Democrats Face APOCALYPTIC Midterm As Voters QUIT At 4 Times Republicans, A MASSIVE Red Wave May Hit
Democrats Face APOCALYPTIC Midterm As Voters QUIT At 4 Times Republicans, A MASSIVE Red Wave May Hit. Democrats seem to know how bad the midterms will be with mass resignations and retirements happening.
Republicans are expected to net a massive win in the 2022 midterms as Biden's agenda and plans fail. A new poll shows 52% of voters think Joe Biden is bad for America and it reflects miserably on Democrats.
But unless people vote in the Republican primary more neocon establishment shills will win and nothing will change.
#Democrats
#Republicans
#Midterms
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The Democratic Party is facing a major apocalyptic midterm, as Republicans are registering Democrats at four times the rate Democrats are in Pennsylvania.
People are switching from the Democratic Party in huge numbers, and a red wave is expected.
In our next story, a major scandal erupts.
A Black Lives Matter-associated individual buys a mansion for $3 million, then sells it to BLM for $6, 257% above market, leading many people to speculate, are they pilfering donation money?
And on our last story, the Young Turks have egg on their face.
Turns out I was right.
I said it would be hard to convict a man on trespassing if the police welcomed them into the Capitol.
And it happened.
A judge has acquitted a man because the police are seen waving him in.
Now, if you like this show, give us a good review.
Share it with your friends.
Friends, now let's get into that first story.
In August of 2020, riots erupted in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Black Lives Matter extremists had been damaging buildings, setting fire to vehicles and buildings.
People were seriously injured.
After a few days, a young man named Kyle Rittenhouse came out armed to defend his community, working with the community, protecting buildings and also providing first aid for many of these very same rioters.
This, perhaps, was a bad idea.
Ultimately, he ended up in a violent confrontation where his life was threatened and he used the lethal force to defend himself.
The media lied about everything.
They made up fake stories about who he had attacked and what really happened.
And the reality was, he only attacked in self-defense, after running, fleeing for his life.
And then as he's fleeing, others attacked him.
Many of us were worried this young man would be convicted, but ultimately, he was acquitted.
The media narrative had failed.
The truth prevailed.
And now, people are fed up.
Breitbart reports, Kenosha elects Republican executive after decades of Democrats.
The lies don't work.
They are failing.
And in Pennsylvania, it is the most evident.
Reuters reports Republican registration surge in Pennsylvania in warning sign for Democrats.
Kenosha should be a major warning sign for the media and Democrats that their lives have failed and regular people know about what's going on and they're fed up.
Nobody wants to see the violence in their communities, but the media defended it.
Kamala Harris defended these rioters, everything we saw in 2020.
It's remarkable.
The polling shift from the 2020 2020 congressional election to the midterms today are stark.
A flip from, I believe, around five points up from Democrats to three points up for Republicans.
A major shift.
And what we're seeing in Pennsylvania should terrify the Democrats.
Democratic voters are switching parties at four times the rate of Republican voters switching to Democrats.
Four to one.
These midterms are predicted to be apocalyptic for the Democratic Party, which means the January 6th committee, buh-bye, it ain't gonna last.
And then maybe we'll get some investigations into Hunter Biden, his illicit business dealings, and how this was associated with the President Joe Biden himself.
Chris Hayes of MSNBC tweeted out something about inflation and what happened in the midterms, and he says, don't Google what happened in 1946.
In 1946, Republicans won 54 seats in the midterm elections.
It was apocalyptic for Democrats.
Now, I don't know if there stands to be a direct correlation between these two elections, but the idea is the party in power is going to get defeated.
Very seriously, because of just how bad things are going.
And we have a poll from SMU's showing American voters, they think Joe Biden is bad for this country.
Stands to reason, based on the polling we're seeing, people are fed up.
They understand they've been lied to for too long, and they want to see something change.
It's remarkable because it's only been it's only been a year since the Democrats took over.
