S5231 - Kyle Rittenhouse SLAMS Joe Biden For Defamation, Uses Legal Term Hinting HUGE Lawuits Incoming
Leftist Rioters PANIC Over "Rittenhouse Precedent," Tucker Interview Hits 5M Viewers Shattering LIES. Leftists and Democrat activists are arguing that because self defense was upheld for Kyle Rittenhouse they will get attacked when peacefully protesting.
Of course there is no precedent, this is simply longstanding self defense in the face of death or great bodily harm.
For too long BLM rioters and Antifa have gotten away with hurting others and destroying property. Now that a court has found Kyle to be not guilty on all counts leftists are worried justice may actually be upheld and regular people will defend their homes.
#BLMRiots
#Rittenhouse
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
In our first story, Kyle Rittenhouse, in an interview with Tucker Carlson, says that Joe Biden defamed him.
And he uses a legal term, actual malice, which suggests that he may be talking with lawyers about filing lawsuits and may be against Joe Biden.
In our next story, the Kyle Rittenhouse precedent has leftists terrified.
They say that now neo-Nazis in the far right will patrol the streets, but the reality is there is no Rittenhouse precedent.
It's just self-defense.
It's always been around.
What they're really scared of is that they're not going to get away with burning down cities anymore.
And in our last story, a Black Lives Matter activist says it sounds like the revolution started over the Waukesha attacks.
Now, if you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, tell your friends.
Let's get into that first story.
Kyle Rittenhouse has made his first public appearance in an interview with Tucker Carlson,
where he made several statements that has people all.
Shocked, to be completely honest, but also eager.
In this story from the New York Post, Kyle Rittenhouse accuses Biden of malice and defamation, but the language used by Kyle Rittenhouse was particularly interesting.
Kyle Rittenhouse said of Joe Biden's smear that he was a white supremacist, that this is actual malice.
Now, that doesn't sound like Kyle Rittenhouse is speaking regular old English.
Sounds like he's speaking legalese, because actual malice is the standard by which you would sue somebody.
For defamation, which signals to me, Cal Rittenhouse was probably briefed on the potential for defamation lawsuits.
He's probably already speaking with many individuals about defamation lawsuits, and we're probably going to be seeing many defamation lawsuits.
Here's the interesting thing.
We talked about this yesterday with a couple of lawyers.
Proving defamation, or I should say winning on defamation grounds, if you're a public figure, is very difficult.
And Kyle Rittenhouse is arguably, and always has been, an involuntary public figure.
It's what they tried doing to the Covington kids.
I don't know if that will fly.
But so long as he is out there giving public statements and appearing on Tucker Carlson, yeah, he's probably going to lose on that one if he tries to argue he's not a public figure.
But he may still win.
The interesting thing here is that with actual malice, you have to prove that the person who defamed you knew they were lying or that what they did was, and this is not the legal term, gross negligence.
Now, legally, gross negligence is actually a low standard.
Legally, I'm saying that colloquially.
What this means is, as it was explained to us by Rakeda Law last night and Kash Patel, basically, you have to prove That the typical standard a news organization has for researching and fact-checking was not met in this particular case.
So, if someone says, you know, you stole a dog or something ridiculous and you're a public figure, you have to either prove they didn't do their standard procedure or they knew they were lying.
I don't think it's actually that difficult.
I think the big issue is that most people just don't sue.
And it's about time people started suing.
This is why the establishment and the media despise James O'Keefe, and, well, let's just say use a nefarious and malicious tactic to try and take him down, because James O'Keefe is effective.
He does a really good job going after the liars and the scammers and the grifters, and he wins.
I think he's won every single time.
I believe he did settle out of court before the official formation of Veritas, but I believe as an organization, and I could be wrong, they've never lost.
I think that's true.
I think that's true.
You see, Project Veritas sues the New York Times.
What happens?
Well, someone leaks the privileged communications of the New York Times.
I'm sorry, privileged communications of Veritas to the New York Times, which disadvantages Project Veritas.
I hope the Cal Rittenhouse sues Joe Biden and everybody else, because I want to explain something to you.
This is how I described it last night after the show we're talking, and I said, everyone keeps saying it's impossible to win defamation cases.
The President of the United States showed a picture of Kal Rittenhouse and referred to this video, these people, as white supremacists.
Many of whom in the video were.
But he put Kal Rittenhouse in that video, and that was just completely unfair, considering one thing Kal Rittenhouse said, which...
Is why I said some things were shocking.
He said he supports Black Lives Matter.
Now, I think a lot of people on the right are shocked and surprised by that.
I don't think it matters all that much.
And personally, I believe Kyle would, it would be smarter of him to stay away from the polarization, you know, criticizing one side or the other.
However, it's probably impossible considering he's only got one side to sue.
But this is what's interesting.
What happened in that night in Kenosha was this.
A white man, screaming the n-word, attacked a Black Lives Matter supporter, who I believe is part Hispanic, they say, while screaming the n-word, and this BLM supporter fired in self-defense.
But somehow, we live in Wacky World, and Rittenhouse became the bad guy.
Isn't that weird?
Rittenhouse was rendering aid to the Black Lives Matter protesters.
He said on Tucker Carlson he supports Black Lives Matter.
It's fascinating, isn't it?
I don't think it matters as far as I'm concerned.
My defense of Rittenhouse was based solely on his right to keep and bear arms and defend himself from these lunatics.
I also support Black Lives Matter's right to protest, and so I'll put it this way.
But if I see a group of people out in the street protesting and waving signs, I would say, I support that protest.
I don't support their ideals, but I absolutely defend their right to protest.
And I think, you know, this is probably where Kyle Rittenhouse is.
All the peaceful protesters are justified.
Constitutionally protected.
Rioters?
Not so much.
So, what was happening?
Kyle Rittenhouse was rendering aid to people who are out there protesting, regardless of who they are, what they were doing, even though there are people in a violent riot.
And he was also protecting himself from violent rioters.
Seems to make a whole lot of sense.
Now, I want him to sue, and this is what I was saying.
Imagine, I want you to imagine this, one of my silly analogies.
Here you go.
The establishment sits behind a large castle wall.
And outside the castle wall, thousands of people armed with bows and arrows and trebuchets.
And this is the analogy of the great battle against the evil king and the people are revolting.
And all of these people standing outside the evil tyrant's gates.
And they look at each other and say, I have but this bow and arrow, and there's no way I can take down this great castle walls.
So they don't.
They don't bother.
But what would happen if every single person yelled, charge?
Yeah, they'd easily breach the castle and go in and conquer the castle or whatever.
The point is, when it comes to the real world, when it comes to people actually trying to win political battles, First of all, I think the big mistake a lot of people make is, and a lot of people talk about this, you know, violence, is not going to work here.
There needs to be a concerted legal effort.
When it comes to defamation, imagine if every single person sued the New York Times.
They would be, like every person defamed by them, they would be buried.
Absolutely buried in lawsuits.
Legitimate ones.
And it'd be impossible to defend against.
They would be completely overwhelmed.
But because they keep telling you, and this is what annoys me the most about people on the right, I can't tell you how many conservatives and libertarian types and moderate, whatever, anti-establishment people have been like, look, man, it's just not worth suing.
It's too hard.
It's too expensive and blah, blah, blah.
And I'm just like, shut up.
If you have actionable, an actionable claim, file it.
Project Veritas did.
They're winning.
And the New York Times resorts to publishing privileged legal communications in a desperate bid to do something.
Look, a lot of people have said to me like, oh, why don't you file Tim?
Why don't you file these?
They're very careful, so I want to make sure I'm being clear here.
As it pertains to me and the many hit pieces, not actionable.
If I had actionable claims, I absolutely would file lawsuits.
Because I'll tell you this, I'm willing to bet if someone published false statement of facts that was actionable, and I did, hey, we're going to do a fundraiser like Veritas did, I'd probably raise enough to just send the lawyers out and I didn't have to worry about it.
But you gotta understand that a lot of these smears and a lot of these hit pieces are clever.
They're very clever.
They'll say things like, there's one article that said, you know, Tim Pool is the new poster boy of Ivermectin.
That's not actionable.
It doesn't mean anything.
Even though I've been critical of Ivermectin, neutral to slightly positive, even though, again, talk to your doctor, I've not been an advocate for it.
Not a single time, in fact, when I got sick, I said, I did not want it.
Yet they say he's a poster boy.
What does a poster boy mean?
Other people look at me.
I support.
Who knows?
Who knows?
So that's not actionable.
I can't.
It's a meaningless statement.
Of course we know it creates an inference among the audience and we know what they're trying to do.
There's nothing I can do.
This is what frustrates me.
I sit staring at these smears and I'm like, Can't.
Kyle Rittenhouse can.
Why?
Even after the trial, many of these news organizations said he crossed state lines.
This is where it gets good.
Now, they'll try and make an argument for it was widely reported that he crossed state lines with a gun.
It's a false statement of fact.
Easily actionable.
They're not saying he's the poster boy of crossing state lines with a gun, because that would not be actionable, because they'd be like, oh yeah, we know he didn't, we're just saying because everyone thinks it, he's like the main guy when referencing crossing state lines with a gun.
Then they'd be like, it's an opinion, and its meaning is nebulous.
No, no, no, they outright said, he did this, and they say it over and over again.
Now, here's the best part.
If Kyle Rittenhouse files suit on net grounds against every media company, he can't lose.
It would be impossible for him to lose.
Now, now hold on there a minute.
The case may get thrown out.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet and greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
This is a false statement of fact that anyone who spent five seconds on Google would have realized.
