S549 - Biden SLAMMED By Democrats And Republicans Over New Migrant Crisis That May Be The WORST Ever Seen
Biden SLAMMED By Democrats And Republicans Over New Migrant Crisis That May Be The WORST Ever Seen. Biden is not only locking kids in cages but he is releasing COVID sick illegal immigrants into Texas.Democrats are furious over is his reopening of the migrant facility in Florida though typically its only the far left or progressives who seem to care. Republicans are angry that Biden has canceled Trump's Wall and is promising to allow many more refugees and migrants into the country.Already Axios says this could be the worst migrant crisis we have ever seen at the southern border.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Joe Biden is struggling to deal with what may be the worst migrant crisis at the southern U.S.
border we have seen yet.
Migrants showed up wearing shirts that said, Biden, please let us in.
Now, the left is angry over child detention centers, and the right is angry that Joe Biden's CBP released illegal immigrants who tested positive for COVID into Texas.
At the same time, Biden called Texas Neanderthals for reopening for business.
Our next story, an assemblyman is accusing Andrew Cuomo of New York of a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice after his administration obscured the total amount of people who had died from a report due to his policy to put sick people into nursing homes.
And our final story, Nancy Pelosi is facing calls for impeachment after the passing of H.R.1, which is being described by the left as an anti-corruption voting rights bill.
Though there are some things that are good in this bill, many people are furious as they see it as a power grab for Democrats.
Let's jump into the first story.
Recently, photos and videos emerged of migrants to southern U.S.
border wearing t-shirts which read, Biden Please Let Us In, signaling that we may be about to experience a very severe migrant crisis.
Axios is reporting that the crisis we are facing could be worse than the ones faced by Trump and Obama.
Now, Biden has promised to allow more refugees into the country.
People are critical of this because they feel it may incentivize migrants to go on this dangerous journey only to reach the border and be denied.
The left is angry because Joe Biden is now operating child detention centers.
In fact, he even is reopening the facility that Donald Trump closed in Miami.
They were screaming that Trump was putting kids in cages, while the facility in Homestead, Florida, was opened by Obama.
And it was Trump that shut it down, but now it's the Biden administration that is going to bring it back.
On the right, they're angry because Joe Biden is promising to allow way more refugees in, he's shutting down border wall projects, and we're now learning that about 100 migrants, more than 100, who may have been infected with COVID were allowed, were released in Texas.
The reason that's significant is because recently Texas announced they would be reopening business.
They felt the vaccine and social distancing were working, and thus they could get the economy back on track.
Joe Biden responded by saying it was Neanderthal thinking.
Well, now many people are upset on the right for this.
Some are suggesting that we should introduce new legislation to complete Donald Trump's border wall, and they've actually done this.
But how hypocritical is it to say we're going to allow migrants in?
They've not been tested for COVID.
Some who actually have been infected with COVID were released.
But Texas is the state that's doing things wrong.
It's hypocritical because Joe Biden said we will not have normalcy until this time next year, but he seems to be just tribally attacking certain states.
It makes no sense to demand COVID lockdowns in a state where you wouldn't actually enforce COVID restrictions on those crossing the border.
Well, now I think we're going to see that Joe Biden is not up to the job.
He's going to get heat from the left and the right worse than he already is.
And like I said, Axios is saying this is going to be one of the worst migrant crisis we have ever seen.
Well, let's read this and see what's going on first with the migrants wearing these t-shirts.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com, become a member to get access to exclusive TimCast IRL podcast segments and episodes.
We have a whole bunch of content.
Look at this, we got Sidney Watson, James O'Keefe, we got the guy from Phoenix Ammunition, Blair White.
We set up TimCast.com because there is a purge going on.
They're censoring people, they're banning people, and in the event my channels get shut down, this is where you'll be able to find my content, and we're looking to expand.
Your membership gets you all this content, and we're even going to be having live events at our studio, so make sure you sign up to get information on when that's going to happen, and it's going to be happening relatively soon as the weather is warming up.
But let's read the first story.
Don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Fox 10 Phoenix reports.
Migrants wear Biden t-shirts at U.S.-Mexico border demand clearer policies.
They say migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border on Tuesday were photographed wearing t-shirts in support of President Biden at the San Ysidro crossing port in Tijuana, Baja California State.
One apparent migrant held up a poster that read, Biden, please let us in.
Prospective US residents and progressive Democrats are hoping the new president will implement more lenient immigration policies than former President Trump, though some politicians like Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have expressed concern with Biden's use of migrant holding facilities at the border.
There has been a recent surge in the number of unaccompanied minors arriving at the U.S.
border from Mexico, according to the Wall Street Journal, though the Biden administration has rejected the term crisis to describe the situation.
The president is working to process as many as 25,000 asylum seekers who were forced to wait in Mexico under the Trump administration's Remain in Mexico policy under the Migrant Protection Protocol program.
Biden has promised to accept more refugees into the country during his time in office and implement more humane policies, such as a proposal to pay for the transportation and health care costs of migrant families who were separated at the border under the Trump administration.
Congressional Democrats in February introduced Biden-backed immigration legislation that includes a path to citizenship for an estimated 11 million immigrants who are already residing in the U.S.
illegally.
It also includes expanded distribution of automatic green cards to immigrants with temporary protected status, as well as deferred action for childhood arrivals, DACA recipients, and a plan to give $4 billion to Central American countries in an effort to target the root causes for migration into the U.S.
I'm sorry, but I don't believe this is a solution.
Giving $4 billion to these countries does not incentivize them to stop the problem.
It incentivizes them to keep the problem going.
As people flee these countries and try and go on these arduous journeys, you have several poll factors, as they refer to them.
One, Joe Biden promising to naturalize 11 million refugees or offer a path to naturalization, as well as saying he will accept more asylum seekers, just means many people are going to say, I will take my chances.
The danger?
Many of these people lose their lives on these journeys.
It is not a simple task to make this trek.
Most of them do not get in.
Most asylum seekers are rejected, and they're incentivizing this.
The second pull factor is offering these countries billions of dollars.
They're going to say, hey, so long as the crisis exists, then we can keep saying, oh, but we need more money to get the problem solved.
In the end, we are now dealing with a crisis again.
A crisis that Obama dealt with, that Trump dealt with, and what now Joe Biden is going to be dealing with.
It doesn't seem like what Obama and Biden has done is working.
Under Donald Trump, at the very least, he did disincentivize the behavior.
But, to be fair, it didn't work all that well either.
You could argue that with Joe Biden now incentivizing these people to come here, offering a path of citizenship and asylum, he's only making the problem worse, and that may be.
From Axios, one big thing, Biden's building crisis, they say.
Six weeks into his presidency, President Biden is staring down a mounting crisis at the border that could be just as bad as the ones faced by Obama and Trump, if not worse.
Why it matters.
Immigration is an issue that can consume a presidency.
It's intensely and poisonously partisan.
It's complicated.
And the lives and welfare of vulnerable children hang in the balance.
In an attempt at a solution, the Biden administration now plans to release parents and children within 72 hours of arriving in the U.S.
A new policy that already is being carried out along the Texas border, according to the New York Times.
Biden came into office sounding a warmer, more welcoming policy that would treat migrants humanely.
Desperate people took notice.
And Biden reversed Trump's COVID-era policy of turning away unaccompanied children, the very group that is now surging.
They say, shelters are overflowing, border crossings are rising, border patrol facilities are overwhelmed, and the new administration is taking fire from both the left and the right.
There are still roughly three months left of what is usually the peak season for migrants coming to the U.S.-Mexico border, my friends.
It is only going to get worse.
They also talk about vaccine tourism, but we can maybe touch on this later.
The important factor here, from the New York Post, 108 illegal immigrants in Texas who tested positive for COVID reportedly released.
This has the people of Texas in an uproar.
At a time when they're trying to reopen, what does Biden's federal administration do?
CBP under Biden?
They released sick people into the state?
Now that is dangerously irresponsible.
Some feel like it was almost a kind of retaliation.
Because Texas wanted to reopen, the federal government was like, okay, well then here you go, some sick people.
I don't think that's the case, to be honest.
I think it's just...
I don't know.
Ineptitude is probably the best way to put it.
Joe Biden is not up to this task of dealing with CBP, with ICE, these other federal organizations.