And it's already gotten so bad that people are desperate for a change.
Now, historically, we tend to see these kinds of shifts.
But the shift we're expected to see is, well, like I said, apocalyptic.
Republicans are taking over in terms of party advantage, which is unheard of.
Democrats tend to have a party advantage in most places.
Now we're seeing in certain areas Republicans are gaining that advantage.
As previously reported in a prior segment, in Florida it used to be historically a Democrat voter registration advantage.
Now it's 100,000 Republicans having the advantage.
There's an advantage for Republicans by 100,000.
in Miami-Dade, the Democratic advantage has collapsed by about 40,000 Democrat registered
voters in the past year or so alone. It's going to be bad for Democrats, and we've got actual
statements from voters explaining exactly why they are fed up. So let's take a look at what
we can expect. But Republicans aren't out of the woods yet.
Latest gerrymandering mapping shows Democrats are gaining some advantages.
As expected, Republicans are too weak to take power when they have the opportunity.
But we'll start with this story from Reuters.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com, become a member to help support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive episodes of the TimCast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 11pm.
Check those out at TimCast.com.
You will also help keep all of our journalists gainfully employed.
We rely on your membership to keep the wheels turning.
So we greatly appreciate your support, but don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this video right now, take the URL and post it all over the place.
Grassroots marketing is the most powerful thing you can do.
Let's read this first story from Reuters.
Republican registration surge in Pennsylvania in a warning sign for Democrats.
Republicans are registering formerly Democratic voters at four times the rate that Democrats are making the reverse conversion in the battleground state of Pennsylvania.
A warning sign for Democrats as they try to keep control of the U.S.
Congress.
Now let me just pause and say, I don't think They expect to win, which is why we've seen 11 people resign from Kamala Harris's staff, and we have seen 31 Democrats announce retirement from Congress, or that they'll be running for other office at a local level or a statewide level.
They're jumping ship.
We've seen some Republican resignations for sure, quite a bit, but many, at least I believe four or five of the Republicans who are jumping ship voted to impeach Donald Trump, so they're considered mostly neocon Democrats anyway.
Reuters says, The Republican gains in Pennsylvania, home to a critical U.S.
Senate race, follow a pattern seen in other states that could have competitive contests in November's elections, as high levels of disapproval with President Joe Biden's handling of his job are helping narrow the long-held advantage held by Democrats in numbers of registered voters.
This means, not only are Republicans likely to win the House, they're probably going to win the Senate as well.
Quote, I just got fed up and just felt like there has to be a better way, said Beth Jones, 48, a retired Philadelphia police officer who last month registered as a Republican, ending her three-decade affiliation with the Democratic Party.
Similar to other recent converts interviewed by Reuters, Jones cited concerns about inflation and violent crime in making the switch.
Reuters examined registration data in six states that could see tight U.S.
Senate races in November, and which generally require voters to be members of a party to participate in nominating contests.
While each state tracks voter registration differently, the review pointed to Republican gains in four of those states, and no substantial difference in two of them.
Well, in response to that, I can only say, Scott, Mr. Scott Pressler, you slacking off in those two states?
Is that what's happening?
Now, in all seriousness, Scott Pressler is leading one of the biggest charges in voter registration and likely deserves a substantial amount of credit for the changes we are seeing in many of these states.
Perhaps the reason there's no substantial difference in these states is maybe because there's just pushback from Democrats, or maybe Mr. Pressler has yet to set foot in these states.
If Republicans retake control of either of both chambers of Congress in the November midterm elections, that will give them the power to bring Biden's legislative agenda to a halt.
Not just that.
It means investigations.
It means subpoena power.
It means no more January 6th committee.
Bad news for Democrats.
Nowhere is the Republican advance in voter registration more evident than in Pennsylvania, where so far this year Republicans have converted four Democrats for every Republican who has switched to the Democratic Party, according to data published by Pennsylvania's Department of State.