That means in order to get that defamation claim dismissed, they would have to argue that it is not within their standards to actually research anything.
Let's be real.
In order to get a dismissal, you have to, or in order to win, to get past a motion to dismiss or a summary judgment, you have to prove or, I don't know about prove, but get to the point where it's reasonable to believe that their claims against you did not follow their typical standards.
Meaning it was, you know, below their threshold for what they would normally do.
That's how it was described by, I believe, Rakeda.
So, if the New York Times says, we're going to do a story on Donald Trump, and we need to get sources and confirmation and stuff, and then Donald Trump says, I want to sue, they say, look, we fact-checked this, it went to our editors, it was triple fact-checked, here's our sources, you can't sue us.
But what happens when they say, look, when we falsely claimed that Kyle traveled across state lines with a weapon, we followed all our standard procedures of doing nothing?
Get it?
They're going to say, what procedure did you follow to get the information that he crossed state lines?
We did nothing.
I just heard it.
Is that your standard, New York Times?
Maybe not the New York Times.
Maybe that's a bad example.
But, you know, the Independent.
I believe they have a U.S.
office.
What was your standard when you claimed that he shot three black men?
Did you look at the court proceedings at all?
Did you Google search the people who were shot?
You didn't!
Is it standard practice for your news publication to do zero research before making claims?
It is!
You see?
Either they will admit that they have zero standards, and they don't fact check, and that will come out in these court proceedings, or they'll say, this one time, we didn't do it, and then they will lose the case.
The New York Post reports.
Kyle Rittenhouse slammed Biden for defaming his character when the president tweeted out a video suggesting the teen is a white supremacist.
Quote, it's actual malice, defaming my character for him to say something like that.
Interesting.
It's actual malice.
Sounds to me like he's been having many conversations about defamation, which is really interesting to see where this goes.
Well, we've got more from Fox News.
Kyle Rittenhouse recounts Kenosha riots, reacts to media portrayal of trial in his first interview since acquittal.
In an exclusive interview with Tucker Carlson, as we know, he was acquitted.
I'm not really sure where the police were.
I know we understand a lot about what happened that night, but I'm interested to see what his view on media is.
He does mention, he says, I was in jail for 87 days.
Lin Wood was raising money on my behalf, and he held me in jail for 87 days, disrespected my wishes, put me on media interviews, which I never should have done, along with John Pierce.
They said I was safer in jail instead of at home with my family.
And I'm like, no wonder people are saying I'm in a militia.
It's because he painted the narrative.
The 18-year-old, however, conversely painted his eventual counsel Mark Richards and Corey Shirafisi.
Rittenhouse told Carlson he, in some ways, did not believe he was a person truly on trial given the way the case was covered.
That's right.
It was the right to self-defense on trial.
If I was convicted, no one would ever be privileged to defend their life against attackers.
Apparently, to many people on the left, it is criminal to protect your community.
He then goes on to mention being called a white supremacist.
He says, his fellow New Yorker Jared Nadler, a U.S.
congressman from the Upper West Side who chairs the Judiciary Committee, questioned publicly whether the Justice Department should investigate the precedent.
Pundits in the liberal media, including Joe Reid, Tiffany Cross, and Allie Mistel, also condemned Rittenhouse.
Mistel, an attorney and writer for The Nation who frequently is an MSNBC guest, wrote a column claiming the teen has gotten away with murder as predicted in a white justice system working as intended.
Let's talk about the media response.
I think Kyle gets it, and I think we may actually see many defamation cases, but take a look at this from the New York Times.
Saturday Night Live weighs in on the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict.
This is actually one of the weirdest articles I've ever seen, and perhaps it's normal for the New York Times that you're not aware of it, that they do a recap of the SNL propaganda you may have missed.
So I saw this story, and I thought it was interesting that they're talking about Kyle, and of course, they're getting it wrong and falsely framing everything, making jokes based on lies, reinforcing the lies, because they're morons, or it's intentional, whatever, it's probably intentional, or I think a lot of them are morons, maybe a little mix of both, you know, they're idiots and they're jerks, I'll put it that way.
The interesting thing about this article, though, is that it just does a recap of all of the weird political segments that were made by SNL.
Just, like, make—we gotta make sure when you wake up in the morning you read the article so you know what propaganda you missed.
Check this out.
They weigh in on Kyle Rittenhouse's verdict.
And they say—they go on, they talk about it.
They smear Judge Schrader, saying that—he says he was an—he says he was impartial as a dance mom clapping harder than anyone.
Day says that the rules he followed during the trial were all standard procedure.
That's why I ordered the prosecution not to use the word victims.
They were rioters and they weren't shot, they were gadoinked.
By the way, I did not give my client an unfair advantage in any way.
Strong asks, do you mean the defendant?
Oh yeah, sure, I keep doing that.
The judge was biased against Kyle.
Fact.
It's true.
He wasn't a bad judge, but he was absolutely favoring the defense.
I'm sorry.
You see, there he is.
He was favoring the prosecution, not the defense.
How?
There were several rulings that should have gotten this case thrown out on mistrial with prejudice that even the judge screamed the prosecution over, and the judge did nothing.
The judge allowed it and said, well, you know, we'll see what the jury does.
He refused to rule on it.
He gave the state, I mean, He intimated putting the prosecutor under oath because the prosecutor gave manipulated evidence to the defense crippling their ability to make an argument.
It's only by the good graces of the facts of the case that Kyle Rittenhouse is not in prison and the judge let the prosecutors get away with it, at least for now.
I don't think the judge is going to do anything.
I think the judge was letting the state do these things and the media makes the portrayal, be it the news or the comedy after the fact, they make it seem like the judge was biased in favor of Kyle.
Here we go.
They brought out two liberal commentators, Chloe Fineman and Chris Redd, who saw the verdict from very different perspectives.
I was shocked, Fineman said.
You were?
Redd responded, because I wasn't.
I've never seen anything like it before.
I have, many, many times.
This is not who we are.
I feel like it kind of is, Redd answered.
You see what they're doing?
They're playing to a specific narrative.
It's interesting.
Let me— I can break it down for you.
First of all, the jokes they're all putting out are funny if you are in the false— in the fake news bubble.
If you believe the lies.
Because these jokes, to me, make no sense.
I feel like— I've never seen anything like it before.
I have.
You have?
A Black Lives Matter supporter rendering aid to protesters attacked by a convicted child abuser?
To put it mildly, and firing in self-defense, and you've seen that before.
It's remarkable how Kyle Rittenhouse says on TV he supports Black Lives Matter.
It's remarkable how we have video footage of him rendering aid to Black Lives Matter supporters.
It is remarkable, then, that the media says he's a far-right white supremacist.
These people live in that ridiculous world.
Now, we have this segment here.
Actually, it was really funny, but kind of sad.
Republican or not, They're so close to figuring it out.
You see, the people who watch this segment, Republican or not, they live in the Matrix.
And they can see a little bit outside, but they're completely unwilling to actually talk to the people who are on the other side of that window.
Or as Breitbart put it, the other side of the fire.
Republican or not, a guy comes out and he says things like, you know, I buy food on a farm.
And then one of the comedians goes, uh, because you have to or because you want to?
Or because you want to or because you have to?
And they're like, I don't know, figure it out.
It's a game show where someone makes statements and you have to figure out if it's a Republican, the person's Republican.
A woman comes out and she's like, I was outraged over my teacher, over a book my school was using to teach my kids.
And then they're like, aha, that is a Republican because they're complaining about books in schools.
And he goes, wrong, it's a liberal.
She was complaining about the Bible.
It's a good point.
Like they almost see it.
But there was one funny part.
One guy comes out and he says, I hate cops.
And they're like, oh, clearly this guy is a liberal.
He hates cops.
And then the host goes wrong.
He was talking about these cops and he shows the Capitol police.
And I'm just like, it's so weird that you can actually get to a point where conservatives
were throwing the blue Lives Matter flag in the dirt and stomping on it at a protest because
police were screwing with them.
That you've got videos out of Portland and Seattle where police were protecting Antifa and conservatives were like, what are you doing?
And you've got overt criticism for a year over the COVID lockdowns from conservatives because more and more conservatives are actually coming out saying that they have issues with the police.
Just last week, Jack Posobiec said the police, you know, he said the state lies protect its interests.
We watched police push, I'll say this, false framing and manipulations, what I would believe to be our lies, on the stand to prosecute and convict Kyle Rittenhouse.
The state sought to put an innocent kid in prison for life.
And that was all thanks to the police.
It's the police who take your guns, the police who kick your door in over COVID violations.
It's the police and the military in Australia round people up.
And conservatives are waking up to this.
Yet they're just not there.
They're close, though.
And it'll be interesting.
The best part of this segment, I got to be completely honest, the best part was the end where Liz Cheney walks out.
Absolutely great bit.
Maybe they don't really get it.
Liz Cheney, why can't I get a frame with Liz Cheney in it?
Liz Cheney walks out and she's like, I've been an elected Republican for years, blah, blah, blah.
And they're like, something's wrong here.
This whole game show has been weird.
And then the host is like, figure it out.
And then she says, I'm a Republican.
And they go, bam, she's a Republican.
And then the host goes, wrong.
The Republican Party voted to remove her from the GOP.
She is no longer in the Republican Party.
Interesting.
It's almost like that should be an important point that many of these, you know, liberal SNL viewers should understand.
What they think Republicanism is has been literally kicked out of the party.
This is a great symbol.
He's like, this is the daughter of Vice President Dick Cheney.
And she was voted out of the GOP.
She was booted.
Because she's not a Republican!
