Trump Files MASSIVE Racketeering Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton And Democrats Over Russiagate LIES
Trump Files MASSIVE Racketeering Lawsuit Against Hillary Clinton And Democrats Over Russiagate LIES. Democrats for years pushed insane lies about Trump and a pee tape and now Trump is seeking millions in compensation.
The media aided and abetted the lies and to this day have not apologized. Many major corporate news outlets even won awards for reporting what turned out to be a total farce
As Trump 2024 ramps up and Biden pushes more lies we are seeing lawfare as the main strategy for stopping Republicans. Already Madison Cawthorne defeated an attempt to disqualify him and Marjorie Taylor Greene faces a similar case. A Federal judge already ruled against the Democrats
#Trump
#Clinton
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Donald Trump has filed a massive lawsuit against Hillary Clinton and the Democrats over the lies pertaining to Russiagate.
And boy are the lies silly.
Remember the pee tape?
Yeah.
But we're also seeing Democrats file lawsuits to disqualify Republicans as political lawfare becomes the key strategy instead of just winning elections.
In our next story, USA Today actually comes out and says, scientists can't define the word woman.
Well, they just quote some gender studies experts and they're wrong.
Science can.
In our last story, Joe Biden warns food shortages are coming.
So please take this seriously.
They're telling you overtly now.
If you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Donald Trump has hit Democrats and Hillary Clinton with a major lawsuit over the Russiagate lies.
Politico says the sprawling lawsuit accuses a large cast of racketeering conspiracy over allegations that Trump was in Putin's pocket in 2016.
And my friends, you need only look at the news and the history of the reporting around Donald Trump to realize, boy, did they lie.
I'm actually kind of surprised they thought they could get away with it.
But the big picture here is that lawfare is the battlefront.
Donald Trump filing this lawsuit when he's expected to be running for president in probably, maybe even this year he might announce it, maybe next year.
Well, it shows that legal tactics will be used, and truth be told, they were already being used in the last election.
But they're going to be ramping up.
It's not just Donald Trump who is filing a lawsuit.
We also have Marjorie Taylor Greene currently facing a lawsuit to try and disqualify her from running for re-election.
Of course, this was tried against Madison Cawthorn.
A judge threw it out.
I don't think you can call this country a democracy or even a constitutional republic at this point.
I know that traditionally we are a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives.
Many on the left view this country more as a multicultural democracy and they're shocked why we don't have democratic votes for policy, although we do sometimes, you know, in referendums.
But the reality is, with many of these people going for political victories instead of electoral victories, we're not a country that seeks a cohesive solution to our problems.
We're dealing with major crises.
We're dealing with food shortages, a looming war in Europe, potentially between NATO and Russia.
There's currently a war in Eastern Europe.
Does anyone really care?
The fascinating thing is, moderates and conservatives do, and they're all like, yo, this is really bad.
Of course, you still have Trump supporters who very much just support Trump because he's Trump.
And then you have the overwhelming majority of the left who just don't like Republicans or Trump because Trump.
Me?
I'm kind of just like, yo, fix the problems and we can talk.
Joe Biden certainly can't fix these problems.
And now, we're dealing with ramifications of people who voted for Joe Biden.
Inflation is through the roof, gas prices are through the roof.
We have reports that some states are going to have to give out stimulus checks, which will only result in more inflation.
So as to what happens in 2024, in 2022's November election, I don't know.
But Joe Biden is saying that he's fortunate Donald Trump is going to be running because he's looking forward to that rematch.
Yo, I don't think it'll go well for you, Biden.
Now granted, I was wrong.
I didn't think Biden could win in the first place, but I underestimated how much people did not like Donald Trump.
You take a look at the polls now.
Favorability and approval, not the same thing.
But I will just point out that it's kind of funny that Donald Trump's favorability right now is higher than Joe Biden's job approval rating, which is interesting, especially when you look at Donald Trump's approval rating from just around the time he left office.
And in aggregate, Donald Trump's approval rating was higher than Joe Biden's approval rating right now.
Could that mean Trump wins and crushes Joe Biden in a rematch election?
I mean, it could, but I don't know what's going to happen.
You know, we were dealing with a pandemic.
People were angry.
They were freaking out.
I don't think Democrats are going to be able to muster up the ability to defeat Republicans in November of this year or in 2022 unless they resort to lawfare tactics, which is exactly what they're doing.
And of course, now we see Donald Trump is not doing something too dissimilar. But I will be fair and
say, Donald Trump's lawsuit over the Russiagate lies probably has more to do with they already
did this stuff to him and he's suing because they did. When it comes to suing to disqualify
Madison Cawthorn or Marjorie Taylor Green, yeah, that's outright political lawfare trying to
stop legitimate elections, in my opinion.
But let's read this story from Politico.
I want to show you some of the history around the psychotic media relating to Trump and Russia and the...
Pee tape.
And then you can decide for yourself whether you think his claims may be true.
And we'll talk about what's happening with these upcoming elections.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work and all of our journalists' work.
We have the story right here.
January 6th, committee to hold contempt vote for two former Trump aides.
If you think these stories are important, sign up to be a member.
Make sure our journalists can produce this news for you every day.
You'll also get access to exclusive members-only episodes of the TimCast IRL podcast.
Those go up Monday through Thursday at 8 p.m.
But don't forget, you can also just smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this video right now anywhere you can by clicking that URL, copying it, and pasting it.
Most powerful thing you can do.
Grassroots marketing.
We don't have powerful marketing and we're not being propped up by YouTube like CNN and MSNBC are.
We rely on you and your grassroots effort to share this video to help get the word out there if you like the work that I do.
That being said, let's get into that first story from Politico.
Donald Trump sues Hillary Clinton and allies over Russia claims.
Politico reports former President Donald Trump is suing 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton in a sprawling case that accuses her of conspiring with dozens of other actors, frequent targets of Trump's conspiracy theories, and rage to topple his presidency.
The new lawsuit filed Thursday in federal court in Fort Pierce, Florida, accuses Clinton, her campaign, various campaign aides, former FBI Director James Comey, and Democratic National Committee and others of racketeering conspiracy for allegedly joining in an unthinkable plot to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia in the 2016 presidential election.
Quote, in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, Hillary Clinton and her cohorts orchestrated an unthinkable plot One that shocks the conscience and is an affront to this nation's democracy, the complaint says.
Acting in concert, the defendants maliciously conspired to weave a false narrative that their Republican opponent Donald J. Trump was colluding with a hostile foreign sovereignty.
Now, it has been reported That one of the reasons Hillary Clinton made this claim about Trump and Russia was because her email scandal was looking really bad.
James Comey was, you know, he eventually comes out and he says, you know, we gotta look into these emails or whatever.
Everyone gets really pissed off about it.
Man, I can't believe it has been six or seven years since all of this stuff was going down.
Been a long time.
But apparently Hillary Clinton was trying to deflect, or at least that's what's being alleged, the suit accused the defendants of obstruction of justice and theft of trade secrets, as well as unlawful hacking into Trump's private communications.
The actions taken in furtherance of their scheme, falsifying evidence, deceiving law enforcement, and exploiting access to highly sensitive data sources, are so outrageous, subversive, and incendiary, that even the events of Watergate pale in comparison, the complaint adds.
The sprawling 108-page complaint reads like a greatest hits of Trump's long-held grievances against the public figures most closely associated with the investigation of his campaign's ties to Russia in 2016.
It stitches together disparate details unearthed in the ongoing investigation by Special Counsel John Durham, as well as long-known details about the FBI's Russia probe and Special Counsel Robert Mueller's subsequent investigation.
Which concluded that Donald Trump did not collude with Russia.
And I got to say, Annie, do you really believe there's a pee tape?
Yo, people believe some of the craziest trash out there.
There's conspiracies and boy, is this a doozy.
You know, if Joe Biden comes out and says, you know, after World War Two, we had the liberal world order.
And now there's going to be a new world order and we got to lead it.
And you go, oh yeah, the Liberal World Order, which the Council on Foreign Relations says was a group of international organizations and corporations coming together to, you know, to change policy on trade and security and health.
And now there's going to be a new version of that.
If you point that out, they call you a conspiracy theorist!
Thank you, media, for your diligent fact-checking.
Yet, if Hillary Clinton comes out or Huffington Post or any one of these other outlets and say, could there be a tape of Donald Trump with women of the night relieving themselves on a bed?
And everyone's like, hmm, maybe?
And I'm just like, bro, look.
Could I believe Donald Trump would do something like that?
I could believe it, but yo, you're gonna have to provide me with even a shred of evidence if you want me to even bother talking about such a claim.
