S5159 - Biden Sued For Violating THIRD Amendment With Illegal Eviction Moratorium According To New Filing
Biden Violated THIRD Amendment With Illegal Eviction Moratorium According To New Amicus Brief. Joe Biden's illegal actions have triggered outrage among mom and pop landlords as Democrats defend the violation of a supreme court order.
Mainstream news outlets are defending the Democrat President's violation of people's rights but a new amicus briefing argues the action violates the third amendment.
By mandating that landlords not evict soldiers under penalty of fines and imprisonment the constitutional law group says the moratorium must be vacated.
#Biden
#EvictionMoratorium
#Democrats
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Joe Biden, currently being sued over his illegal eviction moratorium, now faces a new player.
A constitutional lawyer's group has said that he may be violating the Third Amendment.
This is amazing.
The Third Amendment is almost never cited, and this could have serious consequences for the country.
And I think we actually should pay attention to what this means.
This is huge.
In our next story, it seems like the economy is seriously falling apart.
Spirit Airlines with more mass cancellations, as well as American Airlines.
This is because of fuel shortages and labor shortages, and it seems to just be getting worse.
But maybe not.
There is a good jobs report, so we can be optimistic.
And in our last story, a criminal complaint filed against Andrew Cuomo could mean his arrest!
Very, very unlikely, but, you know, we'll see.
Now, if you like this show, please leave a good review and give us five stars.
And if you really like the show, tell your friends about it.
Now, let's get into that first story.
In direct violation of a Supreme Court order, Joe Biden enacted an illegal eviction moratorium.
Now, I covered the lawsuit against the Biden administration yesterday, but we have some new and interesting developments.
It would seem that Joe Biden's eviction moratorium may actually violate, and wait for it, The Third Amendment, known as the runt piglet of the Constitution, the Third Amendment has never been used by the Supreme Court as the basis for a ruling.
But that might change.
Joe Biden was told in no uncertain terms that the federal government, the executive branch, does not have the authority to mandate people give their property to someone else, particularly in this way.
They were told, Joe Biden was told by the Supreme Court, go to Congress.
Congress couldn't pull it off.
They didn't have the votes.
Some Democrats didn't want to do it.
Republicans didn't want to do it.
Why?
Not every landlord is a billionaire with massive properties.
Many are retirees.
They have a building.
They rent out their basement.
Now they can't evict people.
So Joe Biden decided, you know what?
I'll violate the Supreme Court ruling because what are they going to do about it?
It is a terrifying precedent we have seen now in the past year a couple times.
Cuomo did it.
When the court said you can't restrict the First Amendment, he said, fine, executive order has been quashed.
I'll make another one.
This is the era of politics we are entering.
It's not like we've just now broached the area.
Executive orders have always been murky.
But this is the idea.
The idea is that Joe Biden knows what he did is illegal.
He said as much.
I don't think it'll pass constitutional muster, but at least it gives me a month to enact it anyway.
Now that's bold.
It's one thing to say, in good faith, I am going to try and implement something to help the American people, even if it might not be legal.
We don't know yet, because the Supreme Court may say otherwise.
It's another thing to be told explicitly what you're doing is illegal, and then be like, yeah, well, I'll do it again.
Sue me!
So effectively, we are in political lawfare.
What happens in the next couple of years, say a Republican wins the presidency, then they just start rubber stamping as many executive orders saying, oh, we know they're all illegal, but it gives me a month to do whatever I want.
And if the courts say no, I'll do it again.
Congratulations, Joe Biden.
You are effectively dismantling this country.
But on to the bigger story.
I saw this, it's an amicus filing, a briefing, amicus curiae, I'm not a lawyer, so bear with me, arguing that invariably some of these people who are being housed are soldiers, and thus the government is quartering people in private residences in peacetime, regardless of whether or not it's peacetime, there's no legislation mandating this.
This is fascinating.
Because it's... I mean, it's true, isn't it?
The Third Amendment, for those that aren't familiar, is the amendment that says no soldier shall in peacetime be quartered in a person's home without their permission.
And if it's in war, there must be legislation.
This is an extremely, extremely important amendment, and I'm going to lay out for you not just the news, but an argument that we must take the Third Amendment as seriously as possible, and we must begin an onslaught of legislation defending this country and citing the Third Amendment.
The Founding Fathers, when they enacted the Third Amendment, we didn't have the modern understanding of the surveillance state of intelligence agencies, of federal law enforcement, and large police departments.
So the idea of the soldier, that was the law as we knew it.
I dare say the Third Amendment must be reinterpreted to expand, that the government shall not place in your home any element or apparatus of the government without your permission.
And there are cases that broach this topic.
We need to look back at the First Amendment to understand how it's changed and our rights have expanded.
Of course, the challenge is always that the government doesn't like to give up powers.
And while the First Amendment mostly has... there's a lot of lawsuits about, like, someone saying something to somebody else and then someone getting offended, this is directly telling the government, no.
So why would they ever interpret it in any way other than to say it's irrelevant?
Well, let's make those arguments.
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, and you will get access to exclusive members-only segments from the TimCast IRL podcast, as well as an ad-free experience.
You'll also be supporting our fierce and independent journalism, much like the story we have for you today, which breaks down what's going on with the lawsuit, as well as the Third Amendment arguments.
My friends, this is truly amazing.
The third amendment so rarely ever invoked and I read the argument and it's brilliant.
They seek to shut down Biden's illegal moratorium by saying you cannot quarter soldiers.
Dare I say, I think the government shouldn't be allowed to mandate anyone, for any reason, go into your property.
Which is really interesting in how it will play into the fourth amendment, which I believe it was supposed to.
But let's read the story and see what's going on.
Before we do, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, hit that notification bell, share the show with your friends, and apparently there's something new called a Super Thank.
I don't know exactly what it is, but I guess you can.
There's a button below the video play that says thank.
You can tip the channel if you want to support our work as well.
Feel free to do so if you are so inclined.
Let's read from timcast.com.
Biden admin sued by realtors and constitutional lawyers over eviction moratorium.
Reporting, Charlie Mills and Jay Lee Hemon reporting for TimCast.com.
The Alabama Association of Realtors have filed a lawsuit against the Biden administration over the CDC's eviction moratorium.
The moratorium was put in place despite a June Supreme Court ruling that the CDC exceeded its existing statutory authority by issuing a nationwide eviction moratorium.
Clear and specific congressional authorization would be necessary for the CDC to extend the moratorium past July 31st.
According to the CDC, landlords violating the order may be subject to a fine of no more than $100,000 or a year in jail, or both, if the violation does not result in death, or a fine of more than $250,000 or one year in jail, or both, if the violation does result in death.
The CDC found authority for passing the order through a creative reading of the Public Health Service Act of 1944, which give the CDC the power to halt disease by providing for such inspection, fumigation, disinfection, sanitation, pest extermination, destruction of animals or articles found to be so infected or contaminated as to be sources of dangerous infection to human beings and other measures.
The CDC uses the other measures standard to bridge the gap between acts like providing for sanitation and effectively seizing homes owned by landlords to allow people to live there rent-free.
According to the U.S.
Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, That reading would grant the CDC director near-dictatorial power for the duration of the pandemic, with authority to shut down entire industries as freely as she could ban evictions.
In an ironic twist, the Alabama Association of Realtors lawsuits states the moratorium, quote, extension relies on the same source of authority That this court, the 6th Circuit, and a majority of the Supreme Court found inadequate to justify the eviction moratorium.
The CDC's semantic recasting of the latest extension is a distinction without a difference because it has no bearing on the CDC's legal authority.
The lawsuit added, the Supreme Court ruled that only the legislative branch, not the executive, had the authority to extend the moratorium.
Congress tried, but failed, to enact a legislative extension in reliance on those representations.
Yet rather than accept that as the final word under our constitutional system, the CDC extended the moratorium anyway.
Now here's where things get fun.
An additional amicus curiae briefing filed by the Third Amendment Lawyers Association is raising interesting legal arguments about the constitutionality of the CDC's eviction moratorium, claiming the move is a clear violation of the Third Amendment.
The Third Amendment has awakened from its slumber!
The eviction moratorium may violate the Third Amendment.
