New Report Implicates Biden Campaign In Clinton Spying Scandal, Corporate Press Calls It FAKE NEWS
New Report Implicates Biden Campaign In Clinton Spying Scandal, Corporate Press Calls It FAKE NEWS. Biden's campaign reportedly paid the same firm nearly $20,000
Democrats and their media allies are rejecting reports that the Clinton Campaign was involved in spying on Trump as a candidate and at the white house.
The story becomes especially confusing depending on what source you read. The new York times calls it fake news, The Wall Street Journal says its a fact.
Either way conflict in this country is escalating
#Clinton
#Russiagate
#Trump
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Today is February 15th, 2022, and our first story.
A new report implicates the Biden campaign in the Clinton spying scandal.
As it turns out, Biden's campaign paid the same firm around $20,000.
Now, it doesn't necessarily prove anything, but many people are raising questions about who is involved in the spying scandal and how deep does it go.
Of course, the media is already saying it's fake news, it's not true, and to look away.
In our next story, a Black Lives Matter activist has been arrested for attempting to assassinate a Democratic politician in Louisville.
Conflict is getting scary.
And in our last story, Canada announces they will seize your bank account without a court order.
And many leftists are starting to realize, wait a minute!
That's not a good thing!
Somehow they supported authoritarianism up until this point, which is still kind of surprising.
Now, if you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars.
Now, let's get into that first story.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Donald Trump really was spied on.
The latest filing from John Durham shows that someone had infiltrated Donald Trump's servers, both as a candidate and as president, and the goal was to draw an inference or narrative that Donald Trump was working with the Russians.
That is to say, it sounds like the accusation is someone was trying to frame Donald Trump as a Russian asset.
Trump, of course, has come out and said in stronger times, this would have warranted the death penalty.
Many outlets are saying Clinton had spied on Donald Trump or paid for the spying.
But there is some nuance here.
And of course, depending on what you read, you may not get a clear picture.
So I'm going to try to be as precise as possible in explaining exactly what is going on so you can understand this story that may be one of the craziest and most egregious scandals in U.S.
history.
Some have said it's bigger than Watergate.
I think it's fair to say that's true.
But of course, you've got to be careful about framing.
Right now, the New York Times and even CNN are trying to frame this as though the right-wing media is pumping out disinformation.
Well, the reality is, certainly, there are people who will not give the benefit of the doubt to the Clinton campaign, her lawyers, and the tech firms who worked on her behalf.
And there are people at the New York Times who will use every technicality And circuitous method to claim Clinton had nothing to do with this.
Why, in fact, MSNBC put out a story already that says, latest filing does not claim that Hillary Clinton spied on Trump.
And this is a trick used by fact checkers to dismiss serious stories.
The accusation is, and I'll try to be very careful here because I want to read these stories and give you the precise language, but Hillary Clinton had retained a law firm which had retained the services of a tech company who had an executive do certain things, and I hope I'm getting those details correct, but the point is, yes, Hillary Clinton did not walk up to a guy and say, go spy on Donald Trump.
But if you're trying to figure out what's going on, you've got to look at who's paying these companies, what these companies do.
Which brings us to the latest development.
Joe Biden's campaign had the same firm on payroll.
Now, I know many people might be saying, so what?
Presidential campaigns and politicians hire these companies.
Ah.
But it was only the Biden campaign and Clinton campaign, out of all the presidential campaigns, who actually used this service.
That is to say, birds of a feather flock together.
And I would not be surprised to learn that the Joe Biden campaign is effectively the same thing as the Clinton campaign in terms of who's doing work for them, who they know.
Of course, there may be no wrongdoing on the part of the company.
It may be one rogue actor.
But like I said, people on the right are not willing to give Hillary Clinton and the people within the Democratic establishment the benefit of the doubt.
If something stinks within this building that is all of these establishment politicians, Suffice it to say, they all knew something was happening.
And of course, were Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden actually involved in directing these people to spy on Trump, they would of course have some kind of shield to present plausible deniability.
But this brings us to some mainstream news reporting.
Hillary Clinton's own tweets suggesting that Donald Trump was somehow involved in the Russians suggests Who's on purpose.
And previous reporting has suggested that Hillary Clinton herself was trying to frame Donald Trump in this way.
Now again, I'll try to be very precise here.
But these stories exist, and they're quite damning.
The New York Times, CNN, and these other media outlets, of course, trying everything in their power to draw doubt onto these stories.
But I just gotta say, it doesn't matter who you believe.
It doesn't matter if you're right or wrong.
What matters is stories like this will sow Hyperpolarization, which already exists.
And at the same time this story is going on and the right is pointing the finger at the democratic establishment, they're doing the exact same thing with the January 6th committee.
Now, it may matter to you and to your principles and to your beliefs.
It matters who is telling the truth because you want to be on the side of the good guys and the honest.
But right now, Setting that aside, if these divisions continue and the use of federal law enforcement continues against political rivals, the only thing that really matters to you as a regular working class American or someone who's interested is where this will lead to us in terms of conflict.
And you know my stance on this.
I think it's going to get very, very dark.
Possibly hot conflict.
But let's read what's happening.
More indictments are expected.
And those on the Trump side of things are bullish that Durham is going to go after more people.
And with the Washington Free Beacon reporting that Biden had the same firm on his payroll, many suggest Joe Biden is being implicated in this scandal based on that alone.
But what does that really mean?
Well, being implicated in a scandal is not the same as being implicated in a crime, mind you, but it'll take some investigation to see what happens.
And I firmly believe this year, next year, and notably 2024, it is going to get hotter and hotter until it's too hot to handle.
I'll put it that way.
Because for political reasons, you're going to see more news come out attempting to smear political opponents.
Let's read the news and get to the bottom of what's going on, at least for now.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member if you want to support the work I'm doing here, if you want to support our organization and our journalists.
We are principally funded thanks to memberships by you over at TimCast.com.
As a member, you will be supporting our journalists and myself, but you'll also get access to exclusive members-only podcasts from TimCast IRL with our guests Monday through Thursday at 11pm.
Episodes you don't want to miss because they're not family-friendly and they're fairly uncensored.
But, you know, the main point is you'll be supporting our work.
So don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this video wherever you can.
Let's read the first story from the Washington Free Beacon.
Biden had firm at center of Trump hacking scandal on campaign payroll.
New Star Information Services executive allegedly wanted Clinton administration post.
The Biden campaign paid nearly $20,000 to a cybersecurity firm at the center of special counsel John Durham's investigation into the origins of the Trump-Russia probe.
The campaign paid Newstar Information Services in 2020 for accounting and compliance work, according to Federal Election Commission records.
According to Durham, Newstar's chief technology officer, Rodney Joffe, accessed sensitive web traffic data that the company maintained on behalf of the White House Executive Office in order to collect derogatory information about Donald Trump.
Joffe allegedly provided the information to Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Lawyer Michael Sussman, who in turn gave it to the CIA during a meeting in February of 2017.
Durham charged Sussman in September with lying to the FBI about his investigation of Trump.
The Biden campaign's payments raised questions about whether Joff continued snooping on Trump in the most recent election.
The Biden and Clinton campaigns are the only two presidential committees to have ever paid Newstar, according to the FEC.
Biden's campaign paid Newstar $18,819 on September 29, 2020, the records show.
$1,819 on September 29th, 2020.
The records show the Clinton campaign paid the firm $3,000 in May of 2015 for mobile
phone services.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee paid $3,000 to Newstar in 2017.
Newstar executives and staffers contributed $17,906 to Biden's campaign, FEC records show.
It is unclear what Newstar executives knew of Joff's activities on behalf of the Clinton campaign.
Durham alleges that Joff and his associates mined the White House traffic data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump.
Joff, who retired from Newstar in September, allegedly told associates that he was investigating Trump in order to please VIPs on the Clinton campaign.
He also allegedly wanted a job in the Hillary Clinton administration.
Joff and Newstar have not been named in court filings for the Sussman case, but Joff's attorneys have confirmed his involvement in the matter to news outlets.
JOFFE HAS NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH WRONGDOING.
NEWSSTAR AND JOFFE'S LAWYERS DID NOT RESPOND TO REQUESTS FOR COMMENT.
