalized in some way.
	It's been very unsettling.
	Mr. Van Der Veen's house was vandalized last night, Castor said on Fox News Saturday.
	My house was the subject of unrest.
	These people are lawyers, and they expect to do their jobs without having fear of their personal safety.
	The homes of the congressional leaders have also been vandalized recently.
	The Louisville home of Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell was vandalized last month with graffiti that read, Where's My Money?
	and Mitch Kills the Poor.
	I don't like Mitch McConnell.
	And Mitch, where is my money?
	But please, don't vandalize people's home.
	We have to have that line somewhere.
	But I tell you, this is not... Antifa isn't showing up to the lawyer's house to call him a traitor so that he could defend the democratic establishment.
	That really just does not seem likely.
	Antifa tends to be more insurrectionist than anything.
	No, these are Democrat activists.
	There's a difference.
	I do not like it when Republicans claim Antifa are Democrats because, for the most part, they are not.
	Some Democrats may put on, you know, BlackBlock and come out with Antifa if they think it'll benefit them, but it is establishment Democrat types that show up to homes and bang on doors.
	Not far-left Antifa types, for the most part.
	Don't get me wrong, there's overlap because not everybody's identical.
	They say Speaker Pelosi's San Francisco home was also vandalized last month.
	Someone spray-painted on her garage door.
	Cancel rent.
	We want everything.
	Fake blood in a pig's head was also left near her home.
	I don't like Nancy Pelosi at all.
	Please don't vandalize her home.
	Please let her just be an awful person in private where she boasts about her $20,000 refrigerator full of very expensive ice creams when everyone else is suffering under a lockdown where they can't work.
	And they're not getting a stimulus.
	You want to rag on these people?
	Fine.
	Let's just not vandalize their homes.
	You know what I'd love?
	People often ask, what can you do?
	Well, we're seeing the establishment.
	Look, let me put it this way.
	The Republicans are spineless, right?
	You don't like them.
	Mitch McConnell can come out and insult Trump and rag all over him, but won't vote to convict?
	Pick one or the other, bro.
	Either you got a spine or you don't, and it's clear you do not.
	The left is criticizing McConnell for admitting he thinks Trump did this and then refusing to convict him.
	Well, I think that's spineless, too, and I also think it's partly pathetic that he voted to Voted not guilty, but then comes out and just rags on Trump, desperately trying to save face.
	What a pathetic loser.
	I think we can all agree the Republican leadership, which is at this point probably an oxymoron, are pathetic.
	But you know what?
	Democratic establishment, they're corrupt as well.
	How about we all just hold hands and sing songs under the rainbow, recognizing how awful the political establishment is.
	So people ask, what can we do?
	Well, first of all, Peacefully protest.
	And that's legit.
	I mean, Donald Trump called for peaceful protest and they turned it into insurrection.
	Why?
	Because peaceful protest is dangerous.
	Donald Trump wasn't telling anybody to storm into that building.
	Maybe there's some things Trump could have done better.
	Don't get me wrong, he could have come out immediately and said, like, stop, what is this?
	Trump offered to send in the National Guard and they wouldn't do it.
	The mayor was like, we don't want a heavy police presence.
	But I tell you one thing, if you're on the left or the right, a massive gathering, imagine this, what if a million people, just not even 10%, like 8% of New York City, just went outside in the street and just sat down, peacefully, non-violently protesting.
	That is the power of the people.
	But they don't do it.
	And I think the establishment wields tribal politics on purpose.
	So I'll make it clear again, I don't like Republicans or Democrats, and you don't have to like Donald Trump to recognize that Democrats are nasty people.
	The Democratic establishment, mind you.
	There are too many people who keep saying things like, we have to use the two-party system to win, it won't work otherwise, and I think that's the problem.
	It's an addiction.
	The DNC and the RNC are private organizations.
	They can do whatever they want.
	They cheated Bernie Sanders.
	This one's for all the lefties out there.
	Maybe someone watching, you're a moderate, you're a traditional liberal, you're whatever, you shared this with someone.
	Let me explain something to you.
	If you don't believe me, if you don't like what I have to say, if you disagree with me and you hate watching, Time Magazine wrote an article talking about a shadow campaign, a conspiracy, their word, not mine, of a cabal, their word, not mine, to ensure the proper outcome in the election.
	That's what they were saying.
	They mentioned that it began fall of 2019.
	That means they cheated Bernie Sanders.
	It doesn't matter.
	Trump is not the end-all be-all here.
	Bernie was doing really well.
	Then Iowa went nuts.
	You see what the establishment is doing?
	That conspiracy, so saith time, Impacted Bernie Sanders all the same.
	Everything they were doing to ensure the votes and change the rules...
	It didn't just hurt Donald Trump, it hurt Bernie.
	You see what the name of the game is?
	They don't want you to win.
	They don't want progressives to win.
	Bernie didn't have the strength or support to go up against the machine, and he let a lot of people down.
	Probably one of the reasons Trump won, because they didn't expect 9 million people to switch from Democrat to Donald Trump.
	And one of the big reasons was probably that Bernie Sanders got cheated.
	You know what I think?
	2016, perfect storm for the establishment.
	They thought they were going to win.
	They thought Hillary Clinton was going to be president.
	They didn't think Trump could win.
	There was a leaked email where they called him a Pied Piper candidate.
	They thought he would rally a bunch of support and then burn the whole thing down.
	But what they really didn't count on was the viral support Bernie Sanders would have.
	And when they desperately tried to stop Bernie and cheated him, a ton of people in anger voted for Donald Trump.
	A lot of these people didn't do so in 2020.
	That's right.
	I guess a lot of people were, you know what, Biden's acceptable, I guess.
	But there probably still were a lot of people who became permanent converts, and people moved all over the place just in terms of what happened politically.
	Now I'll tell you what we're seeing.
	We're seeing manipulation of evidence.
	Look, if you want to point out the tweet that Trump quoted this tweet, you could literally just pull up the archives of it.
	You don't need to add a fake verification badge.
	Is Swalwell just a moron?
	Perhaps.
	They say, you know, Hanlon's razor never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
	And maybe because he didn't know the difference between cavalry and calvary.
	I think it's hilarious that she said she was bringing the calvary and they're literally talking about religious iconography and then Swalwell thinks she meant she was riding on a horseback with a horn or something.
	Talk about just...
	The inability to do any fact-checking or any research.
	But shouldn't that be alarming enough?
	They fabricated a quote tweet from Trump.
	And you know what?
	It's more reason to say the censorship is wrong.
	Because Trump's account got deleted, they couldn't find the tweet from Trump, so they had to fabricate one.
	But then Swalwell or his team or whoever added a fake checkmark to increase the I guess the weight of the retweet, this public figure of verified, certified by Twitter.
	They're also, I mean, it's also bad for Twitter, I suppose.
	Twitter should be angry about it, because Twitter didn't verify this person.
	You see what they're willing to do?
	Or at least you can see their absolute incompetence.
	Then they go and they vandalize this guy's home.
	What next?
	This is, to me, just the escalation.
	We have a right to representation.
	Donald Trump has a right to a lawyer.
	The worst offenders in the world have a right to a lawyer, but for too long, it is being normalized that if you are accused of a crime, you don't deserve a lawyer, and that's insane.
	That's where we're headed.
	That's authoritarianism.
