Chauvin Trial Prosecutors Screw Up BIGTIME, Judge Threatens Mistrial, Defense FURIOUS, Riot Expected. The State prosecutors failed to bring evidence in a timely manner or inform the defense trigger the judge to say no, the evidence cannot be admitted now.
Yet still in the George Floyd trial the prosecutors brought up test results that undermine the defense's expert witness without the defense having the ability to issue a rebuttal
It seemed for a moment the judge would declare a mistrial but still the case continued.
BLM Riots are expected this weekend which will likely taint the jury and it seems the fate of Derek Chauvin is with the jury now.
#Chauvin
#Floyd
#BLMRiots
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Chauvin trial prosecutors screwed up big time.
They failed to present evidence in a timely manner, and the judge warned them, if you even get close to talking about this particular form of evidence, I will declare a mistrial.
Shockingly, the prosecutors did just that.
The defense was furious.
But the judge did not call a mistrial, leaving many to wonder what the outcome will be after the jury finally reaches their verdict next week.
In our next story, the Democrats have finally done it.
They've moved to pack the Supreme Court, though it doesn't seem likely.
They are going to try to add four new justices, of which, of course, Joe Biden would appoint them all, and they'd all be Democrats.
In our last story, It turns out, the claims about Russians putting bounties on American soldiers was probably not true.
And the mainstream media is now admitting Trump was actually probably right.
It was all a big hoax.
Before we get started, leave us a good review.
Leave us five stars because it really helps the show.
And if you really like the show, share it with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
The criminal trial for former police officer Derek Chauvin continued today, and this one
was a nail-biter.
In the end, the prosecution and the defense rested their cases.
The judge said to the jury, have a nice long weekend.
Come Monday when we hear closing arguments, and then you will be sequestered as you enter deliberations.
But the people of Minneapolis dodged a bullet.
The state screwed up big time.
You see, a month ago, evidence was presented to the state in advance.
We're going to have expert testimony.
This testimony was heard by the court yesterday, and it was particularly good for the defense.
In this testimony, the expert witness, a medical expert, said that carbon monoxide may have played a role in George Floyd's death.
The state did not admit evidence on time and asked the judge to be able to do so because they discovered new evidence this morning.
The judge said, no.
And if I even get a hint that you will bring up this evidence at the last minute without notifying defense, I will declare a mistrial.
In a stunning turn of events, they did just that.
I was shocked to watch this in real time.
Even analysts from CNN are saying, did the witness just say exactly what the judge said not to say?
Oh yeah.
This is scary because we've seen the ongoing riots in Minnesota and it may have ended in a mistrial.
Everybody was on the edge of their seats.
Will the judge come back and say, you're done.
Mistrial.
It didn't happen.
And the defense was clearly angered by this, at least in my opinion.
And we'll go through exactly how this went down.
I've even got analysts from some legal experts over at Legal Insurrection, their live analysis.
But we've got to talk about the bigger picture as well and what this means.
There's a few other aspects of this trial that we saw today.
Notably, Derek Chauvin pleaded the fifth.
He will not testify.
Of course, that's being used against him by the left, where they're claiming that he won't even speak about his own defense!
You have a right to plead the Fifth, you do.
Because you don't want to incriminate yourself and you don't know, sometimes, exactly what you say could... You don't know what the cross-examination would be.
That's why we have a Fifth Amendment right.
The same is true for Maury's Lester Hall, the man identified as George Floyd's drug dealer who also pleaded the Fifth.
The difference with that case was that his lawyer actually came out and said he doesn't want to incriminate himself in a third-degree murder charge.
That was a little explicit.
But does it mean that Maurice Lester Halt is guilty of anything?
When you plead the fifth, we leave it at that because we respect people's right.
Just because you won't testify does not mean you are admitting guilt or in any way insinuating guilt.
Although they do advise, lawyers typically advise their clients, many people will take it that way.
And Chauvin said, well, so be it.
I wonder about these stories.
You know, Chauvin, now this officer Kim Potter.
There's another story about a man, I think it's in Florida, where he shoved a young black man, it was filmed, and now it's national news and Black Lives Matter is protesting.
Meanwhile, a 16-year-old white teenager was shot and killed by cops and no one seems to care.
We see this double standard in the media.
We see it published.
Project Veritas, putting out this new clip today, where you've got a guy at CNN basically saying, like, yeah, you know, it's all, you know, it's race baiting, and they only care about certain races, you know, it's only white people when there is a shooting.
You see how the media plays the game.
You see how it's exploited by the activists, and you see how it results in a trial.
Now, the bigger picture here, in my opinion, that freaks me out, is that it seems, to me at least, A clear-cut case of the state defying the judge.
The defense was furious.
The judge called a recess and we thought there could be a mistrial.
Even leftists were saying this was a huge mistake on the part of the prosecution.
It was a huge risk and they screwed up big time.
Yet they get away with it.
Maybe in the end, the judge was thinking, look, the case was particularly bad for the prosecution, so them screwing up in this capacity, it's not like they're probably going to win, but who knows?
Many conservatives are saying the jury will likely be hung, not able to come to a decision, or there will be some kind of... some kind of political response.
As some have pointed out, some of these jurors have to commute through riots to make it to court.
So how could it not be tainted?
Let's go over what's happening here in this country and this potential mistrial and what it would have meant for the people of Minneapolis.
This was a scary moment, I'll tell you that.
And it shows that I think the court is actually a bit deferential to the prosecution, though the activists think the other is true.
I mean, ultimately, I think the judge is doing a good job.
But let's read this news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com to become a member and get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast.
We had Jack Murphy and Seamus Coghlan from Freedom Tunes on the show last night.
It was a hoot.
And we got a bonus segment up at TimCast.com.
There's a real risk we get banned.
Look, they're deleting channels left and right.
Some people think it'll never happen to me.
My Facebook's already down.
Go to TimCast.com, become a member, because in the event I do get banned or censored or suppressed, that's where you'll be able to find our content.
And don't forget to like, share, subscribe, hit that notification bell.
Let's read the news.
Judge warns of mistrial in Chauvin case if prosecution witness even hints at newly discovered evidence.
Surprise, surprise, he did just that.
Let's break down exactly what happened and exactly what they got away with.
The Hill reports, the judge in the George Floyd case rejected a request by the prosecution on Thursday to enter newly discovered evidence in the murder trial of Derek Chauvin that would have contained information about Floyd's carbon monoxide content during his arrest, warning of a mistrial if the results were mentioned by their rebuttal witness before the jury.
Prosecutor Jerry Blackwell told Judge Peter Kahle on Thursday morning that the state had just received blood gas evidence from the Hennepin County Medical Examiner, Andrew Baker, who performed Floyd's autopsy that contained readings for the carbon monoxide content in his blood on the day he was arrested.
The evidence, Blackwell said, was discovered after a former chief medical examiner, called by the defense as an expert witness, speculated in court that Floyd could have been exposed to carbon monoxide poisoning when he was pressed to the ground under Chauvin's restraint near a squad car last May.
Though the witness, David Fowler, said he had no knowledge of whether Floyd's blood had even been tested for carbon monoxide, he pointed to potential carbon monoxide poisoning from listing each of the factors he felt played a role in his death.
Blackwell grilled Fowler, the defense's sole witness who took the stand on Wednesday, over the speculation during the cross-examination later that day.
Quote, You agree as an expert witness that you shouldn't jump to conclusions.
That is, you should reach fair conclusions based upon careful, considered analysis.
Do you agree that you shouldn't come at this in a way that's biased?
You agree with that, don't you?
You shouldn't cherry-pick facts.
You shouldn't try to confuse the jury.
During comments to Cahill on early Thursday, Blackwell said Baker had discovered results from tests conducted when Floyd's body was examined last year that had information related to his carbon monoxide content.
Blackwell said the state had previously subpoenaed all the medical records, but it did not receive the records containing the evidence in question.
Dr. Baker heard the testimony.
Had not himself ever requested this, nor had the ER physician.
They explained that when somebody is brought in and blood gases are taken, there's a panel of them that are taken.
The ones that get generated and the records would be the ones the ER physicians actually request.