He's in desperate need of help to get this job done.
And I think it's evident by the fact that the left and the right are angry with him.
At least under Trump, the right was like, Trump's doing what I want him to do.
He's building a border wall.
He's disincentivizing this behavior.
Right now on the left, And the right, they're saying Biden is failing at everything.
As I mentioned, the left is really angry over the child migrant dilemma.
As Axios reports, leaked HHS docs spotlight Biden's child migrant dilemma, saying, fresh internal documents from the Department of Health and Human Services show how quickly the number of child migrants crossing the border is overwhelming the administration's stretched resources.
Perhaps they should have done what Trump did.
Turn them away.
I know it may sound inhumane, but these young people, these unaccompanied minors, may be better off near these border towns in Mexico than wandering through mass stretches of desert in the U.S., where they can become sick, ill, and die.
We do not have the resources to keep them safe, and we can't tell them.
If you come in, so be it, because then more will come, and it will only get worse.
To Biden's credit, perhaps there is at least an attempt at solving the problem in their home countries.
But offering up aid does not seem to work.
It seems like the corrupt politicians in these countries are incentivized.
They say, great, the more people who leave, the more money we get.
And in the end, people will just keep going on these dangerous journeys.
They say, driving the news, in the week ending March 1st, the Border Patrol referred to HHS custody an average of 321 children per day, according to documents obtained by Axios.
That's up from a weekly average of 203 in late January and early February, and just 47 per day during the first week of January.
Now, could it be the 47 per week in January?
We're due to Donald Trump not allowing these people to enter the country?
I would say the answer is yes.
Though some people may say, yeah, but it's winter, Tim.
It's winter.
They're not gonna... It's winter, but it's the southern border.
Don't act like it's snowing.
Okay, hold on, hold on.
It did snow down there.
There was a serious winter storm.
So, okay, maybe.
But for the most part, people who are going on these journeys, they're going to come if the opportunity exists.
As many people were hearing Joe Biden say on the debate stage and during his campaign, moratorium on deportation, open border policies, not totally open border, but decriminalizing border crossings.
How many of these people said, now's my chance, get there right at the start of the line, January 20th, a new Joe Biden president, and boom, we'll be right there, ready to go, and he's gonna let us in.
Where did these t-shirts come from?
The ones that say, Biden, please let us in.
Who mass-printed these t-shirts and then gave them out to these people?
Maybe they did it themselves, perhaps, not like it's that expensive to do, but you have to wonder.
They're trying, the people who are coming here, in my opinion, They're trying to manipulate us.
And it's going to work on the left.
Sorry, you can't tug at my heartstrings.
I actually want to make sure we can protect people.
That includes the migrants and refugees, but it also includes the people who live in Texas, the people who are locking down, the people who have suffered under the COVID pandemic because their businesses were shuttered.
We can't just allow anybody to come in.
Sorry.
It will only make it worse for everyone.
But you know what?
Wearing those shirts, it's going to trigger the emotions in many Democrats who are low-information voters.
Sorry, I know there may be Democrats who listen, but that's just the reality.
It is an emotional manipulation to say, please let us in, these poor, these poor people.
I understand you may have a gut instinct to say, we need to let these people in.
But that doesn't solve the problem, and it potentially makes it worse for everyone.
I know people don't want to hear it.
They don't want to hear it, but it's the truth.
And if you really want to help these people, we need to do something for them back home.
So maybe Joe Biden will do something with these grants.
I think they need to actually go in and enforce that the use of this money goes to the right causes.
I'm not entirely convinced it will.
They go on to say in Axios, the same documents dated Tuesday say the shelter system is at 94 percent occupancy and expected to reach its maximum this month.
Well, there you go.
Joe Biden has kids in cages and it's going to be worse than what happened with Trump.
They say, meanwhile, some of President Biden's top officials responsible for immigration policy are planning a trip to the U.S.-Mexico border this weekend, sources tell Axios.
The influx of unaccompanied minors is a mushrooming problem for the new president and his policy and social welfare agencies.
Quote, A trip is not finalized, and the White House continues to work on locking in details and logistics for a potential visit, White House spokesperson Vedant Patel told Axios.
Spokesperson for DHS and HHS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Behind the scenes, they say, HHS has already moved to open overflow shelters and to increase the speed with which it releases children to caretakers already in the U.S.
In the week ending March 1st, an average of 174 children were released from HHS custody each day.
That was up from a weekly average of 90 in late June and early February, according to the documents.
Nonetheless, the number of migrants held in Border Patrol custody longer than three days has been rising nearly each day, according to additional documents reviewed by Axios.
Kids and teens caught crossing the border without legal guardians are being held in Border Patrol facilities for more than three days for an average of 77 hours, as CNN first reported.
This week, DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas insisted The current situation is not yet a crisis.
Regardless, it's clear the number of children crossing the U.S.-Mexico border could fast overwhelm government systems in ways similar to the crises in 2014 and 2019.
The uptick comes while the administration continues to use an emergency public health order to quickly deport migrant adults and some families, including asylum seekers.
At the same time, Biden has reversed a Trump administration policy of using the public health order to quickly turn away unaccompanied children.
The source, who provided the internal Biden administration documents, expects to see family migration rise over the next months as well.
Internally, government officials have been sounding alarm bells as Axios previously reported DHS is expecting a record number of child migrants this year.
HHS has told the White House it will need a 20,000 bed capacity to humanely accommodate them.
I'm sorry.
The only thing that's going to happen is that Joe Biden will expand kids in cages.
But listen.
I'm not here to rag on Biden for that.
They went after Trump saying it was inhumane and it was a problem.
Well, it was Obama's facilities.
But the reality is we do need them.
We can't just cut kids loose into the desert, send them to people we don't know.
That's why we have these facilities.
Nobody wants these kids to suffer.
Maybe a few people in the Trump administration or the Obama or Biden.
Maybe it's a few people you can call out.
Some of them probably worthy of criticism, but for the most part, people want to make sure these kids are not getting sick and dying.
That's the purpose of these facilities.
I think too many people on the left are manipulated by their emotions, and they're going to just say the kids shouldn't be there.
Well, where do they go?
Well, they say they shouldn't have been separated from their families.
How do you know it was their actual family?
If an adult is taking a child to cross the border, how do you know?
And what do we do?
Just say, well, here's a guy with a little girl.
I guess it's fine.
What if that's not his child?
What if he's a trafficker?
There are many of them.
They exist.
The Guardian writes an opinion piece for The Guardian.
Biden is locking up migrant children.
Will the world still care with Trump gone?
They say, flowers, butterflies, and a rosy banner saying, Bienvenidos!
Decorate the child detention site.
Is that meant to fool us into thinking this is humane?
That's what they're doing.
That's what they're doing.
There's a funny meme.
Under Obama, it's like, Child, you know, Child Holding Center.
Under Trump, kids in cages.
Under Biden, Child Holding Center, once again.
Well, at least Mustafa by you mean for the Guardian is pointing out that it's an awful
development saying, reminding me of some of the worst abuses of the Trump years.
And while we obviously don't know how this ominous development will play out in the long run,
what we do know what we do know is this unaccompanied migrant children deserve compassion,
not detention. But rather than seeking out new and better solutions, the Biden administration
is instead trying to sell us an image of a kinder, gentler imprisonment. I ask you, good, sir,
I appreciate the consistency, but I ask you, where should these children go?
Seriously, is it more humane to just keep them in the desert?
That makes no sense.
When Trump was operating these facilities, sure, they weren't perfect.
They were overwhelmed.
It was kind of bad.
But these kids are coming here.
Separating them, I think, is scary.
But again, trafficking, what do you do?
I believe it is appropriate for Joe Biden to have these children in these facilities.
They put them in bunk beds.
They try and take care of them.
And the same was true for Donald Trump.
It is absurdly naive to think you just say, you know what?
Fine.
The left is angry.
Open the floodgates.
Let everybody come in and the kids have fun and good luck in the desert.
That's insane.
There was a story, not that long ago, about a kid who was taken in by ICE.
I believe it was, no, no, it may have been CBP.
The kid died.
And the media tried framing it as though it was Border Patrol that killed the kid.
No!
They tried saving the kid.
