S570 - Conservatives WIN Major Legal Battles, Lawsuit Against Trump BACKFIRES, Opens Door To END Censorship
Conservatives WIN Major Legal Battles, Lawsuit Against Trump BACKFIRES, Opens Door To END Censorship. The Supreme court has dismissed a case against Donald Trump as moot but in the opinion filed by Clarence Thomas the door to suing Big Tech or legislating these companies has been opened.
While Democrats sued Trump to stop him from blocking people the ruling was in the end vacated by SCOTUS and allowed Justice Thomas to express his opinion which may be cited in the future.
Several states are also stepping up by pushing laws that will end Social Media Censorship and treat big tech platforms like common carriers
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Conservatives have won a major legal victory after a lawsuit against Donald Trump over his Twitter account was dismissed by the Supreme Court and a lower court's ruling was vacated.
But the real victory comes in the form of the opinion from Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, who opened the door to lawsuits against Big Tech over censorship, or even allowing Congress to regulate these companies and prevent them from censoring conservatives.
Our next story.
Democrats' brand may be absolutely tarnished by things such as defund the police.
The DNC recently came out and said that they realize their brand is being hurt, and it seems like AOC may be the reason for it.
And our last story.
CNN's Jim Acosta says that reporters may be suffering from post-Trump stress disorder, as the ratings news companies are seeing are in the gutter.
This may lead to mass layoffs, and even some big companies are saying they are hurting.
And before we get started, leave us a good review if you like the podcast.
Give us 5 stars because it really does help.
Now, let's get into that first story.
You may remember the lawsuit against Donald Trump from several years back.
He had blocked several people on Twitter, and there was an argument from many on the left that doing this violated their First Amendment rights.
You see, when Donald Trump tweeted, he created a public forum for comment and criticism, and by blocking certain people on Twitter, they could not participate.
Interestingly, a court agreed and told Donald Trump he had to unblock people.
It also ended up backfiring on the left as AOC was then told she had to unblock people as well.
Many Democrat politicians still refused to do so, and it kind of went back and forth with some saying Trump wasn't abiding by this court order, but many people suggested the ruling was bad.
It would likely backfire.
Because if Donald Trump was creating a public forum, then what would you call it when Twitter itself bans a conservative?
Wouldn't that be denying the individual access to a public forum created by Donald Trump?
How can you simultaneously have a private platform where the private corporation can ban anyone they want, but the politician couldn't?
I mean, that could be as simple as the argument goes.
Well, the president can't do it, but Twitter can.
Well, the Supreme Court has dismissed this lawsuit at its final stage, reaching the Supreme Court, and they're saying, nah, it's moot.
Donald Trump isn't the president anymore.
Well, those that were suing said, then keep the lower court's ruling, saying politicians cannot block people on social media.
The Supreme Court said no.
The whole case fell apart.
And in the end, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued an opinion that opens the door for a lawsuit that could stop these companies from censoring conservatives.
He effectively said, how is it that Twitter can just ban someone and then remove their right to speak?
Maybe they should be regulated like common carriers.
And that's the more conservative argument.
I know that the culture war isn't always so easy to discern factions and figure out who's on which side, but it very clearly has been the establishment, Democrats, and leftists saying, but my private platform, that Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and whoever else can ban anyone they want because they're private companies.
And for some reason, conservatives and liberals flipped Now, look, it happens, but generally we used to think that liberals were the ones in favor of regulating massive corporations, and conservatives were the ones saying let them do their thing, and now it's not really the case.
I will say, though, unsurprisingly, the Libertarian Party says it's a horrifying day for free speech, which we'll get into.
But there's been a wave of good news for conservatives.
At least a dozen states are introducing legislation that will stop big tech censorship.
Maybe a little late to the party, but hey, we'll take what we can get when we can get it.
We also have more major news in terms of just...
I don't want to say necessarily conservatives, but victories as it pertains to the truth and the right of the individual.
In a lawsuit between Project Veritas and the New York Times, in a court siding with Veritas, the New York Times actually admitting that their news articles are just unverifiable opinion.
A tide is changing in the culture war with these rulings, and we could be facing something profound.
If someone picks up on Clarence Thomas's opinion, That these big tech companies perhaps should be regulated.
We might actually see something.
Now first, it would likely have to go through the courts at this point because Democrats control basically everything else.
And there could theoretically be legislation that changes this, but there could be activist judges that legislate from the bench.
There's already been an attempt to redefine Section 230 or to clarify Section 230, which grants immunity to these platforms by having the FCC do it.
In the end, it seems it will take an act of Congress.
And that seems to be what Clarence Thomas is saying.
But, based on his opinion, there could be a lawsuit that makes it to the court.
And if it makes it to the Supreme Court, then they can rule, you cannot ban people based on political opinions.
More importantly, it may not happen at the federal level, but it very well may happen at the state level, as several states, including Texas and Florida, are seeking to ban arbitrary censorship.
Well, let's read exactly what's going on, but before we do, head over to TimCast.com and become members My friends, because censorship is a very real issue.
My Facebook page has already effectively ended because they didn't like that I was covering what happened in the news in one particular day.
And many people think that I'm immune to what's going on.
It's only a matter of time.
Become a member at TimCast.com to help support my work and get access to exclusive members-only segments from the TimCast IRL podcast.
The new website will be launching soon and we're gonna be doing a whole bunch of other content.
New shows, new podcasts, new personalities.
We're gonna be growing and expanding and producing culture outside of these...
These pigeonholes that are produced by big tech social media, basically forcing everyone to adhere to particular opinions.
We're going to challenge that.
And in the event that I do get suspended or banned or removed or whatever, you'll be able to find me at TimCast.com.
So also, don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
The Supreme Court on Monday tossed out a lawsuit over former President Donald Trump's Twitter account after the Justice Department said the end of Trump's presidency made the case a dead letter.
The case arose after seven people responded critically to tweets on the president's now-banned real Donald Trump account, and he retaliated by blocking them.
They sued and won in the lower courts, which held that blocking individual respondents based on their viewpoints violated the First Amendment.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said the President's account amounted to a kind of public forum, and often concerned official matters with contributions from White House staff members.
The Trump Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reverse those rulings.
While the President's tweets were sometimes official statements, his decision to block individual responses was a personal one allowed by any Twitter user government lawyers contended.
But the night before President Joe Biden took the oath of office, the Justice Department asked the court to dismiss the case as moot and vacate the lower court rulings as well.
Katie Fallow of the Knight Institute, a group that advocates on behalf of First Amendment issues and represented the Twitter users who Trump blocked, urged the justices to leave the lower court rulings intact.
There is now widespread recognition.
That the principles we established in this case are important to protecting the vitality of public forums that are increasingly important to our democracy, shaping the way public officials use social media.
Justice Clarence Thomas said he agreed that the case should be dismissed as moot, but he said that it highlighted a problem, namely that applying old doctrines to new digital platforms is rarely straightforward.
It seems odd, Thomas said, to say that something is a government forum when a private company has unrestricted authority to do away with it.
Interesting.
Well, the Supreme Court has in fact vacated that ruling, which prevented Trump from blocking Twitter critics in a major defeat for these leftists.
Now, I wouldn't say this is necessarily a good thing.
There's an interesting argument about whether or not it is a public forum.
I certainly think There is a good argument.
It is.
And hear me out.
Donald Trump was the president.
He bypassed the press when he gave these statements.
I like this.
But you have to recognize that people are allowed to criticize and have free speech.
If the platform allows it, Trump should not be removing people, and I want to see these arguments in these conversations.
The bigger problem, however, is then the argument that Twitter is a private platform.
Strange to me that many leftists were saying, Twitter is a private platform.
They can do what they want.
But it's also a public forum where Trump can't ban people.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, because after you eat it, it's gone, okay?
So if you make that move, where you're saying it's a private company, but then you join in a lawsuit, or you cheer on the lawsuit, where you're saying Trump shouldn't be able to ban people, congratulations!
I agree, it's a public forum, therefore Twitter can't ban people.
Here's the way I describe it.
When this happened, when all this was going down, I said, imagine that there's a big open field and a private company sets up fencing around this land and they own the land.
And Donald Trump shows up one day and starts speaking there.
You show up and you walk in saying, I want to hear what the president has to say.
Then one day they decide, you can't come in anymore, and you're like, but this is my president.
You have the entire town square, you've bought it, and no one's going anywhere else.
And they say, oh there's alternatives.
There's other social media platforms competing.
The way I described it was like, imagine there's the LA Coliseum.
This massive stadium in Los Angeles.
And Donald Trump announces he's going to be giving a State of the Union address just there.
That's the only place.
But you're banned from the Coliseum.
They say you're more than welcome to go use the soccer field at the local high school, and you're like, yeah, okay, I can go there, but the president isn't speaking there.
I think that there are certain limitations, in my opinion.
Now, In the real world, does this mean the LA Coliseum has to let everybody in if they're having a private event with Trump?
No.
The issue is that there is nowhere else to go.
