S557 - Chauvin Trial CORRUPTED By $27M Settlement To Floyd Family, Jurors REMOVED After News Taints Trial
Chauvin Trial CORRUPTED By $27M Settlement To Floyd Family, Jurors REMOVED After News Taints Trial. Defense for Derek Chauvin are now requesting the trial be delayed as news of the massive settlement cannot be ignored.While black lives matter groups continue to protest demanding the conviction of Derek Chauvin the city seems to have already admitted fault by issuing a record settlement of $27 million dollars.Meanwhile antifa seems to have set up an autonomous zone since the George Floyd incident and mass rioting. Locals are begging for help as far leftists wreak havoc on the neighborhood.
Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate)
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Chauvin trial in Minneapolis has been corrupted after the city issued a record $27 million settlement to the family of George Floyd.
Several jurors have been removed after learning about the settlement, feeling they would not be impartial.
A settlement this large, to the public at least, appears to be an admission of guilt on the part of the city.
And thus, many now feel Chauvin will not receive a fair trial, and those who live in the area of 38th and Chicago are terrified of potential riots and the ongoing violence.
Our next story!
Cardi B and Candace Owens are getting into it on Twitter with Candace Owens threatening legal action after Cardi B defames her brother and her husband with a fake tweet.
Seemingly an inane story, it is important to focus on the cultural decay that the Grammys represent, but more importantly the fracturing where we don't view each other as a unified culture anymore and what this means in the bigger picture.
And our last story, something strange going on in the Georgia Secretary of State's office after it's discovered that an official may have lied about a phone call with Donald Trump and even tried to delete evidence which may amount to an illegal recording.
Many news outlets were absolutely thrilled to report on quotes that were never confirmed, yet they claimed were confirmed.
If the story was fake, why didn't the Georgia Secretary of State's office clear up the false news with the evidence they have?
Apparently, the real recording was discovered in the trash folder on a Georgia official's email account.
Before we get started, leave us a good review if you really do like the show, five stars, or a good comment because it really does help, and let's jump in to that first story.
The city of Minneapolis recently settled with the family of George Floyd to the tune of $27 million.
The number is historic, and as expected, it is corrupting the trial of Derek Chauvin, the police officer involved in the death of George Floyd.
Many people were concerned that with the city issuing the settlement, it was effectively saying we admit fault.
And while settlements aren't necessarily an admission of guilt to the public, they basically are.
The city is paying $27 million to this family.
Sounds like you're saying you owe them this money.
It may just be that the city is concerned that if they don't pay this out, the riots will be more damaging than the payout, perhaps.
Either way, it's tainted the jury pool, and now we're learning.
Two jurors who were already selected have been removed after they learned about the $27 million settlement.
Judge seems to be rather upset, and it seems that many of these jurors will not be able to be impartial now that they've learned the city has settled with the family.
And how could they be?
Now, part of this settlement, one of the more shocking aspects of it, is that half a million dollars will be going to George Floyd Square, an autonomous zone set up by far-left extremists, where police are not allowed in, where people have actually died, and where locals are complaining about the occupation.
It's not entirely clear where the money will be going, they just say the community, so it may very well go to the families that live in this area, perhaps.
But if the area is under occupation by extremists and the cops can't get in, I'm not entirely sure these individuals will be able to use that money in any meaningful way save hiring professional security to come in and clear out the area.
But there are many people in Minneapolis who are concerned about this new autonomous zone.
It's actually been there for quite some time.
And the potential for violence should this trial end up in Derek Chauvin's favor.
The reality, I think, is that no matter what happens in this trial, There are going to be riots.
The activists in the city, in Minneapolis, who are getting raucous, and the rioters who are burning down buildings, they want first-degree murder charges for Chauvin.
They don't want second, third, or manslaughter.
But that's what he's being charged with, and he likely will get off.
The defense is now asking that the jury be allowed to see evidence from a prior arrest where George Floyd actually swallowed some opiates, so they report.
And they also want to point out to the jury that George Floyd did have drugs in his system.
Many are suggesting that as soon as the jury finds out that fact, well, Derek Chauvin is going to be found not guilty.
And when that happens, the city will burn once again.
The riots we saw last year were intense, some of the worst riots we have ever seen in this country.
Two billion dollars in damages, but that was just the insurance cap.
It's likely that the damages actually exceed $2 billion, and the people of Minneapolis know it's going to get bad.
The ramifications of these riots was the defunding of police, and it seems quite nonsensical.
People go around burning down your city so you say, okay, we'll give you what you want, we'll take away law enforcement.
Now that the city's police department has been crippled, we are looking at a perfect storm.
A tainted jury pool.
Meaning that there may be a mistrial.
The defense is already calling for a delay.
That may result in riots, and then you get the trial restarted later on.
More riots.
When the results are not favorable to the extremists.
You also have a weakened police force, and a city desperate, spending millions to recruit new officers.
Many people don't want to work in this city as a cop, because of what's going on.
It's going to be, in my opinion, way worse than we saw last time.
Now maybe it won't be national, maybe it won't be the apocalypse, but I certainly think Minneapolis is going to be feeling the pain, no matter what happens.
The settlement issued by this city has tainted the jury pool, and now there is a request to delay the trial, and it might actually happen.
Let's jump into this news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member to get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast.
Yesterday, we had Lieutenant Colonel Allen West on the show.
And in our exclusive segment, we talk about wokeness, critical race theory, and how it impacts politics in this country.
I think you'll rather enjoy what Colonel West has to say, so go to TimCast.com, become a member, but don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell, and let's get into this news.
Two jurors dropped from Chauvin trial after $27 million settlement reports seven news, they say.
A judge on Wednesday dismissed two jurors who had been seated for the trial of a former Minneapolis police officer in George Floyd's death over fears that the jurors had been tainted by the city's announcement last week of a $27 million settlement to Floyd's family.
Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill recalled seven jurors and was questioning each one in turn to find out what they knew about the settlement and whether it affected their ability to serve.
Former officer Derek Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, had requested the recall.
Cahill was being careful to ask jurors if they had heard the news of the settlement without giving details, saying only that there had been extensive media coverage about developments in a civil suit between the city of Minneapolis and the family of George Floyd, and asking if they had been exposed to it.
The first dismissed juror said he had heard about the settlement.
I think it will be hard to be impartial, he said.
That sticker price obviously shocked me, the second juror dismissed said.
He said he thought he could set the news aside, but wasn't sure.
And after a long pause, Cahill dismissed him.
Cahill retained five other jurors.
Now, some people have suggested that these jurors just wanted to get out of jury duty.
I don't think so.
The judge didn't ask them, hey, they got $27 million.
What do you think about that?
He said, have you heard anything about a civil suit?
And a couple people said, oh yeah.
And that number is massive.
27 million dollars!
I'm sorry.
I don't blame these people for saying that they can't be impartial.
The city's move has corrupted their own trial, and I would not be surprised if this judge eventually just says, you know what?
We're going to have to delay this.
We're going to have to wait until the dust settles.
I wouldn't be surprised if there's a push for a mistrial because the city took action.
It's the government that are prosecuting this officer and now the city has effectively tainted any possibility of a fair trial.
They say, Nelson had called the timing of the announcement in the middle of jury selection, profoundly disturbing to the defense, and not fair.
He has also requested a delay in the trial, which Cahill is considering.
Nine people had been selected for the jury, including seven before Friday's settlement was announced.
If they...
Delay this trial.
I think there will be riots.
There's already been massive protests where thousands of people marched to the streets, but they didn't really get that bad.
And it's probably because Chauvin is on trial.
But if they delay this, you will see mass protests.
Maybe those won't get that bad.
But if they cause a mistrial, or if they give a favorable outcome in any way to Chauvin, then it will.
They say jury selection through Tuesday had been proceeding faster than expected.
Cahill has set opening statements for March 29th at the earliest, but dismissal of some of the jurors already seated risked imperiling that date.