The Third Amendment Lawyers Association, to the rescue, posted a First Amendment lawyer.
We can see one user on Twitter, J. Marshall Wolman, says, I am pleased to announce the Third Amendment Lawyers Association has submitted an amicus brief in the CDC eviction moratorium case.
This is fascinating.
The Third Amendment states, quote, no soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house
without the consent of the owner, nor in a time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by
law.
Quote, the federal government today is not likely to ask people to house soldiers in their homes,
even in time of war.
Nevertheless, the amendment has some modern implications, writes the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia.
It suggests the individual's right of domestic privacy, that people are protected from governmental intrusion into their homes, and it is the only part of the Constitution that deals directly with the relationship between the rights of individuals and the military in both peace and war.
rights that emphasize the importance of civilian control over the armed forces.
Some legal scholars have even begun to argue that the amendment might be applied to the
government's response to terror attacks and natural disasters, and to issues involving
eminent domain and the militarization of the police. I believe that the Third Amendment is not,
dare I say, the runt piglet of the Constitution, but perhaps one of the most important amendments.
We always say the First Amendment.
It's first for a reason, saith Dave Chappelle.
And the Second Amendment is there in case the first one doesn't work out.
That was one of his bits.
But we don't often talk about the third.
We jump immediately to the Fourth Amendment, the right to be free from improper search and seizure.
unidentified
Now all of these things, all of these rights, can be halted or restricted Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
Through due process, and that's the Fifth Amendment.
You have the right to due process, or actually I think that may be the sixth.
I mix them up sometimes.
But we often gloss over the importance of the third.
Do you want to know why the Third Amendment is probably the Third Amendment?
Because back then, the founding fathers, to them, the authority of the government was
instituted by the soldiers.
The Redcoats from Britain were the ones enacting the Law of the Crown, and they said, you cannot be in our homes, and you cannot search us and take our property without due process.
But soldiers.
Times change, but the meaning is still relevant.
Now we have police officers, law enforcement, feds, etc.
They function very similarly.
And there have been court cases that have said, so what?
They can do what they want because they ain't soldiers.
I bring you now to the Third Amendment Wikipedia page.
Amazing.
Wikipedia says, the amendment is one of the least controversial of the Constitution and is rarely litigated, with criminal justice writer Radley Balko calling it the runt piglet of the U.S.
Constitution.
To date, it has never been the primary basis of a Supreme Court decision, though it was the basis of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit case Engblom v. Kerry in 1982.
They mentioned something really interesting in a judicial interpretation.
I want to read this for you because we need to seriously consider making some arguments to the Supreme Court or other courts or citing the Third Amendment more often.
Judicial interpretation.
The Third Amendment is among the least cited sections of the Constitution.
In the words of Encyclopedia Britannica, as the history of the country progressed with little conflict on American soil, the amendment has had little occasion to be invoked.
To date, no major Supreme Court decision has used the amendment as its primary basis.
The Third Amendment has been invoked in a few instances, as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution.
Justice William O. Douglas used the amendment, along with others in the Bill of Rights, as a partial basis for the majority decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965, which cited the Third Amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.
There it is.
I agree.
That was the point.
One of the few times a federal court was asked to invalidate a law or action on the Third Amendment grounds was Engblom v. Carey.
In 1979, prison officials in New York organized a strike.
They were evicted from their prison facility residences.
They were reassigned to members of the National Guard who had temporarily taken their place as prison guards.
The United States Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit ruled the term owner in the third amendment includes tenants paralleling similar cases regarding the fourth amendment governing search and seizure national guard troops are soldiers for the purposes of the third amendment and that the third amendment is incorporated by virtue of the 14th amendment to the states the case was remanded to district court which dismissed it on the grounds that state officials could not have been aware of this interpretation
Interestingly, they say, the most recent Third Amendment decision handed down by a federal court on February 2nd, 2015.
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada held in Mitchell v. City of Henderson that the Third Amendment does not apply to intrusions by municipal police officers as, despite their appearance and equipment, they are not soldiers.
For his claims under the Third Amendment, Mitchell had alleged the police used his house as a lookout point.
I believe that's wrong.
The police should not be allowed to use your home for any purpose.
I mean, honestly, for any purpose, period.
I mean, perhaps you can argue with a warrant, with due process.
Maybe that's fair, and there should be severe scrutiny on that.
But I don't see a big difference to the modern police departments and what the soldiers were doing back then.
Police didn't exist back then as we know it.
Police departments were relatively new.
Now we had local militias enforcing the law.
That's what a lot of people don't understand.
We did not have police departments necessarily back then.
And then you get the old trope about the sheriff in the Wild Wild West and his deputies, but no large-scale police department.
Cities started expanding, and they required agents of the state to enforce the law to make arrests and to keep the peace.
I'm not a big fan as to the direction things have gone, and I think we do need reform.
Either way, what the Founding Fathers were talking about was absolutely clear.
From Military.com, this is why the Third Amendment was so crucial for a post-revolution U.S.
Writing, they say, Ask any American to list the rights enshrined by the U.S.
Constitution, and they'll be awfully quick to tell you the first two.
Hell, take a drive any freeway in America and you'll see a couple bumper stickers supporting the right to free speech and the right to bear arms.
Then there's the Third Amendment.
Now, we know this.
No soldier shall in a time of peace be quartered in any house.
It remains the least controversial amendment in the Constitution and is rarely litigated.
To date, there has never been a Supreme Court ruling that has used the third for a basis of a decision.
Today, the idea of troops seizing and occupying a U.S.
citizen's home sounds absurd.
Unfortunately, this wasn't the case back when the Constitution was written.
In 1765, the British Parliament needed to shelter their troops as they fought in the French and Indian War.
So the Crown did what they liked to do and made a decision that benefited British troops.
They enacted the Quartering Acts of 1765, which stated that inns, stables, taverns, and wineries were required to house troops at the discretion of a British officer.
Troops were allowed to take as they pleased, which would run taverns and wineries dry.
The cost of quartering troops would often fall on the shoulders of local business owners.
Eventually, their expenses were reimbursed by colonial authorities, not the British government.
Soon, British troops started taking refuge in private homes.
Without fear of penalty, they could barge into your house, kick you out of your bed, take your food, and tell you that you'd maybe be paid back in a few months.
To the colonists.
This was a headache, but at least there was a reason for it for a time.
After the French and Indian War ended, the British troops continued to use private residences.
Many returned to their own fortifications, but many others continued to exploit the quartering acts for their own gain.
This, coupled with the fact that the colonists were still paying for a foreign-standing army for no discernible reason, fostered resentment toward the British by many Americans.
At the time, keep in mind, the Americans considered themselves subject to the crown, although many were starting to push for independence and probably didn't.
Then the Boston Tea Party happened.
The Brits saw rebellion brewing and enacted the Quartering Acts of 1774.
This time around, it clearly gave all British troops the right to occupy any building they saw fit without any obligation to reimburse the owner.
Most colonists weren't personally affected by the tea tax and were simply inconvenienced by the stamp tax.
Having Brits come into your home without warning or cause and being forced to give them whatever they pleased, however, was a straw that broke many colonists back.
When the dust settled and the American colonists became American citizens, one of the concerns they voiced most was that something like the Quartering Acts never happened again.
And it became so when it was enshrined in the Bill of Rights and became the Third Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.
What you need to understand about the quartering of soldiers is that they were going into inns and taverns and they were taking people's stuff.
They were taking food and drinks They were consuming without regard to what they owed the individuals who lived in these places.
So now let's talk about that eviction moratorium, and why I think the Third Amendment does apply.
Now, obviously renters are not soldiers, nor are they agents of the state.
But dare I say, the government should not be allowed to mandate anyone occupy your private property.
Period.
Without due process, of course.
So far, right now, we have no due process.
The Supreme Court so much has even said so, but I think we need to go further than just legislation.
You're not going to make a law banning, you know, political speech.
I think we should make it clear the government can't mandate what... They can't mandate people go in your house.
I want to show you something that's really, really funny.
George Carlin from biography.com.
How George Carlin's seven words changed legal history.
Do you know George Carlin's bit?
The seven words you can't say on TV?
I think it was called.
The seven dirty words.
The funny thing is, I still can't tell you them.
For different reasons.