There is nowhere to have a meaningful conversation in response to the president's posts or talk to the president because he wasn't using any of those places.
We are seeing massive multinational corporations monopolize public discourse.
Libertarians certainly disagree with me.
Big L libertarian, by the way, where they say it's bad for free speech.
Look, I understand there's complicated questions here, but Twitter is not beholden to the American people.
They're beholden to an international body of investors.
Jack Dorsey even said their rules are designed for a global audience.
Well, when it's matters of U.S.
public interest, why should we allow Russians to use Twitter to influence Americans, but American citizens have been banned?
You see the problem there?
You want to talk about private platforms, sure, but there's got to be some rules at some point.
Look, you don't allow people to go and sell snake oil.
We have restrictions on what you can buy or trade.
Not all of it's perfect, not all of it is good.
But when there's basically one place where the president is speaking where everyone's at, you have very real problems.
The president, of course, could have gone to a different platform, and he didn't, and that's actually the best counter-argument.
It was the president's fault himself.
He could have gone to the local high school football field and talked to his constituents.
He didn't do it.
So then is it really Twitter's fault that Trump uses their platform and no one else's?
Not necessarily.
The bigger issue at play, though, is the coordination between Big Tech to take out their competition.
In which case, now it's time to bring on antitrust and regulation.
When Parler started to compete with Twitter, what happened?
Seemingly all of these companies reacted the exact same time.
The Play Store, Google, They remove Google's App Store and the Play Store and the iPhone App Store.
They banned Parler.
They all started making claims about Parler.
It seemed very much coordinated, and we know it wasn't true.
The Wall Street Journal reported that Parler was reporting the users on its platform who were, you know, talking about violence.
Facebook, on the other hand, has been accused relentlessly, and over and over again we hear stories about the evil people who use Facebook.
I mean, like, serious gang activity and really awful stuff.
But no one takes action against Facebook.
The app is allowed to be on iTunes, to be on the App Store, and to be in Google.
So it seems coordinated.
If you want to argue that Twitter is, you know, is a private platform, sure.
But in concert, all of these social media networks are banning the same people, shutting down the same services, and restricting access.
And they're all located very, very close to one another.
It's likely most of them know each other, and they are doing this to stifle any competition to their monopolies.
It's not that they have a single strong monopoly, they have a network of digital assets and tools they control and don't allow competition in.
So you want to do that?
Break them up and shatter that?
Okay, fine!
Then I'll be okay with you saying, but my private platform.
In the meantime, I think people need to be able to see the president speak.
and respond to the president's posts. Yahoo Finance reports the Supreme Court has vacated
a ruling that prevented former President Donald Trump from blocking people.
After Trump lost his bid, they said it was moot.
The ruling won't matter much to Trump, however, because he was permanently banned.
So there we go.
The lower court decision had implications for other elected officials and how they communicate on social networks.
The public interest in preventing impermissible viewpoint discrimination in government-operated social media accounts weighs heavily in favor of keeping the Second Circuit's judgment in place, the night First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, which sued Trump, wrote in a brief.
The Institute agreed that the ruling was moot, but instead claimed that it was because of Trump's Twitter ban.
This is actually true, but it shows how kind of stupid the courts can be.
The case is moot, meaning, well, Trump's not the president anymore and you're suing Trump so he's no longer a party to the lawsuit.
That's true.
But isn't it dumb that we're really talking about a much bigger issue about other politicians but the way the court is set up?
We're gonna be like, nah, you can throw this one out because this one guy isn't present anymore.
AOC should be party to this lawsuit.
Sue her!
She blocks people.
Ultimately, I don't like the idea that they can block people, but we need to talk about what this really means in the long term.
Are we going to create a new rule set for digital tools in today's era, or are we going to just let them run amok?
Sorry, I think we need regulation.
We regulated the phone companies, common carriers.
They can't have viewpoint discrimination.
Maybe it's time we do the same thing.
This is where Clarence Thomas steps in and opens the door for potentially a lawsuit which could end the censorship.
The Examiner reports, Clarence Thomas wins approval from populists for suggesting Twitter regulation.
Just as Clarence Thomas won praise, Great tweeted author J.D.
Vance, who is eyeing an Ohio Senate run.
Thomas' opinion, a concurrence in a case concerning former President Trump's Twitter usage, took issue with the way that Twitter, Facebook, and other social media companies handle speech on their platforms.
While Thomas agreed with the rest of the court that questions about Trump's Twitter usage are moot, he stressed, That in the near future, the court must address social media regulation.
Thomas focused on Twitter's ban of Trump, arguing that the move raised the stakes for Twitter to prove that it is a public platform.
Thomas noted that Trump faced a lawsuit after he blocked a few people using his Twitter account, because the platform is generally understood as a public forum.
But at the same time, he added, Twitter was able to remove Trump from its platform, which amounted to a block barring all Twitter users from interacting with his message.
If it is a violation of someone's First Amendment rights to block them from communicating with the President on his posts in a public forum, then why should Twitter be allowed to do it?
Is the question that only Trump can't block people?
Okay, then.
If that were the case, that would mean the president could create a public forum and then hire private security who at their own discretion could remove people from that forum and argue, well, private security, they're not an agent of the government, so they're allowed to do it.
Twitter makes money off of Donald Trump's presence on the platform.
Trump simply using the space should not mean that that private security guard should be able to remove people when Trump is there.
You see my point?
Trump, you're basically saying the government can just pass off the censorship to a corporation even though we know why it's happening and that it's okay.
Trump used Twitter's technology to suppress people's First Amendment rights.
You're saying that so long as Trump just says, I wish, oh won't someone rid me of this priest that Twitter is then allowed to do it?
You see what I'm saying?
They say Twitter's user agreement permits it to remove users, but the Trump case highlights how such arrangements become difficult to navigate if the platform is truly a public forum.
Thomas wrote, he suggested that if part of the problem is private concentrated control over online content and platforms available to the public, then a possible solution is doctrines that limit the right of a private company to exclude figures such as Trump.
Thomas took a more broad aim at technology companies, saying that they act as gatekeepers over the internet, which leads to speech suppression.
The suggestion that the federal government should treat platforms such as Twitter and Facebook as quasi-public utilities, long a goal of left-wing social critics, won popularity with insurgent populists, many of whom have raised new concerns about online speech regulation.
Missouri Senator Josh Hawley cited Thomas' observation that Google facilitates 90% of internet searches, which Thomas said allows it to suppress content by de-indexing or downlisting a search result or by steering users away from certain content.
Hawley, who has championed social media regulation, tweeted that Thomas was warning about the dangers of big tech concentration of for free speech.
The case Night First Amendment Institute vs. Trump arose in 2017, so this we entirely understand.
Over on Twitter, Mark Joseph Stern, he is a staff writer at Slate, said,
in other words, Clarence Thomas is inviting Congress to ban social media companies
from engaging in content moderation by stripping them of their own First Amendment rights
and transforming them for legal purposes into common carriers or public accommodation.
He says, you know, the conservatives who have been arguing unsuccessfully so far
that social media companies are so powerful that Congress can essentially override their
their own First Amendment rights and force them to host certain speech on their platform?
Thomas just endorsed that argument.
I absolutely love the sheer absurdity of what we are seeing here.
The Libertarian Party on Twitter basically said it's terrible for free speech.
And somehow, you have the leftists arguing against the government seizing the means of production.
So you have the Libertarian Party of Texas, mind you.
They come out on Twitter and they say, Thomas just ruled that the government can seize the means of social media production.
To protect the First Amendment.
And I'm like, sure, fine, I don't care.
That's a ridiculous argument, by the way.
They're regulating them as we do many companies.
And now you have Slate, which is a leftist publication, saying that the government shouldn't seize the...
Ah, what a stupid world we live in.
Let me break it down for you very simply.
The left benefits from their political allies at big tech censoring opinions they do not like.
So it doesn't matter what their principles are supposed to be, they don't have any.
All they want is power.
The Libertarian Party are more than happy to welcome being crushed by massive multinational corporations, so long as it isn't the government doing it.
That's absurd.
We either break these companies up or we recognize social media is playing a primary role in how politics are being shaped in this country.
While Democrats overwhelmingly get their news from mainstream news channels on TV and the internet, conservatives get their information from a decentralized network of independent personalities and smaller news companies and then Fox News.
So as these big tech companies begin banning conservative voices and opinion, they are funneling all opinions towards the mainstream media that conservatives and Republicans don't trust as it is, and most moderates don't either.
If this big tech... What's the right word for it?
It's not necessarily like one company in a monopoly.
It's more like a... It's collusion.
It's a bunch of companies with similar interests protecting the interests of each other and suppressing the rights of those who have opinions they don't like.
So the left, who don't have opinions, support this.
Of course they do.
They're winning.
It's their friends and allies, the top level of big tech, who are banning people.
My favorite part is how they say, it's not true, there's no conservative censorship.
And it's literally Gizmodo that broke the story in May 2018 that Facebook was literally removing conservative news websites.
