S5169 - FBI Report DEBUNKS Democrat Lies About Jan 6th, Says it Was NOT Coordinated By Trump or Anyone Else
FBI Report DEBUNKS Democrat Lies About Jan 6th, Says it Was NOT Coordinated By Trump or Anyone Else. The new report shines a light on the reality of january 6th.
It was not an insurrection or a coup attempt, it was an angry riot. While many of the men and women at the capitol were there causing trouble and will face justice, most people were just there
to see the president speak and left peacefully. But some walked into open doors, some were allowed in by police.
The democrat narrative of republicans trying to overthrow the election has collapse. Negative partisanship will not be enough to save a failing Biden administration and come
2022 Trump supporters will have a chance to elect people to the republican party who see through the lies
#Democrats
#Biden
#Republicans
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In our first story, a new report from the FBI says the riot on January 6th was not centrally coordinated by anyone, vindicating Donald Trump and many of his supporters.
But the media, they're not happy because they've been claiming it's been an insurrection for months and now their narrative has fallen apart.
No, it wasn't a coup attempt.
It was a riot.
In our next story, ABC News manipulated the interview with Joe Biden to make him look good.
Media malfeasance, no doubt.
And in our last story, Hasan Piker, a leftist progressive commentator, very prominent, is being slammed by socialists for buying a $3 million house.
I got no issue with him being successful.
More power to him.
But let's talk about what's going on with socialism and how it manifests in the mainstream.
A lot of hypocrites out there.
Before we get started, leave us a good review and give us five stars.
And if you really like the show, please share it with your friends.
Tell them about it now.
Let's get into that first story.
As I'm sure most of you are already aware, the insurrection narrative is a lie.
It always was a lie, and most of us could see through it, but now we have official confirmation.
From TimCast.com report, FBI finds little evidence January 6th riot at US Capitol was coordinated.
In fact, They said, although there were some groups that did plan on being there and breaking into the building, there were no real plans as to what was going to happen.
No one centralized it, and Trump did not coordinate anything, nor did any far-right groups.
It was just a riot.
The narrative is falling apart.
As I'm recording this segment, President Joe Biden is speaking to the American people about about Afghanistan, and it ain't flying.
Criticism is on both sides of the aisle.
Democrats and Republicans, the mainstream media, are tearing into Joe Biden.
He screwed this one up.
You see, the Biden administration is hollow.
It was a campaign based on hating somebody else.
And that's all the Democrats have today.
I received a text message from someone telling me that they were running against, what did they say, Marjorie Taylor Greene's accomplice, Lauren Boebert, or something to that effect.
They didn't tell me what they were for.
They texted me saying, can we rely on your support and make a donation today?
And I looked at it and it just said, we hate Lauren Boebert.
So vote for us.
I'm sick of it.
That's why they need the insurrection narrative.
Because they have nothing of substance to offer the American people.
Afghanistan is chaos.
The economy is in chaos.
Gas prices through the roof.
A labor shortage.
A southern border crisis.
And now Afghanistan.
They have nothing of substance.
No skill.
No merit.
They rely solely on telling you how much we hate the other person.
So when I get a text message that says, give me money because you and I together can hate, I said, I responded, you have not told me what you are for.
Why would I support that?
I wouldn't support it for the other way around.
If someone texted me and said, we don't like Ocasio-Cortez and that's it, I'd be like, what are you for?
Because I could just be voting in someone who believes the same garbage as the other person I didn't like.
And it's not about hate.
I don't hate any of these people.
I just don't.
Well, I don't trust them.
I think they operate in bad faith.
And I don't think they have the skills or ability to lead this country.
And that is what we are seeing with this false narrative.
The Democrats relied extremely on this insurrection narrative, and they still do.
Despite the fact that all of these news outlets kept saying Trump staged a coup, or it was Trump's insurrection, and now we have them saying, yeah, no, Trump didn't do it.
We knew he didn't because we listened to what he said.
But what are we getting from leftist activists and establishment crony types?
They're saying, we all saw it with our eyes and our ears.
It doesn't matter what the FBI says.
Because they know they have nothing to offer you.
Everything's in shambles.
It's a crisis.
What are they going to say?
Vote for more of the same?
They can only tell you, yeah, things are bad, but think about how bad they'll be if Republicans get in.
I'm not a fan of the Republican Party.
Never have been.
I just think right now, the media, the establishment, the Democrats are telling us to our faces, if you vote for us, the only thing you will get is more complaining about somebody else.
I'd like to know how we're going to get jobs back.
I'd like to know how we're going to secure our southern border.
I'd like to know how we're going to get these 15,000 Americans out of Afghanistan.
I'd like to know those things.
That's not what you get from the media.
What you get is derision and lies.
But my friends, a new poll from Esmussen has come out showing that many Biden voters regret their decision.
And if they were to vote today, Donald Trump would get their vote.
And if there was a vote today, he'd win.
It's one poll.
I don't know if it's the absolute truth or anything, but I think when you look at independent voters disapproving of Joe Biden more and more as the economy continues to hurt, I think it's clear to see that this was all being maintained by a facade, an establishment narrative that is crumbling before our eyes.
Let's read this story.
Before we do, head over to TimCast.com.
Be a member to support this journalism.
You'll get an ad-free experience as a member and access to all of our members-only content, which, for now, is just the TimCast IRL members-only segments.
We put up Monday through Thursday, but we are working on a couple more shows.
We have to do, like, rehearsals and stuff and, like, branding.
We gotta make sure that we have the titles and the images and the graphics and all that stuff.
So, go to TimCast.com.
Be a member.
But don't forget to like this video.
Subscribe to this channel, hit that notification bell, and share it with your friends.
Maybe they won't like me.
Maybe they are trapped in the mainstream media's narrative engine.
I don't know what else to say other than let's go through all of this media and see exactly what's happening.
Report.
FBI finds little evidence January 6th riot at U.S.
Capitol was coordinated from TimCast.com.
A new report from the FBI is shedding more light on the events that unfolded at the U.S.
Capitol on January 6th, finding scant evidence the chaotic riot was a coordinated effort or organized plot to overturn the presidential election result.
Quote, Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations, reports Reuters.
Quote, 90 to 95% of these are one-off cases, said one insider familiar with the report.
Then you have 5%, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized, but there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages.
FBI investigators did find that cells of protesters, including followers of the far-right Oath Keepers and Proud Boys, had aimed to break into the Capitol, but they found no evidence that the groups had serious plans about what to do if they made it inside, the sources said, adds the Global News Agency.
I wonder if what that really means is they talked about it, but it was just Just talk.
And then when people actually pushed on the barricades, nobody had any idea what was going on.
I mean, what they're saying right now about Lauren Boebert, for instance, she gave a tour to people.
Why?
They're claiming she was involved in the insurrection.
There wasn't one.
There was a riot.
And it was a bad riot.
In a bad place.
And it is bad for us.
The Capitol?
During the Electoral College Countdown?
That's huge!
That's bad!
So these people get They get punished for it.
But how many of these people didn't riot?
How many of them walked through open doors and didn't realize it?
What we are dealing with is a failure of leadership.
The police weren't there, the National Guard wasn't there, and they should have been.
This should not have happened in any capacity.
People should not have been there to be this angry.
But the people showed up before Donald Trump finished speaking.
And Trump did not say, go in and do these things.
He said, peacefully, listen to some politicians.
That's what he said.
The clever propagandists for the Democratic establishment have cut together clips where you see Donald Trump saying, we've got to fight hard and strong.
So go down to the Capitol.
And it's like it's spliced together.
He said, now we're going to walk to the Capitol to listen to some politicians speak That's what he was hoping for.
Trump was hoping for Mike Pence to be like, I'm rejecting these results and sending them back to the states.
Many Republicans believe that was the correct response because of the lawsuits and questions around what had happened, but Pence wouldn't do that.
He claimed to not have the authority, which in my opinion is absurd because What's gonna happen?
You're gonna get sued?
You take a look at what, you know, de Blasio is doing in New York City.
They just do illegal things, or what Joe Biden is doing with the eviction moratorium.
They just do something illegal in defiance of the courts and then wait to get sued.
Mike Pence could have done the same thing.
He didn't want to.
Nobody want to stick their neck out for Trump, except for Trump supporters.
Many Democrats have long contended the January 6th riot was an insurrection pushed by supporters of Donald Trump to overturn the 2020 election results.
So reporteth timcast.com.
But let's take a look at some of the other news.
How would you like to go for a wild ride into what the media has been saying now that the FBI of all sources is saying it was not a centrally coordinated event?
There was no plan.
It was a riot.
It was bad.
Lock them up.
But that's it.
Take a look at this.
From Reuters.
This one's from January 6.
Trump summoned supporters to wild protest and told them to fight.
They did.
It's from January 6.
Seven months ago.
Told them to fight and they did.
Interesting date though.
It says 11 13 a.m.
The chaos in the U.S.
Capitol on Wednesday unfolded after President Trump spent weeks whipping up his supporters with false allegations of fraud.
Ah, they're going the stochastic terrorism route.
Claiming that Donald Trump, by saying these things, had encouraged people to come down.
I don't like playing this game.
You know, if you say something like, we gotta fight, it's figurative, obviously.
So then they're going to go ahead and accuse Trump of inciting violence.
Trump did not centrally coordinate or plan anything.
But here's what we're hearing from the left.