	Just because you were accused of a crime does not mean you are guilty of a crime.
	And you deserve your day in court and a lawyer.
	And that goes for Antifa, and that goes for Oath Keepers, or Proud Boys, or whoever.
	It's a very, very important tenet of our government.
	But now you can see, right?
	They're authoritarians.
	I believe it was Otto von Bismarck, is that his name?
	Who said it is better that ten innocent people suffer than one guilty person escape.
	Whereas, typically, we who believe in freedom have the opposite view.
	It was Blackstone's formulation.
	It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than one innocent person suffer.
	And Benjamin Franklin upped the ante and said 100 guilty persons escape.
	Going on to explain, I believe this was Benjamin Franklin, that if the system will tell you they will indict the innocent, then there is no reason for anyone to have faith in that system.
	Because if they empower it, they only put themselves and their friends and their family at risk.
	And it only proves the system does not care about justice and functioning for, of, and by the people.
	Therefore we must protect the innocent at all cost.
	That means sometimes the guilty go free.
	It's not fun.
	It's not easy.
	But there are no simple solutions for the most part.
	The authoritarianism coming out of the Democratic Party is nightmarish.
	And the fecklessness coming out of the Republican Party is to be expected.
	What we get next, I think, will only be conflict and chaos because people will reach their wit's end.
	They're saying now, what's the news publication?
	$1,400 should be enough to fund you through July.
	I kid you not!
	They actually put out a story.
	I think it was Reuters.
	A $1,400 check right now is going to be enough till July?
	It's insane.
	More importantly, without people working, it doesn't matter what money you have.
	If the food does not exist, you do not eat.
	And a lot of people seem to think that food just magically appears at grocery stores.
	I've been seeing way too much from people talking about inflation.
	Shocked.
	I went to Starbucks the other day and me and my friends, you know, when I was paying, when I was swiping my card, they were like, how much was it?
	And I was like, it was like, we got two drinks.
	It was like 20 something bucks.
	Two drinks and like some gum.
	It was like 20 bucks.
	And I was like, yeah, it was 20 bucks.
	How?
	And I was like, have you been paying attention?
	Look, man.
	I think we're on track for something real bad.
	And we have no real leadership who's going to do anything against it.
	So my advice to you is to... I'm not going to say prep for the end of the world.
	I'm just saying make sure you've done what you need to do to protect yourself, your friends, and your family in the event of more unrest.
	And that's the best I can say.
	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.
	In an interview with CNN's Brian Stelter, this House Democrat said that we need to have people come together to discuss the glory and the glory of this nation to get past its racist roots and have a truth commission.
	Now, we've been hearing about truth and reconciliation commissions for some time.
	Before Donald Trump even lost the election, before the election happened, many outlets were saying that Trumpism was the problem, and thus, once he was out of office, we would need truth and reconciliation, which should worry many of you.
	As you all probably know, the mainstream media, the corporate press, whatever you want to call it, are not the arbiters of truth.
	They certainly do journalism.
	I often use that journalism, but I have to fact-check a lot of it, because there's a lot of fake news that makes its way through that even I am a victim of.
	I'll do many stories that just operate on the assumption that many of these outlets are telling us the truth, or at least have their facts right.
	And while I do try to fact-check them as much as I can, sometimes all of the details come out, and it's wrong.
	Notably, the story about Officer Sicknick in the Capitol.
	They claim that he died due to being hit in the head with a fire extinguisher.
	Now they're saying it was an unrelated stroke.
	The left is still trying to maintain the story is true, but it appears to be untrue.
	And it was a key subject matter in the impeachment trial accusing Donald Trump of inciting this group.
	Now this is happening at an interesting time.
	Because about a month ago Parler got taken offline.
	Why?
	Because some people, a small amount, used it to post about what was happening at the Capitol.
	We now know that most of the organizing took place on Facebook.
	Parler didn't even have the ability to host groups to organize anything.
	There were some I don't know.
	Reasonably abhorrent posts made by people on Parler, and there were videos and photos that were bad.
	But just like Twitter or Facebook or YouTube, there's bad content that must be moderated.
	Well, because of this, Silicon Valley came together, concerted their efforts, and destroyed Parler.
	Well, at least temporarily took them down, because now we know Parler has been restored.
	Most of the posts, I believe all of the posts, have not been transferred over, but accounts now are popping back into place, and this is more important than ever.
	A platform that vows to protect the spirit of free speech, whatever that means, but at least something better than Twitter, at a time when the establishment press, big tech, and the Democrats are colluding, essentially, to push a narrative.
	As we know, Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, is accused of many crimes.
	But the media and the big tech companies colluded to keep that news off of or out of the news cycle, presumably as part of their quote unquote shadow campaign, says Time magazine, to help Joe Biden win.
	This is the danger of the truth commissions and the importance of Parler.
	So I'll be back on Parler using it.
	It's not fully functioning just yet, but let's go over these stories.
	First, I want to show you what the Democrat is saying about a truth commission and many other prominent left-wing or Democrat activists saying the same thing.
	We'll go over what happened with Parler, but I want to show you some stories.
	Where we can see the fake news was wrong and we must resist any attempt at mass censorship and this monoculture fantasy world they're trying to push on us.
	Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member.
	We have exclusive segments on the TimCast IRL podcast.
	We got one talking about UFOs and expert claims that the Pentagon's actually got UFO material and has leaked documents to prove it.
	Well, publicly published FOIA request documents.
	And we also have from Matt Brainerd.
	He is the founder of the Voter Integrity Project, talking about his report on illegal ballots in Georgia and his assessment.
	That is available at TimCast.com.
	Becoming a member helps support all of my work, and in the event we get banned or demonetized, we will have this website set up to make sure we can keep doing the work that we do.
	Don't forget to like, share, subscribe.
	Let's read the story from The Daily Caller.
	We haven't really done the reckoning.
	Freshman Democrat says it's time for a truth commission.
	Democratic California Rep Sarah Jacobs told CNN's Brian Stelter that she felt it was time for a truth commission to root out extremism in the U.S.
	Jacobs made a Sunday appearance on Reliable Sources to talk about the next steps after former President Donald Trump's second impeachment trial ended in acquittal.
	Stelter asked the freshman congresswoman about an interview she had done earlier in the week calling for a truth commission saying, Because we haven't really done the reckoning with the racial injustice and white supremacy of our past that we need to do, Jacobs began, noting that truth commissions had been used in countries around the world.
	Basically, what it is, is it's communities all the way up to the national level having conversations about the gory and glory of our history and what happened both throughout the history of our country and leading up to and on January 6th so that we can come to a common narrative moving forward of what we want our country to be, she said.
	Do you think the House and Senate leadership have the stomach for that, Stelter pressed?
	I would appreciate if Stelter actually pushed back more than asking if they had stomach for it and say, couldn't that be damaging to the country?
	Certainly there is no unified consensus on what is actually happening, and there are many people that would accuse CNN of putting out tons of fake news, and they do, as well as any other conservative outlet.
	Everybody gets things wrong.
	The idea that there will be an authority, a commission, or as we heard recently, a reality czar, to determine what is true could only What could potentially lead to more chaos?
	To be completely fair, we might actually need some kind of conversation.
	Not about the gory and glory of the US, but about the past four years.
	Because right now, the left and the right completely disagree on what's actually happening.
