S5234 - Twitter Announces INSANE New Censorship Not Even A DAY After Jack Dorsey Replaced By New Woke CEO.
Twitter Announces INSANE New Censorship Not Even A DAY After Jack Dorsey Replaced By New Woke CEO. The new policy bans media that is shared without consent specifically to protect women, activists, and minorities.
There is no way Twitter means right wing or republican activists mind you. The tendency for these woke far left companies has always been to target anti establishment voices and support Democrats.
A good example is the Hunter Biden laptop story
The new policy will silence independent media or work towards it and no one is surprised.
#JackDorsey
#Censorship
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is November 30th, 2021, and our first story.
Not even a day after Jack Dorsey resigns as CEO of Twitter and is replaced by a new Woker CEO, they already have a new censorship policy banning media of people without their consent, meaning independent field reporting gone.
In our next story, Kyle Rittenhouse, no longer attending ASU, reportedly quits amid protests demanding he not be allowed to attend.
The culture war is fierce, and they will never let him live a normal life.
In our last story, Jussie Smollett in court.
His defense proposed the most preposterous and laughably bad defense, that the Olsen-Dirote brothers are sophisticated master criminals who set him up.
Now, if you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, but tell your friends about the show.
It's the best thing you can do to help.
Now, let's get into that first story.
It has not even been a day since Jack Dorsey resigned as CEO of Twitter, and already Twitter
has announced a new censorship policy.
You cannot share photos or videos media that they deem to be private.
And why?
They say, well, sharing private media, as they describe it, disproportionately affects women and minorities.
We know that the CEO is particularly woke, and the reason he is replacing Jack Dorsey, one, Jack Dorsey resigned, but also, they say Jack Dorsey was not moving fast enough.
Could it be that Jack actually does believe in decentralized social media?
He actually does believe in free speech, but he was standing up against a giant machine trying to churn the other direction, moving more left against free speech, and he served to slow it down?
I don't know.
I'm not going to pretend that Jack was doing anything or not doing anything, because I think he was only a figurehead.
I think they brought him in to represent the company as its founder, and he didn't really have that much impact.
The new guy, Parag Agrawal, has already said they're not bound by the First Amendment, they're a global company, but you know what?
Jack Dorsey said the same thing.
The reality may be that Jack Dorsey was simply disinterested, for the most part, in Twitter, and he does agree with a lot of these policies.
Now I'll tell you why this is so bad.
Twitter is the public square.
It's where we share information.
A lot of people probably aren't all that worried about it saying I don't use Twitter, but this matters.
Stories about Hunter Biden and Joe Biden censored by Twitter and Facebook and other stories about Joe Biden and Hunter Biden censored on YouTube.
If people, and this is according to Rasmussen and a few other pollsters, knew about what Joe Biden was doing with his son's businesses, things he was lying about, a large portion of people would not have voted for him.
This absolutely affects our elections, but outside of elections and politics, it affects our ability to know.
And this new policy is one of the most damning policies we've seen in a long time, if not ever.
It basically says independent journalism is done.
Why, you're out and you're filming someone and they do something and you're like, this is newsworthy?
Well, Twitter's issued a clarification saying, well, if it's a large public event, we'll allow it.
But it's their context.
They decide.
Think about Kyle Rittenhouse.
The videos of him running through the streets.
Now Twitter says, oh, you know, if it's a big public event or protest, we're not going to take it down.
But why should it even be a question of whether you could or would take it down?
I'll tell you this.
My belief is that if we get another Kyle Rittenhouse type situation, and there are independent journalists on the ground filming.
Yeah, Twitter will take it down and say, look, this is showing images of private individuals without their consent.
So, gone.
But of course, as we've already seen with James O'Keefe, the mainstream press, CNN in particular, will go to the home of a little old lady because she shared a meme.
And they'll question her.
They'll show her house.
They'll show her identifying details.
And Twitter and social media says, that's fine.
James O'Keefe does quite literally the same thing.
Blurs out the address and questions an individual, and they say, you're doxxing.
We know how this game is played.
We know where this is going.
Now, of course, many people will say, Tim, I get that, but let's be real.
The ratings for all these big fake news outlets are falling off a cliff.
Yes, that may be true for the most part.
That on television, TimCast IRL, the conversation podcast we do at 8 p.m., check it out on YouTube, we do get substantially more viewers in the key demo than CNN does.
I think CNN gets around 100,000 or so, maybe 200, and we're getting half a million or more in total key demo views from the live viewership to the VOD viewership.
But what about on YouTube?
With this big tech censorship, they are seeking to filter out independent voices, channels like this, to prop up CNN.
And I have the data.
Because a lot of people want to laugh and be like, CNN's ratings are gone, and then they look at the YouTube data and they're like, how are they getting a hundred million views on one channel per month?
Who watches this stuff?
YouTube puts them on the front page.
You see, the game is rigged.
And over time, what they're seeking to do is eliminate channels like mine and force you to watch channels like Fox News, MSNBC, or CNN.
That's right, Fox News as well.
They stopped recommending a lot of my content a while ago and started recommending Fox News instead.
Because Fox News is corporate press and they feel like they're safe to do it.
Let's take a look at what's going on with the censorship and we'll take a look at the corruption of CNN and why it's important independent voices remain strong and are able to share the news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member.
Why?
Because censorship is coming.
I've been saying it for a long time.
They've taken down some of my videos.
They've outright banned many people off these platforms.
So we built TimCast.com.
We have an editorial team reporting on news about, like, Dave Chappelle and the Maxwell trial and all that stuff.
And if you want to support that journalism, Become a member.
If you want exclusive members-only podcasts from all of our shows, become a member.
If you just want to support the work I'm doing here right now, calling out the censorship and challenging the establishment, become a member, share the show with your friends, tell your friends and family members to sign up, help support our work.
It is greatly appreciated.
But don't forget, hit that like button right now on this video, subscribe to this channel, and take the URL, share it wherever you can.
That's the marketing power we have.
YouTube is going to put CNN on the front page.
They're going to get 100 million views, and that is money.
100 million views, man.
How much CNN probably makes off of YouTube just giving them the front page position?
Let's do some math.
100 million views?
They could be getting $400,000 to $800,000 per month for free because YouTube just puts them on the front page.
We don't have that power.
In fact, we have the opposite.
We get shadowbanned.
We get knocked off these websites.
Sharing this video whenever you get the chance, and other channels too, be it Crowder or Styx.
I always shout them out.
Or even some progressives you might like, you always gotta share because I would take a populist, you know, independent personality over the corporate press any day.
You gotta be active in this culture war in sharing content to the best of your abilities.
But let's talk about what's gonna happen with Twitter censorship.
And this is why I say, share what you can when you can.
Because sooner or later, you won't be able to.
You know, a lot of people complain to me when they say, Tim doesn't even show the images or the videos from these big major events.
And I'm like, why do you think my channel still exists and others have been taken down?
Yeah.
There is a real challenge in trying to hold the center and maintain a position on YouTube.
So I say, look, I could show you certain images from the nights in question, and we'll put them up on Timcast IRL or on the website.
But the way we're fighting the good fight for free speech now is we're accepting where we've lost areas in this battlefield, certain things that YouTube will ban you for.
And then we're letting people know, look, our website covers the news.
That's censorship.
So if you want to just read the news and maybe feel like we're not covering something, just check the website.
Because we did a really long segment, half an hour, members only show about the Maxwell trial, and we're working on a lot of data about this, so we'll probably have big articles, we'll probably put these clips up free for all the members on the website, but ultimately we can't rely on YouTube.
We can't rely on Twitter, we can't rely on Facebook.
Here's the news.
Twitter bans sharing photos, videos of people without their consent.
Well, how do you do news then?
The social media site may allow images if they're newsworthy, but says it'll try to assess the context.
There it is.
Context will always favor the ideologues they support.
Twitter on Tuesday banned the sharing of photos and videos of private individuals without their consent, the company said in a blog post.
The update to its private information policy notes that people can contact the microblogging platform to have such media removed.
The ban doesn't apply to public figures if the media and tweet are of public interest.
But content featuring those people may be removed if the site determines it's been shared to harass, intimidate, or use fear to silence them.
Now, I'll pause for a second.
To a certain degree, I get it.
And I understand the idea, and it ain't all that bad.
If you're a Leonardo DiCaprio, You're sitting in your backyard, minding your own business, and some paparazzo takes a picture of you sunbathing.
Like, dude, that's not okay.