You know, she may have been 10 years ago, but Donald Trump and his crew, they took over.
And the funny thing is, Donald Trump's populist wave has more in common with left populists than either do with the establishment.
But the only way they're going to keep everybody tangled up is to make sure that the left supports the Democrat establishment.
Because Trump is evil and fascism and all that other nonsense.
Now I'll tell you this, the Republican establishment is no different.
It is awful, it is disgusting, but the populists on the right have a stronger foothold and it'll be interesting to see what happens.
That being said, I think Matt Gaetz mentioned that he's forming a new political party.
Good.
No, seriously.
I think this is big.
I think Matt Gaetz has enough clout in his district to actually win a third-party run.
I mean it.
I mean it.
He's massively famous.
But we'll see.
We'll see.
It may just be, you know, a political career-ending move.
I don't know though.
What I would say is that when it comes to 2022, forming a new party doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
Prime marrying Republicans and getting in populists does make a lot of sense.
The Democrats should do the same.
I should say the progressives should.
Because I think at the end, while Most of the leftists and the right disagree on a lot of issues.
I think it's fair to point out, we agree where it matters, and where does it matter?
Well, uh, the leftists, like the real ones, and the left populists and the right populists, very pro-gun, together, okay?
Very anti-establishment, very anti-elite, very anti-corporate and government.
I'm like, hmm?
You know, there's been a big libertarian wave on the right, and the problem I see with the leftists is that, eh, they're kind of authoritarian in a lot of respects if they're fairly communist, and, uh, you know, they'll say the right populists are fascists or whatever, so I'm kind of like, you know what?
I'll step back for a minute and just say, I would love it if the left populists, not AOC, like the actual leftists, you know, uh, people who follow Vausch, for instance, you might, uh, Vausch or Harvey Ponson, you might not like the guy, he's got some questionable statements and all that stuff, but he's pro-gun!
So if more Democrats get in, and they may have ridiculous dumb views on the economy that we don't like, but if they're pro-gun, I'll take it.
I gotta be honest.
Look, if I have the choice between some corporatist Democrat establishment or a Liz Cheney, and then I get some crazy guy who's like, I want to be left alone and have guns, and I want communism, I'd be like, Well, I'll vote against the communism thing, and I don't like you, but the establishment already is fascist, so I wouldn't really be trading up or down having an authoritarian, but if you're gonna let me, you know, if you're gonna vote for gun rights, I can work with that.
I can work with that.
That being said, if the leftists do gain power, yeah, they're for gun rights until they're in power, then they take your guns away.
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.
But I'll differentiate between the establishment, and I'll say this.
Hillary Clinton and her, you know, her political faction, they're fascists.
Like, you know, it's not the right word, you know, neo-global fascist, maybe.
They're authoritarian elitists who want to curtail your rights.
I do not like them.
And I would prefer it if that whole thing, like, lost.
Then you have, like, you know, hard leftists who are socialist or communist or whatever, and I'm kinda like, think about it.
If you've got an authoritarian already in power, and then you've got another authoritarian trying to get in power, you're not really losing or gaining anything.
But at least one side might be like, we don't like the same people you don't like.
You know, the establishment elites and the corporations, these are all, like, really, really bad.
You know, seeing, like, Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson be like, and Steve Bannon, the elites are ripping you off!
You know, they're stealing money from the middle class.
I'm like, it sounds like an Occupy Wall Street rally.
So maybe we need to get those people to vote in the same direction, and the real issue is populism.
For the people, not the elites.
Anyway, I don't want to go too long.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
The Cal Rittenhouse trial is over.
Kyle has won.
He was found not guilty on all counts, and most of you know this.
Last night, Tucker Carlson aired an interview with Kyle Rittenhouse that received just about 5 million viewers.
A massive show.
This is bad news for the establishment and their media lies, but of course they persist.
Fox News, maybe one of the only outlets, maybe a few other on TV that were actively telling the truth about Kyle Rittenhouse the whole time.
Every single other outlet, for the most part, was putting out lies.
And now, we have another lie.
The Kyle Rittenhouse precedent.
There's no such thing, by the way, but it does, the name does mean something.
Right now, many on the left are freaking out over the idea that a precedent has been set that far right militias can go to protests, wave guns around and provoke people and then shoot and claim self-defense, which is, of course, not true.
The issue is the media lies, and many of these people still believe the lies.
And worse still, anti-establishment, libertarian, and right-wing individuals just think that many of these personalities are just getting the facts wrong.
Mark Ruffalo, of course, supports who he calls Jojo Joseph Rosenbaum, a man who was convicted of several crimes, serious, serious crimes against children.
And many people respond on Twitter, oh, but Mark, don't you realize who this guy was?
Because for some reason people on the right can't get it.
They seem to think that it's just mistake after mistake after mistake.
Now, I famously said many years ago, Hanlon's Razor, never attribute to malice that which can be explained by incompetence.
But at a certain point when certain individuals keep putting out misinformation, and they have either no standard for fact-checking, they don't care to, or there is just a pattern of misinformation, you have to go ahead and assume It's on purpose.
They're lying.
They know exactly who these people are.
They know exactly what went down.
Now, Stephen Colbert came out, and he was a bit more careful, though I believe he was still wrong, saying that Kyle Rittenhouse traveled across state lines, X, Y, and Z. But he didn't say he traveled across state lines armed.
Many people are pointing out that he didn't travel across state lines for a protest.
He was at work in Kenosha, which is also a false statement of fact.
But Colbert came out and said, if Kyle Rittenhouse didn't break the law, then we should change the law.
Because the Kyle Rittenhouse precedent is actually just something called the privilege of self-defense.
And if you don't have that, and prosecutors are making political prosecutions a thing, and they are, then what'll happen is the mob will come for you, and if you defend yourself, they'll charge you with a crime.
And if you don't, the mob will beat you to a pulp and get what they want.
As these rioters go around smashing things up, they're now scared because although there is no real Rittenhouse precedent, a message has been sent.
And it is particularly worrying, I think, from any reasonable standpoint.
In the absence of police, as the police are defunded, there will be people to fill the gaps, people who are much less interested in the same protocol the police follow.
That is, you may actually see instances where police fire upon people in defense, but even when cops are surrounded by rioters, they often don't.
They don't.
But a regular person isn't operating under any police protocol.
They're just scared.
They're not necessarily going to be trained, and some might be.
And some may actually just say they're willing to face down court because it is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6, as the saying goes.
That's a long-standing saying, basically saying you're better off defending yourself.
I don't want to see anybody go out in the streets, get into fights, bearing arms, or anything like that.
Now, I will say, you have a right to keep and bear arms, and I have absolutely no problem with and respect for those who do.
What I'm saying is, we don't want riots.
And if riots do break out, we don't want active conflict, because the left has guns too.
But if these people think they will defund the police, the police will stand down and nothing will end up happening, they're wrong.
And with the court saying, we side with Kyle Rittenhouse, in fact, this may be a precedent for them because the rioters are all too used to getting away with their violence and their destruction.
So to them, they were shocked!
But we've burned down cities all across the country without this happening!
And a jury said this time, self-defense stands, which brings me to the stories I have for you today.
The current polling for Black Lives Matter and for Joe Biden, the ratings and what this actually means for America.
A precedent was set for the left.
American values, longstanding values stand.
The right to self-defense is a privilege.
It is an affirmative defense, and it still exists.
Let me show you what many of these people are saying, because I will tell you, they're quite scared.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member, and help support our journalists.
As a member, your membership helps fund the journalists we have on the ground, as well as our on-staff writers, and we're expanding this team.
But you'll also get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast, which is a big library of a lot of creators.
We had Raketa Law and Kash Patel in a very serious, not-family-friendly members-only segment, so check it out.
But don't forget to like this video right now.
Subscribe to this channel.
If you're listening to this as a podcast or on YouTube, share it.
It really, really does help.
I don't have the ability to advertise like CNN does.
I don't get put on the front page like CNN does.
But, if you like the work I do, sharing it takes a few seconds, but it will have a massive impact.
And if everybody who watched these videos shared it, I'd be bigger than CNN overnight.
This message.
Now, you don't have to.
It is what it is.
It would help.
But let's read this first story from the College Fix.
Princeton Dean condemns Rittenhouse verdict sets a dangerous precedent.
Actually, let me show you all of these stories.
We have this.
from the Chicago Sun-Times. Hundreds protest acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse,
as Jesse Jackson warns, verdict sets a dangerous precedent.
We have the right to, we have the right to the constitutional right to march,
Jackson said at the rally Saturday.
He has the constitutional right to object. He does not have the right to kill us. The lies.
They're very powerful and persistent.
Kyle Rittenhouse needs to file lawsuits and fast.
And anybody involved, anybody with an actionable claim needs to as well.
But let's talk about what's happening on mainstream television.
Stephen Colbert on Rittenhouse verdict.
If he didn't break the law, we should change the law.
Late night host discusses the acquittal of Rittenhouse, Biden's 79th birthday and Kevin McCarthy's nine hour rant.
Colbert was a bit more careful.
But nonetheless, it's scary.
What Colbert is saying, and what the left really wants, and it's true, and I mean, when I say left, I mean the entirety of it.
The Democrats and the leftists.
They want to burn down your home.
They want to destroy your cities.
Now, it's true that A.D.A.
Binger told a jury, no one's saying that rioting and vandalism is okay.
That's a lie.
There's a publication that says, in defense of looting, there's a book called In Defense of Looting.
Numerous articles have been written saying it's just property.
It's, it's, it's who cares?
They have insurance.
They want to burn down your town.
They want to occupy the police departments.
