All Episodes
March 18, 2021 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:16:47
S558 - Democrats Are Trying To Eject A Republican Congresswoman To INSTALL A Democrat In INSANE Power Grab

Democrats Are Trying To Eject A Republican Congresswoman To INSTALL A Democrat In INSANE Power Grab. Democrats are claiming that Rita Hart is the real winner rejected the results of the 2020 house race in Iowa's 2nd district.They say Trump is wrong in his claims but they are right in what many are considering a shocking double standard.  Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats voted to move forward with a review that could negate the election results in Iowa's second and install a DemocratBeyond the attempted power grab in the House Democrats are actively trying to reignite an FBI probe in Brett Kavanaugh as well as massively change voting laws in the US. Support the show (http://timcast.com/donate) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:16:25
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
Today is March 18th, 2021, and our first story.
Democrats are moving towards ejecting a Republican from Congress over a very strange election issue in which the Democrats claim 22 legitimate ballots were not properly counted, even though at the state level, the race has already been certified by a bipartisan panel and Marionette Miller Meeks, the Republican, is actively serving in Congress right now.
The Democrats would actually consider removing a sitting member of Congress to install the Democratic challenger in a brazen power grab.
Our next story.
The United Auto Workers Union is shocked to discover that Ford Automotive is moving some of its projects from Ohio to Mexico.
The surprising thing here is that the United Auto Workers Union endorsed Joe Biden.
And it was obvious Donald Trump was the only one stopping these companies from moving to Mexico.
Well, now they're in for a rude awakening, which was obvious to many people.
In our last story, CNN is hemorrhaging viewers with their key demo dropping by 50%.
In response, they're getting pretty desperate, going as far to try and claim that Tucker Carlson is the new Donald Trump.
We get it, CNN.
You're in desperate need of a villain.
Before we get started, leave us a good review, comment, give us five stars.
It really helps out the show.
Now let's jump in to that first story. In a shockingly brazen attempt at a power grab,
Democrats are actually weighing ejecting a Republican member of Congress over election
results that happened months ago in which the Republican did win.
The Democratic challenger in Iowa's 2nd District believes she actually won, because there were 22 votes that should have been counted, so she says, that weren't.
Marionette Miller-Meeks, the sitting member of Congress who did win by only 6 votes, says, those bouts were not legal, and thus, you lost.
There's a question among Republicans as to why this Democrat challenger didn't simply go to the Iowa courts and waited this long, and now Democrats are trying to remove a sitting member of Congress.
And perhaps it's because, as we've long suspected, Democrats will do whatever it takes to get power.
Now, many people are criticizing Trump and the Republicans, saying, hey, Trump made all of these claims about voter fraud.
Are we going to ignore that and just let Republicans get a free pass?
Okay, if Republicans made the same attempt, you Democrats were the ones saying that was wrong for Trump to claim there were certain legal issues.
And I'm specifically referring to voter issues, not voter fraud issues, right?
I'm talking about voter eligibility issues.
This whole case stems from whether or not 22 ballots were legitimate.
Well, Donald Trump certainly challenged legitimacy of certain votes.
Here we go.
Welcome to a political double standard.
However, in this instance, I'm curious to see how the courts will handle it because the election is over.
It's a moot point.
When it came to challenges over whether or not certain ballots were legal, the courts either said that people have no standing, it's too soon, or it's too late.
In which case, this woman is already in Congress.
Can we move forward?
It certainly seems like the Democrats are pushing a double standard that will give them power.
But we expected this.
They're going after Brett Kavanaugh again.
Apparently now they're saying his FBI background check was illegitimate.
It was fake.
And thus, perhaps they will reopen this case or dig into Kavanaugh.
And I don't think it's likely.
Maybe it will result in Kavanaugh actually getting impeached, them finding a way to take the Supreme Court.
We were concerned that they were going to pack the courts.
Maybe they won't have to.
Maybe they'll just remove Brett Kavanaugh, reviving old accusations, and it seems like they are doing that right now.
Then we have H.R.
unidentified
1.
tim pool
This would effectively nationalize elections in this country and would give Democrats some massive voter advantages.
Now, they call it a bill to reform voting laws to protect the right of voters, but many Republicans are saying it's an unconstitutional power grab.
Well, I'll tell you this.
Of course it's a power grab.
Of course everything they're doing is designed to empower them, to empower their party.
I'll only say, the scary thing about all of this is that we are a very divided nation right now.
74.2 million people voted for Donald Trump, about 80 million for Joe Biden.
We are split down the middle.
The Senate is 50-50.
The House is, what, 220-210, basically.
It's razor thin.
For the Democrats to make these moves to steal congressional seats, to flip the results, or to make very serious fundamental changes to election law in this country, when we're this divided, is only going to push people towards hyperpolarization and more extreme views.
Because if the Democrats make sweeping changes that negatively impact half the country, then we are dangerously close to some kind of fracturing or collapse.
I've said it before.
Joe Biden, when he comes out and talks about covid, he does not represent red states.
When Joe Biden came out and said, maybe we will get you up and ready for the 4th of July.
The red states are already up and ready for the 4th of July.
So we know he's not talking to Greg Abbott in Texas or Ron DeSantis in Florida.
He does not represent.
I don't mean legally, of course, he does as president.
But he doesn't have the confidence of these people.
I fear that we're heading down a very dark and dangerous path, especially with this move from Democrats.
Let me show you just how bad it really is.
But before we get started, head over to TimCast.com.
Become a member to get access to exclusive members-only podcast segments of the TimCast IRL podcast.
We have a lot of really interesting conversations on God, religion, politics.
We had Lieutenant Colonel Allen West.
We had Jack Murphy the other day.
Talking about that video where everyone claims it was CGI of Joe Biden.
Spoiler alert, it wasn't, and we break down exactly why.
But when you become a member, you are basically protecting my shows and the people who work here in the event we get purged.
So don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Let's read that story.
CNN reports, House Democrats weigh ejecting GOP winner of contested Iowa race, dismissing comparisons to Trump's efforts to overturn election.
CNN says House Democrats are undeterred by the mounting GOP criticism over their review of a contested congressional race that could potentially overturn a state-certified Republican victory in Southeast Iowa.
Brushing back attacks.
They are seeking to subvert the will of voters just months after lambasting former President Donald Trump for trying to reverse his electoral defeat.
Listen, Donald Trump pushed it as far as he could.
He pushed it all the way up until basically the inauguration.
Once Joe Biden was president, and I mean even a little bit before, Trump was like, all right, fine, whatever.
He still insists a bunch of things.
He's still adamant about what he believes.
But he effectively said, fine, and walked away.
We are now months after the election, and we are a couple months after the seating of this member of Congress, Marionette Miller-Meeks, and they are still trying to move.
Could you imagine if Donald Trump filed a lawsuit to remove a sitting president?
That would be insane.
What the Democrats are doing is very different.
This woman is already in Congress, and they're trying to eject her.
They say, well, Democrats say what's happening in Iowa's 2nd Congressional District is nothing like Trump's lies about widespread fraud and a stolen election.
They say they are aware of the optics of potentially booting out a member of Congress from the opposing party who was declared the winner by bipartisan state election officials.
Maryland Democratic Rep.
Jamie Raskin, who led the House's impeachment case against Trump after the insurrection, said the bar for overturning the House election was the same high standard invoked in the presidential race.
He said the challenger, Iowa Democrat Rita Hart, has the statutory burden of proof to sustain.
The critical thing is, when you go to a judicial forum, bring some proof, bring me some evidence with you, Raskin told CNN.
In November, Iowa's election officials certified Republican Marinette Miller Meeks' defeat of Hart.
196,964 to 196,958, the closest federal race in 2020.
But Hart's campaign has argued that if 22 other legally cast ballots are counted, she would win the race by 9 votes rather than losing it by 6.
The campaign has released a couple of voter testimonies claiming that their ballots were improperly tossed because of issues with the envelopes.
I'm going to stop right there and point out CNN is very clearly biased in favor of the Democrats. Note how
they assert legally cast ballots.
That has not been determined. In fact, I should say a bipartisan group has already determined
those were not legally cast. By what standard is CNN allowed to defy legal orders from election
committees? CNN is telling us it's legal. The bipartisan group said it wasn't legal.
CNN thinks they can assert untruths.
And there you go.
They say, and since the Constitution makes the House the ultimate judge of its own elections, Hart has made an unusual petition to investigate her claims and seat her instead.