The questioning came at the request of former officer Derek Chauvin's attorney, Eric Nelson, who called the timing of last week's announcement by city leaders, in the middle of jury selection, profoundly disturbing and not fair.
Nelson had also requested a delay in the trial, which Cahill is considering.
Cahill has set opening statements for March 29th at the earliest, but dismissal of some of the jurors already seated could imperil that date.
Nine jurors had been seated through Tuesday, including five who are white, one who is multiracial, two who are black, and one who is Hispanic.
The jurors include six men and three women, and range in age from their 20s to their 50s.
Fourteen people, including two alternates, are needed.
Chauvin is charged with murder and manslaughter in the May 25th death of Floyd, a black man who was declared dead after Chauvin pressed his knee against his neck for about nine minutes.
Floyd's death, captured on a widely seen bystander video, set off weeks of sometimes violent protests across the country and led to a national reckoning on racial justice.
On Tuesday, the two sides skirmished over whether evidence of Floyd's 2019 arrest in Minneapolis should be allowed at trial.
We'll get into that.
And I want to walk through this, and I want to show you some of these tweets.
For one, we have this from Jack Posobiec.
I'm not entirely sure who Juror 51 is.
Perhaps one of the individuals who was dismissed.
Juror 51 admits she cannot be impartial after hearing the city awarded George Floyd's family a record $27 million.
I agree.
I think this is messed up.
I think we're in trouble.
Here's the news on the request for a delayed trial, which we just did hear a little bit of, but let's get into detail.
NBC News reports, Derek Chauvin's attorney wants trial delayed over the $27 million settlement.
The judges agreed to question the seven jurors already selected to ask about their views on the settlement.
So this is from March 15th.
Before we learned these jurors were being dismissed, they say, An attorney for the former police officer charged in George Floyd's death said Monday, he is gravely concerned that the announcement of a $27 million settlement for Floyd's family makes it impossible for his client to get a fair trial.
Defense Attorney Eric Nelson asked for a continuance and raised the possibility of renewing his previously unsuccessful motion to move Derek Chauvin's trial to another city.
I am gravely concerned with the news that broke on Friday, Nelson said, adding that the settlement announcement has incredible potential to taint the jury pool.
We now know.
That is quite literally what just happened.
Chauvin was correct.
I'm sorry.
Nelson was correct.
Not Chauvin.
The lawyer for Chauvin was correct.
Prosecutor Steve Schleicher said the state had no control over Mayor Jacob Frye and the city council who announced the settlement on Friday.
Well, that may be, but this is still the government.
This may be a state prosecutor.
They're saying the state has no control over what the city does.
But it is still the people versus Derek Chauvin, isn't it?
This is a public criminal trial, in which case, whether the city coordinated with state prosecutors or not, it's still indicative of a problem at the state and the city, the government.
It is the people versus Derek Chauvin.
Now, I want to go through what's happening now.
Actually, before we get into the $500,000 for the Antifa occupation, I want to highlight this story from The Hill.
Derek Chauvin's attorney asked for jury to see evidence from 2019 George Floyd arrest.
Before we read it, I want to clarify a few very important things.
The initial story I was reading mentioned that Floyd died after Derek Chauvin had his knee on his neck for several minutes.
For those that aren't familiar, There is actually an image released by the defense showing that Minneapolis police in fact train their officers to do this, which is why many suspect murder charges will not stick.
That would imply the intent to do harm, which resulted in the death of Floyd.
There could potentially be manslaughter that, while in a negligent manner, George Floyd died.
That may actually work out simply because Chauvin was on his neck for nine minutes.
However, the defense has also pointed out that there were drugs in Floyd's system.
And they believe that as soon as the jury finds that out, it will not prove the innocence of Derek Chauvin.
However, it will present reasonable doubt as to the cause of death of George Floyd, in which case, you may see an acquittal on all counts.
Now, this development is rather significant.
Yesterday, at 3.53, The Hill reported, Defense attorneys for ex-Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin are asking for the jury in his trial over George Floyd's death to see evidence from Floyd's arrest from 2019.
Eric Nelson, the lead attorney for Chauvin, said that the similarities from the two arrests are incredible, according to Reuters, adding that it's the exact same behavior in the two incidents almost exactly one year apart.
Floyd was arrested in May 2019, an incident during which he reportedly became distressed as an officer pointed a gun at him.
During that arrest, Floyd swallowed several opioid pills as police approached him.
According to the Associated Press, Chauvin's defense is planning to argue that Floyd's drug use contributed to his death.
Now, it is a fact, however.
The medical examiner said it did contribute, was not the overt, the absolute cause of, though.
Prosecutor Matthew Frank, however, argued that the defense wants to use the 2019 arrest to try and depict Floyd as a bad person.
Frank blasted the desperation of the defense to smear Mr. Floyd's character to show that what he struggled with, an opiate addiction, like so many Americans do, is really evidence of bad character, according to the AP.
Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill previously rejected an attempt to tell the jury about the previous arrest, but heard new arguments Tuesday.
He said he would take at least a day to consider the request.
Floyd was pronounced dead May 25th.
We know about this.
They say an autopsy from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office from the day of Floyd's death showed trace amounts of fentanyl and methamphetamine in his system.
However, the drugs were not listed as his cause of death.
Chauvin is on trial for second-degree murder, third-degree murder, and second-degree manslaughter.
Nelson on Monday also asked the court to pause and relocate the trial after the city of Minneapolis reached a $27 million settlement with Floyd's family, and that we understand.
Now, according to my understanding, uh, based on my understanding, They didn't say his cause of death was the drugs, but they said a combination of restraint, a heart condition, and drug use played a role in the death of George Floyd.
What you need to understand about any one of these charges is that they need only reasonable doubt.
They don't need to definitively prove Derek Chauvin did nothing wrong.
They need to actually just give doubt to the jurors.
I have to be honest.
Well, I'm not in this case.
I likely won't see much of the evidence presented by the prosecution or the defense.
There are certain things we do know the jurors won't.
Notably, the judge seems not to want to allow the defense to show the jurors what happened with George Floyd in May of 2018, but I think that is particularly important in understanding what happened.
I suppose it does make sense not to allow this evidence because it's, well, it's nothing to do with what happened on that day with Derek Chauvin.
And the question is whether or not Chauvin was negligent or acting with malintent or the intent to harm.
I suppose it matters on a more personal level for all of us trying to understand what's really going on, however.
This George Floyd individual absolutely did not deserve to die, and I'm sad it happened, and I think most people are.
But if it's true that he was taking these drugs and had a heart condition, then I think that creates reasonable doubt.
In which case, Chauvin will likely be found not guilty, be acquitted of all charges, and then we can see the writing.
Which brings me back to this story from NBC.
NBC highlighting the $27 million settlement with George Floyd's family point out.
The City Council unanimously approved the settlement Friday after meeting in private.
It includes a $500,000 donation to the community around the intersection of 38th and Chicago Avenue, now known as George Floyd Square, where police confronted Floyd last May 25th after a convenience store clerk claimed he had tried to use a counterfeit $20 bill to buy cigarettes.
A bystander recorded the video, and we know what happened next.
George Floyd.
Did not deserve to die.
And I think that's something everyone should recognize.
Now, as to whether the city should be giving out this money is an entirely different question.
And it's a question of whether or not the city thinks there's going to be riots unless they bend the knee.
Ladies and gentlemen, from the Star Tribune, near George Floyd Square, revolution by day, de-evolution by night.
The neighbors surrounding the site of George Floyd's death in South Minneapolis are asking for prayers and help.
Now, perhaps this half a million dollars will be the assistance these people need as they are forcefully occupied by far-left extremists.
I'm sure there are many people there who like the occupation, and I know there are many there who don't, because we've already seen locals speak out to the press.
A young man apparently was shot and killed.
The police and medical assistants were unable to get into the zone to render aid.
This individual who was shot had to be carried out and unfortunately didn't make it.