They found the kid wandering in the desert.
Kid was sick.
They brought the kid into the facility, hoping to get some medical treatment.
The kid died.
They blamed Border Patrol.
What should have happened?
Should they have just left him in the desert saying, hey, if we pick you up, the Democrats are gonna get mad at us.
Well, of course not.
They should try and save him.
And therein lies the double-edged sword.
No matter what you do, you lose.
You try and save the kid, they blame you for it.
You don't save the kid, they still blame you for it.
No matter what you do, they will say it is bad.
February 11th, President Biden cancels funding for Trump's border wall.
This is big news.
The BBC says in a letter to Congress on Thursday, Mr. Biden wrote that the order was unwarranted and said that no further tax dollars will be spent on the wall.
Mr. Trump declared a state of emergency over the southern border in 2019, which allowed
him to bypass Congress and use military funds for its construction.
When Mr. Trump left office, about $15 billion had been spent on the project.
The announcement from President Biden is the latest in a series of executive orders that
have rolled back key parts of the former president's agenda.
And when he does that, people then rush to the border, thinking, we can now get in.
Joe Biden is failing at this.
Desperate to please these Democrats, it seems like some of his policies are hoping to make the left happy, while he's simultaneously just doing all the awful things they complain about.
They're not going to support him.
It's either all or nothing.
Either Joe Biden says, I stand by my decisions no matter what, or he gives in to the left, but you can't do both.
They say in a letter on Thursday.
Biden wrote that he would also seek a review of all resources appropriated or redirected to the construction of the wall.
Building a border wall was one of Trump's signatures, but the project faced strong opposition.
An emergency declaration allows U.S.
presidents to circumvent the usual political process and to access military funding.
Well, I tell you this.
I mentioned the left and the right are mad.
The right isn't doing nothing.
From SarahCarter.com.
Texas State Rep introduces bill to finish Trump's border wall.
They report, amid a tense national debate over the US-Mexico border, a Texas lawmaker is pushing for the construction of former President Donald Trump's border wall to continue.
Since President Biden took office in January, he has signed a slew of executive orders that reverse many of Trump's policies.
One of those orders includes striking down the ongoing construction of the southern border wall.
Texas State Rep.
Brian Slatton has introduced legislation before the Texas House to finish President Trump's wall in Texas.
Further, the bill seeks to name the wall after Trump, tweeting, If the federal government won't do its job protecting American citizens, then Texas will stand in the gap and do it for them.
to finish President Trump's wall in Texas.
If the federal government won't do its job protecting American citizens, then Texas will
stand in the gap and do it for them.
Quote, President Trump fought to bring real border security and was opposed by Republicans
and Democrats in Congress.
While hundreds of miles of new wall were built under his leadership, the Biden administration has already ceased border wall construction, Slatton said in a press release.
It is time for Texas to stand up and finish the work Trump has started.
Now, what did Joe Biden say to Texas when it came to COVID?
Neanderthal thinking.
Montana governor says Biden degraded himself with Neanderthal comment about red state governors.
Gianforte says Biden's name-calling makes no sense at all.
Gianforte explained that hospitalizations are down and Montana is open for business, during an appearance on Fox & Friends asserting that a one-size-fits-all approach to coronavirus mandates doesn't make sense for the needs of every state.
For a president that called for unity to degrade himself to name-calling doesn't make any sense at all.
And he's right.
This was in response to many states, notably Texas, deciding to reopen.
Well, I bring you back to this story from the New York Post about sick migrants.
They say, Felipe Romero, a spokesman for the border city of Brownsville, told Fox News, they are telling the migrants who tested positive to follow the CDC guidelines to quarantine and maintain social distance, but that Brownsville doesn't have the authority to stop them from traveling to the rest of the country.
He said the 108 positives account for 6.3% of the total migrants who received rapid tests at the city's main bus terminal, a program that began on January 25th.
Some of the migrants described to Noticias Telemundo Investigia how they were tested at the border and then allowed to hit the streets despite a positive result for the virus.
The left has been saying that this COVID has been horribly mismanaged and that the migrant crisis has been horribly mismanaged.
No, they're right.
The fact that there is no I don't know.
Straightforward plan as to what we should be doing.
The fact that Joe Biden is being completely hypocritical doesn't bode well for us.
But my friends, perhaps there is hope for all of you.
You see, Donald Trump is back, issuing a statement saying, out of control immigration and border security.
The Boston Herald reports, former President Donald Trump, via his 45-office mail drop, slammed the Biden administration's immigration stance Friday, saying, security is totally out of control.
Here is the unedited statement of the president.
They say, quote, our border, and this is from Donald Trump, our border is now totally out of control thanks to the disastrous leadership of Joe Biden.
Our great Border Patrol and ICE agents have been disrespected, demeaned, and mocked by the Biden administration.
A mass incursion into the country by people who should not be here is happening on an hourly basis, getting worse by the minute.
Many have criminal records, and many others have and are spreading COVID.
Interior enforcement has been shut down.
Criminals that were once promptly removed by our administration are now being released back onto the street to commit heinous and violent crimes.
ICE officers are desperate to remove these convicted criminals, but Biden won't let them.
The spiraling tsunami at the border is overwhelming local communities, depleting budgets, crowding hospitals, and taking jobs from legal American workers.
When I left office, we'd achieved the most secure border in our country's history.
Under Biden, it will soon be worse, more dangerous, and more out of control than ever before.
He has violated his oath of office to uphold our constitution and enforce our laws.
There has never been a time on our southern border like what is happening now, but more importantly, what is about to happen.
Now that Biden has implemented nationwide catch-and-release, illegal immigrants from every corner of the earth will descend upon our border and never be returned.
You can never have a secure border unless people who cross illegally are promptly removed.
I had a great relationship with Mexico and its wonderful president, but all of that has been dissipated by the gross incompetence and radicalism of the people currently in charge.
The Remain in Mexico policy was incredible.
But immediately abandoned by Biden, probably because it worked so well.
Likewise, our safe third agreements in Central America were extraordinarily successful, so Biden foolishly ditched them too.
We stopped payment of the hundreds of millions of dollars paid to them, and then developed an excellent relationship that made our country and their countries more secure.
We put in place powerful rules and procedures to stop the smuggling and trafficking, but the Biden administration has abandoned these proven strategies and instead given the smugglers and traffickers effective control of our border.
Despite being delayed by years of litigation and politics by the Democrats, the wall is almost finished and can be quickly completed.
Doing so will save thousands of dollars.
The Biden administration must act immediately to end the border nightmare Trump is not going away.
I think it's very likely he runs, but I don't know.
He'll be a pretty old man by 2024, probably will announce in 2023 if he does, campaign throughout 2023 and 2024, and then of course if he wins, inaugurated on January 2025.
I think it's entirely possible that happens.
I don't know. He'll be a pretty old man by 2024. Probably will announce in 2023 if he does,
campaign throughout 23 and 24. And then of course if he wins, inaugurated on January 2025.
I think it's entirely possible that happens. You know why?
The left and the right are mad.
They don't like what Joe Biden is doing.
If Donald Trump runs, then it will just be the left that is mad.
And the right will like the idea of a President Trump.
But think about all of the regular Americans.
You see, it's not just immigration.
There are a bunch of other issues.
Food prices are going up.
Inflation.
A lot of people are not getting back to work.
Joe Biden says, wait till next year.
And a lot of people don't want to.
Many people were promised $2,000 checks.
Perhaps those people voted for Joe Biden thinking he would honor it.
Donald Trump wanted $2,000 checks.
And it was the Republicans who said no.
You know what that means?
It means the establishment has to go.
It was widely popular among Trump supporters and progressives.
In fact, I think the poll was 84% of people said $2,000 checks.
So why didn't we get them?
Both Democrats and Republicans are saying no.
So what happens then, in my opinion, is that you will see many moderate voters.
Realizing that Joe Biden was the wrong choice.
And in the coming years, there are many variables.
So this is a very bold thing to try and predict now.
So I'll probably be wrong.
Considering that I'll probably be wrong, I will just go ahead and say, many people will likely be upset with Joe Biden's policies.
After spending four years in crisis after crisis with an inflating U.S.
dollar, people struggling to work and to get back to work, While I may be wrong, I gotta make sure I say that.