Republicans are outraged that she's taken her case to a friendly audience in the Democratic-led House, rather than to the courts, and say it's a brazen attempt by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to pad her razor-thin majority with an extra seat.
Quote, They were complaining because Republicans wouldn't tell people that Biden won the election on November 4th, the day after the election.
And now they're playing this game?
It just doesn't add up, said Chuck Grassley, the state's long-serving GOP senator.
But Democrats say there's nothing untoward about Hart using a process laid out by federal law,
giving her a chance to make her case before Congress. Quote, We can't be concerned about
optics, said North Carolina rep GK Butterfield, who sits on the House panel considering the
challenge. We've got to review the evidence and see where it leads us. Hey, that sounds familiar.
I seem to recall many people saying that about Donald Trump before the inauguration.
At a certain point, Trump said fine and backed away.
He's certainly still making his accusations, I know.
But he's not trying to unseat a sitting president the way they're trying to remove someone from office.
I certainly think there was a time and a place to look over the evidence and make a determination about who should have won.
That time has since passed.
I don't know what they're trying to do now other than steal power.
They say.
Raskin, a member of the committee, downplayed how the public might view the matter if the House overturned the election.
We live in a cynical, jaded time, but that doesn't mean we all have to give into it, he said.
We just have to do our jobs.
The lawyers for the two sides have until Monday to send their initial briefs to a House panel, which voted on party lines last week to consider the case.
The House, which Democrats control by a 219-211 margin, would ultimately decide the election, so I was off by one.
The chairwoman of the House Administration Committee, Rep.
Zoe Lofgren of California, said in an interview she hopes the case is resolved this spring.
Democrats could then face a controversial vote just months after defending the state officials who certify the 2020 presidential election.
Some Democrats may be uneasy at this prospect.
California Rep Luke Correa, a blue dog Democrat who sits on the Judiciary Committee, said he wanted to look at the facts about what motivates Congress to look at something that should be a state issue.
Quote, I want to see what compelling reasons there are for the feds to get involved in this.
I think these are issues that right now are probably best left at the state level.
Here's where it gets scary.
I'm I know it's a razor, razor-thin electoral victory for Miller-Meeks, but it was the state, the district, who decided who would represent them.
If I said, I want you, sitting right there, to represent me, and then when you went to the federal government, they said, no, no, no, no, we don't want you, we want that person.
What's the point of having an election if the Democrats at the federal level can reject someone and appoint, effectively, someone else that the district did not vote for?
That's a scary prospect.
Government by mandate.
That's where we're headed.
Quote, My instinct is that on these types of things, it's always best to count every vote, look under every stone, Golden said.
I think it's best for either the incumbent or the challenger to allow the process to go as far as there are legal options to do so.
But Republicans are eager to use any Democratic vote to unseat a lawmaker as a liability in the 2022 midterms.
Iowa GOP Senator Joni Ernst said in an interview that Hart's challenge puts the only remaining Iowa Democrat in Congress, Axne, in jeopardy.
Ernst asked, where is Sidney Axne saying this is an outrage and the Iowa voters have spoken?
Axne's spokesperson pointed CNN to a statement the congresswoman released in December.
Axne said at the time that Hart has the constitutional and legal grounds to pursue her case.
I support a transparent process that ensures every properly cast vote in this contest is counted.
They're going to say that it's extremely rare for a congressional candidate to successfully challenge their loss in Congress.
From 1933 to 2009, the House considered 107 contested election cases, according to the Congressional Research Service.
If in only three cases, did it seat the candidate who contested the results?
In one instance, it declared vacancy.
Now I want to show you, Marionette Miller-Meeks, proudly serving the 2nd District of Iowa, currently with MillerMeeks.House.Gov, is in the 117th Congress.
This is not an issue of a contested election.
This is an issue of a contested seat in Congress.
The Democrats are trying to remove someone who already won.
Well, Miller-Meeks has issued a statement.
unidentified
Rep.
tim pool
Miller-Meeks details Pelosi's efforts to overturn Iowa election win, quote, never-ending campaign.
In a statement, Miller-Meeks said, In speaking with the House Committee on Administration, with Representative Rodney Davis from Illinois, that's when I learned about this process, and Article 5, Section 1 of our Article 1, Section 5 of the Constitution, that Congress has the authority to seat its members.
So that's when I became aware that this process existed.
But if you're correct, and it's a very important distinction, So I was ahead on election night.
I was ahead at the official county canvas of all 24 counties.
All of these ballots were examined.
And then in the recount is a three-person bipartisan board eyeballs on all these ballots that were considered illegitimate under Iowa law.
And could she she could have appealed to the Iowa courts, but did not because under Iowa
law, these ballots would have been tossed out.
She knew that she would lose.
So yes, strategically, they felt better to appeal to the House Committee on Administration
and Congress, which is a majority of Democrats.
So it changes it from an election process, and yes, you're right, for me, it's been a never-ending campaign.
So that was a spoken quote, which is why there were some, you know, irregularities in the way she was saying it, because she was speaking, it wasn't written.
But yes.
The Democrats aren't going to give this up, and they're going to use the voting process in every way to empower themselves.
There's a couple things I want to highlight in terms of Democrat power grabs, which we expected.
One of the fears was packing the courts.
We were concerned that if they won the Senate, then they would push through everything they possibly could, and they're trying to.
For one, What's the filibuster and why change it?
Joe Biden apparently is on board with getting rid of the filibuster, which means in the Senate you need 60 votes to pass legislation.
I think that is a very good idea, because it forces compromise between two ever-polarizing factions.
And the Democrats realized they can just get rid of it, go nuclear, and then pass anything they want because Kamala Harris is the tiebreaker.
We'll read through this.
We also have H.R.
unidentified
1.
tim pool
Real clear politics says that H.R.
1 threatens election integrity.
Over at The Nation, it's time to investigate the FBI for its deepfake Kavanaugh investigation.
Oh yeah.
You could be a sitting member of the Supreme Court, but as soon as they got power back, they will seek to remove you.
It's funny, a lot of Trump supporters are like, good, impeach the guy.
Why?
Because Brett Kavanaugh did not get Trump's back.
He had the opportunity to at least attempt to take up some of these election integrity issues, and he refused.
So who's going to defend him?
And then we have from the New York Post, the massive $1.9 trillion bill is a bailout for the blue states, according to Michael Hendricks, writing an opinion piece.
This is all part of the Expanding power grab from Democrats.
And let's start with the filibuster.
The AP reports.
It's not that different from the movies.
President Joe Biden said the Senate should operate like it did in the old days, with senators forced to stand up and speak all day and night if they plan to object to his legislative agenda with a filibuster.
Changing the filibuster rules is an idea backed by some Senate Democrats eager to advance Biden's agenda in the evenly split 50-50 Senate.
But Republicans are warning Democrats of any changes.
Here's a look at how the filibuster works in the Senate.
They say.
The filibuster is among the Senate's most distinctive procedural features, according to the Congressional Research Service.
The Senate has a long-standing practice of allowing any one senator to object to the proceedings, what's generally referred to as a filibuster that can halt action or votes.
Senators have famously stood at their desks for hours making their case, as the character played by Jimmy Stewart did in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.
Or as South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond did to stall the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
Today, Senators can merely signal their intent to object, even privately.
And that's enough for Senate leaders to take action.
Leaders sometimes just drop the issue from floor consideration.
At other times, they push ahead, taking cumbersome steps to cut off the filibuster and move forward with proceedings.
How do you end a filibuster?
Over time, Senators grew tired of the endless filibusters and set rules for ending debate.
At the start of the 20th century, a two-thirds vote was needed to end a filibuster.
By 1975, the Senate agreed to lower it to 60 votes.
Once debate is brought to a close, Senators can move forward with consideration of the measure at hand, amendments, or even final votes.
The problem?
As the country and Congress has grown more partisan, the filibuster has become a key weapon in what is often described as a procedural arms race in the Senate.
Year by year, more and more Senators threaten to wage filibusters to block legislation.
Overcoming filibusters can take days, if not weeks.
Even without a Senator holding the floor, filibusters have forced Senators into all-night and weekend votes to advance legislation, as happened during passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Filibusters, and the prospect of filibusters, shape much of the way in which the Senate does its work.
It takes 51 votes to change the Senate rules, a tall order at most times, but especially in the now evenly split 50-50 Senate.
Democrats hold a slim majority because Kamala Harris can break the tie.