	In my opinion, you've got the establishment press and political machine lying on purpose to maintain power.
	That's just my opinion.
	So don't be surprised if I'm gonna say no to whatever these lies are they're trying to put out.
	I just did a segment earlier talking about Antifa.
	Multiple outlets are trying to claim that Trump's lawyers were wrong by saying an Antifa leader was arrested at the Capitol.
	But Antifa is a loose movement.
	It is not necessarily a group.
	You don't need to be a member of a group waving an Antifa flag.
	But they claimed it was fake news.
	It wasn't true.
	Trump's lawyers were wrong for even saying it.
	But it is true.
	There was a guy who got arrested who was an anti-fascist.
	And that's what they've claimed all along.
	Now the media tries to change the narrative.
	You see the problem with truth commissions?
	She goes on to say when asked, I think so.
	Look, we were all victims of this attack in addition to being the lawmakers of this country.
	Jacobs replied saying that many in Congress had seen threats to their families as well as themselves.
	So I think there are a lot of us who know that this impeachment trial was just the start of holding Donald Trump accountable.
	Jacob's concluded, adding that the next steps had to be about holding anyone else accountable who had encouraged the violence.
	Well, as you know, they think words are violence, and they're not going to take a literal approach.
	This is about punishing, holding Trump accountable, and that means anybody who agreed with him.
	The Truth Commission will not be some fair and balanced approach to understanding what's going on.
	It is going to be an attack on anyone who supported the president.
	Now take a look.
	The Atlantic writes, don't move on just yet.
	Don't move on!
	They say, okay.
	Could a truth and reconciliation commission help the country heal?
	Maybe it'll help the country heal as in H-E-E-L, as in getting them to bow on one knee.
	We have this from Rolling Stone.
	Stevie Wonder calls for truth commission in open letter honoring Dr. King.
	Now, this story is from just around January 18th or so when Stevie Wonder called for this.
	Now, I'll be completely honest about this, or fair.
	Stevie Wonder is not an acting Democratic politician, nor is The Atlantic, but they are pro-Democrat activists who have said a lot of things in favor of the Democrats.
	There's a lot of fake news to go through.
	And I don't want to go through it all yet because I want to give you the news first.
	Parler is back, baby.
	CNET reports Parler relaunches its website after a month-long absence.
	The social media platform was booted offline in January after the Capitol Hill insurrection.
	I've chosen CNET for a very particular reason.
	Their framing shows you exactly why truth commissions are dangerous.
	Because these media outlets are not telling you the truth.
	But it also shows you why we're in a perilous position as it is.
	I understand.
	The idea of sitting down with someone and explaining to them why this is wrong is a good thing.
	Exactly what I'm doing right now.
	A truth commission, probably because the Democrats are in power, would just use these sources and claim they're true.
	And anybody who opposes them will be considered to be a fake news journalist or not a real journalist or whatever they want to call it.
	I had Frank Luntz recently tell me to take journalists out of my title simply for asking him if he had a full video when there was a clip that was disparaging Trump.
	If that is the making of not a journalist asking for evidence, we've got very serious problems.
	Here's what CNET reports, and I'll have to break down the lies for you.
	First, let me point out, they say it was booted after the Capitol Hill insurrection.
	Sure.
	Call it an insurrection, call it whatever you want.
	After the Capitol Hill incident, Parler was taken off the air.
	Why?
	A coordinated campaign accusing Parler of being a primary platform where people organized the attack.
	That's not true.
	Parler did not have the functionality to organize anything, but of course, people could still make posts.
	Parler is not nearly big enough, however.
	Most of the organizing actually took place on Facebook, and many leftists targeted Facebook because of this.
	So why was Parler taken off the air, or taken off the net?
	Probably as an excuse to get rid of any competition.
	You see, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, these big Silicon Valley companies, well they're all based in and around Silicon Valley for the most part.
	They don't want competition.
	So they colluded.
	They worked together on the same time.
	Apple banned Parler.
	Google banned Parler.
	They don't want you to have access to information outside of their control.
	Right now, we can't go to bars.
	We can't go out to restaurants.
	We can't mingle with people.
	We can't go to big events.
	So where do we share ideas?
	Online.
	And so long as they have a monopoly on the space where we can speak, they can shape the public opinions of individuals.
	And that's why Parler is a problem.
	I'm not saying they're intentionally doing it.
	I'm saying that's what's happening whether it's intentionally or not.
	CNET says, Social media platform announced its return to the internet on Monday, more than a month after it was forced offline for allowing inflammatory posts about the Capitol Hill insurrection.
	You see, that's a lie.
	According to the now former CEO of Parler, they were actively removing all of these posts.
	And Amazon argued they weren't.
	The reason I say it's a lie is because they have taken a definitive stance without telling you what actually was going on in the dispute.
	I don't know if they're taking them down or not.
	I know it is a lie to say they weren't taking them down, following inflammatory posts about the insurrection.
	Well, actually, let me slow down.
	They said it was social media platform Parler announced its return more than a month after it was forced offline for allowing.
	That's the key word.
	Were they allowing this?
	Parler says they were not.
	Amazon says they were.
	CNET has taken Amazon's side on this.
	That is a statement of fact I cannot make.
	They're not being honest.
	The Twitter alternative, which had become a haven for racist and right-wing extremist content, was forced offline in January, when Amazon Web Services cut services to it.
	It wasn't immediately clear who was hosting the relaunched site.
	Now, I believe it's unfair to say it had become a haven for racist and right-wing extremist content.
	Just because they were around, I think, out of the millions upon millions of posts and users, there were about 60 that were called into question.
	Parler said they violated the rules and they would remove them, but it didn't matter.
	They got taken down anyway.
	Not like that context matters to CNET.
	CNET isn't trying to tell you what's really going on.
	In fact, most of these news outlets are not doing journalism.
	Journalism is collecting information and trying to help regular people understand what's happening.
	Most of these outlets actually confuse what's going on to make you believe a narrative for whatever reason.
	Maybe they're just bad at their jobs.
	They said Parler said in a statement, the new site is built on sustainable, independent technology and not reliant on so-called big tech for its operations.
	The company, which has been without a CEO for two weeks, is now being led by Mark Meckler, who had been part of the executive committee running the company after former CEO John Matz was fired by the board in January.
	Apparently they'd said, uh, Matz was saying he was willing to take down certain kinds of content to just abide by some Silicon Valley demands, and the board refused.
	They say Parler was booted offline in mid-January, this we understand.
	The moves by tech giants to distance themselves from Parler came amid growing concerns that the service could be used to promote more violence in the wake of the attack on the Capitol, on the Capitol building.
	And then they go on to blame Trump.
	Parler not respond to a request for comment.
	But as we know, Facebook was the primary space that people were organizing.
	Facebook is still up.
	Now, in response to this, Facebook hasn't been taken down.
	Obviously, they're too powerful and they're too massive, but they did say they would be de-ranking all political content.
	So there's something going on there.
	The removal of Parler, in my opinion, is I don't even necessarily think it's political, to be honest.
	I think it's a business move.
	Twitter was in dire straits before Donald Trump came in.
	Their stock was not that good.
	Trump comes in, generates a ton of press because he's tweeting.
	Everybody starts signing up to see what the president has to say.
	Twitter starts banning tons of people.
	Now Twitter's in trouble.