You can't just come out and be like, yo, did you hear about Judge Katonji Brown Jackson did?
Yeah.
She used to throw oranges at people from on top of her apartment building.
Yeah, no joke.
But it's like, it's a ridiculous claim.
Just standing up there throwing fruit at people as they pass by your house.
I'm trying to keep it family friendly, as you may have noticed.
You could make that claim and I'd be like, can you show me any shred of evidence that something like that ever occurred for any reason?
Because otherwise, it's a ridiculous thing to say.
The suit appears to seek more than $72 million in damages, which the complaint says is the tally of legal fees and other costs of defending against the alleged untruths.
In another court filing in the case, Trump's attorney asked for only $21 million.
unidentified
Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
The only specific allegations against him in the suit are that he made public statements suggesting that Trump had worked with Russia in 2016, and that he had serious legal woes.
The suit says that after Trump reportedly blocked sanctions on Russia in 2018, Raines tweeted, The suit also alleges that after the publication of Mueller's report in 2019, Reins said on Fox News that Trump was still under investigation by 17 other entities, including the Southern District of New York.
Reins responded nonchalantly to the suit Thursday, quote, I look forward to deposing the plaintiff.
Another defendant in the suit, former FBI counterintelligence agent Peter Strzok, said through his attorney that the suit was likely wildly inaccurate.
That is lawyer Eytan Goleman.
Goleman said it was odd that Trump was filing a new suit against Strzok and others, while the former president is fighting efforts to depose him in connection with the suit Strzok filed, claiming he was fired from the FBI for political reasons.
The suit was filed by Alina Haba, a Bedminster NJ-based attorney Trump tapped last year after dismissing other more prominent lawyers who had been handling much of the wide range of litigation he faces in various courts.
In the public docket for the case, Trump's attorneys included the home address of the vast majority of the defendants in the suit.
For Trump, however, they listed the address of Tickton's law firm.
Whatever, man.
Yo, let's just be real here.
I want to show you this article from Newsweek.
10-24-17, from 2017.
Trump-Russia p-tape dossier was paid for by Hillary Clinton campaign.
This was opposition research, not fact.
And they came out with what may be the most ridiculous trash anyone ever read.
People believed it was real.
My favorite story out of this was that the p-tape story actually came from 4chan.
I don't know if that's true.
Actually, it's probably not.
But this was a funny news cycle that occurred where 4chan claimed they were sewing fake stories about Trump in a p-tape and some guy believed it and put it in a report that eventually made its way to Hillary Clinton.
And then, you know, if you really believe there's a p-tape of Donald Trump, I'm sorry.
Is it possible?
I guess.
But I would never put a bet on that.
You could be like, a $1 bet wins you $100 and I'd be like, I'll just keep the dollar, man.
I guess if you came to me and said a $1 bet's worth $1,000, you'd be dumb not to take any bet that was just a buck.
But if you came to me and said $1,000 will win you $100 grand, I'd be like, no, I need the $1,000.
That's a stupid bet to make.
You're just giving the money away.
Because it's not just, could there be a tape?
It's just, you know, are they even, even if there was, how does such a thing even make it to the public light?
I just, I gotta be honest, it's just the most insane thing ever.
But let me explain to you.
I want you to understand how psychotic the news cycle was throughout these past several years.
In 2019, The Cut reported absolutely every single thing we know about the P-Tape.
All right, let me explain to you why Trump is suing, at least partly, because there are genuinely people who believe this, all right?
Just hear me out, and share this with people.
Seriously, if you know anybody who's like, you know, I wasn't really paying attention to the news all that much, but I think they're getting things right, be like, no, no, no, no, just read this, read this.
Stop coming to me and being like, both sides, yo.
You can criticize Republicans and their policies.
That I get.
But the Republicans do not have corporate press doing things like this.
On Thursday, Attorney General William Barr released Special Counsel Robert Mueller's two-volume, 400-plus-page report on his investigation into the Trump administration's possible collusion with the Russian government in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election.
I know, I know.
But what about the p-tape?
Wait, you might be saying, remind me about the p-tape.
What's on it?
Is it real?
Are there... parodies?
To help refresh your memory, we've compiled every single thing we know.
Here we go.
First thing, what exactly is the p-tape?
The video in question reportedly shows Trump in the presidential suite at Moscow's posh Ritz-Carlton Hotel watching two women of the night relieve themselves on a bed the Obamas supposedly slept in.
The incident allegedly took place in 2013 when Trump was visiting Moscow to attend the Miss Universe pageant.
The Ritz-Carlton was allegedly under surveillance by the FSB, Russia's main state security agency, a successor to the KGB, which has microphones and hidden cameras in many of the rooms, including, it seems, the soiled presidential suite.
So that means if it indeed exists, Russian President Vladimir Putin is likely in possession of the tape, which means there's a chance the President of the United States could be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russian government, or as New York's Jonathan Chait has suggested, is currently being blackmailed by them.
I kid you not.
The cut then goes on to say, showing this from 2018, a year before, quote, there's a pretty good chance President Trump is being blackmailed.
Oh, my brain.
Do you want to see the reality of the psychosis that plagued the media for five years?
If you still believe the claims made by these people, I'm sorry, I believe there may be no helping you.
I give you now the most glorious tweet of our fake news generation from the Huffington Post.
A tape might exist of Trump doing something in an elevator, though exactly where that somewhere is and what that something might be, no one in media can say.
That's because no one in media seems to have seen the tape or is even confident it exists.
The Huffington Post said, the hunt for every Trump reporter's white whale, the elevator tape.
All your favorite media outlets plus Tom Arnold are racing to find a damning tape that might not even exist.
Here's the best part.
The best part is, no one, someone said, someone just one day was like, hey, I heard that Trump was in an elevator once, what did he do?
Trump was in an elevator once and there's a video of it.
I'm sure there's many videos of Trump in an elevator because elevators have security cameras.
Not all of them.
Here we go.
There it was.
Some 1,500 words into a story published by the Daily Beast.
In the Daily Beast.
The infamous Donald Trump elevator.
Well, not the tape itself, but the first reference in a mainstream publication to the possible existence of a bombshell tape of Trump in an elevator in Trump Tower.
For months, reporters at various media outlets around the country, the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Associated Press, and others had chased a videotape that may not even exist.
They had talked to people in the know, and people close to the know, and people like Tom Arnold.
They talked to Tom Arnold?
Why?
Yo, our media failed us, they're psychotic, and this tweet sums it all up.
Ladies and gentlemen, I bring you to today, once again, getting crackpot lies from these people.
Stop believing them.
Stop.
They're spitting on you.
You know what?
If you still believe all this stuff, I don't know if there's anything I can do to help you.
Because how many stories they put out were lies.
Come on.
The people who believed Jussie Smollett.
That's what I need only say.
Biden repeats claim that Trump called Neo-Nazis good people after the Charlottesville riot in NATO's speech hinting he wants a rematch in 2024.
Trump did no such thing.
Trump was specifically referring to people who weren't Neo-Nazis.
That's the reality.
Watch the full video.
It was a major awakening for a lot of people.
Because Joe Biden launched his presidential campaign accusing Trump of doing something that was overtly false.
This is why I think it's important that Donald Trump does file this suit, because these are false statements of fact.
Joe Biden claimed Trump called neo-Nazis good people.
What Trump actually said was, there were good and bad people on both sides, there were good people on both sides, and I am not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally.
It's not a perfect quote, partially paraphrasing, but he did say they should be condemned totally.
What Trump was saying was that...
A bunch of run-of-the-mill middle-class people showed up, and then a bunch of neo-Nazis showed up.
And the neo-Nazis were bad, but the regular people who showed up were not bad.
They were good people.
Trump even said there were some good people on the other side as well.
Trump gave a nuanced approach to it because apparently he was actually reading what was going on, and the media took it and lied, and Joe Biden took it and lied.
And Joe Biden is lying to you now.
Joe Biden's the guy who told you we were going to build back better.
Now what are we looking at?
Food shortages!
Gas prices at record highs!
Record inflation!
Wholesale costs are through the roof, and now we have looming food shortages in this fall.
We're nearing maybe even World War III.
Does that sound like building back better to you?
Yeah, sounds like failure to me.
Well, Joe Biden said he'd be very fortunate to face Trump in 2024.
At NATO headquarters on Thursday, President Joe Biden once again claimed, yeah, yeah,
we said that.
Speaking to reporters in Brussels, the president was asked about potential concerns for US
European allies, US's European allies, over Trump possibly getting reelected.
Well, Joe Biden said he'd be very fortunate to face Trump in 2024.