Where did that go?
It's no surprise that Democrats overwhelmingly just trust the mainstream media.
But it is a good day for those who believe in free speech on the internet.
The libertarians might say, it's terrible for the free speech of these massive multinational corporations.
Forgive me if I have to make a choice between a single massive multinational corporation and 330 million individuals who have a right to an opinion.
If you build a platform, There are certain things that are allowed in terms of regulation.
Put it this way.
I think that if you run like a Christian blog and there's a comment section And you have rules.
And someone comes in and starts posting things that are very offensive to your readers and there is a purpose to your site.
Within reason, it is okay to ban people for opinions you don't like.
It probably has more to do with the size of the company.
Now, it could just be that Section 230 must be reformed outright to say, here are certain things that can be removed and can't be removed, but ultimately.
If we're talking about social media companies, perhaps the real regulation needs to be a news publication or a blog that produces content and has a comment section shall be separate from social media platforms designed with the express purpose of allowing individuals to post.
Perhaps the real problem here is acting like Twitter is the same thing as the comment sections on a blog.
This is where it all began.
My understanding is that Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act came about because someone posted something disparaging in the comments section of a newspaper of a news website.
Someone sued, and they said, well, you can't sue the newspaper for the comment of a user.
So they said, OK, how about third-party posts don't represent the entirety of the paper, so you got to go after the individual instead.
Then social media websites came about.
Now listen.
If there's a website called TimCast.com, okay?
My website.
And someone goes to the comment section in the member section and says something libelous.
It makes sense that you can't sue me.
It's just a user's comment.
My website was not designed specifically for people to come and post their media.
It's for them to comment on my media.
That I understand.
Now, what if someone makes a website where they're specifically saying, we don't actually post anything.
It's for you guys to post and share content.
It's not the same thing.
And therein lies the problem.
Treating Twitter like a blog.
It's not.
The purpose of Twitter is for individuals to post their opinions and news articles and share information.
Stop treating Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube the same as some small website.
It doesn't even have anything to do with users.
It should specifically be, if you create a website called christiantwitter.com, and you say it's for Christians to share their values, but you tell people they are the ones posting and we're standing back, perhaps then you are not protected by Section 230.
And what they need to do is define in Section 230 what they mean by online platforms.
Because when you are talking about blogs, and when this law was created, Nobody is referencing social media.
It's totally different.
Now, Twitter makes statements.
I've often talked about how... I've often talked about when Twitter makes a statement, when Facebook does.
For instance, if I make an article and I put it on Facebook, Facebook then empowers very specific people to defame me, more importantly.
If one of these fact-checkers says I lied, they can then put a label on my post saying false or, you know, incorrect information.
Facebook is doing that.
Facebook is implementing the filter.
Facebook made the statement.
Now they say, third-party fact-checkers said this.
But at a certain point, we have to ask ourselves, in that instance, these people are commissioned by Facebook to do this.
So Facebook certainly has some responsibility here, don't they?
Perhaps.
The reality is, it is not all the same thing.
And the problem is that Section 230, which is allowing conservatives, for the most part, to be censored, and many progressives are getting censored as well, is being used as a blanket over anything on the internet.
So Clarence Thomas made a good point.
He said, are we going to be treating, you know, all of these things based on archaic policy, or do we make new ones?
We make new ones.
Perhaps it's time to specify that Section 230 does not pertain to common carriers, and perhaps it's time to specify that Twitter and Facebook and YouTube and big tech social media companies that are designed to allow individuals to speak are more akin to a phone company than they are to a blog.
Well, here we go baby.
GOP pushes bills to allow social media censorship lawsuits.
It's a coming.
The AP reports, Republican state lawmakers are pushing for social media giants to face costly lawsuits for policing content on their websites, taking aim at a federal law that prevents internet companies from being sued for moving posts.
GOP politicians in roughly two dozen states have introduced bills that would allow for civil lawsuits against platforms for what they call the censorship of posts.
Many protest the deletion of political and religious statements, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Democrats, who also have called for greater scrutiny of big tech, are sponsoring the same measures in at least two states.
Here we go.
The Federal Liability Shield has long been a target of former President Donald Trump and other Republicans, whose complaints about Silicon Valley stifling conservative viewpoints were amplified when the companies cracked down on misleading posts about the 2020 election.
We're going to stop right there.
And I'm going to tell you why the next big move, the next big victory, is Project Veritas' victory.
You see what they did there?
Taking down misleading posts.
That's how the media launders lies.
That's how they lie to you.
And it's clever, but it won't work forever.
And Project Veritas' victory shows this.
Let me break this down for you and help you navigate the media.
They say, Democrats, who have also called for greater scrutiny, blah, blah, blah.
The federal liability shield has long been a target of President Trump and other Republicans, whose complaints about Silicon Valley stifling conservative viewpoints were amplified when the companies cracked down on misleading posts about the 2020 election.
They stated, as a matter of fact, that companies cracked down on misleading posts.
Twitter censored news about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, that were true, but they say misleading post.
That is a false statement of fact.
But there's no one who really has standing.
I suppose Trump could claim that's fake news and argue that their real concern was the censoring of information, period.
It's how the media lies.
I'll give you a great real-world example.
No, I'm sorry.
To avoid litigation, because it's a very real circumstance to speaking out in these spaces, I'll give you a hypothetical based on a real-world example.
Let's say you decide to do a YouTube video.
Or Twitter.
You make a Twitter post.
In your Twitter video, you were talking about how much you just love Easter Sunday.
Easter just came and you love coloring the eggs.
And in your video, you happen to be using a particular brand of Easter egg dyes and coloring kits.
Well, some leftist activists sees you making this video, and they then send an angry email to the company saying, why is there a prominent video with a far-right, racist whatever, using your product?
Now, the video you posted has nothing to do with race.
It's about Easter eggs.
The company then comes out and says, We recently learned that an individual, you know, named so-and-so, was using our dying kit.
We do not endorse their racist views, their blah blah blah.
We strongly condemn any and all bigotry and have nothing to do with this video.
What happens is, because they want to distance themselves, it doesn't matter if you actually said it.
They're not accusing you of having said it, they just say.
We denounce their racist views, or anything racist they may have done.
Then the media steps in and says, Individual has been denounced by Easter Egg Company over racist, bigoted views.
The average person assumes you actually said it.
You didn't.
It's how the media launders these statements.
They're lies, they're not real, and they get away with it.
Right now, they're saying misleading posts.
Well, the good news is the states are coming in.
They're starting to intervene.
They're starting to say no to this stuff.
The bad news is the media just keeps lying.
Which brings me to the next massive and major victory in the whole circumstance.
I give you, from the Washington Examiner, the New York Times' embarrassing defense in the Project Veritas case, where they state, Early arguments in the case included remarkable exchanges between New York Times lawyers, Project Veritas lawyers, and Judge Wood.
But from the standpoint of leaders interested in the state of journalism today, perhaps the most remarkable was the outlet's defense that Astor and Sue, both of the reporters being sued here, Freely injected opinion into their reports, even though the stories were published in the news section of the paper.
The New York Times argued, Project Veritas was not entitled to sue for libel because the opinions expressed were unverifiable, saying, Unverifiable expressions of opinion are not actionable and cannot be defamatory.
The paper argued in its motion to dismiss the case.
A defamation action must be based on statements of objective fact, not on an expression of opinion, which by definition cannot be true or false.
In this politically charged context, the term deceptive is not susceptible to an objective meaning, and is therefore a non-actionable opinion.
That's amazing.
As Mike Cernovich put it, he says, check this out from the judge's opinion.
He says, if a writer interjects an opinion in a news article and will seek to claim legal protections as opinion, it stands to reason the writer should have an obligation to alert the reader.
My friends, the New York Times has stated in their legal defense, their news section, regularly has, or at least in this instance had, unverifiable opinions and therefore they can't be sued.
Well, here we go.
These are all major victories for moderates and those challenging the establishment media's lies.
You still can't get around the tricks.
They'll say, well, Twitter did ban misleading information.
We didn't say it was the only thing they banned.
And conservatives were concerned.
No.
Conservatives aren't concerned about the banning of misleading information.
Conservatives actually want the misleading information to be stopped.
Conservatives are concerned because those that are fact-checking and challenging and criticizing are being banned.
That's the AP putting out fake news.
It's amazing how this all comes together.
In the end, Clarence Thomas has opened the door.
Actually, I should say, the leftists who sued Donald Trump opened the door for the Supreme Court to put out their opinion, and Clarence Thomas has a very strong one.
It is just a crack in the door.
We don't know where this will lead, and maybe it'll lead to nothing.
But Clarence Thomas brings up very important points, and we may actually see at the state level, censorship finally put to rest.
If the Republicans don't get on top of this now, they'll certainly lose 2022 and 2024.
Each and every day, conservative opinion is being eroded, and more and more conservatives adopt progressive viewpoints in order to stay alive, figuratively, on social media.