You see, here's the big difference.
If I were to do the bit from George Carlin and explain to you the seven dirty words, the worst thing that would happen is that YouTube demonetizes this video, meaning no ads will appear on it.
I can understand that.
What advertiser wants to appear next to a bunch of slurs?
Even though it is George Carlin, one of the most profound and brilliant bits of comedy ever done.
However, for George Carlin, when he did this routine, he actually got arrested.
The authorities said what he had done was indecent.
Amazing.
The FCC had received complaints.
It was indecent to say these words.
We talk of free speech today.
We talk about the right to free speech on the internet.
But you need to understand that our modern understanding of free speech is new.
It wasn't always the case.
If you went outside and you said something naughty, they'd arrest you.
We had a U.S.
Office of Censorship during World War II.
Now, I understand wartime efforts.
But dare I say, it is time to take the Third Amendment seriously.
It should be interpreted as such to say that the government cannot intrude on your private residences.
And that is a very, very important amendment right now, even if you're a renter.
That's even more important right now, as many people seem to be losing their properties.
But if you rent a place, then you are considered to be, for all intents and purposes of the Third Amendment, the owner of that residency.
Not the building, not the property, but what we consider to be the internal residency.
Times change.
Perhaps we'll need to amend and reinterpret things often, but we gotta look at the Third Amendment and say, if you live somewhere, the government can't force people to be in your home.
I think that's very important.
And I'll tell you why, right now.
The Justice Department is defending the new moratorium in court, even though we know it is plain as day illegal, CBS reports.
The Justice Department defended Biden's new eviction moratorium in a court filing Friday, citing the CDC's finding that the deteriorating public health situation necessitated a new invocation of its authority and responsibility to protect public health.
I've said it before, I'll say it again.
When you read those old stories—Fahrenheit 451 or 1984, Brave New World, etc., whatever dystopian novel you may have read, or perhaps a movie—Hunger Games or Divergent or The Maze Runner— Did you think that the dictators, the authoritarians, wouldn't have an excuse?
I think this is one of the biggest things people miss when they see these stories.
The assumption that in V for Vendetta, the chancellor rises to power just by snapping his fingers and one day saying, I'm now the dictator.
No, in V for Vendetta, there was a public health crisis.
Obviously, don't overlook it.
So when authorities come to you and say, here's the crisis, bend the knee.
But now people don't trust the system, which is putting the system itself at risk.
If you do not respect people, they will stop respecting you.
And if you break their backs, eventually they will say, enough, and they will walk away.
The people who are losing their homes right now in this illegal action are not millionaires and billionaires.
I love this.
From the New York Mag, conservatives are freaking out about the eviction moratorium.
Conservatives are?
Yeah, I guess if it's mostly older people.
Millennials don't seem to own property, I suppose.
New York Mag says, In pushing the CDC to renew a limited version of the expired eviction moratorium, Joe Biden was making the best of a bad situation.
Let me just tell you, he's breaking the law and ripping this country to shreds.
But, let's read.
For one thing, the Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh, writing a concurrence in a 5-4 ruling allowing the moratorium to stand for another month, warned the administration that his patience might run out.
There's a strong possibility a lower court backed by SCOTUS will swap the measure down.
Just as there is a less robust possibility, the courts will recognize a 60-day version of it.
Biden's decision to not press for an extension was a judgment call.
And when the president got serious heat from congressional Democrats for bungling the situation, he did the righteous thing by giving the benefit of the doubt to those facing evictions.
I don't want anybody to be homeless.
That's worrying to me.
I just went on a rant about how the Third Amendment must protect renters as well as homeowners as well.
But it's not going to protect the renter from the homeowner saying, get out of my property.
If somebody lives in a house and a government agent, or let's say this, let's say Joe Biden says, if you rent an apartment, we're going to take a homeless person and put them in your apartment.
I'd be like, no, you can't do that.
The third amendment should apply.
The government cannot mandate a person for any reason, be in your home without permission of the owner or due process.
That means if you want to serve a warrant, if you want to search the property, you get a warrant.
This?
This is entirely something else.
Now, I'll admit, we have to work out the legalities of it, because I'm not a constitutional scholar, and perhaps this is just the raving rant of an ignoramus who doesn't understand how the Third Amendment is or is supposed to work, but as far as I can tell, the government should not be allowed to mandate people live in your home.
That's one way we can put it, right?
Living in your home?
That's very specific, and that's what they're doing.
From Fox News, Landlord out $24,000 in rent due to eviction moratorium says tenants buying boats.
Not the first time I've heard a story like this.
Let's think back to that piece from Military.com about the third amendment.
Why it was enacted.
Because soldiers were coming into people's property, extracting from their hard work and taking from the working class.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
He's still got to pay taxes, insurance, even some utilities, and only hope that maybe he'll be paid back.
No way, I don't accept that.
Buddy Shoup tells Fox & Friends he's still bound by law to maintain properties while the funds dry up.
From the Wall Street Journal.
Eviction moratorium's renewal squeezes small landlords.
Most landlords.
The Wall Street Journal reports.
The CDC enacted the eviction ban last September to prevent people with financial hardship from being evicted during the pandemic.
Since then, many smaller landlords have struggled to collect their monthly rent checks, and some have gone into forbearance on their mortgages.
The government took a firm stance that there would be an end to the ban, said Bam Pinagar, president and chief executive of the National Apartment Association, a landlord trade group.
Now there's no faith.
The new moratorium, if it is not successfully challenged by opponents, would mean that landlords will have gone more than a year under the federal ban without their ability to evict tenants.
Gene Sperling, White House advisor to Biden, said Thursday that the extension was necessary, so this we understand.
The eviction ban has also been a challenge for many of the small business owners who rent out residential properties.
Many invested their savings in apartments because the business has long been considered a relatively safe investment, one that would produce reliable income into their retirement years.
Individual landlords, or mom-and-pop businesses, own about 4 out of 10 rental units in the U.S.
Landlord groups say that small owners who have fewer financial resources than institutional investors are suffering the most, are suffering from unpaid rent.
More than $46 billion in federal government aid is available to landlords whose tenants haven't paid them.
As of the end of June, $3 billion had reached them, according to the Treasury Department.
The money has been slow to reach landlords, though that has recently improved, Treasury officials said.
Many landlords say they have no wish to keep renting to tenants who have repeatedly shown that they cannot pay.
That sentiment has sometimes been a barrier in administering pandemic rental aid.
Program rules often require landlords who accept rent aid, even in partial sums, to forego evictions for a set period.
Many property owners don't want to keep tenants with a history of not paying.
Retired couple Rebecca and John Faulkner own a rental home in western New York, where they say they are owed more than $13,000 in unpaid rent, dating back to March of 2020.
Their tenant has refused their pleas to pay and installed a private property no trespassing sign in the front window of the house, Ms.
Faulkner said.
Even once the eviction ban is over, the Faulkners don't expect to recover the money they lost.
We can sue him, take him to court, but you're not going to get blood out of a turnip, Ms.
Faulkner said.
Some property owners say the federal moratorium gives more power to delinquent tenants than local protections do.
Brittany and Eugene Kozlenko rented out their Connecticut home for two years while Mr. Kozlenko took an engineering job on the West Coast.
They plan to return home in July of 2020.
Their tenant stopped paying rent in April of that year and refused to leave at the end of the lease, they said.
The Kozlenkos say the tenant now owes them approximately $50,000 in back rent.
Imagine that!
You can't even go back to your own house!
These people don't understand when they advocate for this stuff.
We don't want people to be homeless, but this is not a simple black and white solution or issue.
Let's say I own a small house, and I have to go on an extended work trip.
It's a three-month tour.
Maybe you're a musician.
You're not a famous Hollywood musician, but maybe you're a tour drummer.
And they say, we're going to be on tour for three months.
It's a long time to be away from home.
So you say, you know what?
I'll rent out my house just for the three months, and then when I come back, everything will be great.
And the eviction moratorium hits.
I assure you there are people like this that have been affected by this.
I mean, in this story, they went to the West Coast just for a temporary job, and they wanted to come back, and they can't.
The person won't leave.
That means these are not even necessarily small business landlords.
These are just people who have a house, and they're like, I'm coming home.