No, he wouldn't.
Let me show you why.
Now, I can be the first to admit that favorability is not the same as approval.
But right now, while Donald Trump is viewed unfavorably at 50.6%, favorably at 44.8%, Joe Biden's approval rating, and I'm using FiveThirtyEight's metrics, 52.8% disapproval and only 42% approval.
rating and I'm using 538 metrics, 52.8% disapproval and only 42% approval. Granted,
job approval and favorability, not the same things. I know, I know.
I just think it's funny that more people, there's more people who view Trump favorably than who approve of Joe Biden's job as president.
Talk about amazing.
Now I want to talk about where we're headed in this country.
And I think it's somewhere disastrous.
Of course, we have potential World War III, there's always civil war on the mind.
Take a look at this from the Daily Mail. Georgia voters file lawsuit saying Marjorie Taylor Greene
should be disqualified from running in the midterm because she voluntarily aided and
engaged in insurrection on January 6. They say the complaint charges that Green voluntarily
aided and engaged in an insurrection to obstruct the peaceful transfer of presidential power,
disqualifying her from serving as a member of Congress.
It's fake news.
I mean, it's a ridiculous argument, and I'll show you why.
The legal filing points to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment that says no member of Congress who has taken the oath of office shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the U.S.
The Constitution's definition of engagement is broad in that an individual merely has to voluntarily assist the insurrection.
Planning or helping plan an insurrection or rebellion satisfies that definition.
The complaint says, as does planning a demonstration or march upon a government building, that the individual, in this case Green, could result in an insurrection, the filing argues.
They say, the documents point to a comment Green made on Newsmax TV on January 5th.
This is our 1776 moment, she proclaimed, saying she was echoing what had been said at a meeting with other GOP lawmakers.
The United States declared independence from Britain on 1776.
Yeah, I think we know that, but I guess the Daily Mail British readers may not.
In the same appearance, Green applauded then-Georgia Republican Senator Kelly Loeffler for signaling she would contest some of the Electoral College votes on January 6.
Furthermore, the planners of the January 6 demonstration report that she met with them beforehand.
The stated goal of the organizers was to pressure Vice President Pence into disregarding electoral votes from several states and declaring Trump the winner of the 2020 election.
What the left consistently tries to do is conflate a rally that occurred far away and some permitted rallies that happened nearby with the fact that many other people stormed the building.
Just because you had a rally doesn't mean you had anything to do with those who stormed the building.
In fact, many of these rallies were ongoing when the people stormed the building.
In fact, Alex Jones, who was nearby and had a permit, was bullhorning, do not go in the building.
So, there you go.
They're lying to you.
Free speech for the people was also part of a similar suit filed by 11 North Carolina voters hoping to keep Madison Cawthorn off the midterm ballot for similar reason.
A federal judge blocked that lawsuit earlier this month because it's ridiculous.
A judge has already thrown out the exact same lawsuit against Madison Cawthorn, filed by the same dishonest lawyers, Green told TheDailyMail.com via a statement.
This is the same evil playbook the dishonest Communist Democrats use against President Trump and his family.
Now they're using it on me because they know I'm effective and will not bow to the DC machine responsible for $30 trillion in debt, a national security crisis at the border, and out-of-control skyrocketing inflation, gas prices, and crime.
I'll never stop fighting for the people.
of Northwest Georgia, the lawmaker continued, as I've said many times before, I'm vehemently
opposed to all forms of political violence, including Black Lives Matter terror attacks
that were funded by Kamala Harris and Ilhan Omar over the Democrat fundraising platform,
Act Blue. Now that's actually true, but let me clarify.
This was, Act Blue was used, I believe it was Act Blue, to help fund political activism
and, uh, bail, uh, bailing, no, no, no, I think it was organizations organizing protests for Black Lives Matter.
GoFundMe, I think it was, bailing people out.
I could be wrong.
I've never encouraged political violence and never will, she added.
On Wednesday, she was quoted in Washington Times saying that people in D.C.
don't understand how she speaks because they live in a bubble.
They are disconnected from real Americans.
And that is their problem, not mine.
I believe and share the same thoughts and feelings of the people in our district.
In her nearly 15 months in Congress, Greene has stood out because she's dabbled in conspiracy theories, gone into arguments with her peers in the hallways, and shutted down President Joe Biden during his month's State of the Union address.
I ultimately don't care about their opinion on conspiracy theories, because everything is a conspiracy theory, and then six months later, it's not.
So, um, spare me.
Now, what I find fascinating is that they've already tried this lawsuit, and it's failed.
The New York Times says Judge effort, uh, Judge Block's effort, sorry, to disqualify Cawthorn from ballot as insurrectionist.
They say, a district judge ruled that the Amnesty Act of 1872, which forgave Confederates, overruled a clause in the 14th Amendment barring insurrectionists from Congress.
U.S.
District Judge Richard E. Myers II, an appointee of President Donald J. Trump, stepped in to squelch an effort by lawyers and voters in North Carolina who had filed the motion before the state's Board of Elections, declaring Mr. Cawthorn, 26, ineligible for re-election under the Constitution.
They had contended that the first-term Republican support for rioters who attacked the Capitol on January 6th made him an insurrectionist.
I don't recall him ever issuing support for those people, but sure.
And therefore barred him from office under the little-known third section of the 14th Amendment.
Judge Meyers sided with the argument of James Bopp Jr., prominent conservative campaign lawyer, who noted that Section 3 concluded with a caveat.
Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House remove such a disability.
The Amnesty Act of 1872 did just that when it declared that all political disabilities imposed by the Third Section of the Fourteenth Amendment were hereby removed from all persons whomsoever.
Actually, I agree with that second part.
I don't think this applies to Madison Cawthorn, however, because he didn't actually engage in any insurrection.
in the future, and that a law could not usurp a constitutional amendment. Actually, I agree with
that second part. I don't think this applies to Madison Cawthorn, however, because he didn't
actually engage in any insurrection. But I do think it's fair to say the intent of that act
was specifically for people engaged in the Civil War because we were trying to mend this country.
And it wouldn't make sense that this law could override a constitutional amendment.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
According to this court ruling, the 1872 amnesty law, by a trick of wording that although no one noticed at the time, completely undermined Congress's careful decision to write the insurrectionist disqualification cause to apply to future insurrectionists.
Well, if the language is there, then so be it.
But Mr. Bopp said Friday that because the 14th Amendment applied to past and future insurrections, so did the subsequent amnesty.
Okay, no, I gotta take it back.
I actually agree with that.
If it says Congress can override it, And they did, then we're done.
It actually says, Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each house remove such a disability, and they did.
wife's text about January 6 are revealed. If he refuses, Congress must move to impeach him,
said one critic who has taken issue with the actions of Virginia Thomas.
You know what? Just do it. Just do it. Just whatever, man.
No one, no one cares about what is true and just everybody.
What I mean by that is everyone is pointing the finger at everybody else, and we are so at
odds with each other.
Just what's the point of sitting here?
Clarence Thomas is fantastic in my opinion.
He's done nothing wrong and the opinions of his wife are irrelevant.
But they're saying he better be removed.
You know what?
Just file it.
I'm sick of it.
I'm done.
We clearly don't agree.
We will never agree.
There are people who tell you there is no definition for the word woman.
I don't see how we coexist.
How do we solve for this problem?
I don't think there's a way to solve it.
I really don't.
I don't know what that means.
I'm just sick of it.
From TimCast.com.
Late Thursday, calls for the hospitalized Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign or be impeached were being circulated after text messages between his wife and the former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows urging efforts to overturn the election were revealed.
He's not his wife.
Now, Clarence Thomas has since been discharged from the hospital.
He appears to be okay.
They say, the text messages were part of 2,320 messages that Meadows provided to the House Select Committee investigating the events of January 6th.
In an interview with the Washington Free Beacon, she has denied any conflict of interest between her activism and her husband's work on the Supreme Court.
Clarence doesn't discuss his work with me.
I don't involve him in my work, she said.
Critics have spoken out and called for Justice Thomas to resign.
Given that Justice Thomas has already made known he won't recuse himself from cases related to his wife's right-wing activism, and the damning evidence of his wife's involvement in this attack on our democracy, Thomas is clearly unfit to serve in the nation's highest court, said Sarah Lipton Loubet, Executive Director of the Take Back the Court Action Fund.
If he refuses, Congress must move to impeach him.
I just don't care.
I don't care what your opinions are.
I don't care what you have to say.
You just want power.
That's all anyone wants.
I'm just over it.
There's no honor, there's no integrity, and there's no attempt to move this country forward.