That's on track to be the highest conversion rate in at least a decade, and well above 2016, when Republicans took the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate.
This is bad news for the Democrats, said Kevin Yenerol, a political scientist at Claring University in Claring, Pennsylvania.
Take a look at this data!
2013, it was 1.4.
In 2015, it was 1.8.
They say for every Republican who has become a Democrat this year, four Democrats have jumped to the Republican Party.
In 2016, it was 2.4.
And in 2016, Republicans took control of everything!
In 2020, it was only 1.7.
In 2022, it is 3.9!
You wanna talk about apocalyptic?
2016 was bad!
Man, I can't wait for November, but hey, hey, a lot of variables exist between now and then.
Who knows what's gonna happen?
So, Republicans, best not rest on your laurels.
If you are, uh, I, I, just, just take a look at what Scott Pressler is doing.
I'll put, put it simply, that guy, he's tweeting at people like, have you registered to vote yet?
And I think he deserves a lot of this credit.
Finally, we're seeing conservatives get active, start organizing.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
The smaller gap could have significant implications for the race to succeed.
Retiring Republican U.S.
Senator Pat Toomey.
Pennsylvanians will also vote for governor in November to follow Democrat Tom Wolfe.
And Democrat Tom Wolfe may go Republican.
I'll tell you where the most important part of this story lies.
Voting for your Senate, your state Senate, and your state reps.
If more states flip total Republican, we may very well see a convention of states, perhaps to add some amendments to the Constitution.
For better or for worse, it would be a dramatic change.
In North Carolina, where a tight Senate race is expected due to the retirement of Republican Senator Richard Burr, Republicans so far this year have picked up three Democratic converts for every voter that Democrats have poached, according to state election board data.
Throughout 2021, the Republican advantage was about half that.
In Florida and Nevada, the numbers of registered Republicans rose in the first few months
of the year, while the ranks of Democrats declined modestly.
In New Hampshire and Arizona, the removal of inactive voters from registration rolls
has led both parties to lose similar numbers of voters in recent months.
Jeff Sheridan, a senior advisor for the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, said the party isn't sitting on its hands.
Efforts include hiring field staff earlier than usual for election year, including additions of staff in January on college campuses around Philadelphia who are working to register younger voters, a demographic that leans Democratic.
But even in Philadelphia, a traditional Democratic stronghold, Republicans are gaining ground.
Voter data showed that 1,315 Democrats in the city have filed forms this year to change their party registration to Republican, more than four times the number of Republicans making the opposite switch.
Angered by the city's violent crime wave, Alexandra Field said she registered as a Democrat last year in an unsuccessful attempt to help oust Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner in the Democratic primary before re-registering as a Republican in March.
Ed Rumick, 72, a retired union electrician, told Reuters that his switch to Republican merely formalized a years-old decision to no longer support a Democratic Party that he sees as weak on border control and bent on socialism.
McAlvin Tucker, Deputy Chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said the gains point towards a strong showing for the party.
Speaking from the party's recently opened office in Northwest Philadelphia, Tucker estimated that petition drives and other efforts to engage with Black and other traditionally underserved communities in the city has yielded more than 100 converts or newly registered Republicans so far this year.
Bravo!
Get out there and talk to these communities.
Don't just assume based on race someone's going to vote Democrat.
That would be racist.
Republicans are making tremendous gains with Latino voters and black voters.
It's time to stop assuming everyone based on race is going to vote a certain way.
It's just wrong.
In fact, Trump lost white voters and gained minority voters in 2020.
How crazy.
They're going to say.
In addition to inflation and other economic issues, a growing number of Pennsylvania voters have become disillusioned with the Democratic Party over its perceived shift leftward on cultural matters, said Terry Madonna, a senior fellow in residence at Millersville University, a longtime political analyst in the state.
Madonna pointed to Republican Glenn Youngkin, who won the governorship of Virginia last year after campaigning on a promise to ban the teaching of critical race theory in schools as an indicator of what will resonate with Pennsylvania voters.