There are even some conservatives who have changed their opinions and now claim to be liberal because they were scared about getting banned off YouTube.
It happens.
So, if they don't stand up, it won't matter.
But in the meantime, it looks like conservatives are getting major victories.
And, well, you know, it's about time, I suppose.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.
It's a live show, so subscribe to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL, go to TimCast.com, and we will see you all at 8 p.m.
tonight.
Thanks for hanging out.
DNC chair says party needs to battle the damage that has been done to it by movements like Defund the Police to win over rural voters.
Good luck!
I will say that.
You know, there's going to be some elections coming up the next few years.
I wonder if some of these conservative or moderate Democrats will be able to actually win ever again.
There are many swing districts where I just think they're gonna go red.
I could be wrong.
There are a lot of people that love cheering on the establishment and the status quo, but there are two divergent realities right now.
And there are vice, there's virtue signaling, and as Julie Borowski told us on the IRL podcast last Friday, vice signaling.
Like virtue signaling is the people who post on Twitter when they're saying things like, look how not racist we are.
And then vice signaling is people like rip their masks off and like, I don't need no mask.
Like, I'm not gonna follow the rules.
Two divergent realities.
It's an easy way to put it.
And we're wondering who is going to become the dominant reality.
I have to be honest, I think those of us here, the moderate position, many conservatives, liberals who are no longer in, you know, watching establishment media, watching more independent media, Outgroup, to say the least.
The establishment is the establishment, will be the establishment.
But the Democratic brand is hurting.
And it's hurting a lot because of people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
It is the progressive far leftists that push things that don't make sense, like defund the police.
I am not the biggest fan of the unaccountability we see with police departments.
I believe there should be reform.
I believe things should change.
But it's not just about defunding the police.
It's about very special things like this.
We're gonna get into how AOC has absolutely ripped the Democratic brand to shreds.
And she was supposed to be at Saving Grace, to be fair.
Look, Nancy Pelosi is awful, and I defended her in the past.
That was probably a mistake.
Schumer is awful.
I get it.
He's working towards legalization of pot, which I can respect, so you give the credit where credit is due, but for the most part, they're all pretty much awful, right?
AOC was supposed to come in and be something better.
She's not.
She has recently come out in support of concentration camps.
For kids.
I know, I know.
A lot of people are saying, Tim, you're being hyperbolic.
She didn't actually say that, but let's play a game of walk the path.
Let's go through the logic here.
You may recall this story from June 18th, 2019.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, quote, the U.S.
is running concentration camps on our border.
Wow.
That is a strong statement to make, at the very least.
But she did.
And she claimed that it wasn't actually just opinion.
She tweeted, This is not hyperbole.
This administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of the United
States for immigrants, where they are being brutalized with dehumanizing conditions and
dying.
This is not hyperbole.
It is the conclusion of expert analysis.
Donald Trump's administration did not establish camps on the border.
In fact, he inherited them from, most of them as my understanding, from Barack Obama.
In fact, when the left kept trying to criticize Trump, they actually accidentally kept sharing photos from the Obama administration and then saying it was Trump's fault.
You see, these people don't care about telling you the truth and breaking down what's really going on.
And to be fair to Ocasio-Cortez, she has criticized the Biden administration and Democrats.
She says both parties are to blame for what's going on.
I think that's actually a fair assessment.
It's not like the Democrats are the ones coming out twirling their mustaches only.
The Republicans are, you know, pushing policies as well that result in things people don't like.
However, a couple months ago AOC tweeted, an immediate improvement would be to require influx
facilities with children to be licensed.
Oh, I love it.
Here we go.
Another issue is whether these services should be contracted out the way they are currently, to begin with.
And whether facilities with controversial records, e.g.
You mean to tell me that AOC is saying... Okay, and this was a couple months ago.
That she is in favor of these facilities so long as the government licenses them.
Okay, wait, wait.
Hold on.
They're concentration camps on the border.
Things have not changed.
In fact, they've gotten worse.
We have photos coming out from Project Veritas showing kids sleeping under a bridge on the dirt with a Mylar blanket.
It's like foil.
It's like thin.
And she's like, influx facility.
She is referring to the homestead facility, which she once called a concentration camp.
She's referring to it as a facility with controversial records.
Ah, that's right.
We all know about how the United States set up facilities with controversial records for Japanese citizens during World War II.
Yeah, uh-huh.
Are you kidding me?
You want to know why the Democratic brand is tarnished?
It's this trash and the people who blindly march behind it.
AOC is not a champion of progressive values.
She's just saying whatever she has to say at the time to gain lowest common denominator support.
My friends, this is called a grift.
A grift.
I love it.
When they accuse me or other people of grifting, my positions have remained mostly the same.
I've changed on a few things, you know, and that's normal.
Like, people's opinions change, right?
So, I used to be fairly, like, meh on 2A, and now I'm like, 2A, second amendment, guns, all that stuff.
That opinion changed, because it's more about individual freedoms and personal liberties and things, you know, civil rights, etc.
The right of the individual to have certain You know, well, individuals have rights.
So I've definitely moved closer towards libertarianism.
Little L, not big L. AOC is moving closer to authoritarianism.
She's becoming more and more pro-establishment.
So let me tell you, what do you think happens when you're a Democrat, and you mildly pay attention, and you see AOC being like, these are concentration camps, you see that and you're like, man, These facilities are bad.
We better do something about this.
And now it's like two years later, and you're like, so whatever happened with any of those camps?
Influx facilities.
Uh-huh.
Seriously?
Look, there are a lot of people who are tribalists.
They will support AOC no matter what.
They don't care about this.
They don't care that she's lying and spitting in their face.
They just want to see Republicans suffer.
They want to see themselves win.
No, don't get me wrong.
They're absolutely conservative Republicans who want the exact same thing.
Many of them... I would say a lot of them would watch my channel when I was, you know, during the election and after.
Not so much.
There are a lot of... It's not everybody.
I know a lot of Trump supporters, you know, obviously do watch.
But there's a lot of people who just want to have that tribalistic victory over the other.
Instead of having real conversations about what we need to do to solve our problems.
So, how... Let me say this.
How is the Democratic brand supposed to have any real value to it when there's nothing to value?
Okay, as a Democrat, do I support AOC criticizing these camps, or do I... Now when she's flip-flopped, I say, oh, you know what?
Now that I think about it, it's actually not that bad.
Do I just change my opinion on the fly?
Look, there may be many people with cognitive dissonance where their brain simultaneously holds two contradicting views.
Donald Trump ran concentration camps, but Biden runs immigration facilities.
But there are a lot of people who have to be sitting there with a headache, being like, oh, how do I support this?
It's amazing to me, because for all of the awful things Donald Trump said and did, and all of the lies, he was consistent on what he wanted to do.
He lied about dumb things, you know, about everyone loves him, and all the women, and he's like, it was always about, like, how great he was.
But then he would just come out and be like, we're selling weapons to Saudi Arabia.
It's a great deal.
It's like, okay, like, well, all right.
At least he's honest in that capacity.
I don't care what he calls himself.
Man's got a golden toilet.
Certainly has a high opinion of himself.
The Democrats don't represent anything.
If the opinions bounce around and flip-flop, an AOC, who's supposed to be a progressive champion, challenging the establishment, is in fact propping them up with cash.
I love this so much.
You know, do me a favor.
If you know people who, uh, well, look.
I have my bias, for sure.
And there's gonna be a lot of people who don't want to hear this.
Because they love AOC and she's fighting the, you know, the Trumpism and the fascism and all that stuff.
Whatever.
Well, show them this.
In fact, don't just show them this video.
I mean, you could share this video if you want to support my work, but maybe I'm too anti-AOC for some of these people.
They want to dip their toes in the water and figure out who this woman is.
Maybe you just send her an article like this.
From Politico.
Vulnerable Democrats.
Wait, what?
You mean to tell me that AOC is acting like a funnel for the progressive left to suck in donations and then run them off to establishment moderate Democrats in swing districts?
Yes.
And I'm sure she'll justify it by saying, we need to maintain the majority.
And here we go, baby.
From a progressive champion of the Justice Democrats, challenging the machine and saying to Democrats, we're coming for you and we will primary you, to saying, we must protect the moderate establishment Democrat.
Wasn't it AOC who came out just a couple months ago and said, all of the Democrats who ran on progressive values won in their districts, in swing districts.
So why is she giving money to these vulnerable Democrats who are certainly not?
That's amazing.
So you want to tell me, once again, DNC Chair, what's damaging your brand?
I get it, he says defund the police.
The Democrats' brand has been absolutely tarnished for some time.
Check out this story.
They say.
As the midterm campaign's first fundraising deadline approached this week, several vulnerable House Democrats got an unwelcome surprise in their accounts—$5,000 from AOC.
The New York Democrat sent the contributions to her colleagues to help keep the House majority ahead of a tough cycle without directly contributing to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, with which she's publicly clashed.