	Twitter isn't relevant as much anymore without Donald Trump.
	People may start moving over to platforms like Parler.
	Sure enough, Parler then gets removed.
	There is still a major political component, and that is the Truth Commissions.
	Rob Schneider.
	was quote-tweeting Jennifer Margulis.
	There are three tweets here that need to be pointed out.
	Dr. Drew, famous Dr. Drew of Loveline, tweeted, Last week, YouTube struck down my video with another physician.
	YouTube is presumably allowing non-medical professionals to dictate the accuracy of medical information, which violates their own policy and CDA 230.
	Do you trust a 23-year-old computer coder with your life?
	Jennifer Margolis tweets, So now YouTube coders know more about health than highly trained, experienced medical doctors?
	How is it that we're okay with big tech censorship fueled by big pharma?
	America, do we want to be alive, energetic, and in vibrant health or fat, sick, and nearly dead?
	And then she tweets at Dr. Drew.
	Rob Schneider, famous comedian, says, how much longer are people, government, going to stand by
	and allow this insane un-American censorship regulate these a-holes?
	I agree.
	I completely agree.
	There have been calls for repealing Section 230.
	That's the wrong move.
	I think they just need to be forced to uphold a First Amendment standard.
	People can have bad opinions.
	You don't like it?
	There's a block button.
	Which is interestingly what Parler has announced.
	Parler's new community guidelines basically make it clear people can say naughty things, which is surprising.
	They posted this PDF on their website, legal.parler.com, a subdomain.
	Our guidelines govern your relationship with Parler, your use of Parler as well, blah blah blah.
	They say our goal is to provide all community members with a welcoming, non-partisan public square.
	While the First Amendment does not apply to private companies such as Parler, our mission is to create a social platform in the spirit of the First Amendment to the U.S.
	Constitution.
	We prefer that removing users or user-provided content be kept to the absolute minimum.
	We prefer to leave decisions about what is seen and who is heard to each individual.
	In no case will Parler decide what content will be removed or filtered, or whose account will be removed, on the basis of the opinion expressed within the content at issue.
	Parler's policies are to use a well-known concept in First Amendment law, viewpoint neutral.
	We do not curate your feed.
	We do not pretend to be qualified to do so.
	We believe only you are qualified to curate the feed, and so we will give you the tools you need to do it yourself.
	To that end, Parler offers a number of features, including the ability to mute or block other users, or to mute or block all comments containing terms of your choice.
	And we encourage you to use these tools whenever the content you would rather not encounter here is not otherwise addressed by what follows.
	They go on to say that they will not be used as a tool for crime, civil torts, or unlawful acts, and that's basically the main issue.
	They also say that posting spam and using bots are also not allowed.
	But for the most part, they say, if you got a nasty opinion and want to say dumb things, welcome to parlor.
	You're allowed to say these things because, well, Whether or not what you're saying is objectionable is entirely subjective.
	To say you support free speech is literally in defense of awful speech, because good speech that everybody agrees with doesn't need protecting at all.
	Which brings me to the scary part of what's happening in this country.
	The truth commissions will be devastating.
	They will be lies.
	They will exacerbate the problems.
	You cannot just put Democrat partisans in a commission to tell the lowly Trump supporters they are wrong.
	Especially when you have sources repeatedly proving the mainstream media, these journalists, are incompetent at the very least.
	We have this poll from Rasmussen.
	Voters don't trust social media censorship.
	They say 68% are either not confident, not very confident or not confident at all, that social media can censor content fairly.
	Only 11% say they are very confident social media can censor questionable content.
	That's a challenge even for Parler.
	Because Parler does need to remove criminal conduct or things that may contribute to someone else committing a crime or civil torts.
	These are things that should be gotten rid of.
	In fact, I believe there's grounds for actually removing legal content.
	Like doxing, for instance.
	Posting someone's private information probably should not be allowed.
	In my opinion, I would remove it.
	If I was working at Parler.
	But that is protected speech.
	You're allowed to hold up a big sign with someone's name and address on it and they can't do anything about it.
	They really can't.
	It's public information.
	In fact, we used to have a thing called the white pages and the yellow pages listing businesses and private residence information.
	Your phone number and your address.
	It is publicly available information.
	I still think it should be removed, even though people can just Google search it.
	But I agree with most of these voters.
	Do you think that, in the same vein, a truth commission would function properly?
	I think what they're really trying to say is, we've routed Trump and his supporters.
	Trump is out, and now they must crush anybody who believes what Trump and his supporters believe, to destroy the ideas, the ideology of freedom and liberty, and the conservatism and national populism of Donald Trump.
	Now, most Trump supporters probably find themselves under the banner of national populism, meaning for the people, in service to the community.
	The left would demonize that as some kind of fringe, far-right, evil ideology, and therein lies the problem.
	The Truth Commission, in my opinion, isn't going to bring people together and say, protect the community, even if it does involve the international community as well.
	They're going to just try to demonize and insult.
	Which brings me to some of the more important updates we have in terms of the fake news media.
	Look at this story.
	Secretary of State, Georgia, refers 35 cases of election law violations for criminal prosecution, straight up saying there is fraud.
	Now, of these 35 cases, do we have any notable examples of such serious fraud that it changed the results of the election?
	No, absolutely not.
	But what we keep hearing from Democrats on the left is that there is no voter fraud.
	Not everybody is saying it, but prominent voices are saying there is no voter fraud.
	That's just not true.
	I recently had Media Matters smear me, the IRL podcast, because a guest said Trump said there was fraud.
	A guest said that Trump gave concrete examples of fraud.
	Which actually, well I shouldn't say, to be very specific, concrete examples of what may be illegal ballots.
	Something was amiss.
	Media Matters tried to get the video removed.
	It wasn't.
	Why?
	We didn't say anything that wasn't true.
	But sure enough, we do have the media putting up fake news, trying to claim that there's no fraud at all.
	Well, we have several cases.
	We have one, Floyd Jones, the director of Fayette County Board of Elections, but he has since resigned for his alleged improper handling of four memory cards registering 2,760 votes in the general election.
	That's a lot, man.
	The margin of victory in Georgia, I believe, was like 11,000 votes.
	2,760 were missing.
	Most of them were for Trump.
	Now, of these 35 cases, I don't think we have enough that, you know, will change the results.
	I just don't see it there.
	But fraud does exist.
	And these things need to be investigated.
	And it seems like Georgia's Secretary of State agrees, just doesn't agree with Trump.
	We're hearing now from James Herson, who is a New York Times bestselling author and a columnist for Newsmax, that SCOTUS is now scheduled to consider the voter fraud cases for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia on February 19th, 2021.
	I haven't been able to independently verify that, but it's just an addition, something I think you should see in relation to this other news story.
	But take a look at this one from American Greatness.
	The New York Times retracts the Sicknick story.
	Like so many fake news stories about Donald Trump and his supporters, millions of Americans believe the Sicknick story as truth.
	Even a correction won't change their minds.
	This story blew my mind.
	And to be honest, I was actually thinking this should have been the lead story outright, but considering Parler's return and the call for truth and reconciliation and the voter fraud Illegal votes, whatever you want to call it, in Georgia, the allegations.
	I thought we needed to have a bigger conversation about the media just being wrong and what that means for their truth and reconciliation commissions.