The left just says, burn it all down, take what you can, strip it to the core.
There's no point arguing.
There's just none.
I don't know where we go as a country if this is the case, because I don't see any reason why we come together.
Literally none.
Many people thought COVID would bring us together.
I don't think so.
There's the trope from Watchmen, graphic novel and film, of a unified world combating a shared enemy.
In the comic, it was a fake alien invasion that stopped the Cold War.
In the movie, they made it seem like one superhero destroyed a bunch of cities around the planet.
And a common enemy unified everybody.
That won't work.
Russia could do whatever they want, we won't unify.
We won't.
China can do what they want, we will not unify.
We are so fractured, and I believe that Russia, North Korea, Iran, China, they all know it.
You can see it.
The left wants power.
They want to crush anyone who opposes them.
They believe they can use any means necessary.
There's groups that literally call themselves that.
The right has their share of zealots.
Of course they do.
But at an institutional level, the right is sitting here trying to play this game fairly while the left isn't.
And that means often the right will lose.
I don't know where we all go in November.
I think the polls show a strong likelihood of Republicans winning, but I don't think Republicans will do anything.
I think the Republicans will win, and then they'll go sit on their hands.
A few years later, people will be tired of them sitting on their hands.
Democrats will end up winning.
And once again, start steamrolling this country and burning it to the ground.
I can only tell you this.
Go out and vote in the primaries.
For Congress.
Vote in your state and local elections.
Vote for your state rep.
Vote for your state senator.
Be the change you want to see in the world.
You better go out and figure out who your local reps are.
Do it right now.
Figure out when your primary is.
Vote out the establishment neocon types.
Do it.
Or forever hold your peace.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
tonight over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
If you still have any holdouts, people who don't believe you when you tell them the corporate press is lying to them, I ask that you only share this video with them.
And if you are the friend or family member of someone who has been trying to tell you the corporate press is lying to you, I pray that you simply read this headline.
USA Today writes, Marcia Blackburn asked Katonji Brown Jackson to define woman.
Science says there's no simple answer.
Do you believe that?
Do you believe there is no simple way to define what a woman is?
There actually is a very simple way to define it.
The way all of humanity around the world defines it, save small ideological pockets, mainly in the US and a bit in Europe.
Woman is very easily defined as adult human female.
We need not have the debate.
It is not my opinion.
You can have a different view of what the word means based on how you use it or interpret it, and that's fine.
I am telling you that even Merriam-Webster, who has been accused of being woke and changing definitions in the past, says a woman is an adult female person.
They also go on to say there's other definitions, like a woman belonging to a certain category, Like a councilwoman, a distinctively feminine nature, a woman who is a servant or personal attendant, and that was referred to saying like your- I don't think they use it anymore to be completely honest, but Merriam-Webster wants to include it.
They can say, um, dialectical wife, mistress, or girlfriend, if you were to say, like, my woman.
A woman who is extremely fond or devoted, like a chocolate woman.
Someone who loves chocolate.
Okay, I'm not familiar with that, but ultimately, the use of the word woman is to define an adult female person.
Right now, Ketanji Brown-Jackson is going through Senate confirmation hearings.
The big news is that Mitch McConnell has said he is not going to approve Ketanji Brown-Jackson.
And let me, I'll just show you the story.
I don't like Mitch McConnell.
I don't like the Republican Party.
I think they're all trash.
nomination to the Supreme Court because she is the court packers pick and she testified like it.
I don't like Mitch McConnell. I don't like the Republican Party. I think they're all trash.
I think that we have a real question about competency. But other than that,
the complaints about her and her view on leniency and other issues pertaining to
people who have abused children, I think a discussion is warranted.
But there is still a challenge of, this is what people voted for, and they should be looking towards issues of competency, not judicial opinion.
And therein lies the big... Well, maybe not necessarily, but here's what I'm trying to say.
There are a lot of reasons why I think Etanji Brown-Jackson probably should not be confirmed.
And that's just reality.
Namely is that she could not define the word woman.
I know there is an argument that you don't want judges issuing definitions, that they should be looking to the legislature as to what is the definition, but I actually don't agree with that.
Judges are supposed to interpret the law.
That's what judges do.
That means a judge can actually say This says X, Y, and Z. I interpret it as such.
This is why we have judges.
Sometimes laws say things that aren't so clear.
We go to a judge and say, interpret this.
If the judge doesn't agree with the interpretation of the lower judge, you know, or if the judge agrees with one party, it could go to an appellate court judge.
It could go all the way to the Supreme Court.
Who knows?
And they try to say, here's what we think it means.
That means we want to confirm judges who know what the word woman means.
Well, I just, you know, I want to make sure I drive this point home.
If you are a holdout, if you still believe the corporate press, the mainstream media is telling you the truth, please look at this and tell me.
With absolute sincerity, you agree you can't define what a woman is.
And if that is the case, then so be it.
You and I will never agree.
And our worldviews have been bifurcated.
I want to read for you this story.
It's rather sad, to put it mildly.
Before I do, however, head over to ground.news slash timpool and download the ground.news app or subscribe to their service.
Why?
Ground News is fantastic, my friends.
When you go to Ground News, what they do for you is they show you the bias breakdown of all of these articles.
The link will be in the description below.
This is a sponsored spot, by the way, so shout out to Ground News for sponsoring this segment.
But take a look at this.
We have this story.
Let's scroll down.
EU signs U.S.
gas deal to curb reliance on Russia.
And you can see that you've got namely centrist sources, moderate sources on the left and the right covering it.
But let's go to the story from USA Today because you can see at the top of the article is the Ground News browser extension that I use.
You'll see it often in the video segments I produce.
Why?
I'm trying to provide for you the best context possible.
Now, when I tell you that this shows the corporate press is not being honest, one thing you should consider is that USA Today's bias, according to Ground News, leans left.
Well, that should be apparent in their inability to define the word woman.
You can then see their bias is split across three sources.
Ground News has tracked three different outlets that have commented on this.
Two of them are right-leaning.
This means that for people who are conservative, they're more likely to know this story.
For people who are liberal, they are less likely to know this story.
This is why I recommend ground.news.
Go to ground.news slash Tim Pool.
Again, shout out.
Because you can see, actually, the blind spots you might have.
If you go to ground.news, you might find a story where, like this one right here, New York City Mayor Partially Lifts Vaccine Mandates for Professional Athletes.
It's being reported, 46% of the sources are left-leaning.
conservatives may not be seeing this.
Or US pipeline agency pulls back plan to assess climate impacts, 45% center coverage, 18 sources,
with a large left leaning.
Republicans and people on the right probably don't see it.
Another example, Biden has sharp response to reporter, you're playing a game with me,
and the left may not have seen that.
If you go here and you want to make sure you're not being trapped in an echo chamber, if you
want to make sure you're not trapped in an echo chamber, it's great to use their browser
Then you know if you're only consuming right-wing media or only left-wing media, and you can see it outright on their front page.
So, again, shout out.
A little bit longer than normal, but I think it matters as to the context of this segment.
USA Today's, in my opinion, absolutely absurd article saying, there's no simple answer to what a woman is.
They write, in the 13th hour of Judge Katonji Brown Jackson's confirmation hearing Thursday, Senator Marsha Blackburn asked the Supreme Court nominee, can you provide a definition for the word woman?
Jackson appeared confused, responding, I'm not a biologist.
No, no, no.
She said, I can't.
I can't.
I'm not a biologist.
You don't need to be a biologist.
This has triggered a major meme that is spreading around where any kind of circumstance where you'd be asked a question, you can defer by saying you're not a academic.
There's one where it's a cop saying, do you know how fast you were going?
And the driver says, I don't know, I'm not a physicist.
Blackburn chided Jackson, claiming, the fact that you can't give me a straight answer about
something as fundamental as what a woman is underscores the dangers of the kind of progressive
education that we are hearing about.
Senators on both sides of the aisle have used Jackson's confirmation hearing to air issues
that have less to do with Jackson's qualifications and more to do with their respective parties.
The exchange reflects the current state of gender politics in the US.
And they go on to reference the NCAA.
And I agree with that.
The issue this is coming up specifically is because in the news right now is issues of gender, gender ideology.
If Jackson is confirmed, it is inevitable she will preside over cases involving trans rights.
Scientists, gender law scholars, and philosophers of biology— I'm sorry, a what?
Philosophers of biology?— said Jackson's response was commendable, though perhaps misleading.
It's useful, they say, that Jackson suggested science could help answer Blackburn's question, but they note that a competent biologist would not be able to offer a definitive answer either.
Scientists agree there is no sufficient way to clearly define what makes someone a woman.