THE WHITE HOUSE REFERRED THE WASHINGTON FREE BEACON TO THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE FOR COMMENT.
THE ORGANIZATION DID NOT RESPOND.
TRUMP CALLED FOR CRIMINAL CHARGES AGAINST THE OPERATIVES WHO SOUGHT OUT HIS DIGITAL DIRT.
QUOTE, THIS IS A SCANDAL FAR GREATER IN SCOPE AND MAGNITUDE THAN WATERGATE, AND THOSE WHO WERE INVOLVED IN AND KNEW ABOUT THIS SPYING OPERATION SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
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.
Let me show you a simple Google search so I can show you where we're at when you search for John Durham.
You get a couple really interesting stories.
One, MSNBC says, Durham court filing doesn't say Hillary Clinton spied on Donald Trump.
Of course, the headline for this is actually different from what Google lists it as.
You also have the New York Times saying, court filing started a furor in right-wing outlets, but their narrative is off track.
And just right next to it, the Wall Street Journal, Trump really was spied on.
Now listen, what you need to understand is you will never encounter a circumstance where there's going to be a recording of Hillary Clinton going to a lawyer and saying, I want you to spy on Donald Trump!
Make it look like he's working with Russia!
That would be insane.
If someone was actually going to engage in something as illegal as this, something that I believe warrants seditious conspiracy charges, I think they would play it a little safer than that and maybe go to someone and say, oh, won't someone rid me of this priest?
Never directly asking for something to happen, but generating plausible deniability in a A recording-less environment, so that people know what they're doing, but it can never be tied back to someone at the top.
Hillary Clinton did tweet about this.
She has been accused of trying to distract from her email scandal by smearing Donald Trump as a Russian agent, or asset.
But it doesn't explain why in February, after Donald Trump was already president, they continued.
Unless this goes deeper than people realize.
Perhaps it's nothing.
Perhaps the rogue actor who hated Donald Trump.
But then you take a look at what happened with the Mueller investigation and how deep
this went.
And it stands to reason they never stopped.
Whoever they is outside of this Sussman guy maybe involves Hillary Clinton, maybe not,
maybe Biden, maybe not.
Right now all we know is they paid these people.
But it seems like, at least to me, there was an effort to undermine the presidency of a sitting president because he was the wrong guy.
Because they didn't want to lose to him.
Because they didn't like that he was going to uncover their wrongdoing.
Because they didn't like that he was going to ask about Ukraine.
Let me just say something, because I hate conspiracy theories.
I really, really, really do.
I want to see the data, okay?
I want to see the facts.
And right now we know a firm that was on the payroll of two presidential campaigns engaged in, you know, what may be criminal activity, at least it's been alleged.
Now that alone is for me to say, okay, I'm willing to Google search and look beyond this.
When Donald Trump made a phone call to the President of Ukraine and stumbled upon something dark, because I think Trump bumbled into it, didn't know what he was talking about, he said, Joe Biden, there's this video of him bragging about saying he's going to withhold aid to Ukraine unless they fire a prosecutor.
Can you look into that?
Boy, did the establishment and the media go nuts.
They accused Donald Trump of abusing his power to go after a political rival.
But Joe Biden wasn't running for president at the time.
And the response from the establishment was, well, we all know he will be.
We all know that he's gonna run, therefore.
To me, it was quite confusing because Joe Biden admittedly did this.
And we know about the Burisma scandal and Zlochevsky, and there's a lot of details there.
But all of a sudden, they went after Trump, and they went after him hard.
They impeached him over this.
They didn't get a conviction.
But they tried claiming he did something wrong.
A quid pro quo.
They had no real evidence.
Now I'll show you this.
We have this story.
Maybe unrelated, but it just really makes me wonder.
closes Ukraine embassy and destroys computer equipment ahead of expected Russian invasion.
Russia's apparently withdrawing its troops, said they never intended to follow through on an invasion.
In Ukraine, they're saying there's not going to be an invasion.
And all of a sudden we get a story that the U.S.
orders evacuations, pumps up this narrative, and sends out troops, and then destroys computer equipment.
I'm just... I think it's crazy they destroyed computer equipment.
I mean, couldn't they just take it?
Couldn't they just bring it back?
Maybe it's nothing.
Maybe.
There's no real evidence as to why it's happening.
But I will say, If there is an accusation made by Donald Trump about Joe Biden, Joe Biden gets in office and then within a year they destroy computer equipment in Ukraine?
Donald Trump made accusations.
He said, I saw this, there was a quid pro quo.
This, to me?
I'd say probable cause.
You accuse a guy of wrongdoing in Ukraine, then all of a sudden the Ukraine embassy has ordered closing of the Biden administration and they start destroying computers.
I'm gonna be like, what was on those computers?
Not that it's evidence of anything.
Not that it's evidence that Joe Biden ordered the destruction of this.
Just that it's really, really bad timing for this administration.
And I think it's enough for me to say, I'd like to ask some questions about what was on those computers.
Maybe it's nothing.
In fact, I think it's entirely possible.
There is nothing here.
But I just don't like it.
I don't like that Hillary Clinton destroyed 30,000 emails.
I don't like this.
Well, here's the latest news.
Durham probe has accelerated with more people cooperating and coming before a grand jury.
Durham has run its investigation very professionally, sources tell Fox News Digital.
We also have this.
It's hard to know it's true.
You know, on our side of things, freedom, honesty, truth, we have a challenge.
Old Durham intelligence supports multiple indictments in probe.
Hillary Clinton purportedly approved a plan to distract the public from her email scandal,
sources told Fox News.
It's hard to know it's true.
You know, on our side of things, freedom, honesty, truth, we have a challenge.
And that challenge is we want to be honest and we want to make sure we have the facts
on our side.
As for Hillary Clinton and Democrats in the media, they'll lie, cheat, and steal, manipulate falsely framed stories, because they're more interested in winning.
That means we're at a disadvantage.
So perhaps, Hillary Clinton purportedly approved a plan to distract the public from her email scandal, or maybe, we're looking too deeply into it?
I can't say definitively, and that's the problem.
On the other side, if this were Donald Trump, what do you think would have happened?
Now, Devin Nunes has come out.
He expects many more Durham indictments.
Ratcliffe, of course.
We saw the same thing from him.
But let me show you how the media is handling it.
This is fascinating.
The New York Times, CNN, desperate to frame this in defense of the Democratic establishment, who may have committed some very serious crimes.
The New York Times reports, court filings started a furor in right-wing outlets, but their narrative is off track.
The latest alarmist claims about spying on Trump appear to be flawed, but the explanation is Byzantine, underlining the challenge for journalists in deciding what merits coverage.
You see, the issue is, when this filing happened on a Friday, all of these mainstream outlets ignored it.
They didn't cover it.
Many people said, why?
Seriously, why didn't this get more coverage?
Well, maybe it's because it makes the establishment political class look bad.
Well, the New York Times will step in and say, no, no, it's because those right-wing individuals are wrong.
They say.
When John Durham, the Trump-era special counsel investigating the inquiry into Russia's 2016 election interference, filed a pre-trial motion on Friday night, he slipped in a few extra sentences instead of fewer among right-wing outlets about purported spying on Trump.
But the entire narrative appeared to be mostly wrong or old news, the latest example of the challenge created by a barrage of similar conspiracy theories from Mr. Trump and his allies.
Upon close inspection, these narratives are often based on a misleading presentation of the facts or outright misinformation.
They also tend to involve dense and obscure issues, so dissecting them requires asking readers to expend significant mental energy and time raising the question of whether news outlets should even cover such claims.
Right!
People just can't understand it, so we shouldn't even be covering it, right?
Yet Trump allies portray the news media as engaged in a cover-up if they don't.
Um, let me just say, if news emerges of an indictment of a, you know, a Clinton-affiliated lawyer, and you're not covering it?
I mean, that's kind of crazy, don't you think?
The latest example began with a motion from Mr. Durham filed in a case which he has brought against Michael Sussman, cybersecurity lawyer with links to the Democratic Party.
The filing was ostensibly about potential conflicts of interest, but it also recounted a meeting at which Mr. Sussman had presented other suspicions to the government in February of 2017.
Sussman told the CIA about odd internet data suggesting that someone using a Russian-made smartphone may have been connecting to networks at Trump Tower and the White House, among other places.