They're saying, well, of course, but it was stochastic terrorism, right?
What does that mean?
It means the more Trump says, like, they're bad and someone needs to do something about it, eventually someone does.
And Trump knew it was going to happen.
Let's take a look at some of the other news that has been pushed over the past several weeks.
From Business Insider, what's the date on this?
Do they even have the date on this one?
They don't.
Retired U.S.
General says the Trump White House was complicit in the planning of the January 6th insurrection.
Complicit in the planning!
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms 4 America 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.
Russell Honore told MSNBC the Trump White House was complicit in planning the Capitol riot.
Quote, It's my personal opinion that the executive branch was complicit in the planning and the delayed response that occurred in bringing in more federal assistance to the Capitol that day, Honore said during an MSNBC appearance.
That's my own perception based on what I've seen and what I've heard and the fact... You know what?
I'm just sick of it.
We had the Russian narrative, and they kept coming out and saying, I've seen the evidence, I know it's true!
And then we learned that behind closed doors and on their oath, they said, I've seen no evidence, I don't know it's true, but they can go on TV and lie all day.
The planning of the riot?
The FBI said there wasn't any.
You see, this is the problem.
They don't wait for the investigation.
They don't wait for evidence.
They claim that they're on the side of science, but what they really mean is mainstream narrative and consensus.
If these people just said, look, What we saw on January 6th was bad.
Let's see what the FBI pulls up before we jump the gun on this one and start making wild accusations about Trump's White House planning these things.
Here we go.
Politico.
Opinion.
Yes, it was a coup attempt, and here's why.
What Trump tried is called a self-coup, and he did it in slow motion and in plain sight.
They say, since last Wednesday, people have been arguing what to call what happened at the Capitol, a riot, an uprising, an insurrection.
I've been in public calling it a coup, but others disagree.
Some have said it was not a coup because the U.S.
military and other armed groups weren't involved, and some because Donald Trump didn't invoke his powers in support of the mob that broke into the Capitol.
Others point out that no one has claimed or proved there was a secret plan directed by the President, and that Trump's efforts to overturn the outcome of the election could never have succeeded in the first place.
These observations are based on the idea that a coup is a sudden, violent seizure of power involving clandestine plots and military takeovers.
By contrast, Trump's goal was to keep himself in power, and his actions were taken over a period of months in slow motion.
But that doesn't mean it wasn't a coup attempt.
Trump disguised what he was doing by operating in plain sight, talking openly about his intent.
He normalized his actions so people would accept them.
I've been studying authoritarian regimes for three decades, and I know the signs of a coup when I see them.
Conspiracy theorists taking wild and crazed leftist and establishment sources, whipping it into a ball and eating their own refuse.
This is what is happening.
Someone writes an article that's an op-ed saying Donald Trump was staging a coup because I believe in an extreme interpretation of the of the event.
Then someone else cites that story as fact and says Trump staged coup and then they all read the articles in a circle like a whirlpool swallowing their own waste and believing crazier and crazier things until it becomes the insurrection.
Meanwhile, the FBI for all of their faults comes out and says there was no evidence that any of this was centrally planned or coordinated.
But they're telling us right now that Trump was trying to keep himself in power?
That he was planning the self-coup over a long period of time?
No, there's no evidence.
There's no evidence.
But the media just runs with it.
Here's the Daily Beast.
Damn right January 6th was a coup.
This was Trump's call that led there.
Then you have this from The Atlantic.
Don't let anyone normalize January 6th.
If you can shrug it off as just another incident of Trump talking too much, then you have already signed up for the next incident and the one after that by David Frum.
This one's from this month, from August 1st.
They really wanted to push that narrative over and over and over again.
Because of what I said.
The only thing they have to offer you is orange man bad.
Who do you hate?
If you hate them, it's, it's, it's, what do they call it?
It's negative politics.
There's a word for it.
I can't remember the word, the phrase that describes this.
Negative partisanship, I think it's called.
Instead of saying, we as political party are for these things and we want these changes and we oppose these things, they're saying, that person's bad.
Vote for me because that person's bad.
And when you say, why are they bad?
They say because they're maggots or terrorists or because they staged an insurrection with no evidence.
Here we go.
Juan Williams.
On August 16th, just a few days ago, Trump's coup attempt should bar him from the 2024 race.
Everybody's favorite Juan Williams from Fox News said, let's agree.
Former President Trump is running again.
He has $100 million in his political war chest.
His GOP rivals for the nomination, including top congressional Republicans, fear him.
One reason he might not run is if any of the several investigations into his business affairs leads to a criminal indictment.
You see what they're trying to do to stop Trump from running again?
I honestly, I hope it's not Trump.
I hope Trump doesn't run.
I hope it's a DeSantis or somebody else.
But Trump, if he runs, okay, so be it.
They really don't want him to.
They're trying to throw everything in his path, including all of the lies and the manipulations.
His coup attempt.
Well, here we go.
Matthew Iglesias, formerly of Vox.com, tweeted out the story about the no evidence saying,
I don't understand this story. Of course there wasn't a covert plot.
The President of the United States was calling for it publicly. We were all there. Whoa.
Wait a minute. Matthew, you were at the Capitol attack?
Seriously?
Wow.
I knew a lot of people that were, uh, uh, who wanted to go to see Trump speak, not the Capitol.
I know a couple people who went to the Capitol to see Trump's speech.
That was it.
But you were there?
That's weird.
If you were there when Trump was speaking, you'd have heard him say, peacefully march down to listen to politicians speak.
But what was he saying?
What was he calling for publicly, Matthew?
You see, this is the problem.
That's a lie.
It's just not true.
Trump did not say, go do X. But there is something to consider in all of this.
Outside of what the left is saying, perhaps it's not vindication.
Perhaps the goal of this is not to prove a point and say the left was wrong and we did our jobs.
Maybe it's because the FBI was involved themselves.
Darren Beattie says, before taking a victory lap here, understand what the Feds are doing with this admission.
This Fed announcement is 100% about the FBI getting an excuse to justify kneecapping their investigations into militia leadership.
There are many who believe that the FBI actually helped coordinate January 6th, that informants and undercover operatives were guiding and manipulating and pushing people in this direction.
Some even argue that the people who were pushing on the barricades and starting the fights were probably saboteurs or undercover operatives.
I have no evidence to suggest that's the case.
There is a really creepy video of the first break-in where you can see people all black clad breaking through the windows and climbing in.
And so the idea is, while we're demanding an investigation into potential informants and undercover operatives, the FBI comes out and says there was no centrally planned of any kind, in which case they don't need to look at the private communications of many of these people.
So maybe that's the case.
Maybe it's not.
I can tell you this.
I think the narrative is falling apart.
We are seeing the emperor with no clothes.
The Democratic Party has offered us nothing but negative partisanship, anger at the other side, and Joe Biden is flopping around like a fish out of water.
Kamala Harris can't come out and give a statement on Afghanistan.
Where's she been at?
Jen Psaki's team didn't do their normal update, but then Joe Biden was supposed to come out at 1 p.m.
and then he missed the 1 p.m.
and then pushes it back, supposed to go back to Delaware.
Many people think that Joe Biden is sick because he's been going to Delaware over and over again and won't release a release who's been visiting him.
And the man is about to turn 79.
Or is he 79?
I don't know.
Yeah.
When's his birthday?
It's like November or something. 79.
Take a look at this story.
White House goes silent after Biden's Afghanistan interview debacle.
President schedules no public appearances and Jen Psaki's team failed to host daily briefing.
Now, this was from yesterday, yesterday evening.
And today, Biden announced he'd be speaking at 1 p.m.
and then at 2 p.m.
leaving for Delaware.
But there was a major backlash.
People felt like he was running scared.
It was funny.
Someone from the White House said, Joe Biden won't shy away from hard questions.
And then this like public announcement, Biden cancels 1 p.m.
speech.
He pushed it back.
He ended up speaking.
He did.
I'm not trying to say he didn't speak.
But a lot of people roasted him for it, saying that the questions are from friendly press, as friendly as they can get, and that the administration is just absolutely in chaos.
All of this stuff should come together to show you the lies of the machine.
Take a look at this from Rasmussen.
Election regrets.
Most wouldn't vote to reelect Biden.
Most voters would not vote to reelect President Joe Biden and a significant number who voted for him in 2020 now regret their choice.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that if the next presidential election were held today, 37% of likely US voters would vote for Biden, 43% would vote for Donald Trump.
14% say they would vote for some other candidate.
Among voters who say they voted for Biden in last year's election, 12% now say they regret their vote.
By comparison, only 2% of Trump voters now regret their vote.
If a rematch of the 2020 election were held now, Trump would win, because only 79% of Biden voters say they would vote for him again, and 7% would switch their vote to Trump.
By comparison, 81% of Trump's 2020 voters would vote for him again, and just 2% would switch to Biden.
10% of Biden's voters would vote for some other candidate, while 12% of those who voted for Trump would vote for some other candidate.
Of those who say they voted for some other candidate last year, 21% would vote Trump if the next election were held now, while just 7% say they'd vote for Biden.
I love the memes.
There's one where a woman is holding another woman's head up and it says, you know, if you voted for Joe Biden, these are the policies you supported.
It's not just Joe Biden, though.
It's Kamala Harris from New York Post.
Kamala Harris tanking in polls as she goes to ground on Afghan withdrawal.