The Star Tribune reports, as neighbors of 38th Street and Chicago Avenue, also known as George Floyd Square or the Autonomous Zone, we are witnessing a revolution by day and a devolution by night.
Prayer gatherings cancelled.
Rallies cancelled.
Visitors arriving with flowers in hand, only to retreat to their cars when greeted by the sound of gunshots.
Neighbors ducking for cover behind our houses.
Children in tow.
The spiritual health of our community, the feeling of being connected to something larger than ourselves, is collapsing.
Here's an account of some of the events of the past 10 days, on one block adjacent to George Floyd Square, where police are met by hostile groups when responding to our repeated 911 calls.
March 6th, 5.45 p.m.
A 30-year-old volunteer is killed in the zone by gunshot.
People in the zone are seen picking up shell casings and throwing them into the city garbage, loading the gunshot victim into a car to drive him to the hospital.
820pm.
Neighbors call 911 again, as multiple shots ring out.
Children listen.
March 7th.
Six garages along our alley are hit by gunfire.
One with its owner inside.
A car crashes through a fence into a family's backyard.
An 18-month-old had been playing by the fence minutes earlier.
5pm.
Thirty shots hit cars and the windows and siding of at least one house, narrowly missing residents watching TV.
Parents and children out biking and walking on a sunny day duck behind houses.
Children watch bullets kicking up dust in the street.
A zone leader visits a bullet-riddled house to comfort the family, while others from the zone are observed picking up shell casings behind her.
March 8th, 2.30pm.
Multiple shots fired.
A man is photographed perched atop Cup Foods with an assault rifle on a tripod.
Children cry.
Zone medics are offered to visit neighbors and provide mental health support to those being traumatized.
9.50 p.m.
30 shots ring out.
A person complains to a neighbor that the neighbor has parked too close to the person's car.
A zone occupant with no connection to the other parties fires multiple shots into the neighbor's car and house.
The neighbor, a military veteran, is in the driver's seat and recognizes an assault rifle with a 30-round clip.
I'm gonna stop right now and just say star.
First of all, it's not an assault rifle unless you literally mean they have full auto or select fire capabilities, and it's not a clip, it's a magazine.
Unless he's operating something from World War II, perhaps.
The shooter walks back into the zone.
Four police squads caravan through and meet the neighbors nearby.
1016 PM.
A second 911 call provides a description of the shooter, who remains in the area, appearing to wait for some target.
Police have just received a call about a teen and adult shot two miles away.
Resources exhausted.
The police do not respond to our call.
The shooter in the zone walks away.
10 45 p.m.
Third 911 call for the night.
Some neighbors are picking up shell casings.
People near the first statue in the zone repeatedly yell, get the f out of here.
Then a gun is fired from near the first statue.
Four men come out of the zone to tell the neighbors they weren't shooting at you.
The neighbors ask if they are zoned security and are told no, but one man reports he has his gun.
Neighbors ask how to protect themselves and are told the best thing to do is fill the street corners with garbage containers to block off our streets.
This is insane.
There's more.
March 12th, 5pm.
A neighbor trying to access his home is met in the alley by three young teen girls leaving the zone, pushing a car with no license plate.
They say they ran out of gas.
They are asked who the driver is.
No answer.
They are asked whose car it is.
No answer.
They are asked where they are trying to go, and they point to a home.
A woman comes out of the home and tells them they can't park there.
They walk away, abandoning the car.
While a neighbor is reporting the abandoned car, she observes a group of well-dressed people being followed by reporters.
The neighbor walks into the zone to find attorney Benjamin Crump and the family of George Floyd with Minneapolis City Council, Vice President Andrea Jenkins.
They are greeting businesses owned by people of color who are being impacted by the loss of business in the zone.
They inform the group they are giving $500,000 to the business owners.
Two more vehicles with no plates or temporary stickers pass by, driving inside the zone.
9.15 p.m.
30 shots from inside the zone.
One police squad car arrives.
10.20 p.m.
Shooting suspects from another part of the city drive at high speed down our street with multiple squad cars chasing them, along with a helicopter.
Fleeing vehicle blows through stop signs and lights.
They eventually enter the zone and surrender as a group of zone occupants emerge and shout at the police and each other.
Children are told to go back to sleep.
They write, We live here because we love our neighbors.
We know that it is good for all of us to be part of something larger than ourselves.
We want to live in a community with people of different races, life experiences, and faiths.
The beautiful thing about Minneapolis, the economic driver of Minnesota, is its desire to fight all that has dispirited us, not freeze or flee in the face of it.
But we are also watching.
Neighbors move 20% in the last year.
Another 20% preparing.
38th and Chicago is not the only under-resourced part of the city.
We recognize that children in North Minneapolis have spent decades listening, watching, crying, questioning, trying to sleep.
We will join our neighbors to the North.
Don and Sandra Samuels, who last week organized Healing Our City, a virtual prayer tent because prayers are needed.
We also will continue to call 9-1-1 as the de-evolution continues.
We are unsure when help is coming.
Monica Nilsson lives in Minneapolis.
The article was submitted on behalf of a collection of neighbors adjacent to George Floyd Square.
In what way is any of that honoring the memory of George Floyd, bettering the community, helping people fight against oppression?
It's not.
Things are objectively worse for the people who live in this area.
So perhaps it's a very good thing.
They're going to be receiving half a million dollars.
I made an incorrect assessment from the initial reports on the Timcast IRL podcast when it said that they were giving the money to the memorial itself, or at least that was what I believed it to be the case.
as opposed to the businesses surrounding it.
I think these people do deserve assistance.
And more importantly, I believe they deserve a police force that can protect them from what's going on.
Unfortunately, extremists are exploiting the circumstances at 38th and Chicago and in Minneapolis.
They're trying to put Derek Chauvin in prison for what happened.
Perhaps a jury will find that is necessary.
But we must admit that with this case and the multiple officers who have been charged, you are going to see a drain on resources and police officers not wanting to help these communities anymore.
So what do we do?
When an officer takes a life, for any reason, there must be an inquiry to understand why it happened.
These are individuals that we've entrusted with the power of the state to use lethal force and non-lethal force and less lethal force.
That means sometimes people will die, and that means we as a city, as a state, as a country, need to ask the question, why is it that those we empower took a life?
Sometimes, unfortunately, it needs to happen.
And that's the sad reality of existence.
I, for one, staunchly oppose the death penalty.
But when you're dealing with someone in the street, somebody who may be armed and want to cause harm to an officer, someone who may want to hurt innocent people, the police need to be able to deal with that problem and use lethal, less lethal, and even non-lethal force.
Sometimes it escalates to lethal force.
It's not so simple.
I think it's sad that this is the way the world is, but I'm a mature adult who realizes it's the way the world is.
There are also instances where police officers do things wrong.
They make mistakes.
Maybe he shouldn't have kneeled on George Floyd's neck.
Maybe they shouldn't have drawn their weapons on a man driving in his car and then panicked.
They make mistakes, they must be held accountable for it.
And that's when we have actual trials and we need to make sure it happens.
And sometimes officers commit murder.
There's a story, I think it was out of North Carolina, where a man who was not particularly in shape was trying to run away from a cop and he just drew his weapon and shot that man in the back.
That's cold blood.
That guy went to prison.
We must make sure people are held accountable.
But when the standard is set so high that even accidental deaths in the course of doing their job, officers are faced with prison.
Well, I'm sorry, but the reality is, whether you like that course of action or not, you're going to see a lot of cops say, I don't want to do it.
For a lot of these officers, they know that they'll be demonized.
They'll eventually become demoralized.
But if they go out and they see someone draw a weapon, And they decide to defend themselves.
They could be facing prison.
Why would someone choose to enter that situation?
There's body cam footage came out recently.
It looks as though a woman had police officers escorting her to her home to protect her from a violent, significant other.
They were looking for a potential weapon.
All of a sudden, this man storms to the front door and just starts firing randomly, apparently at all of them.
One officer hits the floor.