But Senators have changed the filibuster rules before, fed up with the Republican stonewalling Obama, Obama's executive and judicial branch nominees, Democrats led by then-Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, changed the rules to set a simple 51-vote threshold for confirming people in those positions.
Republicans under McConnell of Kentucky went a step further, eliminating the filibuster for four Supreme Court nominees, which allowed Donald Trump's three high court justices to be confirmed.
While several Democrats and advocacy groups call for ridding the Senate of the filibuster on legislation, there does not appear to be enough support from Democratic Senators at this time to do so.
Okay, why this matters?
Well, we gotta talk about Brett Kavanaugh.
Mitch McConnell said the Democrats will regret changing these rules, and thus they were able to get three Supreme Court justices with a simple majority.
The filibuster makes sense.
It forces compromise.
Democrats want to get rid of it because it will give them tremendous power when it comes to legislation.
They probably won't be able to because of people like Joe Manchin, a Democrat who is rather conservative and probably doesn't want to make a move that bold because West Virginia might revolt against him.
However, mind you, West Virginia will probably just vote him out.
I think his term is up in 2024 or something, so he's going to be in for some time by then.
The hyperpolarization may result in him losing anyway, so we'll see what he does.
However, with Brett Kavanaugh being confirmed with a simple majority, you now have rage in an attempt to remove him.
Another bold and brazen power grab may be underway.
They're not going to pack the course necessarily, they may just get rid of those who they oppose.
The Nation reports, while most Democrats seem resigned to Kavanaugh's presence on the Supreme Court, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse is pushing to keep the case against him alive.
The Nation says, and mind you, The Nation is a left publication, Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee love to talk about Brett Kavanaugh.
Just a few weeks back, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley cited a Biden nominee's outrage over Kavanaugh to justify his disapproval of her nomination.
A few months before that, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham explained his decision to back Amy Coney Barrett's hasty confirmation as retribution for the way Democrats treated Kavanaugh.
And you can bet that Republicans will put Kavanaugh front and center should Biden ever get to nominate a Supreme Court justice.
You would think Republicans would shy away from reminding Americans that their party locked arms and pushed an alleged attempted, I'll call him an abuser, onto the Supreme Court.
Those allegations are ridiculous, if you look at the news.
The things they claimed had no merit, no evidence, and Christine Blasey Ford couldn't even remember how she got to the places in question, how she left from them, from these places.
And the people who are said to be at these parties where this thing went down could not even remember what had happened nor they could recall any such event.
It was highly dubious to say the least.
They go on to say, This is amazing.
They're proud to defend a man who wears his contempt for others on his face.
Kavanaugh is the closest thing they have to a martyr.
He's a white man who was almost held accountable for his actions.
More like they made things up and they will burn him to the ground figuratively.
They say, in contrast, the Democrats seem determined to memory hole the Kavanaugh saga.
In 2018, Nancy Pelosi promised there would be an investigation of Kavanaugh should Democrats take back the House in 2018.
But while Democrats did take back that body, no investigation has happened, no hearings have taken place, and no impeachment charges have been submitted.
Democrats have treated Kavanaugh as an immutable fact of life until now that is.
I'd like to point out something called the Kavanaugh effect.
Many Republicans believe that Republicans took more seats in the Senate because of the outrage at the mistreatment of Brett Kavanaugh.
The Nation says, last week, Sheldon Whitehouse, Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, and apparently one of the only Senators willing to remember what Republicans did while they were in power, wrote a letter calling on newly confirmed Attorney General Merrick Garland to look into the FBI's handling of the allegations against Kavanaugh.
He asked Garland to determine whether the FBI conducted a fake investigation rather than a sincere, thorough, and professional one.
As evidence for the failures of the investigation, White House points out holes in the FBI's process that are well known to those of us who have refused to let Kavanaugh get away with it.
People and law firms who tried in vain to bring information about Kavanaugh to the Bureau but couldn't find an agent willing to listen, a tips line that the FBI never seemed to respond to or follow up on, and repeated stonewalling by FBI Director Chris Wray in front of Congressional Oversight Committees about the investigation.
Also, the agency failed to follow up on other allegations against Kavanaugh that in White House's words required their own investigation.
Let me put it simply for all of you that are listening.
They're currently trying to remove a sitting member of Congress, and they're also trying to remove a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
That's how they'll gain power.
Brazen and obvious power grabs, in any way possible.
At a time when we are more divided than ever, I have to say this is very, very troubling.
They say White House called on Garland directly, not because of Garland's own contentious history with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, but because Garland is now Wray's boss.
Yes, the Department of Justice was run by Jeff Sessions during the critical time that Kavanaugh should have been investigated, but the deeper problem was that the investigation was run by Wray.
Who, as I pointed out back during his confirmation hearing, was a classmate of Kavanaugh's at Yale Law School, and being a fellow conservative, ran in the same extracurricular circles, including membership in the Federalist Society.
There is simply no reason to think that Wray conducted a thorough investigation of his old classmate, especially since Wray himself admitted in open testimony that Donald Trump's White House limited the investigation into Kavanaugh.
Do you think they'll stop here, my friends?
Do you think it will just be with Kavanaugh?
Maybe they won't succeed.
Fine.
Maybe it's too much too soon and too obvious.
Perhaps.
But they're certainly pushing.
They're certainly trying.
They want the power and they will get it.
I think it's really important that we take a look at the 1.9 trillion dollar bailout bill.
Sorry, stimulus package.
These blue states destroyed their economies with extreme draconian lockdowns that defied science.
You take a look at certain states that they did have problems, but it seems like the lockdowns ultimately may have caused more trouble than they were worth.
A few important points that were brought up.
were that people were still spreading COVID inside, that people were more likely to be in proximity with those who were essential workers and could be contracting the COVID.
And, I mean, these are very, very important things to consider when you also weigh in the fact that we were destroying our economy.
You take a look at what Cuomo and other governors did, putting sick patients into nursing homes, and many people would start to wonder why they decided to take the actions that they did.
Perhaps they knew that they would be held responsible for anyone who lost their lives, and so they took the harshest possible course of action.
In Republican states where they defied this, even now they're admitting Ron DeSantis in Florida was probably right, because their COVID death rate is, I believe, around 8% below the national average, and Florida has reopened.
Perhaps now what we're seeing is this major bailout in response to failed COVID policies.
The New York Post says, President Joe Biden's blue state bailout, which is expected to sign Friday, is a monstrosity so large it leaves America's states with a surplus after one of the costliest pandemics in history.
The numbers boggle the mind.
$195 billion goes to states with no strings attached.
Except, of course, to ban tax cuts.
There's $130 billion for reopening K-12 schools, with no requirement they reopen.
Another $25 billion for public housing, and $20 billion for public transit.
All in all, America's states and cities are seeing a direct windfall north of half a trillion dollars.
State and local governments already collected more dollars in 2020 than at any time in American history with federal aid.
States ended the year in a surplus.
In 21 states, tax receipts actually grew year on year.
AP reports that California is against swimming in money.
Not that that has stopped Governor Gavin Newsom from crying poverty.
Some states have seen red, especially those dependent on energy and mining revenue, like Alaska.
Declining tourism hurt Florida's budget to the tune of $2 billion, but the state's low unemployment means it will miss out on $2 billion in Biden bucks it would otherwise get if aid were simply allocated based on population.
Nine of the ten states with the lowest unemployment in America are led by Republican governors, and they are the ones punished under the relief bills formula.
I like the idea of COVID relief, but it seems like this is just bailing out failed policy from Democrats.
It's obvious.
Judge them how you want to judge them.
Maybe they were just bad leaders, maybe they screwed up.
In the end, Democrats have won the House, narrowly.
They have taken the Senate, very, very barely.
Technically, they didn't, but they had the tiebreaker.
Now they're making moves to gain power in several ways.
They're trying to remove a sitting member of Congress, a Republican.
They're trying to cause problems or in some way plant the seeds that could end Brett Kavanaugh's seat in the Supreme Court.
And now they're giving themselves money from the federal coffers.
There it is.
We knew that they would move quickly.
We knew that they would try and gain power.
I didn't think it was going to happen so quickly.
What I find fascinating is that Republicans don't have the media apparatus to protect them.
There are certainly some conservative news outlets, but for the most part, Republicans don't do anything anyway.
They basically sit on their hands and just complain about Democrats.
Democrats, on the other hand, are accusing Republicans of trying to steal power with Brett Kavanaugh, even though he was legitimately nominated and they made up crazy stories about him.