As I've said it before, and I'll say it again, where these things come together, this is important, is that January 6th is the perfect example of them saying, vote for us or face the consequences.
Look at the evil boogeyman of the far right.
Vote for us.
You don't give me anything.
I'm not gonna vote for you.
Unfortunately, the plan worked.
It worked in 2020.
They offered up no real candidate.
They knew that if they chose a Buttigieg or Kamala Harris or Tulsi Gabbard, whatever the issue may be, or Andrew Yang, that it would be polarizing.
A lot of people would say, I don't like the policies of these individuals.
And so they might not vote.
And as you can see, Trump gained something like 12 million more voters.
I think more than that, like 13?
Around that.
So they said, Joe Biden, stay alive.
Literally.
That's the article from The Atlantic.
They said, all we need is your corporeal form.
Well, when you're running an election based on not Trump, that means that you're putting in a hollow administration.
We have no president.
Joe Biden's sleeping, disappearing, not doing press events, not speaking, not taking questions.
We have absolute chaos now with Afghanistan, and Kamala Harris is nowhere to be found.
Because we didn't vote for anybody.
Joe Biden didn't come out and say, I've got a bold two-part plan.
You know, with Afghanistan, we're going to do this first, then this first.
We're going to start with evacuating all of our troops, and then we're going to blow up the air—none of that.
Nothing.
Instead, Joe Biden kept calling a lid.
Not appearing for the press, and then Trump just kept speaking, and the Democrats were hoping that hatred for Trump would elect Joe Biden, just like with the insurrection is their plan to say, you must hate, you must fear, you must oppose.
No, please.
I want to know what we're for.
I want to know what we're going to do.
The Democrats don't seem to do anything.
Don't get me wrong.
Republicans don't seem to either.
Not even Kamala Harris is getting roasted.
So while Republicans are calling on the 25th Amendment, I'm not entirely convinced that the 25th Amendment is the right move because that just means you get Kamala Harris.
And apparently most people think she's unfit to be president too.
So then what, Nancy Pelosi?
Get out of here.
She's on the way out.
So then I think it's what, Chuck Grassley?
Aw, jeez.
My friends, is this the end of the American Empire?
Is this the end of the big peak?
I mean, it happens.
Look, the Soviet Union fell apart.
That seems crazy, right?
It just, overnight almost, just gone.
People woke up one day and they were like, I guess we don't have a centralized authority anymore?
Why do that?
I don't know.
You know, you can read history to figure out why these things happen.
But is this it?
We've got a presidential administration in chaos.
A political party that can only rely, I mean, let's be honest, both, that can only rely on hating the other person, and not standing up for principles.
How long can that go on for?
Especially now, with everything we're seeing with Afghanistan.
China's mocking us, saying, look at the weakness of the Americans, you're a waning power.
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.
The National Review writes, something is wrong with the president.
Yeah, I think something is wrong with the president.
And we knew this was gonna happen because the dude's 78.
You know, Trump's pretty old, too.
If he were to run again, he'd be old.
That's why I'm like, DeSantis, he's younger, you know?
And he's done pretty well with Florida.
Something is wrong with the president.
Now, the article, for the most part, just goes through the things he was saying or struggling to say.
ABC News manipulating what Joe Biden said to make him seem more coherent.
And they end with talking about, potentially, Joe Biden ain't all with it.
The President turned 79 in November.
He last released a summary of his health condition in December 2019.
In May, a White House spokesman said Biden had not had a medical checkup for or taken a physical this year, but that he would by the end of the year.
There have been no updates on the President's health since.
Back on July 26, John Ellis astutely analyzed how it was acceptable to acknowledge Biden's age and mental condition if you used certain euphemisms.
Somewhere along the way of the last few years, Biden transitioned from young old to old.
Veteran reporters described the transition in code.
He lost a step or two, or he's lost something of his fastball.
You're not supposed to talk about it.
If you do, and you're a Democrat, you're scolded for aiding and abetting the enemy.
If you do, and you're a Republican, God forbid, a MAGA voter, you're a horrible hate monger trying to overturn the results of a free and fair election, and you probably watch Fox News to boot.
The problem is that it's all there for all to see.
Pretending not to see it is untenable.
Something is wrong with President Biden, and we are all being asked to pretend we don't notice.
White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday that President Biden won't release visitor logs from his Delaware residences despite making 17 trips home in six months.
The decision comes despite the Biden administration's claim to restore transparency and trust in government, including with the resumption of limited release of White House visitor logs.
Quote, I can confirm we are not going to be providing information about the comings and goings of the president's grandchildren or people visiting him in Delaware.
You see how they do that?
His grandchildren?
So you're claiming the people who are visiting him are his grandchildren, are you?
No.
You're using that to make it seem that's the case because the reality is he's probably being visited by specialists because the dude is old.
Psaki said this at a daily press briefing. Transparency advocates say that the same
logic that applies to the White House visitor logs applies to records of who's visiting Biden
at his homes. Tom Fitton, president of the conservative group Judicial Watch,
told the Post that this policy makes a mockery of White House claims of visitor log transparency.
It's an easy way to bypass the alleged transparency they're promising, Fitton said.
If they're going to take the position that this information should be public,
what are they hiding when it comes to visiting his home?
The presidency doesn't stop when he's visiting Delaware.
He is presumably doing work, so the public has an interest in knowing who is visiting him there.
Is Hunter Biden visiting him?
Joe Biden is the one who had Hunter at the Vice President's office meeting with his business partners.
They say the links between the elder Biden and his son's business ventures are often murky, and I don't care too much about that.
I think this is Joe Biden being sick.
I think he is going home, so he has extreme privacy, it's harder for the press to see what's going on, and then his doctor can come and see him.
Let me tell you.
I'm sure the media will come out and say, Tim Pool claims without evidence that Joe Biden is sick.
I'm not claiming he's sick.
I'm saying if I had to make a guess, I'd say he was.
And maybe he's not.
I'm not saying I believe him 100% to be sick.
I say I believe there is ample circumstantial evidence to suggest the president is not well.
That something is wrong with him.
I mean, look, the dude's old.
He's past average life expectancy.
I wish him the best.
I hope he finishes his term.
I don't think we want or need any of this chaos.
This is what happens.
People voted against.
That's what the January 6th thing is all about.
Voting against.
So they put in place a sick man because they didn't care.
That's our politics today.
So what are we gonna get?
Are we gonna get a Republican who just says, here's all the reasons I hate Democrats and if you vote for me, I will continue to hate them.
I'm like, that doesn't do anything for me.
That's not going to make my life better.
And so you have a lot of people.
I'm saying to people, like, I don't want to vote for the Republican Party because they're trash.
They don't do anything.
The Libertarian Party's pretty crazy.
I don't know who I'd vote for.
The Democrats have lost their minds.
The system's falling apart.
And people say, Tim, if you don't vote for the Republicans, you're giving the Democrats power.
So is that it?
I vote for one group I don't like because the other group I don't like more?
What are the Republicans going to do for me or anybody else?
They don't seem to know.
Several of the populist Republicans, the newer, younger, energized types, they seem to say we're about securing our borders, end the foreign wars, get the workers back and the manufacturing back in this country.
I like that.
I do.
If we see more of that, I'm down.
Outside of all of this, I'll leave you with some optimism.
For one, we can see the narrative from the Democrats is all just bonk.
But there's some good news.
Check this out.
Fox News' Greg Gutfeld is crowned new king of late-night TV after he scores 220,000 more viewers than Colbert's Late Show on CBS.
Comedian Greg Gutfeld's show pulled in the most viewers during Tuesday's late-night time slot, with about 2.12 million.
Take a look at that.
Let's look at these numbers.
Where we go?
Here we go.
Gutfeld, 2.12.
The Late Show with Colbert, 1.9.
Jimmy Fallon, 1.2.
Brian Williams, 1.12.
And Don Lemon, 570,000.
That's amazing.
Now, most of these viewers are older, so we'll see what happens as time goes on.
We get, at TimCastIRL, every night, in live viewership, it's, um, I'll put it this way, it's hard to calculate because YouTube does this separate thing where they have, like, live viewer count versus, like, YouTube hard views of the full podcast, so they're different.
But it's between like 300 and half a million every night on TimCast IRL.
Mostly young people.
Not old people.
Not older people.
Mostly young people.
So, uh, we're not beating Don Lemon.
We're beating Don Lemon in the key demo, though.
Don Lemon's relevance, and all these other people's relevance, is with the older crowd.
Even Greg Gutfeld.
I'm not trying to drag him.
He's a funny guy.
But Greg Gutfeld's probably crushing it in the key demo relative to everyone else.
What does that mean?
It means younger people are waking up and paying attention, and they're rejecting the lies.
That's good news.
But when you combine the key demo numbers for CNN and MSNBC and Colbert and Jimmy Fallon and all that, it's a lot higher than Fox News, so we will see.
But it does feel like the narrative is shattering.
Biden can't handle any of these crises, and it seems like everything's falling apart because of it.
We'll see how it plays out.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
I have long accused the media of translating for Joe Biden, and conservative media does this too.
I think it's because people don't know how to write a quote that includes a bunch of ellipses and ums and uhs and stuttering and stammering and wrong words.
So they just say, here's what he meant, I guess.
For example, Joe Biden could say something like, you know, we got the Navy in the desert, troops in the desert, troops in Afghanistan, and, you know, got to get them out.