Why would an officer put themselves in a situation where they could be shot and killed by a bad guy, and where if they do try to defend themselves and actually succeed in doing so, they could face prison time?
From February 21st, the Star Tribune, Minneapolis gets much-needed approval to hire more cops.
Even as they work against the MPD, council members rightly okayed a class of police recruits.
They're spending millions of dollars to recruit these police officers.
My friends, we're looking at a perfect storm, as I mentioned earlier.
You have chaos at 38th and Chicago.
Locals reporting gunshots.
Seemingly every day, people being shot, lawlessness.
It's primed for an explosion should something go wrong in this trial.
And I think the political landscape here right now means nothing will go right with this trial.
The settlement has tainted the jury pool.
The defense has a real argument now to delay the trial and apparently the judge is considering it.
Maybe at this point the judge has already said no, we'll see.
But I feel like no matter what happens, the riots are gonna get bad.
With a weakened police force.
With a... With an extremely dangerous autonomous zone.
Clearly armed individuals willing to shoot and take lives and cause damage even to the innocent.
What do you think happens when an excuse is given?
If Chavin does not get charged or convicted, and I gotta be honest, even if he does, he's not facing first-degree murder, activists will find a reason to protest.
The cover from activists protesting will provide extremists the opportunity to riot, and those who want to engage in lethal force for the sake of some kind of personal gain will use the whole thing as cover as large crowds of people sweep through the city.
And then I think we're going to see exactly what we saw last year.
I could be wrong.
Maybe people are tired.
But it's getting warmer.
Spring is fast approaching.
And a lot of people don't realize that in the winter things slow down.
It's darker out.
People don't want to be out.
It's colder.
It's wetter.
For this reason, we often see major protests wane in the winter.
It's really amazing how people's convictions disappear as soon as a little water falls from the sky, but that's a fact.
I've covered protests, or I used to cover protests very extensively, and I did so for almost a decade.
Probably about seven or eight years.
And one thing was true.
There could be thousands of people flying into a city prepared to protest, But then the rain hits, and they stop.
So in the winter, with rain, snow, cold, and humidity, people are less likely to come out.
We're entering the spring months, and moving into summer.
The worst timing for this trial and everything to be happening.
Everything is going to come together.
From the temperature, to the weather, the police being weakened, the trial being corrupted, and then I think we're going to see just massive riots.
But I'll leave with one final thought.
I hope not.
I absolutely hope not.
All I want is justice.
But I don't know what justice looks like.
I want the jury to decide.
Unfortunately, it seems like no one will be satisfied with whatever the jury does decide.
And the scary thing here is the political nature of what's going on.
If the jury decides to play politics, if the city decides to play politics, which it seems they are, They could taint the case on purpose.
Why?
They want Chauvin to be found guilty to prevent more riots.
But I don't think it will work.
You will live on your knees, and the riots will only get worse.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Come hang out.
We take your comments.
You can super chat.
We'll read some of your comments on the show.
It'll be a fun discussion.
Again, it's at 8 p.m., and we will see you all then.
Cardi B performed her famous song, WAP, at the Grammys.
And a lot of conservatives and a lot of family people, I guess, were kind of shocked at the gratuitous nature of the performance.
The ratings for the Grammys were down.
The celebrities that were there were trying to act like it was this great and bold thing, but nobody really cared.
In the end, you end up with culture war outrage from conservatives and... I don't even want to say the left because I don't know who's actually defending Cardi B other than Cardi B's fans.
But this may seem like the least important story.
The fight escalates on Twitter between Candace Owens and Cardi B. Candace Owens says you got to do better, you've got young black girls that are watching you.
It's an important point I agree with.
I'm also not offended in the least bit by...
Uh, the performance for- for WEP.
I do think the double standard in our culture is stupid.
Like, there's Dr. Boo- Dr. Seuss book is racist, it's gotta go.
Or, you know, Pepe Le Pew, he was, you know, trying to hug, you know, kiss that- that cat, therefore we gotta get rid of it.
But this one's fine.
Okay, fine.
It may seem like the least important story in the country right now, and yes, but what I'm going to be talking about in this segment is not the least important thing.
You see, I do think there is something going on in the culture that we should talk about, particularly with these lawsuits and the fake news.
The story is basically that Cardi B posted a fake tweet.
about Candace Owens, her brother and her husband, defaming people who are not public figures.
And Candace Owens is now threatening legal action.
There's something really important to talk about here in that mainstream press just rolls with Cardi B, essentially.
They hate Candace Owens.
So even though Cardi B is posting absolutely fake information, the headlines are, what Cardi B said about Candace Owens as spat escalates to legal threats, instead of the headline being, Cardi B posts fake Tweet smearing Candace Owens.
It's an issue of this double standard in media.
But the bigger picture here, and the why I feel like talking about this, we're a silly people.
We are.
Not so much about these fights.
I do think cultural conflict exists everywhere and these conversations and discussions can be healthy.
I do think the culture war in some aspects can be healthy for this country.
We're working through certain ideas.
We have cultural conflict going back several, you know, every decade there's some kind of fight every few years.
But right now, The U.S.
is embroiled in infighting.
Talk about peaceful divorce, dissolution, cultural decay, of which I think we are undergoing at a rapid pace, and this is an example of it.
Meanwhile, China is rapidly expanding.
They're setting up, you know, missile silos, they're building coal power plants, they're building new cities, and that's what Bill Maher was talking about the other day.
We're a silly people, and they're very much a serious people.
So let's do this.
I want to show you all, maybe there's some of you who don't care about any of that stuff, the military and foreign policy, But, you know, give it a chance and let me Trojan horse that idea in for you while talking about celebrity gossip.
Well, again, I think this shows something interesting that we should talk about.
Defamation, fake news, and manipulation by those who would, you know, disagree.
Those who are on the outside of the establishment.
It also shows how we are very uninterested in the actual conflicts that will rip us apart.
And if our focus just remains on these cultural feuds, Well then we're going to get undermined completely, but here's the story.
Newsweek reports Cardi B and Candice Owens are feuding on Twitter again, but this time their spat has escalated to legal threats from both sides.
The rapper's 2021 Grammy performance has sparked another war of words between the WAP hitmaker and the conservative pundit.
In an appearance on Tucker Carlson Tonight Monday, Owens criticized Cardi's performance, saying it signifies the weakening of American society.
Cardi then took to Twitter to thank Owens for giving her more views on Fox News.
This appeared to incense Owens, who responded, Just at me next time directly, you are a cancel-sell to
culture.
Young black girls are having their minds poisoned by what you are trying to package
and sell to them as empowerment.
Now, I don't care if Cardi B wants to do what she does.
I do, however, understand what Candace Owens is saying.
We want people to be the best of the best of the best.
I also think people have a right to be entertained by what they prefer, and if they want to watch the Grammys, so be it.
But guess what?
53% rating drop.
So I'm not going to sit here and complain.
Cardi B can do what Cardi B wants to do.
If she wants to perform, by all means, she can do it.
And if they want to put her on TV, that's fine.
Guess what?
People didn't want to watch it.
I wonder if one of the reasons people didn't want to watch Cardi B is because they got kids.
And they're like, I don't want my kid watching that stuff.
I got a lot of friends who got kids and they talk about the problems of YouTube all day and night.
So, by all means, you do your thing.
It's a relatively free market, not perfect, but fine.
You'll just end up losing ratings and going out of business.
Well, she continued, I'm one of the few that has the courage to tell you the truth.
You should thank me.
From here, the argument got personal as the pair began to exchange increasingly sharp words with their combined millions of followers watching.
Candace said, Millions of young girls follow you.
At your best, you are self-deprecating and humorous.
At your worst, you are naked, shoving your privates into another one's privates while thrusting a topper.
You were at your worst on the Grammy stage.
Do better.
I am Cardi B. In retaliation, Cardi shared a doctored tweet from Owens that was circulating on the platform last year, saying that Owens' husband cheated on her with her brother.
Quote, Not you talking about two women thrusting their privates together while your husband and brother slap You know, they're privates together.