Nobody requested carbon monoxide readings because they didn't see how that was relevant.
Did Dr. Baker spontaneously call you to tell you there might be something deep within the computer records that was not disclosed?
Cahill asked.
We did not seek him out asking anything.
He had heard the testimony and thought that this record might exist because he was aware there's a panel of the tests that are run by the machine.
Let me jump to the point on this.
The judge ultimately said, the defense provided you with the report from their witness in February, almost two months ago.
The defense did not find it relevant to seek out this information and were not able to produce it.
It is not fair to the defense that the state would be able to bring up new evidence undermining their case without time to prepare.
The defense was obviously upset by this.
They challenged it.
The judge said you cannot admit this evidence.
But the state argued that we had previous testimony about the oxygen level in George Floyd's blood.
You should be able to have an inverse correlation without the test results because of the blood oxygen level.
So the judge said, if you bring, I will allow you to rebut with your witness Tobin, but if I even get a hint of you mentioning the test results, I will declare a mistrial.
Surprise, surprise.
They did it.
I mean, I was sitting here with my jaw open just like, what is happening?
Pundits on the left and the right were shocked.
Are they really doing this?
Yeah.
Check this out.
From Legal Insurrection.
Tobin.
Carboxyhemoglobin is when CO2 combines with hemoglobin.
Why is that important?
Important because when the CO binds to the hemoglobin, it displaces oxygen off the hemoglobin.
Need the O on the hemoglobin.
Hemoglobin.
Don't want the carbon dioxide.
Have an opinion as to whether the statement that Floyd's carboxy could have increased to 18% is reliable.
No, not reliable.
Based on arterial blood gas obtained when Floyd in Hennepin County, Cahill, sidebar, did Tobin just stray into mistrial territory?
This was the live analysis from Legal Insurrection when it went down.
I was shocked.
It seems like the state didn't care.
They asked the other witness, their witness Tobin, to rebut the medical expert from the defense yesterday.
And he even said there was a test done, which wasn't admitted into evidence.
He even shows the wrist and explains how they get the blood oxygen, and then says, here's what they found, and was asked, what was Floyd's carbon monoxide level based on that analysis?
And he's like, probably not very high.
And then the defense objected.
The judge sustained, said, change your wording.
Afterwards, there was a recess called where apparently, check this out, AFB says, stupid of the state to take this risk.
Cahill, objection sustained, rephrased the question.
Blackwell, why results not reliable?
Understand something about oxygen saturation testing of the blood.
Tobin, Floyd went to HCMC, Hennepin County Medical Center.
He had arterial blood taken.
And then on the blood gas measurements, pressure of oxygen CO, the acid in the blood, pH, get all different measurements.
Also get the O saturation.
How much of the hemoglobin that carries the O, how much of that is saturated with O?
And Floyd was 98%.
Blackwell, 98% saturation with oxygen.
Basically, many people were saying that this essentially strayed into misdraft territory.
Blackwell said that's all.
Prosecution done.
Nelson asks for a couple of minutes steps away.
Tobin remains on stand.
Appears that Nelson has gone into chambers with Cahill and now coming back out.
Legal insurrection says irony.
In a trial with huge racial overtones, Skynet has someone named Mark White as commentator.
Nelson still on headphones used with sidebar.
Cahill is telling jury a recess until 1045 or so 10 minutes.
Certainly Nelson must be arguing for a mistrial.
He has no practical means to effectively cross examine these new claims of Tobin.
Defense expert is on a plane flying home.
Check this out.
From Asha Rangappa.
She is former FBI special agent lawyer, a CNN analyst, and she tweeted, Did Dr. Tobin just mention the test the judge explicitly warned the prosecution not to mention on penalty of mistrial?
That she did.
Dr. Atanu Mukherjee responded on Twitter, Let's be honest to ourselves.
The judge from the very beginning of the trial has been sided with the defense.
That, to me, is absolutely incredible to state!
The state was able to admit last-minute evidence without the defense being able to cross without their own witness because he left.
The judge allowed it, didn't declare a mistrial.
Dodging a bullet there, guys.
If they declared a mistrial, it could have gotten really bad.
But, uh, the judge didn't.
Some asked, aren't things going well for the defense?
They are.
The state screwed up by not preparing a defense in this case.
I mean, this was a major screw-up, and that's why the state took the risk.
They were willing to risk their entire case.
Why?
It's a freebie.
It's a do-over.
Mistrials are not necessarily good things for the defense.
The state has flubbed and failed.
They couldn't get their story straight.
They can't even explain how George Floyd died definitively.
A mistrial would have given them time to basically start over.
However, it would have created a case for appeal for Derek Chauvin.
In the end, we all dodged a bullet.
Now, here's the rest of the news, okay?
The defense and the prosecution have rested.
Closing arguments will be on Monday, and the riots will be over the weekend, so I'm sure the jury will be tainted to an absurd degree.
Derek Chauvin trial.
Former Minneapolis officer accused of killing George Floyd declines to testify.
It's basically that simple.
He pleaded the fifth.
They say former officer Derek Chauvin invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination on Thursday and declined to testify as he faces murder and manslaughter charges in the death of George Floyd.
The defense rested its case on Thursday, and in this moment, The defense asked Chauvin a series of questions to the court.
You understand, you have a right to testify, but you also have a right to plead the fifth.
The judge asked Chauvin, were you coerced in any way or bribed or anything like that?
And he said, no, I wasn't.
He chose not to plead the fifth.
What do you think the response was from the left in this country?
Predictable.
First of all, it's amazing to me that they can recognize the prosecution almost got a mistrial called.
I mean, let's see an analysis.
She's anti-Trump.
She's a left.
We have this from Lawrence O'Donnell.
He says, Derek Chauvin has nothing to say in his defense.
Not one word.
And?
That means nothing.
I'm sure he has many things to say in his defense, but he doesn't want to incriminate himself in areas he's not prepared for.
This is a constitutional right.
Why undermine that?
Of course, they only care about power.
This person responded on Twitter saying, That's it.
5th, he's basically saying his defense will incriminate himself.
No, he isn't.
That is not to be inferred by the jury.
We don't know the real reasons.
People have a right not to testify.
That's it.
That's it.
There's a difference here between Maurice Lester Hall and George Floyd.
Previously, we heard that Maurice Lester Hall, the friend of George Floyd, would not be testifying
and would plead the 5th himself.
MEAWW reports Maury's Lester Hall allowed to plead the fifth.
George Floyd pal will not have to testify.
When we first got this news, I said it is not an indication of guilt.
However, it may create reasonable doubt with the jury.
When Derek Chauvin pleads the Fifth, it's not going to add to definitive proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Creating doubt is easy.
Proving beyond a reasonable doubt is hard.
There's a difference here.
I respect Maurice Lester Hall's right to plead the Fifth.
However, his lawyer also came out and said he fears being charged with third-degree murder in the death of George Floyd.
While it doesn't incriminate him, it does create reasonable doubt as to the true cause of death for George Floyd.
I want to make sure that's clear.
But I gotta say, based on everything we've seen, it's like the left, they don't care for constitutional rights in this country.
It's that simple.
What really separates the left and the right, whatever you want to call it, is, I guess in certain circumstances, just tribalism.
There's probably not one easily defined way to split the two factions, but there seems to be an overlap between those who respect civil liberties and civil rights, and those who don't.
Now, the defense has rested in the Chauvin murder trial.
Chauvin's defense attorney, Eric Nelson, decided to rest his case after the former officer pleaded the fifth.
This we understand.
Now, what are the greater ramifications for Minneapolis?
We are now going to sit back and wait to see what happens.
This weekend will likely be very, very bad.
And, uh, I'm quite worried about it, to be completely honest.
Let me show you this story from the New York Times.
We have already boarded.
Businesses in Minneapolis brace for protests like the ones last year.
How dare you, New York Times?
Brace for protests?
Boarding up their windows for protests?
Amazing.
Well, my advice to the people of Minneapolis, Y'all better buy supplies, board up your windows and doors, and make sure you are safe, because you are about to witness destruction, mayhem, fire, death, due to mass peaceful protests.