But Ocasio-Cortez's largesse and an oversight at the campaign headquarters has instead raised awkward questions among her colleagues as some swing district Democrats fret over whether to return her money before the GOP can turn it into an attack ad.
This is the lady that has flipped her opinion and now supports concentration camps, apparently.
Unless her opinion on what Donald Trump was doing has changed now that Joe Biden is president.
Maybe.
And now they know the money she gives out is tainted.
This is incredible.
AOC may as well be working for the Republicans.
Let me just repeat this.
Democrats are scared and want to give money back to AOC because she is polluting the Democrats' brand.
You get this?
The Democrats know there is a toxicity in the Democratic Party, and it is people like Ocasio-Cortez.
I can just see it now.
There's gonna be some swing district Democrat and they're gonna be like, you know, this wild far-left Democrat just received $5,000 from AOC circumventing the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
So it's like unapproved essentially, not party approved.
Now, look, AOC can give money to whoever she wants.
But isn't it hilarious how they're scared and want to give the money back?
It's too late.
It's too late.
Now, giving the money back could be a good thing.
They could then push back and say, no, no, we gave that money back.
But it tarnishes what Democrats represent.
And at this point, I don't know what they represent other than AOC-like supporting concentration camps.
So long as the government licenses them.
Don't forget.
Politico says some members whose campaigns got unexpected Ocasio-Cortez cash are seeking answers directly from DCC Chair Rep Sean Patrick Maloney and top staffers.
Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee aides gave lawmakers wire transfer information to AOC's aides without the approval of more senior officials, according to multiple people familiar with the contributions.
Even if imperiled House Democrats refund her contribution now, Ocasio-Cortez's name is almost certain to show up on their Federal Election Commission reports when they're due this month, creating a liability for members of her party who have to win re-election in districts where her political brand is poisoned thanks to years of unrelenting Republican attacks.
Yikes, man, that is spicy.
They know it.
AOC's donations, her name is Poison.
Poison!
While some are grateful for the infusion of cash, at least three Democrats have so far either declined the initial transfer or said they would return the money.
Reps Connor Lamb of Pennsylvania, Carolyn Bordeaux of Georgia, and Alyssa Slotkin of Michigan, according to multiple sources.
Several people involved with the episode described it as an unforced error by the DCCC, with the staff of its campaign arm failing to anticipate the political ramifications of putting their party's most polarizing figure on their donor rolls of vulnerable members known as frontliners.
Is AOC trying to help Republicans win?
Certainly she knows that in a moderate district, her name is mud.
It's incredible.
Maybe she's trying to sabotage moderate Dems so that next time around, 2024, progressive far-leftist Dems will run in their place and say, see, the moderate agenda didn't work.
We need to go far left.
I don't think that she's thinking that far ahead.
But going behind the back of the DCCC, I can't say that AOC is trying to help the Democrats, although that's what it seems like.
You know, look, make the least amount of assumptions.
What solution tends to be the simplest one?
Chris Hayden, a spokesman for the DCCC, declined to comment on the details, but said, We appreciate Rep.
Ocasio-Cortez's ongoing commitment to a Democratic majority.
Due to a miscommunication, some wire transfers were made in error, but that has been addressed.
Ah, too late!
Politico says normally swing district Democrats are scrounging for every last dollar to help them secure their re-elections, particularly in a first quarter that has been tougher than usual for candidates across the board.
But the Ocasio-Cortez donation, these Democrats said, was unsolicited and came without warning.
I love this.
They're like, no, no, we don't want our money.
We didn't ask for it.
Please.
They say many of the campaigns did not receive a heads up from the DCCC about the donation until after it hit members' accounts, a move that surprised senior aides and campaign consultants.
I mean, think about how dirty politics is.
You could create a super PAC called, like, the Defending Ocasio-Cortez and Progressive Values Super PAC, and then make donations to moderates, and then Republicans would use that as an attack.
You know what I mean?
And it would work!
Because regular people who don't like AOC would be like, whoa, what's this?
That's why they're freaking out.
In this instance, AOC actually did it herself.
Quote, the GOP has spent four years saying the frontliners are all socialists.
Now they've got the receipts to prove it.
Anyone telling themselves this won't be in campaign ads is in denial, said one Democratic consultant who works for swing seat members.
This is insane!
This is crazy!
In the political donation world, wire transfers are commonly used to quickly move large sums of money from one account to another, particularly in a final stretch of a fundraising quarter and during a pandemic.
The Ocasio-Cortez transfers carried clear political risk for some members.
I just have to stop right here and stress this again, my friends.
Listen to what they're reporting!
The Democratic establishment is panicking because Ocasio-Cortez, an elected Democrat, is donating money to help Democrats win, and they're worried it will backfire, and it already has very likely.
Wow!
Talk about Democrats being tainted by AOC and the Squad.
Remarkable stuff.
Clear political risks, eh?
Some sources pointed out that she could have alleviated the current anxiety by giving to the DCCC directly.
That's what I don't get.
Now, apparently there was some issue with Cásar Cortés and the DCCC or Democratic
establishment players because they didn't want progressive super PACs or organizations
working with, you know, like working to unseat Democratic people running—politicians.
In certain districts where there were moderates, AOC pledged to actually prop up people to run
against them.
So naturally, you had the DCCC and other Democratic establishment individuals saying, we are not going to support this or allow you to do this.
It was something like they wouldn't contract with any of these organizations that would support the Justice Democrats or whatever.
So perhaps what AOC is doing right now is sabotaging the moderates.
100%.
Make sure they lose now, and then clean up the pieces later.
Destroy, rebuild.
Infiltrate, destroy, rebuild.
As out goes AOC, Brunson's Democrat.
She says crazy things about concentration camps and then supporting them.
She then knows her brand is tainted, gives money, saying outrageous things.
It's almost like she's trying to tear it down.
So, hey, you know, more power to AOC, I suppose.
And I guess they think that once the moderate Democrats are crushed, And the Republicans win the majority, they can then come back out and counter with a further left message saying, see, the moderates didn't work.
They say, Still, other Democrats said they saw the Ocasio-Cortez's interest in helping endangered incumbents as a positive sign for party unity, even if they were stunned by the method.
And privately, the liberal star already is personally close with some of the frontliners, many of whom were elected in the same blue wave that helped Democrats recapture the House in 2018.
Could it be that the reason AOC did this is she's trying to take the party over?
Hold on.
I know I just said infiltrate, destroy, rebuild.
No, what I mean is maybe she's trying to get these moderates to look at her.
She wants everyone to know her name.
She's a master at marketing.
Don't believe me?
Just look at her Twitter account.
How many millions of followers does she have now?
And she keeps growing.
She knows how to play the game.
That's why she says Trump is running concentration camps and all the leftists pump the retweets out and she gains tons of followers.
Then she comes out and it's Biden and she goes, well, Biden could be doing better with his influx facilities.
She is a manipulator.
She is like Trump 50 years ago, alright?
Well, yeah, about 50 years ago.
Trump knew how to play the game, and he used marketing to his advantage, putting big ol' golden Trump signs up on top of buildings, and it made him wealthy.
AOC knows how to play the game as well.
She knows what to say, where to say it, how to say it, and she knows she can get away with it.
And she does.
Now, you or I, we may be saying we see through the tactic, we see through the manipulation or sheer ignorance.
Unfortunately, it's just, it's not enough.
I hate to say it, man, but there are a lot of conservative channels that I respect and I enjoy watching.
I disagree with.
Steven Crowder, for instance, he's been getting just absolutely battered by YouTube for totally BS reasons.
I absolutely disagree with Crowder on a lot of things, though I've definitely come around on guns and stuff.
But Crowder was always willing to have a conversation with me, even when I was like, I think we should tax the rich or whatever, talking about certain progressive policies.
Because when it comes to the conservatives, The prominent ones right now love the debate, and so do I. And I know I'm not always right, and sometimes my opinions change, particularly with, like, respect to the Second Amendment.
I had a really, really amazing argument with Jack Murphy on the TimCast IRL podcast.
You should definitely check it out, just from this past week.
Last Wednesday, where I talked about stopping billionaires from flooding the zone with billions of dollars to ban guns, and beyond that, just other rights being curtailed.
So I see, you know, Steyer, Bloomberg, Bezos, Soros, and the Koch brothers and the Mercers, they all flood districts where they don't live with money in order to influence what they want.
I don't like that because if you live in West Virginia and then some dude dumps a hundred million dollars into your state so that they can get a Democrat in who's gonna put, you know, agree with some gun control and say every reasonable person agrees and just erode your rights, that is not the will of the people, that's manipulation of the people.
So I look at what Ocasio-Cortez represents, and she represents the biggest problem.
Now, just to finish off that last point, you know, Jack disagreed.
He said people should be allowed to spend their money, and I'm like, I understand it's complicated, right?
With AOC, and this donation stuff, she gets propped up by people all outside her district, and then she uses that money to influence her district.
She knows what she is doing with marketing.
So I have to wonder, what is she doing here?
Could be very simple.