And instead of just writing all of that, because it's incoherent and insane, they'll change it.
And they'll just like, quote, Biden said, we've got troops in the desert of Afghanistan, we've got to get them out.
Or they'll say something like, Joe Biden expressed his desire to pull our troops out of the Middle East.
Because if you actually show the quote, you'll be like, I don't know what he meant.
Like when he was speaking at the G7 or whatever, he kept saying Libya instead of Syria.
Well, Not only have people been translating for him, but the media is trash, and now ABC is accused of misleading edit in Biden interview quote on Afghanistan.
President was asked if he believed the Taliban had changed.
Now, what's really funny about this story is that the left is saying ABC edited Joe Biden's statements to make him look bad.
I shouldn't say the left, like the Democrats.
It made him look bad.
Tucker Carlson is saying they edited out the parts that made him incoherent and bumbling.
I think Tucker's probably more—actually, I think they both may be right.
But Tucker's right because that's why I opened with that point about the media translating for Joe Biden.
Biden, my friends, is incoherent and hard to follow often.
Now, when he was giving his speech about Afghanistan, Reading the teleprompter, I suppose he was able to pull that one off.
But even with a teleprompter, he's often confused and stuttering and stammering.
So this is interesting, actually, because we do have, I believe, we have the Daily Wire actually showing everything that was removed from the interview, and that's actually kind of crazy.
Like, let's be real.
They didn't just remove some words.
You know, when I heard that ABC had edited what Joe Biden said to the American people, first, I was like, well, I'm not surprised.
It's horrifyingly unethical.
Let his words stand for the American people.
But I assumed they were editing down his answers.
You know, often you'll see in an interview, someone will say something like, I believe we need to raise taxes on the rich.
Because the rich don't pay their fair share.
And they'll cut out the end part because it's like, for time, he already gave his answer, we don't need that additional opinion or something like that.
I'm opposed to that.
But that's typically what they do.
Something like that.
And I'll be like, okay, whatever.
Right?
We know what they do and why they do it.
In this instance, they actually pulled words out from, like, the middle of his statements, like, absolutely changing the context.
Well, let's read first from The Independent, a more left-leaning outlet, as to what they're saying.
ABC accused of misleading at an InBiden interview, quote, on Afghanistan.
ABC has been accused of misleadingly editing the response of Joe Biden.
He gave a question about whether or not the Taliban have changed.
In an interview with the channel's George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Biden was asked about the Taliban's future strategy for governing Afghanistan.
Stephanopoulos asked, what happens now in Afghanistan?
Do you believe the Taliban have changed?
No, responded the president.
Let me put it this way.
I think they're going through sort of an existential crisis about do they want to be recognized by the international community as being a legitimate government?
I'm not sure they do.
However, in a post on Twitter, the news channel published an edited version of the exchange labeling it as an exclusive.
The edited version removed both no and I'm not sure they do from Mr. Biden's answer, which some observers said removed crucial context as to the meaning of the response.
They are correct.
They absolutely did.
Joe Biden was saying, they haven't changed.
They are going through an existential crisis.
I'm not sure they actually care.
So he gave an elaborate response.
What did ABC do?
Remove those negative statements.
So he just said, do you think they've changed?
I think they're going through an existential crisis about whether or not they want to be recognized by the international community.
That is a yes!
Fake news, man!
You know, what's funny is all these young people who don't understand the media just lies.
Are probably now shocked.
Not like I don't understand why these young people care about Biden anyway.
Enjoy waving your little flag for your tribe, weirdos.
But now you get to see how the media is manipulating and lying about you.
Not like I think these young people actually care or pay attention.
This is reality.
ABC News' tweet sparked a debate on Twitter over whether or not the edit of Mr. Biden's remarks had misled the public.
It did.
Some Twitter commentators accused ABC News and the wider media of being disingenuous.
They are.
One user said the edit changes the precise meaning and context of the rest of his answer.
Another said, the problem with the current media is media in one tweet.
There's no appetite for honesty and substance.
It's all click based.
Others were less convinced the edit made a significant change.
One said, one user said, I'm not sure that the no makes much of a difference here.
It did.
And the I'm not sure they do, definitely does.
He's outright saying they don't want to change, right?
He's like, they haven't changed.
They may be contemplating something, but I don't think they really want to change.
You get rid of those last parts and Biden's basically saying they may want to change.
It's very, very different.
And conservatives were roasting Joe Biden over this because it made it seem like he was trying to placate the Taliban or trying to apologize for them.
He said no.
Making me defend Joe Biden?
Come on!
I don't want to do that, but hey, same thing happens with Donald Trump.
I'm like, stop making me defend the guy.
Tell the truth.
I can be honest about my criticisms.
We got the Daily Wire here.
And I am, I will also note, the Daily Wire, now with that beautiful green checkmark, NewsGuard certified.
That's right.
For a while, they were called Fake News by NewsGuard, but NewsGuard says the Daily Wire is okay now.
All right.
From the Daily Wire, ABC News appears to have not aired 900 plus words from Biden during interview on Good Morning America.
Here they are.
Now, this is interesting.
They say the interviews come as the administration faces an absolute debacle in Afghanistan that was precipitated by Biden's chaotic pullout of the nation.
Biden has avoided answering questions from reporters during two brief sets of remarks that he gave to the media this week, and he has spent a significant portion of time during the crisis on vacation in Delaware, whereas administration refuses to disclose who he meets with.
Now look, I contemplated opening with that story because I think Joe Biden is ill.
I do.
He keeps flying back to Delaware.
He's flying back again today.
He's not revealing who he's meeting with.
Doesn't sound good for someone, a man of his age.
Where is the rest of the administration?
I don't know.
But just speculation.
And maybe we'll do a bigger segment on that later.
They say, a review comparing the transcript released by ABC News to video footage aired on television on Good Morning America.
And on the YouTube, okay, we get it.
A little over 900 words on a variety of topics related to Afghanistan were not aired.
Some of the remarks that were not aired are inconsequential to the interview, like when Biden thanked Stephanopoulos for the interview.
ABC News could have withheld parts of the footage due to time constraints.
However, many of the instances in which Biden's remarks were not aired appeared to be negative moments where he struggled.
Interesting.
The left tried making it seem like the media was making him look bad, but It may be that they're making him look good.
The following are the most significant parts of the interview that do not appear to have aired.
A full transcript and both video clips published on Good Morning America YouTube channel are featured toward the bottom of the report, with words in bold font not being included by the network.
Stephanopoulos says, let's get right to it.
Edit it out.
Back in July, you said a Taliban takeover was highly unlikely.
Was the intelligence wrong or did you downplay it?
Biden said, I think there was no consensus.
If you go back and look at the intelligence reports, they said that it's more likely to be sometime by the end of the year.
The idea that the tale, and then it goes further on, even as late as August, I think you're going to see The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and others speaking about this later today.
Okay, I don't, I don't, I understand why they removed that.
What are they gonna do?
The idea that the Tal, and then it goes further on.
What?
I don't know what that means.
I don't know what he's trying to say.
Part 2.
This whole section was removed.
Stephanopoulos said, I think a lot of Americans and I, even a lot of veterans who served in Afghanistan, agree with you on the big strategic picture.
They believe we had to get out.
But I wonder how you respond to an Army Special Forces officer, Javier McKay.
He did seven tours.
He was shot twice.
He agrees with you.
He says, we have to cut our losses in Afghanistan.
But he adds, I just wish we could have left with honor.
Biden said, look, that's like asking my deceased son, Beau, who spent six months in Kosovo and a year in Iraq as a Navy captain and then major.
I mean, as an army major.
And, you know, I mean, he he had regrets coming out of Afghanistan.
I mean, out of Iraq.
Oh, geez.
He had regrets to what, how... I'm trying to read the stuttering and the stammering, mind you.
That's why I'm reading it like this.
He had regret to how it's going, but the idea... What's the alternative?
The alternative is why are we staying in Afghanistan?
Why are we there?
Don't you think that the one you know who's most disappointed in us getting out, Russia and China, they'd love us to continue to have to... Okay.
That first paragraph.
He confused his son's rank.
Or, I'm sorry, where his son was?
It's no wonder they removed that.
It's incoherent.
Stephanopoulos asks.
These are all included, so I'll skip over these.
He says, so you don't think that this could have been handled, this exit could have been handled
in a better way, no mistakes. Biden gives a response.
Stephanopoulos says, so for you, that was always priced into the decision. Biden said, yes,
now exactly what happened is not priced in. But I knew that they're going to have an
enormous, enormous, look, one of the things we don't know is what the Taliban would do in terms of trying
to keep people from getting out, what they would do. Now, here's the removed section. What are
they doing now?
They're cooperating, letting American citizens get out, American personnel get out, embassies get out, etc.
But they're having, we're having some more difficulty in having those who helped us when we were in there.
Stephanopoulos says, and we don't really know what's happening outside of Kabul.
Biden's response, pardon me, We don't really know what's happening outside of Kabul.
Biden says, well, we do know generically and in some specificity what's happening outside of Kabul.
We don't know it in great detail, but we do know.
And guess what?
The Taliban knows if they take on American citizens or American military, we will strike them back like hell won't have it.
So, Stephanopoulos then says, how about our Afghan allies?
We have about 80,000 people.
This whole section, this is crazy!
I can't even read all of this.
All of this stuff that's been removed, this is insane.