They want to upend the seats of power.
They do not like this country.
They do not like your values.
Stop believing these people are simply ignorant.
Now, There are many people who just make the mistake, who just don't know and aren't paying attention.
But you need to stop thinking that people like Colbert just don't know.
Because when I see him post these tweets, or people like him post these tweets, and everyone responds with, if only you knew!
You're making a big mistake.
And I'll throw it to our good friend Michael Malice, who's... I'm sorry, that's Michael Tracy.
Michael Malice is here on this tweet.
He says, you are frustrated because you think they are making a mistake instead of blatantly
and consistently lying. It is of it is of no relevance, even if true, just as many New Jersey
and Connecticut residents work in New York City.
And of course he's referring to Colbert's lie about state lines.
One Twitter user said, for the 50 billionth time he did not cross state lines.
He was there at work and spent the night at a friend's he crossed when he turned himself in because Kenosha jails were closed.
Stop thinking they don't know they're lying.
Now you can argue with people on Twitter, that I understand.
But they know they're lying.
Take a look at this.
Let's talk about the fear from these activists and using the lies.
The Chicago Sun-Times reports, hundreds more people gathered Saturday for a rally at Federal Plaza before hitting the streets to denounce the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse a day earlier on murder and attempted murder charges.
Among the speakers at the event was Reverend Jesse Jackson Sr., who told the crowd he believed the verdict sets a dangerous precedent.
The Rittenhouse decision jeopardized every freedom fighter, Jackson told the assembled crowd.
Everyone who's a demonstrator can be killed by a right-winger without justification.
That is a lie.
Kyle Rittenhouse was found by a jury of his peers to have been attacked and acting in self-defense.
That's why they lie.
I'll tell you what is interesting to me.
You know, there have been many stories where the jury votes a certain way, and we're genuinely surprised they did.
But it's surprising that so many people seem to think they know more than the juries do when the juries are presented with the facts and evidence in the case.
Now, that being said, I think many of us did know more than the jury in this trial, the Rittenhouse trial, because some evidence was excluded.
The left says, look, here's Kyle Rittenhouse in a, you know, in a CVS talking about how he wants to shoot people, or here's him holding up the OK hand sign.
He's a white supremacist.
The right doesn't seem to get it.
When they say white supremacist, they don't mean anything by it other than you're an other.
That doesn't mean anything.
I mean, their view of white supremacy is nebulous, and their definitions are vague and nondescript, but the general idea that they have is that Our institutions, our police, our fire departments, everything that was built up in this country is white supremacy.
They don't use white supremacy to mean that people believe they're genetically superior.
They're talking literally about culture, dominant culture.
They're basically saying, because minorities have to live in a system where your courts are administered under a historical precedent of white culture, That's white supremacy.
I think that's something a lot of people don't understand.
So when they say things like, that cheeseburgers are white supremacy, what they're telling you is that, why don't you have Pad Thai instead?
It's because white people made cheeseburgers as part of American culture, and so long as movies keep depicting cheeseburgers, that is white supremacy.
You get it?
That's their narrative.
Jackson said his Rainbow Push coalition would be hosting another such march on Sunday.
Nobody has the right to go across state lines with a loaded weapon, come back with a loaded weapon, shoot two people, and then go home.
Well, that didn't happen.
So they have to lie.
But I'll take it one step further.
Look at CNN.
CNN article declares there's nothing more frightening than an angry white man after Rittenhouse trial.
CNN has gone full racist.
Media Research Center's Nicholas Fondacaro reacted.
Let me show you another tweet.
I got a lot of tweets from Michaels here, apparently.
Michael M. Grinbaum.
Tucker Carlson's Kyle Rittenhouse interview was seen by 4.9 million viewers on Fox News.
That was more than 2.5 times the combined audience of MSNBC and CNN during the same hour.
I'll tell you guys.
I'll tell you something.
Last night, We had Kash Patel, formerly of the Trump administration, and Raketa Law, who hosted a massive livestream.
And we thought, you know, this is going to be a big show.
It's going to be a big show.
But why would anybody want to watch a handful of guys talking about their opinions on the Rittenhouse trial when Kyle Rittenhouse himself was on Fox News?
So, of course, around the time Kyle appeared on Tucker, we saw our views start going down.
Rightly so.
And I knew exactly why, and we did our show, and hopefully those people came and watched after the fact, but yeah, you gotta see what Kyle has to say.
The funny thing is, MSNBC and CNN's ratings in the key demo are in the five-figure range.
Sometimes six-figure, but like, low six-figure.
Because millennials don't watch this stuff anymore.
These channels have lost them.
Fox News is shattering through the narrative.
Check this out.
Mediaite reports, cable news ratings Friday, November 19th.
Viewers flock to Fox News for Rittenhouse verdict while MSNBC dips.
The lies are no longer working.
Or I should say, it's waning.
I love it.
So I did an episode with Joe Rogan.
That episode went up yesterday and oh, does the salt flow.
It's amazing how on social media people are desperate to put out lies about what happened.
And I see these comments and they're just like, I can't, what is happening?
You know, there was one comment where they were like, what is this?
It just seems like it's 40 minutes of him just making things up.
And I'm just like, it's so funny that these people live in such a psychotic, paranoid, delusional reality.
That they don't realize they can Google the things I'm saying.
And it's all a fact check.
Now, what makes it hard for the narrative, the lies, on this channel and TimCast IRL, is that you may notice when we have stories, we always have the stories.
Oh, good luck saying this story is not true.
Here's the article from Mediaite and the NewsGuard certification.
I want to explain to you guys why I use NewsGuard.
Funded by Bill Gates, Microsoft, right?
It's because it'll be very difficult for them to claim I made something up when the article is a bigger image on the video screen than me, and it's certified by NewsGuard.
Hence the point.
Showing them, these are articles from your bias, but the narratives don't work.
They don't work.
Take a look at this from 538.
This is where they get bold.
Kyle Rittenhouse bridged the divide between the far-right and mainstream conservatives.
Boy, are they so desperate to push this narrative, to push these lies, to claim a precedent has been set when it hasn't.
Kyle Rittenhouse bridged the divide between regular people, just of all different types.
Of course, you can say technically it's true, the far right and mainstream conservatives.
But yeah, many liberals, many progressives came out and also said, yo, this was self-defense.
What if we ran the headline, Cal Rittenhouse bridged the divide between leftist commentators and the far right?
Well, because Anna Kasparian came out and said it looked like self-defense.
Chris Hayes said he thought there was going to be an acquittal.
And Destiny, the famous left-wing streamer on Twitch, said it was the clearest cut case of self-defense he'd ever seen.
That's how the media lies.
But you guys know it.
I almost don't even need to say it.
Let me show you this.
From The Intercept, another claim of the precedent.
Kyle Rittenhouse's acquittal sets a dangerous precedent, but that's not what was on trial.
Interesting.
Kyle Rittenhouse is the beneficiary of a verdict that politically imprisons the rest of us.
Jurors rejected the legal argument presented by prosecutors, returning a verdict of not guilty on all counts, including two counts of homicide.
This we know.
The prosecution described Rittenhouse as remorseless and committed acts of violence and said that his armed presence was provocative and that he didn't exhaust all legal means to avoid killing someone.
Raise your hand if you agree.
Life is more important than property, Binger said to the jury.
The only person who shot and killed anyone was the defendant.
Yes, there was property damage.
No one's here to defend that.
No one's here to tell you it's okay to commit arson or looting.
No one's here to tell you it's okay to be rioters, but what you don't get to do is kill someone on the street for committing arson.
It's a good thing that Kyle Reynolds didn't do that, right?
That's why he was acquitted.
They say, yeah, thanks to the jury verdict, more people will undoubtedly try to.
Let me actually pause for a second, though.
Binger said you don't get to kill someone on the street for committing arson.
I certainly hope you don't kill anybody.
I certainly hope no one does.
But I'm pretty sure You can defend yourself and others if they're seeking to set fire to a building.
So, if you see a building and there may be people inside of it, and a far leftist is trying to set fire to that building, yeah, I'm pretty sure you'll get acquitted on self-defense for stopping them.
There was a case in the Pacific Northwest, I believe this was in Olympia, An Antifa guy, self-proclaimed Antifa, tried firebombing an ICE facility with people inside.
The police shot and killed him.
That was deemed justified as far as I remember.
Because arson leads to death.
In fact, arson's probably more deadly than just having a gun.
So, if we're dealing with a case where Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked, and it's on video, you can watch it, the prosecution lied.
Lied.
And you see Cal right now fleeing for his life, yelling friendly.
And the guy tries to grab his gun, so he turns around and shoots him.
If you can defend yourself against somebody who actually doesn't have any weapons, just because he's attacking you, then I can certainly believe that should someone seek to set fire to a building, you can probably defend... You know, you'd probably be acting in defense of others if you tried to stop them.
Is Bruce Schrader's decision to allow the men lying dead at Rittenhouse to be called
looters or rioters but not victims a tone that continued ruling after ruling?
Yes.
One of the people Rittenhouse shot, Gage Gross-Chrys, was armed.
I find that insufficient justification for the death of the two other men.
Well, that was the last shot fired.
So when we're talking about Rosenbaum, who threatened to kill Rittenhouse and then chased
him, yeah, Rittenhouse was defending himself from a guy actively chasing him.
Anthony Huber hit him with a skateboard twice.
I actually... Look, I know Rosenbaum is a disgusting creature and an evil monster, but he should be in prison for the rest of his life.
He should have never been let out, and if he wasn't let out, this wouldn't have happened.