I want to go home.
Sorry.
Can't do that.
If you rented out your property just before the eviction moratorium, you could have ended up with somebody living there indefinitely.
And now what?
I don't think the government has this right.
Now, the amicus curiae briefing specifically says, That the ruling should pertain, at the very least, to soldiers.
I can respect that, but I don't think it goes far enough.
In their conclusion, with their briefing, they say, The COVID-19 pandemic has caused hardships for millions of Americans.
What it should not cause is the deprivation of constitutional liberties.
Chief among them, the freedom from quartering without consent during peacetime.
Thus, the court should allow the plaintiff's motion, vacating the moratorium, at least to the extent it applies to the evictions of soldiers.
In their argument, they actually say, we think the whole thing should be thrown out, but at the very least, you can say, soldiers, you gotta go.
Funny.
The last person I want to evict from an apartment is a soldier.
I like our veterans.
I like our active duty soldiers.
However, the government clearly cannot do this.
Sorry, guys.
Men and women in uniform, tremendous respect, but the government can't mandate you can stay in someone's home.
Now, that's specific.
And that means, they mention this, the government didn't even mention the fact that many of the people, the millions, who are living rent-free and won't be evicted are soldiers.
Well, government's gotta say you gotta be able to remove them to evict them.
You can't quarter these people in the property in the violation of the property owners agreements.
So there will be some civilian, you know, civil law which protects people from eviction.
But this is different.
These are soldiers and that could include National Guard too.
I think we need to take the 3rd Amendment seriously and start recognizing what it really means.
It means that you should be free from intrusion in your home by the government.
It is broad.
I think it should mean that they can't come into your house, take whatever they want, do whatever they want.
That means civil asset forfeiture out the window.
I think the 3rd Amendment should be seen as something much, much bigger than it is.
We need to think back to why they implement it.
They implemented it.
Why it was so important to be number three.
And it shouldn't be the runt piglet.
It should be the third most important.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
I'm wondering if you noticed anything like this.
Traveling on an airline, and then some weird mix-up happens, your flight gets cancelled, or they tell you that you weren't checked in, or for some reason you're not on this flight, or for some reason your flight's just gone.
Have you noticed anything like that?
Because I travel a lot, or at least I used to travel a whole lot.
Well, right now we book a lot of travel, and we've noticed a few strange circumstances around having people fly out here.
Only a couple times.
But enough that's made me question if something bad is happening to the airline industry that they're not telling us.
And I will say this.
Those that do not read the news beyond the national outrage cycle, are likely oblivious to what is happening right now in the economy.
It's entirely possible that something happens and we pull ourselves out of this tailspin, but to me it looks like a very, it's like a collapse in slow motion.
The biggest news right now, we couldn't get in front of it.
Spirit Airlines CEO explains what caused the carrier's meltdown.
They've canceled 1,800 flights since Sunday due to a combination of staffing shortages, bad weather, and technology problem.
Technology problem, I don't know what that is, but that could be the result of a staffing shortage.
And so there's this story, it's been going on for now five days.
Spirit Airlines been cancelling, cancelling, cancelling flights.
American Airlines apparently doing the same thing.
Reports of fuel shortages at airports in the western United States.
Now we're hearing that United Airlines is going to be mandating the vaccine for employees, which will, in my opinion, result in people quitting.
Period.
This is absolutely dividing this country in two because people who aren't vaccinated just there's no convincing them for the most part.
And I'm not going to try to convince anybody.
I'm just saying you talk to your doctor about that.
But I digress.
I don't want to get into that.
I want to talk about the lockdowns.
508 days to slow the spread.
508 days to slow the spread.
The eviction moratorium illegally replaced.
The unemployment bonuses for people.
It's a slow-motion collapse.
And the people who weren't paying attention.
That's the thing.
Because what do I see?
When you see someone tweet like, you know, hey, the mandates are bad, restrictions are bad, you get the tribal left just foaming at the mouth.
These people have lost their minds.
Now, They may have lost their minds, but I'm sure there's some logic to the system somewhere.
I'm not saying it's good logic or it's fully formed rationale, but maybe it's a great reset kind of thing.
If the elites are like, we're going to strangle out the economy for the next two years, so be it.
Maybe that's on purpose or whatever, I have no idea, but I can tell you.
The economy is... Man, I don't think it's fair to say it's on fire.
What's fascinating is that Republicans, according to Civics, overwhelmingly believe the economy is either very bad or fairly bad.
Whereas Democrats overwhelmingly think the economy is fairly good.
Because these people are insane.
I'm sorry.
You have to be insane to think the economy is good right now.
Or...
You don't pay attention.
And when they're giving you free money to buy stuff, you're probably thinking, like, I don't know, I got stuff, I'm fine.
Or perhaps.
As Seamus said yesterday on TimCast IRL, that's the political landscape they want.
That's the economy they want.
Giving Democrats free money to extract resources from the system that they didn't contribute to, that's what they want, isn't it?
I can already hear the left when they mention that red states on average get more funding from the federal government.
Yeah, that's in the long term, I understand that.
What I'm saying is, if somebody, an individual, I don't care who they are, receives a check and did not do any work, They did not produce anything.
And they go to a store, and they buy a thing.
They are extracting resources from the economy without replacing them.
If that goes on for long enough, it is obvious what will happen.
We are seeing fuel shortages.
Wall Street Journal reporting airlines struggle with fuel shortages at some smaller Western U.S.
airports.
Every gallon of jet fuel saved is helpful, American Airlines tells pilots.
I remember something like this.
I worked for American Eagle Airlines, which is American's regional company.
And I remember there was this big thing because gas prices got so high in the mid-2000s that they were telling the pilots could only use one engine for taxiing and things like that, and they had to save every drop.
But I tell you this.
The fuel shortages that are hitting the smaller airports right now, there is no sign of abatement.
Let me explain.
When I went to Larry County years ago in the drought, the California drought, of which there's another massive drought hitting California.
It was the smaller wells that went dry.
So what happens is, you've got all these big farms, and they have the resources to drill thousands, I'm talking 5,000 feet down into the earth looking for water.
And they found it.
And they pull that groundwater out, which has really devastating effects on the area, because you've got land sitting on that water, and it's pressurized, and then the land sinks when you pull the water out.
For the smaller homes and smaller farms that didn't have the resources to dig beyond even 30 feet, they ran out of water.
It was a canary in the coal mine letting people know this is not a permanent solution.
So what happened?
Smaller houses ran out of water.
Non-profits had to bring in non-potable water so they could at least take showers.
They had to go to churches in order to get drinking water.
That's the canary, right?
When we see these smaller airports and they're saying, we have fuel shortages and we're cancelling flights.
And now, we're seeing major airlines, larger national airlines, including American Airlines, cancelling flights.
I hope you're paying attention to what's happening.
Because, as I stated, maybe, you know, there's gonna be a turnaround.
Things are gonna start coming back.
But people aren't working.
Now, there is one report, because, you know, I want to be fair.
This is from NBC News.
Economy added 943,000 jobs last month, versus the estimate for 850,000.
Okay, well, that's above expectations, which is good news.
I will say that the expectations are... I don't know what you really get out of them, because... What does the estimate really mean?
Is it good that we added almost a million jobs?
Yes.
All right, that's fantastic.
I'm wondering where these people are.
Where is everybody?
Are they really just sitting home and not working, or walking around doing nothing?
Like, what are they doing?
This is the weirdest thing to me, because, like, people gotta be somewhere, don't they?
I guess not.
I guess they can sit in their houses and collect unemployment and not pay rent.
So the economy is just floating face down in the water.
If something isn't done, we are going to see serious economic collapse.
More than we've seen already.
Because the way I've explained it before, it's the freight train, right?
When you stop a freight train dead in its tracks, all the other carts get derailed, they flip up in the air and things like that.
Energy's gotta go somewhere.
It can't just be stopped.
Well, that massive derailment.
You can't just put those train carts back on the track.
In fact, many of those carts ...are destroyed completely in the collision.
In fact, stopping the train dead in its tracks could destroy the engine itself.
And then, the economy cannot recover.
And I fear that's where we may actually be.
I'm not confident that we're gonna be able to pull out of this, especially considering the divide between those who support the lockdown, support government mandates and authority, and those who don't.