Does that make sense?
That's the story.
The New York Times says, Carl Mitchell spent Sunday nailing wood to the windows of the Amstar convenience shop he manages in North Minneapolis.
Hours earlier, Dante Wright, a 20-year-old black man, had been shot by the police 10 miles north.
With the trial of the former officer Chauvin heading into its third week, Mr. Mitchell didn't want to take any chances.
Mitchell, 26, saw last year just how quickly protests can escalate when the O'Reilly's auto parts across the street from his shop burned down at 4 a.m.
From protests?
Amazing.
After a night of protests, they actually say it!
Following Floyd's death.
We weren't ready last time, he said, as customers paid for gas on Wednesday.
We have already boarded.
We pray.
Not much else we can do.
You can leave.
I know it's not easy, but you can leave.
As Minneapolis and its suburbs prepare for a verdict in Mr. Chauvin's trial, business owners are hoping they won't have to relive the weeks of protests from last year that sparked a nationwide discussion about wh- A nationwide discussion.
You mean nationwide riots!
At home, it led to damage estimated at about $300 million.
Businesses already hurting from the pandemic closed.
In downtown Minneapolis, near the site of Mr. Chauvin's trial, construction workers were putting up more fencing and boarding and widening the security perimeter around the courthouse where Mr. Chauvin is on trial.
Public areas with park benches are now closed off by metal grates, fencing, and jersey barriers.
One worker called the area a ghost town.
A caribou coffee had so much wood up that regular customers thought it was closed until workers spray-painted open on the sheets.
Curfews have been in place in much of the metropolitan area since Sunday, with protests mostly occurring in Brooklyn Center, where Mr. Wright was shot.
In the main drag of businesses there, only two gas stations were open late Tuesday.
Every other shop was boarded and closed.
Back in North Minneapolis, groups of National Guard troops could be seen patrolling late Tuesday night and during the day on Wednesday.
Of the dozens of stores in strip malls, most had wood nailed to their windows.
Some stores never reopened after last summer's protests, Mr. Mitchell said.
And I'll tell you.
Some of them never will.
And that's sad.
Some won't reopen for decades.
Mr. Mitchell, a black father of two, said he wasn't worried about his own safety.
But now, in addition to his shop, his mind was on Brooklyn Center after neighboring areas, including Brooklyn Park, where he lives.
And now I need to worry about what's going on at home.
And that's what we can expect.
No matter what happens, we'll see riots.
The riots are going to happen this weekend.
The activists have stormed the city.
They're preparing for war.
I mean, I would say figuratively, but to a low-scale degree, they are.
And it's going to get bad.
The jurors will have to witness this over the weekend.
And then come Monday, there is going to be that glimmer in the eye of the prosecution.
If you acquit this man in any capacity, this city will burn.
And they will come for you.
And the jurors know it.
They've already expressed those fears.
Some of them have.
One juror actually lives in Brooklyn Center, apparently.
These people have to commute through the riots to get to the courthouse.
It's incredible.
I don't see how Shelby gets a fair trial in this regard.
But I also don't see how any court, in any capacity, could convict on second-degree murder charges.
Come Monday, we will hear closing arguments.
And I cannot fathom Any argument from the state, based on their own evidence, how Chauvin is guilty of murder in the second degree.
That would imply that Chauvin saw Floyd and decided he was going to kill that man.
We've already had the state's own experts testify.
Chauvin opted for lesser force than he was permitted to use.
You would imagine if he was intending to kill someone, he would have used more force than he was intending to use, which is a major component of what the state needed to prove in the first place, and was unable to.
That Chauvin's use of force was excessive.
According to their own witness, it was not.
So here we go, baby.
Hope you're ready for low-grade war.
You know, I don't want to say literal war, and I don't want to say it's just figurative.
I mean, it mostly is figurative, but these people are coming out with very serious intentions.
Someone shot up a police department in, I believe it was in Brooklyn Park.
They shot through the front windows.
There were gunshots ringing out in much of this video footage.
It's bad.
People are trying to kill each other.
Or, I don't know what they're trying to do, but they're nearly killing each other.
They're burning down the city.
Some of these people just want to steal stuff.
And that's true.
This is an opportunity for them to do it and they will likely take it.
Many of these officers don't seem to care what's happening all around them and just stand by and say this is fine when they probably should get out along with everyone else.
The sane, regular people who are sitting by and watching this and doing nothing... I'm sorry, I can't argue on your behalf anymore.
At a certain point, you have to take responsibility.
Many of these people are sitting in a burning building, deciding to stay.
That's your choice.
If your house is on fire and you decide to stay in it, what do you want me to say?
And then people... Think about it this way.
Your house is on fire and you're thinking to yourself, but it's cold outside.
But I don't have clothes outside.
But I don't have a computer outside.
But my job is not outside.
Okay, well then stay in the house until it burns down and then you risk your family's safety.
Or, run outside, lose everything, but accept that your city is being burnt down and these people vote for more of it.
The media in this country is corrupt.
They're going to exacerbate all of this, and they're doing it right now.
I want to show you this story.
Check this out.
From WIS News.
Soldier charged in viral video surfaces of confrontation with black man outside his SC home.
So it wasn't Florida.
It's Columbia, South Carolina, they say.
A viral video showing a white man in Richard County, South Carolina, confronting a black man who was walking on the sidewalk outside his home has led to an arrest.
The video is being investigated by police, Fort Jackson military officials, and the Department of Justice, and has drawn protesters to the neighborhood.
Richland County Sheriff Leon Lott addressed the public Wednesday evening about the incident.
Let me just tell you what the incident is.
This man right here, Jonathan Pentland, got in the face of a young black man, and shoved him, and then told him to get out of his neighborhood.
He should not have done that.
That was stupid.
But I don't see why this is national news, and I don't see why it's attracting Black Lives Matter protests.
It's the story of a black man who was in a closed neighborhood he claimed he lived in.
He says he lives in.
I'd imagine he probably does.
And this guy got into a scuffle with him.
We don't know why.
The guy just did.
He said, get out of here.
As far as I can tell, maybe he thought the guy didn't live in that community and it was a closed community and he was like, don't come around here.
I don't know you.
I don't want you around my house.
He should not have gotten the guy's face.
He shouldn't have shoved him.
But more importantly, this is not news.
I get into arguments with my neighbors from time to time.
It happens.
So what?
Why is this major news?
Because the media wants race baiting.
Because the media knows this is the kind of thing that gets them traffic.
I'll read for you his charges and the seriousness of this before I do.
I'll show you this.
First, BLM protesters rally outside South Carolina home of Army Drill Sergeant who was arrested for shoving a black guy for being in his gated community and telling him you came to the wrong neighborhood.
Okay.
Maryland trooper shoots and kills teenager who had airsoft gun.
Which one generates protests?
I think you get it.
In Maryland, the teenager was white.
The media still writes about the story.
They still mention the race.
But the race baiters and the grifters of the far left can't make money off it, so what do they do?
They don't care.
They ignore it.
So what?
Some leftists, the anti-woke left, are pointing out police killing people is wrong, and they're still highlighting that story.
And good, my respect to them.
Be consistent.
The Black Lives Matter groups don't seem to care.
The sheriff confirmed Jonathan Pentland has been arrested and charged with third-degree assault and battery.
The charge carries a maximum penalty of a $500 fine and 30 days in jail.
Why is it news that a guy shoved a guy?
Why do I have to talk about it?
Because it's clear what's happening.
The media's game is to make us hate each other.
This story goes far and wide because the activist game is to make sure we hate each other.
Civil rights.
Civil rights movement.
They're contentious times.
But it was the right thing to do.
And we don't want to hate each other.
We want to come together and live together and compromise.
But that's bad for the professional activists.
They need a cause.
And when they have a prominent cause, they can't let it go.
Reminds me of my time working for non-profits.
We long said the goal of a non-profit should be to put itself out of business.
They're trying to accomplish a goal.
Not every single one can.
I mean, if you're a non-profit focused on helping the homeless, there will always be homeless.
But when it comes to major causes, environmentalism, climate change, the goal is to end.