Wow.
My friends, I can't read through all of the stuff they pulled out.
Look at this one.
In one of the answers, they pulled random words out from the middle of the answer.
Biden answered a question, he said, that tells me that, and now here's the removed part, my dad used to have this expression, George, if everything's equally important to you, nothing's important to you.
That was removed.
But here's the best part.
He says, we should be focusing on where the threat is the greatest.
And the threat, they removed the words, the threat.
So he says, and the idea, we can continue to spend one trillion.
They edited that to remove his lapses.
Now look at this.
They cut a sentence in half.
Here's what he said.
The idea that we can spend a trillion dollars and have tens of thousands of American forces in Afghanistan, when we have North Africa and Western Africa, the idea we can do that and ignore those looming problems, growing problems, is not rational.
That's what they aired.
Here's what he really said.
The idea that we can continue to spend a trillion dollars and have tens of thousands of American forces in Afghanistan, and when we have what's going on around the world, in the Middle East and North Africa and the West, I mean, excuse me, yeah, North Africa and Western Africa, They removed that whole section of his answer.
This is insane, man.
Look at this.
And it's no wonder the Daily Wire is publishing this.
I can't read through every single thing they removed.
They edited out the words, so.
They edited out the words, I got into office, George.
Wow.
Look at this one.
He says, I got into office, George, less than two months after I elected to office.
I was sworn in.
All of a sudden, I have a May 1st deadline.
They remove the part where he says, I got into office.
They absolutely change everything.
Well, Tucker Carlson, he's roasting him.
He says, Joe Biden interview edited to make him look less incoherent and confused.
That's true.
Newsweek reports Fox News host Tucker Carlson has suggested, suggested, he's right, that ABC News selectively edited a recent interview with Joe Biden in order to make him look better by excluding a portion of his conversation with George Stephanopoulos.
Carlson told his primetime audience on Thursday about the recently released ABC News transcript of the Wednesday interview.
That transcript featured a section that was not broadcast where Biden discussed his deceased son, Beau Biden.
In that exchange, Biden appears to say that his son was in the Navy before correcting himself and saying Beau Biden was in the Army.
Carlson described the exchange as not presidential.
You know, look, I'm less concerned about Joe Biden at this point stuttering and stammering in an interview as I am with the media actively manipulating conversations to change the context to lie to the American people.
And why are they doing it?
Why are they doing it?
I'll tell you why I think so.
The media wants war.
War is good for ratings.
War has always been good for ratings.
Conflict and chaos, they love it.
That's why they won't shut up about Afghanistan right now.
That's why every headline is Afghanistan, Afghanistan, Afghanistan.
It's money.
It's shock content.
It's scary.
Makes people scared.
Makes them prophets.
So, in my opinion, their whole attitude is, how do we get back in?
How do we get more troops on the ground?
Well, this is exactly how.
We'll see though.
Will the American people and the younger generation fall for it this time?
The media keeps putting out these videos that are shocking.
People being executed, beaten, protesters demanding freedom being attacked.
And you have to wonder why it was that Joe Biden did the things he did when he was exiting.
The Daily Mail reports CIA counterterrorism chief joins long list of military officials saying Biden was warned Afghanistan could capitulate in days after President said he can't recall the warnings and Mark Milley saying no one saw it coming.
Many people are speculating.
The grand conspiracy, I suppose, that it was on purpose.
Joe Biden botched the withdrawal on purpose so that the Taliban would rush in like useful idiots Shock everyone in the media and around the world so that Joe Biden would say, I have to send in troops.
I've had people messaging me saying, there are 15,000 Americans in there, Tim.
Are you ready for videos of beheadings?
For the next month, we've got to send those troops in.
And I'm like, here comes.
You know, I praise Joe Biden for following through with the withdrawal, but I don't think it will be a withdrawal.
I mean, he's already putting in several thousand more troops.
They're being deployed.
Are we now going to have more troops deployed to Afghanistan?
We are.
And I'm hearing people say that their buddies in the military have gotten their orders.
They're going to be deploying to Afghanistan.
We're sending in more troops.
You know, here's what I think will happen.
We're going to see manufactured consent.
What I mean by that is the media will keep showing these things.
They'll keep defending Joe Biden, or in some instances, and what will end up happening is the American people will be inundated with these images.
The democratic establishment types and the neocons will then start saying only, you know, the far right opposes saving the Afghani people.
They'll say something like the far right agrees with the Taliban and things like that.
They'll say that's why they're actually supporting it, and they'll use conjecture and lies manipulation.
They'll put out that news to manufacture the image that the American people would favor a return to Afghanistan, at the very least.
Joe Biden will just do it.
I mean, that's what's happening.
Daily Mail says, Douglas London said Biden was being misleading at best in his denials.
London was the CIA's counterterrorism chief for South and Southwest Asia.
He then worked as a volunteer advisor to the Biden campaign.
He said Trump and Biden officials were told Afghan collapse could come in days.
His scathing assessment comes after Biden said he was never warned of the risks.
So why is Biden lying?
What image is being crafted by the lies and the media manipulations that we didn't see this coming, we didn't screw up, the Taliban is an inscrupulous, evil organization that must be stopped, and if we don't act now, American citizens will die.
That's the narrative, baby.
So, when I mentioned, you know, I was talking on TimCast IRL that I understand why, in some circumstances, there's an argument for intervention.
You don't want to see the Soviets, for instance, in the Cold War, expand to the point where you can never stop them, and then they take you over.
Afghanistan isn't that, though.
You know, we do have the issue with China's expansion, the Belt and Road Initiative and things like that, but we're not in Afghanistan for that reason.
We've been in Afghanistan for 20 years.
Why?
And they want to stay there.
Because they want nation building.
Because they want to stay in Germany.
And South Korea.
And Okinawa.
And it's really funny because there's this one guy... I can't remember his name.
He tweeted this out.
End the forever wars in Okinawa, Germany, and South Korea.
And I guess he was being facetious.
All of a sudden now defending the idea that we should be occupying Afghanistan for some reason.
And my response is like, that's a good point.
Why are we in Germany?
Is there something in Germany we need to be protecting?
Can Germany not protect itself?
Pretty sure Europe is capable of defending itself.
And it's about time the United States stopped being the world's military or the world police.
But you see where they want to go with it, right?
They don't want to give up that power.
America to us is very different than what America is to them.
America to us is its founding history, its founding fathers.
It's the ideals of freedom and liberty in the Constitution.
To them, the elites, the Bidens, the establishment, the billionaires, America is a central operation headquarters for militaristic endeavors to whip the world into line.
I'm not all about that.
I'm a big fan of the Founding Fathers.
But at some point, our political elite, our political class, maybe a hundred years ago, whatever, I don't know, World War I maybe, decided America can be the base of operations for militarism and empire around the world for some elite internationalist ideal.
And therein lies the biggest problem with all of it.
Most Americans just want to do their thing.
Be left alone.
But the powers that be, the establishment elites, they want bases in foreign countries.
They want Dave and Busters around the world.
No offense, Dave and Busters, I'm a big fan, but you know what I mean.
They want this suburban McDonald's tourism reality for every country.
And it's gross.
It's disgusting.
I went to the Bahamas.
Where was it?
Nassau, I think?
I think it was Nassau.
Is Nassau in Bahamas?
No, maybe not.
Maybe I'm thinking of somewhere else.
I don't know.
I can't remember.
What's the city in the Bahamas?
I can't remember.
But we went there.
It was on a cruise.
And I went, getting off the boat, and I'm all excited to see the local fair.
And what do I see inside?
Gucci, Hard Rock Cafe, McDonald's, Starbucks, and I was like, I have those a block from my house.
What is this?
Why am I here?
So I left.
I was like, I'm gonna go to the neighborhoods and find somewhere to eat.
That's what I did.
You travel around the world and that's what you get.
Hard Rock Cafe, Gucci, Bubba Gump Shrimp, Times Square being reproduced everywhere.
It is gross.
They are homogenizing culture around the world.
That's what's happening with this interventionism.
That's their goal in the long run.
It makes the world a boring and bland place.
They're smoothing out all wrinkles.
But sometimes it's that diversity and that cultural experience that makes life worth living to see new things.
Man, could you imagine living in a world with just one store?
And it's like, hey, do you guys want to go to the hot tourism spot?
There is a Starbucks.
Got Starbucks across the street from Starbucks.
I think that's what they're trying to do.
And I wonder if all of what they're doing, the ultimate end goal is going to be manufactured consent, convincing American people that the American people want war in Afghanistan, which I don't think they do.
But here it comes.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
I'll see you all then.
And boy, are leftists angry!
You know, when I heard that a socialist made all this money, is super rich, and was gonna buy themselves this massive mansion, you know, I thought to myself, I thought, oh, congratulations, Hasan.
Wow, that's really impressive.
The guy works really, really hard, and he deserves it.
Hassan streams for like 8 or 10 hours every day, and that's no simple feat.
You know, I work around 12 to 16 hours every day.
The first video that I publish goes up around 10 a.m., but I begin the research and work around 8 a.m., and then we finish and wrap up the final show around 11 p.m., so I certainly understand what it is to work and talk nonstop and do this stuff all day every day.
And so, you know, congratulations to Hassan for Grinding and proving, you know, with hard work, determination, talent, and all that stuff, you can be successful.