The Democrats are the ones claiming the Republicans are the bad guys who are on the offense, when in reality, Republicans don't fight for anything with a simple fact.
Democrats can demand all day and night, single-payer and universal health care.
Republicans don't demand anything.
What do they demand?
Are the Republicans demanding universal gun ownership?
unidentified
No.
tim pool
They don't demand anything like that, and that one's actually in the Constitution.
Republicans sit around and complain about Democrats and tell them to stop.
And Democrats push forward.
Republicans right now are going to be Democrats identically in 10 years.
Take a look at where Republicans were 10 years ago, and the way I describe it is, the Democrats are a very angry and large wolf on a leash.
The Republicans are holding that leash, and the wolf is pulling further and further left every single day, dragging the Republicans behind them.
In ten years, Republicans will be exactly where Democrats are today.
Case in point, Donald Trump's a fairly liberal individual.
Even Vox.com called him a moderate, because Republican Party became much more moderate and moved slightly to the left.
Democrats have, you know, just veered off ridiculously to the far left, and they want to claim, many of these people, that it's actually the Republicans who are far right.
And it's just not true.
They try and call people like me conservative.
But when I took the political compass test, I am actually very far-left libertarian.
Further left than I've ever been, basically.
Calls me a social libertarian.
And when I take these other values tests, it says I'm a progressive.
Based on most policy positions, I would be.
But when you look at how the narrative runs in the culture war, the Overton window has shifted so far to the left, they call me right-wing.
That to me is crazy.
I mean, I'm in favor of like tons of universal government programs including universal health care.
I think my position is just basically nuanced because I don't know how you implement it and that's why I'm kind of lukewarm on how we pass legislation to do so.
But my ideal situation would be universal health care.
They call that right wing.
Today, that is called right-wing, no joke.
That's how you know there's basically an Overton window over the left quadrant, and that's it.
Even based on that standard, I'm still center-left, because I'm actually further left of the center than left is.
This is what's happening right now.
The establishment, the cultural institutions are pushing everything further and further left.
They're trying to seize power and that's where we will end up.
There's not going to be a hard return to conservatism or republicanism because even the Republican Party is being pulled left.
It's only a matter of time before Republicans agree with most of these things because the Republican Party doesn't do anything.
And that's basically why most of my videos are pointing at Democrats.
They're on offense.
They're literally trying to remove a sitting member of Congress and then claim that they have a right to do it.
And Trump was wrong.
Brilliant.
They really don't care about optics.
They care about power.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Check it out.
It's a live show.
We take your comments live and we talk.
We will read your comments on that show.
So I hope to see you there at 8 p.m.
And thanks for hanging out.
The United Auto Workers Union is shocked, outraged, that Ford is going to be moving new vehicle production from Ohio to Mexico.
The story says it's an accusation.
Automaker says it's committed to the Ohio factory, but conditions have changed since the last UAW contract.
My friends, this is called something blowing up in your face.
You know why?
Because it was the United Auto Workers Union that backed Democrat Joe Biden for president.
And it was Donald Trump who was holding back the floodgates.
It was Donald Trump who was telling the auto industry, you gotta bring the jobs back to America.
What's the point of being in a union if this is what you get?
When your union leadership uses the power that you give them to endorse a guy who is going to quite literally take your job away.
Look, I'm not a Luddite.
I recognize that we can't just keep subsidizing, in a sense, socially and fiscally, industries that need to change.
But I also recognize that people still buy cars and cars are changing.
Ford is actually producing electric vehicles.
There's a new evolution with smart cars and, well, cars that are electric or hydrogen fuel cell.
And that means the auto industry could absolutely operate here in the U.S.
Here's the problem.
It is expensive.
You see, unions ask for a lot.
Unions say, we want a guaranteed wage.
We want healthcare.
We want benefits.
We want certain perks.
And these companies are like, dude, if we could go to Mexico, we can pay everybody dirt.
And then y'all are left holding the bag.
Well, now that Trump is out of the way, thanks to the United Auto Workers as well as the Pipefitters Union, Now these companies have a clear path.
You see, it was Donald Trump that was threatening them with massive tariffs, and it was year over year.
Trump kept saying, you do this, no one will ever buy your car again.
It's amazing.
All these things they said about Trump, that he only cared about himself, that he was bigoted, and it sure looks like Donald Trump cared a whole lot about the American people, and not so much the profits of multinational corporations.
It's not just about the UAW.
It's also about the pipefitters union.
Pipefitting union backs Biden despite his vow to stop the Keystone XL pipeline.
Now we have from Fox Business, just 15 hours ago, Biden admin to be sued by red states over revocation of Keystone XL permit.
Suit argues president lacks the authority.
So you mean to tell me you're in a union, pipefitters union, and Joe Biden's like, I'm gonna end your jobs!
Listen up, we're gonna ban fracking and federal land, shut down Keystone Pipeline, and you're going like, that's exactly what I want considering I work on the Keystone Pipeline.
Now your job is gone.
Now listen, I'm not here to stand for the Keystone Pipeline.
There's a lot of arguments about it.
There's questions over whether or not it is more environmentally friendly than freight transfer of petroleum or crude oil.
I don't know.
That's why I'm not focusing on the ecology aspect of this or, you know, the environmentalism.
More so, the workers, the working class, the laborers who are looking to have their jobs and their rights protected.
Yet for some reason, all y'all in those unions, you stood by for this stuff?
You stood by when they told you they would destroy your life, your livelihood, your income?
Look man, I'm sure a lot of people stood up, spoke out.
I'm sure a lot of people quit, refused.
And it was a rockin' hard place.
Either you quit your job or you lose your job.
Jeez, you know what I'd have done?
I'd have quit my job.
I would have said the moment, the moment they said they were endorsing Biden, when he was telling you he was going to destroy your life.
I would have been like, nah.
I would have stood up and said, nah.
This is why I'm not a fan of unions.
It's really funny because when it comes to arguments about unions, I often hear from these leftists, why wouldn't a worker want to be in a union?
unidentified
Blah blah blah.
tim pool
Apparently these people have never been in unions.
Gravel Institute tweeted something about this.
They're trying to be like a left-wing PragerU.
I respect them for some things.
They make some pretty good videos that I agree with, but I think they got to go a bit more in depth, be a little less snarky.
But the Gravel Institute said something about unions, you know, everybody should be in a union.
Every job should have a union.
I said, should people have a right to choose to join a union?
They effectively said, no.
Why would I sign away my right to negotiate my power to someone I don't know or trust?
Why should I allow them to do that by force?
Look man, you want to join a union?
Join a union, that's fine.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who have no problem losing their jobs in Ohio or the Keystone Pipeline or probably a lot of jobs elsewhere.
I'm sure they're happy.
And I mean it.
There's probably some people going like, well, you know, them's the breaks, but at least our president's not tweeting mean things.
Cause people really, I really mean that.
People really hated Trump.
I'll tell you this though.
I think most of these people who are going to be losing their jobs are probably freaking out, sweating bullets.
Oh no, what am I going to do?
I mean, we're in a pandemic still, the lockdown in many blue states still, and they're telling you now, you're going to lose your job.
So why did you join that union and what benefit do you get?
I see these lefties talking about unions.
Young people.
Never been in one.
I've been in two different, I think I've been in two different unions.
Maybe three.
Two different unions.
They didn't do anything for me.
They extracted my value and took away my ability to negotiate on my own behalf.
It was a nightmare.
Working for a company where they would tell me to shut up and that if I wanted anything to be done, it would come up in negotiations later.
Nah, nah, nah.
I'm an employee.
I have a right to complain about things.
When there was something I would see that was wrong, they'd be like, get your union rep.
Are you kidding me, dude?
If there was something that I wanted... Hey, how about... Get your union rep, we don't talk to you.
So I'm like, you know what?
If that's your jam, fine.
It's not my jam.
I don't want to be in that situation.
I wanted to be able to go to my boss and say, here's what I expect.
And when they say no, I say, appreciate your time, have a nice day.
Your business, you do what you want, here's my expectation.
With the union contract, they just kept saying no, no, no, no, no, never would happen.
And what would the union do for me?
Nothing.
Nothing.
I suppose, though, the argument from the left is that those who don't have the ability to negotiate have that collective power.
But what happens when the union sells you out and you lose your job?
Sorry, now you got no power.
These people, you reap what you sow.
Here's the story from the Wall Street Journal.