Sussman had obtained the information from a client, a technology executive named Rodney Joff.
Another paragraph in the court filing said that Mr. Joff's company Newstar had helped maintain internet-related servers for the White House, and that he and his associates exploited this arrangement by mining certain records to gather derogatory information about Mr. Trump.
Citing this filing, Fox News inaccurately declared that Mr. Durham had said he had evidence that Hillary Clinton's campaign had paid a technology company to infiltrate a White House server.
Sounds like an opinion.
Sounds like a framing device.
I think it warrants criticism, for sure.
Because there's circuitous methods afoot.
They're going to say, the Washington Examiner claimed this all meant there had been spying on Mr. Trump's White House office.
And when the mainstream publications held back, Mr. Trump and his allies began shaming the news media.
There are many problems with this.
For one, much of this was not new.
The New York Times had reported in October what Mr. Sussman had told the CIA about data.
The conservative media also skewed what the filing said.
For example, Mr. Durham's filing never used the word infiltrate, and it never claimed that Mr. Joff's company was being paid by the Clinton campaign.
I'm sorry, but according to the Washington Free Beacon, the Clinton campaign did, according to FEC filings.
Well, let me just make sure I pull this up.
They go on to say, let me get the exact number.
Records show, the Clinton campaign paid the firm $3,000 in May of 2015 for mobile phone services.
The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, $3,000 to Newstar in 2017.
The Biden campaign paid them in 2020.
They paid them.
Now look, $3,000, maybe it's not that much money.
Maybe there's something deeper here.
Or to be completely honest, maybe there's not a whole lot.
For real, maybe there is not a whole lot.
They go on to say, most important, contrary to the reporting, the filing never said the White House data that came under scrutiny was from the Trump era.
According to lawyers for David Dagon, a Georgia Institute of Technology data scientist who helped develop the Yota analysis, the data, so-called DNS logs, which are on records, of when computers or smartphones have prepared to communicate with servers over the internet, came from Barack Obama's presidency.
Well, that's strange.
So you mean, these guys were providing services and tracking data during the Trump campaign, servers that Trump was using, but it was Obama's?
Something doesn't seem right about what the New York Times is saying, but to be completely fair, I do think they're making some good points, I just think their goal is to obfuscate as much as possible.
The challenge here is that while CNN does something similar, special counsel Durham alleges Clinton campaign lawyer used data to raise suspicions about Trump.
Well, hold on there a minute.
How would he have used data from Obama to raise suspicions about Trump?
Oh, wait.
Was Obama spying on Donald Trump?
Ah.
Perhaps that's the issue.
So perhaps it is fair to say we are wrong.
They weren't spying on then-President Trump.
They were spying on servers in the White House to collect data on what Trump was doing because Obama was spying on Trump?
I mean, look.
Anyway, you cut it.
Something doesn't add up.
Now, when CNN says Special Counsel alleges this, I mean, this is it, that they were trying to raise suspicions on Trump, and they still try and say that it was vague and technical jargon, and they go on to explain it, they're trying to downplay things.
Now, I can't speak to what's happening behind the scenes.
I don't know what's going on with Durham.
I do know that many people are pointing out this.
We have KATV.
Past Hillary Clinton tweets loom amid accusations her campaign paid to spy on Trump.
And then we have this from the Wall Street Journal.
Trump really was spied on.
Durham says techies linked to the Clinton campaign had access to White House and Trump Tower internet data.
So let's make sure we're getting the facts right, which is why I want to give respect to the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
It seems like this is the fairest assessment.
Did the Clinton campaign pay someone to spy on Trump?
It doesn't appear.
We have data to support that.
We can speculate.
Because it appears that Democrat-tied, Clinton campaign-linked organizations were doing something like this.
The Biden campaign is paying for implicating them in this big circuitous net.
But it is very, very speculative.
The Wall Street Journal says.
They're going to mention Durham's filing, which we've read a great deal about.
The filing relates to Mr. Durham's September indictment.
The indictment revealed that Mr. Sussman worked with Tech Exec 1, who had been identified as Rodney Joff, formerly of Newstar Inc.
The indictment says Mr. Joff used his companies, as well as researchers at a U.S.
university, to access internet data, which he used to gather information about Mr. Trump's communications.
Durham says Joff's goal was to create an inference and narrative about Mr. Trump that would please certain VIPs.
Referring to individuals at Perkins Coie and the Clinton campaign.
The new shocker relates to the data Mr. Joff and friends were mining.
According to Friday's filing as early as July 2016, Mr. Joff was exploiting his access to non-public and or proprietary internet data, including internet traffic pertaining to the Executive Office of the President of the United States.
Now that would have been Barack Obama.
The filing explains that Joff's employer had come to access and maintain dedicated servers for the EOP as part of a sensitive arrangement whereby it provided internet services to the White House.
White House communications are supposed to be secure, and the notion that any contractor, much less one with ties to a presidential campaign, could access them is alarming enough.
The implication that the data was exploited for a political purpose is a scandal that requires investigation under oath.
The filing suggests the data collection continued into the Trump presidency.
Mr. Durham says that on February 9th, 2017, Mr. Sussman met with a second federal agency, Agency 2, to provide an updated set of allegations, and that these allegations relied in part on the purported internet traffic that Mr. Joff and others had assembled pertaining to Trump Tower, Donald Trump's New York City apartment building, and the EOP, and a healthcare provider.
Late Monday, a spokesperson for Mr. Joff said in a statement that contrary to the allegations in this recent filing, Joff is an apolitical internet security expert with decades of service to the U.S.
government who has never worked for a political party.
The statement added that there are serious and legitimate national security concerns about the Russians' attempt to infiltrate the 2016 election, and that respected cybersecurity researchers were deeply concerned about the anomalies they found in the data and prepared to report their findings, which was subsequently shared with the CIA.
That could certainly use some elaboration.
The filing says the new allegations Mr. Sussman provided, claiming suspicious ties between a
Russian mobile phone operator and the White House, were also bogus, and that Mr. Sussman again made
the false claim that he wasn't working on behalf of a client. That is to say, Durham is outright
stating he was spying on Trump into the White House on his campaign and lying about it to smear him.
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 also, the New York Times is basically saying the same thing.
They weren't really working for anybody, Durham says otherwise.
right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
And also, the New York Times is basically saying the same thing.
They weren't really working for anybody, Durham says otherwise.
They're going to say Mr. Durham's revelations take the 2016 collusion scam well beyond the Steele dossier,
which was based on the unvetted claims of a Russian emigre working in Washington.
Those claims and the Sussman assertions were channeled to the highest levels of the government
via contacts at the FBI, CIA, and State Department.
They became fodder for secret and unjustified warrants against former Trump campaign official.
And later, for Robert Mueller's two-year mole hunt that turned up no evidence of collusion.
Along the way, the Clinton campaign fed these bogus claims to a willing and gullible media.
And now we know its operatives used private tech researchers to monitor White House communications.
If you made this up, you'd be laughed out of a Netflix story pitch.
Durham's legal filing is related to a certain conflict of interest in Mr. Sussman's legal team, and it remains unclear where else his probe is going.
But the unfolding information underscores the Russia collusion story was one of the dirtiest tricks in U.S.
political history.
Mr. Durham should tell the whole sordid story.
The New York Times says it's not true.
The Wall Street Journal says it is true.
You decide for yourself.
I can't come here and tell you what is or isn't, but I can say my opinion.
If Hillary Clinton is going to come out with a tweet, and we have the tweet from Hillary Clinton,
October 31st, 2016, when she says, computer scientists have apparently uncovered a covert
server linking the Trump organization to a Russian-based bank. When this information comes out
pleasing the VIPs at Perkins Co. in the Clinton campaign, can we assume that there was just a
zealous upstart who said, if I find this information, they'll all love me?
Or could it be it's what they wanted?
Could it be that there was an indirect arrangement for this?
I believe something of that nature, an accusation to such a degree, requires hard evidence.
But it's the kind of evidence that's really hard to come by.
If Clinton met at a dinner with person A and said, you know, I'd really love it if we just had this information.
It'd be so helpful to us, but you know, maybe it's not true.
Oh, won't someone rid me of this priest?
You know that story?