And I'm going to say it outright, not facetious at all, you are allowed to be a leftist and successful.
This idea that you want to promote universal health care or that you want to promote social programs means that you can't be wealthy is just a stupid trope.
It's dumb.
I don't even think conservatives, for the most part, embrace that idea.
You know, right now, in response to Hassan buying this massive home, there are a few questions that arise that I want to talk about.
I'm not super interested in talking about Hassan as an individual, because he's just another political commentator.
I'm interested in talking about the response to him buying this home. Because you're getting,
for one, Breitbart wrote an article, and it seems to be criticizing him for being a rich
socialist, which we'll talk about what that means. And I do think there's some potential
contradictory issues there. But then you have leftists that are piling on and saying he should
be spending this money on mutual aid and activism and programs to help the working class. Instead,
he's enriched himself. But I think you need to understand that when it comes to capitalism
or free enterprise, when it comes to socialism, the political spectrum,
the economic spectrum is actually fairly gradient.
There are certainly people who believe that 80% of all of, you know, wealth should be controlled by the state or something like that, and you still have the right to make and earn money.
I do think there are many people that are making excuses for Hassan.
However, and I think it's really simple, I don't believe that Hassan is Ideologically, 100% like authoritarian socialist.
I think he's just very far left.
I'm not saying that to be disparaging.
I think he still obviously believes in personal wealth and success and hard work, and that's a good thing.
But there is a big conundrum that I run into when it comes to the left and their principles that we need to address.
So obviously, we'll learn about his house and what the left is saying.
We'll ask some of these questions, but why is it We have one story about staff at a socialist magazine were all fired because they tried forming a worker co-op, effectively labor organizing.
The guy who runs it was like, later, you're fired for trying to basically unionize.
That's weird to me.
And then you have the story about Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks who also was called out for union busting and I'm like, this I do not get.
Perhaps I'm too nice and trusting.
Perhaps these people are all grifters, and they're just saying what they think is popular to make money.
And what's funny is they come out and call me the grifter.
I'm pretty sure if I was a grifter, I wouldn't say, congratulations, Hasan Piker, you do great work and work hard and you deserve it.
I genuinely believe that.
The dude works really hard, and he does deserve it.
I think there's some interesting moral and ethical questions and philosophical questions around the economics of socialism that need to be addressed by what's happening here, but I got no problem just telling you how I feel.
Is it true that Hassan perhaps is just saying things that he thinks people want to hear?
Maybe.
Or maybe he doesn't think that people shouldn't be allowed to have wealth and access based on merit, because even in a fully socialist system, the only way I mean, ultimately it's going to devolve into authoritarianism, which is the ultimate issue, so there has to still be some element of free enterprise for our system to function.
Anyway, I'm getting ahead of myself.
We've got the Young Turks, union busting.
We've got a socialist magazine, union busting.
That, I do not understand.
I am not a far leftist, but I have no issue with unionization.
I personally talk about how I don't want to be in a union, and I didn't like being forced to, but I got no issue with people wanting to form a union.
In fact, by all means, more power to you.
I have criticized a lot of these people at these companies because...
Fusion, for instance, where I worked.
These people wanted to unionize without realizing that they were a net negative on the company.
They didn't make money.
They had no bargaining power.
And my criticism for that was that the workers were going to be hurting themselves by doing it.
Ultimately, it resulted in like 300 layoffs.
Because the company said, you don't make any money for the company, you have no bargaining position, you could go on strike indefinitely, and we don't care.
That's my criticism.
If people are at a successful company and they want to form a union, like, do it to it.
But let's talk about socialism, personal wealth, and what's happening right now.
We got this story from Sportskeeda.
I don't know what it is, but they did write about it and included some sources.
They say, Hasan Piker recently boasted about his $3 million home in West Hollywood.
Raised in Turkey, the content creator began commenting on politics on the Young Turks before leaving in early 2020 to become a Twitch streamer.
Hasan Abi, now a progressive political commentator on the live streaming platform, is speculated to receive over $300,000 to $400,000 a year.
No, I have tremendous respect for his hard work, and he's allowed to have his political opinions.
I got no issue.
Actually, I agree with him on a lot of his political opinions.
He makes, I would estimate, probably $300,000 to $400,000 per month.
Not per year.
Per month.
And that's just based off of his YouTube numbers.
But I don't know if he runs ads on his YouTube.
I checked his YouTube channel.
I didn't see ads.
But based on what people have said about his Twitch stream having, you know, 1.5 million subs, streaming for 10 hours a day, pretty sure the dude's making a cool 3-4 million a year.
He probably pays 50-60% in taxes.
We'll talk about that too.
They say, The 30-year-old's home allegedly contains five bedrooms and five-and-a-half bathrooms in West Hollywood.
The 3,800-square-foot house is described as having a Mediterranean style of architecture and was built in 2014.
Since the announcement of Hasan Abi's home, many Twitter users have commented on the extravagance of the purchase.
However, YouTuber Ethan Klein shared his appreciation and support of Piker's home, saying, Y'all really think Hasan shouldn't be able to own a nice house and also champion for the poor and underprivileged?
There is a difference between making millions on Twitch and paying 50% of taxes and Jeff Bezos being worth $150 billion and paying no taxes.
Happy Hasan is crushing it.
Jeff Bezos pays taxes.
Amazon is who didn't pay corporate tax, but Amazon also pays taxes.
But clarifying that, I agree with Ethan Klein.
I think there's literally nothing wrong with Hassan advocating for even socialist policy and then making a few million bucks a year because this is one of the problems we get with establishment Democrat types and leftists that they need to speak up about.
There is a very big difference between People who make $250,000 to like $1,000,000.
People who make $1,000,000 to $10,000,000.
And people who make $120,000,000 per year or who are worth billions of dollars.
And it seems like the only time I hear this from leftists is when they are being criticized for being wealthy.
This is the problem I've been trying to bring up for some time.
When Bernie Sanders comes out and says, tax the rich.
He's talking about taxing people who make more than $500,000.
That's a lot of money, but that is not $3-4 million!
Someone who makes $500,000 a year, they've got all their needs covered, everything's covered, they're probably giving up about 50% in taxes.
Yes, 50%.
I can explain how that works in a second.
And so they're taking home in cash about $250,000.
A lot of money!
So they got their house, they got their healthcare, they got their kids, their family, their vacation, everything's covered, and then every year they got about $180,000, $150,000 for investments.
That's a lot of money.
You can do a lot with that.
That's a very big difference between Hassan making, say, $4 million, where he's got a cool $3.8 million or $3.9 million to invest and gain more and more wealth and power.
That's, I think, what typically the socialist criticism is, but it seems to fall on deaf ears once it comes to leftists themselves.
In this instance, I am saying, I got no issue with Hasan or any of these people being wealthy.
Ethan Klein, obviously, is super wealthy as well.
I just think that if we're going to be talking about taxing the rich and these kinds of issues, we're really focused on the massive, massive wealth.
However, it's still hard to figure out how you draw these lines considering if you do like a wealth tax, all that does is eliminates the wealthy.
Is that really the solution to all of the problems?
Well, the left wants that to happen, but I don't know that that's actually a solution to the problem, because if you implement a wealth tax, you'll just end up with individuals finding different ways to gain control over assets.
The ultimate issue is that smart and talented people can figure out how to gain control of a system.
It may be through finance, it may be through crypto, it may be through control of systems or religion or ideology.
Ultimately, you take away Bezos' Wealth through attacks, he finds other ways to store it.
It's like what we saw with Mark Zuckerberg putting his money into an LLC.
Or we see with all these billionaires putting money into non-profits.
But let's read.
Netizens react to his home.
One user said, don't really see an issue with this on buying a house.
Becoming rich off streaming probably ranks low on the scale of exploitation.
I absolutely disagree.
How are you going to come out all day every day talk about grifters?
People who are scaring grandma to make money.
Well that's what they accuse me of doing even though my audience is like 30 years old on average.
Younger than I am.
And they're saying I'm just scaring grandma.
I mean maybe when I make an appearance on Fox News it scares grandma.
But my audience is not above 55.
It is almost entirely like I think the average age is probably 30 years old.
Younger than me.
And there's a large portion of 18 to 24.
24 to 35 is probably the biggest demographic.
So, exploitation.
If you are just going online and saying what people want to hear so that they give you money, you are exploiting them.
I don't play that game.
As much as they like to accuse me of it, by all means you can look at the videos where I've gotten major thumbs down because people are like, I don't like what Tim said about this or he's wrong or bad.
I'm going to tell you what I think.
You know, I said Joe Biden's speech was actually pretty good.
I think he passed the buck, but he said some good things.
I can say that it's the right move to try and withdraw from Afghanistan, even if you do it wrong and it's horrifying.
Now my bigger concern is that Joe Biden is just going to be tricking us and sending more troops back in, which he's doing.
Anyway, I digress.
Hassan has certainly made similar statements where he said, you know, look, what Trump did, his plan, it was the right plan.
He said this in a recent video.
I watched it.
He was talking about how Trump's withdrawal from Afghanistan.
It was his plan.
It was the right plan.
But he thinks Trump is responsible for the peace deal that happened with the Taliban.
And thus, I guess he's saying, deserves more blame.
I think he's being honest.
I think that's how he genuinely feels.
I think he's wrong.
Because I think that Biden took it, changed the terms of the deal, and then Flubbed it.
I don't think Donald Trump was in charge when this was going down.