Let me show you this tweet from Libby Emmons.
Libby is the... She's with Post Millennial.
She is... I'm not sure her position.
I think she's Editor-in-Chief.
Sorry, Libby.
Well, we're having on the show, so I'll get your title right next time.
She says, Requiring New Yorkers to show medical papers to allow them to participate in society will be the end of my relationship with New York City.
As of yesterday, I am actively trying to leave the only place that's ever in all my life felt like home to me.
What's fascinating is that this tweet got ratioed to an extreme degree.
I think it had like 10,000 replies and only 2,000 retweets.
I understand and agree with Libby Emmons.
Now the funny thing is, this tweet was screen grabbed and posted to Reddit, where they mocked and derided Libby, saying that she was an anti-vaxxer.
I thought that was funny because I know that she's vaccinated, and then she followed up later saying, and yes, I've been fully vaccinated.
She's taking a moral position on mandating papers.
And I'm seeing all of these people say things like, vaccine passports have always existed, look at this.
For F's sake, quit acting like it's a brand new thing for Americans to be asked for vax records, jeez.
To go to the movies?
Yes, it is.
To go out to eat?
To go shopping?
Yes, it is a new thing.
Now, I've stated before, I have a vaccine passport for when I was traveling internationally.
They give you the vaccine card so you can show proof when you're entering certain countries.
This is a moral position.
This is about whether or not you will support the government creating medical segregation.
And I'll give you a good example of my problem with it.
There was a tweet where someone said, you know, like, either you support this or you want people to die.
And I was just like, imagine the kind of person Who is going to be telling people to expose their private medical history, their underlying health conditions.
Imagine if back in the day, they demanded that everybody with... Imagine now!
Everybody who's got cancer, you've got to now wear a cancer card on your chest, so we know!
Otherwise, you're gonna go to a bar, and they're gonna be like, you got your vaccine?
No, I have cancer, I can't get it.
Sorry, too bad, get out!
Is that it?
Some kind of weird, creepy, eugenic system?
There was, I think, some athlete, I'm not sure, and he said something like, in an interview, that they asked if he was vaccinated, and he said, that's a little bit too personal.
And so people are like, oh, come on, you're discouraging people from getting the vaccine.
It's like, dude, what if the guy's got some kind of underlying health condition he doesn't want you to know about?
And now he's either got a choice to lie, or deny, or just say, it's private, I don't wanna talk about it.
Now here's the point.
Libby is an influential individual, a producer, leaving the city due to, well, moral differences.
How much do you want to bet?
The people who are willing to stay are also the people who are collecting a lot of these unemployment checks.
The people who are also not going to be working for the most part.
So New York will be what?
A city of people who don't work and get free money from the government and then what?
Extract it from you?
It's like an inversion almost.
Of what the trope is about red states getting more money from the federal government.
The people who produce, the people who work, are being struck down and booted out.
And the mindless drones who think the economy is good right now are naming and shaming people who take issue with authoritarianism.
508 days to slow the spread, my friends.
Here we go.
From TimCast.com, diner closes.
Fined $400K for violating COVID-19 rules closes permanently.
Still need a better headline on that one, guys.
I should probably just go in and fix it.
The Washington eatery was once referred to as a flashpoint for COVID rebellion by local news outlets.
It's being shut down because the economy's been smacked with a sledgehammer.
It's a cultural revolution, isn't it?
Cultural revolution.
There's serious and stark dramatic changes.
Our long-standing institutions are being crippled and overwritten.
And now I'll be the first to say we are culturally stagnant.
No joke.
Same old movies, reboots, remakes, adaptations.
The same songs played every single year.
But just because we're not getting new content and people aren't experimenting doesn't mean you need a purge of diners and old ideas.
No, you just need people to make better things and stop chasing the lowest common denominator.
Here's what happens, though.
This diner refused to shut down during the restrictions.
You know what eventually got it?
Staff shortages.
I gotta tell you, you know, it really does feel like... I have to make a few assumptions.
Are the people who run the government really, really dumb?
Or are they midwets who can at least form a plan?
I'm not even saying brilliant.
Is it on purpose or an accident?
Think about what happens.
They say 15 days to slow the spread.
That was Trump's plan.
15 days to slow the spread turns into 508.
And you know what?
They'll say, yeah, but the restrictions ended in May.
The slow, the spread.
No.
They were still giving the unemployment checks and there's still a moratorium on evictions.
Well, it ended and then Biden created a new one.
That is still COVID emergency restrictions put in place.
A restriction on employers and landlords.
Preventing the economy from kicking back into high gear.
It's fascinating.
I see these articles saying, the economy is doing better than ever.
It's growing so quickly.
So, here's what I mean about is it on purpose or an accident.
You have to know that saying 15 days to slow the spread would just destroy the economy with like a sledgehammer to the face.
That's what's funny.
That was Trump.
Trump wanted to be like, oh, the economy is doing great.
Well, bro, you're the one.
It was your plan, your admin.
You took the sledgehammer to the economy.
Trump wants credit for that?
I'm not going to give it to him.
He had credit for 2019.
No joke.
And I was hoping that because of COVID it was a one-off, but now look what's happened.
It didn't.
It's just endless chaos.
It's an addiction.
When the restrictions were lifted, but they kept the unemployment in place, this is keeping people from working.
They have to know that, right?
I mean, it's been said over and over and over again.
You give someone free money, they don't work.
Why would they?
Why would anybody?
Now, to be fair, many of them will work just on things that don't produce.
They're not going to make things of value, for the most part.
I think it might spur some experimentation, which can be a good thing, but at what cost?
So it is hard.
It is tough, right?
You have a lot of people doing the same old trash, people working garbage jobs that we probably don't.
We don't need fast food restaurants, my friends.
We do not need fast food.
I know.
I'll say for Chick-fil-A, delicious.
I love Chick-fil-A.
It really is high quality stuff.
But you know what?
We don't need all of this fast food everywhere.
I understand it's convenient, it's cheap, and a lot of people say, like, when you're on the road and you gotta work really hard.
Okay, well, here's the point.
Kiosks.
We need people to start thinking outside the box.
So maybe this jumpstart could be a good thing in terms of cultural stagnation, but then why would they keep it up for 508 days while we're seeing airlines basically business-wise in flames?
People don't fly.
I look at everything that's happening, right?
Doesn't it feel like it's just so darn convenient?
Oh, you can't travel anymore?
You need a vaccine passport to travel to, like, most countries.
When you get there, you gotta quarantine for several days.
It's like they're making it as hard as possible to do any basic functions that we used to do.
That's why a lot of people think it's more about climate change.
I'm not saying I know that to be true, but the New York Times ran an article saying the Earth is healing.
And I think the World Economic Forum even stated, like, the lockdowns are helping the Earth heal itself.
Maybe it really was that bad.
You know, do you guys know about windshield phenomenon?
People have noticed that they don't hit bugs anymore because the bug populations have been collapsing.
It's freaky stuff.
Now, I ought to ask you this.
Because I mentioned this before, and I asked it of Alex Jones, and I think it's an important philosophical question.
You know, what if with the bug populations, the dead zones, the droughts, we really are facing some impending doom?
Let me ask you this question.
Comment.
Let me know what you think.
No joke.
If you were given real proof Like, legit direct evidence.
Not from someone, you know, in the mainstream media.
I mean, like, you actually saw something trustworthy.
And you knew.
It said.
Legitimately.
The activity of human beings is wiping out the bottom of the food chain, or parts of the food chain, which is causing ecological collapse.
And we have to shut down the economy for five years.
You will be required to eat as little as possible, not go out, not drive, not fly.
Otherwise, the entirety of the planet will just turn to brown, you know, to dust.
If that was definitive, would you then say all of this is worth it?
Legit question.
In my opinion, if someone came to me with definitive proof and I trusted it, and they were like, guys, if we don't actually just shut the economy down and have people just go back to basics, gardening and buying as little as possible, The planet's gonna just, you know, collapse, it's gonna erode, there's an imbalance.
Because you need to understand the environment is not like, you know, people like to point out that most of the planet is forest and nature, but there's a balance, there's a chemical balance.