Anthony Huber, I believe, was just being mindless.
Took a skateboard and attacked Rittenhouse.
Whoopi Goldberg on The View claimed that he was trying to stop an active shooter because he saw him shoot someone.
That's a lie!
Anthony Hooper did not see this happen.
None of these people chasing after him knew what happened.
Not even Gage Grosskreutz.
They just knew they were attacking someone and they did not know why.
As far as I know, I could be wrong.
Huber did not see him do anything.
He wasn't near the site.
He just ran up to him because he saw people attacking him.
That's just a mob beating.
And for... So, let me tell you this.
What if you go to a protest or a riot?
You see somebody with a weapon, and someone just yells, he shot someone, and they start attacking him.
And they say, it's just like Rittenhouse, and they'll start beating this guy to a pulp.
For no reason.
That's what the mobs do.
They're going to say, the legal argument failed.
And that was the only argument jurors were ever going to hear in court.
But it's not the only question that you and I as American citizens have to wrestle with.
Here's the argument the jury couldn't hear.
In exonerating Rittenhouse, the jury has given license to every violent extremist in America to arm themselves and look for trouble amid their political opponents, wherever they might be.
Consider the next time people rally for, say, abortion rights.
Or perhaps immigration controls.
Well, the next Stop the Steal rally of Free Kyle Rittenhouse means we will now be met with two camps of armed protesters, possibly from around the country.
Each squad waiting for an opponent to twitch suspiciously in a way that will allow excuses to fly along with bullets.
A body count begins today with this verdict.
Every time a proud boy or neo-Nazi opens fire at a Black Lives Matter rally, or its equivalent in the future, they will have Rittenhouse's defense on their lips.
And that is some kind of justification for why Rittenhouse should be in prison?
It's funny, people say, Tim used to cite Hanlon's razor all the time.
I did.
When it applied.
But these individuals are evil.
Let me explain.
What they're saying is that, uh, they've often said, what if it was a black teenager who crossed state lines with a rifle?
Well, Kyle Rittenhouse didn't do that, but even if it was, I'd still argue self-defense.
Absolutely.
What they're basically saying is that because of a perceived racial injustice, Kyle Rittenhouse should go to prison.
How about neither of them go to prison?
How about Kyle Rittenhouse doesn't go to prison?
It was self-defense.
And if it's a black defendant, we all actually say it was self-defense too.
What they're saying here is the precedent is too dangerous.
Rittenhouse should be locked up in prison because we don't want other people to act in certain ways.
Kyle Rittenhouse is an individual who has rights.
These people don't believe in rights.
They don't think you have rights.
They believe that when it comes to an elderly man from the New York Post, an elderly man defending Storr, getting his jaw broken, being smacked in the head with a rock and knocked to the ground, that we should just get on our knees and say, thank you, please spare us.
Nellie Bolus, man.
I covered this story last week.
The New York Times covered up her story.
They held it.
And they said they wouldn't run her story on Kenosha until after the election because it basically pointed out that these rioters were victimizing poor minority communities who didn't have the insurance to rebuild.
And she said, and this is remarkable, at the end of her short story explaining this, that when it came to the riots in Kenosha and elsewhere, you weren't allowed to criticize it.
You weren't allowed to protect what was yours.
You were only allowed by the press to say, thank you.
As they destroy your life.
As they completely destroy your life.
So here's what's happening now.
Approval and disapproval are still relatively tied, but opposition has dropped a little bit for Black Lives Matter.
Many people are divided straight down the middle.
In Denver, a civil lawsuit has been filed, but this is not against Kyle Rittenhouse.
A criminal case and a civil case are different, they say, but we are reaching for larger questions, and this is Milo Schwab talking to CBS4.
His clients are the family of Joseph Rosenbaum, one of those who died, as well as Gage Grosskreutz, who was wounded by Rittenhouse's gun.
He has already filed a lawsuit against Kenosha authorities and its police.
Schwab said he will raise the questions.
How did the police respond?
Were the police too cozy with vigilantes walking the streets enforcing their own justice?
Although acquitted, Rittenhouse could face civil action and he could file defamation lawsuits himself.
Mark Richards was Rittenhouse's criminal trial attorney.
He has to get on with his life as best he can.
I think eventually some anonymity will come back to it.
What took place in the streets of Kenosha may be seen as part of a much larger picture, said Schwab.
Whether that's the type of society we want where white nationalists show up to protest Black Lives Matter movements or movements for racial justice with AR-15s, now the civil lawsuits will proceed.
Well, Kyle Rittenhouse wasn't that.
He didn't do that.
He wasn't a white supremacist.
But this is what they're saying.
They're acting like the law must change, self-defense must be taken away because of the precedent.
No, we can't allow that.
There's no precedent.
The precedent that we've had for, you know, hundreds of years, even before the formation of this country, is that you have a right to defend yourself.
You have a right to keep and bear arms.
The country has a right to defend itself.
Police do.
Individuals do.
I'll throw it to Breonna Taylor's boyfriend.
You remember Breonna Taylor?
The left said she was but sleeping in her bed when the police fired on her, which is not true.
She was in the hallway with her boyfriend.
And it's a sad, tragic story.
For sure, she lost her life.
The police were executing a search warrant.
It was not a no-knock warrant.
They did knock.
I don't know the exact... There's a technicality here.
The warrant allowed them to enter without knocking, but they did knock.
It was something to that effect.
When no one answered, they kicked the door in.
Brenna Taylor's boyfriend, hearing the noise, seeing the door get kicked in, opens fire, hitting a cop in the leg.
He was not criminally charged.
Where was the left?
Were they going to scream about the violence of the guns from this man who shot another man in the leg?
Oh no, they didn't.
Because it's not about principle.
It's about tribe.
On the left, for the most part, the rule is you must advocate for the tribe to win at all costs, regardless of the individual.
That's why they often cancel each other.
On the right, it is you must argue for the individual over the collective, but the collective still matters.
And this results in serious problems where you get a juror in the Rittenhouse trial saying, I wouldn't be a good juror because I believe in the Second Amendment.
It's like, think about the collective for once.
This country believes in the right to defend yourself in the Second Amendment.
But this person was thinking about himself as an individual.
No, I shouldn't do this.
That's wrong.
And that's one of the biggest problems conservatives have.
They don't file defamation lawsuits because they don't think collectively.
They think, my lawsuit won't have a dent, what's the point?
Well, if a thousand people all file lawsuits against the mainstream media, they'll be swamped with lawsuits and they'll get their act together.
But so long as they face no opposition, they'll just keep lying.
And they are getting away with it.
They are lying left and right.
It is absolutely insane the amount of lies that they are putting up.
Here's a tweet from Michael Tracy.
A woman named Amber Ruffin said, in case you need to be reminded of this after today's verdict, And she goes into this rant about, you know, Rittenhouse and says lies.
Tracy says, this person repeated the demonstrable falsehood that Rittenhouse traveled across state lines with a rifle.
So I asked PR reps for NBC's Peacock service if a correction is forthcoming.
No response.
But remember, these outlets are very serious about the scourge of misinformation.
Now, how do they counter channels like mine?
Well, you can see Tim Pool trending here on the right on Twitter, because it was actually a hit piece about Andy Ngo, but they used my name to try and get clicks to be on.
That's my opinion, I believe.
Where they claim that me saying the Waukesha attacker had supported Black Lives Matter as me pushing misinformation lies to try and tie him to BLM, but this is a fact.
He literally did this, and it shows his political persuasion.
And in my video, I also said we have no proof that he's a member of BLM or that this was politically motivated.
But what they have to do is they have to project.
When it came to Russiagate, what did they say?
Trump's colluding with Russia.
What does it turn out?
The Steele dossier, which was the fuel for Russiagate, actually was sourced by Russians.
So it was the Democrats, the Clintons, and everybody that were involved or funding this that were actually colluding with Russians to try and cheat and steal an election.
Didn't work.
These are the games they play.
They project onto you what they do.
So when a regular person steps up, they immediately yell, he's working with Russia.
And then when you say, no, they're the ones, the Steele dossier, working with Russia, the average person will just believe the first person.
They'll say, he told me you were working with Russia, now you're trying to claim he is?
That's crazy.
And that's the game they play.
So when it comes to street protests and riots, of course they're going to get out in front of it.
They know how to run the media.
Trump was good at it.
Conservatives are terrible at it.
Absolutely terrible.
Let's give a shout out very quickly to Alec Baldwin.
And let's talk about these stories.
Alec Baldwin.
A man who, for no reason, pulled a gun out, live ammo, pulled the hammer, pointed it at a woman and pulled the trigger, killing her.
He's not been arrested, he's not been charged.
Kyle Rittenhouse, who is clearly seen on video fleeing someone screaming at him and attacking him, fires in self-defense, he gets charged almost immediately.
And how many stories are like this?
Where's Jesse Smollett?
How is this guy not in prison?
Because the left knows how to act collectively, and the right doesn't.
So even though we all know Justice O'Mallette hoaxed everybody, it's widely believed, he gets to walk.
Now, I believe he still does face some penalty, but look how long it's taking.
Look what they're doing.
I don't even know if I'll ever see the inside of a jail.
This is what you get when the right doesn't understand how to organize or fight politically.
The left will lie.
They'll claim the precedent has been set and now Nazis in the far right will go up into our streets and just shoot innocent people.
It's not true.
If you want to argue there's a precedent, we can go back to Charlottesville.
But that guy went to prison.
And now we have Waukesha, which is interesting.
They say that it's not political, it's not terror-related.
You know, this guy has posts on social media that are pro-Black Lives Matter, but let's be real, I mean, a lot of people do.