And with billions of women on the planet, there is much variation.
That's a lie.
It's just fundamentally not true.
They're outright making that up.
Please share this video with every single suburban mother you know.
Every single one of them who are adamant about supporting these politicians.
Tell them, ask them, seriously ask any holdout, you know, who doesn't, who still believes the media or believes the insane lies they're espousing here.
Ask them, can you define woman?
And if they align with this article, if you agree with their science, I ask you this, are you a woman?
And if you are and think you are, why do you think so?
Answer that question.
Why do you think you are a woman?
Now let me go through this one more time.
Philosophers of biology and gender law scholars?
Okay.
Now, truth be told, gender law scholar maybe actually have an interesting argument about how society deals with what a man or woman is.
That I can understand, but to say that scientists don't.
In fact, Dr. Deborah So is a scientist, and she clearly has a definition, a very, very specific one, talking about gametes.
I'm not the scientist, but I can clearly tell you that there is a simple layman definition.
Adult, human, female.
What is female?
Female is the sex of an organism that produces non-mobile ova.
I just read the encyclopedia.
That's what it said.
That's what scientists say.
Yeah.
They say, scientists agree there's no sufficient way to clearly define.
That's just not true.
Scientists overwhelmingly agree.
And this is why on Wikipedia, they can't change the definition of female or woman.
Activists have certainly tried to change the definition of woman or female in these dictionaries and on Wikipedia.
Wikipedia, anyone can go in and edit it.
The problem is there's no literature saying anything else.
It all says a woman is an adult human female.
A female is the sex of an organism that produces the non, what is it, non-mobile or mobile ova.
So, whereas the male produces sperm or whatever the word is.
I'm not a scientist.
I don't want to see this question punted to biology as if science can offer a simple definitive answer, said Rebecca Jordan Young, a scientist and gender studies scholar at Barnard College whose work explores the relationship between science and the social hierarchies of gender and sexuality.
The rest of her answer was more interesting and important.
She said, as a judge, what I do is I address disputes.
If there's a dispute about a definition, people make arguments, and I look at the law and I decide.
In other words, that context matters, which is true in both biology and society.
I think it's a pretty good answer for a judge.
I don't.
I think a good answer would be... Well, I'll give you my answer.
If you're asking me colloquially what I would mean by the word woman, I would typically be referring to adult human female.
Now in a legal context, definitions do sometimes mean different things, such as the word malice.
Actual malice in the context of Defamation law does not refer to malintent or ill intent towards a person or to cause harm towards a person.
It's a reference to whether someone knew or didn't know something was true.
So for a legal definition, that's going to come from court cases.
That's going to come from arguments pertaining to court precedent.
What I can say is Was that so hard?
Was that so difficult?
Katanji Brown saying, I can't!
I can't define the word woman!
Roman refers to adult human female.
But you also need to understand there are some contextual issues around trans people
which do come up, which means there will be profound legal questions as to what this word
means as a matter of law.
Was that so hard?
Was that so difficult?
Katanji Brown saying, I can't, I can't define the word woman.
The reality is, in my opinion, I should say this.
I don't think she's, I think she can define the word woman.
I think she very well could have said everything I said.
But what I said is considered offensive.
Because you shouldn't say that, right?
There isn't one single biological answer to the definition of a woman.
Blackburn tweeted after the exchange that this is a simple question, and called Jackson's response a major red flag.
But Jordan Young said she sees Jackson's answer, particularly the second half, reflecting the necessity of nuance.
While traditional notions of sex and gender suggest a simple binary, if you are born with, let's just say, male junk, you are male and identify as a man.
And if you are born with lady junk, you are female and identify as a woman.
The reality, gender experts say, is more complex.
No, they don't.
Some do, some don't.
When they say, gender experts say it's true, you're talking about a large field of science in which there are many people who disagree and there is, I mean truth be told, there's a left perspective, a right perspective, but ultimately when it comes down to actual science, they're not disputing this.
Look at this.
There isn't one single biological answer to the definition of woman.
There's not even a singular biological answer to the question of what is female.
This is insane.
You know what?
If you want to live in that world, I don't care.
I really, really don't.
If you want to believe that female has no definition, I don't care.
You do you.
I'll do me.
I'm gonna go, I'll go over here with my friends and we'll play, you know, Monopoly and you can go over there and play, uh, uh, Shoots and Ladders or whatever game you want to play.
We'll play our own games.
I'll mind my own business.
You go mind your own business.
But this, I don't think you can function if you don't understand what female means.
Females have 2x chromosomes.
Females produce eggs.
Females have wider hips, less bone density, less skin collagen.
They give birth.
Now, you need to understand that when we talk about things in generalities, we're not talking about absolutes.
There are certainly individuals who are born intersex.
That's a fact.
But when we're referring to male and female as specific categories, someone who is intersex may not fall within either because of certain issues pertaining—well, that's what we mean by intersex, you know, a mixture of both.
However, that does not suggest there is no binary.
Male and female are binary.
You, you know, produce one or produce the other, and there are, it's not absolute in the sense that there are some deviations and things can happen, but it is overwhelmingly, I believe it's like 99.8% of human beings fall into one or the other.
Now, when it comes to secondary sexual characteristics, there's great variance.
When it comes to characteristics associated with masculinity or femininity, then it is
absolutely bimodal.
So if you want to talk about gender as a social construct, I can have a conversation all around
that, no problem.
There may be a man who is effeminate with a squeaky voice, low testosterone, who is
five foot three.
Many of these men exist.
They're still men.
They're still male.
There are women who are six foot five and super ripped with high testosterone.
They exist, but these are on the highest end and the lowest ends of the bell curve in terms of their height, their weight, etc.
So, looking at the NCAA for instance, the reason why there are issues around, why people take issue with Leah Thomas competing, is that in the male bell curve for height, 6'1 is at the high end, but not the highest.
Around 14% of United States males will be 6'1 or taller.
the United of United States males will be six foot one or taller.
14%. That is what what are we looking at? Like one in six or so men that are going to be around that
A little bit, you know, around there.
You get the point.
So, that's a lot.
That's a lot of dudes who are six foot one or taller.
Among women, the highest end of the bell curve, which drops down to like one in a thousand, is five foot ten.
No joke.
The highest end of the bell curve.
It's probably five foot eleven, to be honest.
But most women, I think the average height is 5'4", for females in the United States.
And women who are 5'10 or 5'11 are considered the highest end of the bell curve.
Now, of course, there are women who are 6'5", there are women who are 7'.
Absolutely, the WNBA has many very tall women.
But it is much, much more rare for a woman to be over 6'0 than it is for a man to be
over 6'.
Which means you will have 14% of men who are able to compete at a higher level than biological
females on average.
Now there's perhaps a solution.
Perhaps we should have weight and height classes to swimming as opposed to gender classes,
right?
In MMA, they do weight classes, right?
I think they still do men and women's, but sure.
Anybody who weighs a certain amount who wants to fight, I mean, you can choose to do it as far as I'm concerned.
Maybe that's an answer.
Then you'd only have 6'1 women competing with other 6'1 women or trans women or otherwise.
Maybe then these, you know, women who are 5'4 or whatever will all be competing against each other.
They go on to say, Sarah Richardson, a Harvard scholar, historian, and philosopher of biology who focuses on science of sex and gender and policy, said Jackson's answer accurately reflects legal practice.
While U.S.
law remains an unsettled arena for conceptualization and definition of sex, it is frequently grounds for sex categorization in biological evidence and reasoning.
But like Jordan Young, Richardson emphasized that biology does not offer a simple, singular answer to the question of what defines a woman.
It literally does.
A fierce debate, a fierce debate, blah blah blah.
I honestly think this is, um, it's absurd.
It is.
If you want to talk about trans women in sports, we absolutely can.
But there's a reason why there's a word, trans woman.
There's a reason why it's used across the board.
There's a reason why even they, at USA Today, bring up trans women in sports.
If it were as simple to say that a trans woman was a woman, and in some context, that is true.
In some context.
But in the colloquial definition of the word woman, it becomes confusing, If it was as simple to say a trans woman is a woman, then you wouldn't need the phrase trans woman.
The reason why I say in some contexts it's true is I'm sort of playing off of what Ben Shapiro had said in the past.
Maybe true isn't the right way to phrase it, but the idea was Ben Shapiro was saying that if he were to be introducing his friends to Blaire White, for instance, he would say, you know, if he was speaking to her in public or something like that, she-her, because it's too difficult to explain to someone how this outwardly presenting individual who looks overtly female is actually biologically male, and for the sake of simplicity and being on public, he'd be like, over there with her.