	American Greatness reports, in a quiet but stunning correction, the New York Times backed away from its original report that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick was killed by a Trump supporter wielding a fire extinguisher during the January 6th melee at the Capitol.
	I fell for it.
	I was pissed off and I fell for it.
	I said, how could you do this?
	Why would you do this?
	Now, why would any of those people attack the cops?
	I just don't see a reason.
	If these people thought they were going to enter a building and that would be a revolution, then they are just nuts.
	So maybe that's why they would attack a cop, thinking physical space of a few hundred people could change this entire ironclad government.
	Never gonna happen.
	Not only that, but we have Presidential Directive 51 lying in wait, where Trump could enact a National Continuity Coordinator to save the government in the event that someone does occupy a building.
	Not like being physically in a building would change anything.
	Maybe in the 1600s, certainly not today.
	But they put out this story, and it wasn't true.
	They say shortly after American Greatness published my column Friday that showed how the Times gradually was backpedaling, the paper posted this caveat.
	Update.
	New information has emerged regarding the death of the Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick that questions the initial cause of his death provided by officials close to the Capitol Police.
	The paper continued to revise its story within the body of the original story.
	Saying, quote, law enforcement officials initially said Mr. Sicknick was struck with a fire extinguisher, but weeks later, police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit.
	Medical experts have said he did not die from blunt force trauma, according to one law enforcement official.
	What's missing, however, is how the Times first described what happened to Sicknick, saying that Mr. Sicknick died on Thursday from brain injuries he sustained after Trump loyalists who overtook the complex struck him in the head with a fire extinguisher, according to two law enforcement officials.
	Yo, there's a trick in the book!
	I did it too.
	Over at TimCast.com, let me show you the trick.
	Here's the title.
	New Freedom of Information Document Proves U.S.
	Has Alien Technology, Crazy Metamaterials, UFO Expert Claims.
	There's a reason why people in the media phrase things that way, and there's a reason why I did it, and I'll tell you exactly what the goal is.
	I want you to be interested in the story.
	So putting UFO expert claims at the back of the sentence makes it sound like the statement is true, and we're making it.
	Now, I don't think it's that big of a deal when we're having a silly podcast discussion about alien technology.
	I don't think there's going to be a civil war or fights in the streets over us talking about crazy metamaterials just because we put UFO expert claims in the back end.
	I think it's fine to do things like that.
	In other stories, I would not do that.
	The New York Times doing it, in my opinion, is really, really bad.
	When they put at the end, according to one law enforcement official, or according to two law enforcement officials.
	No, no.
	They should have put that in the front to make sure you knew they weren't certain.
	It should have read, according to two law enforcement officials, Mr. Sicknick, an officer for the Capitol Police, died due to being struck in the head with a fire extinguisher.
	It doesn't change it all that much, so I'm not going to pretend like it's the worst thing in the world to put in the back end.
	But I do think when you're talking about something that's going to be used in an impeachment trial, you need to be very, very upfront that you have two sources claiming this.
	We all probably still would have taken it as fact, but the way they loaded it makes it sound like they knew definitively.
	Again, maybe I'm, you know, overreacting to that.
	It's not the biggest deal in the world.
	What is?
	Is that this was a rallying cry for the Democrats.
	It was a rallying cry for their impeachment trial.
	They honored Officer Sicknick in the Capitol.
	Now, with respect to his family, I mean, the man still died.
	He was an officer.
	So, you know, if he was respected and brought into the Capitol, I think that's still fantastic.
	I wish more officers could be honored that way.
	But isn't it strange that right after the impeachment, they come out and say, oh yeah, that cop who we claimed died, it didn't actually happen.
	Why?
	Why even come out and say it?
	Why say it in the first place?
	Who told the New York Times this?
	Is the New York Times just a useful idiot in this whole scenario?
	Manipulated by fake, by law enforcement lies?
	Or, are they perpetrators who knew their sources were bunk and didn't bother to look into it because it helped the Democrats?
	Or maybe a little bit of both.
	They say the account of Sicknick's death was reported as fact, not speculation or rumor.
	Further, it appears the anonymous sources were not law enforcement officials, but people close to the police department, which means they could have been anyone from Speaker Pelosi to Adam Schiff to the Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser.
	You see?
	That was it.
	A lie.
	Wasn't even cops, apparently.
	Not only was the Times' untrue story about Sicknick's death accepted as fact by every news media organization, from the Wall Street Journal to the Washington Post, and to me, I believed it as well, and I reported it numerous times as fact.
	Political pundits on the never-Trump right also regurgitated the narrative that Sicknick was murdered, as did lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.
	And so did moderate populists from left to right.
	So did people like presumably Ben Shapiro and regular conservatives.
	We all believed it.
	Therein lies the big problem I've mentioned time and time again.
	The funny thing is as I rag on media all the time, I get these lefties who don't actually watch my podcast saying, but Tim, you use the mainstream media.
	Dude, I recognize the very serious paradoxical problem.
	of believing the New York Times while trying to fact check the New York Times.
	It is not easy.
	Typically what I'll do is I'll use certain sources and then I'll look at left and right and other, you know, news organizations to see if there is video evidence, if there is corroboration.
	Sometimes there is not.
	And I gotta be honest, I tend to trust the New York Times.
	And CNN.
	CNN not nearly as much, don't get me wrong, I think they're wrong a lot.
	But they do have a ton of stories that I think are fine.
	More importantly, if you strip out the false framing in a lot of stories, you tend to find a little bit of the truth.
	Notably, the CNET story.
	Parlor is back!
	Is what they claimed true?
	Well, they falsely framed things, or they framed things in general, from a left perspective.
	Weeding out that bias, you can get to the truth.
	In this instance, the New York Times made a statement of fact.
	My assumption was that it was a bold statement of fact they wouldn't want to risk being sued over, so they probably got it right.
	That makes things tough.
	Because I don't know exactly what you can expect now.
	The New York Times was wrong about a very, very, VERY serious issue.
	As it turns out.
	As more and more video gets released of what happened at the Capitol, we're learning it wasn't nearly as bad as the Democrats claimed it was.
	They selectively edited video of Trump to make it seem worse than it was.
	Now we have videos of some of these individuals that they claim to have been former active military, that we were supposed to be so scared of, actually fighting to protect the Capitol.
	No joke.
	A video of one of these guys yelling at Trump supporters to stay out of Mike Pence's chair.
	A video of a man in a mog hat begging the police to stop the riots.
	Videos from people inside the Senate chamber saying that they'll leave and they're not trying to cause any trouble.
	Videos of people being let into the building.
	While there were very serious and scary videos, there were some videos of, you know, a cop being crushed between large crowds trying to shove their way in, two masses of people just pushing into each other, screaming, people being, you know, hurt, a woman getting trampled, a man having a heart attack, people died, a woman getting shot in the neck.
	Not all of it was like that.
	Anybody who wants to tell you it was a horde of violent insurrectionists trying to burn the building down, figuratively, and, like, storm in, and that's it, well, they're wrong.
	Anybody who wants to tell you it was a bunch of bumbling fools who had no idea what was going on and you're being lied to are also wrong.
	The reality is, it was very much so.
	A bunch of bumbling individuals, bewildered and just walking through the doors, taking selfies with cops, and there was a lot of fighting with police.
	There was just a bit of both.
	So, the left latches on to the most violent elements.