When it comes to those who are trying to accomplish something, say, like getting President Trump out of office, the goal is to end.
Take a look at the Lincoln Project, though.
I mean, they've fallen apart, for sure.
But after Donald Trump got voted out, they said, we're now gonna start targeting Republicans in the Senate.
Why?
You are Republicans.
Because it was a grift.
Because they're not serious people.
Because they're just trying to take your money from you.
There it is.
The rest of us suffer for it.
They go on to say the sheriff said his department worked swiftly to bring this case to a conclusion.
His lead investigator slept in his office Tuesday night to make sure the investigation had a fast resolution.
As the viral video begins, Pentland, who was a U.S.
Army soldier based at Fort Jackson, asks the young black man what he's doing there, to which the young man replies he's out for a walk.
It then shows a soldier saying you're in the wrong neighborhood before swearing at the young man and telling him to get out.
The young man says he lives there.
Video shows Pentland shoving the young man and threatening to get more physical with him.
Don't do this.
If someone's walking past your home, you don't recognize them, mind your own business.
This guy made a mistake.
I don't care though.
It's not news.
Why is it being highlighted?
Because they want to make money.
Because they want you to be angry.
And the more this kind of news gets play, and the more this becomes the national story, instead of, I don't know, Minneapolis riots, the worse it'll get.
I tried searching for Minneapolis riots for this story.
Pulling up sources and reading analysis from the left and the right to figure out what they think about them.
Of course, when you search for Minneapolis riots, you actually get stories about how the media is refusing to call it a riot from Fox News and some other conservatives.
Because stories don't come up.
Instead, you want to search for peaceful protest, and this is what you'll get from Slate, why this keeps happening in Minneapolis, on the ground after another black man is killed by police.
The narrative is always how it's not their fault, it's the fault of the police, they never take responsibility.
Which brings me to my main point in all of this.
How is it possible that a group of people is 100% wrong all of the time?
Makes no sense, right?
I mean, look, I can tell you the things I like about Joe Biden that he's done well, or I can defend Joe Biden in certain circumstances.
The migrant centers on the border where kids are being held are not wrong.
Some of them are awful, and we should solve for these problems.
But I don't blame Joe Biden for having to detain children who keep coming here.
I do blame him for his rhetoric, which creates the pull factor.
The point is, AOC has been right sometimes.
Joe Biden has been right sometimes.
I'm willing to admit that.
The left is not.
They say Trump is always bad, no matter what he does.
They constantly highlight these stories about the things that Trump has done.
And they constantly highlight stories saying, look at this instance of racism, when in reality, it's just a neighborhood scuffle.
But it's money for them.
And when all these stories pile up, you get grains of sand making a heap.
The more stories that emerge, the more the narrative becomes...
Racism in America.
Institutional oppression, systemic violence, etc, etc.
Now, I certainly think racism is a problem.
I think we need police accountability and police reform.
What do we get instead?
No matter what happens, it's always the worst possible scenario.
Even if Chauvin was doing his job and the story was more complicated than we realized, they won't let it go.
You'll see a video of a man pushing another man and they'll say, it's racist!
Or, I don't know, maybe the guy just didn't like the kid.
That's it.
When you see someone get into a fight, do you really care all that much?
Probably not.
But if the media can make money off it, this is what you will get, and in the end, we're all worse off for it.
I think this weekend will be bad for this reason.
I think the jury will be tainted, and I think Chauvin is in trouble for that.
But I also think they can't possibly convict him on second-degree murder, that would be insane, and for that, we will see much more chaos.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Come hang out.
We'll take your Super Chats live in real time.
And thanks for hanging out here, and we'll see you all then.
I know that we all predicted this would happen, but part of me still thought they would not do it.
And here we go.
NBC News is reporting Democrats to introduce bill to expand Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices.
President Joe Biden announced the formation of a commission last week to study the court's structure, including the number of justices and their length of service.
Absolutely incredible.
And why?
Why do they want to expand it to 13 justices, you say?
Well, it's because, according to the left, 13 districts, 13 judges.
Well, it's very convenient timing, considering the current court makeup is 6-3, with a conservative majority.
Adding four justices right now would mean a 7-6 liberal majority, and then the Democrats would control I am but a humble 35-year-old man.
It's power grab.
It's obvious.
My friends, there is a corruption that is seeping through our country and it is eroding
it and destroying it and it's worse than it's been at least as far as I can tell.
I am but a humble 35 year old man.
I have not been alive as long as many, I think most people are older than that.
Maybe not, maybe it's actually, you know, because people have kids.
Okay, but anyway, there are a lot of older people, a lot more experienced, a lot of people are in their 50s.
Maybe you've seen worse things than we've seen in this generation.
But I'm watching this stuff.
This sick, craven, depraved quest for power.
The lies, the manipulation, the deceit, the fake news.
The obvious and overt attempts at subverting our country, our rights.
And I'm like, I've never seen anything like this.
Now, I've seen the political arguments.
I remember Bush v. Gore.
I remember all of that.
And there was still most Americans agreeing with each other on most things, except for a few issues.
And yeah, I mean, the Bush v. Gore thing was serious.
But today it's like everything's imploding.
I mean, Trump four years, the media lying incessantly.
The media's Current obsession with Donald Trump?
A man who's literally not the president.
How is it that I turn on the news and they're like, Donald Trump?
And I'm like, why?
It's been three months.
Stop.
Corruption.
Depraved power quests.
When Joe Biden got elected, the fear was that they would try and pack the courts.
And many of us, most of you, probably assumed this was going to happen.
And I'll say it again.
Part of me just did not think it would actually happen.
I'm going to read for you what their plan is, and we'll talk about this.
But I want to show you a few other things, too.
I want to show you this cartoon really quick.
This is from Blog4Ari- I don't know whose comic this is.
It says, Blog4Arizona.net, Prima Donna's Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema make no sense at all in their defense of the Senate filibuster rule.
I just want to show you this comic from Mike Lukovic.
Senate Dems are all in a cage wearing orange jumpsuits.
And Joe Manchin has the keys.
The lock says filibuster.
And Manchin says, but if I unlocked our cell, being keykeeper would stop being a big deal.
Man, when I saw this, I thought it was absolutely hilarious in how insane and craven and depraved and vile these people are.
The Senate right now is split 50-50.
It's a bad thing.
Kamala Harris is the tiebreaker.
The filibuster rule requires 60 votes to pass legislation.
This is a good thing.
In order for there to be a functioning country, an organization of any kind, you need to have compromise.
We can't just have Democrats steamroll through things that would piss off the other side 75 million people in this country.
Voters, I should say, because there's a lot more than that when it comes to splitting Democrat and Republican down the middle.
They're people in West Virginia who don't want to live like people in New York City.
So when you have a 50-50 Senate, that means the Democrats need to compromise with the Republicans and vice versa.
Considering the Democrats have the House, it's mostly going to be Democrats requesting help from Republicans.
Getting rid of the filibuster would mean the Democrats could steamroll everyone and they want it.
They're mad.
Joe Manchin, end the filibuster rule.
This would mean that with only 50 Senate votes, the Democrats could do whatever they wanted.
For the most part, they've already got this dumb BS where they're like, the Senate parliamentarian has decided we don't need 60 votes!
The system is fractured, broken, and it's a farce, and they're spitting in our faces every day, and they don't care.
You know why?
Because people like you or I, We are unfortunately few and far between.
Well, relatively.
I understand there's a lot of people who watch my channel and watch other channels.
Maybe you're getting your information from a conservative pundit, but at least they're being honest.
Maybe it's a progressive pundit, someone like Jimmy Dore.
Hey, they're being honest, he's being honest.
But, the reality is, I think most people are still getting their information from mainstream sources.
I know, it might appear on social media, but it is coming for the most part from mainstream sources, and they will believe what the establishment tells them is true.
And as the establishment becomes a vessel for psychotic fringe cultists, this is where we are.
The Democrats, it used to be, you know, look, Democrat and Republican, and they mostly agreed, and they bickered back and forth, and it was very performative.
Then Trump and Bernie came along.
Trump actually won.
Right now we have Lindsey Graham.
So here's this other big story, right?