That's private.
You want to get somebody walking down the street, I get it, but people do this creepy stuff.
The problem is, they give themselves this power, they use an argument about reasonableness, like, what if, what if, you know, what if you, public figure, were just trying to go for an ice cream cone, and people started filming and harassing you?
And insulting you and screaming at you.
It's like, once you accept the premise, they then turn around and say, okay, ban all their content.
Thanks for giving us the power without question.
No.
That's why we say, sorry, if you're in the public, we can film you.
There have been people saying, you know, tweeting at me like, well, now you can get all those videos of you removed.
And I'm like, no.
Like joking, I'm like, oh yeah, of course, but of course not.
First of all, I don't think Twitter would even grant me that respect.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
If the image or video is publicly available, is being covered by news outlets, or adds value to the public discourse, it may be allowed to remain on the site, Twitter said.
In its blog post, the company points out that people might share images of private individuals in a crisis situation to help them, and that could outweigh the safety risks.
The move is an expansion of Twitter's private information policy that the company says is meant to protect people from physical or emotional harm.
Some people are harmed emotionally by watching a movie about a dog saving a rabbit.
And they're like, this is just making me feel bad, like, oh, I'm so worried, you know?
But what about the other animal that needed to eat the rabbit?
Who knows what's gonna make someone freak out?
Physical harm we get.
Don't hurt people.
Emotional harm?
That's nebulous.
It's abstract.
It's impossible.
The policy already bars Twitter users from sharing people's home addresses, government IDs, and other sensitive information.
Twitter says sharing someone's age or job or sharing screenshots of text messages doesn't violate its rules.
The company also has a separate policy that bars users from posting nude photos of people without their consent.
Look, I get that stuff.
To report someone for violating this policy, Twitter users can click on the three dots in the upper right corner of the rule-breaking tweet, select Report Tweet, click on its abusive or harmful, and select Includes Private Information.
So, let me just actually jump to the Twitter safety rules because the media launders the narrative and buries the context.
What Twitter's actually said, I think, is a bit more interesting than that.
From their website.
Expanding our private information policy to include media.
Now, I want to give you the context here, and then we'll come back to read this, because I don't want to just bury you in policy.
From Fox Business, new Twitter CEO Parag Agarwal once said the company is not to be bound by the First Amendment.
They say Agarwal, who was Twitter's chief technology officer until the social media board unanimously appointed him to replace Dorsey, was quickly praised by his successor.
He's been my choice for some time.
We've recently learned about a strategy to hit ambitious goals.
And I believe that strategy to be bold and right about a critical challenge is how we work to execute it against and deliver results.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We get it.
Ironically, Agrawal now oversees a company that is infamous for helping cancel culture ruin careers of public figures who sent pre-famed tweets that were not simply the quote of a comedian.
It's just wow that Twitter didn't wipe or at least spot check the new CEO's past tweets, considering how often tweets get resurfaced.
Now, there's some important context.
This guy tweeted out a quote from Asif Manvi of The Daily Show, in where he said, if they're not going to differentiate between Muslims and terrorists, why would I differentiate between white people and racists?
It was a quote.
A lot of conservatives pointed it out and said it was bad.
And then some leftists and establishment media people were like, conservatives aren't being honest with you about the context here.
I tweeted out simply saying, LOL.
Thought it was a funny quote.
That's it.
And I thought people should see it.
No, I didn't.
I knew it was a quote, but ultimately I didn't put any context or opinion in what I said other than it made me laugh.
But the reality is, this is a guy who's tweeting out political statements.
From Asif Manvi.
This is a guy who said we're not to be bound by the First Amendment.
This is a guy who, like Jack Dorsey, is insinuating our goal is to be a global company.
The values of the United States, for which your company was founded in, are not the same as, say, the Soviet Union, or India, or, you know, South Africa, for instance, or Kenya.
And thus, there is no global standard.
Quote, our role is not to be bound by the First Amendment, but our role is to serve a healthy public conversation, and our moves are reflective of things that we believe lead to a healthier public conversation, Agrawal said in a 2020 interview.
This is with Technology Reviews Editor-in-Chief, Gideon Litchfield.
The kinds of things that we do about this is focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed, and oh, how they, how they have changed.
Let me explain to you how they've changed by going back to Twitter Safety's, Twitter's website.
They say, there are growing concerns about the misuse of media and information that is not available elsewhere online as a tool to harass, intimidate, and reveal the identities of individuals.
Sharing personal media such as images or videos can potentially violate a person's privacy and may lead to emotional or physical harm.
The misuse of private media can affect everyone, but can have a disproportionate effect on women, activists, dissidents, and members of minority communities.
When we receive a report that a tweet contains unauthorized private media, we will now take action in line with our range of enforcement options.
While our existing policies and Twitter rules cover explicit instances of abusive behavior, this update will allow us to take action on media that is shared without any explicit abusive content, provided it's posted without the consent of the person depicted.
This is part of our ongoing work to align our safety policies with human rights standards, and it will be enforced globally starting today.
Let me stress that.
They say.
It will allow them to take action on media that is shared without any explicit abusive content, so long as it's posted without the consent of the person depicted.
A lot of people like sharing videos of me without my consent.
Should I not just be like, okay, purge them all?
Unless I give you consent on my videos, you are causing me emotional harm.
It's crazy, isn't it?
And the fact that they say it's going to affect activists more, we know what they're basically saying.
When the Hunter Biden story came out, well, actually, let me show you this right here.
Here's a new rule.
New.
Media of private individuals without permission of the person depicted.
That's it.
That's it.
Media of a private individual without the permission of the person depicted.
Define private.
Were the Covington kids private individuals?
Maybe.
And then you could say, hey, take this video down.
Maybe that's why they're trying to address this.
But are they likely going to defend right-wingers and MAGA individuals?
Of course not.
We know that's not how the game is played.
Let me show you.
From the New York Post, Miranda Devine writes, media helped hide the real Joe Biden by censoring Hunter stories.
Now, this is not just social media.
This is media in general.
She writes, the president's plummeting popularity, especially among independents, reflects a growing realization among voters that Joe Biden is not the man who they thought they had voted for.
There's a good reason for their disenchantment.
They were denied the normal due diligence the media is supposed to conduct on presidential candidates.
It's been more than a year since the Post established the first of a series of damning stories about then-candidate Biden based on material of his son Hunter's laptop.
It's been more than a year since Facebook and Twitter colluded with Democrat-friendly media to censor a story that reflected badly on their preferred candidate less than three weeks before the election.
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey blithely admitted after the election that locking the post's account for two weeks on the basis of a non-existent hacking offense was a mistake.
Facebook has never revealed the results of the fact check it used as pretext for blocking the post.
It likely never occurred because Facebook never contacted key recipients of emails we published from the laptop.
But the damage was done.
The coordinated censorship of America's oldest newspaper, with more than 80 million readers online alone, amounted to election interference.
And, um, am I supposed to assume they're sad about that?
No.
I don't think so.
Now, they've tried to issue their clarifications, which I did mention before.
They're saying, look, look, look, it can affect dissidents and all that stuff.
And they say images and videos that show people participating in public events, like protests, sporting events, would generally not violate this policy.
Generally.
That means it will.
It means they're just worried about a backlash right now from those who support free speech.
In a tweet from Andy Ngo, he says, Twitter support needs to clarify what this new policy specifically applies to.
The policy, as I read it, gives arbiters at Twitter the ability to determine on a case-by-case basis what is in the public interest and what is not.
The policy will be abused to silence journalists.
Well, not Democrat ones.
It's not going to silence any leftist ones.
I mean, for the most part.
It's likely just going to silence people like, I don't know, Andy Ngo.
Twitter news, how Twitter's new woke CEO, Parag Agrawal, will be paid a $12 million bonus to speed up changes, just Bitcoin payments, moderations by users, and targeted ads after investors said Jack Dorsey moved too slowly.
Alright.
Bitcoin payments?
Okay.
That's good news.
That's great news.
The price of Bitcoin will probably start going up as more adoption occurs, and I like that idea.
Jack Dorsey, I guess, was too slow on that front.
Moderations by users, interesting.
I'd be curious to see what their plan is.
Minds.com, M-I-N-D-S dot com, has a jury system, probably the smartest plan for dealing with content, you know, rule violations.
Here's how it works.
You post something on Minds, and someone says, hey, that's bad, so I'll flag it.