	The right latches on to, for the most part, much of the calmer elements.
	But to be fair, I say that a lot, don't I?
	The right does recognize the violence, and denounces it.
	The left isn't playing the same game.
	So I tell you this, to those on the right.
	You keep playing this game, and it's asymmetrical warfare.
	The left lies, and they cheat, and they manipulate.
	Case in point, this story.
	And you think playing fair is going to net you a victory.
	Which brings me back to the first story about a Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
	You think the Democrats will be fair and bring together both sides for a conversation about what's really going on and try and find the truth?
	You would be wrong.
	They will come in, they will lie, they will cheat, and they will steal.
	And bewildered and bumbling Republicans will be like, okay then, Democrats, whatever you say.
	And that's Mitch McConnell, mind you.
	Where does this lead us?
	Maybe third party runs?
	I don't know.
	Support for a third party is through the roof, mostly among Republicans.
	Good.
	Bring it on.
	The independents have been begging for a third party for a long time.
unidentified		70%.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		63% of Republicans want a third party as well.
		Do it.
		It's time for a third party.
		The establishment has failed us.
		The Democrats love their crony games.
		But I'm not gonna play, and I'm not gonna vote for a Republican.
		So I'll leave it there.
		Parler's back!
		I'll be using it, so follow me on Parler at TimCast, and I don't know how long they'll last for, so go to TimCast.com, become a member, and the next segment will be the live show tonight at 8 p.m.
		over at YouTube.com slash TimCast IRL.
		Come check it out.
		You can send in your comments, and we actually do read as many comments as possible, so we'll take your questions, and we'll see you there.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		8 p.m.
		youtube.com slash TimCast IRL.
		Right now in Texas there's a major snowstorm and it's ridiculously cold.
		And a lot of people who are down there are kinda just, I don't know, some people are enjoying it.
		A lot of people are probably freaking out.
		Roads are being shut down.
		Normally, Texas doesn't get snow.
		This time it did.
		Another place that doesn't normally get snow, or doesn't get a whole lot of it at least, is Seattle.
		And Seattle was blanketed by large amounts of snow, and Antifa showed up to make sure that everything got worse.
		By blocking a police station so the police vehicles could not get out and help people during an emergency.
		What you need to understand about Seattle is that it doesn't usually snow there.
		It's by water, so it usually just rains a lot.
		But it's extremely hilly.
		When I lived there, it snowed one time.
		Very likely, and the whole city went into panic mode.
		Cars are parked on very steep hills, so it really does matter that police are able to get out and save lives during an emergency.
		This behavior from Antifa is, well, I'm sure most of you are not surprised.
		But what you need to understand about Antifa is that it is not a hard nationwide organization with chapters.
		It is a decentralized cell network, meaning each individual group just espouses the ideology, rallies behind it, and there are leaders.
		There's no leader of Antifa, but individual groups have leaders.
		They do recruitment.
		They screen and vet people before they're allowed to join their circles.
		So while the media likes to play this duplicitous game, Where they'll both simultaneously claim that Antifa is not a real group, if conservatives or Republicans claim people are members of Antifa.
		They'll also play the game where they'll say, well, this person was not a member of Antifa, when they want to disavow someone who clearly is.
		Either Antifa is an idea of a various network, in which case, yes, these activists are Antifa, or Antifa doesn't exist and none of them are ever Antifa, but the media plays it both ways.
		So that's actually the bigger story I want to get into.
		This is kind of just the breaking news, talking about what they do.
		But in the impeachment trial, we're getting now one of the most amazing manipulations.
		I want to show you fake news in real time, how the media defends far-left extremists.
		And I want to make sure you understand the severity of it by showing you the story which just happened the other day.
		Check this out.
		Furious Seattle cops confront Antifa for barricading a police precinct with snow to stop patrol cars responding to emergency calls during storm.
		They say around a dozen demonstrators gathered outside the East Precinct, cheering as the police vehicles struggled to get over the ramp.
		The East Precinct was the epicenter of anti-police protests this summer.
		From June 8th until July 1st, the building was abandoned and the Capitol Hill-occupied protest, the CHOP, sprung up around it.
		CHOP was forced out on July 1st.
		On August 24th, a man from Alaska tried to set fire to the East Precinct and was charged with arson.
		A month later, Molotov cocktails were thrown at the building by rioters.
		Quote, Antifa goons blocked the exit of the East Precinct with a pile of snow tonight in an effort to stop vehicles from responding to emergency calls, said one person posting a picture on Instagram.
		Look at this.
		Then they show up someone sledding, I guess.
		As the patrol car tried to leave the precinct and was blocked by the ramp, protesters could be seen jumping up and down, celebrating, hurling snowballs at the vehicle.
		Police officers came outside of the precinct and began shoveling the snow away from the exit.
		One officer can be heard on video threatening to detain the protesters for making the ramp, saying, do this again and we'll arrest everyone.
		Protesters told police they were having a snowball fight.
		On one Instagram video, an officer can be heard saying, you cannot block police from exiting a police vehicle precinct.
		Here you can see how they set it all up.
		And that's the gist of the story.
		They say the police began moving people away to start shoveling the snow.
		One demonstrator said, cops are being aggressive and violating people's rights.
	Small scuffles ensued as the police shoveled the snow and protesters chanted, peaceful protest.
	Seattle Police Department has not commented on the incident.
	Well, I'll give it to the Antifa people.
	It is peaceful to push snow in front of a building.
	And I agree with obstruction and peaceful protest.
	I think it's one of the best ways to actually protest.
	I don't agree with shoveling snow in front of a police station when you're in Seattle and snow poses a very serious threat.
	As I was mentioning earlier on, You have people who live in an area not well equipped for heavy snow.
	The police need to respond because cars slide down hills out of control.
	Seattle isn't capable, for the most part, of dealing with this because it is a rare occurrence.
	I'll give a shout out to Hassan the Sun, who was commenting on, I'm pretty sure, both Seattle and Dallas, maybe just snow in general, And he said, oh, your infrastructure wasn't built to handle extreme weather conditions caused by climate change?
	Well, you must be a P then.
	I can handle much colder weather.
	I'm convinced some people live in the cold just to flex on others about how S-ishy it is.
	We don't swear on this channel.
	Most of you know Hasan, he's a pretty lefty guy, but I think he still made a really good point.
	There are a lot of people who don't understand the severity of what this, what it means when it snows in Seattle.
	And I have to imagine the Antiva people do understand that.
	When I lived there, like, my job was closed for the night.
	They were like, everybody go home, we got snow coming in, and then it snowed, and I was laughing.
	I was like, wow.
	But I get it.
	I'm not trying to be mean.
	It is very, very hilly in Seattle.
	And some of these hills are ridiculously steep.
	Now let's talk about how the media defends this kind of behavior.
	Because first and foremost, let me tell you, Antifa putting snow in front of a building, not the worst thing in the world, but you really got to understand the context of the location.
	In a place where there's probably going to be a lot of cars crashing, no salting of the roads, this is going to be serious.
	Cops need to be able to get out and help people.
	That being said, they do mention a whole bunch of really awful things that Antifa has been doing.
	Well, let's talk about what's going on with the fake news media.
	Independent reports.
	Anger!
	As Trump lawyer says Antifa leader was first Capitol rioter arrested and first to be let go.
	Guess what?
	It's true.