It's not just inflation, Madonna said, noting that Republicans scored a series of victories in municipal elections in the Philadelphia suburbs last year.
I think it's a combination of things.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Chris Hayes of All In with Chris Hayes on MSNBC tweeting.
Was just checking on what happened in the 1946 midterms as the nation readjusted after a historic society-wide disruption and inflation was 8%.
Don't Google it.
Although GDP declined 11.6% that year, that year or so, pretty different macro environment.
Well, what happened?
I give you the Wikipedia entry for the 1946 United States election.
Democrats lost 54 seats to the Republican Party in the House of Representatives.
And Democrats also lost 11 seats in the Senate.
Whoa.
What happens if Republicans make major gains in the Senate?
Things are gonna get crazy.
Now, of course, Joe Biden could just veto everything, and without a supermajority, they're not gonna, well, without a veto-proof majority, Republicans aren't gonna really be able to do much.
But with the House, they'll at least have subpoena power.
They'll be able to go after the corruption in the Biden family, and boy, is there corruption.
But let me show you some polls.
Let me show you some polls that are gonna just give all those Republican voters a good feeling.
The 2022 generic congressional vote from RealClearPolitics.
This, my friends, you are seeing is, this is an aggregate.
It is a series of polls all added up to give you the sum total of, well, them all.
I don't think individual polls are enough.
We can see that economist YouGov has Democrats with plus four.
I don't buy it.
Every other poll either shows a tie or a massive Republican advantage.
Monmouth and Politico have a tie.
Everybody else shows a Republican advantage.
Insider Advantage, Republicans plus 8.
Wall Street Journal, Republicans plus 5.
Emerson, Republicans plus 5.
Fox News, plus 2.
NBC, plus 2.
Harvard, plus 6.
For an aggregate of plus 3.6 up.
Republicans have a 3.6 point advantage.
Let's go back to 2022.
The generic congressional vote.
Oh, my stars and garters, my friends.
Democrats in the 2022 congressional vote had a 6.8 advantage.
And what did we see?
Republicans made major gains, even in Democrat strongholds.
The whole map was wrong!
Yo, if the polls are favoring Democrats, it stands to reason that what we're really seeing is a Republican advantage of maybe 10 points, and the polls are all biased, perhaps.
The New York Times.
A Democratic Super PAC's ad buy shows a widening battle for House control.
Listen to this.
The Democrats' House Majority PAC is spending nearly $102 million to reserve advertising time in 51 media markets, staking out a broad battlefield for the coming midterm election.
Now, progressives argue student loan debt is a big reason.
Take a look at this story from the Boston Globe.
Some voters ponder sitting out midterms over student loan inaction, posing peril for Democrats.
Ooh, it is just going from bad to worse!
There's nothing they can really do about it.
The Globe reports.
Christina Allen surprised herself in 2020 by voting for a Democrat.
The 53-year-old nurse from New Hampshire has always backed Republicans, but with her buried under debt and forced to move across the country from her family to be able to afford to pay off her loans, something snapped.
Allen cast her ballot for Joe Biden, hopeful that he would make good on his campaign promise to cancel the $10,000 in student loan debt per borrower.
Now the self-described single-issue voter feels betrayed by the candidate who promised to deliver her some relief.
If he doesn't hold steady on his promises that he made during his campaign to get votes, I will never vote for him again.
She owes more than $70,000.
I'll probably never vote Democrat again.
It's really amazing that the Democrats just come out and they're like, I got an idea.
I will offer tax funds to people to get them to vote for me.
There's that famous quote that democratic institutions, what is it?
The country can only survive until people realize they can vote to give themselves money from public coffers.
This is psychotic.
And this woman was voting based on a bribe.
So it is wonderful to see she's getting nothing.
It's disgusting.
The government should give me money and I'll vote for these people.
Joe Biden is burning this country to the ground.
And you voted for him to enrich yourself.