Well, would you look at that?
Now Cardi tweeted along with the Photoshop screenshots.
I'm gonna stop right here and just say this.
That's a low blow, Cardi B. We don't need none of that homophobia up in here.
You got an issue with someone in their personal lives or someone in their... You got an issue with Candace Owens because of her criticisms of you.
That's a low blow, making derogatory comments about two men who may be in love.
Now, the reality is, it's not real.
It's not a real tweet.
This is what we get?
This is what Newsweek wants to put out there?
This is what Tim Pool... Can you imagine this moron on YouTube actually wasting time talking about this?
That's actually how I feel because I'm looking at the news and I'm like, people actually, look at this, Candace Owen, look, Cardi B's got 58,000 likes on this, 13,000 replies.
We definitely got to talk about this.
Because this is the kind of thing that in my opinion is, it shows that we're very silly.
This is the thing we care about.
I do believe there is some merit in having discussions about cultural issues and cultural decay, but man, What happened to that era where the U.S.
was unified in, you know, up against an enemy?
The Cold War, for instance.
We certainly had political battles during the Cold War.
We had civil rights and things like that.
That's why I'm saying culture war stuff is a fine thing to talk about for the most part.
celebrity gossip angle of it, I roll my eyes at.
But this is where we're at, you know, post a fake thing, it was clearly not real, now there's gonna be a lawsuit.
Guys, we gotta get focused on this stuff.
This is a really good example.
What Candace Owens is saying, I actually, I agree more with Candace Owens than I do Cardi B in her
criticism.
Though I'm more of a libertarian-minded individual, I don't care if Cardi B wants to do it.
But there is something interesting in what's going on with this political battle and with the Grammys, and it's that with the ratings collapse and the shock content, there is no unified American culture, there is no focus on our actual adversaries, namely China and their rapid expansion.
So we sit back and we're like, oh, Cardi B, smack down!
Meanwhile, Most people are tuning out.
They're turning it off.
They're not paying attention.
We're not having the same conversations anymore.
Makes things really difficult.
The people who are watching, you guys who are watching this video, there are probably a lot of other people that are watching other channels.
Progressive, conservative, moderate, etc.
And they're not hearing about this.
What happens when you then go to the water cool and you talk about it and say, oh, I don't know what you're talking about.
I didn't see it.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but the grains of sand make a heap, and eventually we have no shared conversation.
We have disparate factions shattered across the country, and they unify online, creating pseudo-communities and micro-realities.
Then, the bigger picture, we're under threat by foreign adversaries, and you get a president like Joe Biden who's very deferential to China, whereas you had Trump who was very adversarial, and then you can just look at what China is doing.
Right now, they're building more underground silos for ballistic missiles.
The Pentagon is pushing for a bigger effort to deter China's growing military might.
But we, my friends, we're a silly people.
And so our focus is going to be on celebrity gossip.
It's tough, it really is.
Because when I was looking at researching this subject, and when I was trying to figure out what I thought would be something important to talk about, I definitely saw the Cardi B stuff going on with Candace Owens, and I thought it was interesting because of the fake news, how they will push these lies and they'll get away with it.
We're now learning that there's this huge scandal going on with a guy named Jordan.
I don't think I can actually say his name on YouTube, so we'll call him Fooches.
Because his name is F-U-C-H-S.
I don't think I can literally say his name because the algorithm, you know, the AI on YouTube will read that as a swear, so I can't even say his name.
But no offense to the guy, I'm not trying to be mean.
But this guy apparently seeded a fake story to all of these different news outlets in order to make Trump look bad.
And then when the actual recording came out and proved it was all wrong, what did we get?
A lot of outlets refused to correct.
They said, well, our framing is fine.
The quotes weren't.
And so instead of doing correction, we were wrong.
Trump never said this.
They said, Trump still did say these things, but just not verbatim.
That's where we're at.
Here we go.
Owens was quick to deny that she wrote the tweet and berated Cardi for sharing a photoshopped image, and viciously attacked the rapper's own marital issues.
She said, I am literally laughing out loud, Cardi, my dear.
That is clearly a photoshopped tweet.
Only one of us has a husband that sleeps around, Owens said, referring to reports that Cardi's husband, Offset, was caught cheating last year.
Talk about just... You know what?
I'm gonna say this.
Candace Owens, bravo.
Brilliantly played.
Really, really brilliantly played.
Cardi B is now pushing Candice Owens' message.
Everybody saw Cardi B's message.
Candice Owens stole that spotlight because Cardi B took the bait.
Candice made a criticism.
She's allowed to do it.
It's her opinion.
Cardi jumped on it.
And now Cardi and Candice are creating this space on Twitter.
Where both fans are now coming together in some kind of interaction.
That's fantastic for Candace Owens.
She's not on the Grammy stage.
She's getting more press attention from many on the left.
And many hate her, sure.
But she's getting out her ideas.
Cardi replied, this wasn't photoshopped, you was trending the whole day when you tweeted this, and it was published on a lot of blog outlets.
Your right mind sleeps around in your sleeps, and your sleeps at your sleep at home with your brother.
And that, like Cardi B went full on homophobic, I gotta tell you this.
That's the other thing.
Another thing I think is important about this, where's the media to come out and say this is homophobia?
Where's the media to be like, yo Cardi B, you gotta chill that stuff, that's not okay.
They don't seem to care.
It's double standard.
Owen said that Cardi was slandering her brother by tweeting about him allegedly having an affair.
I win either way, Owen said.
She says you can get sued.
Yes, just spoke with my family.
I'm 100% suing Cardi for that nonsense.
You can't just start throwing out wild lies against private members of my family because you're upset someone called you out on your degenerate performance.
I'll keep y'all posted.
So let me talk about this for a second.
I'm not a lawyer.
Public spats, defamation, it's very, very difficult to win or even get it to court in many instances because of something called anti-slap legislation.
It means strategic lawsuit against public participation.
The idea being that Candace Owens is a public figure and Cardi B is a public figure, and so they're allowed to kind of go at each other.
The issue, however, is that Candace Owens' husband and her brother are private figures, not public figures, and Cardi B defamed them.
So, when it comes to a public figure, you have something called actual malice.
And that doesn't mean malintent.
It means you had to have known what you were saying was not true.
It appears Cardi B genuinely believes that Candace Owens' husband and brother did these things, and that Candace said this.
But Cardi B, in her tweet, was saying, your brother did this.
Your husband did this.
The Photoshop tweet she posted, was defamatory and a smear of Candace Owens.
And she can argue that I didn't actually know that.
But when it comes to a private individual, now things are a little bit different.
Cardi B with a massive platform smeared someone who is not a public figure.
I wonder where that will actually end up.
I gotta admit, I really don't think it'll go anywhere.
Cardi then argued that she merely shared a tweet that had been widely reported.
That doesn't matter.
Quote, I'm going to sue Candy for claiming I photoshopped a tweet that dozens of articles reported about in November 2016.
First, she claimed me and my team photoshopped it.
Now it was a fake tweet.
She never said she... Candace Owens never said she literally photoshopped it.
She said it was a photoshopped image.
Oh, here we go.
I'm sorry, man.
I really did think this is something we should talk about.
I know.
And a lot of people are probably like, Tim, this is stupid.
Why do you care?
Well, let me show you a tweet from Ben Shapiro.
Ben said, last night Cardi B openly lied about real Candace Owens family, and when called on it, refused to retract the lie.
Virtually the entire establishment media then celebrated Cardi B's supposed bravery in firing back at Candace.
Because those who are dedicated to tearing down traditional values are deemed heroes, no matter No matter whether they are actually rather awful.
In fact, their awfulness is just the point.
Opposing traditional values give you a free pass to just to be just as awful as you want.
I saw that tweet from Ben and I thought it was a good point.
I can certainly point out China's very serious.
They're taking very serious action.
And just because there's celebrity gossip doesn't mean we also don't take that stuff seriously.
We certainly do.