People just may be fed up.
And you'll find that with record voter turnout, like we saw, you know, in 2020, people just narrowly go for Donald Trump.
Because they'll say, you know what?
It was better under Trump.
The economy was great.
And like they say, it's the economy, stupid.
I don't know for sure, but they've certainly done Trump many favors by taking away his social media.
One of the biggest mistakes Trump was routinely making was tweeting bombastic things that was pissing people off.
Now that's gone.
Now he can only put out these official statements through email, which still make it to the press.
The media is desperate for Trump, and now Trump's weakness has been taken away.
I know social media benefited him in a lot of ways, but it did hurt him in a lot of ways as well.
He just needed to be quiet sometimes and let the news cycle chill out, but he couldn't do it.
He still can't.
He's putting out these emails, but these emails are much better controlled.
So what happens in 2025?
Maybe a narrow Trump victory as he comes out and speaks out against Joe Biden.
Maybe then the left finally snaps because they need their boogeyman, they need their villain, and then something worse happens.
I don't know.
I'll probably be wrong.
As I say, it's a bold prediction to make this far out, years and years out, so we'll see how Biden does.
But he seems to be doing miserably as of right now.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
We're gonna be talking about China and that looming threat and whether or not Joe Biden is up to the task.
And guess what?
I think he isn't.
So I'll leave it there and we will see you all at 8 p.m.
tonight at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
We knew the nursing home death scandal was bad, and now we're learning it's worse.
This may be one of the biggest scandals we've had in a very, very long time.
I don't want to say ever because, look, I'm only 34.
I'm sure there's been bigger scandals, but we now have a Democrat governor Who knew that his policy of putting sick COVID patients into nursing homes would result in lots of death, mass death.
And you had many people at the nursing home saying, you can't do this.
We know this will result in people dying.
Cuomo said he didn't care.
And then Cuomo's aides, the people who worked for him, pressured health officials to change the number, the total number of dead, because they knew that they would be in serious trouble.
Assemblyman Mike Lawler has called this a coordinated criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.
I have to say, I agree.
But the scandal goes well beyond politics.
This may be one of the biggest media scandals we've ever seen.
And this, my friends, should be the nail in the coffin for the corporate press.
When Andrew Cuomo was murdering people, when they knew it would result in death, thousands upon thousands dead, What was the media doing?
They were praising this man every single day.
CNN's Brian Stelter, one of the most duplicitous people on TV, praising Cuomo, talking about how good a job he's doing.
If this guy did any work, any actual journalism, they could have seen that Andrew Cuomo was murdering people.
What about the guy who threw the banner over the highway bridge, the overpass, that said, Cuomo killed my mom?
What about the health officials that objected before it even started, who said, you can't do this, you will kill people?
According to the Wall Street Journal, that happened.
Where were your journalists, CNN?
Where were your reporters?
Now, I know many people are looking at me saying, where are your reporters, Tim?
Oh, we're working on it.
We're working on it.
I don't have the infrastructure of a decades-old, billion-dollar corporate press.
But yeah, we'll get to it.
I'm not kidding.
We will.
Because we can clearly see the media They don't care.
CNN, MSNBC, these big networks did nothing but praise the man.
Chris Cuomo, who faked being in quarantine, does stupid silly q-tip bits with Andrew Cuomo on TV.
They entertained the idea that he would run for president.
Now we're learning that not only is Cuomo a murderer, but he's also an abuser of several women.
Assemblyman Mike Lawler tweets, It's very clear the Cuomo administration understood their March 25th order had contributed to the death toll, and they wanted to cover it up to avoid political fallout.
Plain and simple.
They had the data and they hid it.
This was a coordinated criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.
Let me just make that very clear for you.
One of the most popular Democratic politicians right now among Democrats, New putting COVID patients into nursing homes would kill them.
It would kill innocent people who are in those nursing homes who are not sick.
He covered it up because he didn't want to look bad, and didn't want to get caught, and didn't want an investigation, and we know it all now.
You wanna know the scariest thing about this?
I've got the story, and I'll go through it, where they actually say that health officials were warning, don't do this.
Nursing home officials were saying, you can't do this, don't do this, and they did anyway.
It wasn't just Cuomo.
Whitmer did it.
I believe a few other, Tom Wolfe, I believe, in Pennsylvania did it.
I wanna show you something.
Rich as a party says, Q poll in field this Tuesday and Wednesday shows Governor Cuomo among Democrats with a 65 to 27 job performance rating and a 60-30 favorability.
Amazing.
Cuomo murdered 15,000 people.
He was warned it would happen.
He obstructed, he covered up the numbers.
And the Democrats still support him.
We're in very serious trouble, my friends.
If this is the state of politics in this country, that you can have even left-wing personalities pointing out that Cuomo is an abuser, Cuomo is accused of some very serious things from several women, and Democrats still support him 2 to 1.
Is this politics now?
Is this it?
Tribalism?
That a man could be a murderous criminal?
And they will still support him.
Yes.
When Trump came out and said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn't lose a voter, he was not wrong.
And they criticized him and his supporters for it.
And you know what?
Good.
Trump should not say those things.
Now Cuomo's actually killed people, and they're the ones who still support him.
The Wall Street Journal reports.
New York Governor Andrew Cuomo's top advisor successfully pushed state health officials to strip a public report of data showing that more nursing home residents had died of COVID than the administration had acknowledged, according to people with knowledge of the report's production.
The July report, which examined the factors that led to the spread of the virus in nursing homes, focused only on residents who died inside long-term care facilities, leaving out those who had died in hospitals after becoming sick in nursing homes.
As a result, The report said 6,432 nursing home residents had died, a significant undercount of the death toll attributed to the state's most vulnerable population, the people said.
The initial version of the report said nearly 10,000 nursing home residents had died in New York by July last year, one of the people said.
The changes Mr. Cuomo's aides and health officials made to the nursing home report, which haven't been previously disclosed, reveal that the state possessed a fuller accounting of out-of-facility nursing home deaths as early as the summer.
The health department resisted calls by state and federal lawmakers, media outlets, and others to release the data for another eight months.
My friends, we are now looking at a story confirmed, decried, of a man who knew he killed these people.
Do you think anything's gonna happen?
Do you think there will be a federal prosecutor who comes and arrests Cuomo?
I really doubt it.
He'll get away with it.
Quite literally, killing 15,000 people.
They say, State officials now say more than 15,000 residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities were confirmed or presumed to have died from COVID-19 since March of last year, counting both those who died in long-term care facilities and those who died later in hospitals.
That figure is about 50% higher than earlier official death tolls.
Mr. Cuomo now faces mounting political pressure over both his administration's handling of the pandemic in nursing homes and accusations he harassed staffers.
Republicans and some Democrats have called for the governor to resign from office or be impeached.
Mr. Cuomo has rejected calls for his resignation and apologized for his behavior.
Regarding nursing home deaths, Cuomo has said his administration followed federal guidance and acted to preserve hospital capacity.
Just followin' orders!
The CDC said, hey, here's what you should do, and they did.
That's what I say.
I don't care if you support Trump or not.
There is clearly a disconnect between what red states did and blue states did.
And it's interesting to see how this is primarily affecting blue states.
They're going to say federal prosecutors in Brooklyn asked the Cuomo administration in February for information about nursing home deaths.
The Wall Street Journal reported.
Federal prosecutors expressed interest in the July report.
People familiar with the matter said.
I'll tell you what's going to happen.
They'll throw some low-level staffer under the bus and Cuomo will be like, I had no idea!
And then some dumb intern goes to prison.
In response to questions from the journal, administration officials said Thursday that Mr. Cuomo's advisors advocated against including data on out-of-facility deaths because they had concerns about its accuracy.
The out-of-facility data was omitted after DOH could not confirm it had been adequately verified, Beth Garvey, a special counsel and senior advisor to Cuomo, said in a statement.
Spare me, it's a lie.
In my opinion, one official familiar with the back and forth between the Health Department and Mr. Cuomo's advisors said State Health Commissioner Howard Zucker agreed the out-of-facility data shouldn't be included in the report.
The Department of Health was comfortable with the final report and believes fully in its conclusion that the primary driver that introduced COVID into the nursing homes was brought in by staff.