So if someone proved it to me and I really believed it, I'd absolutely be willing to sacrifice for the betterment of all mankind.
I think most people would, right?
The problem is we don't trust these people.
And why should we?
Why should we trust them on anything, literally anything, after years of screaming and lying about Trump?
If you think that lying to people is the path forward, then congratulations, this is what you'll get.
People who don't trust you, who'll rebel against you, you will lose control.
Honesty is the best policy, right?
You know, take a look at Australia, their vaccination rates are 16.3%.
In the United States, 50.2%.
Wow, America, a lot of people believe just whatever they hear.
Well, these are mostly the people who think the economy is also doing well.
But what happened in Australia?
Well, the draconian lockdowns, the lies and manipulations lead to people saying, I don't care, I don't trust you, we're done.
That's it.
No one will believe him.
They wanted to play dirty games because of Trump.
They want us to believe that the end is nigh and all that stuff.
Sorry, I don't believe you.
Don't.
I would like to.
I really would.
I'd like to believe it.
You know, I think climate change is a problem.
We've heard, you know, AOC and Greta Thunberg are like, we have 12 years to the apocalypse.
We've also heard scientists say that's just not true.
Why should I believe the people buying beachfront properties when they tell me this stuff?
Sorry, not gonna happen.
So I'd like to, but I can't.
And who could?
You've given us no good evidence, and the only evidence you've given us is that you're liars.
You're manipulators.
You cheat.
You treat people like stupid, like morons.
And there are a lot of morons.
That I get.
Like I mentioned, a lot of people who just seem to think the economy is doing fairly good is insane to me.
Have you been to a restaurant?
Have you gone to fast food?
Have you left your own home?
Maybe not.
Maybe they're too scared.
Businesses have shuttered.
Staff shortages are running amok.
Well, staff shortage is a great problem.
Yet these people still think that things are going well.
I don't know, man.
You know, a lot of people have been saying, you know, I've been getting messages from people, like, telling people to prep is a good thing, and I'm like, oh, definitely.
But, you know, one thing that makes things worse is panic buying stuff, like going on, you know, going to the store and just filling up, like, 20 carts and all that stuff, and taking all the mayonnaise.
No, you don't got to do that.
But I do think it's fair to point out that you should be prepared to be responsible for yourself.
So I'll say this to Libby, because I've been saying, get out of the cities now.
We had one gentleman who wrote a book called... Well, we had a homesteader on the show.
He said it was not time to leave the cities just yet.
I disagree.
I think you should have left a long time ago.
I said to get out when the riots got bad, when the cops then turned and started kneeling with the rioters.
Remember that?
Remember when the police took a knee for the rioters?
And the conservatives were like, back to blue, baby.
And I'm like, okay.
We'll see how that plays out for you in the long run.
It was time to leave a long time ago.
Now they're doing medical mandates.
And you know what?
To be honest, maybe that's their goal.
They want you to leave the cities.
Cities are big hubs of pollution.
They want you to get away from the cities, find joy in walking around in a field, looking at stars and a smile on your face.
And they don't want you spending money and driving and flying.
They want everyone to get back to basics.
Get back to equilibrium.
Honestly, I'm all about that.
I'm just not all about lying to people.
I think you need to build a culture of honesty and integrity, but perhaps it's impossible.
Because you see how many people are just willing to blindly believe whatever they hear.
So the media can come out and say, everything's fine, shut up, and they'll go, okay.
Alright, well, I don't know how you deal with people like that.
I really don't.
I know how to be persuasive.
I know how to communicate.
But I think the problem is if you lie to people, then you'll end up with half saying you're liars.
Screw off.
And if you're honest with people, the dumb people just do dumb things.
So I don't know.
I really don't.
Here's what I can say, though.
It is entirely healthier to be out of these cities, to have trees, to breathe fresh air, to eat good food right from your own garden, to raise your own animals and chickens, get away from the cities, get yourself a little bigger plot of land spread out, It's better that way.
Lessen the impact that these cities have.
New York's nasty.
I left New York a long time ago.
It's nasty.
It's a nasty place.
I really can't imagine why people want to go there.
I remember wanting to be there, and it was nothing to do with nature.
It was more of like seeking that great adventure.
You know, what does the big city have to hold?
And then I quickly learned nothing!
Nothing.
You walk around, everything looks the same.
No animals.
I mean, one time I saw a hawk near Union Square.
That was cool.
Everybody was like, oh, look, there's a hawk.
Like, wow, we were so surprised an animal was in the city.
Yeah.
It was like walking around on the ground, and everyone was like, oh, and then it flew away.
And people were like, wow.
Like, what's it doing there?
Man, I live out here.
I see a deer.
We've got like four or five deer in our yard every day.
The same deer.
They live here basically.
And so we put out those little salt licks for them or whatever.
We got chickens.
We got wild turkeys walking around doing turkey stuff.
Do you know turkeys can fly for short distances?
Isn't that crazy?
Man, get out of these cities.
Find something more fun.
Do you know what we do?
We light a fire, we sit around, we make s'mores.
It's so much fun to be away from these cities.
Where I actually live, in West Virginia, the neighbors are all really nice.
Everyone's living much simpler lives.
So if you get away from this stuff, I think working remote is a good thing, to the extent that it can be done.
And I think people need to use less, reduce, There you go.
Reduce, reuse, recycle.
I'm all about it, right?
I think people should, uh... I think they should do better for themselves.
And that's what it comes down to, when it really comes down to everything.
You know what?
Screw the elites.
Screw the political class.
All of these climate change people.
Do it for yourself.
Because I'm telling you, when you're out, away from these cities, breathing fresh air, you're going to enjoy it.
When you're getting exercise, you're going to enjoy it.
I tell you this, when you exercise every day, for those that aren't aware, a lot of you exercise every day.
For those that don't, well, every day to within reason.
You need the rest of the days, right?
Something happens where you just start feeling good every day.
Because I've gone through these periods, right?
You know, I skated most of my life.
It's a very intense activity.
And then starting a business means I have less time to exercise.
And so I kind of fall off for a few months.
And then you just feel sluggish and miserable and it hurts and ugh!
And now I'm skating every single day again and it's like a million bucks.
I just can't sit still.
I've got so much energy.
It's fantastic.
That's why you've got to get away from these places.
And you've got to find something within you.
People who go to these cities because they want to be a part of something else.
I'm not all about that.
That's what we see with these leftists.
They just want to fit in.
They want to do what they're told.
You've got to find it from within.
You've got to focus on yourself.
You've got to search your own mind and your own heart and your feelings and figure out what makes you happy.
And you've gotta, I tell you this, go into the middle of the woods, and just sit down, and just think.
And just chill.
And really think about what you're doing, why you're doing it, and what you want, and what this world has to offer.
I don't know what you're gonna get out of these big cities.
I'm not a fan.
They're not all bad, you know?
There's hubs of creativity, but at this point, it's just stagnation.
Maybe that's just me.
All my opinions.
But I'll tell you this, man, if the airlines are falling apart, if there's food shortages and fuel shortages and it really does get worse than it is now, you will be happy you took the leap sooner rather than later.
Because you don't want to be in a city when the resources start running out.
Look at what's happening in San Francisco.
Thefts, muggings, robbery, all that stuff.
Woman hanging out at her car with some kind of AK or rifle or whatever.
Not that I have a problem with her right to keep and bear arms, just the brandishing it with bad trigger discipline and having it low-ready, I'm like, she looks like she's ready to shoot somebody, so, nah, none of that.
But if you want to go out in the middle of nowhere and have a good time and be with your friends and find your community, I think that's fantastic.
People need to figure that out.
They do.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
The Cuomo saga continues.
Now, a former staffer has filed a criminal complaint against the embattled Democratic New York governor, which may lead to his arrest.
Only a few days ago, Elise Stefanik of New York issued a statement saying Cuomo should be arrested.
He is not above the law.
And he's not.
Now, it's rather fascinating that Democrats have turned on the man so severely.
I mean, they were the ones that were coming out all last year saying that they were in love with the guy, that he was a competent leader, despite all the horrifying things the man did.
It's also pretty sad that this, this is why he might get arrested?
Now look, I get it.
The accusations against him, he seems like a bad dude.
But what about the nursing home victims?