But this is what I see with the mainstream media.
Real Cardi B's a celebrity.
Candace Owens is an outsider.
It's the second-class citizen nature that is being a conservative in this country.
I love how many on the left will laugh and say, they're not second-class citizens.
Oh, well, Candace Owens is a black conservative.
She is smeared, derided.
People throw racist names and accusations against her all the time.
They use horrible slurs.
The Republicans are accused of being the party of, you know, white males.
And then when the RNC actually had black speakers, the left ridiculed and insulted and smeared them.
It's some of the most racist trash we see.
My biggest criticism, though, always comes from the media, and it's true.
Ben Shapiro is absolutely right.
When Candace Owens comes out and gives her opinion, which she's entitled to have, and, okay, the media's like, get her, Cardi!
Not everybody in the media, obviously, but there are many outlets that will take the side of the celebrity.
Candace Owens then gets smeared with fake news.
And where's every outlet criticizing Cardi B?
No, she gets propped up.
She gets protected.
I think fame and money plays a role in this.
And I think many of these companies, they realize... Actually, you know what?
I think everybody realizes this.
I said conservatives have a... there's like a second-class citizen thing to being a conservative, right?
I can't remember who told me this on the IRL podcast.
They were saying that basically you are not able to say the same things.
You're not able to protest in the same ways.
But let me tell you who really knows this.
The former anti-SJW YouTubers who bent the knee, took down their own videos, put out public statements, apologized, and all that stuff.
They realized they did not want to be a second-class citizen.
They did not want to challenge the establishment narrative.
And that's probably the best example.
You see, Big brands, they want to advertise on the Grammys.
80 to 82 million dollars the Grammys made from the show, from advertisement.
Even though ratings were in the gutter, I'm sure next year their ad rates will go down, you know, significantly.
But advertisers wanted to be on this.
Advertisers wanted to be.
80 to 82 million dollars to be on Cardi B's performance.
And when Cardi B comes out and smears Candace Owens, that's where the money wants to go.
So, you can look at these big companies, and you can see they clearly want to be on the side of the mainstream press, and the mainstream press is absolutely biased in favor of mainstream celebrity.
You then look at these anti-SGW YouTubers and their collapse.
The algorithm changed.
Many of them started seeing their views drop, and what did they do?
Oh, they changed their tune real quick.
A lot of them did.
Some of them disappeared for a little while.
Some of them just took down videos.
You know how it goes.
And it's very obvious the reason they did it.
These are people who don't make a ton of money.
You know, they had decent followings.
They're maybe making $50k a year, maybe $60k, maybe more.
Maybe some of them are making six figures.
And they realized, if I keep criticizing the establishment, I will be a second-class citizen because you'll be the out-group, not the in-group.
I am not suggesting that these people are in any way being treated like marginalized people from yesteryear or anything like that.
My family certainly knew what it was like.
I'm just saying, You're gonna get your YouTube channel banned.
You're not allowed to speak.
You get banned from Twitter.
If you say, learn to code, they were banning people for saying that.
Even though, on the left, they were literally calling for people to go and punch Nazis.
Now, by all means, nobody likes Nazis.
The issue was that they were calling everyone a Nazi.
And so, when you would say something like, hey, don't be violent, don't start fights, that was actually the outgroup.
What happens?
A lot of these people realized where it's safe and where it's dangerous.
And if you want to make money and survive, you better toe the line and stop challenging the establishment.
Some of these people found a safe niche where they sided with the, you know, progressive faction that tends to support the Democratic establishment tacitly.
Oh, they'll complain about the Democrats for sure, but their bigger complaint is with the anti-establishment right and the Trump supporters and things like that.
Sure.
That's where we go.
There's a lot of money to be made if you are a right-wing pundit, conservative, ink, challenging the establishment, don't get me wrong.
But what I find fascinating is this idea that Candace Owens or others would be grifters.
If Candace Owens truly wanted to be a grifter, why wouldn't she just push the establishment narrative and be on Cardi B's side?
There's so much more money to be made there.
She could have said all of the woke things and become one of these personalities and made way more money selling books and all that.
Well, Candace has certainly done alright for herself.
But that's the exception, not the rule.
A lot of people look at Candace and say, see, she's grifty, that's why she made all that money.
It's like, I don't think so.
I think she put herself at great risk.
I'm not the, I gotta be honest, I'm not the biggest fan of Candace Owens.
I'm not saying I dislike her.
I disagree with her when she talked about getting jail time for burning the American flag.
And you know, I question whether it's an issue of tribalism or principle.
But it's fascinating to me that there's this idea that right-wing grifters exist.
Really?
You get banned?
You get suspended?
You get suppressed?
You get no ad revenue?
And you want me to believe people are choosing to do that?
Sorry, I don't buy it.
It's the same argument with any other marginalized group.
I don't believe anyone chooses to be in a marginalized group, for the most part.
I mean, there are some sociopaths, don't get me wrong.
But there are many people, talk about grifters, talk about people on the left who tow the democratic establishment line.
Even when it is easily provably false.
You can Google search things and be like, hey, that's not true.
That story from MSNBC is fake news.
And that's where we're at.
You look at these, you know, the attacks that Steven Crowder goes through, and you look at the mainstream media has... I'll give you an example, actually.
NewsGuard, for instance.
You look at how they'll say media matters is totally correct.
They're green checkmark, good to go.
Even though they've put up fake news about me on more than one occasion.
And I mean it, like literally fake news.
There was one where they were like, this video has been demonetized.
And I'm like, my video's still monetized.
My podcast was not demonetized.
And they won't take it down, they won't update it or retract.
There was another instance where they claimed that I made a fake statement about Ilhan Omar when I was literally reading the Star Tribune.
Who would choose to be in a position where the media lies about you, your income is threatened, and you could lose everything because you're going against the establishment?
I'm sure some people would just because they're punk rock and they're contrarian, I guess.
But the real grifters, they're on the left where it's safe.
So take a look at these anti-SJW YouTubers.
You don't really hear that phrase anymore, SJW.
They used to be more prominent.
YouTube took action against them, they panicked, they changed their tunes, and now they're like, oh, I made a mistake.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get it.
You're pathetic cowards.
You didn't have a spine in the first place.
You sacrificed your principles for safety.
Well, those who would do that deserve neither, right?
You'd give up safety for a little bit of freedom.
You deserve neither and you'll lose both.
Anyway, I digress.
We got a bunch of news coming up about China.
I'm gonna talk about that.
I'm gonna talk about the border crisis.
But this was just... I don't know, maybe nobody cared.
But I look at this and it makes me think...
We've got cultural decay.
We can't agree on what's happening.
We're fighting, and people are choosing tribal sides.
And if this is what we're doing while China's building missile silos, and we're, you know, having woke military exercises, and gender-neutral training is getting canceled, I just... I think we're in trouble, my friends.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel, and I will see you all then.
Surprisingly, the Washington Post has burned their source in the find the fraud fake news story scandal.
And the scandal, my friends, is getting crazier by the day.
For those that aren't familiar with what's happening, January 9th, The Washington Post reported that Donald Trump in a phone call told a Georgia election official to quote, find the fraud and quote, you will be a national hero.
It turns out the story was absolutely fake.
Their only confirmation, an unnamed source familiar with the call.
That was a lie.
Not only do we now know that Donald Trump never said these things, we are learning.
Many other news outlets pushed the exact same lie.
We're learning.
The recording may have been illegal in the first place.
We are learning.
The Washington Post never actually spoke with someone who was on the call in the first place.
It is a ridiculous game, quite literally, of telephone.
This is all about the media's desperate attempt to go after Trump, make him look bad no matter what, and many moderate individuals in, like, Disaffected liberals have been pointing out, you don't need to make up quotes from Trump.
Why would they do this?
As it turns out, the individual named by the Washington Post apparently was told by someone on the call what happened, then told the Washington Post, and the Washington Post said, good enough for us.
Many other news outlets claim to have spoken with and independently confirmed this information, speaking with the source, I suppose, none of which was true.