The health department updated the report on February 11th to include out-of-facility deaths of nursing home residents, saying its conclusion remained unchanged by the new data.
State lawmakers from both parties have said the out-of-facility death data was critical for them to evaluate nursing home policies that could prevent future fatalities.
They said the Cuomo administration's decision to delay its release constitutes a cover-up of data the governor knew would be damaging to his political stature.
Melissa DeRosa Mr. Cuomo's top aide explained the delay to state lawmakers during a February 10th meeting.
She said the state sidelined a legislative request for the data because of a U.S.
Department of Justice inquiry.
Mr. Rosa said the state was concerned the information would be politicized by the administration of former President Donald Trump, according to a transcript.
That's right.
Donald Trump may have gotten re-elected if people found out that Democratic governors were murdering people.
Gee, I wonder why people would have decided to vote for the Republican.
The Justice Department, through its Civil Rights Division, began requesting information about nursing home deaths from New York and other Democratic-leaning states in August.
The initial July report was the product of a Health Department study of the factors that contributed to the death toll in nursing homes.
The agency undertook the study in response to complaints from state lawmakers and people who lost loved ones that a March 25th Health Department directive fostered the spread of the virus among members of the state's most vulnerable population.
That directive said that no nursing home could refuse to readmit residents or admit new residents from hospitals solely because of a COVID-19 diagnosis.
The July report concluded that nursing homes were already rife with the virus by the time of the March 25th policy and attributed the spread to staff who brought it with them to work.
Several of Mr. Cuomo's top advisors, who were members of his COVID-19 task force, reviewed and requested changes to the report.
They included a bunch of people I'm not, you know.
The lead author of the report was Eleanor Adams, who until August, worked out of the Health Department's Metropolitan Area Regional Office in a unit that focused on infection control in healthcare facilities.
One of the people said, Dr. Adams has since become a senior advisor to Dr. Zucker.
The initial version of the report submitted to Mr. Cuomo's team for review included both data on deaths of nursing home residents in hospitals and deaths of residents inside nursing homes, people familiar with the report's production said.
While health department officials agreed to remove the data, they resisted Cuomo's aid request to alter the report to play down the role of the March 25th directive in the spread of the virus, some of the people said.
The report as published concluded the directive was not a significant factor in nursing home fatalities.
Check this out.
The March 25th order came as hospitals were rushing to make space for an expected surge of coronavirus patients.
Let me point out that the Javits Center was available and the Mercy naval vessel was available as well.
They say, nursing home operators, learning of the policy only after it was issued, immediately objected, saying it would introduce the virus into their facilities.
A national group representing nursing home health providers said at the time that the March 25th directive was, quote, not in the least consistent with patient safety principles.
A national group.
A national group told them, don't do this.
You will bring the virus here.
And they said, so what?
And they did it anyway.
And now how many people have died?
It's not just the 15,000.
It's the other Democrat governors who did the same thing.
They say a New York State Health Department spokeswoman, Jill Montag, said in August the decision to issue the directive was made on the merits by the public health experts at DOH and following the CDC guidelines.
Health Department officials didn't provide an updated statement when asked on Thursday.
Okay, I don't care who you throw under the bus for this.
I don't care if it's Fauci, the CDC, Cuomo.
Even, you know what, blame a little bit of Trump, right?
His administration.
Trump should have fired Fauci immediately.
Fauci had been going on TV saying, don't wear masks.
And now people are blaming Trump.
If only Trump had been pro-mask.
Fauci himself was anti-mask.
And then it was only later on that he admitted, we didn't want people buying up masks because we needed them.
They could have slowed the spread of this if they just told people to wear a scarf.
Put a piece of cloth over your face, right?
That's what they've been saying.
Masks are a good thing.
So why would Fauci say don't do it?
Why wouldn't Fauci just say, all you really need is a scarf, something to cover your mouth as you're walking around, that's it.
Because that's what they're saying now.
Now they're saying double masking, mind you.
Why?
Trump should have fired Fauci.
So I believe the buck stops with Trump.
At the time, he was the president.
Trump should have sent in federal investigators.
He should not have taken them at their word.
But Trump was not the fascist dictator they tried to claim him to be.
And because of this, people are dead.
I'm not actually suggesting Trump be a fascist dictator.
I'm pointing out that if Trump simply used the powers he had, he could have prevented all of this.
And you know what's funny?
I've heard that from many leftists.
They said if Trump just used the war powers and intervened, he could have saved lives.
They wanted Trump to be more authoritarian?
Well, Trump didn't have the guts.
He didn't.
Perhaps he was scared the media would smear him again, and they would call him a fascist, and the Democrats would lie.
But they were doing that anyway.
Now Cuomo's gonna get away with it.
You know why?
Well, they mention federal prosecutors are looking into him.
So we'll see.
But look at this.
65 to 27 approve of his job performance.
65% of polled Democrats approve of Cuomo's job after he killed 15,000 plus people.
They approve of that.
Isn't it amazing?
And they argue that, you know, with the half a million people who died of COVID so far, under Trump, it was a bit less, but still hundreds of thousands of people, they say, that's Trump's fault.
The buck stops with him.
And I'm like, okay, well, you're under why Trump supporters support him.
Trump didn't put sick patients into nursing homes.
Trump did, however, not do his due diligence in what Fauci and the CDC... Fauci is with the, you know, the Administration of Infectious Whatever.
He's not the CDC.
But Trump was in charge of the federal government, the executive branch.
He should have been... him and his administration should have been better.
Now, there's a big difference between Trump Not knowing the nitty-gritty of the CDC and trusting the officials and what we see with Cuomo for sure.
And I think this is the perfect example of absolute hypocrisy.
The Democrats will complain about Trump all day and night saying his supporters are an occult.
When you literally have Cuomo issuing the guidance to send sick people into nursing homes, he's then caught red-handed covering up the data.
The story gets worse.
He's now being accused of a coordinated criminal conspiracy.
Democrats still support him 2-2-1.
This is insane.
And it's worrying.
Because when you see stories like this, the lies, the manipulation, the death, the chaos, and you see the willingness to tribally support a man who's not only killing these people, but come on, he's even got, you know, these women coming out against him.
That's not enough.
The Democrats will just blindly support him.
Recently, the Democrats passed something called H.R.
And the reason for it is low-information voters, who tend to be Democrats, who support vicious predators and murderers like Cuomo, don't know and don't care.
So I'll tell you why there's an argument for actually making voting a little bit harder.
When asked, Republicans do tend to say voting should be harder.
Well, because voting is a civic duty that has serious ramifications on the country.
It is not something to take lightly, and you must understand what you are doing.
It's a very powerful tool in governance.
The Democrats want anyone, at any point, for any reason, to be able to vote.
They want it as easy as possible.
They argue that's pro-democracy.
That's not pro-democracy.
Absolutely not.
That's pro-oligopoly or platocracy, where you have a bunch of people who don't know what's going on blindly voting for their tribe.
I'm not going to pretend that the Republicans are better.
No, I think the Republican Party's awful.
Absolutely awful.
But there does need to be some kind of minimal barrier.
And what I mean by that is, most people, I would say most people should have a simple little bump that, you know, they have to overcome in order to vote.
Not that they shouldn't vote, but that they need to, I guess a better way to put it is, when they go to vote, they shouldn't walk in and go, I don't know, Trump.
There should be something like, are you sure you want to vote?
Okay, come on in.
I like people voting.
I want people to vote.
I want more people to vote.
I actually support many of the proposals that were pushed through with HR1.
The issue, however, is when you look to the Democratic Party and you can see the amount of people who would support someone like Cuomo, these people are clueless.
I'm willing to bet If you went door-to-door in a Democrat neighborhood and asked them if they supported Cuomo, they'd say yes.
If you asked them after knowing that he covered up the death of thousands of people because his policy resulted in their deaths, would you still support him?
Many would probably say no.
However, more troublesome, I suppose, is that many would still say yes.
So long as there is a D next to his name, he can do whatever he wants.
He could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, and he wouldn't lose a voter.
Now, it's not that extreme.
Trump said that.
I don't think that's true, by the way.
If Trump shot someone on Fifth Avenue, he would lose most of his voters, because Trump supporters aren't lunatics, though there are many culty Trump supporters, for sure.