Otherwise, people would be confused and it'd be a lot harder.
That's basically what I mean when I say, in a social context, there's an understanding of why you would say a trans woman is a woman.
But when we're talking about a legal context, there needs to be a distinction.
There's difficulties, real difficulties, in this entire debate.
Truth be told, trans women do experience discrimination, and I think it's unfortunate.
Depends on the discrimination, however.
If you're saying that a biological male has to use a biologically male, you know, restroom, and females for female restrooms, well, that's discrimination.
Is it good, though?
I think that the fact remains, there's a reason why we separate bathrooms based on biological sex.
Different equipment.
It's that simple.
Women's bathrooms, female bathrooms, have more stalls, and in fact, no urinals.
Men's rooms, often, some of them have a trough, or whatever you'd call it.
You know, you go to some sports bars and they have a big tin bin, and all the guys just stand around it, pissing into it.
Well, because of the equipment difference, there's different facilities.
And then you also have the issue that biological females, many often, don't feel safe around large men, especially when they're dealing with private matters, or they just want to be in private with other men.
There you go.
The issue arises then on who has a right to a space and why.
Truth be told, I have no problem saying this too, the people who are, when you're looking at gender segregation in sports and bathrooms, you've got to contend with the 1964 Civil Rights Act because separate but equal I don't think will play up, especially as we move forward.
And so there's going to be real questions about this in legal precedent, probably with someone like Ketanji Brown-Jackson on the Supreme Court.
That is to say, Why would we tell a biological female she can't legally use a men's room, or a biological male he can't legally use the women's restroom?
You can't restrict facilities to an individual based on gender.
This is in law already.
Now, I understand why people do, like I already explained, but that's going to be a real legal question.
And what's the answer?
In some instances, separate but equal works.
I had a good conversation with an individual on IRL who was saying that around the world, when it comes to race, the reason why we don't tolerate racial segregation and racism is because you've got people of all different backgrounds, different skin colors, who have been called similar or different things because it's not as easy to define.
For instance, you have someone from Somalia will be called black.
Someone from Haiti will also be called black.
But the height difference on average between these two countries is substantial.
In Somalia, they're much shorter.
They actually have a lighter skin tone or things like that.
And then someone would just say black.
And it's like, well, these are two completely different people, very, very different in every way.
If you're trying to make some kind of distinction about physicality based on skin color,
when skin color doesn't actually represent someone's average height or anything like that,
well then, that makes no sense.
However, what they said to me was, around the world, male and female, men and women, have been defined by every single culture, with very obvious distinct physical differences between the two among their own countries, among their own people.
So, if you were to say, in Somalia, you have a male and a female, they're going to be distinct, very easily distinct.
If you take a Haitian female and a Somali female, there may be height differences or
things like that, but they're going to have 99.8% of the time breasts and ovaries and
the same junk and will likely require, and will require basically the same facilities
to the over, in a generality, right?
Some people may have injuries or things like that, whatever.
The point is, a woman from Somalia and a woman from Haiti both will not require a urinal.
And that was the point they were making.
So look, there are some really deep philosophical questions around how we handle the issue of
I think there's a really simple solution to a lot of this, like when it comes to the bathroom stuff.
Stop making multi-use bathrooms.
Just make single room bathrooms.
Instead of doing two big rooms, you know, one for men and one for women, do four single rooms.
And then you've got a private room.
I mean, people prefer those anyway.
You go and you close and lock the door behind you and you have the whole room to yourself.
Then you don't gotta worry about any of this.
It doesn't become an issue and no one has to debate each other.
You ain't seeing any conservatives going in and being like, how come there's four single stall rooms that you can go in and lock the door in?
They just use the bathroom, they don't care.
The issue is when you're putting biological males and females in the same space.
Then people are saying, you know, the issue here is, do people have a right to privacy?
Should women and girls, females, be protected or have the right to a space?
Conservatives tend to think so.
Liberals tend not.
Liberals apparently can't define the word as it is.
Anyway, whatever, man.
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.
Boy, we sure went from build back better to expect food shortages very quickly.
Some people have joked that in just 14 months, Joe Biden has tanked the United States economy, its food supply, and is on the verge of leading us into World War III.
Who could have imagined it would be so bad?
Now under Donald Trump we had our problems, but I think things were moving in a better direction despite the fact that Trump is a potty mouth who makes mean tweets.
The economy was a-roarin'.
War was a-de-escalatin'.
Unemployment was a down.
People were generally happy with their lives.
I remember in 2019, I talk about it all the time, Jim Cramer, greatest numbers of our lives.
Now, a pandemic came along, and I'm not going to blame Trump or Biden for the pandemic.
You can certainly blame powerful interests, gain-of-function research, China, Vouchi even, because of the funding for gain-of-function research or whatever you want to, whatever it is you believe.
The point is, As it pertains to a global crisis that no one could really track, I'm not here to play the blame game for the president.
I'm here to talk about the policies they enact and what they could actually be doing.
Now, I believe that because of Joe Biden's weakness across the board, it's resulted in a problem that he can't deal with, and that is the war in Ukraine, Russia's invasion, and his inability to do anything.
Last night on Timcast IRL, in our member segment, you want to check this one out, we had the CEO, co-CEO of The Daily Wire, Jeremy Boring.
We talked about nuclear weapons, and it was a refreshing conversation with me at least, because I had someone who mostly agreed with me on the issues of nuclear weapons.
Truth be told, it is refreshing when someone's talking to you and you can bounce your ideas back and forth in agreement, but I do think debates are good as well, are helpful.
Whenever I talk about the prospect of nuclear war, mutually assured destruction, typically people disagree with me, even most of you guys disagree with me.
When it came to Jeremy, however, he agreed.
And I thought it was a good conversation.
Because my position was Russia could fire a lower-yield nuclear bomb on Kiev and instantly win the war in Ukraine.
Because the West will not retaliate.
For many reasons.
I mean, Kiev is not... Ukraine is not a NATO country.
Vladimir Putin could use a lower yield bomb, like a 100 kiloton bomb.
What this would do, it would send shockwaves through the West.
The West would be terrified to actually engage Russia, because Russia is using nukes.
Russia's not nuking NATO countries, so the West might be hard-pressed to start nuclear annihilation against Russia.
This is why I don't believe Mutually Assured Destruction makes sense today.
I'm sure the doctrine existed for a long time.
But I'm talking about in terms of warfare today, with the invasion of Ukraine, Vladimir Putin, if he were to bomb Kiev, what would happen?
No, I honestly, I can't, I don't know for sure.
I'm just saying there's a probability in my mind, what I see is it flattens the command structure of the country.
It sends ripples through all the other Ukrainian cities that Vladimir Putin is going to flatten these cities to win the war, causing mass desertions.
The Western Redditors who are like fleeing, flocking to Ukraine to fight will abandon their post in two seconds if a bomb drops on Kiev.
It would wipe out a city, it would kill nearly 100,000, a 100 kiloton bomb.
But the point is, not that I think it would happen, I'm saying that if Putin did it, I think he would decisively win, and that's terrifying.
And I wonder if the West knows that.
But regardless, I don't know exactly what's going to happen with war.
What we do know is that Joe Biden is instilling fear in no one, and it is partly because of his positions and his weakness that Vladimir Putin is taking these opportunities.
Even Bill Maher is asking the question, saying it's good to ask, Why didn't Putin invade Ukraine under Trump?
Because Trump said we'd hit Moscow.
Trump said, you know, he believed me a little bit, maybe 5-10%, but that's enough.
It's scary.
But the idea of mutually assured destruction, or at the very least, the U.S.
projecting power, it worked as a deterrent.
Now Vladimir Putin is reckless.
Civilians are getting bombed.
Airstrikes are blowing up barracks.
Cities are getting wiped out.
I mean, the photos from these Ukrainian cities, Mariupol, It's horrifying, man.
But how does it affect you?
Biden says to expect real food shortages due to Ukraine war.
Oh, you better believe it.
Let me give you the simple version.
We get our fertilizer from Russia.
That's gone.
We get a lot of it.
Not all of it.
A lot of it.
And that means right now, as farmers are getting ready to plant for the spring planting season, no fertilizer. Crop yields will be down in fall. You have
time to prepare. Let all of the leftists mock you and call you a prepper. And then like the humble
ant faced with a harsh winter and preparing for the winter, the grasshopper would come a
knocking on that door saying, please feed In the original story, the grasshopper dies a brutal and gruesome death, freezing and starving in the winter, and in the modern children's tale, the ants simply share their food with the grasshopper.
You know the story, right?