You got those loans.
You got to spend that money.
And now you want the government to pay you in exchange for a vote?
Despicable.
But my friends, Let me calm down.
I'm actually not opposed entirely to student loan debt forgiveness.
I'll give you my position, and I'll tell you what I think Republicans should do.
If you are holding student loan debt, but you've already paid the entirety of the principal, then we forgive your debt.
What that means is, if you borrowed $30,000, and then you paid more than $30,000, but interest has resulted in you still holding debt, then we say, okay, we're going to forgive this debt.
For those of you who have already paid back your student loans, we're not forgiving principal.
So, good job on paying it back.
not going to forgive it for the people who didn't pay it back. We will suspend interest rates for
those who are currently paying back their loans. And for those that paid back their loans with
interest, you will get a tax credit for all of those interest rates that you've all, for the
interest you've already paid back. And it would have to be normalized in a certain way. That is
to say, if you spent $12,000 and you get a tax credit for it, that's actually only going to be
what? $3,500.
$3,500?
Whereas the person who owes $12,000 doesn't pay it back, gets to keep the $12,000?
No, we would actually, I think, forgive the interest that you paid and potentially give a greater tax credit based upon how much you've personally spent.
That is to say, credit you for the interest.
Now, I understand my position on this is actually going to be giving back some money to people, but I think these loans were predatory.
And so long as you paid back a little bit of the interest, I don't think we should forgive all of the interest because there is inflation.
You took out a loan.
Maybe it was predatory.
You shouldn't have to pay back double your principal.
So this would require people to pay back their loans, but not be buried under interest.
It would also create an opportunity for Republicans to pick up where Joe Biden failed and say, you pay back your principal, we help you out on the interest.
That's more than Joe Biden is doing.
I think it would be a tremendous idea because for Republicans, here's the argument.
You get young people buying houses and starting families.
No joke.
This debt is holding back millennials from buying homes.
We would need to actually assess whether or not that works.
Just an idea.
It's off my head.
But the Democrats are losing voters because they did nothing.
Republicans certainly have an opportunity here.
Even if it is, we're going to we're going to eliminate, abolish the interest rates on
your debt, pay back what you owe.
People would be like, yes, yes, please.
I'll take what I can get.
Now, as much as the Democrats are hurting, Republicans are not out of the woods.
Five, four, three, two, one.
I'm going to say it again.
538 says the House maps Republican bias will plummet in 2022 because of gerrymandering.
Take a look at this.
Congressional redistricting.
The process of redrawing the nation's 435 congressional districts to reflect the results of the 2020 consensus is not quite finished, but it's getting darn close.
Only four states, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, and New Hampshire, have yet to approve new maps.
Though the maps in several states are currently being challenged in court, so some states that have approved new maps could see those maps overturned, as happened in Maryland just last week.
So while some of the specific numbers will change, we now have a good sense of what the big-picture takeaway from this redistricting cycle will be.
No matter which way you slice it, Democrats have gained blue seats from the map-making process, making the house-playing field between the two parties more balanced than it has been in decades.
But that doesn't mean the 2020 congressional map should be considered fair.
Sure.
Take a look at this, man.
This is bad news for Republicans.
In the old maps, Republicans had a slight favorability, a slight advantage.
In the new maps, Republicans have lost a bit of their advantage.
Democrats have also lost a little bit.
Republicans lost more.
They're going to say, As the maps stand on March 30th at 5pm, 175 congressional districts have a 538 partisan lean of D plus 5 or bluer, 181 have a partisan lean of R plus 5 or redder, and 33 are in the highly competitive category between D plus 5 and R plus 5.
That's a net increase of 11 Democratic-leaning seats from the old maps.
Meanwhile, the number of Republican-leaning seats has decreased by six, as has the number of highly competitive seats.
Of course, that's just the partisan lean of the districts.
To get a sense of how these changes will affect the race for control of the chamber, you need to factor in which party currently controls each seat.