But I just have to wonder why it is this guy went straight down a parade route instead of turning off to try and go hide.
If he really was trying to flee the scene of a domestic, he could go on a side street or an alley and get out of his car.
Instead, he goes straight down a parade route.
Even Black Lives Matter activists and leftists think it was related.
I'm not saying it was.
I'm just saying it seems weird that they've ruled it out.
Because what was his motivation then?
Just to go straight down the parade route and not just get off the side of the road?
He could have at any point just turned left.
He could have gone on a side street and just gotten off.
He didn't do it.
So I can't tell you why.
I don't know for sure.
I know this.
Joe Biden's approval rating is in the gutter.
The AP believes that the Rittenhouse acquittal is bad news for Biden.
And I think so.
Joe Biden gave mixed messages.
First, he's like, hey, you know, the jury said, oh, you know, we're gonna follow the jury.
Then he came out and said, I am angered and frustrated or something to that effect.
We see it from all of these leaders who provided funding to bail out the rioters, who did nothing but cheer them on.
And then when Kyle Rittenhouse, who actually supports BLM, so he says, provides medical aid to people but then gets attacked, they say he's a far-right white supremacist.
They don't know or care about who Kyle is.
They just need their political victories.
So when you see someone like Kyle, they say, hmm, young white kid with a gun, his shirt's green, say he's far-right.
When in actuality, Gage Grosskreutz could have found himself in the same position.
Why not?
What if he'd, you know, fight on Rosenbaum?
What if Rosenbaum attacked him?
And then they said, this crazy right-winger guy.
I guess because Kyle Rittenhouse wanted to be a cop.
That's right-wing.
But let the left be the left.
They say, look, there's actually two different political compasses that are in this country right now.
People need to get this.
There's the left political compass and the right political compass.
On the... I shouldn't even put it that way, actually.
Let's just say political compass A and B. In political compass A, you have honesty, integrity.
And there are authoritarians and there are libertarians.
And there's people like me.
Political compass A, left quadrant.
And then you have people like, you know, Luke Gorkowski or Michael Maus.
Political compass A, but B quadrant.
We agree on the reality.
We know the facts and we'll tell you the truth.
But we differ on economic policy, reform, and things like that.
Then you have Political Compass B. On the right side, you have Project Lincoln and the neocons.
On the left side, you have the establishment Democrats and leftists, and that's their universe.
So that's why they don't understand.
When you say, like, Tim Pool is left-wing, because, you know, I say things like I believe in co-op business structures, and I think universal health care is an ideal to strive for, except for the fact that government overreach is too much power, and it'll cause problems, so I, you know, center-left a little bit.
You know, maybe a public option, and then you have private supplemental, so you can avoid any kind of bias from the state, but then there's some kind of voucher system so that people have access to medical care.
Hey, those are all pretty lefty positions, but we disagree on reality.
Because the issue is, it's not just left versus right.
When people say, oh Antifa thinks anybody to the right of Mao is far-right, what they're actually saying is, Antifa exists in its own universe, with the establishment Democrats.
To them, they're on the left.
And anybody who's not in that political compass is far-right.
But in reality, you have your own bubble, man.
The Lincoln Project are conservatives.
Like, they're right-wing, but they live in a different reality.
And they're authoritarian, by the way.
I think there are very important things people need to understand to figure out what's truly happening.
And the most important thing you need to understand as we walk away from this is, there's no precedent.
Free speech has always existed.
The right to self-defense has always existed.
And as Michael Malice put it, and similarly as I have put it, they're lying to you on purpose.
You are not finding a group of celebrities cheering on the stuff accidentally.
No, they're lying to people on purpose to gain power.
Once you know that, your view of everything is different.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The person of interest who was detained by the police in the Waukesha attack has now been charged.
Police say they're ruling out terrorism and that he wasn't being pursued.
It may have been that he was fleeing some kind of domestic issue.
Now that seems kind of strange to me because he went directly down the road of the entire parade route and seemed to be swerving into people.
But okay, I mean, look, I'll be honest.
I don't know.
What we do know is this individual has promoted Black Lives Matter causes before, expressed what appears to be frustration at the Rittenhouse case.
And many people on the left and the right believe there may be some political motivation here.
I don't know why we should just blindly agree with the police and assume they're right about everything, but that's what they've stated.
Now we have a story from the Washington Examiner which I think is more important.
Black Lives Matter activist wonders whether Waukesha attack linked to Rittenhouse verdict saying it sounds possible the revolution has started.
I don't... I don't agree.
Because I don't know about who this guy is or why he did what he did.
There's a photo that came out about his arrest and it shows him apparently in some kind of straitjacket.
The dude may just be unwell.
Typically, that's the simple solution.
Now, the attack in Waukesha did come just a few days after the Rittenhouse verdict.
And that's why so many people came out and said horrifying things, like it was karma, or the car was acting in self-defense, or the guy was.
Just really nightmarish things.
That, to me, is more important.
Because, although the attack itself may not be motivated in any way by any kind of political or racial issue, People make it that way.
And if people want it to be that way, and if people believe that's what it is, it fans the flames of the chaos.
Now, far be it from me to act like I'm not involved in the culture war.
Of course I believe things I say have a polarizing effect to a certain degree.
But I think it's fair to say that, you know, I do my best to try and frame things as honestly as possible, and then let you decide.
I mean, for the most part, it's a libertarian-ish position.
I don't want to be in charge of you.
I don't want to tell you what to think or believe, and I don't care what you think or believe.
And in fact, I just said in an earlier segment, I support Black Lives Matter.
When it comes to their protests, peaceful protests and civil disobedience.
I support Extinction Rebellion when they stand in the roads and block traffic.
I believe nonviolent civil disobedience is incredible.
I think it's important.
And I believe it's how we push the boundaries and rethink ideas and create real progress.
Not always progress, but it's how we create progress in many ways by challenging the norms in our system.
But I think violence is wrong.
Now, here's what's important.
Right now, Andy Ngo is trending with tens of thousands of tweets.
And I'm also trending with only a few thousand tweets.
Because, truth be told, when the media tries to smear and lie about what Andy Ngo reports or what I comment on, it doesn't work all that well.
But they really, really hate Andy Ngo.
You see, the other day, Andy Ngo reported this individual who was, at the time, detained, not a suspect or criminally charged.
This individual has expressed support for Black Lives Matter.
That is a fact.
This is true.
And I came out and said, yes, this individual clearly, you know, supports Black Lives Matter to a certain degree.
And I may have said has ties to, which, you know, speaking colloquially in this greater context, is like, His support of the movement.
Not that he's actively organizing.
In fact, I said there's no evidence to that effect.
At least, I believe I did.
I mean, my whole segment yesterday morning was basically about, wait, don't make assumptions.
Too many people on the right are going to want to believe this is politically motivated and we shouldn't do that because we're not going to play the same game they do.
Now, many of you may have actually seen that segment.
It's not hard to watch.
You can go to my videos and actually just check it out, where it literally opens without an article of me saying, 24-hour rule.
We don't know what his motivations were, we don't know what this was, and we shouldn't jump to conclusions.
In fact, around minute two, I said, just because this person supports Black Lives Matter does not mean that was the reason for the attack.
That's why I'm showing you this article and starting with this, because I think the media, corporate media, I should say, Absolutely wants to fan the flames and create the chaos.
Notably one journalist who's just particularly obsessed with me.
Man, he really loves writing garbage and nonsense, but he is just obsessed.
Well, you know, some people just, they can't take their eyes off of my content.
When I look at a story like this, you know, Black Lives Matter activists said, it sounds like the revolution has started.
We have this video.
It's a guy named Vaughn L. Mays.
And I got no disrespect, no beef.
I don't think he's wrong.
I think he's expressing his opinion.
And when he sees this, let me show you this tweet.
Black Lives Matter activist Vaughn L. Mays at the scene of the Waukesha parade attack.
Quote, it sounds like the revolution has started.
Mentions hearing from a source who believes Daryl Brooks may have been motivated by the Kyle Rittenhouse verdict.
Now, Here's a dude who was on the scene, and he said it sounds like the revolution has started.
I don't think that's a wrong assumption to make.
I don't... I would say, like, for an individual who's there to see everything, you know, just not even 48 hours after the Rittenhouse verdict to make these assumptions, I think it's a fair assumption to make, but I think, you know, we should wait and get our facts straight.
The thing is, we had a ton of people saying really, really horrifying things.
In fact, I might have this tweet right here, I'm not sure.
Okay, so this is from Kristen Barbarasi.
She says, uh, Daryl Brooks, the suspect, is taking this, this is a photo taken earlier this morning.
He'll be in court at 4 today, so we can see the criminal complaint.
It looks like he's in some kind of straitjacket.
There was a woman, and I don't know if I have the story pulled up.
Oh, I do actually.
I have it right here.
Illinois Democrat calls Waukesha tragedy karma for Rittenhouse acquittal.
You reap what you sow.
Okay, here's my point.
Again, you probably watched my whole segment where I said we need to wait and we don't know if this guy is, you know, in any way tied to Black Lives Matter or anything like that, or a member of, I should say.
And here's my point.
When you see all of these leftists cheering for this, Cheering might not be the right way to put it, but alluding to the fact that this was a revenge attack, or that people should be engaged in these kind of violent activities, and there's tons of tweets saying this, and then you have things like this.
Illinois Democrat saying, you reap what you sow.
You know, if there's this many people who are gloating or, I don't know what the right word is for this, but like finger wagging and saying, well, this is what you get.
Don't you think it's possible that someone got in their car and says, you get what you effing deserve?