It then goes to a panel of jurors, who will all vote on whether or not they believe the content is actually violating any rules.
Isn't that smart?
There's no... For the most part, the judge, the company, doesn't determine whether or not to remove it.
They determine whether or not users randomly selected want it removed.
The Daily Mail says, As of Monday, Parag Agrawal, 37, has been promoted to... We understand.
The move was effective immediately.
Investors were critical of Twitter's slow growth, blaming Dorsey's slow decision-making and hoped that Agrawal could foster speedier improvements.
He joined in 2011, this we get.
His Agrawal, worth $1.52 million, will receive an annual salary of $1 million, plus bonuses and stock units valued at $12.5 million to make decisions and implement them faster.
A $1,000,000 salary.
What is that?
Is that $83,333?
Am I getting my math wrong?
83 and then 2 and I think I might be getting my math wrong.
I don't know.
It's probably around there somewhere.
$80,000 a month or so.
Wow.
That's a lot of money.
I suppose though for a CEO, it's not all that much money.
But, um, what do you think happened after they appointed this guy?
The investors were upset.
Let me show you.
Twitter stock is down, in the past five days, 7.2%.
Bravo, Twitter.
When this guy came out, when the words emerged that he had said about not being bound by the First Amendment, we get it, but people start getting worried that this guy's not going to know what he's doing.
Now, When Jack Dorsey, this is hilarious.
Reminds me of Futurama.
When Jack Dorsey announced that he was resigning, Twitter went from $47 per share up to $51.88 per share.
Huge spike.
You ever see the Futurama episode?
Where they're trying to sell Planet Express, and it's, you know, it's owned by Farnsworth, the old guy.
The 80s guy, CEO, is maybe a bit esoteric, but it's funny.
So anyway.
The actual CEO who's driven the stock price up, he was a new guy who came in, ends up dying.
He's an 80s guy.
And so then Fry, the main character, is like, I'm gonna be handing over this company to a man of, you know, merit, and the stock price is skyrocketing behind him, a distinguished professor, and then it goes way up.
It's like Hubert Farnsworth.
And then Farnsworth is shown to be like a doddering old fool, and the price just collapses to like three cents or something.
This is what it reminds me of.
Jack Dorsey's like, I'm gonna be quitting.
And everyone's like, yay!
And then the stock skyrockets.
And then Parag Agarwal is like, and I'll be taking over.
And then they go, oh.
And then it just spikes straight down.
Look at this.
Before the announcement that Dorsey was leaving, it was floating about $47.
Now, it's at $43.
Because censorship is bad across the board.
Let's talk about how bad it gets.
Let me show you how bad it gets.
We have the story, of course, that you've seen.
Media helped hide the real Joe Biden by censoring Hunter stories.
The key thing here is that Miranda Devine mentions that Facebook and Twitter colluded with Democrat-friendly media to hide the real.
Hunter and Joe Biden.
Let me show you Social Blade.
A lot of people, as I mentioned earlier in the segment, want to celebrate and cheer because CNN's ratings are in the gutter.
Now, of course, we can see that we have this here.
January 5th, 2021, CNN had a spike.
They went from 50 million views to 110 million views.
As of right now, in the past 30 days, CNN... Wait, what?
Total views weekly.
Why is it these numbers are off?
Anyway, look.
The hard metric.
Oh, okay, I'm sorry.
Am I looking at something wrong?
It says here CNN in one week in November got 24 million.
Yes, that's correct.
24 million views because they've made 100 million views in one month.
This 100 million number, 110 million was not one month, it was a week.
In one week in January, of course, January 6, 100 million views.
100 million.
CNN averages 3.415 million views per day.
They get 3,333 subscribers per day.
That's big.
CNN is doing really well on YouTube because YouTube is propping them up.
YouTube puts them on the front page.
And that's the disadvantage that we all have.
And let me show you the depravity of CNN.
You may be familiar with the CNN scandal.
Legal Insurrection writes, Chris Cuomo reportedly uses media resources to get info on his brother's accusers.
I'll simplify that story for you.
Andrew Cuomo, Democrat governor from New York, who used the fact that his brother is on CNN to lie and manipulate, and it's insane, actually got assistance from his media CNN personality brother to help him with the allegations against him.
His brother was actually not only trying to write the response, the PR response, which is insane, considering it works for CNN, but also was seeking to stalk the accusers, the victims of Andrew Cuomo.
That happened.
And what happens next?
Do they fire the guy?
No.
Dave Weigel.
Not a fan.
He's written fake news before and I've called him out on it.
He says, if some news channel intern did what Chris Cuomo did, they'd have been fired one second after these docs were published.
Look at this.
He has the story from CNN itself.
CNN to conduct thorough review of documents showing Chris Cuomo's intimate role advising brother Andrew Cuomo.
Written by Brian Stelter, Oliver Darcy, and Sonia Mauge.
I'm probably pronouncing that wrong.
Mauge, this is CNN reporting on their own internal conflict, and that's It's fair.
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 But, um, you know, I find this interesting.
Brian Stelter.
What's his attitude?
He's come out and he's mentioned the story, sure.
here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
Dan Kennedy said, well now, not only is Chris Cuomo on tonight,
but he's talking about Omicron as if there was nothing else for him to address.
Brian Sutter says, For what it's worth, when Chris Cuomo addressed his actions on the air back in August, he said, This will be my final word on it.
And he hasn't addressed the matter on TV since.
Bravo.
Bravo, CNN.
Corruption.
Absolute corruption.
Stephen Miller says, look at the shameless-ish stelter talking about Cuomo like they don't share office space.
A political PR operation, not a news network.
Good boy, Brian.
March on out there and defend CNN's honor.
And he does.
Don Lemon also did the same thing.
thing.
You're one of the kindest people on the planet.
Don Lemon's fawning handoff to under fire CNN co-host Cuomo was branded nauseating after
Chris lied about the extent of his involvement in brother Andrew's scandal.
CNN is not news.
You can argue that CNN is comparable to my channel or website or any other one.
Fine, sure.
I've got political opinions and I do an opinion show and I have no problem saying that.
But CNN, the most trusted name in news, propped up on the front page, establishment political position supporting the narrative, This is the importance of a free and open internet.
YouTube is going to put CNN on the front page.
They're going to give them preferential treatment and access.
CNN is going to keep lying.
They're going to prop up really awful people like the Cuomos.
Channels like mine will get shadowbanned and relegated to the corners, and YouTube's attitude is probably like, don't ban them outright, it'll create a backlash, but slowly just excise them, so that in 10 years, all that remains is CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News.
And maybe not even Fox News, depending on what they choose to promote.
I think the idea they have is, these are the corporate cable channels, and it's what we want.
And we want to, you know, bring everything back together.
I'll admit there's a big problem with social media in that it allows a wedge to be driven between people to a great degree.
We have two different realities.
People who watch the mainstream media and believe nonsense, and people who get the truth because they investigate on their own and fact-check things.
Some people might fact-check on their own a bit too far, and then end up reading nonsense and believing conspiracy theories, because that's not fact-checking, but you get wrapped up in that stuff.
But for the most part, people who are discerning, who read the news and watch the videos, have an idea of what's really going on.
And here's a scary scenario.
The machine is churning in one direction.
With Twitter's announcement, the direction is that independent reporting and media will not be allowed to function.
And, of course, it'll be like grandfathering you in.
So, are they going to go after Andy Ngo?
Some people have pointed out that not being allowed to share a private individual's, you know, information means you can't determine what is newsworthy unless CNN does.
So they'll argue, oh, Andy Ngo's doxing.
He posted a video of someone in Portland or whatever.
And knows a journalist.
Ah, but CNN has to publish it.
If CNN publishes it, then it's newsworthy.
It'll be interesting to see how they implement this.
What, I can just publish on TimCast.com and then screengrab it and put it on YouTube and be like, it's already on my own website, publicly available with millions of views.
Is that the game that's going to be played?
I think they'd still go after me or anybody else.
The ultimate goal... Well, I shouldn't say YouTube, I should say Twitter.
The ultimate goal is one by one, they are turning the knob one degree at a time towards hard left corporate establishment media narrative.
And that's the problem.
I certainly agree social media is divisive and it's driven a wedge between people creating two different realities and it's horrifying.
But it's driving people towards the matrix, the fake reality, the insane lies.
And we don't want to go there.
We just want everyone to be functioning and knowing the truth.
If people knew the truth, they'd make better decisions, and the world would function way better.
It's a fact.