And then it was overheard by somebody who went and rid the king of the priest.
Hillary Clinton could say, oh, won't someone find me this information?
Let me explain to you the bare minimum of what we may be seeing.
Donald Trump on TV said something about Hillary Clinton's emails.
He said, you know, if Russia did hack these things, it'd be great if they had them and they published them.
And then everyone came out and screamed, Donald Trump was calling on Russia to hack a political rival and blah, blah, blah.
It's ridiculous.
Hillary Clinton destroyed public records.
The accusation is that she did that.
She's now pushing the Russia narrative to distract from this.
We basically have the same story, you know?
Donald Trump wanted to see emails, and so he said, oh, won't someone rid me of this priest?
Hillary Clinton could have effectively done the same thing.
Oh, won't someone find me this information?
They say this could be the most direct link yet between Donald Trump and Moscow.
This country is being ripped apart.
I blame Hillary Clinton.
I think Trump has a role to play, for sure.
But, it's being ripped apart.
You know what this could really be, to be completely honest?
It could be that politics in this country has gotten so dirty that it crossed a line and it grew out of control.
Hillary Clinton's accusation against Donald Trump about Russian collusion was not meant to go this far.
Maybe she was thinking to herself, he wants to accuse me about emails, we'll claim he's a Russian or something.
And maybe they didn't really think it would result in everything it resulted in.
Or maybe they thought it was a smear, wouldn't go that far, they'd win the presidency, and that'd be the end of it.
But that's not what happened.
Donald Trump won in 2016.
And so they pushed the narrative, maybe thinking we've got to do something to stop him.
I'll tell you what I think.
I think the Hillary Clinton administration Barack Obama, the Democratic establishment, Joe Biden, all of these people, they're all part of the same club.
I think they've been doing illegal activities in Ukraine.
I think they've been doing this for some time.
I think the establishment has been gutting and selling out this country and engaging in foreign wars for profit.
And Donald Trump was not supposed to win, but he did.
And then he was about to expose everything this criminal class had been doing.
The Qatar-Turkey pipeline and all of their goals.
Of course, it would greatly benefit Europe's gas prices or whatever.
But it was insidious.
It was nefarious.
It was malicious.
Joe Biden's family growing very wealthy, tracking alongside his career, so sayeth Politico Magazine.
Could it be that they thought they'd beat Trump?
And once Trump got in, they knew he was the kind of guy to actually go after them and dig into these things.
Could it be that they had to prevent him from doing anything that could disrupt their plans?
They had to hold him back for four years, lying, cheating, and stealing, so that they could get back in and clean up their mess.
Maybe, I don't know.
I don't know.
Just an idea.
I think it warrants an investigation.
I think it's probable cause, at the very least.
Donald Trump sees a video of Joe Biden admitting to a quid pro quo, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you don't get the billion dollars.
Donald Trump says, look into it.
He gets impeached for doing it.
No real substantive investigation is had.
And now, after we see our Joe Biden become president within a year, Ukraine embassy has destroyed computer equipment.
So even if Donald Trump wins again in 2024 and goes on to be inaugurated in 2025, there's nothing to be found, is there?
These people who are engaging in, in my opinion, criminal activities, they'll have gotten away with it.
Let me tell you about those criminal activities, because I'm sure there's going to be some leftists who are like, Tim Pool pushes conspiracy theory.
No, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's solid reporting.
Joe Biden tried to get a prosecutor fired.
The prosecutor signed a sworn affidavit saying he was fired by the president because of Joe Biden.
Maybe he's lying, but that's not a theory.
He literally said it happened.
I'm not making up any ideas.
I'm just literally saying, wow, former prosecutor came out and said he was fired because Joe Biden ordered them to do it.
And then we had Mykola Zachevsky, who was the founder of Burisma, the energy company where Hunter Biden was on the board.
Not a conspiracy.
That literally happened.
And This prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, had opened investigations into Mykola Zlochevsky, the founder of Burisma.
Joe Biden comes in, fires the guy.
That's not a conspiracy theory.
All of those things are true.
Now, what we would need to break down is intent, motive, and the underlying stories between these instances.
Maybe you can't say Joe Biden did it for these reasons.
I can't read his mind.
I don't know.
But what is a fact?
Joe Biden threatened to withhold aid.
Fact.
The prosecutor signed a sworn affidavit saying he was fired because of that threat.
Fact.
The prosecutor was investigating Michael Olszewski, the founder of an energy company where Joe Biden's son was on the board.
Fact.
Those things all happened.
Donald Trump said, I want it looked into.
Fact.
He was impeached for saying this.
They called it an abuse of power.
Now, all that right there says to me, Something happened there.
They came out and they said that the reason they wanted to fire the prosecutor is because he wasn't looking into corruption.
I don't believe it.
Mykola Zachevsky had fled the country when Donald Trump became president.
And once Donald Trump was out, dude came back.
I think the whole thing's weird.
So I don't know.
I don't know exactly what's going on.
We're just scratching the surface.
But me, as but a humble layman researching these stories, I think it's fair to say that when Politico magazine runs a story called Biden Inc., which says Biden's family fortunes track alongside his political career, sounds to me like there's reason to believe Joe Biden is crooked and helping his family.
When Hillary Clinton is pushing the same narrative that this tech guy is pushing, sounds to me like there's possible involvement.
Or at the very least, it's her saying, oh, won't someone find me damning information on Trump about the Russians?
And then someone did.
But she didn't pay for it.
You gotta watch out.
You gotta get through the weeds and this stuff.
The New York Times isn't completely wrong, right?
A lot of people have been falsely framing or incorrectly framing what's coming out of this Durham filing.
But I think, I take it from the Wall Street Journal outright, I mean, Trump was spied on.
This is crazy stuff.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
A Black Lives Matter activist has been arrested for attempting to assassinate a Democratic mayoral candidate in Louisville.
I don't know why.
We don't know why.
It's been reported as an assassination attempt, but it could be for a variety of reasons.
And we talked about this a bit yesterday on the TimCast IRL member podcast.
If you want to check it out, go to TimCast.com, sign up, become a member.
Help support the work we do.
And we had a question about, you know, what qualifies as an assassination and why.
We don't know the motives behind this.
We do know the activist Kintez Brown has been charged in the attempted shooting of Craig Greenberg, who's a Democratic mayoral candidate.
Greenberg has issued a statement based upon the statement that he released.
I think it's fair to say that the police have arrested the right guy.
Now, I'm always adamant to say innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, simply because someone hoping to be an agent of the state, or police as agents of the state, have claimed this man did something wrong.
Sorry, you're gonna have to prove it to me.
Even in that capacity, I'm not a fan of just hearing things in the news that just assert things, but there are boundaries, you know, there's only so much we can do as individuals, and you have to have a certain level of trust.
So, If they tell me they've went through the process, they've convicted him, then I'll say, well, you know, okay, it's beyond a reasonable doubt as far as I'm concerned.
Does that mean I think, you know, I'll add to this as an aside, I still don't think the level of trust I would ever have in the state would allow me to believe in the death penalty, because I don't trust the state.
But the main point of the story here is...
As you can tell, I'm very exhausted by all of this.
There's a dramatic escalation in conflict that's been happening in this country.
And, you know, there have been stories like this in the past.
This could be the story of a Democratic mayoral candidate who used an activist to gain votes or to earn support and revenge.
It could be a money thing.
They could know each other.
We really don't know.
Or it could be something much simpler than that.
We can take a look at the surface of who this activist is.
And he's a pan-African socialist.
He wants, I guess, all of Africa to be united under scientific socialism.
We can view his work and his politics as politically extreme.
And then you wonder why it is he went to a Democrat's office and tried to kill him.
He was so close to killing the guy.
The bullet grazed this Democratic candidate's clothing.
Man, you know, I watched the press conference from Craig Greenberg, and it really gets at you, you know?
He says, I just want to see my wife and my son and hug them.
I haven't seen them all day.
And it seems like he's trying really hard to hold back getting emotional, maybe even crying.
I'm not going to say that he is, but you can kind of hear it in his voice, you know?
He just wants to be with his family.
This is a rough life to lead, especially at times of great tumult like we're experiencing now.
I don't like the Democratic establishment.
I don't like the Republican establishment.