We'll read about the Supreme Court.
Donald Trump has a plan.
Had a plan.
He talked with the Taliban about a full withdrawal from Afghanistan by, I believe, May 1st.
The media is now announcing that Joe Biden has planned a withdrawal from Afghanistan by September 11th.
At first, it seemed like Joe Biden was ending the war in Afghanistan.
That's how they're reporting it.
In reality, he's not.
He's delaying it.
The end was already confirmed.
The Taliban is now warning, if you overstay, we will retaliate.
This is what the media does.
This is how the lies perpetuate.
And they're acting now like Joe Biden's a hero.
Granted, I said thank you to Joe Biden on Twitter because I'm like, let's just keep pressuring him.
But Lindsey Graham comes out and defies Joe Biden saying, we need war!
We need to be at war!
What a piece of trash.
We need to stay, otherwise the terrorists will win.
Shut your mouth, you moron.
These people are sick and disgusting.
I remember when Lindsey Graham walked up and high-fived Kamala Harris.
It is a performance.
It is trash.
These people don't care about you.
They hate you.
Hence, what they're doing with the Supreme Court.
Now, the funny thing is, it's not like Kavanaugh And, you know, like Amy Coney Barrett are somehow populist figures, they're still establishment figures.
However, the Democrats want control, so they're going to go for it.
Here's the report from NBC News.
Congressional Democrats will introduce legislation Thursday to expand the Supreme Court from 9 to 13 justices, joining progressive activists pushing to transform the court.
Now, I should slow down.
I really believe this will fail.
Okay?
That's why I mentioned the Joe Manchin thing.
He's gonna be like, I'm not going to do this because, you know, my constituents won't like it.
People seem to think that Democrat, you know, is the end-all be-all.
Joe Manchin is a West Virginia Democrat.
How this guy got elected is beyond me, I guess, because he used to be the governor, I suppose.
So people voted for him because they liked him.
He's a Democrat, but he still represents West Virginia.
So, try again.
It's probably not gonna work.
But I digress.
Let's read more.
They say, the move intensifies a high stakes ideological fight over the future of the court
after President Donald Trump and Republicans appointed three conservative justices in four years,
including one who was confirmed days before the 2020 election. The Democrat bill is led
by Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, Jerry Nadler of New York, uh,
of the House Judiciary Committee, co-sponsored by reps Hank Johnson of Georgia and Mondaire
Jones of New York. The Supreme Court can be expanded by an act of Congress, but the legislation is
highly unlikely to become law in the near future, given Democrats slim majorities, which includes
scores of lawmakers who are not on board with the idea.
President Joe Biden has said he is not a fan of packing the court. You know what? I'm glad they're at
least trying so we can see how sick and vile these people are. But if they actually succeeded,
they would rip this country in half.
They would it would be It would cleave right through the fissure that already exists in hyperpolarization.
And boy, if you want accelerationism, if you want escalation, this is your play.
Bravo, Democrats!
Now, I don't want those things.
I'm more worried about China if the United States splits up.
I know that a lot of guests of the show on IRL say peaceful divorce.
My concern is what happens to the world if the U.S.
isn't there to stand up to China.
I mean, it feels like we're losing that fight anyway.
This would accelerate it.
They say, it represents an undercurrent of progressive fury at Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell for denying a vote in 2016 for Barack Obama's pick to fill a vacancy, citing the approaching election, before confirming Trump nominee Amy Coney Barrett the week before the election last year.
They don't tell you the context here.
I am no fan of Mitch McConnell.
In fact, I very much do not like him.
But the idea was, we control the Senate.
Barack Obama made an appointment.
If we vote, the vote will be no, so we're just not going to do it.
Mitch McConnell said when the Senate is split from the Presidency, meaning one party controls the Senate and the other controls the Presidency, then you're at an impasse in terms of Supreme Court justices.
With Amy Coney Barrett, the Senate was Republican and the Presidency was Republican, so they were able to have that vote.
Not like I care, based on, you know, well, I'm not gonna speak to, to, I think, was it Merrick Garland?
I'm not gonna speak to, to his, you know, his current statements make him sound like a lunatic, but my understanding back then was that Republicans were like, he'll never pick a moderate like Merrick Garland, and then he, Obama did, like, all right, here, we'll, we'll do this guy, and then they're like, no, no!
There's gotta be compromise, and that means for Republicans too.
They probably should have compromised in that capacity, and at the end of the day, it's all part of the legal process, so there's not much to say in terms of the Republicans were in power and they said no.
You can't then get mad the Republicans remained in power and said yes later on.
What they're doing now is basically saying, we don't care who's in power, we're gonna steal it anyway.
Now that is different.
To be fair, however, It is still within the power of the act of Congress to expand the court.
I just think it's sickening.
I do.
I think the Republicans should have held a vote for Merrick Garland, and I think right now what the Democrats are doing, this tit-for-tat, will rip this country apart.
Whatever.
They say the anger has taken hold within the Democratic Party, and the new push indicates that it has not dissipated in an era when the party controls the White House and both chambers of Congress.
The lawmakers who intend to announce the introduction of the bill outside the Supreme Court building will be joined by progressive activists, you know, blah blah blah, sure.
The bill marks a new era where Democrats finally stop conceding the Supreme Court to Republicans, said Brian Fallon, a former Senate Democratic leadership aide and co-founder of Demand Justice, who described the court as broken and in need of reform.
Our task now is to build a grassroots movement that puts pressure on every Democrat in Congress to support this legislation because it is the only way to restore balance to the court and protect our democracy.
I'll stop right there.
My friends, some people are saying 13 districts, 13 judges.
Okay, actually, I kind of agree with that.
It makes sense to me.
Apparently, originally there were six districts, so they had six Supreme Court justices, because each oversaw one of those districts, and in terms of, you know, appeals, because the Supreme Court's an appellate court.
Okay, here's my idea.
I actually don't mind the idea of expanding the Supreme Court because we do have more districts and each Supreme Court justice could oversee one of those districts.
How about the solution is, if we're gonna expand the court, we expand it evenly.
Republicans nominate two, Democrats nominate two, and that's it.
Period.
If the Democrat argument is, you know, you got 13 districts, you know, 13 justices, okay, well then let's make sure it's a balance of power.
No, they won't do that.
Of course they won't.
They risked everything, the Democrats did, thinking Hillary Clinton would win, and then they would get three, maybe even four new justices.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg held on for a very long time, but Trump ended up getting three, shifting the power of the court.
And it was a powerful play by Republicans, but it was within their right to do.
It's within Democrats' right to do right now, but this is not part of the normal process.
When a Supreme Court justice retires or passes, the president nominates a new justice.
If the Senate is controlled by the party of the president, then they have the power to vote and confirm.
If they're in opposition to that president, they likely would reject the confirmation, the nomination.
That's what they're empowered to do.
Democrats, it is within their power to expand the courts.
But it does seem a bit more abnormal to throw on four justices right now with Joe Biden as president because that would just be a major power swing.
Which, for most people, we've had nine justices for some time.
It seems unfair to change that system now.
It's a power grab.
You know, Republicans were talking about maybe they should have packed the courts while they controlled the Senate, but they didn't.
Maybe they should have.
Maybe they should have said, we're going to add four more justices.
Oh, the left would have screamed and cried and cried foul, exactly like what's happening now with the Democrats are doing.
So it's like, if we're going to play this game, why not play it to its maximum?
Well, Republicans, in my opinion, are weak.
They're poor leaders and just all around, you know, Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell, just awful.
They say, last week Biden announced the formation of a commission of liberals and conservatives, sure, to study the structure of the Supreme Court, including the number of justices.
The size of the Supreme Court has fluctuated since it was established in 1789 and remained at nine since 1869.
You see, that's the problem.
It's been that way since 1869.
Why change it now?
McConnell has strenuously warned Democrats not to add seats to the court, saying there is nothing about the structure or operation of the judicial branch that requires study.
He quoted remarks from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who died in September.
Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, both of whom voiced skepticism about expanding the court.
President Biden campaigned on a promise of lowering the temperature and uniting a divided nation, McConnell said in a statement last week.