There are powerful people, however.
Powerful people who want to lie to you, to take power from you, to convince you to do things that you probably shouldn't do.
Like, give away your resources, give away your money, or not stand up for yourself.
There are people who said... Here's a good example.
When Let's Go Brandon was going viral, there were a bunch of conservatives who said, you know, it's a bad meme, don't use it.
Because no one knows what it means.
These people are not bad people.
These are a lot of good people I know and have had on Tim Castellaw saying this.
And I said, Let's Go Brandon, as a meme, forces people to ask the question, why is this being said?
So when they hear people chanting Let's Go Brandon, they say, what does that mean?
If they hear people chanting F Joe Biden, they're going to be like, yeah, I get it, I get it.
And they're going to ignore it.
But having to go online and look something up or ask someone might spark a conversation.
So it was a brilliant meme.
That's what we need to be careful of.
Being discouraged, refusing to stand up, but most importantly, the issue is that it's not so much about the individual saying it's a bad meme.
Maybe it's not a perfect example.
It's that on social media, they're going to slowly push you.
Not instantly, not right off the bat, but they're going to slowly push you into the area they want you to be, to only report the things they want reported, to only comment on the things they want commented on.
Without Twitter or YouTube or Facebook and a free press?
Well, we're going to end up living under the boot of lies.
We'll all be wrapped up in that matrix.
And maybe, maybe they can't win though.
Maybe there's too many people who have woken up to what's going on.
They're challenging the lies.
They're challenging the manipulation.
They're seeing through it all.
When they say, no, no, no, we're not going to, we'll never ship people from, you know, their homes to these Australian quarantine camps.
And then they do.
Right now in Australia, here's a good example, the government is claiming that I'm lying because they specifically, explicitly stated they were having the military take people from their homes in an area called Benjari to a quarantine camp.
They said it was conspiracy theories, but it's their own words.
People who aren't allowed to leave their house to eat in Australia are then told, either taken by force or voluntarily as they call it, even though I say that's insane, They say you can't leave your house not even to eat, not even to get food.
And then they, what, come and offer you a ride to a quarantine camp where they'll feed you?
A lot of people will be like, please, I'm hungry and I can't leave my house.
They'll take that deal.
How do we know about this stuff?
Social media.
How do we know about what's going on with the Uighur Muslims?
Social media.
Give it 10 or 20 years.
They're homogenizing this machine.
It's kind of crazy.
The internet used to be so much bigger, you know?
Now it's like, what, just Facebook and Google?
It's hard to know what'll happen, but the censorship will get worse.
So go to TimCast.com, support our work, and go over to YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL, subscribe, because we'll have another segment, the live show's coming up at 8 p.m.
And I know, we're on YouTube the same as everybody else, I get it, because we want to hold this ground as long as possible, that's why we're promoting TimCast.com.
Check it out at 8 p.m., YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL, thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
Kyle Rittenhouse is reportedly not going to attend ASU.
His life is still being upended by what happened on that night in Kenosha, and even though he may have won his criminal trial, the culture war persists, and I believe this story is extremely important.
There's a lot going on to be somewhat optimistic about, I suppose.
I mean, Jussie Smollett is on trial, and the Osandiro brothers, who apparently are saying he hired them to stage a hate crime hoax, are gonna testify against him.
And that's good, right?
Not all of these villains get away with it.
But when you take a look at what's going on with Kyle Rittenhouse's life, that he now cannot live a normal life, I think it shows that bad things are still happening.
There's still reason to be pessimistic, and I hate to say it, because I don't want to be Debbie Downer all the time.
But here we are.
Kyle is not going to get a normal life, and most people know it.
Following the criminal trial, sure, he's not in prison, but what does he get?
He can't go to college.
He wanted to.
He wanted to be a nurse.
I believe that was what he was saying.
He wanted to go to school for nursing.
And maybe learn how to save people's lives.
We get a bunch of Republicans being like, intern for me!
It's just... I think it's gross.
I mean, look, especially if I was, you know, 17 or 18, I'm not gonna intern for you.
Are you kidding me?
I'm gonna write a book and go on a TV show.
Get out of here with your intern position.
But how many people were like, oh, we want to have an...
Look, after the trial ended, Steven Crowder, someone apparently said, like, get him on the show, and he's like, we're gonna wait and, you know, let things calm down.
I said the exact same thing.
I'm not gonna be hitting this kid up.
It would be great to do an interview with him, but we get it, man.
It was a daunting saga.
But now he's got a bunch of student activists still trying to destroy his life.
There was a campaign at ASU to get him kicked out of the school, and sure enough, now he's reportedly quitting ASU.
And what's he supposed to do?
Could he safely walk around campus?
No.
They'd attack him.
They've threatened his life to an extreme degree.
This is the culture war.
This is things getting worse.
Or still being bad.
If you think that a criminal trial is the peak of the battle in the culture war, you're wrong.
And then I have to bring up the Ahmaud Arbery trial.
It's been swept under the rug, basically.
No one cares.
And I gotta say, I think morally and ethically, it was the wrong verdict.
But where are the independents?
Where are the conservatives?
Where are the libertarians to be like, whoa, whoa, whoa, we need to have a conversation about the Ahmaud Arbery trial.
Because we are not serving strong morals, ethics and making society a better place by simply allowing emotional and vindictive people to use the legal system for retribution, which is what they've been doing, which is what they did with Ahmaud Arbery and what they're doing with what they did with Kyle Rittenhouse.
Now, I said this before, as it pertains to Ahmaud Arbery, to the letter of the law.
I think the jury got it right.
Absolutely.
Maybe some questionable stuff there, but the judge instructed them, look, if the citizen's arrest was not legal, then you've got a felony, trying to detain Ahmaud Arbery, and thus, felony murder.
There's a lot of questions about what you would do if you were surrounded by a bunch of vehicles and a guy had a shotgun and told you to stop, and whether you'd be like, okay, or you'd be like, no way, dude, I'm not going down without a fight.
The issue there is that Ahmed Arbery was a felony burglary suspect.
Apparently, the police had gone around with images of Arbery because of the suspected felony burglary.
And so when this guy's running through their neighborhood, he doesn't live there, parents are scared, a gun gets stolen from a vehicle, other things had been stolen, and here's the suspect.
These guys, the McMichaels, believed they had probable cause to stop him until the police arrived.
They had called the police in the past.
Police were never able to get there on time to stop him, so they said, we're gonna stop him.
Another man, I forgot the guy's name was, simply followed in a vehicle filming to see what would happen.
That guy got felony murder.
You see, this is the issue.
I saw Tulsi Gabbard come out, and she was like, this is the right verdict.
And I was like, what about it's the right verdict?
No, no, no, for real, like, I can understand the judge gave an instruction on the citizen's arrest charge.
Branca, the self-defense expert, said that the judge probably issued the incorrect ruling because these guys had probable cause.
And I think if you look at it, it's a horrifying situation.
We don't want it to happen.
There's probably some criminal culpability here.
But to have these dudes go down for felony murder, look, I'm looking at this Kyle Rittenhouse story, and the first thing I see is just... So, he's losing.
I mean, it's great that he's not in prison, but why was he put on trial in the first place?
He was attacked!
Gage Grosskreutz, the dude who pulled the gun on him, should be on trial for aggravated assault at the very least!
And he's not!
So all of these independent libertarian-types conservatives are all cheering, and I think, okay, it's good.
If you're sinking in quicksand, and then you're struggling to get out while everybody watches, and the state puts their boot on your head to make it harder, but you still pull yourself out and climb out of that quicksand, we'll all cheer for you.
Congratulations, you weren't consumed by the trap.
Meanwhile, everything about it was just wrong, was just bad, and the people who should actually be on trial aren't.
And then I just see these conservatives cheering for what happened in the Arbery trial, and I'm like, look man, I don't think Arbery should have lost his life.
But he also did charge Travis McMichael.
Going around the truck, flanking, you know, around the truck, and then jumping at him and grabbing the shotgun.
And you can argue justifi- I'm not saying you can't argue justification for the assault.
Like I said, you get surrounded, you know, you're gonna be like, hey man, I'm not going down without a fight.
You got a gun on me and there's a car behind me?
That's why they got the driver on felony murder.
But just think about how absurd all of this is.
Students protest, Kyle quits.
His life is ruined.
Okay, not completely ruined.
You know, the joke is that he'll be doing CPAC speeches, but no, I think it's fair to say, in many respects, it's irreversibly changed, and not necessarily for the better.