He made a peace deal.
The peace deal wasn't followed through with.
Biden did not respond.
Biden snuck troops out in the middle of the night.
Now that debate over, you know, withdrawal from Afghanistan is fine.
We disagree.
I don't think he's wrong to have his opinion.
But I want to point out, there are a lot of grifters.
There are a lot of people exploiting people.
And let me explain something to you.
You want to understand what exploitation would be?
A plumber fixing the sewage lines so that a society can function, and then people like me and Hasan who make money just opining on the internet.
What do we really give to people?
No, I get it.
Culture and ideology.
But is it really worth more than the hard physical labor of somebody who's, like, building a house or doing construction?
No.
And maybe that's why I'm more lefty, right?
I've had some libertarian types and ANCAPs tell me, no, no, no, so I made a music video.
Will of the People.
And I showed to these individuals some, you know, right-wing types, ANCAP types,
and they're like, wow, congratulations, you did a great job.
And I was like, oh, well, you know, a ton of people worked on it. You know, Nishra
was the one who did the production.
And they're like, no, no, no, no, no, no, don't, don't pass off credit. This is your project.
You oversaw it. You made it happen. It's your talent. And I'm like, I get it.
Objectivist, libertarian, you know, ANCAP type.
It's you who oversaw the whole thing.
And I get it.
I do.
But I really do think the people who did the work are deserving of the credit for doing the work.
Of course, it was my idea.
I formulated the story.
I wrote the song.
I wrote everything about it.
And then I said, hey guys, I have an idea.
And I needed the people who knew how to do the work.
I actually value the hard labor more than I do just the idea.
I think they're of equal merit to a certain degree.
We only grow great.
I mean, for instance, look, I'm only able to do what I do with TimCast.com because you guys become members and are basically all holding up this giant platform allowing me to try and build something.
So, I get it, I get it.
You know, we do add things in terms of political commentary.
I'm just saying the workers of the world I know, I'm using that phrase on purpose, are substantially more valuable than either of us in our political opinions.
But anyway, let's jump over to Hassan's Twitter here, so I can point out a few things, and then we'll talk about this conversation around owning a house and socialism, and why I actually will disagree with Hassan on some things.
Again, I'm not trying to make this about Hassan, I'm trying to make it about the ideas of socialism work and labor and stuff like that.
It just so happens to have fallen on him because he's got criticism over his house.
So, someone said, imagine supporting socialism, a system in which only the rich benefit and stay within power while the majority of the population is held to a specific standard in payout, just to buy a $3 million mansion in West Hollywood.
Hasan says you are literally describing capitalism.
What you described is capitalism.
Even the massively inflated price of the house is also a consequence of capitalism.
This one, Alexis says.
Well, let me pull up the full conversation, try and get some context here.
Alexis Isabel on Twitter says, I don't know, man.
It's just flat out unethical to be profiting off of socialism and buying yourself a $3 million home in a state that has one of the highest homelessness rates in the country.
If you're mad, I find this to be gross, and unprincipled behavior, I don't really care.
Hassan says, you literally have a Patreon link in your profile, lmao.
What does that have to do with what she said?
Alexis Isabel actually I think makes a really good point.
I have no problem with Ahsan being successful.
I bought a massive, you know, million-dollar house in the middle of nowhere.
It's in Maryland.
It's basically like the West Virginia area.
It's like Harpers Ferry.
It's a tri-state.
And I have no problem with success.
Now, I didn't buy the house so that I can live luxury with a butler.
We're using it for our production facility to a great extent.
We film a lot here.
We film the cast castle here.
I got this not because I need it.
I got it because I want to do more.
I want to bring people on.
I want to expand and create stuff and have fun.
I'm not interested in buying a Ferrari.
I'm interested in hiring some people who are going to make good stuff and inspire people.
My actual house is like a thousand square feet.
It's actually really small.
This is just where we do work.
So I got no problem with buying this, but Alexis brings up a really good point.
I don't come out and come on YouTube and tell you that we need to, you know, seize the means of production because the poor work in class.
I say we need to build a better culture.
We need to teach people to work hard and find that merit.
And we do have problems with, you know, crony capitalism.
But I'm not sitting here saying that everybody should be giving up everything, you know.
I guess my politics aren't as far left as Hassan's.
If he really was, in my opinion, About what he was talking about.
A $3 million house is substantial, man.
Like, no, for real.
You don't need to buy a $3 million house.
He's in West Hollywood.
See, I moved to the middle of nowhere because I wanted a big place that was as cheap as I could get.
So we chose to, for one, get out of cities.
Obviously, you know my political opinion on cities.
We wanted to go even further away, but then we need to be close to an airport.
So ultimately I said, I don't want to waste money on a big building, but we need a workspace that can accommodate.
We have like 25 employees now.
We are growing like crazy.
We have more shows coming out.
So we move to the middle of nowhere so that we can get a big house, and yes, it's substantially larger than Hassan's house, but he chose West Hollywood.
And so I do personally disagree with that, though ultimately I think there is a tinge of jealousy, of envy here.
Alexis responded when he said you have a Patreon link in your profile.
She said, I mean, that's entirely different than buying a $3 million home in a rich neighborhood, but I guess you got me for making $100 a month.
Hassan says, oh, so the way we generate income is identical.
It's just the amount that bothers you.
Got it.
This is a real great look for the, what is this, PSL web of the Party for Socialism and Liberatio, by the way.
Didn't realize Marxism was about the relation to the means of production, but about arbitrary cultural signifiers assigned by reactionaries.
This is where Hassan starts to lose me, right?
He's losing me because he could have just said, listen guys, I am a proponent for all of the rights of the working class and the labor and all that stuff and for more socialist policy, but I do believe people have a right to earn and be wealthy.
That's just it.
Instead, it's this weird deflection that actually, I believe, begins to discredit him.
The means of production?
Let's talk about the means of production.
This house is the means of production.
My ability to live in this house is the means of production because I produce in my home.
I filmed this video.
The more space we have, the more I can produce.
My camera, my microphone, my computer are the means of production.
Socialists believe that the means of production should be owned by the public.
They also claim to say there's a difference between private property and personal property.
I can never get a straight answer for this because there isn't one.
Where is the line between private property and personal property?
Where is it?
Is Hassan's computer, his camera, the means of production?
The answer is yes.
There are a lot of poor people who don't have that computer or that streaming setup, and if they did, they could produce too.
Why should Hassan be the only one who's allowed to have access to these specialized tools?
His house.
His house is effectively the factory.
He's got a very large house that is more than enough for a single person.
In fact, a single individual would be fine in a one-bedroom apartment.
I don't know if he's married or anything like that.
But even then, a three-bedroom apartment.
Let's be real.
You've got mom, dad, kid.
Three bedrooms.
Maybe you want to move out to the suburbs where it's cheaper, so you get a five-bedroom house.
Five bathrooms.
Hassan's house in West Hollywood is the means of production.
In a socialist system, the question I have that arises with this kind of stuff is, if we truly did say that the means of production are controlled by the public, how would you determine who gets to live in the big house and who gets to live in the small house?
Why should Hassan, who doesn't make food, doesn't build homes, get to live in the big house and not the small house?
I think it's simple.
He is, in an authoritarian system, he would be the party member, proselytizing to the masses.
That's what he produces.
Now, for me, it's similar.
Here I am, espousing my ideology to you and converting the masses to the ideas of liberal, classical liberalism, libertarianism, and, you know, free market and things like that.
But I also still kind of believe in workers' rights and, to an extent, workers' organizing.
I think modern unions have become very strange, but ultimately the idea of a union I'm absolutely cool with.
This is what we do.
I'm not making food for anybody.
Actually, that's not true.
We do film ourselves baking and stuff, and I do have chickens.
But I just find it very strange that I'm considered to be right-winger conservative, but I find myself to the left of many prominent individuals, or at least challenging the ideas that don't seem to make sense.
In a socialist system, Hasan should be granting access to his streaming setup when he's not using it.
Other people should have access to the means of production so they too can be successful Twitch streamers.
Right?
I get it.
Because when it comes down to an individual's personal power, they don't want to give it up.
We'll go long on this one.
I think Hassan is probably making a cool 3-4 mil based on, um, you know, all of his metrics and everything like that.
And I think it's fine.
But I'll tell you where things get weird.
As you can see here, Alexis Isabel, who's criticizing, um, Hassan, is, she's a member of the, uh, what is it again?
It's the Party for Socialism and Liberatio.
That's not a right winger, alright?
This is on the left.
You've got a bunch of people who are on the left criticizing Hassan and he's responding to them.
Hasan tweeted bright Bart left Twitter weirdos whole shaking hands socialism is when no house
No house I mean, bro, it's a $3 million house.
That's very different than not having a house.
But I think the reality is people need to understand, what's Hasan gonna do?
He's rich.
He's got all this money.
Is he saying he wouldn't give it up for a socialist system?
He said literally to other people, tax people like me if you have a problem with it.
So that's it.
The dude's rich.
He made money.
There you go.
But here's the point.
Josh Bowden, peasant mysticist, also criticizing Hassan, has a sickle and hammer in his name.
These are not right-wing individuals.
Breitbart did write this story.
Socialists who said, I'm not going to read the title, it's a bad comment from Hassan, buys $2.7 million West Hollywood home.
I don't understand the right-wing gotchas on things like this because it's not a gotcha to anybody.