The grasshopper frolics about and doesn't prepare for the winter, and the ants did, and then come winter, the grasshopper's like, I'm gonna die.
You can choose to be whatever you want to be in this capacity, but for me, I buy food.
And as you know it, I shout out Safe and Ready Meals.
Go to safeandreadymeals.com if you want to pick up your emergency food supply.
Man, you know, I don't usually do a lot of shout-outs for Safe and Ready Meals.
I think I've done maybe like seven or eight in the past year.
In the past three months, though, I think I've done like six already.
Or I should say, in 2021, I did maybe like six or seven.
And I've probably already done, I think, like four or five this year.
And it's because crisis is escalating.
SafeAndReadyMeals.com.
Three-month emergency food supply or a four-week emergency food supply.
You can get it there.
This is a sponsored spot.
When you buy from SafeAndReadyMeals, you do help support the show.
But I'll just put it this way.
This stuff lasts up to 25 years.
I say it's kind of like Hamburger Helper.
It's dried food.
You mix it in with some water.
You heat it up.
It's actually pretty good.
We eat it.
Here's your best-case scenario if you buy this.
You eat food.
Here's your worst case scenario if you buy this.
You eat food amid hyperinflation, gas shortages, and food shortages, or maybe even the apocalypse.
I don't really think the apocalypse is coming.
Maybe that's optimism bias.
I don't think nuclear war is coming.
Maybe normalcy bias, which I often bring up.
I just think that right now, if we know gas prices are skyrocketing, we know inflation is through the roof, Uh, and Biden himself is telling us food shortages are coming, you know, there's no better time to pick up some emergency supplies.
And I will say this, full disclosure, maybe I shouldn't, whatever, I'm gonna say it, I bought 80 of these buckets.
I have a staff of 30 people, I just put in a huge order myself, and I mean that 100%, legitimate.
They should be coming soon.
80 buckets, which is, it's, well, let me clarify.
The four-week supply is two buckets.
So it's, what is that, four weeks?
So I got 40 months split among 30 people.
We're looking at about a week of food in the event there's something actually bad happening or we see serious food shortages.
But I'll tell you why.
The simplest reason, I always tell people, sometimes it rains, and if it does and you get trapped in your house and your food spoils or whatever or the power goes out, you have some emergency food.
But I'll also say this, one of the reasons I actually just bought right now is not because I think the apocalypse is coming, it's because I think inflation is coming.
Food shortages and inflation means you buy a 25-year shelf-life product that costs you, you know, let's say one bucket's like 120 bucks.
Two buckets, I think it's like, you know, 200 or whatever.
And in six months, it's going to be $300, $400.
But it's going to sit on your shelf for 25 years, so get it while it's cheap.
Here's a story from Yahoo Finance.
President Joe Biden said the world will experience food shortages as a result of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and production increases were a subject of discussion at a Group of Seven meeting on Thursday at the G7.
It's going to be real, Biden said at a news conference in Brussels.
The price of the sanctions is not just imposed upon Russia.
It is imposed upon a lot of countries, as well as European countries and our country as well.
Oh man, I really love this one.
Because Biden was like, I never said sanctions were going to deter Russia!
They never do!
When in fact, Blinken and many others said it literally was their intention to deter Russia.
All they're doing is hurting everybody.
Biden said at the G7 Summit in Brussels earlier that he and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau both discussed increasing their nation's agricultural production to try to make up shortfalls.
Biden said he's also urging all nations, including those in Europe, to drop trade restrictions that could restrict exports on food.
Uh, so it says most read from Bloop—you mean, uh, read more from?
Anyway, the food shortages are real, my friends.
We have this story from the Wall Street Journal.
Fertilizer prices surge as Ukraine war cuts supply, leaving farmers shocked.
As an aside, I'd just like to mention that Joe Biden came out and said he would disseminate, uh, food shortages around the world or something.
I don't know the exact quote.
But, uh, everyone's like, what he really meant was that he would disseminate food around the world.
And I'm like, I'm not so convinced!
I actually wonder if, you know, Joe Biden and the Democrat—I mean, not just them, but the U.S.
imposing these sanctions—is making the food shortages.
Joe Biden is literally disseminating food shortages around the world.
Although I think it's fair to say he misspoke, it's kind of scary when you don't know what the president is trying to say.
At any rate, it's coming.
Fertilizer prices surge as Ukraine war cuts supply, leaving farmers shocked.
In his nine years selling fertilizer to corn and rice farmers in West Africa, Malik Nyang says he has never seen such a severe supply crunch or such high prices.
Yeah, I gotta tell y'all a story.
I bought a new car.
We have a lot of work going on here, so we have multiple vehicles for multiple reasons.
As many of you know, I actually have a lot of cars.
We have a utility vehicle that's getting modified.
The Jeep, it's got a winch strap on it.
That's because we need utility for clearing areas.
We have guest pickup, which is our Lexus.
And then I recently just bought a regular gas car, because guess what?
I didn't have one!
Yeah, no joke.
I have a Tesla, but I didn't have a regular gas car.
And it was actually worrying when I saw these videos of cars lining up to charge their vehicles.
Truth be told, I got the Tesla a while ago because I was concerned about gas prices.
I believe that was the right move.
I got the regular gas car now because I'm concerned about just the versatility across the board.
But let me tell you the story, why I'm bringing this up.
I went to a car dealership and I said, I need something that's good on gas, just a regular gas car.
I have an electric car.
I'm not confident in the electric car.
I think it's great because I don't need to put gas in it.
You drive it to run errands, you bring it back, you plug it in.
But gas still comes from fossil fuels as well.
I think those, I'm sorry, electricity still comes from fossil fuels.
I believe those prices will be going up.
When I went to the dealership, you know what they told me?
I went to just a couple.
Uh, the first dealership, Toyota, had one new car available.
Went to the next dealership and they said they had, I think they had three.
They told me they had two, I'm pretty sure.
And uh, I think, no, no, honestly, I think they had three.
I could be wrong.
I think they said three.
So the Honda dealership had three and ended up getting a Honda and I was just like, how do you only have three cars on the lot?
And they said chip shortage.
It's been bad.
The worst they've seen.
This is what they have in inventory.
It's crazy.
They also told me that people were dumping their Teslas, getting rid of them.
I'm like, that sounds weird because I know there's a huge demand for electric cars over gas or whatever.
Ultimately, truth be told, for me and, you know, my capabilities, I thought it was good to have electric and gas for versatility.
That if, you know, if for some reason electricity is unavailable, a gas car can drive and drive far.
Electric car, Tesla, it's not getting you across this country.
The range on a Tesla you can drive only so far before you gotta stop at a supercharger, and we've all seen how that plays out.
It's not fun.
I've used them before.
So between here and the Philadelphia area where our last studio was, it's like a three and a half hour drive, three hour drive, we had to stop halfway through and go to a supercharger.
And it takes, you know, 20 or 30 minutes to charge it to full.
It's not bad, I guess.
But it's also really bad for the battery to do that, to supercharge it.
But that's what we did.
And, you know, I've known since then, it's a bad idea to rely on that for long-distance travel.
Now, I think it's a bad idea to rely on gas outright because of what we've seen from this administration.
But I tell you this, man, when they're talking about supply crunch for food, cars, everything, everywhere across the board, the crunch is bad.
Yo, man, I just gotta say, going to a dealership and them being like, we have one car.
They had a bunch of used cars, but they still only had, like, seven used cars.
And I was like, wow, man.
Like, how do you guys work here?
You know, like, you sell a car to make money.
That's what salesmen will do.
And they didn't have any vehicles to even sell.
That, to me, is nuts.
And we're about 50 miles west of the D.C.
area.
Now, you know things are getting bad.
When Yahoo Finance Insider Monkey runs 10 fertilizer stocks to buy today.
Fertilizer market outlook, wow.
Futures for Urea fertilizers have increased 32%, while diammonium phosphate futures have soared 13%.
Oh, you gotta love the speculators.
We know there's going to be a major crunch on fertilizer.
Food shortages, gas prices are through the roof.
There's a chip shortage, we can't get cars.
The economy seems to be imploding.
Put your money somewhere that makes sense, because the U.S.
dollar ain't it.
I'll tell you this, man.
I'm talking about things that you could buy to, you know, kind of hedge your bet against the dollar.
Hey, fertilizer ain't bad, I suppose.
Though, don't take advice from me.
I don't know where this is going.
But, um, maybe I'll look into buying fertilizer stock.
That's crazy, man.
Fertilizer.
People need to eat.
You know, if there's one thing to invest in, it's food.
They say one of the best investments is alcohol, because when people are depressed, they drink, and when people celebrate, they drink.