I don't blame the individual who's trying to run for office, unless they've done something for which I can blame them for, and I know this.
That is to say, when I look at stories like this and I see, you know, the Democrats as overwhelmingly this just nasty and corrupt entity, and the Republicans for sure, but I just don't see them as bad.
I see them as mostly feckless and pathetic.
But when I see the Democratic Party, I don't see the individual who someone went after.
When I see this guy and I look at him, I see a guy who almost lost his life and is probably scared and, you know, probably grateful that he made it through this.
Reminds me of those stories you hear about World War II or Vietnam, when a soldier looks into the eyes of the enemy soldier and there are young men of similar age.
They don't know why they're fighting each other.
And they think that, you know, in another time, for another reason, they probably could have been friends.
I think that's naive, to be honest.
I do.
I think that's naive.
That idea that, you know, we don't fight, we could be friends.
I think once you start to see the core of this conflict, what's really driving it in the U.S., and why we're seeing fighting, you realize, unfortunately, we may be humans, we may be driven by similar things, but we can't be friends.
We can't because we fundamentally oppose each other's view of the world, which results in things like this, and I wish it wasn't the case.
This guy Quintez Brown.
I want to show you some facts about him from Heavy.com, and we'll talk about what his potential motivations were.
But I think, you know, the thing that needs to be said, we were talking about this the other day with Daniel Turner on IRL, and he said, why would a Black Lives Matter activist go after a Democrat?
You'd think they'd go after a Republican.
And I said, actually, no.
You know, maybe on the surface it's counterintuitive, but it's exactly what you'd expect.
I would not expect a Black Lives Matter activist to go after a Republican.
When Rand Paul He was leaving some event, got surrounded by Antifa and BLM screaming at him, accusing him of things.
Yeah, that's because they don't know anything about Rand Paul.
Rand Paul at the time had drafted the Breonna Taylor bill to ban no-knock warrants, because Rand Paul doesn't like fascism and authoritarianism.
But they don't actually know anything about this guy.
They don't know anything about Rand Paul or Republicans other than the other.
So why would a Black Lives Matter activist target a Democrat?
The way I described it yesterday.
Imagine there are two countries.
Let's just use, let's say, Canada and the United States.
Okay, let's not use real countries.
Let's say the United States of Freedom and the United States of Democracy, just country A, country B. Country A and country B don't like each other.
They really, really don't like each other.
And they're constantly fighting with treaties and documents over resources.
Within country A, or whatever we're calling it, you have a growing faction of extremists who absolutely hate and think country B is evil.
Now let's say out of the 100 people in one country, 100%, you have 20% who believe country B should be invaded and destroyed.
Will they, as 20% of the population, invade that other country?
Of course they won't.
They'll seek to gain control of their country first, so they can use the full weight of their country to invade the other.
To put it simply, for a BLM activist who's a pan-African socialist, they don't have the power to go up against the Republican establishment.
They can certainly try and ruffle some feathers, but it won't do anything for their cause.
No, what they need is to seize control of their political party.
Or the one they're closest to.
Then, with the full weight of 75-80 million people behind them, they can then wage war, politically, or more worryingly, physically, against the rival political faction.
You see the point?
It actually makes sense that a BLM activist would be going after a Democrat before a Republican.
BLM activists going after Republicans empowers the Democratic establishment, and will ultimately result in them having less power.
They have to have their internal civil war before they can have their actual war.
It's scary stuff.
Dark days indeed.
But of course, I want to mention, it's entirely possible.
These guys just know each other.
Quintez Brown, 21.
He's done reporting.
Maybe he knows who this guy is.
Maybe they've got a more personal relationship than the media realizes.
Maybe there was, you know, he was an editor for a school paper.
Maybe he was doing activism to support this.
I don't know.
We'll have to hear from them.
I want to show you this statement.
Just a few quotes.
This is Louisville, Kentucky.
This is yesterday.
Craig Greenberg said he was shaken up, and he says, when we greeted him, he pulled up... Let me play this clip for you.
unidentified
This morning, I was gathered for a brief meeting with my campaign team, four of my incredible teammates in our campaign office.
A man walked into our office.
When we greeted him, He pulled out a gun, aimed directly at me, and began shooting.
The individual closest to the door managed to bravely get the door shut.
We barricaded the door and the suspect fled.
I'm shaken up.
It was a surreal experience and mostly right now I just want to Get home to my wife and sons and give them a hug.
I haven't been able to see them all day.
I've been with LMPD all day.
My team and I have been cooperating with them and working with them.
And that's what I want most is just to get home to my family.
You know, the gunman came to the stood in the doorway as he fired the shots.
And one of my teammates was standing to the side of the door and was able to get the door slammed.
And then he and other teammates that were closer to the door You know, when the story first came up last night, there were rumors going around that it was a BLM activist, and I was very much like, no, no, no, no, we better get confirmation on that.
It was during the Super Chat portion of TimCast IRL that Olivia Rondeau said she got someone sent her a tweet, and it was from a retired police officer who said, BLM activist, what's his name, Quintez, Kintes Brown, is that his name?
Yeah, Kintes Brown, had been arrested, and I said, look, look, look, look, look, I don't want to come out on this show to hundreds of thousands of people and say it was Black Lives Matter activists who did this, because I don't want people going crazy, and then, you know, sure enough, this story, Career Journal had already come out with it by the time that we had brought up that tweet, and that's the case.
That's the case.
I want to mention, you know, I watched this video, The other night when we were talking about this, we entertained the possibility, look, this is a guy who's running for office.
You know, maybe he gets a BLM activist to stage something like this so that he can win the election.
And he says, a guy walks into his office and opens fire and misses.
Now, to some people they might hear the story and think, this guy, did he stage this event because now it'll give him press and make him more popular?
I don't believe that for a second.
I don't because there's two important details.
What people need to understand about handguns is that people think that it's as easy as, you know, point and pull the trigger.
It's not so much, I mean, sort of it is, but Even in close range, people who are panicked, who are freaking out, they miss.
They really do.
You know, I went to a range for the first time several years ago.
Eight, nine years ago?
Man, it's been a long time.
I think it was eight years ago.
And at the range, they said they won't let... This was a small private range.
They said for first-timers, for people who have limited experience, at their range, like if they don't know who you are, they don't let you fire at targets beyond 21 yards.
Is it 21 yards?
Or is it... I think so.
Unless you can hit the target at seven.
What he told me was, for them, their experience, the average person who walks in, and we're talking 21 feet, they wouldn't let you go beyond seven yards unless you could hit at 21 feet.
And he was like, the average person, you know, they bring them in the first time, they'll hand them a handgun of any type.
They're not gonna be able to hit that target because they don't know what they're doing.
They don't know how to hold the weapon.
People make the mistake of when they pull the trigger, they squeeze their hand and then they move the barrel before they fire.
I hear that and I'm like, Yeah, some crazed activist who comes in in close proximity.
He missed, I'm not surprised.
I mean, his clothing.
That makes sense to me.
And I'll say, you know, when I saw him speak, and he's talking about his wife and sons, and you can see the facial pull of his mouth.
That to me is legitimate.
This is not a guy who is feigning fear or an emotional response.
This is a guy who's fighting back the stress and the fear for his family.
And it's a scary, scary reality to hear something like this.
Mayoral candidate.
Not a federal-level politician, but Yo, when you get a BLM activist, one who is running for office, trying to kill a Democratic politician...
The reason why I think this story is so important, I think it should be more prominent.
I mean, look at heavy.com, it's only got a couple thousand views.
Some people said, you shouldn't lead with this for IRL, Tim, because it was our lead story.
We didn't know it was a BLM activist, we just know the assassination attempt happened.
And they were like, you should be talking about Trudeau or Durham and all that stuff, and I'm like, no, I hear you, I do, I do.
You know, we had this discussion about what was more important, and I thought to myself, There's going to be a point when there's a shot heard around the world, right?
It's a reference to, in most instances, the start of the Revolutionary War.
But in many contexts, a shot heard around the world just typically references the start of a hot conflict.
I don't know when and where that will be because for history, hindsight is 20-20.
And for us, we're in the muck and we can't see out of the force that we're in.
It's all around us.
A lot of people don't realize that we're watching dramatic escalation every single day.