I think so.
Well, let me show you where we end up.
We have Andy Ngo, who is trending on Twitter.
Look at this, trending.
21,000 tweets.
Why?
They're really mad at the fact that Andy Ngo Actually found out this guy was a supporter of Black Lives Matter.
Does that mean he is a fundraiser, organizer, actively involved in these events?
No, no, no, no.
It just means look at his political motivations and then we'll see what happened.
I think that is important and fair.
We had this massive parade route.
It's one street in Waukesha going straight This guy, Daryl Brooks, the police say he may have been fleeing some domestic incident.
My question then is why go straight down the parade route?
Again, I think I have the story here.
And I think it's important you know that they did.
As I stated in the previous segment I did.
That's the gist of this article.
I'm not sure what this source is.
important, you know that they did. As I stated in the previous segment I did.
Waukesha police identified the driver around 4.39 local time on Sunday. The vehicle was driven at a
speed through the parade. We get it. That's the gist of this article. I'm not sure what this
source is. We have this from CBS2. Suspect in Waukesha Christmas parade tragedy, Daryl Brooks,
is charged with murder. They say Daryl Brooks, 39, was charged with five counts of murder after he
allegedly plowed through a Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin on Sunday, killing at least
five and injuring dozens more.
I want to stress, allegation.
That's right.
A lot of people on the right are saying, allegedly there's videos.
No, no, no, no, no, sorry.
Last night, I pointed out when we were talking about this.
You put me on a grand jury.
Okay, to be fair, I'll say this.
I typically would not, you know, bring an indictment back if I was on a grand jury.
I typically would not convict in most cases, and that's probably because we're talking about victimless crimes or non-violent crimes and things like that.
If I was on a grand jury, And I saw the photos in question.
I'd probably return an indictment in this regard.
That's why I say almost no circumstances.
And the reason is, first of all, this involves kids.
It's a mass tragedy event.
And we have photos that look like him.
Now, if I was on a jury in a courtroom, and they said, here's the SUV.
Here's the picture of the driver.
Here's the owner of the driver.
We believe it is fair to say this is the guy.
I gotta be honest.
I saw those photos.
They're grainy.
Not enough for me.
And I mean it.
They say allegedly.
We don't know that this guy was driving.
Show me a video of the guy driving the car, getting out of the car, running up, and get a clear picture of his face.
But that's just me.
If people find that unreasonable, this is why I don't like to be in charge of people's lives and making these judgments.
That's not for me.
But I think allegedly is very important because just like Kyle Rittenhouse, this man is innocent.
That's right.
Until a jury of his peers, or if he has a bench trial, until he is convicted, he is presumed to be innocent.
And I don't accept blurry, grainy footage of a driver.
That's not enough for me.
Enough for an indictment, enough for an investigation.
I think that's fair, especially considering the egregious, you know, how egregious this attack was.
But again, I take our justice system, or I should say our legal system, very seriously.
This brings me to the lies.
Robert Silverman.
Oh, you finally made it as a subject of my video.
I know you've tried so hard to do that, but I think it's really important because it's remarkable to me how Robert Silverman, who writes for the Daily Beast, can actually write something that's true And people still take it the wrong way.
And I almost feel bad for the guy, except for the fact that he's falsely framing this.
My favorite thing is that this guy wrote an article.
Let me see if he has a link to the article.
How big-time right-wing trolls Andy Ngo and Tim Pool tied Waukesha to Black Lives Matter or whatever.
Interestingly, my video literally starts... It's titled, to be fair, Police Don't Rule Out Terror.
Person detained is a Black Lives Matter supporter.
Those are true statements, and I think they're very important statements.
And I don't think that title alone actually makes anyone, gives anyone a definitive statement as to what may have happened.
In fact, I think, you know, I think about the titles I do, and my concern would be that if I put something like, you know, I don't want to bury the lead.
The lead is everyone's asking.
What is it about this guy?
What was the motivation?
And here's what we know so far.
Police said, this is reported by numerous outlets, they don't like that I use the Daily Mail though, sorry, that the police were not ruling out terror at the time.
Last night, I put up another story, police have ruled out terror.
But that's the police, right?
And so my thing was very, in the beginning of the video, I said, and you know what I said, we don't know for sure.
Here's the best part, and I definitely want to... I don't like focusing on myself or making, you know, me being the subject of these videos.
This is mostly about Andy Ngo, because Andy Ngo did a good job reporting on this, and they're desperate to smear him.
And also, I want to get to the kind of, like, the thesis of this, and it's that regardless of what the intent was in the attack, both overarching political factions absolutely want to turn this into something political.
So, when it comes to Kyle Rittenhouse, It was a kid who says he supports Black Lives Matter.
That's a fact.
He said that to Tucker Carlson.
And he was out there rendering aid, and the media lied left and right about literally everything.
They said that he shot black people.
They said that he crossed state lines with a gun.
He didn't do that.
They said he was going there to just hunt peaceful protesters, none of which was true.
I bring you now to Robert Silverman, who has a... It's completely wrong, by the way.
He goes on to say, if you're seeing some lunacy about a person of interest who was detained, here's a brief window into how the right-wing disinfo machine works.
It starts with Andy Ngo, of course.
First, another reporter, not Andy, does the actual work of finding the person's records.
That's in no way relevant, and as many people point out, a ton of people had the records from this guy because he was detained.
They knew.
No, then digs up a Facebook page allegedly belonging to the person of interest and posts some screenshots.
Uh, it is now, I believe it has actually been officially reported.
Do I, do I have this here?
From the sun?
Uh, here we go.
Daryl, Daryl Brooks identified as Walkershop Parade person of interest.
As it's revealed, he's a rapper called Math Boy Fly.
This is from yesterday at 8am.
I do not believe Andy Ngo is the one who dug up any allegedly anything.
I think the issue is he just saw the reporting and then moved forward with it.
But this is how the left left wing disinformation machine works.
I know I get the point.
It's ironic, isn't it?
No then digs up a page allegedly belonging to the person of interest, well, according to The Sun, it's definitive, and posts some screenshots, but not before adding his own editorial slant.
Well, Andy No, I don't even want to pull these things up.
You know, I don't want to show this guy's social media.
It's been taken down, and I think it's fine.
But this guy says, knocking white people TF out, I'm not going to pull up the greater image here, but yes, Andy No actually posted this stuff yesterday.
Well before he was smeared as not doing good work.
And you know as several posts where he actually shows, this guy shows a picture of a statue being torn down and he puts the bullseye.
This is the math boy fly.
Supporting Black Lives Matter with a thing that has a disparaging...
Somewhat violent statement using emojis about police.
So that's all correct.
Here's a guy who has social media posts saying, on target, tearing down statues.
Here's a guy who has social media posts saying, F the police.
Here's a guy who talks about attacking white people.
Here's a guy who then gets in a vehicle, allegedly, and rams through a parade running over dozens, I think, you know, almost 50 people.
If, based on all of that, your inference is you think it was politically motivated, then I'd say, yeah, I can understand why you'd think that.
For me, I will not condemn without hard facts.
These things are really interesting, and it points us in a direction that we could say is probable cause or lead to an investigation, but You know, let's be careful here because we don't want to fan the flames too much.
So this guy then goes on to say that there's no post with a BLM hashtag.
I just showed you the posts Andy Ngo has up that show Black Lives Matter, though Ngo added one in his tweet, or images of him attending or supporting BLM protesters.
Is that anything that Andy Ngo said?
You see, what they do is Andy Ngo says, interestingly, this guy supports Black Lives Matter, and they go, he's claiming this guy's at protests and an organizer.
Let me show you.
He goes on to say, naturally, Tim Pool made a video.
The headline is, Police Refuse to Rule Out Terror in Waukesha Attack, Person of Interest Detained as BLM Supporter.
Let me break that down for you. If the police say we're not ruling out terror,
and that's basically them saying, like, we're looking into this, then the question of the
guy's political persuasions, I think, matters. And that's why I opened the video very carefully,
saying we gotta be careful with this. But again, the police could have could have come out and said,
you know, based on our preliminary investigation, it shows no terror.
They came out and they refused to rule out terror.
And then seeing that, I said, then what's this guy's persuasion?
And of course, Andy Ngo had already pulled that stuff up.
But here's the best part.
He says, Pool's source for this was No's tweets.
He says, though, it hasn't been proven that the person of interest is a member of BLM.
Now, what's left out by the mainstream press as they try to smear Andy Ngo and then catch me in the wake?
I mean, he puts me in the headline because he knows it's gonna get clicks.
That's really it.
He probably saw me on Joe Rogan and is like, now's my chance to just make up some stupid garbage.
I said he wasn't a suspect.
I said there's, at present, there's no evidence this man was involved.
For all we know, someone stole his car.
Hey, how about that?
Which is why he points out, I said, person of interest, not suspect, not murderer, not BLM rioter or anti for anything like that.
He says, I pointed out, it hasn't been proven he's a member of Black Lives Matter.
That's important.
Yes.
He then goes on to say, clearly the person of interest has, quote, ties to Black Lives Matter.
To date, this is false.
No, it isn't.
The dude has posts all over his feed.
What does it mean to have ties to someone?
What this guy is doing is he's taking the most extreme interpretation of it, that I'm implying he's like working with them, instead of saying he's politically in alignment with them.
So, yeah, not every Black Lives Matter antifa is part of any organization.
That's their talking point.
But sure, maybe I could speak better, to be completely fair.
I could speak better.
It doesn't matter to Poole who then speculates since the cops haven't ruled out terror, this could be a revenge attack.