So, you know, all across the board.
Yeah, but that's a good investment, I guess, if society functions.
If it gets to the point where there's no food, well, the person who owns the food will be king.
What's it?
In the land of the starving, the man with a loaf of bread is king.
At least for a little while before the starving people beat him and steal his bread from him.
But that's where we seem to be going.
A lot of people joke, they're like, man, when the apocalypse happens, I'm coming to your place, Tim.
I'm like, no, don't count on it.
We're not keeping all of our important food stores here.
We have a secure location, no joke.
Because we want to make sure we can keep doing the show in the event of a major disaster.
I'm not saying I'm predicting a major disaster or anything like that.
And truth be told, I am not prepping as any reasonable prepper would.
You know, preppers actually prepare for their own survival, and what I have is like bins of emergency food, you know, stored.
That's about it.
When I say we have a secure location, it's just that I own some property in central West Virginia or something, you know?
The idea being, um, get out to the country, good investment to have land, and in the event of a real catastrophe, we can do the show from the middle of nowhere.
No joke, we legit can.
We've got this, uh, we've got a contingency plan set up.
Again, not that I think it would happen, but if you have the means and the capability, why aren't you preparing for the worst?
Truth be told, the average person cannot do what the wealthy can.
Rich people are building bunkers in Wyoming, they've been building bunkers in New Zealand, preparing for something really, really bad, and a lot of people are terrified about nuclear war.
I take a look at what the rich are doing, and I have to wonder if they know something I don't.
The ultra-wealthy.
Okay, I know, I get it, I'm rich, but I'm not like a billionaire or anything like that, right?
Certainly, the powerful elites know something we all don't.
And I'm like, maybe I should have property in Wyoming like the rest of these people, but... Dude, Wyoming's out of my price range.
It's super expensive up there, and it's getting more and more expensive, surprisingly.
I suppose there are properties you can find in Wyoming and Montana, but I mean, in areas where there's going to be infrastructure, the prices are going nuts.
Who's buying up these properties?
People with helicopters, I guess, or who are planning on landing at their private airstrip to survive something crazy.
The reality is, maybe nothing crazy will happen.
I think what may be happening is that these wealthy individuals, they have money.
And they're like, well, if I have the money, why not create a contingency plan?
For me, I mentioned I bought 40 month supplies, 80 buckets, and it's expensive.
It's like, I think it was like 10 grand or something.
But this is...
The expectation of food shortages and prices skyrocketing.
We are going to have hamburger helper.
That's the way I describe it.
You know, it's like a bag of noodles and you put it in water and you heat it up and it's good in like 15-20 minutes.
So we have a bunch of that and we're gonna eat it.
Our worst case scenario, in terms of investment, is like nothing bad happens but we just eat food.
And the best case scenario is that, in terms of our investment, is that we were right.
Truth be told, the best-case scenario is nothing bad happens, and we just eat the food.
And the worst-case scenario is something really bad happens, and we have to eat it.
But, you know, for the average person, I would just say, do what you can to take care of yourself, because we've certainly seen the mass rioting.
We've got the political turmoil internally.
We've got international conflict, fears of Thucydides' trap.
Joe Biden came out.
Check this.
This is what you should be listening to, because we talked about it a bit with the New World Order thing.
Joe Biden comes out and said, You know, as I was told in a secure meeting by a military official, you know, every three to four generations, there's like a change and from 1900 to 1946, 60 million people died.
And then we created the liberal world order and soon there's going to be a new world order and we got to lead it.
Think about what he said for a few moments.
He said every three to four generations.
Okay, from 1900 to 1946, 60 million people died.
Yo, it sounds like Joe Biden saying a lot of people are going to die.
That's kind of crazy, right?
If he's likening what happened then to something happening now, he's basically saying people are going to die.
But I don't know, man.
Part of me doesn't want to be paranoid and conspiratorial, so the truth is, it's easy for me to buy emergency supplies and to have land.
It is.
For the average person, not so much.
If you are, like, a regular middle-class working person, and you're prepping with, like, 30 years' worth of beans in your basement, someone might say, that's a little bit unreasonable, because you're investing so heavily in something that probably won't happen.
If you're rich, and you're like, I don't know, gotta spend money on something, and then you buy a landing strip in Wyoming, I mean, they might call you a prep or whatever.
They might get scared and be like, what are the rich doing?
Or it might just be like, bro, if I'm a billionaire, I'm gonna just have stuff.
You know, it's not even a thought to build a bunker in New Zealand if you're a billionaire.
I wonder what Elon Musk's planned for, you know?
Does he have any kind of... He's probably building a rocket ship to go into space to avoid whatever's supposed to be coming.
I don't know.
Let me just add to the fears of the food shortages and to the issue at hand.
A food crisis will make people ravenous.
I'll tell you, man.
Right now, people aren't hungry.
People are overfed.
Yeah, no, it's true.
The people want to talk about, you know, feeding the hungry or whatever.
It's like, yo, America has fat homeless people.
They don't have houses, but they got enough food.
We got a lot of food.
What happens when we don't?
What happens when race riots turn into food riots?
People will kick your door in because they're hungry.
Yeah, so some people have been like, don't tell people you're buying this stuff.
I'm like, dude, ain't nobody coming to my house.
Uh-uh.
As of right now, let me just say, it would be a very, very bad idea, considering the swattings.
Yeah, don't come here.
Considering the swattings, and we had the bomb squad show up.
Rest assured, there are top men lurking in the shadows at this point, and I'll just leave it at that.
You know, I shouldn't say too much, but yeah, ain't nobody coming here.
I suppose in the event of a true apocalypse, though, We've got a secure location.
So I don't know what to expect.
I really don't.
Food shortages could just mean that we're gonna slim down and people are gonna lose weight, maybe.
I'm not convinced we're gonna starve if we have a lot of food.
But who knows?
It may just be that the poorest people don't have access.
And if they don't, they're not going to roll over and die.
They're going to say, I want food.
So we may see something different.
It may not be that people are roaming through the streets, smashing windows.
It may be that the government has to do food drives like they did during COVID.
You remember that when miles long lines of vehicles were waiting at checkpoints to get food because they didn't have any?
I'm telling you, man, the people who had emergency supplies when that went down didn't have to worry about empty store shelves.
They just cracked open their box and said, you know, eat some of this.
But, you should never open your emergency food.
Never.
No, seriously.
The idea is, if something truly bad happened, to where food supplies were constrained, you need to go and source food first, and only open when you're starving.
That's what they say.
Get better advice from survivalists than me.
What you would do is, you'd leave your buckets alone and you'd look for berries, you'd plant a garden, you had to time your garden properly.
I'll also warn you too, man, people think it's simple.
You do not understand.
We planted a bunch, we had a garden, we planted a bunch of tomatoes.
Then one day, we had like 80 tomatoes and we're like, what do we do with all this?
They're gonna go bad.
Because you're supposed to plant one week at a time.
So every week you get a new, the tomatoes ripen and are fresh to eat once per week to store them.
Otherwise, they all happen at once, and what do you do?
Sell them?
Now, if you're trying to supply yourself with food, you have to know how to farm, and farming is not as simple as, I plan to seed and food happens.
Maybe for one person, for a short amount of time?
You also gotta learn how to make preserves.
We have a wineberry season up here in the mountains.
It's amazing, I love it.
Where you go in your backyard and there's just wild Chinese raspberry everywhere.
You could walk outside and in 10 minutes you have a bowl full of them.
And they're delicious, you can just eat them right off the vine.
Or what, a branch, whatever it is.
It's amazing.
But they don't last that long.
But you can make preserves.
You can boil it down, put a little lemon juice in it.
Eh, people put sugar in it, but I don't care for that.
A little lemon juice is good enough.
And then you put it in a jar and you preserve it.
It lasts on the shelf, I think, after that three months.
Or you can put it in a refrigerator or freezer and it can last for up to years.
You gotta understand how to prepare for the winter if you're living in a winter climate.
I don't think we're going to get to that point, truth be told.
I don't think we'll come to a point in the next couple of years where you're going to crack open your emergency food bin.
However, what I think is irrelevant to what you should be prepared for.
Joe Biden says it's coming.
It may have no impact on us.
We are wealthy Americans.
And I mean like even the poorest Americans, like to the rest of the world.
So we may just still end up fat and happy.
Figure out for yourselves what you think is important and what you want to do, and do your own research.
Talk to some experts.
Decide for you how to respond to this.
Decide for yourself.
Because I don't want to tell people to go and buy a bunch of stuff, and then they're just like, you know, I needed gas for my car instead or something.