They say, The United Auto Workers Union is taking aim at Ford Motor Company over plans for a factory in Ohio, criticizing the car company for moving vehicle production intended for the facility to Mexico.
A lot of people might not lose their jobs, but this may result in some people losing their jobs.
I want to stress a point.
I think collective bargaining is fantastic.
I think seeing all the workers rise up, raise their fist and say no to their boss.
Fantastic.
If you work for a factory and all the workers, you know, cross their arms and tell the boss, we want a raise or we walk.
That's fantastic.
This structured union system with laws that control and restrict what you can or can't do.
I don't like.
I like the idea of people coming together.
But the way, I gotta tell you man, if you've been in a union, you might know what I'm talking about.
Now there are a lot of union democrat guys who are probably in favor of the union.
Look, we got a pay raise because of the union contracts, we got time off, we got the ability to swap schedules with other employees freely amongst ourselves.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who benefited from this.
But I ask you now.
For those of you who have lost your jobs, what's your opinion?
Look, if you like unions, you're free to do so.
Me?
It's just not for me.
Not for me.
This story right now is about how the unions basically sold out their members by endorsing Biden.
They say UAW Vice President Gerald Kerriam In a letter to members Friday, the company told the union it was relocating manufacturing of a next-generation vehicle to Mexico without a clear explanation.
Mr. Kerriam said in making this move, Ford is failing to live up to a commitment it made to the factory during the last round of contract talks.
A copy of the letter was provided to the Wall Street Journal Wednesday.
Fat load of good your union did you!
When the union contract, when your negotiation, when Ford just says, oh by the way, Screw yourself.
And they, and they, well, things have changed.
You know what changed?
Donald Trump isn't president anymore.
That's what changed.
During labor negotiations in 2019, Ford pledged to spend $900 million in the factory, in part to retool for a new model it would start building in 2023.
Quote, We expect the company to honor its contractual commitments to this membership, and when it fails to do so, we will take action, Mr. Carrion wrote in the letter of Ford.
Ford said in a statement Wednesday that it is committed to the factory and highlighted recent investments in U.S.
manufacturing.
In a separate letter to employees, the Ohio plant manager Jason Moore said conditions have changed since the last UAW contract was negotiated and pointed to other investments the company has made at the factory, including hiring more than 100 workers to increase pickup truck production.
So let's be clear here.
They added employees.
It may not be the case that they all lose their jobs, but certainly there's going to be a detriment to the union, hence they're upset about it.
They say Mr. Moore's letter didn't reference plans to move a future vehicle to a different factory.
A Ford spokeswoman declined to comment on the UAW's statement that the company has redirected the vehicle to Mexico.
Research firm Auto Forecast Solutions expects Ford to begin production in 2023 of two electric sport utility vehicles at its factory in Cajotlan, Mexico.
Those vehicles previously had been earmarked for the Ohio plant, said Sam Fiorani, the firm's vice president of global vehicle forecasting.
A Ford spokeswoman declined to comment.
Let me show you something.
First, April 21st, 2020, United Auto Workers Union backs Democrat Biden for president.
The roughly 400,000-member union says in a statement Tuesday that the nation needs stable leadership with less acrimony and more balance to the rights and protections of working Americans.
That's right, more protections and rights of the working Americans.
Joe Biden, of course, was always going to be that guy.
Donald Trump was not perfect, he was not a saint.
This is never about just standing for Trump.
Trump did a lot of dumb things and hired a lot of stupid people.
He wasn't the worst when it came to foreign policy, he was actually pretty good when it came to domestic worker policy, as exemplified in this story right here, fromthestreet.com.
GM.
Ford.
Slump.
Automakers rattled as Trump threatens tariffs on Mexico imports.
President Donald Trump's move to slap tariffs on goods imported from Mexico into the United States hammered the stocks of automakers Friday as investors counted the cost of price increases on one of the world's biggest car production markets.
They say, Trump's announcement on Mexican tariffs, first announced through his Twitter account late Thursday, was put in place to address what he has described as a wave of illegal immigration from Central America.
Quote, If the illegal migration crisis is alleviated through effective actions taken by Mexico to be determined in our sole discretion and judgment, the tariffs will be removed, Trump said in a statement.
President Trump, quote, President Trump, social problems are not resolved with taxes or coercive measures, responded Mexican President Andre Manuel Lopez Obrador via his official Twitter account.
You know we are fulfilling our responsibility to stop migrants moving through our country as much as possible and without violating human rights.
Trump did this in this particular instance, May 31st, 2019, because of the migrant caravan crisis.
Many people will give credit to Trump saying, The actions he took resulted in a massive decline in illegal immigration, the caravans.
Excuse me, now under Biden, we are seeing everything get a little bit worse.
But Donald Trump's threat to put tariffs on Mexico imports rattled the auto industry.
And they knew there was a risk under Trump, be it because of illegal immigration or because he was protecting union workers, that if they started production in Mexico, They would see a massive loss of profit, or quite honestly, people might not even want to buy their vehicles.
I bring you now back to 2016.
For those that aren't familiar, Michael Moore says Trump is a human Molotov cocktail supporters get to throw.
People are upset, they're angry at the system, and they see Trump.
Not so much they agree with him, but they see him as the human Molotov cocktail that they get to toss into the system with Brexit and blow it up.
The Fahrenheit 9-11 director explained that Trump's ideologies don't fall under capitalism, socialism, or even democracy.
He says his ideology is called Donald J. Trump.
He believes in Donald J. Trump.
If it's good for him, it's a good thing.
Sure.
Now let's take a look at this.
Moore said that Trump's success in the race so far comes from his willingness to, quote, say anything to get elected.
For example, the director said Trump's threat to slap Ford with tariff for cars manufactured in Mexico is music to the ears of the working class of Michigan and Wisconsin and Ohio.
Moore, who lives in Michigan, said he's been trying to explain to people in his state that Trump's conning them.
Really?
He was conning them?
Under Trump, he did still continue to threaten tariffs.
Auto manufacturing plants did move back to Michigan.
Ford pledged in negotiations to invest, what was it, $900 million into this plant and do new car production.
The moment Trump is gone, it's not even been two months, the seat did not even go cold, or I should say the seat's not even warmed yet.
And already, these plants are saying, we good!
There's profits to be made, baby!
We want to maximize the amount we can extract and put in our pockets, and that means, for the auto manufacturers, and for the union workers, be it pipelines, be it whatever, it is better for these companies to have cheap Mexican labor, with no human rights, with no wage guarantees, with no healthcare, relative to the United States, I'm saying, I'm sure they have some guarantees, Then think about it this way.
If they're going to sell a car in the U.S.
for, I don't know, $20,000, $25,000, and they got to pay somebody, you know, $15 to $30 an hour to work in that plant.
In Mexico, they can do it for $5.
How many dollars per hour are they going to save with all of these thousands of employees?
I mean, it's going to be hefty.
Now, I think Ford recognizes they can't just shut the plant down, although I'm sure they would very much like to.
There's still cost-effectiveness to consider, and it's just about weighing the cost and the benefit and the risk.
The Ohio factory probably will still be of benefit to them.
They're making pickup trucks, so there you go.
They're gonna bring on employees to do that.
But what happens in a few years?
It's a stopgap, you see?
They're telling these people in Ohio, don't worry, we're going to do pickup truck production.
What happens when Ford shifts their production line?
What happens when they start saying we need electric vehicles?
Oh, I'm sorry, that new plant we're setting up in Mexico, that shift?
Well, that's where we're producing these electric vehicles.
So it makes more sense to build our electric trucks at a facility that already handles electric vehicles.
Sorry, Ohio.
We're shutting you down because what you make is obsolete.
Then you're going to have everyone scream about climate change and emissions, and these union workers will be left holding the bag.
They're going to say, you just want to make gas guzzling, carbon emission vehicles.
You guys are wrong.
Then you won't have a job anymore.
Then your town will start falling apart.
There will be no money circulating through your economy.
And there you go.
That's why I think local currencies are interesting, because the way we're moving now, I mean, this big plant leaves, that town just basically falls apart, these cities.
But let's talk about what happened with the pipe-fitting union.
Pipe-fitting union backed Biden, and now Biden is being, his admin is being sued, because they're arguing he didn't have the authority to do it in the first place.
It's interesting.
Once again, the argument is these union jobs have to go because of carbon emissions.
It seems like climate change has been the main, the biggest motivating factor for a lot of these policies.
I'll tell you this, look, I think climate change is a very serious problem.