I guess it's a virtue signal to people on the right because they'll be like, oh, these socialists.
Many of these leftists who are criticizing Hassan, I think it's interesting, we'll get to that, but a lot of leftists are defending him too because they don't think you shouldn't be able to have merit entirely.
Unfortunately, the prominent, mainstream leftists that are propped up by people like Hassan do believe there is no meritocracy, do believe in equality of outcome, in which case, in a system that is equality of outcome, Hassan cannot have this house.
So anyway, I digress.
Ultimately, I think, These ideas are authoritarian.
And whether or not they actually say they're for stripping away someone's rights and property and things like that, the path they're on leads there.
But now I bring you to the hypocrisy.
And I'm not here to drag Hassan.
You know, respect.
This guy works hard.
But Cenk Uygur says, Right-wing wants to disempower the left by saying that
anytime someone on the left has money, they're a hypocrite. It's a trick to get the left to give
away their power. If the only people left with money are right-wingers, we're all screwed and they
know it. Don't feed into it. What?
What?
What?
Sure.
Breitbart wrote the article.
But I think for the most part, you'll hear from a lot of conservatives being like, hey, see, they proved capitalism works, and they want to cheer that on because it proves them right to do so.
Although there are many on the right who would criticize them as hypocrites.
So Cenk isn't completely wrong, but the issue is, I believe you're more likely to find leftists criticizing you than people on the right.
Cenk says, in response to someone, Right say if you're rich and left you're a hypocrite, but also say if you're left and poor you're envious.
Cenk says exactly.
They set up a no-win situation for the left.
These are the talking point ambushes, and when some people on the left help them with these false paradigms, they're gleeful at how easy it is to trick our side.
No one ever asks them why it's better to be rich and greedy like them.
Rich and greedy like them?
What about you?
Both of you, Hasan and Cenk?
You're both super rich and wealthy.
You could give that money away.
I'm not exaggerating.
Hasan, you don't have to buy a $3 million home.
You can easily buy a million dollar home.
You can buy a half a million dollar home.
You can move to Pasadena.
Why does it gotta be in West Hollywood?
Pasadena's not that far away.
House in Pasadena, half a million bucks.
How about that?
And they're big.
No, but you want to be in West Hollywood.
I'm fine with that.
He's allowed to do those things.
But then to say rich and greedy like them, as if only the right is rich and greedy?
I suppose the problem ultimately comes down to the fact that Hassan, as rich as he is, doesn't need to live in that area.
And he could take the extra... Look, on a $2.7 million house, considering the market today, I'm probably wrong, I don't know, but I'd have to estimate that Hassan put down 20% buying a house like that.
I really don't see many financial institutions wanting to make a loan of that size on a house to somebody who's going to put down 5%.
It's entirely possible that Hassan bought the house in cash, even.
I don't think that's likely because it's just a bad financial decision, but maybe.
I think it's possible he probably put down 600k in cash to buy that house.
Think about the amount of money you could do.
Think about what you could do with that money.
And so here's my criticism for everybody, not just the left, for the right as well.
To see someone like Hassan making potentially three, four million dollars a year, I'm assuming, again, just speculating.
He's a one-man show.
I make a lot of money.
Tim Kast makes a lot of money.
So you know what I did?
I started hiring people as fast and as quickly as I could.
Empowering people so that, I'll tell you this, If I were to basically shut everything down and just do this show and TimCast IRL, that's most of where the revenue comes from for the company.
But we're expanding and trying to do more.
We're doing the Cast Castle.
We're doing two new shows that are being built right now.
One's a D&D show with embracing cultural issues and having fun, and one's Tales of Intrigue.
Those aren't the names.
But we're trying to build shows, build culture, and expand.
I'm not buying a $3 million home for myself.
My criticism with Hasan isn't any perceived hypocrisy.
It's, bro, why don't you use that money to put it behind what you believe in?
You work hard.
I respect that.
But why not hire people, start a network, start a brand, start advocating for these causes?
My friends, we're also starting a non-profit.
We've already signed the paperwork that we're going to be setting up a fact-checking non-profit.
I am heavily invested in everything I say that, you know, this is my passion.
These are my goals.
When money comes into this company, I keep working towards that goal.
Now, Hasan doesn't have to do that.
Joe Rogan doesn't have to do that.
Stephen Crowder doesn't have to do that.
Maybe it's a bit unfair, you know, like, Rogan does comedy.
He's not a politician or a journalist, so he's investing in comedy, and Stephen Crowder has his website and stuff like that.
But I wonder why it is there's so many prominent right-wing commentators who don't grow and expand and use that money to do more.
Ben Shapiro does it, you know?
Let me throw some shade towards the Young Turks.
This is back in February of 2020.
YoungTurk's progressive founder urged his staff not to unionize.
Why?
I just don't get it.
My friends, I run a business.
This is a corporation.
We have employees.
We have revenue.
We have products.
We have investments.
We have R&D.
We are having fun with it.
We are trying to grow to the best of our abilities.
And I don't understand the mentality of someone like Cenk who would yell at staff who wanted to unionize.
I genuinely don't understand.
I see zero problem with staff unionizing.
I don't have an issue with it.
How is it they call me right wing and I'm the one who's like, oh, that'd be cool.
Yeah, I mean, do what's right for you.
I believe in you.
I might disagree with you politically.
Perhaps it's because they're authoritarians.
And that's the big dividing line.
You take a look at Hassan's political opinions, and that's probably where we disagree.
Sure, he may say the Democrats are good and the Republicans are bad, and I'll say, for the most part, the Republicans are bad and the Democrats are bad, too.
But I like Rand Paul and, you know, Thomas Massey.
Shout out.
I always shout those guys out.
There's a few Republicans I like.
But, you know, I'll get called conservative while I guess, I don't know.
Like I said, you know, I find myself questioning their positions.
But ultimately it is, I think, authoritarianism.
Why is it that Cenk Uygur doesn't want them to unionize?
Because he's the boss.
He doesn't want anyone challenging his power.
A union?
Hey, now they have leverage against you!
Oh no, my power!
So what?
Just so what?
Your life is good!
I think that may be part of it, too.
We have this story.
Dear comrades, you're fired.
Boss of Socialist Magazine Current Affairs got rid of majority of the staff when they tried to start a worker co-op, as he admits sharing power is easy to do in theory, but hard in practice.
I don't get it.
I don't.
Unless they're just grifters and liars.
And what they really want is power.
I don't want power.
I don't care for this stuff.
I just do what I feel like doing.
And, you know, it's funny, people try to act like I enjoy being on camera and all these things.
Not really.
I never did.
That's why I have no skate videos.
I've been skating for decades and I have like three videos because I hate filming.
I just want to do my thing and be left alone.
Liberty.
But I understand community, personal responsibility, the collective good.
I understand all that stuff, so I'm rather centrist.
I lean a little left on a lot of issues.
These people are authoritarians.
That's why they want you to have the vaccine mandate.
That's why they say you're dumb and you shouldn't choose.
And that's why I say I think vaccines are good, but I think it's your choice, not mine.
You talk to your doctor.
They take the opposite approach.
They say you're dumb, you're stupid, you're a maggot, etc.
Because they're authoritarians.
I'm not saying there are no authoritarians on the right.
I'm saying they are too.
That's why when it comes to unionization, they say, stop.
That's why when it comes to their personal wealth, they don't put it behind their passions.
They put it behind their property and their personal wealth.
Because they deserve it.
They earned it.
They show their true colors.
You know?
But I do think they earned it.
I do think they deserve it.
I think... I'm not gonna put Hasan in the same bucket as Cenk Uygur.
I think Cenk is deplorable and awful.
I think Hasan just is, you know, disagreeable.
But that's cool.
I'm fine with it.
Tremendous respect for Hasan streaming like 8-10 hours a day.
That is... Man!
Man, after my own... I agree.
Right?
I work really, really hard, and I think those who work hard deserve it, and I think he's entitled to buy his home, and I have no issue with him doing that.
I just wonder why it is that these people don't want to put that money behind their cause, more so.
Hasan says he does put his money behind his cause, and people just don't see it, because he's not going to do it for PR.
I can respect that.
But then I look at, like, a $3 million house for personal use, and I'm like, that just doesn't seem...
Like you're putting stuff behind your cause.
You know what I mean?
But I want to say one final thing to wrap all this up.
It may be really simple.
It may be really simple.
Hasan might actually be making $10 million per year.
Some people have said he's making a million bucks per month.
And, you know, he's got ads, and he's got paying subs, and he's got YouTube.
Maybe he's making six, seven hundred K a month on his own.
And so, what do you do when you're sitting on all that money?
You can't legally just give it away.
People need to understand that, too.
When you're rich, you can't just hand someone stuff.
You can make donations to non-profits.
But, he wouldn't be able to just give stuff away, so for him, he's probably like, this is a small percentage of my overall revenue.
Plus, it was based on a loan.
He may have put a million, you know, six hundred K down, and he's still sitting on a couple million that he's dishing out.
So, if you don't know, it's really difficult to say.
I can criticize the Young Turks and that other magazine for being hypocrites.
There's too much to get to in the philosophical debate around, you know, socialism.
But ultimately, I think one of the important takeaways from everything is The means of production.
What is it?
Because if it's a computer and a camera, then Hassan would have to share that with other people, and that would reduce his ability to make money.