Apparently, the recording was discovered in the trash folder after a public document request.
The individual is even trying to cover up what had happened.
Let's get into this, because this is a very serious media scandal that just keeps getting worse.
Now we're hearing from people like Jack Posobiec, for instance, the recording itself may have been a felony because of Florida's two-party consent rule.
The American Conservative reports something is rotten in the Georgia Secretary of State's office.
My friends, this is a media and political scandal.
Political individuals, people working in government, staffers, were ceding fake information to the press, and the press knew it was likely bunk and pushed it anyway.
Now here's where it gets crazy.
These outlets, the Washington Post, they are refusing to correct, trying to justify publishing fake news, and then saying, partisans will absolutely claim we published fake news.
You're damn right we will, because you did.
Here's the story.
They say two recordings of conversations between President Trump and officials in the Georgia Secretary of State's office are at issue in a growing controversy.
Both played a major role in stoking a narrative about Trump trying to steal the election by throwing out ballots.
The first was made on December 23rd, but it was not released until last week in the Wall Street Journal.
That recording prompted a mammoth correction from the Washington Post, which in its original story erroneously reported that Trump told investigator Frances Watson to quote, find the fraud, and that she would be a national hero if she did.
The person who gave the erroneous quotes for the December 23rd story has been identified by the Washington Post as Jordan Fooch.
I'm gonna pronounce her name that way because I'm worried if I pronounce it the way I think it's pronounced, YouTube will demonetize me because it sounds like a swear word.
Deputy Secretary of State of Georgia.
She gave an interview to The Post's Eric Wemple on Tuesday, telling him, quote, I believe the story accurately reflected the investigators' interpretation of the call.
The only mistake here was in the direct quotes, and they should have been more of a summary.
She continued, quote, I think it's pretty absurd for anybody to suggest that the president wasn't urging the investigator to, quote, find the fraud.
These are quotes that Watson told me at the time.
Let me break that down for you.
Told the Washington Post.
Someone told me Donald Trump said this.
And the Washington Post said, second-party hearsay?
Third-party hearsay?
That, uh, is good enough for me?
The person was not part of the conversation.
The person did not overhear the conversation.
Someone just told them, hey, here's what happened.
And the media, the Washington Post, CNBC, PBS, CNN, et cetera, they all ran with the lie.
And they claimed they confirmed it.
That's what's amazing.
When the recording was published by the Wall Street Journal, they noted, When the Post first reported on the call, state officials said they did not believe that a recording existed.
Officials located the recording on a trash folder on Watson's device while responding to a public records request, according to a person familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the internal process.
I don't care.
I don't believe that either.
We are in no position to believe anybody at this point, but I'll tell you what, the recording exists.
We found it.
Wonder who that was.
As for the original erroneous characterizations given by Fooch, if she was truly concerned about illegal pressure being applied on the phone call, which Watson claims she did not feel she could, uh, She didn't have a feel.
She could have gone to law enforcement and preserved the call record.
Instead, she went to the Washington Post and the recording was put in the trash.
She had a recording, she deleted it or tried to, and then lied to the media.
She claims, he said this, I know.
She had a recording of the call.
Somebody lied.
And it was her!
There you go.
They secretly recorded the telephone call, mischaracterized its contents to the news media, and then attempted to destroy the recording.
It is confidence-shattering, David Schaefer, chairman of the Georgia Republican Party, told TAC.
Fuches' involvement in the December 23rd incident has led many to assume that she was the source of the leaked recording from January 2nd, as well, also published by the Washington Post.
Two sources told the American Conservative that this was in fact the case.
The only three people on Raffensperger's side of the January 2nd call were Raffensperger himself, General Counsel Ryan Germany, and Fuches.
Fuches also had an existing relationship with one of the Post reporters whose byline was on the story.
Quote, She refuses to acknowledge whether she recorded the call on January 2nd.
Mark Rountree, president of Landmark Communications, tells the American Conservative.
That's what she's hiding from.
A second source who works in Georgia politics also identified Fuches as the source of the January 2nd recording.
She hid from both, but the Washington Post has outed her for the first call.
The question now becomes, will they out her in the second call, Roundtree told the American Conservative.
Roundtree's firm has employed as VPs both Fooch and Gabriel Sterling, the COO of the Secretary of State's office, who became the face of pushback against the Trump campaign's claims of fraud in Georgia.
Roundtree also helped run Brad Raffensperger's campaign for the office in 2018.
So these are people he knows quite well.
Fooch allegedly told another former Landmark employee that she was traveling to Florida on January 1st.
Florida is a two-party consent state, so if she is the source of the recording, and it was recorded there, she may have violated Florida's wiretapping law.
She did not respond to questions about her location that day, or whether she was the source of the recording, which were left unread for about 12 hours.
Gabriel Sterling also did not respond to the same questions.
When she worked here, she was obsessed with the Washington Post.
You'd walk by her office, and on her monitor was the Washington Post all the time, Roundtree added.
She obsesses about the Post, and she feels like people who are not in the Washington Post are not important.
She somehow got charmed and obsessed when she worked as an intern in Washington, D.C.
for a year.
I think she just became enthralled with the idea of dirty politics, going Woodward and Birdstein and Nixon.
The Washington Post ran the original story on January 9th, alleging that Trump said, find the fraud, and the Georgia investigator, Frances Watson, would be a national hero if she did.
They have since corrected the story to reflect Trump's real words and identified Fooch as the source.
The Secretary of State's office could have corrected the record when it was initially reported incorrectly by the Post in the midst of a heated election debate, but they didn't.
Numerous other outlets ran with the story based on the same anonymous sourcing.
If Fooch was not the source of the leaked recording, that means there is more than one official in the Georgia Secretary of State's office who is leaking in a politicized way.
That means the office has bigger problems.
I think the bigger problems, my friends, is that the media is refusing to correct the record and admit they were wrong and this story was fabricated.
Over at the Washington Post, Eric Wemple writes somewhat critically of the Washington Post action is what's going on.
But he basically just says, well, partisans are going to criticize us over this, but they rightly should.
They rightly should.
Someone from the Washington Post had unconfirmed rumors from this individual, Jordan, at the Secretary of State's office, and decided that was confirmation.
What happened to getting confirmation by, like, I don't know, actually hearing a recording?
What happened to journalists getting confirmation by reaching out to another source and asking, is this true?
Doesn't exist anymore.
I believe what we are seeing is politically motivated media.
You've got this woman in the office as well as Brad Raffensperger and, you know, others in Georgia.
They hated Trump.
They wanted the scandal.
The media absolutely wanted the scandal as well.
What happens when you have two witting partners, and the media wants a narrative that'll get them clicks, make them money, and make Trump look bad?
And these people also want to make Trump look bad.
They'll run it.
And then all of these other news outlets did the same thing?
What are we supposed to believe?
When individuals who were not on phone calls, or who claimed they weren't, then give that information, but later it turns out, That they actually had the recording in their trash folder.
So, which is it?
Did they know of the recording?
Did they make the recording?
And if they did, did they lie to the press?
It would seem so.
The Washington Post writes, On January 9th, the Post reported that then-President Trump, blah blah blah, said, find the fraud.
In both cases, the quotes were wrong.
The Post has acknowledged, in a correction to the story, Trump did not tell the investigator to find the fraud.
The story landed on top of a tumult with little equal in modern history.
Since the November 3rd election, Trump and his allies have attempted to convince his supporters that Joe Biden stole the election.
That lie provided the rhetorical impetus for Trump supporters to storm the Capitol in January, just as Congress was taking up Electoral College results.
Evidence of Trump's improper actions regarding those results piled up before and after the January 6th Capitol riot.
Here's the timeline.
On January 2nd, Trump took part in a phone call with Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, pressuring him to find enough votes to overturn his defeat.
That was also, my understanding, to be out of context.
The next day, Post reporter Amy Gardner surfaced a recording of that call, but they posted like a four minute snippet.