Cuomo has in the Democratic Party.
I just can't believe we're at this point now where we've learned all of this about what Cuomo and his administration had done to these people, these nursing homes, to people's mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, people's uncles and aunts.
I had this argument with Ian, if you watch the Tim Castile podcast, where Ian says, he didn't kill him.
He didn't kill him.
It was a policy.
No, no.
They objected.
They said, don't do this.
You're going to bring the virus here.
And he said, shut your mouth.
He didn't literally say that.
He said, so what?
And then when they found out they actually did kill all these people, he said, cover up the numbers because Trump might investigate us and we could get in trouble.
So tell me, tell me how Assemblyman Mike Lawler is incorrect when he said it was a coordinated criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice.
He's calling for Cuomo to resign.
Yeah, I think Cuomo should resign.
But I'm going to call on federal prosecutors to bring us a perp walk.
I want to see Cuomo not just resign in disgrace, I want to see him let out of the building in cuffs into the back of a vehicle.
Take him to jail and tried for his crimes.
But this never happens, does it?
Because Democrat voters still approve of what he's done.
Think about the ramifications of this.
Either they don't know and they vote for him.
I'd imagine, to give the benefit of the doubt, many of them just don't know he killed these people.
Many of these Democrats probably know what he did and approve of what he did.
If we want to operate under the assumption that these Democrat voters are not low-information or ignorant, make that argument, Democrats.
Say it's actually the Republicans are stupid.
Okay, well then you're telling me that Democrat voters know full well what Cuomo did and support it.
Is that what you're saying?
They said, wow, Cuomo killed all his people.
That's a good thing, huh?
Is that the Democrat voters' mentality?
Is that what they want?
No, I think the Democrat voters are low information.
They don't pay attention.
And that's why Democrats want to strip away any hurdle, any security measure they can.
They're now saying in H.R.
1 that designated individuals can take ballots for people.
Yeah, they want ballot harvesting.
They want someone to go to nursing homes and tell people, vote like this, give me your card, I'll go turn it in.
You get ballot chasers.
That's what the Democrats want.
Republicans may want to suppress the vote, sure, but I think what we all should want is a well-informed public understanding the importance and the weight of their civic duty and saying, I will only vote if I am absolutely sure it's the right thing.
These Democrat voters who support Cuomo are helping a man who would have them killed if they were in a nursing home.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
With the passing of H.R.1, the Democrats' new voter access bill, a petition has begun circulating online demanding the impeachment of Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi.
Now, while they may make it seem like this petition was made because of H.R.1, it's been around for some time, and there's almost 850,000 signatures on this petition.
Now, following the passing of H.R.1 with no Republican support, Many people are now sharing this petition again, saying impeach Nancy Pelosi.
For those that aren't familiar, H.R.
1 would dramatically expand access to voting in ways that Republicans say are stripping away voting security and integrity.
For instance, every state would be required to have mail-in voting, early voting, and it would even allow people to designate someone to deliver ballots for them, meaning you will get a ton of ballot harvesting and ballot chasing.
I'm not a fan of this.
Some of the things in the bill I actually think are okay, and we can talk about this, but I don't like the idea of these harvesters going to nursing homes and going to places where people aren't vested in voting at all, and then they go to these people and say, yeah, we'll vote anyway, and they give them gifts and stuff like that.
We have seen that.
I do believe there should be some speed bumps to voting, simply to say, are you sure you want to vote?
Are you sure you want to vote for this person?
The issue is not whether or not someone has the right to vote.
I think everybody does.
The issue is whether or not people will be exploited by manipulative, deceptive politicians and ballot harvesters who may be doing illegal things, and this will make it easier for them.
We've already seen one woman in Texas because of Project Veritas get arrested.
Well, let's read the story, and then we'll go through what the actual HR1 says.
Nancy's treason calls to impeach Pelosi after her election voting right bill passes without a single GOP vote.
They say a petition calling for the impeachment of the House Speaker as well as Chuck Schumer has garnered more than 840,000 signatures online.
They say the petition began circulating online after Pelosi and the House of Representatives pushed through an election reform bill in a slim 220-210 vote.
The bill, called For the People Act, aims to restore faith in the American election system after former President Donald Trump repeatedly claimed the election was stolen from him.
The bill, which now has to go through the Senate, would require all states to offer mail-in ballots, a minimum of 15 days of early voting, and calls for online and same-day voter registration.
We'll go through a better one, a better article breaking down what this is, but let me show you this petition.
Impeach Pelosi and Schumer.
844,235 people have signed as of the filming of this segment.
It says, we the people ask that impeachment proceedings begin against Pelosi and Schumer for treason.
I do not believe this is a good idea.
people. Article 1, Section 5 of the U.S. Constitution provides that each House may determine the
rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence
of two-thirds, expel a member. I do not believe this is a good idea. I don't think they should
be impeached, but I also admit we have a very serious problem.
We're going to talk about voting rights in HR 1, and a lot of people are really scared
It may mean Republicans never win again.
But you need to understand the context.
A lot of people on the left are going to say, very simply, that you're trying to suppress the vote.
They want to make it easier for everyone to have the ability to vote.
It's so simple, isn't it?
You want people like Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell to be in power forever?
Voting is a civic duty.
It requires responsibility.
It requires a certain degree of practice.
It's interesting.
That many people will seek to vote for no reason other than tribal satisfaction.
That is dangerous for our democracy.
I know we live in a constitutional republic.
I'm being somewhat facetious.
Nancy Pelosi has been in for how long?
She's not getting anything done.
The progressives don't like her.
The Republicans certainly don't like her.
But she would win forever!
Because you will have people show up to a nursing home and being like, Pelosi, right?
Great.
And they show up and just drop off the ballots and you create, well, you create very dangerous hyperpolarization.
We need competition and we need those who are actually voting to be paying attention and to be invested in the process.
What they're proposing would not do that.
Now, before we get into HR1, let me point out impeachment of Pelosi.
And I think the real reason they're doing this is just, you know, they want to impeach Trump.
So they're saying, OK, well, then we'll impeach them.
And it's just...
What it really says to me, and this is important, this petition is still going around.
It's getting pushed heavily right now.
The issue with it is that it shows we are so hyper-polarized that this HR1 bill is effectively saying, we don't care how we win, we will win and you will never argue with us, you will never hold power.
Again, it's going to be chaos.
Because conservatives won't accept simply being a permanent minority with no ability to influence the vote.
But I want to point something out too.
They need 60 votes in the Senate to pass this.
It may be meaningless.
I do want to also point out, this petition reached 750,000 supporters six months ago, well before H.R.1 was passed.
It reached half a million supporters a year ago and was created two years ago.
So, it's not like this is a new petition that just got a ton of attention.
But again, I do think it matters because people are sharing it now in this context, and it has jumped a decent amount because of H.R.1.
Let me read for you how Vox.com explains H.R.1.
House Democrats' massive voting rights bill explained.
The bill faces a steep climb in the U.S.
Senate.
Why call it a voting rights bill?
That's framing.
You could theoretically call it a bill to remove election security.
It's just framing.
This is the first thing you need to understand when it comes to media literacy.
Vox.com is a pro-Democrat leftist source.
So they're going to frame everything that's going to be beneficial to Democrats.
Republicans' perspective is that HR1 is taking away election security and it's going to make fraud a lot easier.
They do point this out.
But you see how they call it a voting rights bill?
I find it particularly interesting when you go to The Sun and they say it's an election reform bill.
They say, where do they mention this?
The petition is circulating online, the bill for the People Act aims to restore faith in the election.
Anyway...
They essentially say it's a election reform bill, right?
That's probably a better way to phrase it, because you're not pandering to the right or the left.
It's a bill that will reform elections.
Now, you want to ask questions about what that means?
Let's get into it.
Vox says, House Democrats have passed H.R.1, their signature anti-corruption and voting rights reform bill, for the second time in two years.
But even though their party now holds the majority in the Senate, the bill is a tough road ahead of it.
They say it's an anti-corruption and voting rights bill.
I can't stand the media.
I absolutely detest the media.
There's nothing that makes me angry.
Actually, hold on, hold on, hold on.
I was gonna say there's nothing that makes me angry, but there is.
Video games.