I think we pollute way too much.
I don't care if it's carbon emissions.
I don't care if it's garbage in the ocean.
Human beings.
I think the U.S.
does a pretty good job in slowly making things better.
China ain't doing it.
Other countries aren't doing it.
And that's not an excuse for us to keep doing it.
It's a problem that needs to be solved.
And I gotta be honest, I don't know how you solve it.
I don't.
But we can see what the excuse is for taking away these union jobs.
With the Keystone Pipeline, it's like, oh, it's oil, it's oil spills, it's native land, you can't do it.
They're still going to transport the oil by freight.
They're not stopping the transport of oil.
So why shut down the pipeline?
Perhaps, you want to say it's a property rights violation.
The land on which they were building the Keystone XL was Native American land.
Hey man, I'm all about them property rights.
If that's true, and they're violating the rights of the land owners, or the people who have rightfully claimed that land, alright, I'm all about it.
Then you better get those permits, you better get that negotiation done.
If they don't do it... Now, I don't know the veracity, I don't think this has been... I actually think that the Keystone won in court.
So the question is, outside of that argument, which seems to be the only plausible argument, why shut down Keystone?
Even Canada was mad, like, threatening to sue.
If Keystone is going to be transferring oil, and there are spills, but it's less spills or comparable to freight, then in the end, at least you're not using freight, which produces pollution, to transport the oil.
Is the only argument they really have is about land rights?
I think so.
And I think the reason is obvious.
Because Keystone probably makes sense in many capacities.
The demand for oil exists.
It's going to keep existing.
So in the end, what ends up happening?
Keystone gets shut down.
Biden vowed to shut it down.
It's a very popular idea on the left.
But there's an interesting idea that people need to consider.
I was talking to Cassandra Fairbanks on the IRL podcast about war.
And I said, how can we, as the United States, just sit back while China commits these atrocities?
And she said, tons of countries are committing atrocities.
We don't talk about those.
And I said, that's actually a really good point.
She said, tariffs, shutting down trade, it's going to lead to war, and we don't want war, and there's maybe nothing we can do about what China is doing.
I'm like, that's a scary point.
Maybe outside of China for sure, but inside of China, what do we do?
The point being made here is, aren't there other things going on of comparable problem?
Why are we so focused on this one thing?
And I thought, it's actually a really interesting idea.
Is there a reason why we're so hyper-focused on Keystone?
Is there a reason why we're so hyper-focused on climate change?
There are certainly other problems affecting the world, but it's what the media basically says.
Now, you have a lot of people who are going to reap the rewards of paying into a union that supported a president that would take their jobs away So be it.
That union will lose membership.
They will lose employees.
They're freaking out about it.
So what?
It's what you wanted.
You expect me to stand up now and defend you when you advocated for this?
I'm not gonna do it.
Not a union worker who didn't agree with it.
I got your back to the best of my abilities.
It's not saying much.
I'm just here saying, hey, you know, good luck, I suppose.
But I'll tell you this.
As much as I would like to get the back of those union workers who lost their jobs, If you choose to be in a union, and that means working these jobs, because technically you don't have a choice, and you know they're taking your money, and you know your money is empowering these people who would stab you in the back at a moment's notice, too bad.
Too bad.
You know why?
When that union guy came out and said, I'm gonna endorse Biden, and how many of these union workers were Trump supporters?
Maybe not all of them, maybe just enough.
Imagine if all of them said, then we quit now.
We're quitting now before it's too late.
Imagine if they lost 10, 20, 30,000 union members after making that announcement.
Oh, they'd panic.
They would rewind.
They would say, no, no, no, we're losing money!
They'd panic.
That's not what happened though.
The union worker said, I don't know, whatever, I'm on my own business, and now you lose your job anyway, and now they're panicking, but it's too late now!
People don't think for the future.
They don't plan for the future.
Short-term gains.
The orange man was bad.
Tweeted nasty things.
We need real leadership.
Real leadership was promising to shut down your job, dude.
But you know what, man?
unidentified
Look.
tim pool
There you go.
I think it's funny the left claims to be in favor of the unions, but they're also going to be celebrating this.
The cars that are being made by Ford, they're going to keep making them, they're not stopping, so the pollution will still exist.
I don't know what the benefit the left sees they're getting from a Biden presidency other than union jobs being destroyed, but I guess they're not the party of working class, of unions.
So there you go.
The Democrats have become the party of constructivists and establishment elite's corporate power, and that's been true for some time.
So, in the end, what should I say?
You reap what you sow?
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
My friends, I need you all to pour one out for our friends over at CNN who are, well, assuredly facing layoffs in the near future as their ratings plummet.
Fox News reports CNN hemorrhaging viewers since Trump left office, down nearly 50% in key measurables.
Liberal Network has lost 47% of primetime audience among the 25 to 54 demographic most important to advertisers.
Now, I'm sure a lot of people are gloating.
Watching CNN struggle and flail probably makes people feel good, because CNN does mostly just lies.
But it's going to get dark, because in their desperation, CNN is thrashing about, desperately trying to get anything they can.
With one of the funniest articles I've ever seen, when Brian Stelter of CNN tried claiming, Tucker Carlson is the new Donald Trump.
Buddy, Brian, you can't be so on the nose with this stuff.
We all know you need a villain in order to drum up your ratings.
We know you're demagogues and that Trump has to be the villain for which you can unify around.
But guess what?
It's gone.
There is no more nucleus.
Tucker Carlson will not fill that role because Tucker does not have that much power.
What can Tucker Carlson do?
Help sell pillows?
Sure, I guess.
And you can complain that he has the highest rated cable show, or did for a while, and that he reaches a lot of people, but so what?
Combined, all the other networks reach way more.
Sorry, it's just not that big of a deal.
But they're desperate.
It's not going to work out well for them.
In the end, they just look like crazy people.
I want to show you what CNN's doing.
Look at this.
Brian Stelter writes, Newsmax's post-election ratings bonanza is over.
What now?
Look who's talking, dude.
Everybody's ratings are down.
We'll read about their ratings, but the first thing I want to do is show you this.
This is a tweet from Glenn Greenwald.
I tweeted it as an image basically because someone sent it to me and I didn't feel like digging through Glenn's profile to find it, but Glenn, this is a fantastic tweet.
You are a very smart man.
I don't always see eye-to-eye with Glenn.
I've been critical of some of his reporting in the past, but this I respect.
Glenn says, If you think the real power centers in the U.S.
are the Proud Boys, 4chan, and Boogaloos, rather than the CIA, FBI, NSA, Wall Street, and Silicon Valley, and spend most of your time battling the former while serving the latter as stenographers, your journalism is definitely... ish.
That's right.
That's true.
And that's one of the reasons they're hemorrhaging viewers.
Donald Trump, it made sense to criticize.
And as much as I thought he wasn't the core power center, the establishment, the media narrative, all that stuff, they have way more power than Donald Trump.
Politics is downstream from culture.
I still understood why they criticized the guy so heavily.
He was literally the President of the United States.
Yeah, he's gone now.
What have you got?
People were saying, like, dude, Trump is the establishment, he's the president.
I'm like, yeah, he's the president, but he's struggling.
Don't get me wrong, I agree, he does have power.
Okay, let's criticize that power.
Now that he's gone, why complain about Tucker Carlson?
Oh, he gets a few million views per night?
So what?
Combined, the networks are getting way more.
Now the ratings are down, and CNN can only go after independent journalists.
They can go after Newsmax.
Let me show you, I show you what Brian Seltzer says.
Let me read a little bit.
Brian says, Newsmax TV gained a lot of attention last fall when disaffected Fox News fans flocked to the channel en masse.
By one measure comparing Newsmax's peak week in mid-November to a low point at the end of February, Newsmax's audience has lost more than half of its audience, Marissa Sarnoff wrote for Mediaite last week.
A Newsmax representative said those figures were misleading, and noted that all cable news viewership has declined since the election.
That's true.
News ratings rise and fall like tides.
But what Newsmax experienced was more like a flash flood, followed by a dry spell.
As Politico media critic Jack Schafer recently commented on Twitter, the story is not just the decline of Newsmax, but its wild spike and subsequent decline.
No.
That's not the news story.
That makes no sense.
Newsmax viewership spiked because people were first discovering Newsmax.
It's going down along with literally everyone else.
So when they say, yes, but now they're only at half of their viewership, look who's talking, CNN!
What did Don Lemon lose, like nearly 40% of his audience?