What about the old folks who were in nursing homes and the COVID patients were placed in there under his orders, his policies?
What about that?
No accountability.
Well, when I said the Cuomo saga, I didn't just mean Andrew Cuomo, because Chris Cuomo, little brother of Governor Cuomo, is also in the hot seat.
Turns out, CNN had offered him a leave of absence to deal with his brother's controversy or scandal.
He could have stepped down from CNN briefly to assist his brother in PR matters, and instead, he did it anyway while staying at the network.
A major conflict of interest.
Sorry.
CNN is not a news channel anymore.
I mean, you can come to my website, TimCast.com.
Become a member, by the way.
And you can expect to see some news article, but a lot of opinion.
But CNN as a channel is very, very different from CNN as a website.
As a channel, they are a reality TV conflict of interest network.
I would not purport to be, in my videos or TimCast IRL, a news, direct news fact channel.
We're an opinion show.
It's news and opinion.
That's what we do.
We do opinion.
You come on the show?
Okay.
So we'll try to avoid serious and direct conflicts of interest, but for the most part, you're not coming to us because we're here to anchor the news like you would for, say, Chris Cuomo, who then interviews his own brother during a crisis when he should have stepped down, who then is offering assistance to a Democratic New York governor when the network said you could back away and he doesn't.
CNN, that's on you as a whole.
But before we get to that, let's talk about why his older brother, Andrew Cuomo, could find himself in jail.
Newsweek reports former Cuomo staffer files criminal complaint could lead to governor's arrest.
A former New York State employee has filed a criminal complaint against Governor Andrew Cuomo.
The complaint was filed at the Albany County Sheriff's Office, the New York Post reported on Friday.
The filing comes just days after New York Attorney General Letitia James released the findings of a months-long investigation into allegations of harassment made against the state's top official.
The independent investigation has concluded that Governor Andrew Cuomo did harass multiple women, and in doing so violated federal and state law, James said in a news conference on Tuesday.
The 168-page report detailed the allegations of 11 complainants, nine of whom are current or former New York State government employees.
Investigators said they also found Cuomo and his senior staff retaliated against one former employee who publicly came forward with allegations.
Now that, that's the worst of all of it.
According to the Post, the woman who filed the criminal complaint is reportedly a former assistant to the governor and is identified as Executive Assistant No.
1 in the Attorney General's report.
Albany County Sheriff Craig Apple told the newspaper that it's possible the governor could be arrested if the woman's allegations are substantiated.
Cuomo has strongly denied the report's findings, saying he never touched anyone inappropriately or made inappropriate advances.
I'm just gonna go ahead and say, well, actually, he did say that, but he also wanted to say that he touches everybody.
And then he showed this clip where he's like, it doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, white, black, and it's showing him touching all these people and I'm like, dude!
He doesn't get it.
It's the world created by the Democrats, not the conservatives.
I mean, it's the world we're in, for better or for worse, for whatever reason.
You can't just go up to people and grab their face.
That's the craziest thing, where he's like, got people's heads in his hands.
I'm like, Dude, you can't do that.
Alright?
I recognize that right now.
I won't even shake your hand.
Get out of here.
No, I'm just kidding.
I'll shake your hand.
And I give hugs too, but there's a big difference.
There really is.
And that's the interesting thing.
Maybe we're in the era where we can't even give hugs anymore.
No joke.
Because how do you know the hug was wanted?
What if they felt pressured to hug you?
You think I'm joking, but no, I mean it.
Like, seriously, how are we supposed to know if someone's gonna come out later and say, he touched me inappropriately, and you're like, dude, it was a hug.
It doesn't matter.
They make, just don't touch people, I guess.
You know, there's an interesting interview Vice did with Jordan Peterson, where Jordan Peterson said that co-ed workplaces have been a disaster.
I don't agree with him on that.
A disaster is a really strong statement.
But he brings up issues like this, where he's like, men and women behave differently.
While I wouldn't say it's a disaster, I actually think we've had tremendous successes.
I mean, just look at the military-industrial complex and all of their great top-level female leadership.
Can't make bombs out of the good lady's touch, right?
I'm kidding, but, you know, women have provided tremendous contributions.
I think these are all great things.
So, disaster?
Not really.
But...
I do think it's fair to point out there have been some issues, notably in that men and women behave differently towards each other in the workplace.
A woman can say things to a woman she can't say to a man, a man can say things to a man he can't say to a woman, and that is a problem.
Not a disaster, but it is a problem.
It needs to be identified, it needs to be talked about, and we need to figure out how do we solve for that.
If Andrew Cuomo was grabbing people by the shoulder, or elbow, or face, and they were all dudes, we wouldn't be here.
No joke.
How many guys have come out and criticized Komo?
Because the reality is, he did touch a bunch of these guys in the same way.
No, for real.
There's photos and videos of him touching guys, like, on the face and stuff.
Now, some of these stories are more overt than that.
Like, he's literally, you know, crossing the line with some of these women.
But I wonder if it's literally just a gender thing.
Well, Stefanik of New York has called for his arrest.
This was a few days ago.
The Hill reports, House Republican Conference Chairwoman Elise Stefanik called for the New York Governor Cuomo, for New York Governor Cuomo to be arrested after an investigation found the governor had harassed multiple women.
In a statement, Stefanik also said President Biden should call for the governor's resignation.
No one is above the law, and today justice must be served.
Governor Cuomo must resign and be arrested immediately, Stefanik said.
President Joe Biden must immediately call for Cuomo's resignation, and Biden did.
In her full statement, she said in December, I was the first federal official to publicly call for an independent investigation into Governor Cuomo.
The independent investigation led by the Attorney General's office confirms Cuomo did Do what he was accused of doing.
The media and Democrats smeared me and closed ranks to protect Cuomo, a shameful chapter in New York history.
All of them, including his staff, must be held to account.
These brave women deserve swift and definitive justice.
And they go on to mention much of what we already know.
Now here's where I think things get interesting.
CNN had offered Chris Cuomo temporary leave to advise his brother, according to a report.
This from TimCast.com.
The offer from CNN executives came following reports in May that Chris Cuomo had advised and participated in strategy calls with his brother, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo.
Despite the clear conflict of interest, CNN's offer of leave was informal and strictly optional, according to a new report from the New York Times.
The idea was informal and strictly optional, not a request, and intended as an acknowledgment of Mr. Cuomo's unique position as both a primetime network anchor and the brother of a prominent politician facing a scandal.
According to two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations, the Times report says, let me just slow down there and say, that ain't good enough for me.
Sorry.
I will absolutely defend Chris Cuomo from claims that two anonymous people said a thing.
I don't trust the New York Times.
Not in that regard.
If they come out and say, here's reporting, and here's how we back it up, I'll say, okay.
But when they come out this, well, we talked to some people, you're never gonna know who they are.
How about this?
Let me just break down the media malfeasance, how it works.
They say, two people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations.
What does that mean?
Come on, I mean, honestly, what does that mean?
Spoke about internal conversations?
Were they party to the conversations?
Were they sitting outside a window, having a beer, just passing by, and they overheard the conversation?
And they don't... You see, too often, anonymity is used to hide the fact their sources are trash.
So, you know what?
If that means I'm defending Chris Cuomo, then so be it.
Because logic dictates, okay?
You can't come out and say, we have some random guys at a random thing.
That's too often what these news outlets do.
But I digress.
I still... Let's be real.
I'll criticize that notion.
We do know that Chris Cuomo did advise his brother, and so at the very least, he should have walked away.
At least only for a few weeks.
After the news broke about the anchor's role in helping his brother handle the scandal, CNN said it was inappropriate, but did not discipline him.
Chris Cuomo has told CNN leadership that he planned to continue his program and abide by the rules preventing him from commenting on his brother's scandal, the People said.
He also promised not to discuss Andrew Cuomo's strategic response to the scandal with any government officials besides the governor himself.
The CNN host had told viewers in March that he would not be covering the scandal because it's his brother.
brother.
Obviously, I'm aware of what's going on with my brother and obviously I cannot cover it
because he is my brother.
Now, of course, CNN has to cover it.
They have covered it extensively and they will continue to do so, he said at the time.