	One of the first to be arrested, one of the first to be let go.
	Now, we'll break down what Trump's lawyer actually said, because the media is lying.
	First, I'll show you this from The Independent.
	Donald Trump's lawyer sparked anger when they claimed that an Antifa leader was the first person arrested and released at the Capitol riot.
	The ex-president's defense team claimed that it was a preposterous and monstrous lie to say that Mr. Trump incited the violence, blah, blah, blah.
	Tragically, as we now know, on January 6th, a small group who came to engage in violence and menacing behavior hijacked the event for their own purposes.
	According to publicly available reporting, it is apparent that extremists of various different stripes and political persuasions pre-planned and premeditated an attack on the Capitol.
	One of the first people arrested was a leader of Antifa.
	You've heard it now from The Independent.
	Was a leader of Antifa.
	A leader.
	Does Antifa have leaders?
	Yes.
	Is there a single unifying leader that controls all of Antifa around the world or country?
	No.
	It is a fractured network of cells adherent to similar ideology that coordinate with each other when there is overlap between certain actions.
	Many of these individuals will travel around the country and join nebulous blobs of black-clad rioters who go around smashing things.
	Are there leaders?
	Yes.
	Was this man a leader?
	Yes.
	They'll argue he wasn't, but I'll be honest with you, for the most part, it's an opinion as to whether he's a leader or not.
	But he is an individual who films videos, posts them, and rallies people.
	So you can argue to what extent someone qualifies as a leader of any activist, and...
	Well, you'll get different opinions.
	To say he's not, though, would be incorrect.
	He's not some random guy who showed up one time.
	There are numerous videos of him speaking, rallying people, and essentially organizing efforts at left-wing protests.
	I call that leading.
	They say Mr. Trump's lawyer did not name the individual, but added, sadly, he was the first to be released.
	Utah activist John Sullivan, who founded an anti-police brutality group, so he's a leader of a group, was arrested at the Capitol and faces charges of civil disorder, being in a restricted area, and disorderly conduct.
	He is among more than 200 people arrested and charged after the violence, but has denied any links to the Antifa movement.
	Oh, what?
	I thought Antifa wasn't.
	You see how they say it's a movement now?
	Is that a joke?
	We know what Antifa is.
	The dude is Antifa.
	Now, there are a lot of leftists who don't like John Sullivan.
	They've disavowed him.
	Well, that's the problem of having an open, nebulous nature.
	Anyone can just claim to be Antifa.
	That's what Antifa says.
	Do you oppose fascism?
	Well, then you're Antifa, too!
	Does this guy support fascism?
	Okay, well, then guess what?
	He's Antifa.
	Congratulations.
	Those are your rules.
	They say he is among more than 200 people arrested and charged after the violence, but denies any links.
	The claims were also mocked across social media.
	Who's the alleged Antifa leader that got arrested in the insurrection?
	Interested because Antifa doesn't have leaders.
	You see, that's someone who clearly has never covered Antifa.
	Rose City Antifa.
	They're an organization.
	They're in Portland.
	They vet people.
	If they don't have leaders, how do they vet people?
	Maybe you'll argue that the whole group pulls a name out of a hat and says, everybody, we're going to go through this and determine... No.
	They sell merch.
	They have their own merch.
	They have people with more power than others.
	Hierarchy exists whether they want to admit it or not.
	As I learned and law enforcement learned during Occupy Wall Street, Many of these organizations have long claimed to be leaderless, but it's very easy to figure out who the leaders are.
	Simply saying there are no leaders does not make it true.
	If there are two people standing next to each other and they both say, there are no leaders here, and then one guy is the one who keeps telling the other guy what to do, you know who the leader is.
	It's a manipulation.
	It's semantic.
	They're trying to argue that there's no, like, on-paper signature of, this is who our proposed leader is.
	But we all know that some people take more action than others, some people give more direction than others, and some people are trusted more than others.
	You don't need to call it officially on a formalized stamp, LEADER, for us to recognize who a leader is.
	This guy organized a far-leftist group.
	He's very much aligned with the Antifa movement.
	It's a dirty game.
	During his opening remarks, Mr. Van Der Veen defended the former president against charges made by House impeachment managers.
	No thinking person could seriously believe the president's speech in the Ellipse was in any way an incitement.
	And you know what they won't show you?
	They won't show you what Trump actually said.
	Peacefully protest.
	That's what he said.
	Patriotically, peacefully, and patriotically.
	They edited that out.
	The entire premise of Trump's remarks was that the democratic process would and should play out according to the letter of the law, including both the Constitution and the Electoral Count Act.
	In the conclusion of his remarks, he then laid out a series of legislative steps that should be taken to improve democratic accountability going forward, such as passing universal voter ID legislation, banning ballot harvesting, requiring proof of citizenship to vote, and turning out strong in the next primaries.
	These are not the words of someone inciting a violent insurrection.
	To claim the president wished, desired, or encouraged lawless behavior is a preposterous and monstrous lie.
	Here we go.
	I love it.
	Politifact.
	After the Capitol insurrection, quote, one of the first people arrested was a leader of Antifa.
	There's a reason why I'm saying a leader over and over and over again.
	And it's because they try— Look at what USA Today says.
	Look what the media does to manipulate you.
	Trump's defense team, quote, One of the first people arrested was the leader of Antifa.
	That's what USA Today is saying.
	USA Today added the word the to what he said.
	of various different stripes and political persuasions preplanned and premeditated an
	attack on the Capitol.
	One of the first people arrested was the leader of Antifa.
	That's what USA Today is saying.
	USA Today added the word the to what he said.
	Let's see if I can play this so you can hear it.
michael van der veen ▲ ● ▼		...available reporting.
		It is apparent that extremists of various different stripes and political persuasions
		preplanned and premeditated an attack on the Capitol.
		One of the first people arrested was the leader of Antifa.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Did you hear that?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Let's play it again.
michael van der veen ▲ ● ▼		One of the first people arrested was a leader of Antifa.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Was a leader of Antifa.
		A. A. A. Not the.
		You see how USA Today lies to trick you?
		Well, I'll tell you this.
		They often say, as I mentioned in the previous segment, never attribute to malice that which can be attributed to incompetence.
		That's Hanlon's razor, and perhaps.
		But come on.
		All these other outlets, even lefty outlets, heard the word a and not the word the.
		There's a big difference.
		A leader implies there are many different leaders of many different antifa cells or organizations.
		The leader implies there's one person running the whole thing.
		Of course that's not true.
		USA Today makes that quote, so then people who are unsuspecting will see that and go, what?
		Look at this.
		Mashable writes, no, the leader of Antifa did not storm the US Capitol.
		The leader?
		You see what they're doing?
		They are manipulating you.
		It is a trick.
		Here's what PolitiFact writes, mostly false, if your time is short.
		Utah activist John Sullivan was arrested nine days after the January 6th insurrection for allegedly breaking into the US Capitol.
		However, he denied being a part of Antifa, a broad coalition of left-wing activists.
		Many suspected members of right-wing groups were arrested around the same time as Sullivan.
		Photos and videos from the riot show that Donald Trump supporters were prevalent in and around the Capitol.
		So what?
		The FBI has said Antifa activists are not suspected in the insurrection.
		This is the game they play.
		Sometimes, Antifa is a nebulous group of varying people of different ideologies fighting against fascism.