So what's the point you're trying to make?
Newsmax fires back.
CNN ratings collapse, but only Newsmax is mentioned.
They say, Last night, CNN's Brian Stelter contacted us about Newsmax's ratings decline for a quote for my CNN newsletter.
Stelter contacted Newsmax at 9 p.m.
on Wednesday night and said he would give us just one hour to respond, meaning a 10 p.m.
deadline.
Without Newsmax's response, CNN's Stelter email newsletter headlined Newsmax's rise and fall, noted that Newsmax TV gained a lot of attention last fall, and then fell right.
Stelter chalked up his Newsmax's falling story to his theory that Newsmax is no longer getting a pro-Trump big lie ratings boost.
Biden is a comparatively tame story.
As it turns out, Biden is also a very tame story for CNN as well, which has seen its own ratings collapse in recent weeks.
Early Wednesday morning, Newsmax sent Stelter the following response.
Only CNN would do a story on Newsmax's drop in ratings when its own Nielsen total day impressions fell by 45% last week compared to the week before and the week after the election.
And Brian Stelter's own quote reliable sources show fell by 44% over the same period with, more recently, his show having lost nearly 1 million viewers since January of this year.
I'm gonna stop right there.
Cable TV News.
Ah, it's kind of garbage.
Brian, we can see you're desperate.
Coming out and saying Tucker Carlson is the new Donald Trump, it's just way too obvious.
And let me tell you all, I'm proud of something.
The TimCast IRL podcast, our ratings are up.
Our viewership is up.
No, no, don't get me wrong.
With some of the live shows, we were getting more viewers at night.
But overall, viewership has just gone up.
Because we have a better media strategy, and let's be real, Well...
I think, actually, Brian Stelter's around the same age as me, but he exists in an archaic system, CNN, and he pushes garbage and lies.
It's true.
If CNN wanted to be honest, they wouldn't write a story about Newsmax, post-election ratings bananas are collapsing, and then just passively mentioning, well, yes, you know, everybody's losing ratings.
They'd talk about all their ratings going down.
On this channel, viewership has gone down a little bit.
Actually, for the most part, my segment seemed to be doing fairly well on this channel.
Subscriber growth is stagnant a little bit, and I started doing less content on purpose, because I'm trying to grow the business in other ways.
Over at YouTube.com slash TimCast, my main channel, viewership is down about half.
Same as everybody else.
But TimCast IRL is growing, and it may be that viewership is going down simply because I'm putting more focus into TimCast IRL and growing that area of the business.
CNN, on the other hand, CNN and cable news in general, they're all failing.
I'm gonna be honest with you.
I'm gonna tell you my views are down, my views are up, and I'm just gonna be completely honest.
CNN is trying to frame things in an effort to create a boogeyman and they're trying to grift.
Let me tell you the difference between a grifter and someone who's actually just giving you their real opinions.
CNN will ignore the fact that they're in freefall and try and make it seem like it's all about Newsmax.
That's grifting.
Newsmax literally tells you, and I'm not a big fan of Newsmax, guys.
Not a big fan, okay?
And they are not Newsguard certified.
You know what that means.
But Newsmax still, amazingly, will tell you their ratings are down.
And so are CNN's.
Isn't that relevant to the conversation?
Now you can take a look at how CNN responds in two ways.
Tucker Carlson is the new Donald Trump, Brian Stelter says.
Sure, spare me.
Then we have this.
Tom Elliott tweets, the campaign against independent journalism via CNN.
You see, many people are leaving their jobs at news outlets to join Substack.
It's effectively like YouTube, but for writing stuff.
People can write a newsletter, they can write articles under their own followership, And they can charge money to do it.
This has made several writers particularly well-off.
Many prominent personalities started writing long-form stories and have done amazing jobs of it.
That's why I'm always shouting out Glenn Greenwald, Matt Taibbi, and Michael Tracy, because I read their stuff and it's really good.
Not perfect, but really good.
Shout out to Glenn Greenwald calling this stuff out, calling out the corporate establishment and the Democrats.
Matt Taibbi.
He wrote about the BS with Ukraine and Joe Biden.
Excellent journalism.
Michael Tracy.
Traveled around the country, actually going to small towns where the riots had taken place and the media overlooked it.
Now, I believe he recently launched a sub stack, but that's the kind of writing I actually respect and like.
Maybe I'm just biased, or maybe there's something about these writers who may be left-leaning but are being honest.
Maybe it's something about that that people want.
Well, Brian Stelter is writing out against it and calling it the Substack Backlash, the campaign against independent journalism.
I'm going to read that for you, but let's first talk about the grift.
How Brian Stelter scams Ignorant people in order to make money.
And the reason I say that he's a scammer, in my opinion, he's a BS artist.
Okay, I'll take back the scammer point.
That might be a more definitive statement.
I'll say this.
I think, in my personal opinion, that Brian Seltzer is a grifter.
What is a grifter?
You'll hear it a lot from a lot of people.
I'm not a big fan of it because I think people are entitled to their opinions.
But a grifter is someone who fakes an opinion in an effort to get views and make money.
A lot of people will accuse me of being a grifter.
Those people don't actually watch my show.
To be fair, I only somewhat watch Brian Stelter's show, so by all means, maybe I get some things wrong.
But that's why I will focus specifically on this article about what Brian Stelter is saying about Tucker Carlson.
Brian Stelter on Twitter posted this segment, saying Tucker is the new Donald Trump, and even Frank Luntz, who was like a never-Trumper Republican pollster, said, why don't you focus on the issues?
Yeah, I don't care all that much about Brian Stelter as a person, but he does represent CNN as their media reporter.
As a grifter, he won't write an article saying, we are all suffering a ratings drop.
He will target the right.
Which is why I showed you the tweet from Glenn Greenwald.
If you think Newsmax is the power center in this country, yeah, sorry, your journalism is trash.
I wouldn't call it journalism.
If you think CNN has no power, you're also incorrect.
CNN and Newsmax contribute to a landscape.
They're both worthy of criticism, and it's worth pointing out both have seen their ratings decline.
That's it.
Now, this video obviously is about CNN, but within it, I will make sure to tell you all of these other things.
Everybody's ratings have dropped.
I think Tucker saw the smallest drop, only around 4 point something percent, 4.8%.
Here over at CNN they write, Carlson is practically the face of Fox News.
As he hosts the top show of the network, with Republicans out of power in the White House and Congress, Stelter argues that Carlson has filled the void Trump left when he was voted out of office.
Quote, Tucker has taken Trump's place as a right-wing leader, as an outrage generator, as a fire starter, and it's all taking place on Fox, just as Trump's campaign did.
Every day, Carlson is throwing bombs, making online memes, offending millions of people, also delighting millions of others, tapping into white male rage and resentment, stoking distrust of big tech and the media, generally coarsening the discourse.
Never apologizing for anything and setting the GOP's agenda.
Sounds like a recently retired president, right?
No!
That is a ridiculous strawman argument from a desperate network that doesn't know what to do to save their own jobs.
Maybe if you actually reported on things people cared about and criticized what people were concerned about, you'd be doing alright and I wouldn't be talking about you.
But Brian Stelter, he's a fake newsman, you know?
He likes putting out fake news.
Many of his things he's put out have been just over-the-top, really ridiculously stretched, and just awful.
Now listen, let's play a game.
I don't think I'm perfect.
I don't think I'm innocent.
I've probably done a bunch of segments that were over-the-top.
There have been a few times I've done segments where I was like genuinely just outraged at something the left had done, something related to critical race theory, and then I think I had a segment where it's like liberals have gone, or the Democrats have gone totally insane.
And I was just reading something, I can't remember exactly what it was about, but for sure, I, as a political commentator and opinion guy, do have strong opinions and biases, and I've actually been trying a lot to make sure I simmer things down, even if it means less views.
It's one of the reasons I started doing less segments, not just to grow the business in other areas, because I'm sick and tired of making these videos where we're just ragging on someone.
Listen.
There's a period where a lot of videos where I was like, can you believe Ilhan Omar did this?
Or AOC did this?
And here I am saying, can you believe Brian Stelter did this?
I'm not a big fan.
But I look, any more, I don't like this just constant pool of negativity.
I've tried actually to focus on more unifying positions.
What do I like about someone?
unidentified
Right?
tim pool
So I've praised AOC quite a bit, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar on some issues.
They deserve criticism as does anybody else.
But I want to try and focus on things that are constructive.