First of all, how much money did he need to actually win this trial?
How much time did he spend in jail?
And now that he gets out, can he live his life the way he wanted to?
No.
He never will be able to.
I know, I know.
I'm ranting a lot of this stuff, but it's just... I don't want to be too pessimistic.
You know what I mean?
It's good that he won the trial, but let's be real.
over the verdict in the Arbery trial because conservatives are so weak that they're willing to sink their own battleship if it means they can save their submarine.
You know what I mean?
Like, well, we got Kyle Rittenhouse out.
The left is really mad.
Let's appease them and use this to claim that we're correct.
And I'm just like, yo, just be correct.
You don't need to sacrifice people, you know, because they were chasing after a felony burglary suspect simply because you wanted Kyle Rittenhouse to be found not guilty.
But that's what it is.
Seems like it.
Tucson.com reports, a Sun Devil no more.
Rittenhouse quits ASU.
Having been admitted as an online student to ASU earlier this fall, Rittenhouse is reportedly no longer enrolled in classes there.
Rittenhouse said while on trial that he was studying nursing at ASU, but a spokesperson for the college later told Arizona Republic that while Rittenhouse had enrolled as a non-degree-seeking online student before his trial began, he was not enrolled in ASU's Edson College of Nursing and Health Innovation.
Last week, the Chicago Tribune reported that Rittenhouse began ASU's online program on October 13th, just weeks before his homicide trial started, and that he would like to re-enroll in classes and live on campus now that he has been acquitted.
Rittenhouse, however, is no longer enrolled in any courses at ASU that are scheduled to end this week, university officials announced Monday.
So, maybe it's not related to the activism.
I don't know.
But here's the story.
Students want Arizona State University to kick out Kyle Rittenhouse.
A coalition of student groups called Rittenhouse a violent, bloodthirsty murder.
I think it's a murderer.
Get a copy, EditorTimCast.com.
Oh, wait, that's me.
All right, well, anyway.
Student activists at Arizona State University are advocating for Kyle Rittenhouse to be expelled.
Rittenhouse revealed last week that he had been taking classes through the university online.
Students for Justice in Palestine, the Multicultural Solidarity Coalition, and the Mexican-American student group Mecca de As launched a campaign to have Rittenhouse expelled.
They are demanding that ASU release a statement against white supremacy and racist murderer Kyle Rittenhouse.
And that's a quote on them, not on us.
Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges, this we understand.
He was publicly denounced by most major media outlets during the subsequent year, even Joe Biden.
A Students for Socialism spokesperson told Fox News, the case's jury effectively gives right-winged individuals the license to kill other individuals who protest for human rights.
And if that's the case, the jury was instructed to make a decision.
And they said, these guys didn't know if a crime committed, and they tried to stop him with a gun.
You got a serious question there.
And that's why I'm like, on the instructions, the jury made their call, and it does make sense.
Morally and ethically, I think we have a challenge.
We have a problem.
You have the right being, you know, celebratory in the verdict here, and you have them... I don't know.
It's just... doesn't sit right with me.
um that you could be living in a community that's being plagued by burglaries and you're told by the police this is an image of the suspect then you're told that's the guy he's running now according to the law the citizen's arrest law it says that if you want to arrest someone you need to have immediate knowledge however if the crime if suspected as a felony And the person is attempting to escape, you need only probable cause.
It doesn't say however, it just says if the crime is... And that, Andrew Branca, the self-defense expert, says that it reads like two separate clauses.
That basically, if they're committing a crime, you need immediate knowledge.
However, however is being the word that needed to be included.
Otherwise, the reading of the law makes no sense if the prosecution said it.
The prosecution was like, no, no, no matter what the crime is, it says you need to have immediate knowledge.
On that, the jury convicted.
Conservatives cheered.
Progressives cheered.
Leftists on Twitter started tweeting cope at anybody who was questioning the verdict.
And there was no outrage from the right.
They don't care.
Because they don't actually want to get their hands dirty.
They don't actually want to challenge something that doesn't make sense.
Many do.
It's interesting when I see people in the comments being like, yo, something's wrong about this.
And it's interesting for me to see people, you know, like conservative podcasters and people like Tulsi Gabbard.
And I'm a fan of Tulsi, mind you.
Be like, this was the right call.
It was a racist murder.
Look, it wasn't.
I don't think it was.
I looked at the facts.
I look at that story.
And my point here is with the Kyle Rittenhouse stuff is that the culture war is a raging, and boy, does it feel like in many ways we are a losing.
I'm not saying we're going to lose, and we as in the freedom-oriented, because certainly it doesn't mean left or right, that's rather meaningless.
There are two different universes here, okay?
There is a left and a right, I suppose.
And on one side, you have two different political compasses.
The left has their Bill Crystals and Lincoln projects that are right-wing in the fictional Matrix universe, and they're left-wing.
And then the freedom-loving side has their left and right Matrix.
I guess it's really simple.
There's actually not two different universes.
It's just the authoritarian and libertarian wings of the political compass.
You know, we're all on the libertarian spectrum being like, freedom and you do your thing.
And then all the authoritarians, establishment leftists, many of the Bernie Sanders supporters, they're totally authoritarian because they advocate for violence.
They lie.
They cheat.
They steal.
So for them, this is a victory.
If someone who's not from your community is running around, is seen breaking into, you know, entering property on numerous occasions, five times, while burglaries are happening, and this is the suspect, you are not allowed to do anything to stop it.
I don't know.
I mean, maybe they really should have just gone unarmed.
But then there's another big challenge there.
If the McMichaels didn't have that weapon, when Arbery charged at him, they would have fought.
Dude may have run away.
But they also knew that a gun had gone missing.
I'm sorry, a gun had been stolen from a vehicle.
And if they showed up without a weapon, this guy could have shot them trying to escape.
Should they make that assumption when there's a felony burglary suspect?
They said they just wanted to stop him to talk to him.
And that's fair, I believe, if he's suspected of committing crimes in the neighborhood.
And there's video evidence that he was illegally entering property.
And the law states that you don't... There's no trespassing.
That never happened.
A lot of us thought he was just on this property and he was trespassing.
It's not.
It's actually felony burglary.
The fact that he just entered a domicile without permission in the middle of the night, it is suspected that his intent was to commit felony.
That's the law.
At least that's how it was explained in the court proceedings.
No one disputed that.
The challenge here is, were the McMichaels allowed to keep in bare arms?
And the answer is yes.
So, if you have a weapon, and you pull up to the end of a street, and someone's running, and you say, hey, hold on, stop, and they attack you, did you really try to detain them?
Well, I suppose the problem is these guys were like, we were doing a citizen's arrest.
Yeah, they sold themselves out.
Don't, you know, don't talk to the cops.
Get a lawyer.
The guy who drove behind Aubrey and just filmed it, he gave the footage to his lawyer who released it.
And that's why they all went to prison.
And again, I think there's some criminal culpability, potentially.
But I have to imagine, you know, if this is the precedent being set, that strange people will just come to your neighborhood.
They don't live there.
They live from, you know, 20 miles away.
It's remarkable.
It's absolutely remarkable.
They said Kyle Rittenhouse was, he crossed state lines of the weapon, he had no business being there, he wasn't from there, and I'm just like, okay, Ahmed Arbery had no business being in this community.
He was just jogging.
He drove to a small suburban town plagued by burglaries to jog?
What a coincidence!
And he was just checking out that property in the middle of the night.
You know what I think?
I think Ahmed Arbery was the burglar.
I think it's extremely likely he was the guy who stole the gun.
He should not have lost his life.
I don't believe in the death penalty.
But the problem is...
When he is that suspect, when the police actually say, here's the video, here's the photograph of the guy, and then you see him and you're like, we want to stop him, but what do we do?
He might be armed.
And then he attacks you.
You go to prison while conservatives celebrate Yay!
That doesn't sit right.
Again, like I said, letter of the law.
They said that citizen's arrest was not, if it was not good, then it's felony murder.
Because you tried to detain someone with a weapon and they fought back and died because of it.
That I understand.
So what do you do?
How do you seek justice in these situations, man?
I don't know.
And the challenge is, for the most part, that, I mean, it's clear as day, this dude was not a member of this community and he had no business being there.
I mean, you can walk in any neighborhood you want in America, that I understand.
I'm just saying, like, when a community is being plagued by burglaries, of course the left is going to make it a racial issue.