		Sometimes, they say, if you oppose fascism, you're Antifa.
		Sometimes, they say, it is a legit movement with leaders, whenever it fits the narrative.
		When Trump's lawyers come out and say, this guy was a leader of Antifa, they say, there's no such... No, of course not.
		He's not a leader of any of these groups.
		But certainly he's protested alongside Antifa for the same causes under similar banners.
		So Antifa tends to be used as a catch-all term for Antifa-associated organizations.
		This guy started an anti-police brutality organization.
		Okay.
		If he's not Antifa, then he's fascist, right?
		They have said over and over again, if you oppose Antifa, or if you are not anti-fascist, then you are pro-fascist.
		That's what they've said.
		They have said, if you are not anti-fascist, you are pro-fascist.
		Okay.
		If this guy is not Antifa, he is pro-fa.
		So is he a fascist?
		No.
		That's stupid.
		We know he runs a leftist organization.
		Now, by all means, it's fair to say the left does not like the guy because he's kind of an extremist.
		So, what?
		The right has to deal with getting smeared in the press all the time because of the extremists on their side, and the left doesn't just get to come out and be like, well, not this one, but do you see it now?
		Most of you have seen it for a long time.
		A bunch of Trump supporters can come out with little American flags and sing, you know, the Star-Spangled Banner and what's the other song?
		America the Beautiful.
		And then one guy will show up with a Confederate flag and he'll be like, that's all of them.
		And when the Trump supporters are like, we don't stand for that, they say, well too bad, he's part of your group, therefore.
		It flows in one direction.
		Anybody who stands next to a right-winger is right-wing.
		As I've explained before, if you take a picture of an Antifa guy standing next to a guy with a Confederate flag, they will say the Antifa guy is clearly right-wing.
		Why?
		For all we know, the Confederate guy is clearly left-wing, right?
		You can have a... We'll do it this way.
		If you, as a regular person, are seen standing next to a right-wing individual, they'll call you right-wing.
		If they see you then standing next to a left-wing individual, they will call the left-wing guy right-wing.
		It only goes in one direction.
		So here we can see it.
	When the right has a fringelint at come-out and they disavow him, it doesn't matter.
	When the Proud Boys ban white nationalists from their organization and acknowledge they've had bad people, the media says, too bad!
	They are associated with When somebody who forms an anti-fascist organization against police brutality and then gets arrested at the riot, they say, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Don't you dare try to imply we did anything wrong.
	There were many right-wing groups there.
	So what?
	Of course there were.
	The whole thing was basically right-wing.
	But the dude who was there, John Sullivan, was basically Antifa.
	Antifa is a colloquial term for people who are on the far left and use these tactics.
	And they fly the banner.
	I don't care what he denies.
	When a right-wing individual denies being part of a certain group, they say, you're lying.
	When the left-wing person doesn't say, it must be true.
	Welcome to the media.
	I'm going to mention most of what I've already read.
	Antifa is short for anti-fascist.
	The term refers to a broad left-wing coalition of activists that seek to protest white supremacy and other far-right causes, sometimes by using violence.
	It is not a single group, but rather an ideology.
	The House of Representatives impeached Trump on January 13th, blah, blah, blah.
	We've debunked several claims that Antifa activists were behind the Capitol insurrection.
	So we want to take a closer look at Van Der Veen's claim.
	A left-wing activist was arrested nine days after the riot for allegedly breaking into the Capitol.
	However, he denied being part of the Antifa coalition.
	There is no evidence that Antifa activists incited or planned the insurrection.
	Many members of right-wing groups were arrested around the same time.
	There were many different ideologies.
	You see, the left and these journalists view libertarian, conservative, nationalist, populist, all as one thing, when they're clearly not.
	There are libertarian nationalists, there are anti-nationalist libertarians, there are conservative, classical conservatives, religious conservatives, moderate liberals, There's a bunch of different ideologies.
	Now they're very close to each other, don't get me wrong, they overlap on a lot of issues, but they also overlap with populist left-wing issues as well.
	This is why a left-wing activist was there storming the walls, storming the doors.
	We reached out to Van Der Veen through his law firm to find out who he was referencing in his comment.
	We did not get a response, but coverage of arrests following the Capitol riots did describe one controversial left-wing activist from Utah as being among those who stormed the Capitol, also the woman who was with him.
	His name is John Sullivan, the founder of Insurgents USA, an activist group that says it protests police brutality.
	He was arrested on January 14th and charged with one felony count of interfering with law enforcement.
	A U.S.
	magistrate judge placed restrictions on Sullivan.
	He was banned from using social media.
	They say his Twitter account Frequently used hashtag Antifa.
	You gotta be kidding me with this!
	Hashtag BLM and other anti-Trump or anti-police hashtags.
	He has also been filmed using incendiary language in the past.
	But Sullivan previously told PolitiFact he's not part of the Antifa coalition.
	And Sullivan has been singled out before by some left-wing activists as not being fully aligned with their cause.
	An FBI affidavit filed in support of the criminal complaint did not mention Sullivan being part of any anti-fascist groups.
	And we could find no other criminal history of anti-fascist groups.
	There are groups that have names like Youth Liberation Front, and they're considered Antifa groups.
	Do you see how they've crafted—they're crafting a narrative where whatever they want to be true, they can just say, well, Antifa isn't a group, so it's just an ideology.
	There's no such thing as Antifa.
	Well, what about this guy who says hashtag Antifa, hashtag Black Lives Matter all over Twitter?
	Well, he's not part of Antifa, because Antifa is a coalition of groups.
	I thought you just said it wasn't.
	It was not one group.
	So there's a bunch of other groups, right?
	Yes, a bunch of groups.
	Okay, so he started one called Insurgents USA and used hashtag Antifa when tweeting about it?
	Yes, but he says he's not Antifa.
	So it's true!
unidentified		There we go.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Look, right now, these stories I'm seeing, I have this article about Andy Ngo.
		They say, how Portland's Andy Ngo turned his war with Antifa into a dubious best-selling book.
		Congratulations, Andy, on your best-selling book.
		Oh, are you gonna cry about it at Oregon Live?
		So what?
		I'll say this.
		I've seen some things from Andy Ngo's book, and I rolled my eyes at them.
		There was one section, I believe it could be in there, if I'm wrong about this, well, I apologize, but it says something about women being used as human shields in Seattle, and I'm like, dude, women choosing to stand in front of a line, you know, to block Antifa is not them being used, it's them, you know, I guess whatever, semantics.
		Regardless, Andy's entitled to his perspective and his framing on Antifa.
		I'll tell you what I think.
		I kind of don't care for the most part.
		Antifa, you know, blocked a police vehicle and I kind of roll my eyes like it's dangerous, but it's mostly nuisance at this point.
		I'd appreciate it if the extremists of the extremists would get arrested and charged, and for the most part they get let go after all of this rioting.
		So they are a problem.
		It needs to be addressed and not overlooked.
		I'm not going to pretend like Antifa is a network of super soldiers trying to, you know, they're going to go around and storm the Capitol and actually succeed because, I mean, let's be honest, that wouldn't work anyway.
		But they're a problem.
		They're violent.
		They hurt people.
		They cause damage.
		They put people's lives at risk, and the media protects them.
		That is a very serious problem.
		Well, I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
		over at youtube.com slash timcast.

▲