To the best of my abilities.
Not always perfect.
I'm not a fan of Biden, and I think he's struggling right now.
Trump also had his struggles.
Brian Stelter, however, is a media distillery.
He takes in information, and then carves out anything that makes their network look bad, and makes the political establishment look bad.
Granted, they'll target Republicans.
And then funnel you down a path of extremism.
Tucker Carlson is not the new Donald Trump.
Tucker Carlson is doing exactly what Tucker Carlson has always done.
And I've criticized him sometimes, but I tend to like Tucker.
I think he's pretty good.
There have been a few segments he's done recently I openly criticized.
Here we go.
CNN won't do that.
They won't self-reflect.
Instead, they're going to go after independent reporters.
In Brian Stelter's newsletter, he writes, or I should say, It's usually him and maybe Oliver Darcy.
Quote, SubStack has lost several high-profile writers in recent
days thanks to a new initiative that weakens its claims of
editorial impartiality.
As the platform figures out its position on content moderation,
a lightning rod for media in recent years, emerging competitors and even stalwarts like Facebook stand
to benefit.
Kerry Flynn adds, The controversy stems from the SubStack Pro program
for paying writers' advances.
Among the concerns is Substack allegedly providing money to people who attack journalists or stoke fears about transgender people, as Casey Newton wrote in his Substack platformer on Tuesday.
Jude Ellison, Sadie Doyle, A writer who uses Substack but now plans to leave wrote for GEN, Substack disclaims all responsibility for shaping the discourse around trans people, saying it does not make editorial decisions.
Determining which writers deserve advances is an editorial decision.
Substack execs responded to concerns on Wednesday with a blog titled Substack is for independent writers.
One clarification is that Substack Pro includes more than 30 writers.
We're more than half are women, and more than a third are people of color, and that they cover a range of issues, and none can be reasonably construed as anti-trans.
We still don't know who exactly is on Substack Pro, and Substack says it won't disclose.
Participants can choose to do it themselves.
Notice how they immediately jump to the transgender issue.
It's a hot wedge issue, and it typically generates lots of rage and scares advertisers.
They're threatening Substack.
That's basically what they're doing.
It's a mafioso-like tactic.
Look.
Look at the bigots.
Look who they're supporting.
The smart thing about what Substack did is that they never disclosed who is getting an advance.
My understanding of how Substack works, this pro program, is that basically they come to you and say, hey, we're going to give you $200,000 to start a Substack.
Congratulations.
It's all yours.
We get 10% of the revenue after the fact.
And then I think they say like a year later you keep everything or something like that.
It goes down to the minor cut.
Basically what they're doing is seeding the platform.
There are a lot of people who have moved over to Substack, have quit their jobs.
Glenn Greenwald used to report for The Intercept, Trump derangement syndrome all the way.
But when they wouldn't allow Glenn Greenwald to report on the Hunter Biden allegations, he resigned in protest.
Now, The Intercept says they are bleeding members and making no money.
Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald is making tons of money.
Probably making less than he was at The Intercept, because they had big funding, and it was his own org- the organization he founded, but now he's found a home at Substack.
They're gonna accuse him of being transphobic, which they do.
You also have a bunch of other people that do basically the same thing.
They have left these corporate institutions and it is scaring these companies.
Why?
They can't control the narrative anymore.
Check this out.
From Quillette.
The campaign of lies against journalist Jesse Singel and why it matters.
It's very simple.
Some people have pointed out that the apostate is a bigger threat than the ignorant unbeliever.
What that means is that Jesse Singel was in the mainstream news apparatus.
He started writing actual news, and writing critically in what he felt was true.
That was outside of the orthodoxy, and that's dangerous.
Showing people within the establishment that they can defy the establishment, well that's really bad.
The ignorant unbeliever, though they're just uninitiated.
You've got to convert them, right?
Here's a guy who broke away.
They write for Quillette.
One of the odd-seeming aspects of progressive cancel culture is that many of the figures targeted by mobs aren't especially conservative in their views.
Rather, the victims tend to be heterodox liberals who simply offer a dissenting opinion on one or more compartmentalized issues.
Since these liberal targets tend to operate in left-leaning professional and social milieu, or Milius, through which a mob can exercise leverage and demand concessions.
There are numerous popular writers and broadcasters who promote deeply conservative themes without attracting any notice from cancel mobs, even as lifelong leftists within such niche genres as young adult fiction, LGBT theater, and knitting trade journalism are excommunicated on the basis of minor verbal infractions.
In some notable mobbings chronicled by Quillette, in fact, the targeted dissenter wasn't even offering an opinion per se, but merely highlighting facts we're all expected to ignore.
James Damore wasn't fired by Google because he gratuitously insulted women, but because he pointed out real differences between the sexes.
In Canadian literacy circles, Margaret Atwood became reviled among a progressive fringe when she argued, correctly as it turns out, that falsely accused novelist Stephen Galloway should have received due process before being tarred as an abuser.
If you grovel enough, woke mobs might eventually forgive you for being wrong, but never for being right.
On the issue of gender, a particularly interesting case study centers on Jesse Singel, a mild-mannered and amiable New York-based journalist, book author, and podcaster whom Quillette readers may remember from his 2019 appearance on our own show.
Well, they now basically go into explain...
Many people, and they show the images, all these tweets, if you're a journalist and you follow Jesse Singel, you know, he's anti-trans, blah, blah, blah, verified blue checks attacking him like crazy.
There's two things happening.
That's why I'm trying to highlight, that's why I highlight this story in the end.
CNN is in panic mode.
They're freaking out and looking for a villain that people will rally around.
Guess what?
Doing a segment on Tucker Carlson, I really doubt, is going to net you that community, Brian.
I think a lot of people are probably like, I don't care, I don't watch Tucker.
Sure, activists try to get Tucker Carlson censored and banned and strip him of his advertisers, but he's not Donald Trump.
Maybe he will be the next big target, I suppose, but he will never be Donald Trump and those ratings will never come back.
But I imagine CNN tried going after Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Didn't really work.
I mean, all of the media did, to be fair.
It didn't work.
Nobody cares.
She's just a freshman congresswoman.
Now they're gonna try Tucker.
They're gonna look at their ratings.
If they see a ratings boost, they will go for it.
But think about this.
I once tweeted at Brian Seltzer, That he was the Fox News review show.
Because he is.
It's what he does.
Brian Stelter's show is basically a running commentary on Fox News.
Not entirely, just often.
And he liked the tweet, because, you know, maybe he could accept a little criticism, that's fair.
But now look what he's doing.
Trucker is the new Trump.
Yeah.
Seems to me that Brian is hoping he can take that spotlight because people will want to watch a show about a show.
I don't think so.
Tucker talks about issues.
Brian talks about Tucker.
How stupid is that?
But it makes sense.
The Echelon Insights poll we saw recently showed how conservatives' biggest concern was immigration, and Democrats' biggest concern was Trump supporters.
They're obsessed with people.
What did they say?
Small individuals are obsessed with people.
Bigger people think about ideas.
I'm probably getting the quote wrong, but that's a general idea.
When it comes to people like Jesse, this is the apostate.
The person who defies the failing media.
As CNN's ratings collapse and other outlets are struggling, people leave and join Substack.
So what do we get?
Brian Seltzer and CNN go after them as well.
Can't have people making the industry look weak or bad.
Must prop up the broken system.
There you go.
As CNN violently struggles and collapses, you're going to get more.
You're going to hear all sorts of really ridiculous stories and accusations about fallings out between companies and their partners and things like that.
You're going to hear ridiculous drama rage bait about YouTubers.
And people are going to say, why do I care about this story?
And Brian Stelter will write an article saying Newsmax is suffering, and then people are going to say, yeah, but so were you.
What does that say about you?
The exact same accusation that they made against Newsmax makes sense to them too, I guess, doesn't it?
I'll tell you what I'm going to do.
I'm going to keep my focus on the TimCast IRL podcast, which is growing and adding new users.
And, I mean, it's growing really well.
Our percentages, our viewership, everything is up, up, up.
Subscriber per month is up.
Viewership is up.
We're doing fantastic.
We should talk about cultural issues, too.
And in the end, I guess, if your content is actually good, maybe your ratings wouldn't be collapsing.
But to be fair, it's cable news in general.
Newsmax and CNN and Fox, everybody took a hit.
Interestingly, though, Tucker's ratings only dropped a few percentage points.
The rest of CNN, half.
How about that?
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Export Selection