All this money from Seattle and Austin and LA and Chicago going to AOC and her organizations.
She then gives it to Democrats in vulnerable moderate districts with her name on it.
And then everyone gets to know her name.
She is bypassing the DCCC.
She is taking the branding away.
It is brilliant.
She knows what she is doing.
And she knows she can say whatever she wants and get away with it.
So I'll tell you this, DNC Chair Jamie Harrison, he made these remarks on Sunday.
Too bad, buddy.
Too bad.
You guys can't compete with the sheer raw power that is Ocasio-Cortez.
And I'll say this, Ocasio-Cortez is a great politician.
Great politician.
You may not like her policies, you may think she's evil, but to deny her ability Would be incorrect.
Only a fool would think she wasn't capable.
She knows exactly what she's doing.
She knows how to play the game.
She knows what to say.
She knows what she can get away with.
It takes more than just luck to accomplish this.
She was born for the political arts.
It's remarkable.
It's absolutely remarkable.
She is just absolutely crushing it.
I don't like her.
I don't like politicians.
And she epitomizes everything about them.
Trump in many ways did too, but Trump was such an arrogant know-it-all that, like, he didn't flip-flop all that much.
He'd be like, no, I'm doing it no matter what.
I'll burn the whole place down if I have to.
Figuratively, I don't mean literally he literally was like fire him fire him.
He should have fired more people He like people were resigning left and right Trump knew what he wanted AOC is the perfect politician She'll say what she needs to say She will destroy the brand of the DNC and then she'll from the ashes build a new With respect man respect you got to respect that hustle man.
That's real talent.
I think AOC is a What's the right way to put it?
I think she's smart and talented.
But... I don't know.
Her ability to manipulate social media and steal the conversation is almost unparalleled.
There are very few people who know how to do what she's doing.
But I don't think she's the smartest person in the world.
I just think she has no morals.
She has no principles.
And so while you might be like, no, she's not smart.
Look at that dumb thing she supports.
Does she really support it?
Or is she just manipulating you?
Right?
Here I am talking about her, again, for like the third time, and a lot of people are like, stop talking about her, you're giving her power, blah blah blah.
Look man, I'm not here to care about who gains or doesn't gain power from me talking about them, like Trump may have gained power from me talking about him.
AOC may from me talking about her, but this is my opinion watching her do what she does.
It's brilliant stuff It is she look I think the concentration camp stuff proves.
She doesn't have any morals She just needs to say what needs to be said to gain power from stupid people and it works So I wonder People might call her dumb.
She would be wrong.
Look, if she was stupid, she'd still be tweeting these are concentration camps.
The fact that she changed her opinion means she understands how the system works, and she's adapting.
It's brilliant.
And she will burn the DNC to the ground, and you know what?
Hey, I'll tell you this.
Maybe the DNC deserves to be figuratively burned to the ground.
Like, just all the moderate establishment types are gonna lose out, because they're weak, corporatist, and they don't do anything.
And then we'll get crazy AOC, And who knows what she actually stands for.
Should be fun.
I'll leave it there.
We'll see how the DNC's brand survives, how it holds up in the next upcoming election.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
The remnants of the Trump era will stay with us forever.
Many leftists like to say, remember who supported the Cheeto dictator.
Don't let them escape this!
They've repeatedly called for former Trump administration officials to not be able to get jobs.
They've said that certain businesses shouldn't work with anyone who supported Donald Trump.
Yes, that may be a strong remnant of the Trump era, these cultist resistance type people who just want to stop anyone who supported the president from living, at least in civil society, as they like to say.
But we're also going to see remnants in the media because the stink will never wash away.
You see, look, I can talk to somebody who voted for Hillary Clinton, and I get it, whatever.
We can carry on and do business if it benefits both parties and, you know, the greater community.
There's always some consideration there.
I can work with someone who voted for Trump, Ron Paul, or Joe Jorgensen, or whoever, and be like, look, you know, we have to move on from these things.
However, we take a look at some of these journalists, and we can see the stain and the stink that will never leave.
Notably, Jim Acosta, and others like him, people like Brian Stelter, who sacrificed any shred of credibility they had to pander to, well, to grift, as it were.
Jim Acosta says journalists are dealing with post-Trump stress disorder.
Let me repeat that.
That is quite literally PTSD.
Post-Trump stress disorder.
I get it.
Jim, you have nothing to offer people.
All you did was grandstand and parrot garbage opinions from, you know, based on stories that were usually half-truths at best.
You stood up and you yelled at Trump instead of asking him legitimate questions about why things are happening and what we can do about them.
You would often refuse to sit down because you were more interested in berating a president instead of actually doing something.
You see, Jim Acosta discovered the ultimate grift.
He was given this position, being in the White House press corps, you know, being there in front of the president during his press briefings, to effectively channel symbolic rage from people who watch CNN and other fake news outlets, and then Well, attack the president verbally to give some emotional satisfaction to these people.
As people like Brian Stelter and CNN pump out ridiculously fake news or falsely framed narratives, many regular Americans got angry.
Jim Acosta was then there to take that anger, yell at Trump about some nonsense, and then have those people be satiated and calm down.
Thank you, CNN!
Think about that.
CNN was whipping these people up into a frenzy and then CNN was the one acting like they were the heroes here to help you.
We have a poll now from FiveThirtyEight that exemplifies a lot of what's going on in the media and a lot of what happens here on the TimCast channel.
Republicans really don't trust the media, saith FiveThirtyEight.
Democrats currently hold a 73% trust in media, Independents a 36%, and Republicans 10%.
Republicans really don't trust the media, saith FiveThirtyEight.
Democrats currently hold a 73% trust in media, independents a 36%, and Republicans 10%.
You know what I see when I see this chart?
Democrats overwhelmingly believe the media.
Independents and Trumps and Republicans both don't.
For the most part.
Most independents do not trust the media.
Only 36% do.
Share of respondents by party said they trusted mass media a great deal or a fair amount.
Not even a fair amount!
Amazing.
That's a large number of people, 64% of moderates.
You know what this shows me?
The Democrats are in a cult.
They're being fed ridiculous lies and they just believe it.
So how do we break them out of that?
Honestly, I don't know.
Certainly this video won't be doing it.
This video is more, I guess, confirmation bias for those who already know the media is bad.
Washington Examiner reports CNN's Jim Acosta said reporters are experiencing post-Trump stress disorder following the former president's exodus from the White House.
Quote, When you're asking me if I was run down, I thought you were referring to how I felt during the Trump era, Jim Acosta told CNN chief media correspondent Brian Stelter when he was asked about how he was feeling so far in President Joe Biden's term.
Quote, I think we're all dealing with some post-Trump stress disorder.
Other than that happy Easter, he was saying in those statements a few days ago.
Acosta's Happy Easter mention was in reference to a Sunday morning message from former President Trump in which he railed against radical left crazies and touched on the so-called rigged November election, so saith Trump.
Happy Easter to all, including the radical left crazies.
Um, um, I'm not going to read this.
But he said they were trying to destroy the country.
On Saturday, the former president wrote, For years, the radical left Democrats have played dirty by boycotting products when anything from that company is done or stated in any way that offends them.
Now they're going big time with woke cancel culture and our sacred elections.
It is finally time for Republicans and Conservatives to fight back.
We have more people than they do by far.
Capping off the message with Happy Easter.
Acosta, who was CNN's chief White House correspondent during the Trump years before becoming chief domestic correspondent, also spoke on moving forward from Trump's presidency and possibly limiting the amount of coverage he receives while he resides at his Mar-a-Lago resort.
Quote, In terms of stacking shows and what comes first and what comes second, Brian, you and I know this all too well.
We did cover the news before Trump came along, and we did it pretty well.
Really.
He says, and there's going to be plenty of stuff in the news out there that doesn't have to have President Donald Trump in the headlines for us to continue to exist, especially when he's putting out these statements.
He added that Trump has engaged in and continues to display behavior beneath the executive office.
When he was president, he was doing things that were beneath the office of the presidency, he said.
Now he's doing things beneath the office of the post-presidency.
He's not going to change, but we need to change with the times.
Stelter, while referencing Trump's recent string of statements mentioning claims of fraud that have been rejected by the courts and election officials, said, It is important to note, the big lie is still alive and well in the pro-Trump bubble.
I feel like it went away after the riot and reality reared its head, but no, the big lie is out there in the pro-Trump bubble.
Sure, because Brian Stelter won't give this up.
You notice how he uses that phrase, the big lie.
He's doing that because it's a rhetorical tool, it's a manipulation technique.
The big lie, he says.
Right.
The reality is that there are some issues, but Trump got oceans elevened, as I put it.
Anybody who was paying attention could see what happened, and I don't think there's any real reason to even rehash a lot of this stuff.
We know the rules changed a year before, in the fall of 2019.
In Pennsylvania, for instance, they changed a lot of rules.
And as Sean Parnell said, Democrats were making these changes because they thought it would benefit them in the election.
Republicans didn't pay attention to this and, well, they got caught off guard.