If he really meant it, he would stop giving oxygen to a dangerous, antiquated idea and stand up to the partisans hawking it.
I don't think he actually cares.
These people want power.
And there it is.
Joe Manchin is stopping Democrats from steamrolling this country.
It's not just about Republicans in the Senate.
It's about the fact that there are different states in this union, and that everybody wants to be ruled by urban liberals.
If you want to go live in New York and live in a cubicle that smells like sour milk, I don't care.
Go do it.
I did it before.
Eventually, I said, you know what?
I kind of don't like it.
I'm going to leave.
Then I left, and I went out to the middle of nowhere.
Well, guess what?
In the middle of nowhere, you kind of need to protect yourself when there's no local police department, so you buy guns.
Now you've got these lunatics saying, we're gonna ban guns, we're gonna limit blah blah.
Okay, look.
Here's what'll happen.
First, let me show you this.
House Judiciary GOP tweets.
Ryan Grim just reported that Jerry Nadler is writing legislation to expand the Supreme Court.
Jim Jordan asked if this was true.
The chairman wouldn't answer.
Sounds like the Democrats are running away from the bill before it's even been introduced.
Yeah, here's what they'll do.
I have this tweet here from Rep.
Diane Daggett.
Okay, so she is the member of Congress for Colorado's 1st Congressional District, senior member of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
She tweeted, breaking, we have just reintroduced our bill to ban high-capacity gun magazines.
Wow, so what is that, like 100 to 200 round magazines, like drums basically?
There's no reason why any civilian needs a gun magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.
Wait, more than 10?
That's not standard capacity.
The legislation will save lives and Congress needs to act immediately.
Standard... Look at this tweet right here.
Right below it.
Standard capacity for most handguns is 19 rounds.
Restricting the capacity to 10 rounds will make it much more difficult for law-abiding citizens to find legal magazines and encourage more people to break the law.
A sensible compromise would be limiting magazines to 20 rounds.
Standard capacity, I think, is actually like 30.
And I know, the Democrats have tried framing the conversation to make it seem like it's not.
It's high capacity.
11 rounds?
No it isn't.
The police use what, a Glock 17?
That holds 17?
Depending on which modifications you get, you can get a Glock 19, a little bit bigger, can hold more rounds.
So when the police, are you saying the police are running around with high capacity handguns?
They're not, it's standard.
It's the stupidest thing.
But it shows you exactly what they want to do, and exactly what they will do.
And forgive me for going off on the Second Amendment stuff again, but, you know, this is stuff that I track pretty closely, considering it's actually impacting me a lot more nowadays.
Let me just tell you something.
This tweet from Diana Daggett is a perfect example of how this woman hates you, doesn't care about you, or anyone else in this country.
The goal of this legislation... Well, I'll put it this way.
I'm saying that because my assumption is that she's not a stupid person.
Assuming that she is of average to higher intelligence, which I believe to be the case, this is an attempt to manipulate, to lie, to cheat, and to steal.
It's very simple.
There are shotguns that can hold substantially more than 10 rounds.
You mean to tell me that a fixed magazine shotgun is high capacity?
You can't remove it.
Okay, so what's going to happen to all of the fixed magazines that hold more than 10?
Oh, those are assault weapons, I guess.
Alright.
What do you think happens when they say, you can't have a magazine that holds 30 rounds?
People will just bring three magazines with them.
It's the stupidest thing ever.
Do you know how easy it is to swap a magazine?
It takes less than a second.
Watch any one of these videos.
Sure, I guess the argument is, well, that's half a second.
Longer than when they would be shooting their gun or whatever and it's like I don't think it has any Substantive impact at all on guns period and besides here's the funny thing Somebody who wants to commit a crime can 3d print a magazine And they can make their own drum.
It's the stupidest thing ever.
They don't care about you.
They're lying to you.
They're trying to make it seem like they're fighting for things.
They're not actually solving any problems.
So what do you think happens if they steamroll the Supreme Court?
If they end the filibuster, they're going to pass insane, ridiculous law.
If the cat sneezes while you're holding your gun, it's a $100 fine.
What does that have to do with anything?
No civilian needs a gun magazine that holds more than 10 rounds.
Listen, there's a lot of reasons why somebody might want more than 10 rounds, and a lot of people buy weapons that have a higher capacity than that.
Let's just say, first and foremost, Second Amendment is about defending a free state, which means it is about defending yourself, period, from anyone who would take your rights, be it an enemy foreign or domestic.
I believe if you were in Second Amendment style, uh, Second Amendment-based combat of some sorts, you would absolutely want more than ten rounds.
But I'll tell you this.
The bill is ridiculous because 3D printing exists, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
It's the place we're in right now.
The guns that are being developed through 3D printers and at-home CNC and milling machines.
It's insane what they're trying to do.
The cat's out of the bag.
Okay?
The technology exists.
This is a lie.
This is what they do.
So now they're moving to pack the Supreme Court.
They will absolutely annihilate gun rights.
You've heard Joe Biden.
He said that no amendment is absolute.
Come on, man!
You know, since the inception of the Bill of Rights, you know, not everybody was allowed to own a gun.
Specifically referencing slaves.
Brilliant, Joe Biden.
My personal opinion is that if we had given the slaves the guns sooner, we could have ended that a lot sooner.
And maybe we should have.
Maybe every single person in this country at the time of the Second Amendment should have been allowed to have a gun.
And then the slaves would have been like, nah, not gonna be a slave.
Well, actually back then it wasn't.
It was more click, click, click, flint, whatever.
You get the point.
The point of the gun is that it's hard to have an enslaved population when they're all armed.
And apparently Joe Biden made reference to it in a very creepy and disgusting way.
That's right.
In the early inception of this country, they didn't want slaves to have weapons.
I would have preferred it if they did.
And then following the Civil War, I'm glad that many of the former slaves were able to be armed to protect themselves from the racist Democrats at the time.
Who wanted, who were in the Klan, or who wanted Jim Crow, and they wanted to defend themselves, and they had every right to do so.
The Second Amendment applies to everyone.
Anyway, not to go off on a Second Amendment thing.
The point is, I think it's just the most visceral example of what they're going to do with the Supreme Court.
If they break the filibuster, and they pack the court, I assure you, they'll pass legislation banning the most ridiculous things.
Muzzle brakes are bad!
It's like, why?
What?
You should only bolt-action rifles!
So you want better accuracy at long range?
It's ridiculous.
3D printing exists.
You can't stop it.
They're gonna do it anyway.
We should ban the AR-15, they yell.
There are other guns.
There are guns other than AR-15s, you realize, that are semi-automatic and they function like that.
Well then, you know, they've even called for banning semi-auto and it's like, revolvers exist, dude.
Shut your mouth.
These people are insane.
What they're really saying is they don't know, they don't care, they just want power, and they will do whatever they can to get it.
So long as they create this wedge issue about guns, people will just cheer and jump it up and down for whatever BS.
I'll tell you what'll happen.
You ban magazines that are more than 10 rounds, people will just have 500 magazines on the ready, and they'll carry them.
And then you go, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, click, click, 1, 2, 3, 4.
It's insane.
It's absolutely insane.
Once the Supreme Court is packed, assuming it will be, I don't necessarily think it will be because Manchin, regardless of filibuster, you're not going to see every Democrat supporting this, then they'll get a lawsuit on, you know, gun rights, the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court will say, the Second Amendment does not protect your right to bear arms.
Bye.
Gone.
There you go.
I suppose we can only sit back, wait, and see, and I think it won't fly because of Mansion, so for the time being, it's not like the apocalypse is here, but you see them trying to do it.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 PM on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
It is my hope that when I present you the double standard and the lies in the media, you show this to as many people as you can.
You share with them evidence of the media lying over and over again, or at the very least being wrong over and over again.
Now many people say to me, Tim, I share this with my friends, my families, but many people just don't want to believe it and they don't care.
I get it.
I really do.
I don't know how you solve for that.
But my friends, we have a massive breaking story right now.
Remember when they claimed that Russians were putting bounties on American troops?
Most conservatives actually said there's no real evidence to suggest this is true.
But here we go.
The Daily Beast outright says Donald Trump might have been right to call it a hoax.