They're going to say absolutely, you know, oh, Tim's being racist.
What does it mean no business?
I mean, I'm saying I don't live in that community.
If I just showed up and started walking around, you know, for months and entering private property over and over again, people are going to be like, who are you and what are you doing?
Stuff is going missing.
It doesn't matter what your race is.
And now these guys are getting locked up for it.
Kyle Rittenhouse may have won, but now he's still being attacked by the left.
They will never give him a fair- He will never have a normal life.
He will never be able to just go to college, go to those college parties, meet some young, you know, meet a young woman, and then, you know, have a family.
He's gonna be in hiding.
He's gonna face death threats.
He even said he may have to change his name.
And then what?
Plastic surgery?
If he changes his name, a lot of companies when you hire, they say, have you ever gone by another name?
Well, he can lie.
I suppose he'll have to.
Because if he says Kyle Rittenhouse, they're going to be like, are you the guy who got arrested in Florida?
Which I can't explain why, but yikes.
Or are you the dude who went on trial in Kenosha?
You think a company is going to want to hire Kyle Rittenhouse?
They're gonna be like, dude, we're gonna- we'll get attacked.
This is the culture war.
We will get absolutely attacked by the left.
They will scream, they will protest, they will boycott, they'll accuse us.
Sorry, we're not hiring you.
So what happens?
Well, let me see what we have here.
Let me just point out, even though he's not going there, they're still planning on protesting him, so sure.
And we got this story.
Charlie Kirk poses with Kyle Rittenhouse ahead of podcast interview.
This is Kyle Rittenhouse's only option.
To embrace the right to become an intern, to work for a member of Congress, to go on podcast, maybe sell a book and give speeches.
And he gets mocked for it.
I think it was The Onion.
They put out that story saying Kyle Rittenhouse sentenced to 45 years of CPAC speeches.
A lot of people said he's gonna become a darling of the right, he's gonna write a book, it's gonna sell, and uh... what's he supposed to do?
You think he can go and get a job at Burger King at this point?
You think he's gonna be able to go and become a nurse?
He'll walk in that room and someone will see like Nurse Rittenhouse and they'll be like, no way.
A lot of people probably wouldn't realize, but the hospital wouldn't hire him.
His only option now is to be thrust into the culture war.
And it's sad.
I think it's a defeat.
I'm sure many on the right will probably celebrate it and be like, good, no, we want, you know, his voice and... I want a world where you can be like, look man, I don't want to be involved, I want to just live my life and be peaceful, but we're in a war.
And that's the reality.
And Kylo Ren doesn't have a choice.
Truth be told, he decided to enter the fray.
And now he's gonna live with those consequences.
He didn't have to go down that night for, you know, for whatever reason.
He decided to.
And because of that, he was thrust into this epic, we'll call it.
I don't want to say it was an adventure.
I say, you know, something horrifying, but tragedy, and disastrous, and strife.
And now he'll have to live with that.
And to me, I see all this stuff, and I'm just like, man, it never ends, does it?
It's unrelenting.
So let me say this to wrap things up.
Maybe I am a little pessimistic.
You know, it's cloudy out, and there's no sunlight, so maybe that's getting me down a little bit.
But maybe the reality is just that we are in a culture war.
It is not going to be easy to win it.
But I think if we stand strong and stay true to our values, we will.
So I hope Kyle Rittenhouse finds a path forward and maybe we'll see an appeal in the Ahmaud Arbery case over the ruling from the judge on the matter of the law that was improper.
I'm saying maybe the ruling will say it's improper.
I don't know.
I don't know.
I certainly don't like the idea that they did.
Look, it's tough.
The Aubrey one really is a coin toss for me.
I'm just saying it doesn't sit right.
It's not so cut and dry to just lock these guys up for the rest of their lives, especially the dude just filming.
But I'm not saying they did nothing wrong.
Absolutely not.
I'm saying there's criminal culpability there, but are we really just gonna like burn people at the stake?
Life in prison for these guys?
We'll see how it plays out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out.
We'll see you all then.
The criminal trial for Jussie Smollett is underway.
And the Smollett defense team has just offered up what may be the stupidest, but perhaps the only defense he could muster.
You see, on that fateful night three years ago, Jussie Smollett claimed that he was attacked
by two Trump supporters in the middle of the night, wee hours of the morning,
by, who were wearing MAGA hats and yelled, it's MAGA country, and they were in a part of Chicago
where no one really lives, or at least no one's out in the wee hours of the morning,
threw a noose around his neck and splashed him with bleach or something,
and it is the stupidest story in the world.
Now, most of you know this, but considering the story itself was so dumb,
It's no surprise that Jussie Smollett is offering up an even stupider story.
Smollett attorney claims Ossendairo brothers are sophisticated criminals who set him up.
Oh man, when in doubt, Implicate the people you hired to instigate, to stage the hoax hate crime.
Jussie, uh, why did you pay the Osandiro brothers?
Well, Jussie claims it was for personal training.
The Osandiros have apparently told the police they were hired to stage the hate crime.
Now, I'd like you to imagine this scenario before we get into the latest story we have here from the Daily Wire.
I want you to imagine an innocent, unsuspecting actor on the show Empire, Jussie Smollett.
And the El Senderos, a few days before the alleged incident, say, hey Jussie, why don't you come with us real quick?
We want to show you something.
And they show up to the site in question.
And then they're talking to Jussie, and then Jussie points up at a surveillance camera for no reason.
Just says, hey guys, I just noticed there's a camera right there for no reason.
And he looks at it and points at it.
And Yozundaira's like, sure.
All right, Jussie, we're gonna leave.
We'll see you later.
Little did Jussie know, he was being set up.
And it was just by pure happenstance he pointed out the surveillance camera.
Well, that's what the police have said he did, according to the video they have.
I mean, we'll see it in court.
Now, poor old Jussie gets a call from the Osindaros who say, hey, can you send us a check for several thousand dollars for personal training?
And Jussie was like, sure thing, buddy!
Signs it off and hands it to him.
Falling right into the Osindaros' trap!
The Osindaro brothers now laughing and high-fiving.
We got him!
Sure enough, when Jussie goes out for a simple Subway sandwich at 2 in the morning in Chicago, the Osen Diver brothers stalked him, wearing hoodies and MAGA caps with a noose, and they went after him, and they got him.
Why?
Because they knew that they had entrapped Jussie, and that he would then claim he was attacked by Trump supporters, and that would make his salary go up and give him press attention, which Would benefit the Osindaro brothers by... Jesse would have more money, I guess?
And maybe... Give some to them?
Hopefully?
Is that your argument?
This is Jussie Smollett's defense?
It's incredible.
But I suppose the guy doesn't have one in the first place, because nobody believes he's innocent.
But what could he do?
If he comes out and says he stages a hoax hate crime, he is done.
I mean, he's already done.
Dave Chappelle went after him.
Juicy Smoolyay.
Let's read this from the Daily Wire.
They say, former Empire actor, Jussie Smollett's attorney, claimed in his opening statement, that his client was the victim of two sophisticated
criminals, brothers Abimbola and Olabinjo Osundairo, who did not like
Smollett and were apparently endeavoring to set him up. Oh, I love this narrative.
Smollett, who was charged with felony disorderly conduct because he allegedly paid the brothers to
stage a fake racist and homophobic hate crime and filing false police report, claimed that he was
attacked on a cold night in Chicago by two former Trump supporters, former Trump supporters, who put
a rope around his neck and informed him this is MAGA country.
I mean, I just love that line because, as we all know, Chicago certainly isn't.
Smollett trial opening.
Smollett's attorney is telling the jury that Smollett is a victim.
The Osindaro brothers are sophisticated criminals that did not like Jesse.
So what was their plan?
How was staging this attack on him setting him up for anything?
It would help his career and everybody knows it.
Prosecutors are gonna slam-dunk this.
Smollett's attorney argued there was an elephant in the room.
Assumptions.
Once he was finished speaking, Smollett walked across the room to where his mother was sitting and appeared to wipe a tear from his eye as he reached to hug her.
The prosecution's opening statement was focused, Finn said, on driving home the allegation that Smollett had staged his own fake hate crime.
Prosecutor is repeatedly calling Smollett's incident a fake hate crime.
Really using the word fake a lot in front of the jury.
I want to make sure I do something real quick.
I mean, I think it's reasonable to assume that Jesse Smollett is guilty, based on all the evidence we have so far.