Uh, yes.
Yes, because an Illinois Democrat said you reap what you sow.
It's amazing, isn't it?
I can show you these people gloating and cheering for this stuff.
I can show you a guy saying it sounds like the revolution has started, and still I come out and say it's not proven.
We have to be careful.
Take these things into consideration, but we don't know for sure.
Is that what they did with Kyle Rittenhouse?
With Kyle Rittenhouse, they came out and said he did it.
He's guilty.
Lock him up.
They said he's a white supremacist.
They had no facts.
They had no information.
I don't care what you believe, to be completely honest.
I want you to just have these details.
Now, truth be told, there's probably a lot of details that I could and should have included, but I don't have them.
I look at what I think matters and is relevant to the story, and I give you my thoughts on it.
Andy Ngo does the same thing.
Here's the guy's view.
He goes on to say, I didn't issue, uh, what'd he say?
Doesn't, I don't issue any corrections or anything like that.
Doesn't matter to Poole.
Uh, we did a show last night basically saying overtly and outright that the police have ruled out terror.
I produce, what am I at, like three and a half to four hours of content per day.
So this guy singles out a few lines to make it seem like I'm saying things I'm not.
This is how the disinformation machine works.
He then creates an article with a big ol' picture of me and Andy Ngo and says that we did this thing.
Remarkable.
If he actually showed you my video, and actually showed you what I opened with, You'd be like, wow, okay, that's actually fairly reasonable.
But this is how the game is played.
Andy Ngo, you can see right here to the right, is trending.
What did Andy Ngo do?
He looked into the political persuasions of this guy.
Interesting.
I think considering the statements and considering the timing, yeah, that's an appropriate bit of journalism.
Considering the threats that had been made, considering what day it was, I think that was appropriate.
And most importantly, considering the police said they wouldn't rule out terror, which is a fact, I think we were like, okay, let's look into this guy's history and be careful with it.
Andy Ngo didn't even speculate as far as I did, which is funny.
Andy Ngo is trending with 21,600 tweets, mostly of people just, you know, crapping on him.
But again, a lot of people on the right defending him.
And my name is trending with only a few thousand.
Because most people are coming after Andy Ngo.
Why?
Because Andy Ngo is the one who did the reporting.
I just did commentary.
Let's be real about this.
If you want to criticize someone saying that it was pushing a misconception or disinformation, by all means say, Tim Poole's title of his video immediately leads people to believe, although I think it's fair to point out, Those things were facts.
You don't like I presented those facts in this way?
I understand, okay.
It's hard to know how to make the right editorial decision.
I thought this was a very important way to, you know, I thought that was the lead, basically.
Like, this is the big part of the story.
And that's why I also thought it was very important to start the video by being like, but hold our horses here a little bit, right?
Let's take a look at what's going on.
What did Andy Ngo do?
Andy Ngo is getting the brunt of this from the lies of the media because he did actual journalism.
Because Andy Ngo actually did some digging, found some posts, and said, take a look at this.
That's it.
He didn't speculate.
He didn't say this proves anything.
He said, this guy has these things on his social media.
I then saw that and said, considering the police's statement, here's my opinion on it.
And the media loses their minds.
Let's be real.
Yesterday, my episode with Joe Rogan came out.
I've been getting a ton of messages from people.
I appreciate the support.
They're really excited.
I'm getting a bunch of new followers.
It happens when you go on Joe Rogan's show.
Shout out to Joe.
Thanks for having me on.
I haven't been on it.
It's been almost two years.
It's been a year and a half since I was on last time.
And I ended up going on just because, you know, I had been talking to Joe.
You know, I got sick.
And then he was like, you know, if you ever want to come back out, we can set a date.
I'd love to do it, you know.
And that was it.
Here's what I think.
I don't think this article has anything to do with anything, really.
I think this guy noticed that, you know, he wanted to write about Andy Ngo.
He wanted to criticize Andy Ngo and play this game.
And I think he saw that my name was, you know, in the trend because Joe Rogan did a podcast.
It's big.
Here's your opportunity.
This is the game they play.
It makes no sense to literally say Poole says it hasn't been proven the guy is a member of BLM.
He actually tweets that out but then tries to make the claim that somehow I'm pushing a false narrative or misinformation when I literally say it is not proven he's a person of interest as a member of Black Lives Matter.
Now I don't know exactly how I phrase it because he's paraphrasing and of course this guy twists things out of context but it's remarkable to me that right now Andy Ngo is under fire simply because he uncovered this guy's politics.
That's the game.
That's the left-wing misinformation machine.
Their goal is to make money.
Let me explain.
This guy needs to justify his existence.
He needs to get articles that get clicks.
The article that he wrote is paywalled.
They're trying to get money.
The video I put up?
Free.
And people use, you know, may or may not see any ads, I don't know how it works, and my videos get demonetized when I talk about certain subjects.
Not as much as they used to, but, you know, it happens periodically.
Look, everybody wants to make money for their business and everything like that, but I'm not particularly, you know, I have no drive to get more views.
I actually reduced, on this channel, I cut down segments, I think, um, I cut three segments.
I used to, in 2020, I would do five segments on this channel.
I took those videos, I stopped making them.
That made, that meant subscriber growth and view count went down.
Because I don't play these games.
I don't want to be like these, you know, these weasels, who are desperate to just make something up for clicks.
And I don't need to be.
You know, when you work for a company and they don't pay you all that much, you're desperate to prove your worth.
When you run your own company and you're independent, and you can live, you live.
Truth be told, we're doing pretty well over at TimCastMedia.
We're hiring like crazy, but I'll be completely honest.
When it comes to what we do at TimCast.com, it's a large loss.
It is.
The amount of journalists we have, the amount of content we produce, We do not see returns on those things.
They're investments.
Things that I believe in.
The nonprofits we're forming.
They're investing in the future.
They're planting a seed for a tree whose shade I know I will never sit beneath.
But it's what I want.
You know, I don't want to buy a convertible or a Tesla plaid.
Granted, if I had Joe Rogan money, you know, because I think he was mentioning he had the plaid.
I'm like, well, I guess if I had a hundred million dollars, I might buy one, because it's like, I don't know, what else?
But no, like, if you asked me, like, what would you like to buy with large sums of money, I'd be like, more journalists doing good work.
And I don't mean, like, buys and to own.
I'd be like, I would pay for a journalist to just go and do their thing.
I will give a journalist money to be like, go report.
Granted, we want to maximize viewership and we want to build a place where this journalism can succeed, so that's what we're doing.
The Daily Beast is not that.
The Daily Beast is hyperbolic rage bait to the extreme degree, falsely framed, with the goal of misleading and all that stuff.
Look, I should probably get back to the thesis of this and why I ended up talking about this guy who I don't much care to talk about.
He's watching right now.
How's it going, Robert?
And then he's going to write some garbled nonsense because he knows he'll make money off of it.
I'd be willing to bet a large sum of money.
That he's now going to be, you know, posting about how he's under siege and how they're coming after him and other, you know, Weasley-whiny stuff because he's too scared.
I mean, and I shouldn't say just about him.
I mean, like, this is what journalists do.
They claim to be the victims even though they've chosen to be public figures.
Yeah, I'm trending right now, you know, and I have been for three weeks straight.
And it's like, yeah, welcome to being in the public light.
But here's why I wanted to talk about him and, you know, and this story.
It doesn't matter if I say it's not proven and we should calm down.
This guy wants it to be that way.
Robert's goal with all this article probably is just to, you know, prove his worth to his company and, you know, get rage bait or whatever.
But the end result is he's falsely framed a story in which he knows he watched my video and I said everyone, you know, chill out, calm down.
He knows the whole thesis of that video was we shouldn't rush to conclusions.
But he wants the left, or at the very least he's making the left believe I was fanning the flames and saying this WAS Black Lives Matter related.
Which, I'm not saying.
I'm just saying it's a guy who did a thing, here's his persuasions, here's what the police said.
I mean, it makes sense, right?
You have this other guy, a Black Lives Matter activist, who effectively said the same thing.
Why isn't Robert writing about that?
Why is the Washington Examiner writing about it?
You see, this is the issue.
When I saw this story from the Washington Examiner about this Vaughn L. Mays guy, I looked him up.
He doesn't have a lot of followers.
And I thought to myself, isn't it kind of dumb that this guy expressed an opinion and now it's an article in this big paper?
Like, who is this guy to have this opinion and why is it relevant?
I don't like the article, but I actually think it is important.
It's important because if I'm saying, let's chill out, not jump to conclusions, the Daily Beast then writes an article claiming I'm doing the opposite, but even leftists and Black Lives Matter supporters are saying, this looks like a revenge attack.
It looks like the revolution has started.
Why is it that Daily Beast only highlights specific people?
Why is it that they don't highlight all of the left personalities who actually said things ten times more egregious than I or Andy Ngo ever said?
Hyper-partisan.
They're exacerbating the political divide.
Now, again, far be it for me to say I'm not involved in making the political divide worse.
I think the issue is when you have, you know, evil, like, you know, this guy at the Daily Beast, whose intent is just extract and exploit to his greatest desire, you know, full well-knowing, my whole video is basically like, calm down.
It's just these people want to extract from the system and burn it to the ground.
That's their M.O.
That's what he's doing.
Now, when I see the actual attack, and I say, calm down, we don't know for sure, I think that's an important and fair point.
But when you see the left and the right both saying it seems political, they've made it political.
And there you go.
Andy Ngo did not make this political.
I did not make this political.
These things already existed.
Conversations were already happening, as per the Illinois Democrat who said, you reap what you sow.