Trump did gain a lot of votes.
Joe Biden got more.
But I digress.
Regardless of that, we know that you can see all of this very much so in the media.
Take a look at how many people who are independent who trust the media.
36% say they trust the media a great deal or a fair amount.
Only 10% of Republicans.
Yes, there is a decent amount of Republicans who believe in, you know, who believe Trump outright, usually no matter what he says.
I'm not saying it's even 10%, but there's a lot.
Very, very zealous Trump-supporting individuals.
There are then independents and people like me, people like James Lindsay for instance, who mentioned, I think James voted for Trump, I'm not entirely sure, but I did.
And they did so for a variety of reasons I've talked about quite a bit.
Legitimate policy reasons, school choice, Trump's trying to end the Afghani war and bring our troops back to the United States, the ban on critical race theory, these are very, very important things.
We also had a booming economy.
I thought that made sense and I didn't want the establishment back in power.
So I fall in that category of independents who mostly do not trust the media.
Only 36% do.
If you do, you'll probably believe many things that are completely incorrect.
Now, there are even less Trump supporters, which means there's even a gap between independents and Trump supporters.
Take a look at that 73% Democrats.
They're in a cult.
They believe Brian Stelter.
They hang on his every word.
When he says, don't listen to the other news outlets, they listen to MSNBC.
They hear the nonsense.
And they hear the other big lie.
When they tell us about—and I say big lie, but big lies is probably better, like, I don't know, Trump-Russia collusion.
To me, that's the biggest of the lies, because they carried that for years.
They won awards for it, and it was just not true.
There's also the Black Lives Matter narrative about cops going around hunting people down, which we know also is just not true.
The Democrats push these psychotic lies and now post-Trump stress disorder.
Yeah, your ratings are in the gutter.
That's a good thing for this country.
Well, here's how FiveThirtyEight frames it.
Why being anti-media is now part of the GOP identity.
I love this so much.
FiveThirtyEight, it's part of the GOP identity?
Independent voters also don't trust the media.
So perhaps it's you in the cult.
Y'all are trapped.
I love when I see those posts on Reddit and stuff and they're like, Trump supporters are in a cult.
Nah, hold on there my friend.
You're referring to a subsection of Trump supporters who very much are in a cult of personality.
That I believe 100%.
Many of them believe ridiculous things about conspiracies and other crazy stuff.
But it's a small percentage.
Very small.
Because the prominent Trump supporters have rather mainstream opinions.
Though they have conservative opinions, they are mainstream.
Ben Shapiro, for instance.
Rather run-of-the-mill, to be completely honest.
And I don't mean that disrespectfully.
Ben Shapiro personifies the mainstream regular old conservative in much of the ways we've come to expect from conservatives.
However, he's actually a bit more libertarian.
Not perfect.
And so he's more tolerable to moderates because...
He's like, let me do my thing and you do yours.
Okay.
He talks about how he doesn't agree with Dave Rubin, but they're friends and they can get along.
Hey, that's exactly what we moderates are looking for in this country.
So you want to say it's part of the GOP identity?
No, I'm sorry.
It's just not a part of the Democrat identity.
The Democrat identity is just believe what CNN says.
Meanwhile, moderates and Republicans are kind of like, yo, we don't agree policy-wise, but these people are nuts.
Case in point, that's why you see channels like mine.
Where they're like, Tim, you sure do rag on Democrats all the time.
You know, the Democrats and the media seem to be walking in lockstep and lying most of the time.
And anybody who's paying attention, who's being honest, will tell you this.
What can I say of Republicans?
They suck too, but they don't do all that much.
Obstruct, I guess.
Now they're not in power, what am I gonna say about them?
Here's what FiveThirtyEight says.
There's little question that the media is one of the least trusted institutions in Republican circles.
My friends over at FiveThirtyEight, Meredith, who wrote this, the media is actually one of
the least trusted institutions, period. We've seen that poll time and time again.
In the past two decades, trust in traditional media has plummeted,
especially among Republicans, according to polling from Gallup.
Since at least the late 1990s, Republicans have been less likely than Democrats to say they trust the media.
But starting in 2015, trust among Republicans took a nosedive, falling from 32% to 10% in 2020.
Meanwhile, among Democrats, trust in the media has actually climbed back up quite a bit.
Why?
It's fairly obvious.
You can see that in about 2016, Democrats were below 60% in terms of trusting the media.
It's spiked up to just under 80, and now it's at 73%.
They hated Donald Trump.
The media kept telling them that Donald Trump was bad, and they bought into that narrative, and they started believing it.
Then they started feeding them that feedback loop of, Donald Trump is evil!
We're gonna stand up to Donald Trump!
Thank you for telling us how evil he is, because we're biased, and thank you for then standing up to him.
They created that feedback loop of addiction.
And it worked really well for them.
Now they're suffering from post-Trump stress disorder.
We called that Trump Derangement Syndrome, but sure.
There's gotta be a name for it now that Trump's gone, right?
Right.
They're gonna say, Republicans have been less likely than Democrats, you know, falling 10% from 32.
Part of this is because Republicans are often more vocal in their criticisms of the media and have long preceded as having a liberal bias, which is a fact.
But now they are also more likely to say that being anti-media is part of their political identity.
This is likely driving the staggering gap in the media trust that we are seeing.
Let's start with Republicans' media habits.
In our fractured media ecosystem, it's not uncommon for both Republicans and Democrats to seek out news sources that reinforce their political beliefs.
Full stop.
That is true.
And as a new study finds, exposure to media that is partisan, whether liberal or conservative, reduces people's overall trust in the mainstream press, regardless of political party.
But what sets Republicans apart at this point is their steady reliance on just one source for all their news, Fox News.
In its study of the media landscape in the lead-up to the 2020 presidential election cycle, the Pew Research Center found that of the 30 news sources it asked about, only Fox News was trusted by a majority of Republicans.
And there we go!
Baby!
I love it!
You ask someone, here are 30 news sources, which ones do you trust?
And the conservatives overwhelmingly say Fox News, so FiveThirtyEight says they only get their news from one source, which is a lie.
Let's play a game, my friends.
It's called Breakdown the Lie.
They say, let's start with Republicans' media habits, blah, blah, blah.
We read this, a new study, and it finds exposure to media is partisan, whether liberal or conservative, reduces people of our overall trust.
What sets Republican apart at this point is their steady reliance on just one source for all their news.
538, did you stop to consider one very important fact?
They were only given 30 options.
Was Steven Crowder an option?
Maybe.
Was Tim Pool an option?
Perhaps.
Were the Young Turks even an option?
Yeah, more likely than not, I think the Young Turks might have been an option.
Could it be that these people are getting their news from a variety of different sources that are not mainstream or establishment press?
Could it be that many of these people are not just relying on Fox News, but in fact, a variety of other independent news channels and creators?
Could it be that some of them fall victim to conspiracy channels?
All of those things are true.
But you see how the media frames this?
Only Fox News was trusted.
That's incredible.
They say, Republicans' second most trusted source, ABC News, wasn't even a close second.
This finding stands in stark contrast with the view of Democrats, who said they trusted a variety of news sources.
And it marks a further decline in Republicans' trust of other news sources since Pew last conducted a similar survey in 2014.
It's actually quite amazing.
Because I've gone over this poll before.
This is from last year, actually.
And, of course, they just give you corporate press.
Republicans, of course, trust Fox News, because Fox News gives them, you know, their opinions.
It's confirmation bias.
But they're not giving you independent media.
In fact, they don't even talk about smaller, more establishment channels.
Or, I'll tell you this, I don't necessarily see in this the Washington Examiner, or the Daily Caller, or the Daily Wire, or Ben Shapiro.
Then FiveThirtyEight frames it as though Republicans just don't trust the press.
They do.
Just not yours.
You see, what's happening nowadays is that you have two groups of people.
The discerning and the uninitiated.
Uninitiated people don't understand what's going on around them.
They turn on CNN and say, there's the news, and they care about their business.
I encounter these people from time to time.
I had a woman recently tell me that she loved Kamala Harris.
And I was like, well, you're not gonna like my show then, because I do not like her.
And she was like, well, you know, that's fine, you can have a different opinion, but what's not to like about her?
And I was like, I don't know, the keeping minorities in prison past their sentence to use as slave labor to fight wildfires is a big... I didn't say it like that.
I was like, look, she kept minority prison inmates in prison past their release date because she wanted to use them to fight wildfires at a dollar an hour.
I'm sure the people of California love the fact that they had slaves fighting their wildfires for them, but, uh, I'm not a fan of that.
And, oh, am I being hyperbolic?
No, no, no.
The 13th Amendment, which bans slavery, literally says, you can have slaves so long as they're imprisoned.
So Kamala Harris knew exactly what she was doing.
Sorry.
But I encounter these people.
They don't know.
I don't blame them.
I'd love to invite them to learn, but they're not interested in the stuff.
They turn on the TV, and there's good ol' Brian Stelter saying, Donald Trump is bad, and we're all suffering because of it.