He should be presumed innocent, however, which is why I'll still say allegedly staged this crime, as much as my personal opinion is, yeah, he did it.
I also want to stress, just think about this for two seconds, what would happen if it turns out, in court, the evidence is laid out by the defense, And it turns out Justice Millett really is innocent.
I mean, look, many of us have been the victim of lies from the media and the police.
In the Kyle Rittenhouse case, the police absolutely were putting on BS on the stand to try and get Kyle Rittenhouse convicted.
The media lied about everything.
So what if it turns out everything we think we know about the Jesse Smollett trial was wrong?
I will say, I will always entertain that possibility.
The evidence that comes out in trial is often very different, often more in-depth, and it may turn out Maybe these guys really did set him up, but I just want to point out, with that being said, I would be willing to bet a large sum of money.
I'll tell you this, if I went into a casino, and I walk up to the Jussie Smollett betting table, and they were like, this bet costs $100, and you win $1, and the bet is that Jussie Smollett is guilty, I'd be like, I'll take that bet.
Any day of the week.
I'll put a thousand bucks on it, get free lunch.
Ten bucks, no problem.
I'd make that bet.
No joke.
I think every single person would rush and just stack all their money, being like, y'all are giving away free money.
That being said, that risk right there, there's a possibility that evidence comes out and we're all gonna go, whoa!
Could it be that Jesse was telling the truth?
Or at the very least, the story was more nuanced than we realized?
It's possible.
It absolutely is.
I'm not one to want to fall into those traps like they do with the Ahmaud Arbery case or the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
I don't trust the media to get all the facts right, and I watch the trials.
I watch the Rittenhouse trial more, mostly.
Well, I watch the Rittenhouse trial minute by minute, every day.
But the Arbery trial, I only saw little parts of.
So I could be absolutely wrong on the Arbery stuff, but the Rittenhouse stuff, I'm like, you know, we got to see the evidence.
And there was a lot of stuff I didn't know.
I didn't know that Rosenbaum had threatened his life twice.
More than one person testified about the death threat, the first death threat against Rittenhouse.
I didn't know that.
I did not know that.
And so you learn that in trial.
I already thought that Rittenhouse was innocent.
Now, here's the other thing, too.
We can entertain the exact same probability that evidence comes out that is laughably definitive.
Like a video of Jussie Smollett on the phone with Yeltsin and Dairos being like, here's the plan, guys.
Here's what we're gonna do.
And then you just be like, Jussie, why didn't you just plead out or something?
Finn also noted the prosecution focused heavily on the fact that Smollett had initially refused to hand over his cell phone when investigators had asked for it, arguing that it was almost unheard of for victims of hate crimes to deny official access to evidence, mainly because not having the evidence could prevent them from ever catching the perpetrator.
According to the prosecutor, the obvious reason for Smollett's refusal to hand over his phone was that he did not want investigators to see that he had contacted one of the Osandairo brothers.
That's a good point.
I will be fair, though.
I ain't handing over my phone.
Alright, look.
Someone could come in here and punch me in the face.
And if they're like, give me your phone, I'd be like, no!
I'm not doing it.
You know why?
I got crazy business stuff on my phone.
I've got corporate slack.
Sorry.
My phone is a very important computing device for my business.
I can, you know, let me know what you need from it.
If I'm the victim of a crime, I'm still not turning over my phone.
I just can't.
I need it for work.
So I think that's a stretch of an argument, to be honest.
Smollett is an actor.
He's got an agent.
He might be like, yo, if I turn over my phone, like, how am I gonna call my manager and my agent and deal with stuff?
I can't get a new phone and move the SIM card over.
I'll lose all my data.
I could port it, maybe.
But right now, these days, you've got two-factor authenticator stuff, where it can only be on that specific device, and transporting the codes over is annoying.
I'm trying to be fair here, alright?
According to two former federal prosecutors, Niyama Rahmani, who is not part of Smollett's case, the prosecutor's case is a good one.
The prosecution is strong because of corroborating independent evidence that is consistent with Smollett making a false report, she told Fox News.
What type of explanation can Smollett's attorney have to justify him contacting the brothers?
Romani admitted that he expects a guilty verdict and thinks Smollett is someone who doesn't deserve any type of break.
In fact, a legal expert believes the trial only brings more attention to Smollett's misconduct, which the public was starting to forget about since the incident occurred before the pandemic.
Whether Smollett, who is black and gay, testifies remains an open question.
The brothers are expected to testify at trial and repeat what they told police in the past, that Smollett paid them to carry out the attack in order to raise his public profile.
Los Angeles-based criminal defense attorney Silva Megerdichian told Fox News that even in the event of a conviction, she did not expect Smollett to serve prison time.
Smollett is facing six counts of essentially minor Class 4 felonies that carry a maximum sentence of three years in state prison.
The judge will consider that Smollett has no history of any arrests or convictions and thus will likely give him a probationary sentence.
Keeping that in mind, however, this was a case that got national attention and stirred a lot of anger that Smollett would stage this kind of grotesque racial attack.
As well, the city of Chicago spent a lot of money investigating these false charges.
Thus, I would not be surprised if the judge imposes some kind of sentence considering the nation is watching.
Here's what you need to understand.
These are felonies.
Now, I think it's six felonies.
I don't think it's four.
I don't know.
I think it's six counts.
Smollett will never travel internationally again.
His career is over.
He will never vote or own a gun.
Well, you know, he can move to the right state, and he will be able to.
But as a felon, dude's in trouble.
And he knows it.
Which is why he's pleading not guilty.
He has no choice.
There's another trial going on right now that a lot of people don't really seem to care about, and that's the Kim-Potter-Dante Wright shooting.
I think it's pretty important.
The other day, we had the jury selection in the Smollett criminal trial, and now we have jury selection in the manslaughter trial of the cop who killed Dante Wright.
This story's not getting nearly enough attention, and it should.
We have a lot of stuff going on right now in the culture war.
Kim Potter should be found not guilty.
You know what, man?
I'm just not feeling it.
All this stuff that's been going down, the Kyle Rittenhouse trial shouldn't have happened, the Kim Potter trial shouldn't have happened, the Ahmaud Arbery trial shouldn't have happened.
These cases should not have gone to trial or court.
These people shouldn't have been arrested.
Now, I will say, maybe that's not so true when it comes to the Ahmaud Arbery case.
I mean, there was definitely an investigation that needed to have happened.
But upon the investigation, they concluded that self-defense, right?
Felony suspect, I mentioned it in the previous segment, so I won't get too much back into it.
But with the Kimberly Potter story, When it happened, I was like, good.
Go to prison.
Have fun.
And it's an emotional response that I stand by.
But what I think, you know, emotionally versus, like, realistically, here's what I mean by this.
At the time, Kim Potter was serving as an officer in Minneapolis.
In Minnesota.
Not Minneapolis.
It was in Minnesota.
I think it was just outside of Minneapolis.
They were defunding the police.
Protests and riots all over the country about the police.
The George Floyd case.
And we saw the injustice at what was happening to many officers.
Now, I'll be the first person to come out and talk smack about bad cops.
New York City, 27 cops defended an illegal mural in front of Trump building, Black Lives Matter, that the mayor stole taxpayer money to paint.
And the cops were like, meh, I'll just, you know, we'll do what we're told.
We don't care if it's legal or not.
That, to me, should be a felony.
I mean, look, de Blasio stole taxpayer funds, illegally painted the street, and then asked the cops to abet him in that crime, and they said yes.
Those are criminals.
Those are despicable, vile, pathetic, loser criminals.
And they should be arrested and charged.
First, the mayor should, for stealing the money.
You know, he didn't get approval to do any of that garbage.
These are evil people.
When it comes to Kim Potter, she was trying to stop a suspect.
A criminal, right?
A suspect.
They tell him not to move, and he jumps in the car.
Now, I believe he had a gun.
It's been a while since I've gone through the story.
And she yells, Taser, Taser, Taser.
And then shoots him with, I believe, 9mm, which the police are equipped with.
Killing him.
And then she was shocked.
Oh no!
Oh no!
She yelled, Taser, Taser, Taser.
Immediately.
The narrative was that she accidentally shot him, and it was manslaughter.
The reality?
It was a justified shooting.
She could have pulled out her gun, intentionally, and just shot him.
The problem is, on video, she yells taser, taser, taser, and still, not enough evidence to say she did anything wrong.
But the police came out and said she meant to go for her taser, she made a mistake.
That was the stupidest thing they could have done.