Are you kidding me?
I'm real mad this morning.
You know, I try not to get too crazy and outraged on camera and try and keep things down.
But it has been a very mind-numbing morning.
The lies, the manipulation.
This, this, this...
You know, we had that story about the Supreme Court packing.
They just came out and announced they want to do it.
And Nancy Pelosi says, maybe not, but it's infuriating.
We can watch these depraved individuals just spit in the face of the American people.
And I know that there are people who just don't care.
The whole house is on fire, and we're begging them, please.
These people are burning it to the ground.
They're like, shut up, I don't care.
And then when the fire reaches them, because they don't care, they turn to the arsonists for help.
Media, tell me what's happening.
Let me show you some of this story from the Daily Beast, but I got this great thread from Drew Holden.
Amazing.
He says, Today, President Biden announced his intention to end the war in Afghanistan.
It's a great media fanfare.
You may remember back in 2019 and 2020, President Trump said the same thing.
Let me know if you can spot the difference in coverage then versus now.
This is going to be a segment where I go through, well, I should say, Drew Holden went through a ton of the media All these articles showing you how they lie and they're spitting in your face and laughing at you.
And there are still people who just don't care.
But this is the big story.
That claim about Russian bounties was just a hoax.
Trump was right.
They can't even say Trump was white.
They can't even say Trump was right.
They say Trump might have been right to call it a hoax.
The Daily Beast reports.
It was a blockbuster story about Russia's return to the Imperial Great Gang in Afghanistan.
The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime Central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S.
forces.
It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their resistance amplifiers.
You mean you, Daily Beast?
about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.
But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S.
intelligence only had low to moderate confidence in the story after all.
Translated from the jargon of spy world, that means the intelligence agencies had found the story is at best unproven and possibly untrue.
The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks to encourage Taliban attacks, U.S.
and coalition personnel in Afghanistan in 2019 and perhaps earlier.
You see how they're still lying?
Did you catch that one?
Did you catch how they just lied again?
Let me read you the quote.
The United States intelligence community assesses with low to moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers sought to encourage Taliban attacks.
You know what that means?
Nowhere in that quote did they say that Russian intelligence officers did encourage or paid They said they sought to encourage.
What does sought mean?
They might have, they wanted to, but didn't?
Do you see how they lie?
Clever word games.
If they said...
They had low-to-moderate confidence that Russian intelligence officers encouraged Taliban attacks?
Or if they said Russian intelligence officers paid bounties for Taliban attacks?
Okay.
Low-to-moderate confidence in what the story actually is.
They're telling us they have low-to-moderate confidence that the Russian intelligence officers even wanted to encourage it!
I'm just so sick of the manipulation and the lies.
Let me show you this.
I'll tell you why this is important.
We got breaking news.
The breaking news was that Joe Biden was going to be withdrawing from Afghanistan on 9-11, 2021.
And I tweeted, thank you, President Biden.
Now let's remain vigilant and see if he actually does this.
I could have been very negative and I could have been angry, but I'm trying here.
At least there's some good faith on my effort.
And a lot of people said, so what?
He's lying.
He's going to put him in Syria.
It's a trick.
I'm like, I know, I know, I know.
And he's actually not even withdrawing the troops.
It's the media lying because what Biden's actually doing is delaying the Afghanistan exit Trump already put in place in his negotiations with the Taliban.
What will likely happen is that come May, when the deadline hits and the U.S.
won't leave, the Taliban attacks, and then the U.S.
goes, oh, no, no, we got to stay now.
Oh, geez.
Lindsey Graham defending staying in the Middle East.
These people are manipulators.
They're scumbags.
Check this out.
Drew Holden says, When Trump said we were leaving, CNN quoted the NATO Secretary General with a stark warning about how dangerous the move would be.
Biden's decision?
On that one, we just hear from his people.
CNN says NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg issued a stark warning that any premature withdrawal from Afghanistan could be dangerous, a day after reports that President Trump is eyeing a troop drawdown.
Today?
As President Biden prepares to lay out his plan to withdraw U.S.
troops from Afghanistan, a source familiar with his thinking.
Oh, I love that one.
I'm familiar with Joe Biden's thinking.
He's thinking about groping children.
How about that one?
Yeah, you get the point.
Drew says, one of the things I've discussed before is how outlets can frame the narrative they want by focusing on people who support or oppose a certain policy.
It's misleading, but also a calling card of CNN.
This is just reckless, says Brett Bruin of Trump's plan to withdraw troops from Afghanistan.
You're not sharing information with the incoming administration, so the likelihood that something could go wrong is very, very high.
Today, former President Obama praised Biden's bold leadership for his decision to withdraw U.S.
troops by September 11th.
It's time to recognize that we have accomplished all that we can militarily in America's longtime war.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Taliban.
Taliban issues threat to U.S.
and NATO over delaying military withdrawal from Afghanistan.
Increasing fears troops departure will lead to widespread violence.
Joe Biden said all troops would leave by September 11th.
A deadline of May 1st had previously been agreed for foreign troop withdrawal.
Taliban spokesmen have vowed to hold those responsible for the delay liable.
Experts say a successful exit hinges on a Taliban-Afghan government peace deal.
This is the Daily Mail, where this article is, where they mention the May 1st deadline, and they mention Joe Biden delaying.
They don't call it Joe Biden withdrawing the troops, they call it him delaying withdrawing the troops, which it is.
What is CNN calling it?
What is NPR calling it?
What are the other outlets calling it?
They're saying, Joe Biden announces troop withdrawal from Afghanistan.
No, no he didn't.
He announces a delay to the troop withdrawal.
They're spitting in our faces.
Every single day.
And you know what?
Man, I just know so many people, some of my good friends that are just too stupid and they don't care.
They're willfully ignorant.
They have the choice.
They don't want to think about it.
We're all sitting in a burning building.
And I am yelling to people, to you, to them, get out now.
We need to put the fire out or get out.
And they say, I don't care.
I'm in the middle of playing video games, dude.
So what if the house is on fire?
That guy over there told me the house isn't on fire.
You're lying.
The guy over there is the guy holding the matches.
Isn't that amazing?
Let's check out some more from Drew Holden.
He says, starting to see it?
Diplomats worry Trump's desire to withdraw U.S.
troops risks successive Afghan Taliban talks.
Today, President Biden has announced his decision to withdraw American troops in Afghanistan before September 11th on the 20th anniversary.
Once upon a time, the New York Times told us that Trump's decision was a capitulation to the Taliban, where we would get nothing in return, as if blood not shed and the treasure not spent means nothing.
But Biden's call?
Well, for some reason, these concerns seem to have evaporated.
For Trump, we hear about the fears of the Afghan officials.
Biden, on the other hand, gets a sympathetic write-up despite being the second most powerful man in the country during the height of U.S.
forces, just incredible memory holing.
This one from Time might be the most egregious of them all.
Time Magazine says, Can Donald Trump accept a defeat in Afghanistan?
The next one, Biden's move brings to an end America's longest war, a long-simmering conflict that meant solemn sacrifice for military families, and changed so much from day-to-day life for all Americans, even if they don't immediately realize it.
Also, what even is this?
Trevor Noah says Donald Trump's Afghanistan war strategy is like his position on Nazis.
Drew says, these tweets are mere months apart from MSNBC.
Stunningly, they found people to say the exact opposite things about the decision to pull out.
Former Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk on President Trump pulling troops out of Afghanistan.
Not only does it sabotage the Biden administration, it also puts our troops at greater risk.
Senator Kaine says Biden administration's plan to fully withdraw troops from Afghanistan is the right call.
I love this!
Don't you just love this?
My friends, war is afoot.
You get the point.
It's great to read through Drew Holden's thread with all of these stories, so you can really just understand how they're lying to you.
How the whole thing is a manipulation.
It's a game.
They just wanted to cheat to steal power.
I'm talking about the media lying to people.
That's the cheating.
The manipulation of information.
Well, here's a story from the Taliban on what the results will be from the deception of the mainstream press.
The Taliban has threatened the U.S.
and NATO with consequences if the promised military withdrawal from Afghanistan is not completed by May 1st, after President Joe Biden delayed.