There could come a point in 50 years, in 100 years, when they talk about the Second Civil War in America and explain what it is.
It'll be talked about in the press, in the history books, very, very differently than it is now.
Because we're in the lowest level.
So, I want you to imagine it this way.
Imagine being on the ground, looking around at the houses around you.
Then imagine being in a plane and looking down and seeing everything.
That's the difference.
For us here and now, there's this story.
How many people don't even know about it?
How many people don't know that a Black Lives Matter activist walked into a Democrat's office and tried to kill him?
A lot of people.
How many people don't know about the Durham Report?
How many people don't know any of these things?
That's the reality.
In a hundred years, people will look back and they'll talk about it as if everyone always knew.
I mean, think about it this way, too.
The amount of time it took for information to travel in the 1700s, it took a person conveying that information directly.
So the Boston Tea Party or the Boston Massacre, imagine that.
Imagine living one block away from where the Boston Massacre occurred.
Call it whatever you want, you know, the regulars opened fire and people died.
You live one block away and you hear loud noises and screaming and you have no idea what happened.
So you stay in your house, it's dangerous.
It probably took you A day, several hours maybe, but maybe a day to finally learn about what happened.
Everyone's lighting it up on Twitter and you know instantly.
Back then, people had no idea what was happening.
Even now, with the speed of information, I assure you there are many people who don't know.
And you gotta wonder how much they're trying to distance this guy from Black Lives Matter.
This guy, Kentes Brown, he went missing.
After he, uh, Brown's parents, Cecilia Brown and Jacob Dougherty, said in a statement issued by Black Lives Matter Louisville after he was found, were asking for privacy and would appreciate everyone's patience, yadda yadda yadda.
They say, during protests during the shooting death of Brenna Taylor by the Louisville Metro Police, Brown emerged as an outspoken Black Lives Matter activist.
Don't let anybody gaslight you.
That's who this guy is.
I want to tell you a story about Louisville.
BLM activists were going shop to shop, shaking down business owners, demanding they tithe.
They pay a percentage of their revenues to Black Lives Matter.
They went to a Cuban restaurant.
He demanded this man give them what they want or else they'd blockade his restaurant and he said no.
So one of these extremists shattered a flower pot.
That sounds so mafioso, doesn't it?
They come and say, you're gonna give us a cut of the revenue?
And they say no, they smash a pot.
What happens next?
It gets worse.
That's what they say to the guy.
The guy said he was from Cuba.
He knows what it's like to live under the boot and he would not be, I'm paraphrasing by the way, but he would not be giving in.
These people are dangerous extremists.
They're dangerous extremists and the dangerous extremism is growing in this country.
Right now this guy's been arrested.
This isn't the worst and most egregious thing we've seen in the escalation of the conflict.
But over the past several years, you have to wonder.
The American Revolutionary Period spanned 20 years.
And this was growing sentiment among the colonists in most of the colonies, not all of them.
But, you know, to a great degree in the colonies, that they should, that we should be governing ourselves.
But the Crown had a different view.
They said, you're subject to the Crown.
You know, we defend these colonies.
We fight a war to maintain your protections.
And we won't let you simply just walk away.
The problem was, the Crown wouldn't address the grievances of the colonists who repeatedly petitioned the Crown and said, these are problems.
And they said, no.
So it doesn't matter what you think you're deserving of.
If you don't address the grievances and don't bother with any kind of negotiation or representation, you'll lose your right to this.
But the point is, the Revolutionary Period took decades.
The Boston Tea Party and the Boston Massacre were three years apart.
But we look back on history and we think all of this stuff was happening very, very quickly.
I think it's possible that in a hundred years, when they look back at this, they'll say, it all started With the financial collapse.
They can say, it all started with the election of George W. Bush in 2000.
And people believing that Al Gore or George Bush were evil.
And it's crazy how that was escalating.
And what may have occurred is that the boomers, and to a certain degree the Gen Xers who are now voting, We're instilling these values in the younger generation, but while their views were more tame because they weren't raised on this perception of an evil political other, when you raise the millennial generation and Gen Z on the idea of the evil political other, and you exacerbate that divide,
Over time, the younger and younger generations become more and more divided.
Until finally, when millennials are now taking over industry and politics, not nearly as much as they should be, to be honest, their view of the other is, the other is evil, period, and cannot be reasoned with.
And that'll trickle down into Gen Z. That'll trickle down into Generation Alpha, or whatever you want to call it.
As Gen Xers, who are less prone to conflict and crisis, and Boomers age out and Millennials take over, Millennials are at deep odds with each other politically.
Millennial women, for instance, are overwhelmingly Black Lives Matter and far left, and Millennial men are fairly split, but the Millennial generation, I mean, our politics are hard division.
I don't understand how Gen Z can make it through that either.
Maybe Millennials are just nuts.
Maybe after Millennials, Gen Z says, yo, we don't care about any of that stuff.
We just want to play video games or something.
But my opinion is the division will escalate because of stories like this.
Because individuals, individuals as it is, will take action.
And they'll take lives.
Some have said to me, Tim, there won't be a civil war because there's no appetite for war among the people.
It's just powerful elites who hate each other.
And I find that funny that people have said that to me on more than one occasion.
Tell me a war that was not powerful elites at odds with each other and then using the poor to solve their problems or to engage in that conflict.
That's exactly where we're headed.
It'll start here.
You know, Black Lives Matter, they've mostly burned down Democrat-controlled areas.
This makes absolute sense as to why he would do it.
It's horrifying and it shouldn't happen.
But when you look at Black Lives Matter burning down Democrat-run cities, are you surprised a BLM activist tried to kill a Democrat?
No.
Once they seize control, like Bill de Blasio, that guy's out of his mind with illegal actions defended by police.
That's how it occurs.
When these activists reach the highest levels of government, and they are, When they seize control of their party and their geography, that's when they turn their sights on you, the evil political other.
And that's a day I hope never comes.
But I don't see how we pull out of this.
I don't see how any of this changes.
We are a train on a track and we are picking up speed.
How do you stop such a large and heavy machine?
I don't know if you can.
Without it just ripping the train off the tracks.
And then maybe that is the conflict.
Maybe that's what happens.
Two people fighting over the brake lever and then someone rips it off.
The train just stops and flips over and all the carts go flying in the air.
The night is always darkest before the dawn.
It was always going to get worse before it got better, right?
I think in the long run, those of us who have been paying attention to all this will be completely fine.
In fact, life will probably improve.
But for those in the cities who haven't been paying attention to any of this stuff, they're going to be caught off guard.
One day, some psychopathic Black Lives Matter activist who is going to walk into your office with a grievance.
It's not been Trump supporters doing this.
It's not been politically homeless post-liberals or conservatives.
It's been the left the entire time.
But the Democrats made a deal with the devil.
They thought they could utilize this fervor to their advantage.
And it will turn on them.
And then, once these people gain control of their party, the extremists, it will become more extreme.
Among the MAGA crowd and the populist right, they mostly want to be left alone.
They don't go out riot and burn and destroy things.
We'll see how things play out.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Canada has announced it will freeze bank accounts and crowdfunding from people engaged in what they deem to be illegal occupations.
That is to say, the Freedom Convoy protesters will have their bank accounts frozen, their crypto taken, if they can take it, and any crowdfunding will be seized.
They've already done this.
TD Bank has apparently already frozen about 1.1 million dollars.
And, you know, shockingly, many left personalities have been speaking out, shocked the government is doing this.
And unsurprisingly, many of their followers on social media are cheering on the government from freezing people's bank accounts without court orders.
Now, I understand the idea of due process and freezing someone's bank account, but I don't think there should be any circumstance where a peaceful protest results in the government getting a court order, or in any way, freezing your bank account.
But I look at this story, and I'm just so confused by it.
Does the Canadian government think that they will get away with this?
There's a few things I'll add to this before we read all the news.
The first is that I mentioned this several times in relation to the freedom protests, the freedom convoys, the anti-vaccine mandate protests.
Peaceful protests work, and the example I like to give is Occupy Wall Street, when Officer Anthony Bologna pepper sprayed, I believe it was three women.
For seemingly no reason, he walked up to them and just sprayed them.
Probably he was annoyed by them.
I guess they were yelling.
This triggered a viral video, which triggered a mass uprising across the country.