She could have argued, I was yelling for them to get a taser, and I had my weapon ready, and when no one did, I fired because he posed a deadly threat.
You get pulled over.
Let me read a little bit, give you the context here.
So the veteran cop resigned two days after the shooting that sparked protests, has pleaded not guilty to first and second degree manslaughter.
The charges, neither of which prosecutors need to prove intent to kill, carry a maximum sentence of 15 to 10 years.
Potter, 49, was training a rookie on April 11th when she fatally shot Wright after he tried to drive away from a routine traffic stop in the city just north of Minneapolis.
Where ex-cop Derek Chauvin was in the middle of a trial.
Wright's shooting was caught in graphic body camera footage with a powder shouting, I'll tase you, as he resists arrest over not standing warrant on a weapons violation.
There we go.
So I don't know if he had the weapon.
Taser, taser, taser, she yelled before swearing after realizing she pulled her gun instead, shooting Wright in the chest.
The young motorist drove off and crashed nearby and was pronounced dead at the scene.
Potter was heard saying on the body camera footage, I'm going to prison.
However, her legal team has insisted that videos show she made an innocent mistake.
An accident is not a crime, one of Potter's attorneys, Paul Eng, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune.
Her defense also said it plans to argue that Wright caused his own death by refusing to comply with the officer's warning and putting them at risk as he tried to drive off.
No, come on.
Let me tell you.
First, you don't talk to cops.
Second, you don't talk to cops.
the 26 year police veteran was too experienced to make a mistake. No, come on. Let me tell you.
First, you don't talk to cops. Second, you don't talk to cops ever, ever.
You think it's a joke?
Ever means ever.
Ever.
I know, and a lot of people comment, and they're like, that's stupid, Tim.
What if you need to call them?
And I'm like, yeah.
Yeah, it's rough, isn't it?
But the rule is you never talk to cops.
Sometimes you break the rule.
You know, I talk to local police departments about local ordinance and stuff all the time.
What I mean is, if they come a-knockin', you do not speak.
People are dumb.
They're not smart.
You know, you got the guy in the Arbery case who was driving his truck filming, and he's like, I'm gonna give this footage to the public so they can see that we are innocent, and now he's in prison.
And if he never released that footage, he wouldn't go to jail.
And they're punishing him for it, so it's a lesson to everybody, don't film it, run.
That's stupid, right?
Yeah, filming was a good thing.
So, a cop can come to your house and knock on the door.
And you'll answer and be like, howdy, officer, what can I do you for?
And the cop will be like, just wondering if you, uh, you know, saw this man, um, here recently.
And you can go, hmm, doesn't look familiar.
I don't know, is there anything else I can help you with?
And the cop can be like, no.
That's all.
And then he leaves.
And then you think, I wonder what that was all about?
Now, several things may happen after the fact.
Nothing.
That's the most likely, to be honest.
99% chance nothing happens.
Cop was just looking for someone.
Another thing could happen.
The cop could then show up with a warrant to search your home.
And he can say, then, in a sworn statement, witnesses claim that the man we questioned at home was in the presence of the man we asked him about.
We believe he lied to us because witnesses believed they saw the two men together.
But this man, we asked him, he said he didn't know the guy.
So that's a lie, because we have a witness who says that's not true.
We need a warrant to search the premises to see if he is, you know, hiding this criminal who was last seen running, you know, in the area of his property.
You probably need a little bit more than that for a search warrant, but my point is, if a witness says, I saw this guy, I think it was John Smith, with, you know, John Doe.
And the cops come to your house.
You were never anywhere near this guy.
You don't know him.
And they ask you about him.
Witness?
Got it wrong.
Doesn't matter.
Circumstantial evidence.
Let me make it worse for you.
They show up to your house, they place you under arrest after the fact, and you're like, what's happening?
I don't understand.
And they say, we've got a witness who says you were at the scene of the crime with the man in question, and you claimed you didn't know this guy, and that was a lie.
And then you're like, but what evidence do they possibly have?
And the cop then leans in and says, You're at court now in arraignment, and the officer goes, Your Honor, when I went and spoke to this man at his home, he said he was there at the scene of the crime.
He admitted it to me.
And you'll go, No, I didn't!
And the judge is going to be like, Quiet!
No outbursts!
Remand.
You spoke with the cop.
The cop maybe got it wrong.
The cop could say he was very suspicious, he was deflecting, he was refusing to answer questions, and then he said to me, he was there.
And you'll be like, I never said that.
Doesn't matter.
It's your word and a cop's word.
You don't talk to cops.
Now the reason I bring that up, for Kim Potter, she's on camera saying, I'm going to prison, I'm going to prison, all that stuff.
I think the assessment is correct that she was justified in using lethal force because they were serving a warrant on a man who had a weapons charge and who was ignoring their orders and trying to flee and jumping into his vehicle.
He could have pulled out a gun.
Now, I'm not happy the dude lost his life.
Of course I'm not.
I don't believe in the death penalty, I say it all the time.
But am I supposed to be like the cop is not deserving of the same rights to defend themself?
You are given an order by the police.
You have a warrant.
It's not pretty.
It's not all good.
And sometimes there are exceptions to when you just comply, but for the most part, you're just being served a warrant, you quietly put your hands behind your back, and you figure it out later.
It's not true that you always want to do that.
Just, if you've committed a crime, if you've got a warrant, or if the cops are asking to stop, you should probably stop.
No, I mean, look, there are obvious circumstances where, like, the government military vehicle or government agency vehicle pulls up to your house and says, we're relocating your family, everyone get in the vehicle.
Yeah, then maybe you're gonna be like, nah, I'm not gonna... I don't know about all that, right?
Maybe the people in Australia would be like, no way, and run for it or something.
You get pulled over.
And a cop says, come with me.
Like, I tell this story all the time.
I got pulled over by the police.
They immediately claimed my car smelled like weed.
Pulled me out of the car, cuffed me.
And I just put my hands behind my back.
I didn't scream.
I didn't fight.
They were lying.
They were trying to plant drugs in my car.
And the only reason they let me go was because they found the firefighter decal from my dad in the glove box.
But I put my hands behind my back and I just said, no, no.
They kept saying, confess, confess, confess.
And I said, no, no, no, no, no.
Probably still not a good idea.
Probably should have just been like, lawyer.
Lawyer.
Lawyer.
And then they'll stop asking.
And that's probably the smart thing to do.
People think they can talk their way out of an arrest.
Not true.
If the cop wants to arrest you, they will arrest you.
And there's nothing you're going to say to change their mind.
When a cop puts the cuffs on you and you start begging and pleading and making excuses, all you're doing is guaranteeing that you're going to get arrested.
Which brings me back to Kim Potter.
Kim Potter.
She didn't need to say, I'm going to prison.
She didn't need to say anything.
She just needed to be like, talk to my union rep and my lawyer.
She would not be on trial.
The shooting was justified.
The mistake she made was when she came out and said she meant to tase him.
Now they're like, oh, well then you killed him though.
It's like, yeah, but if she had intended to actually shoot him with her gun, it would have been justified.
Stupid rules, they make no sense, right?
26-year veteran, I'll tell you this.
As I stated before, if you want to be a police officer, with all this stuff going down, in the face of the extremism from the left, the corruption of our institutions, then I'm not gonna say, I'm not gonna come out and defend you.
I'm gonna be like, well, you know, you get what you deserve.
You know that they will do this if you were a cop.
You know that if you were a police officer and you're trying to do a good job, they will put you in prison for life.
And if you want to take that risk, okay.
People have commented like, Tim, you don't understand.
Despite all that, these cops want to do the right thing.
And I'm like, some of them, some of them just want jobs.
I don't blame them.
Nobody wants to be broke and homeless.
But some of them are just like, look, I'll take the risk.
All right.
Kim Potter took the risk and now she's going to go to prison for the rest of her life.
Maybe not.
They get 10 to 15 years.
She'll get seven.
She'll be out, you know, four with good behavior or something.
But there you go, lady.
Four years in prison.
You should have just called in Blue Flu.
With everything going on with the Chauvin trial, none of these cops wanted to stand up for what went down?
None of them?
Then why would I?
Look, it's one thing when cops cover up for each other.
It's another thing when they're like, yo, clearly we've got something wrong here and we should speak out against it on principle.
We'll see how these trials go out.
We'll see how it all goes down.
The Jussie Smollett trial and the Kim Potter trial, I'll leave it there.