Then on January 9th, Gardner broke the now-corrected story of Trump's call with Watson, which had taken place on December 23rd.
Tracking the phone history of a malfeasant president is a big job.
You see how they're doing this?
It's not our fault we published literal fake news!
Trump was malfeasant!
The original phone call.
Big story.
Where Trump was like, we gotta find a certain amount of votes.
What Trump was actually saying, if you read the call and you wanna be honest about it, maybe the call was still improper, that's for you to decide.
Trump said he believed there was a large number of votes and they only needed like 13,000.
He didn't say, hey, get me 13,000 votes.
He said, look at all of the possible votes.
We only need 13,000.
That's basically how the legal system works, right?
So if you want to sue for voter fraud in, say, Pennsylvania, and you're arguing that 6,000 ballots you believe were filed wrong, signed wrong, improper, or just maybe fraudulent, you have to have standing.
You have to be an injured party.
Which means, what we saw a lot of in Pennsylvania, Was that people would file a lawsuit, the judge would say, you were not hurt by this.
Case dismissed.
We won't even rule on this.
With the issue of Trump, they'd say, even if these 6,000 votes are improper, it won't change the results.
No standing.
There you go.
So if Donald Trump is saying, we only need 13,000 votes for standing, which will change the results, he may be wrong about what's actually going on.
But telling them, look, do the investigation, this is what we need, is not the same as saying, fabricate them.
You see what the game is?
They're trying to act like Trump's saying, find the fraud.
Well, they're lying about his quote.
But now they're trying to imply that Trump was pressuring them to do so.
He didn't use those exact words, but that's what he was doing.
Donald Trump calling an investigator and saying, please investigate this, you're going to find some dirty stuff because he believes it, is not telling them to fabricate anything.
The Washington Post says, in a time of much overblown chatter, blah blah, I'm not going to read this stupid garbage.
The call happened.
It was an abuse of presidential authority.
That's just not true.
Donald Trump is allowed to call and ask for an investigation.
Could you imagine if you like worked at a bank and someone robbed the bank and you called the police and says, you need to investigate this.
Oh, you shouldn't be involved in this because you're the person who stands to gain because you run the bank.
I get it.
Elections are different.
But if you were in an election, and you believed a crime was committed, and you called an investigator and pled your case asking for an investigation, how is that wrong or an abuse of power?
Here's where it gets funny.
The post's account of the call rested on one source.
An individual familiar with the call who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the conversation.
An individual familiar with the call.
What does that mean, you scumbags?
Nothing, apparently.
The Washington Post reported on the substance of Trump's December 23rd call in January, describing him saying that Watson should find the fraud and that she would be a national hero, based on an account from Jordan Fooch, the Deputy Secretary of State, whom Watson briefed on the comments.
Mic drop.
There it is.
A guy in a phone with Trump told a staffer about what happened.
The staffer said, here's what I was told happened.
And without actually speaking or getting a comment from Watson, they decided this is confirmed.
That's confirmation to you?
Welcome to the mainstream media.
That's how it operates.
Political operatives and the press were so willing to smear the president.
It's what you get.
In an interview with the Eric Wemple blog, Fooch said, And there it is.
Accurately reflected the interpretation.
So it wasn't even you.
You had no idea what was going on.
accurately reflected the interpretation.
So it wasn't even you.
You had no idea what was going on.
It was a game of telephone.
Foote said the post disclosed her role in the story with her permission, and that she'd
debriefing from the investigator. A direct report of hers shortly after the call from Trump concluded.
I think it's pretty absurd for anybody to suggest the president wasn't urging the
investigator to find the fraud. These people have no shame.
This, my friends, is what evil looks like.
This is what evil looks like.
The willingness to manipulate, lie, cheat, and steal.
No honor, no integrity, a lust for power, and a willingness to steal and deprive and deceive.
That, to me, is evil.
They're so desperately now trying to defend their business instead of saying, we got this one wrong.
We're sorry.
They won't do it.
No, no.
Trump was absolutely trying to pressure this person to find fraud.
Okay.
Well, let's slow down a minute and talk about framing and manipulation.
Was Trump saying, I believe there was fraud and I hope you find it, which is what you do when you call the police or the feds or any other investigator that has jurisdiction over a matter.
Or was he saying find as in make up?
I remember I tweeted something about Joe Biden and I said, Joe Biden will now find the votes he needs to win or something like that.
I didn't say fabricate.
I didn't say manifest.
I said, there's a big stack of votes.
They're going to go through them.
Joe Biden will find what he needs in there.
But many people use the word find to imply fabricated.
That's the thing on the left, I suppose.
Find, in my understanding, means you discover that something is already there.
Like, when you find a piece of gold buried in the ground, you didn't make it appear there.
Someone didn't put it there.
You dug a hole, and it was there.
Found.
Discovered.
Something that was already there.
That's the game.
Donald Trump was basically saying, even if he was saying find the fraud, even if that quote was true, they say he was illegally abusing his power and pressuring an investigator, and I'm just like, if you genuinely believe it and you ask someone to find it, how is that an abuse of power?
They say the New York Times quickly matched the Post's reporting, including the inaccurate quotes.
It added a correction on Monday.
CNN has appended this editor's note to its story.
An earlier version of this story, on January 9th, presented paraphrasing of the President's comments.
That's right.
Presented paraphrasing.
They still claim the story is true, even though we now know they made the whole thing up.
We asked the Post about claims that the newspaper's action amounts to a retraction.
They said, We corrected the story published and published a separate news story last week, at the top of our site and on our front page, after we learned that our source had not been precise in relaying then-President Trump's words.
We are not retracting our January story because it conveyed the substance of Trump's attempt to influence the work of Georgia's election investigators.
An opinion piece?
That's all this is.
All of it, an opinion.
Their January 9th story accusing Trump wasn't fact, it was opinion.
The opinion of this Jordan woman, the opinion of the investigator, not the fact.
And they'll say, it was a fact Trump pressured.
No!
That is an opinion.
You want to know what the fact is?
On a call, Donald Trump spoke with an election investigator about a potential for fraud, and Donald Trump was requesting an investigation.
That's a fact.
Those things actually happened.
But they look at Trump and they view him as the orange evil man.
So they inject framing and opinion and they'll say, well, it's no, it's obvious to everyone he was actually pressuring.
Pressuring.
You could headline the article, Donald Trump requests investigation into fraud.
Donald Trump demands investigation of fraud.
That is framing, and it's your opinion.
In fact, the real fact would just be, Donald Trump said, quote, find the fraud, and that would be it.
However, that wasn't true either, and wasn't even confirmed.
This is the press, ladies and gentlemen.
This is it.
Now, here's how he ends.
Wemple says that it did.
Misreporting the words of the highest elected official in the land is a serious lapse.
And one that, in this case, seems so unnecessary.
The existence of the call itself is a towering exclusive.
When it comes to phone calls, the only good sources are the ones who are dialed in.
That's true.
So why did the Washington Post have no standards?
He says the former president's partisans will attempt to memorialize the Post story as a fabrication or fake news.
But a central fact remains.
But it was fake news.
Trump never said those things.
Trump literally did not say the quote you published and claimed he did.
That's fake news.
You see the game they play?
A central fact remains, he says, as the journal's recording attests, Trump behaved with all the crooked intent and suggestion that he brought to every other crisis of his presidency.
That is not a fact, it's an opinion!
I'm sick of the press.
I got no problem telling you my opinions.
Now, this Washington Post article is an opinion piece.
But he's calling an opinion a fact.
That's a lie.
The fact is Donald Trump had a phone call with an election official in Georgia discussing fraud where Donald Trump expressed a desire for an investigation into Fulton County.
That's it.
The opinions.
Okay, here's my opinion.
Donald Trump desperately begged Georgia to enforce the law because of what he saw as very serious crimes being committed, and Georgia refused to do it.
It's the same base issue, but your opinion can be whatever you want it to be.
That's how the media lies, and it's the dirty game they play.