Fox News, let me tell you what they said.
What I love about Brian Stelter is that he basically, on CNN, just gives us the Fox News Review Show.
I can watch Fox News myself, Guy.
I don't need you to tell me what they said for me.
I do think it's fascinating, though.
You see, the mainstream media is this bizarro reality, and Brian Stelter is in effect a kind of bizarro me, in a certain sense.
Now, we're not completely the same, but, uh...
Ryan Stelter goes on CNN, and he's the media correspondent, so he criticizes the media.
Which basically means he complains about Fox News.
Because his audience is completely biased, and he can't insult them for being dumb.
He just says, Fox News is bad.
Listen, if you're a media critic for the establishment, the only media to criticize is Fox News.
How long are you going to do that for?
That's dumb.
I suppose you can then pull up Breitbart and the Daily Caller and the Daily Wire.
Sure, I guess.
Now, for someone like me, who's generally just anti-establishment, I have criticized some conservative outlets some of the time.
Sometimes.
Usually, they're not NewsGuard certified, and I just ignore it.
I use NewsGuard for a reason.
My criticism is with the establishment, not with small conservative outlets.
So I'll use NewsGuard-certified conservative outlets, and I typically don't for outlets that aren't certified by NewsGuard.
NewsGuard is establishment-biased.
I use their own sources, often to fact-check them and criticize them, like I'm doing right here.
The Examiner, by the way, which is more conservative, which is conservative, is absolutely certified.
It's on purpose.
You see, I'm criticizing the establishment, and there's oh so much to criticize.
Brian Stelter complaining about Fox News, you punch him down.
I get it, Fox News is the biggest network right now, they get the most ratings, but it's nothing compared to the entirety of the establishment press.
So, while Fox News has done things I criticize, What's there to complain about?
Tucker Carlson tends to get it right, but I've done, I think, like two or three segments criticizing Tucker Carlson in the past month or two.
There was the issue with one New York Times journalist.
I criticized him over.
And I criticized him over his stance on pregnant people serving in the military.
I get the concern of opinion.
I disagree with it.
For the most part, I think Tucker tries to get his facts right and does a pretty good job.
In fact, he's probably the best person on TV because of this.
Could there be better?
Yeah.
And unfortunately, there should be, but there isn't.
And it's their fault.
Because they've become caricatures of the media.
So here's where we are.
People, come to my channel.
Thank you very much.
If you like this show, go to TimCast.com, sign up, become a member, share these segments.
There are people who reach outside the box.
They find new sources of information, and they get a collection of different opinions.
I find it very fascinating.
There's an overlap between my channel and Jimmy Dore, and it's one of the coolest things ever.
Why?
Well, Jimmy's awesome.
I have tremendous respect for Jimmy Dore.
I disagree with him on a lot of politics, and we disagreed to each other, just like I disagree with Steven Crowder.
But Jimmy is an honest guy who genuinely believes what he believes and genuinely fights for and challenges the establishment, and for some reason is mostly poking at Democrats.
Why?
They're the establishment, along with the corporate press.
So there are people There's an overlap between some of my audience and Crowder's and some of my audience and Jimmy Dore's.
Isn't it amazing that there are people who watch Crowder and Jimmy Dore?
Because you can have a dumb political opinion as long as you're being honest to the best of your abilities.
And there's trust there.
I trust that if Jimmy gets something wrong, he genuinely made a mistake, and he will correct it if it comes up.
I know that if Crowder gets something wrong, he made a mistake, and he will correct it.
And you can trust, and I will tell you this, when I get things wrong, I do issue corrections, even sometimes without prompt.
I'll put an editor's note saying, I feel like I wasn't clear enough on this point.
I want to make sure everybody understands, because if I got this wrong, it's important you know.
And I will always tell people, watch Jimmy, watch Crowder, and watch CNN.
Learn what they're saying.
And then come watch his other channels.
There are people who are willing to do that.
Get their opinion from someone who's very much pro-Universal Healthcare, get their opinion from Crowder who's very much against Universal Healthcare, and then get their opinion from someone who's a rather milquetoast fence-sitter, as the joke goes, leaning slightly left, saying, Universal Healthcare would be great, I just don't know if it's feasible.
It's a wide array of voices that the average person can get their information from.
Not mainstream press.
Not CNN.
Not NBC.
Not ABC.
So conservatives, remarkably, are getting their information from a mixed bag.
And so they're actually seeing a multitude of perspectives.
And because of this, they're going, hey!
The media's lying!
Many of them will only watch Steven Crowder.
Still better than just Fox News.
But you see how they frame it?
What they say about people.
If you just watch the mainstream media, I have to wonder this.
I've been saying quite a bit on Twitter lately that I feel like the future is going to be extremely progressive just because Republicans don't have the political willpower to fight back.
So I was like, by 2030, you know, the Republican Party is going to be a bunch of socialists, you know, pro-trans, pro-gay marriage, all of these progressive opinions, and then the Democrats are going to be otherkin communists, because that seems to be the direction things tend to shift.
I could be wrong, though.
The mainstream narrative from these cable networks and these corporations and TV channels is old school.
Their ratings are tanking.
They're all talking about how their ratings are going down, and I'm like, my ratings are going up.
I mean, granted, during the election, of course, it was nuts.
Viewership was nuts for everybody.
And it's gone down for everybody, including myself, but we've actually, you know, here at TimCast IRL, we've been improving, growing, we're hiring, we're expanding.
We've got so much opportunity for expansion, it's making my head spin.
These other companies are like, we're kind of hurting.
Things are going bad.
I wonder if in 10 years, CNN won't even exist anymore.
Or they'll just be like a blog.
And these other big corporate channels won't survive.
You take a look at The Daily Show with Trevor Noah.
They're trying to make Trevor Noah come out like a YouTuber, like the kind of stuff I do.
He's in his room, he's got a TV behind him, and he's like, hey, look what's happening.
And he cracks jokes, and it's just not funny or interesting.
And you take a look at what's doing really, really well.
Channels like this.
You know what I will say is fascinating.
There's a lot of people in media who seem to think because of the style of my videos as just in a room with the thing pulled up the screen grab and I'm talking, it must be a guy in his basement.
Not realizing that we are a massive operation with a dozen-plus employees at this point and expanding.
And we're already talking to people about funding TV shows and new podcasts, new staff, expansion, expansion, expansion.
There are even people at Fox, they seem to think, I've had conservative outlets who seem to think this is some small-time operation.
No, we've got three different shows, which is just basically my commentary, and we're going to be expanding more.
And we're going to be huge.
And we are going to be that space for legitimate, moderate discussion, and even some left-leaning opinion that isn't woke.
Real conversations from honest people.
That's what we're building.
Conservatives, of course, too.
Because I want to have just like a fair conversation.
Sometimes conservatives are right.
Whoa, surprise!
Sometimes liberals are right.
Wow, shocking.
The problem is the media just says whatever the left wants to hear.
Liberals and the leftists.
And thus they create a feedback loop of psychotic nonsense and then throw red meat to these people.
I love it.
They would call me a grifter, while AOC is the one now claiming that the child detention centers are influx facilities, to which she previously called them concentration camps.
I've always maintained they weren't, and they still aren't.
They have always been child detention facilities.
It's amazing to get a little mental or intellectual consistency, isn't it?
You don't get it from the media.
You get sophistry and attempts at justification.
Sorry, man.
If I see an opinion come out from conservatives I don't agree with, I'm gonna say I don't agree with it.
When Tucker Carlson came out and said, you know, flight suits for pregnant women, this is crazy, or you know, I said, actually I like the idea that everybody can serve.
They're not all gonna be in combat or flying.
I have no problem with that.
What you'll get from the progressives is something entirely different.
Save Jimmy Dore, because he's a good dude.
I respect him.
When you go on YouTube, there's a variety of opinions.
YouTube is not perfect.
They censor people.
But if you're getting your information from YouTube, you'll more likely have a healthy, balanced view.
It's not without its problems.
There's a lot of people who believe in lizard people and the flat earth and all this other crazy stuff.
But if you're a discerning individual, okay?
And you have to balance what you see from people like me on YouTube as well as the mainstream media, then you will have a robust media knowledge.
A better idea of what's going on.
It's not always that easy, but I'll tell you this.
Don't get all of your news from one source.
Don't get it from just me or just Crowder or just Jimmy.
Watch as many people as you can and even make sure you're tuning in to regular old mainstream press.
Otherwise you'll fall into a bubble.
That's not a good thing.
I try to be as balanced as I possibly can.
I shouldn't say balanced.
I try to be honest and understand the perspectives the best I can do.
The media?
Not so much.
They're too busy dealing with their post-Trump stress disorder.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at YouTube.com slash TimCast.
That is my other channel, which is more bigger news of the day, and this one's more like, I don't know, nitty-gritty, in-the-weeds philosophy and things like that, and sometimes just general grievances, I suppose.
But yeah, I think I might be talking about Chauvin.