On Tuesday, following the New York Attorney General releasing their report saying that
the governor violated both state and federal laws, the CNN host was silent on the issue
show.
Instead, he opened with a clip of President Joe Biden calling for governors to help stop the spread of COVID-19, but ignored the president's calls for Governor Cuomo to resign during the same event.
CNN had covered the scandal during almost every hour except Cuomo's top-rated show.
Chris Cuomo will reportedly be on a long-planned vacation from the network next week, so perhaps that's a good thing.
CNN.
Was it ever really...
News?
You know, the story of CNN is truly fascinating.
I'm not gonna read you from the history books, but my general understanding is that before CNN, you had, like, your nightly news.
You would watch no news at all.
Maybe read the paper.
And then around 5 p.m., maybe you saw your evening news.
Maybe around 10 p.m., you got your nightly news, or 9 p.m., or whatever, depending on your region, I suppose.
And there were very few channels, and these channels, they were like, what, three channels?
Four, five channels?
And they had their top anchors.
People trusted them.
That's the weirdest thing, isn't it?
Why should I have blindly trusted, I don't know, Dan Rather or even Walter Cronkite or any of these individuals?
We're now able to fact check and we realize, hey, wait a minute, that's not what happened.
Like, they said something and that's not true.
Which creates this ecosystem of Information, disinformation, misinformation, etc.
Of course, fascinating.
Everyone gets accused of being fake news by everybody else.
I like to judge things based off whether or not I can actually see hard evidence.
And admittedly, philosophically, it's damn near impossible.
So what?
We have this story that claims someone filed a criminal complaint against Cuomo.
How do I really know that?
I suppose I could try and look up the jurisdiction and try and track down the arrest reports.
It's particularly difficult.
No, the reality is, and I'll be the first to admit it, I saw it in several different articles.
I see that three or four different articles, some of whom disagree, all say very similar details, and I assume they must be telling the truth.
But what if they're not?
What if we get taken for a ride?
And that's one of the biggest problems we have right now.
That's why CNN's trash.
But anyway, I think it was in the 80s when CNN launched.
They changed everything.
It was a 24-hour news network, and people thought, how are you gonna pull that off?
And they did, I guess.
Whenever the news happened, you knew you could turn on CNN, and it was just news.
With other channels you had like the breaking alert and then they interrupt their regularly scheduled programming for an announcement.
I think CNN caused every... it was a seed planted that changed the game.
That's causing our strife and our turmoil as it stands today.
Because they're the ones who created a tribalism of politics.
No, of course, excuse me.
There was always Democrat, Republican, I mean, we had a civil war, right?
But the news, whether you trusted it or not, still, there were very few sources.
And people's focus wasn't completely on the news.
People's focus would have been on, like, sporting events.
Super Bowl is getting tens of millions of views and, you know, people want to watch football.
But then they turned, CNN comes out with 24-hour news, and that creates the world of permanently being locked into the state of political reality.
From there, we saw the emergence of other cable networks, ultimately you get Fox News, which felt like they weren't, you know, the news wasn't covering a conservative perspective.
And then you start the fracture in the timeline, I suppose, the branching off of different realities.
And it sounds funny and fanciful, but it's kind of what's happening.
I'd like to show you an example of how CNN and its other outlets contribute to broken reality.
I'd like to show you first this article from CNN.
It's a live blog.
It says, Fully vaccinated people who get a breakthrough infection can transmit the virus, CDC director says.
Okay.
Well, that's news, we know.
The New York Times covered it.
The New York Times was criticized because people were saying, yes, but the likelihood of getting a breakthrough case is really low, so stop saying these things.
Can I show you what CNN said first?
CNN, in an archived version, actually posted, COVID-19 vaccines no longer prevent transmission, CDC director says.
Whoa, that is wildly different.
CNN published that.
Hey leftists, hey establishment democrats, you got a problem?
Maybe you need to call this out.
To be fair, they did issue a correction.
I can respect that.
And herein lies one of the biggest problems.
Many people saw the first headline and they won't see the second.
This is not the day.
Of the newspaper that goes out, gets retracted, recalled, and a statement goes out, and it goes far and wide.
This is the era of millions of different sources of information.
And so when someone logs into the internet, and they see the headline shared, or it's cached, and that means it'll appear on all these other websites with the wrong headline, people will believe that.
To be fair, I don't completely blame CNN for this.
Now, that was their editorial choice to put the headline in.
They've since included this clarification.
The post has been updated to specify that Walensky was referencing fully vaccinated people who get a breakthrough infection when saying that vaccines no longer prevent transmission of COVID-19.
The problem is just the system, the technology, and where we're at.
And this, again, going back to the criticism of CNN and their practices, but for the most part, this is a technological issue.
The way people absorb information these days, it doesn't work when you have these rotating headlines.
CNN should probably put a big banner up and make an announcement every time they have to do this.
Back in the day, retractions, corrections had to be printed.
They would take up space.
Of course, they kind of bury those retractions and stuff, but that's really important, isn't it?
I think an honest news outlet, if they get a hard fact wrong, shouldn't just issue a correction.
I mean, if it's like a big, big one, you should put up a new article.
And we've done that at TimCast.com.
Not that we've gotten things wrong, but that there have been immediate updates.
There'll be a story saying, like, you know, Joe Biden does a backflip, and then it's all reported by all this press, and we say it, same as they do, and then the video comes out, and it was a front flip, and then we put update, a new article, and then we link the old article to the new article.
One of the things these outlets do, They regularly stealth edit their articles, they change them without people knowing, and that is just fracturing reality for people.
Not to mention, going back to Chris Cuomo and the corruption of their cable channel and where we're at now.
It wasn't that long ago, Don Lemon came out and said that, you know, what did he say?
That there's gonna be some changes around here and, you know, I appreciate everybody who worked with me on, you know, Tonight with Don Lemon, blah blah blah, whatever they called it.
And he made it seem like he was retiring, like it was all over, and CNN's ratings had been in the gutter, so a lot of people thought that was the case.
Turns out, publicity stunt.
They were just changing the name of the show from, like, Tonight with Don Lemon to, like, Don Lemon Tonight.
No joke, they were just like, okay, let's just re-invert it, and it's a new show now.
Seriously.
Misleading people for the sake of attention.
No, no, no.
I gotta wrap all of this together.
Because it's not just about Cuomo going to jail.
It's about the saga of the Cuomo brothers.
Isn't it amazing that there are so many people who have friends and family who are in politics and who they work in media?
Now, that is a conflict of interest.
Now, normally I'd say something like, well, so long as they don't report on their family members, it's probably fine, but I don't think that's good enough anymore.
You see what happened with Chris and his brother in the giant Q-tip fiasco.
You see Chris Cuomo lying about being quarantined.
And now what happens is you had that one story from Axios where the lady was actually dating somebody working in the, I think, in the Biden press office.
I'm sorry.
That's my comment.
This is where we're at.
Could you imagine?
I mean, I guess you can, because it's literally happening.
But what happened to news?
These people should not... If you have a conflict of interest, you shouldn't be reporting anywhere near any of this.
And the problem is, some of these conflicts go up to executive levels.
Like, there could be someone working in the White House, and they have a brother or an in-law, or, you know, their spouse, who works as an executive in a media outlet.
That is a conflict of interest for the entirety of the network.
But they don't make those changes.
Instead, I think people are just willing to ride the wave.
It almost feels like every single one of these people, Cuomo is, you know, Cuomo and little Cuomo, all recognize the ship has sailed, man.
The icebergs, and we hit the iceberg, the hull's been breached, and now they're just riding that wave saying, how much time we got left till I gotta get out of here?
And that seems like where we're going.
It's fascinating when you read news that Andrew Cuomo, responsible for the death of 15,000 people, is only facing arrest now because of these accusations against him.
You mean to tell me the things we know he did, we can't arrest him for?
Yeah, I guess not.
It is interesting how the Democrats have turned on Andrew Cuomo, though.
That, I don't know why, but they have certainly come after him.
Perhaps it's because he's become too powerful.
That was one of the theories, that he had become so prominent in the face of Trump, people were concerned that he might actually win a presidential election over someone like Biden.
And that's still technically the case with 2024, if Cuomo decided to run.
unidentified
But I don't know why, why, why they, why, I don't know.