Like, playing the video games get all frustrated, like, oh, I can't, you know.
Anti-corruption?
You could call it pro-corruption!
Is this an opinion piece?
Is Vox writing opinion?
What does NewsGuard say?
NewsGuard says they don't handle the difference between news and opinion very well.
Well, that's fair to say.
They say, as the numeral suggests, HR1 and its Senate component, S1, Also known as the For the People Act, are Democrats' first legislative priority.
The sweeping Democracy Reform Bill has been top of the list since House Democrats first took back the majority in 2018 midterms, and immediately set out to expand voting rights and curb the influence of money in politics.
There's a lot of ground covered, and it's nearly 800 pages.
But some of its key points are creating a national system for automatic voter registration, putting in transparency requirements for political advertising, and instituting non-partisan redistricting commissions to end partisan gerrymandering.
Polling back in 2019 and now shows the bill is broadly popular with the public.
But it went nowhere in the Republican-led Senate in 2019.
Even with the current slim Democratic control of 50-50 Senate, with Kamala Harris breaking the tie, it will be incredibly difficult to pass with the required 60 votes to skirt the Senate filibuster.
The politics are even tighter this time around.
Some moderate House Democrats who voted for the bill before pushed more aggressively for changes in the current bill.
The bill's future in the Senate is also untested, as then-Majority Leader McConnell never allowed it to come to the floor in 2019.
If Mitch McConnell is not willing to provide 10 Republicans to support this landmark reform, I think Democrats are going to step back and re-evaluate the situation, said Rep.
John Sarbanes of Maryland.
The author of H.R.
1 told Vox in a recent interview, there's all manner of ways you could redesign the filibuster so the bill would have a path forward.
The filibuster basically states, you need 60 votes.
And I think that's incredibly important.
We do not want simple majority laws being passed because it will result in chaos.
There has to be some minority representation.
With a 60 vote filibuster, it basically means that you have to convince some Republicans, which means you have to make some concessions.
It's better this way.
If they just won on a simple majority, the Democrats would steamroll through absolutely everything.
Republicans would freak out and it would be chaos.
They say one path that's being discussed is partially amending Senate filibuster rules to allow democracy reform legislation.
You see what they do?
Oh, these duplicitous!
Democracy reform legislation like H.R.
1 to advance on a simple majority vote and therefore potentially be able to pass in a party line vote.
That would be different from fully blowing up the filibuster, but it still could get pushback from Senate institutionalists, even in the Democratic Party, like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a staunch advocate for keeping the filibuster in place.
Senator Amy Klobuchar, the chair of the Senate Rules Committee, which will mark up the bill and move it forward, said she wants to bring the bill to the floor and see what the support for it is before she moves on to potential filibuster reform.
We'll go to the floor.
That's when we see where we are.
Klobuchar told Vox in an interview, saying her committee will look to see.
Is there filibuster reform that could be done generally or specifically?
Democrats are arguing that voting and democracy reforms are popular and long overdue.
Let me explain something to you.
When Vox.com, which is funded to the tune of, I believe, they were bought out with like $100, $200 million or whatever from NBC.
When they come out with these stories, And they say things like anti-corruption bill, voting rights bill.
Regular people are manipulated by that.
That's not what this is.
It's not an anti-corruption bill.
The fair assessment is that they're trying to make voting more accessible to more people.
What that could result in is exploitation, fraud, and corruption.
If someone can just go and collect votes from people, how do you know the votes are actually from those people?
It would require a staunch security process.
They're actually getting rid of these hurdles.
They're making it easier.
And their argument is, it should be easier.
And conservatives say, no, it should be harder.
And the truth is, voting should require some Civic responsibility and duty.
It is absolutely insane that you need an ID for the movies, for beer, for cigarettes, for almost everything.
To go to the DMV, you even actually have to have identification to get an ID!
To get your ID, you need ID.
Isn't that crazy?
Well, you need like a birth certificate, social security card, a piece of mail, and then they'll give you your ID.
You can't just walk in and be like, I am who I am.
They'll tell you to get out!
Yet you can walk into a voting booth, a polling station, and be like, I am who I am.
They say HR1, among other initiatives, would cement many of those temporary expansions, the ones we've seen so far.
Well, actually, let me go back a little bit.
They say Democrats are hoping the 2020 election gives them an argument for this bill due to COVID-19.
Americans in many states were given more options and flexibility to vote through the mail or with in-person early voting.
The results were a record 158.4 million ballots cast.
2020 presidential election turnout was about 7 percentage points higher than in 2016.
They say, HR1 would cement many of those temporary expansions, and recent polling from the progressive firm Data for Progress showed the bill more broadly is popular across parties and supported by a majority of Democratic, Independent, and Republican voters.
I'll also point out that Cuomo is favored 2-1 by Democrats, and he literally killed 15,000 people.
I'm not exaggerating.
So yeah, forgive me if I don't think progressive polling is all that great.
Republican legislatures in multiple states, however, are moving in the opposite direction.
Per the Brennan Center, at least 33 states have already introduced, pre-filed, or carried over 165 restrictive bills to retighten voting requirements, including Georgia, the state that gave Democrats narrow control of the Senate.
The U.S.
Supreme Court is currently hearing arguments in an Arizona case that could further weaken the Voting Rights Act, limiting protections for minority voters around the country.
What they're trying to do is make it seem like Republicans are evil and trying to cheat.
And you could theoretically argue the same thing for both sides.
The Democrats are trying to pass legislation that will make it easier for them to win.
Republicans are trying to pass legislation that will make it easier for them to win.
The Republican argument is that, well, we're securing the voting process to avoid corruption and fraud.
And the Democrats are saying we're trying to make sure everyone has a chance to vote.
And one of the things HR1 does is it makes election day a national holiday.
I think it should be.
It allows early voting.
I actually agree with early voting.
But I do think that there should be security with it, like voter ID should be mandatory for all voting.
I don't care if you want to have early voting.
I think the problem is there are people who work in this country who don't have time to take off to go vote.
So making election day a holiday, I absolutely agree with.
Having early voting, I think is absolutely fine.
So long as we tighten security around them.
You want to expand voter access?
Yes, increase the security.
Both sides have some points to be made.
The problem I have is that Democrats are consistently saying no security.
They want to take away certain voter signature verification rules.
Why?
That I don't trust.
Now, the Democrats accuse Republicans of purging voter rolls and things like that to suppress the vote.
Listen, maybe, yes, there's an argument there.
But you do need to clean voter rolls because people move and people die.
It's insane to me that we are not doing more to provide election security.
You want mail-in voting?
Fine.
But then we need a very strict security and verification process like we do with absentee ballots and the chain of custody.
You must request it, you must sign for it, you must then provide identification, and then mail it back in.
I do not think it is fair that I must forego the integrity of my elections because you want to pass this bill through.
If you come to me and say, national holiday, early voting, mail-in voting, I say, that sounds fantastic!
You want to help people vote?
That sounds great!
Now, voter ID, yes, absolutely, and chain of custody, yes.
And some people have said, make poll workers wear body cameras, and I'm also kind of like, Yeah, why not?
Why shouldn't we have cameras in every polling place?
We know through public data if you voted, we don't need to see who you voted for, but think about it this way.
You want to end all of these arguments about fraud, Democrats?
It's simple.
All you do is put cameras in every polling place.
That's it.
Live stream it, why don't you?
And then when someone goes in to vote, you will see that person smile and wave, and they'll sign paperwork.
We know who came in to vote.
We don't know who they voted for.
It's a secret ballot.
But then, there will be no argument of fraud.
They'll be like, look at this guy!
He didn't really... Oh, that's actually the guy.
Well, what about his address?
Oh, it was a typo.
You see?
Why shouldn't Democrats want that?
I'm in favor of early voting and mail-in voting.
What about security measures?
Why is there no compromise?
I don't know.
Maybe because they really do want to cheat.
They say Klobuchar told Vox that in past years when parties lost national elections, they'd assess where they went wrong.
Republicans, he added, are doubling down on restricting voting access.
These guys, instead of doing that, are saying, let's just make it so less people vote.
That's how we do this.
I can't stand these people, man.
I just can't.
So what's in the bill?
They say.