And it really was the catalyst for the greater Occupy movement.
Attacking peaceful protests with extreme measures always backfires.
We're starting to see it now.
Vosch, prominent socialist YouTuber, speaking out against the government.
Schuonhead, of course, is more anti-establishment and populist, but they're having a conversation about this.
And there are a lot of people who agree with him.
It's showing that the Canadian government is losing a lot of the leftist support they had in trying to shut down these protests because they've gotten too extreme.
But with that being said, I can't help but think of Watchmen, that graphic novel and later movie.
I love the movie, by the way.
The graphic novel was way better because it got way more in detail.
But the story itself is just fantastic.
And I have to wonder, what's the end goal in all of this?
There's one way to bypass someone trying to shut down your financials, and it's Bitcoin.
Cryptocurrencies.
Very, very hard to track, but possible to track.
Bitcoin, for instance, is a public ledger, so they know who you are.
But there are other ways to protect your assets, and it's a kind of digital cash, in a sense.
Now, not in the way that people try to argue Bitcoin is, but hear me out on this one.
I don't want to get into the nitty-gritty of cryptocurrencies.
The point is, the end result of all of this will be to drive people to using cryptocurrencies, which are something they can control outside of a financial institution, but can be transmitted digitally.
And that's why I think of Watchmen.
Ozymandias, the bad guy in Watchmen, he was a superhero.
And he staged a false flag where he made it seem like an alien invasion was occurring so that during the Cold War, the United States and the Soviet Union would come together against a common enemy.
I look at how comic book villain-esque the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and Justin Trudeau have been, and I'm just like, for so many people who are protesting this, the end result is going to be probably a collapse of Western governments, and probably the adoption of cryptocurrency en masse, because we can see the evil That is to say, the reason I think of Watchmen is, it feels like the end goal may be to destroy the Constitution, our government, their government, fracturing confidence in these systems from right and left, and fracturing confidence in the financial system, which results in adoption of a global currency standard, which is cryptocurrency.
Maybe that's the 4D chess the establishment elites are playing.
Make themselves out to be the villain.
Unite populist groups behind what they really want them to do.
And seems smart, right?
I always thought about this because cryptocurrencies are public.
The trading is public.
Some aren't like Monero and Zcash, but the government can still easily track them, which
they've proven already.
But you take a look at who adopted cryptocurrencies first, and it was the anti-government anarchist
types and conspiracy theorists.
What a clever way to go about forcing a global currency standard or a global value standard, right?
I'm not saying it's true.
I'm just saying it makes me think of that.
Well, here's the story.
Business Insider reports.
The Canadian government has warned that it will freeze the bank accounts and suspend the vehicle insurance of truckers who continue to form blockades in protest of vaccine mandates, as the country declares a national emergency to quell the gridlock.
This is about following the money.
This is about stopping the financing of these illegal blockades, said Canadian Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland.
We are today serving notice.
If your truck is being used in these illegal blockades, your corporate accounts will be frozen.
The insurance on your vehicle will be suspended.
She continued, adding at another point in the conference that personal financial accounts would be included in the order.
Send your semi-trailers home.
The Canadian economy needs them to be doing legitimate work, not to be illegally making us all poorer.
Perhaps this woman doesn't understand that the governments of Canada, the government of Canada and the United States, albeit different, are still for, of, and by the people.
Now, I understand Canada didn't have a great revolutionary war.
They're still technically under the crown.
But as far as I'm concerned, the realization that government comes from a mandate from the masses and not from divine decree Says to me that you can have whatever kind of country you want, but the people know they hold the power at this point.
So when they come out and say, shut up and do your job, I say, no, I won't.
You can't tell me what to do.
And we have a social contract.
We have agreements on certain things we shouldn't be doing, but you cannot force these people to work.
So you know what?
I wouldn't be surprised if many of these people already putting everything on the line simply just said, fine, freeze the accounts, take the trucks, I don't care.
You can't make me do it.
They can't.
And that's what they're trying to do through coercive force.
Nothing's worked so far.
Now they're saying, without a court order, they will take your bank accounts.
Look at this.
Trudeau's administration is authorizing banks to freeze or suspend accounts, accounts suspected Of being involved in illegal activity without the need for a court order.
That is to say, you could have the same name as a trucker and be in Canada and one day your bank account's frozen to zero like, well, that's the name of the guy in the truck.
Oops, got the wrong person.
No due process.
The system cannot be sustained.
Feds crack down on trucker protest financing from crowdfund rules to freezing bank accounts.
That's right.
She said, they're going to go after your crypto.
Good luck.
That's the amazing thing.
They can seize your crypto.
And they can seize your crypto in the same way they can seize your cash.
That is to say, if you're holding on to your cryptocurrency keys in your accounts, they would have to come and physically take it from you.
Now the interesting thing about crypto is that you can store the information to access your accounts in your head, and they have no means of gaining control of it unless they have information from your head.
I suppose they can lock you up, beat you, and torture you until you give it up.
There's always one way to extract information.
They can drug you or something like that.
With cash.
If your cash is not in a bank and they want to take it from you, they have to find it.
You can put your cash and bury it and take your cash, bury it in the woods somewhere and they won't know where it is and you don't got to tell them.
Just like crypto.
If they can't extract the information on where the money is, they can't get the cash.
The funny thing about crypto is they can look at the public ledgers and see the money's there.
But they can't get access to it without your keys.
And you don't got to give it to them.
This is going to push more and more people out of banking institutions and towards cryptocurrency.
I think it's a good thing.
That's why I wonder if it's just like some kind of, like what they're doing is on purpose.
Look at this.
TD Bank freezes personal bank accounts that received 1.1 million in support for Canadian truckers.
Anyone who has a TD Bank account is insane.
Okay.
Maybe you right now have TD Bank and you're like, but I've always had TD.
Yeah, one day you'll wake up, and your money will be locked away from you without a court order.
And you'll be wondering, how did it get to this point?
So let this be your warning.
If you are currently banking with TD, they will freeze your accounts without due process, and there is nothing you can do to stop it.
Of course, you can take all of your money out.
Now, what we're seeing on Twitter, Bank Run Canada is trending.
People are saying, go to your banks, take out all your cash now.
And you know what?
I certainly am never one to try and encourage anything like that.
But I will say, if you're in Canada and your money is in the bank, don't think you're safe.
You would be insane to think so.
They don't need a court order to freeze your money.
And then what happens one day when you can't pay the bills?
What happens one day when you can't pay your utility bill?
And the utility company says, we don't care why you can't pay it.
We're shutting off your heat.
We're shutting off your electricity.
And the bank says, look, we don't know anything about it.
Government said, do it.
And you say, but I'm not there.
I'm not protesting.
They say, we don't care.
You know where this is going?
They're trying to set precedent for the social credit scores, the ESG scores.
What is it?
Environmental social governance or something.
Once they set this precedent, they'll tell you.
This is the way I described it last night on Timcast IRL.
It'll be 10 years from now.
You're on your new future mobile device, and you'll go to the store, and you're gonna be buying things by tapping your phone or something like that.
And you're gonna go into your big box store, because mom-and-pop shops will have been completely decimated, and you'll try and buy a can of Coca-Cola.
Maybe you want to get some beer.
Some beer and some freezer pizzas.
Maybe some wings.
You're gonna have a party at home.
You scan your phone and the voice goes, I'm sorry, Mr. Smith.
You're over your allotment of carbon this month.
I'm afraid I can't let you purchase these items.
Maybe not in 10 years.
That's where we're going.
Maybe you'll buy the items, and then you'll check your bank account, and your bank account will say, we can't help but notice that you've exceeded your carbon footprint allotment for this month.
We're suspending your bank account for three days.
Don't worry, in three days your carbon footprint allotment will increase, and you'll be able to purchase once again.
That's where I feel like it's all going.
The ESG stuff has a lot to do with carbon, but it also has a lot to do with the items you buy if you buy guns.
So here's another thing to consider.
Michael Bloomberg already tried banning sodas.
You think this is about just this protest?
No, it's about precedent.
You'll go to a bar, you'll try and buy a beer.
You'll buy the beer, you'll get it.
You'll buy a beer, you'll get it.
You'll say, third round, and it'll say, sorry, your tap's been declined.