I'm adding that.
Joe Biden said the exit would not be completed until September 11th.
Yeah, he's delaying it.
Biden announced on Wednesday the withdrawal of 2,500 U.S.
troops would not be completed until September 11th.
Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said those responsible for delaying the removal of U.S.
and NATO troops from Afghanistan would be held liable.
Writing on Twitter, Mujahid said, if the Doha agreement is breached and foreign forces fail to exit our country on the specified date, problems will certainly be compounded and those whom failed to comply with the agreement will be held liable.
NATO, immediately followed Biden's lead on Wednesday, saying it's roughly 7,000 non-American
forces would be departing within the next few months.
The Taliban's warning has heightened fears of ongoing violence in Afghanistan after the
withdrawal of American troops.
The Taliban and Afghan government signed a treaty known as the Doha Agreement in late
February 2020.
It was billed as an agreement to bring for bringing peace and said to the U.S.
and NATO allies would have to withdraw from Afghanistan within 14 months by May 1st, provided both parties upheld their side of the treaty.
But Biden's new timeline will mean thousands of the U.S.
troops will remain in Afghanistan for at least four months beyond the May 1st deadline.
The U.S.
president said there will be a phased drawdown on troops until his apparently unilateral September 11th deadline.
The news has sparked concerns.
The Taliban will push its spring offensive, a rise in attacks that usually takes place as the weather gets warmer.
In response to the news, an angered Taliban have sought to distance themselves from the U.S.-led push for peace.
The group said representatives would no longer travel to Turkey for a peace conference intended to jumpstart negotiations.
Spokesperson for the Taliban's political office, Mohammed Naeem, said until all foreign forces completely withdraw from our homeland, the Islamic Emirate, the Taliban, Will not participate in any conference that shall make decisions about Afghanistan.
Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has been more amenable to Biden's new deadline.
Tweeting shortly before the U.S.
announcement, the pair discussed the issue over the phone.
Ghani said on Wednesday, Tonight, I had a call with President Biden in which we discussed the U.S.
decision to withdraw its forces from Afghanistan by early September.
The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan respects the U.S.
decision and we will work with our U.S.
partners to ensure a smooth transition.
This is incredible stuff.
I think the real issue Maybe, I'll just say, I'll start over.
The delay may be strategic so that the Taliban retaliates and then the US has pretext for staying in Afghanistan.
Perhaps Joe Biden needs to keep the troops there to buy time as we're seeing an escalation in Syria and potentially in Ukraine, and we need to know where the troops will be going.
I don't see how Joe Biden will bring these troops out of Afghanistan.
I really, really don't.
I think the delay is meant to make everyone kind of forget we're supposed to leave.
Violence will occur, and then we'll just end up staying like we always have.
Why?
What is the strategic value of Afghanistan?
Well, you have Afghanistan, and then they have another country, and you have another country.
One of those countries is Iraq.
Two of these countries surround the other country.
Iraq and Afghanistan surround Iran.
So I wonder, Now, I don't know if Iran is the next big target.
It looks like war is about to erupt in Ukraine.
However, apparently, the United States will not be confronting Russia in this manner.
Some people will say it's a bad thing.
I'm fairly anti-war.
Ukraine could be invaded by Russia again, essentially.
And it could be bad news for everybody.
What do you do?
Peace in our time, huh, Joe Biden?
If Russia invades Ukraine, it could trigger wide-scale war.
I don't know about world war, but it could get bad.
If the U.S.
moves right now to defend Ukraine, it could avert war.
I don't know.
I know I don't want war to happen, but I don't know how you stop a runaway train like this.
Daily Mail reports, Russia is threatening us with destruction.
Ukraine warns Putin he will bear very painful consequences if troops cross the border as build-up continues and America U-turns on sending ships to the Black Sea.
80,000 troops have been placed along the Ukrainian border.
This is scary times, man.
Dmytro Kuleba, the country's foreign minister, said today that Moscow is openly threatening Ukraine with destruction by stationing 80,000 troops along its border, with more arriving every day.
He issued the warning following a meeting with the foreign ministers of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, NATO allies in the region, saying, The four of us condemn the exacerbation of the situation by Russia.
The world is on the side of Ukraine and international law.
And this is one of the elements of restraining Russia from reckless actions.
He spoke as it was revealed that Washington had U-turned on a decision to send two warships into the Black Sea, a day after Russia warned them to stay away for their own good.
Look at that!
Vladimir Putin's like, get out of here, Joe Biden, for your own good.
And Joe Biden goes, I'm sorry.
I love how they kept saying that Trump was deferential to Putin.
Here you go, baby.
Turkey, which policies, sorry, policies, polices.
The Straits, which leads to the sea, said on Tuesday that permission for the two warships to pass through was abruptly canceled with no explanation given.
Elsewhere, it was revealed that Joe Biden is preparing to slap sanctions on Russia in response to bounties put on American troops in Afghanistan, stories of which are not true.
Isn't that amazing?
Attempts to interfere in U.S.
elections and the SolarWinds cyber attack of federal government data, which U.S.
intelligence services blame on Moscow.
Sanctions are likely to include the expulsion of 10 Russians from the U.S., including diplomats, extending a ban on U.S.
banks trading Russian sovereign debt, and targeted measures against 30 Russian entities, U.S.
media reported, saying the move could happen as soon as today.
In response, Putin's spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, warned that Moscow will respond in kind to any illegal measures, adding, That it will not help the prospect of talks between Biden and Putin.
Sanctions often preempt war.
That's why many people we've had on the IRL podcast have said, you know, you might think sanctions are a good idea, but trade sanctions typically preempt the war.
I mean, someone makes trade sanctions, the other country says, okay, we need resources, now we're just going to take them.
Sanctions aren't a guarantee they'll work.
I don't know what should or shouldn't be done.
And I've tried to explain to people, as much as I am anti-war, sometimes war happens.
Sometimes there's not much that can be done when two massive powers are making demands of each other the other side will not agree to.
Now, let's wind things back.
Ultimately, the problem I have is The media and the lies.
So why is it that the media lied about the bounties on American soldiers?
Well, it made Trump look bad and it gave us a reason to remain in Afghanistan.
Trump was trying to get our troops out.
Many people voted for Trump because they assumed, well, that he'd follow through with his promise to end the forever wars.
Trump tried.
We know that some U.S.
officials lied to Trump, lied to us, to keep the troop levels higher in Syria, for instance.
And Donald Trump was defied every step of the way by people in the Pentagon when he was trying to get our troops out of Afghanistan.
The stories that emerge.
Oh no, but Russia's putting bounties on troops.
We need our troops to be strengthened and emboldened.
Now, we need the strategic positioning because the U.S.
intends to engage in more conflict to offset Russian gas monopolies.
I love it.
There's no free market here.
This is just the U.S.
using their guns to expand their control over global oil.
You control the energy, you control everything else.
That's what the U.S.
wants.
Interestingly, the people who tend to oppose the petrodollar are the ones who sometimes, you know, just happen to end up dead for whatever reason, you know, like Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi.
Hey, maybe it's all a coincidence, I suppose, that the U.S.
needed to get a pipeline through Syria and then, you know, just like civil war erupts in Syria.
How about that?
Maybe it's all just a coincidence.
Maybe the media keeps lying to us because it's just a coincidence.
Maybe the New York Times covering up the Holodomor was a coincidence.
Maybe the New York Times claiming that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
All just a coincidence.
Or maybe these people hate you.
They hate you.
They hate your values.
They hate what you believe in.
And this corrupt enterprise has infected our government a long time ago.
And so what do you do about it?
I don't know.
I'll talk about it.
You know, Joe Biden is delaying the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and it's going to make more war.
Because as we long expected, or suspected, as we've long known, he's a warmonger.
He's a warmonger under Obama, and he's a warmonger now as president.
So what do you do?
Honestly, I don't know.
I've seen this fight my entire life.
From the anti-war left, which eventually dissolved for the most part and became the pro-war left, I guess, to now the Trump supporters who are saying no more wars, you get a president exacerbating all of the problems and a media that covers it up.