It creates a new national automatic voter registration that asks voters to opt out rather than opt in, ensuring more people will be signed up to vote, requires chief state election officials to automatically register eligible unregistered citizens.
I am in favor of this.
However, I believe following the automatic registration process, there should be a voter roll audit to make sure at a certain point that we didn't accidentally register people who should not have been registered.
Requires each state to put online options for voter registration, correction, cancellation, or designating party affiliation.
I am also in favor of this, but again, we need very strict security and some kind of verification process, which would mean you should request it, receive a card in the mail, a code, you then provide that code for online registration, you're good to go.
Require at least 15 consecutive days of early voting for federal elections.
Early voting sites would be open for at least 10 hours per day.
The bill also prohibits states from restricting a person's ability to vote by mail and requires states to prepay postage on return envelopes for mail-in voting.
I'm in favor of this as well.
A lot of Republicans have said that we should have one day to vote.
The Constitution actually specifies there is one day to vote.
But I think we have people with different jobs, different shifts, and providing an extended period of time for people to vote is great, so long as there is voter ID and security.
It's really just that simple.
Establish independent redistricting commissions in states as a way to draw new congressional districts and end partisan gerrymandering in federal elections.
That I disagree with.
You may have seen those images where they explain how gerrymandering works and how it's a trick and manipulation.
No.
What they'll do is they'll show you there's five rows of five little cubes, little squares.
And three of each of the rows is blue, and two of each of the rows is red.
They'll say, if each of these is a district, and each district is three-fifths Democrat and two-fifths Republican, the Democrats would have the majority, and the whole voting bloc would be a Democrat voting bloc.
Gerrymandering allows drawing a district around only the red area so that they get access, and you can actually use gerrymandering to give the Republicans a majority in these districts.
You probably understand this, but let me explain why gerrymandering actually is important.
If we went by this simple districting, and I understand we still have problems with how districts are drawn, don't get me wrong.
What ends up happening is, what if you have 40% of the population is Republican?
But they never get a chance to have their voice heard.
It is only ever-majority rule.
You end up with civil unrest for extended periods of time and instability.
There must be periods by which the minority position is allowed a chance to legislate.
That's why I think gerrymandering isn't as bad as they claim it is.
Not that it's perfect.
They say it prohibits voter roll purging and bans the use of non-forwardable mail being used as a way to remove voters from rolls.
We need to purge voter rolls.
I mean, that's ridiculous.
Sometimes people move.
Restores voting rights to people convicted of felonies who have completed their sentences.
However, the bill doesn't restore rights to felons currently serving sentences in a correctional facility.
I completely agree with this.
100%.
Felons, I don't care if they committed a crime, they pay their debt to society.
Give them their gun and their voting rights.
Second Amendment doesn't say you can't have a gun if you committed a crime.
It says you can have a gun.
So felons, when they get out, they've paid their debt to society, they've made mistakes, give them their guns back, and give them their voting rights back.
Campaign finance.
Establishes public financing for campaigns powered by small donations.
It has long been Sarbanes' vision.
The federal government would provide a voluntary six-to-one match for candidates for president in Congress, which means for every dollar a candidate raises from small donations, the federal government would match it six times over.
The maximum small donation that could be matched would be capped at $200.
This program isn't funded by taxpayer dollars.
Instead, the money would come from adding a 4.75% fee on criminal and civil fines, fees, penalties, and settlements with banks and corporations that commit corporate malfeasance like Wells Fargo.
I'm actually in favor of that, too.
I'll stress this point, my friends.
I am not completely opposed to this bill.
I said there's a lot of things in it that I like.
The issue is voter security.
It's that simple, right?
Here's what I think needs to happen.
They should get some of these things, but they will need to compromise with Republicans, and Republicans should counter with, okay, but require mandatory identification for everybody, and auditing the voter registration rolls periodically, and get rid of the purging thing.
We do need the ability to have some kind of gerrymandering.
We do.
It's a weird thing to say, right?
But I think I made my point.
They say, supports a constitutional amendment to end Citizens United.
I actually agree with that.
I do not like Citizens United.
And I know a lot of conservatives are saying, money is speech, you have money, you can buy what you want.
We regulate things you can buy.
You can't buy certain things.
I don't think you should be able to buy political influence at a certain degree.
I don't like the idea that George Soros and Mackenzie Bezos can dump billions of dollars into critical race theory to help Democrats win or that Michael Bloomberg or that Tom Steyer can flood the Democratic Party with all of this money to crush Republicans.
I don't like that.
I can call the Koch brothers, the Mercers, and all of them as well, but this one's for the conservatives.
You want to understand why I don't like the ability to spend endless amounts of cash on political campaigns?
Because Mackenzie Bezos divorces Jeff, gets a massive amount of stock value, sells a bunch, and then gives $2 billion to critical race theory.
I do not like this.
Now, I get it.
Listen, she'd still be allowed to do it.
Giving money to nonprofits who promote critical race theory and critical theory in general, she's allowed to do.
When it comes to funding super PACs, however, look at what Bloomberg was doing.
Look at what George Soros does.
Okay?
And again, criticism towards any other billionaire.
I get it.
It's too much power for one person over our politics.
I'm not a fan.
Light it up.
I want to know what these people are doing.
and Sheldon Whitehouse, both Democrats from Rhode Island that require super PACs and dark money political
organizations to make their donors public.
I agree. Why? Because some of these progressive squad members have been accused of using dark money as well.
Light it up. I want to know what these people are doing. I don't care if you're Republican or Democrat.
Passes the Honest Ads Act.
Championed by Senator Klobuchar and Mark Warner, would require Facebook and Twitter to disclose the source of money for political ads on their platform and share how much money was spent.
I agree.
Discloses any political spending by government contractors and slows the flow of foreign money into the elections by targeting shell companies.
Also good.
Restructures the Federal Election Commission to have five commissioners instead of six in order to break political gridlock at the organization.
Also good.
Prohibits any coordination between candidates and super PACs.
Absolutely good.
Ethics.
It would require the president and vice president disclose 10 years of his or her tax returns.
Completely disagree.
People running for office are private citizens.
They do not need to disclose their private tax returns.
I disagree with this because some of these people may simply have things on their tax returns about medical bills and it's none of your business.
Stop members of Congress from using taxpayer money to settle harassment or discrimination
cases.
Yes, please.
Gives the Office of Government Ethics the power to do more oversight and enforcement
and implement stricter lobbying registration requirements.
These include more oversight.
I like it.
I like it.
Creates a new ethics code for the US.
Supreme Court, ensuring all branches of government are impacted by the new law.
I want to stress one very important point.
These are bullet points put out by Vox, and I was very critical of their framing in the first place.
So I'd have to actually go through the whole bill to see what's really happening, because, well, my friends, it's fairly obvious.
A lot of this is just propaganda.
They tell you it's an anti-corruption bill.
I wonder what they leave out, and if the key issue here is framing.
They say it supports a constitutional amendment to end Citizens United.
But does it actually include other things around it?
Are they oversimplifying?
Does it theoretically grant Democrats more power in certain positions?
Does it allow government bureaucrats to actually fill certain roles like they show here, the government funding certain political campaigns?
I'll put it this way.
I'm glad the filibuster exists.
I don't know whether or not this is the apocalypse.
I do think it will be a huge hurdle for Republicans in a lot of ways.
I think Republicans have an opportunity to make a lot of really good things happen.
In the House, the Democrats had no reason to negotiate with Republicans, creating a bill that is probably just on its face a failure.
There are many things in this I think are wrong and should not be passed.
However, when it comes to the Senate, there's an opportunity for compromise, and perhaps the Republicans could come in and present some real arguments, similar ones that I've made here, and we could actually bring about some real positive change.
I think we need some reform.
I do not like billionaires dumping their money into our elections.
Sorry, I just don't.
I don't care if you're a conservative and you support Mitch McConnell and all that.
I think regular Americans, working class Americans, be it Trump supporters or Democrats, are sick and tired of billionaires, big bank bailouts, revolving door politics with these big corporations, and I see some things in this bill that may actually be good.
But you know what that means?
It means it's time to start negotiating with Republicans and making sure that this is not the apocalyptic bill people fear it is, and there's got to be a bunch of stuff stripped out of this, and there's got to be security added to it.
We'll see how things go.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