And you'll pull up your banking app, and it'll say, your bank account has been frozen for purchases of alcohol because you've consumed too much.
Your social credit score is dropping.
Now I don't know if it'll be that specific, but I think based on what we've already read about ESG scores, what it says is that your score just drops, your social credit score drops based on buying items.
So you'll go out, and you'll buy a couple kegs.
Or you'll, you know, and you put a deposit down for the keg, but you buy the beer.
All of a sudden, buying all that beer drops your social credit score down 50 points.
It ain't about beer anymore.
Because it's not.
Like, the scenario that I just envisioned, I think, won't necessarily come true, but something to this effect.
But let me explain it this way.
The banks and the social credit system won't care that you're buying too much beer.
It'll care that you're... It won't care to threaten you about beer.
So what if you bought too many beers, you can't buy another one?
No, no, no.
What'll happen is, it'll say, Warning!
If you purchase these kegs, your social credit score will drop by 17 points, making you ineligible for financing, loans, and access to sporting events.
And you'll say, guys, I can't buy this.
My social credit score will drop by too much.
Does anybody else?
We could split it.
That's what'll happen.
I think carbon is a big, big issue around it.
This is the nightmare scenario that you will end up living in.
Do you guys know that Give Send Go has been hacked?
That it's been shut down?
Give Send Go is gone.
I'm surprised more people aren't talking about this.
Someone hacked it, claimed that they financed terror or whatever, and the site went down.
Now when you go there, it says they're offline for maintenance.
Maybe if I refresh it, it'll come back, but earlier this morning, nothing there.
Hey, there we go.
Alright, they're back.
Earlier this morning, following news of the hack, they were shut down.
Glad to see that they're finally back up, and the Freedom Convoy account has been restored.
Because there was news that it was redirecting to GiveSendGone yesterday.
Seems like they were able to get to the root of the problem and fix it.
Still, crazy story that this has happened.
I wonder who did it.
Now I'd like to give a shout out to our good friend Vosh.
Vosh being the socialist YouTuber.
Now I've always viewed Vosh as inherently authoritarian and to a certain degree traditional conservative.
Now hold on there a minute.
I'm being somewhat facetious.
Traditional right-winger.
Now, of course, Vosch says he's a socialist and a lefty and all that stuff.
But for too long, Vosch has been in favor of corporate power, or he's put out messages.
So I've disagreed with that concept.
He's also called me a conservative.
You see the game being played here.
Now, Vosch is a socialist, but I view him as inherently authoritarian.
But he's kind of being shocked out of this.
Check it out.
Vosh tweeted, what the F?
Trudeau vows to freeze anti-mandate protesters' bank accounts.
He says, don't mind me just using emergency powers to freeze the assets of protesters.
I am begging people to understand you can oppose the anti-mandate protests and still understand the government having the ability to unilaterally freeze your assets with no court order is a effing terrifying precedent to set against protesters.
I'm sorry, and I can respect Vosh coming out and criticizing the freezing of bank accounts, but how do you reconcile this, good sir Ian?
That the government can mandate you inject yourself with medication, but they can't take your money?
I actually think that if there was anything in that that was less egregious, freezing someone's bank is less egregious than violating their bodily autonomy.
You want to tell me I can't use a bank?
Well, I get it.
Banks are private institutions.
You want to tell me that in order to access public accommodation, I have to inject myself with medication?
Okay.
I don't know how you're on the other side of that one, bro.
But I can respect you coming out and criticizing the seizing of assets, because at least we have that we agree upon that it's bad.
But yo.
If the government can come out and say, inject yourself, or you can't go grocery shopping, that's substantially worse than saying, we've locked your bank.
I can still take money out of my bank.
I can still use the cash system we have now.
I can still use cryptocurrencies.
Heck, I can still barter.
I can walk into the store and say, I have whittled a small sailboat from a block of wood, and I will trade this to you, good sir, for a gallon of milk.
And someone might be like, sure.
But with the vaccine mandates, they're like, sir, if you want to enter this, inject this into your body.
Submit your body to the state.
Sorry, I'm not for it.
I do think it's funny that a lot of people responded to him basically saying that he's wrong.
Look at this guy, this psychopath.
He says, Vosh, respectfully, as an Ottawa resident, this has ceased to be a protest a long time ago.
This is an attack on a vulnerable population.
This emergency is good.
Yo, this guy is insane!
That's the craziest thing I've ever heard.
Are you kidding me with this?
It's just absolutely insane.
I just think it's absolutely off-the-walls insane that people are defending this.
But I gotta say, shout out to, you know, to Vosh and to many other people for calling this stuff out.
We have this viral trend right now on Twitter, Bank Run Canada.
You can say people are pointing out.
Look at this.
Bank Run Canada trending on Twitter.
Vosh trending on Twitter.
Vosh trends on Twitter fairly often, but I think he's maybe realized that you've ceded too much power to the state.
The only reason they're able to do this is because y'all agreed with their rule by decree in the first place.
Maybe it's time you watch that comedy segment where the guys are like, are we the baddies?
Somebody posted that meme.
It's where they're dressed like Nazis and they were like, it's actually really funny.
I can't remember, is it Hamish and Andy are the comedians?
I can't remember.
But like, the Nazis had the skull and crossbones and he's like, you know, our symbol is a skull and crossbones.
Like, are we the baddies?
Like, yes, you are.
Y'all came out and you said that the government ruling by decree is fine.
We all opposed it and said, no it isn't.
Due process must stand and the power of government is derived from a mandate from the masses.
Not from unilateral decree or divine providence.
But too many people on the left claim they're on the left and then said, they're allowed to do this.
Well, you gave them this power and now you're shocked they're going to go above and beyond?
I'm not.
If anything, I think, like I said, That the vaccine mandates are substantially worse.
Maybe there will be a bank run.
We have this meme, you may have seen it, where there's a plank of wood going off a cliff and a politician on the far end over the cliff.
And a bunch of people are standing on that wood and it says, the people don't know their true power.
As if to imply, once the people step off that platform, the weight on that wood will just ultimately go off the edge of the cliff, taking the politician with them.
In this image, there is a man wearing a Bitcoin jacket stepping off first.
Yeah.
People are saying, bank run Canada.
I don't know about all that, but I can tell you.
And I'll stress that point from earlier.
If you have your money in a Canadian bank, don't come crying when your assets are frozen for arbitrary means.
You have been warned.
If you haven't already looked into cryptocurrencies, don't come crying when your assets are worthless.
You've been warned.
I'm not advising anybody to do anything financially.
What I'm saying is, on social media, there are warning signs about what's happening in the system.
And what that means is, you need to seek sound financial advice.
I'm not giving any.
I don't know what you should do with your money.
I do things on my own.
I don't want to be in charge of your life.
I don't want to tell you what to do with your life.
And if you want to keep your money and these things fine, I just think you're nuts.
But I'm not telling you to do anything.
I'm just saying, personally, I think it's nuts that people would.
If you plan to do anything, seek sound financial advice from someone who knows a heck of a lot more than I do, because I'm a guy on internet talking about thing.
If you want to figure out what to do with your money, you need a guy in office talk about money, which I am certainly not.
Me personally?
When it comes to all of this stuff, I've already looked at hedging my bets.
I think the U.S.
dollar's in serious trouble.
Inflation is through the roof.
Wholesale inflation's nearing 10%.
Consumer inflation's at 7.5.
Highest it's been since the 80s.
And if you actually calculate using the 80s metrics, it's higher than it's been since World War II!
So, like our good friends in Venezuela say, as soon as you get the cash, spend it, right?
Now, I don't know if that's good advice, I don't know how you deal with inflation, but I can tell you, I'm certainly buying whatever I can, trying to expand as fast as I can, because if I wait a year, I'll lose 10% of my money.
Probably more.
I actually think inflation's probably in upwards of the high teens.
We had Max Keiser on the show several months ago, and he said he thought inflation was 15%.
Well, if you do the math around there, if you do the math based on the 80s metrics for how they calculated inflation, it's 15.5.
Anyway, Trudeau is invoking war powers against peaceful protesters.
If that is not an indication of dramatic escalation, I don't know, man.
I don't know, man.
I understand Canada's not the same as the U.S., but our cultural issues are overlapping for sure.