Still, Democrats are likely to gain seats from redistricting in 2022.
Even after you consider that they already hold a lot of those newly blue-leaning seats.
By my calculations, redistricting alone should net Democrats about two more seats in the House next year, while Republicans are in a position to lose around three or four seats on net from the process.
Of course, the national political environment, which is currently Republican-leaning, will have a much bigger impact on the 2022 midterms than redistricting.
So this doesn't mean Democrats are favored to hold onto the House, but it does mean redistricting made that task slightly more possible.
Can you believe it?
Republicans failing across the board because they just never make the moves that Democrats make.
Republicans, they could have challenged this, they could have pushed hard, and people were screaming, the Republicans are going to cheat!
Oh, they're going to gerrymander to gain seats!
And they didn't.
It's the Democrats who have gained an advantage.
Well, at the very least, if slash when Republicans do win the House, they can say, we did not do it with gerrymandering.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 52% of likely U.S.
voters believe Biden's presidency has been bad for the long-term success of the U.S.
34% think Biden's presidency has been good for America's long-term success, while another 11% say it hasn't made much difference.
Only 28% believe it would be better for America if Biden is re-elected to a second term.
Yeah, I don't think Biden's gonna run.
I don't think he can, but who knows?
42% think it would be better for America if former President Donald Trump is elected again in 2024.
27% say it would be better if somebody else is elected president in 2024.
I mean, that's pretty amazing.
42% think Donald Trump would be better, with 27% saying neither.
I think, uh, Aron DeSantis, perhaps?
Maybe he could win.
Take a look at this.
Future of investigation into January 6th attacks hangs on midterm elections.
If you're sick of the abuses of the January 6th committee, I am, vote in your primaries.
Please, right now, Google where you live, look up your Republican primary elections, and look at the candidates.
Google search them.
Figure out who they are, what they represent.
Look at their tweets.
And then, based on that, vote out the neocon establishment garbage.
Bring in some American populist candidates who are going to do the right thing, focus on kitchen table issues, jobs, inflation, healthcare, and foreign policy too.
That is very, very important.
Don't let them just steamroll through some Republican neocon establishment garbage.
It's time people start to push back.
I think the reason we're seeing all of this is the narrative collapsing.
The ratings for MSNBC, they can't even get six figures in the key demo.
Oh man, is that brutal.
They're getting like 50,000.
That's it.
It's trash.
Nobody watches.
We're tired of being lied to.
I know I am.
Well, here we go, my friends.
The New York Times says, Twitter will stiffen moderation policies in response to the war in Ukraine.
Twitter will stop amplifying Russian government accounts and ban some tweets containing images of prisoners of war.
We're seeing people get suspended for wrong think on the war in Ukraine.
They don't learn, do they?
They just don't learn.
This one, I absolutely love this tweet.
Disinformation conference's token conservative, Jonah Goldberg, calls out Chicago thinker's Daniel Schmidt.
Goldberg says he doesn't buy the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up had any impact on the 2020 election, and it's a preposterous counterfactual.
What a spineless and pathetic man.
Here we go.
Someone responds with this image.
Among Biden voters who were unaware of the FBI investigation, nearly 80% would have still voted for Biden had they known about the information.
If you had been more aware of the actual evidence in emails, texts, testimony, and banking transactions being investigated by the FBI, would you have still voted for Biden anyway? 79%.
Then we have small groups here, 4-5%.
Switched your vote to Trump, 4%.
Voted for a third party, 4%.
Skipped voting for President, 4%.
And not voted at all, 5%.
percent and not voted at all. Five percent, a total of 16 percent not voting for Joe Biden.
Amazing.
Actually, it's a little bit more than 16%.
It's 17%, but MRC needs to correct their math, I suppose.
5% refused.
I suppose, would you have refused to vote or answer?
I don't understand.
Because that lines up with would not have voted at all, but refused to answer, I suppose.
I don't know.
The fact is, they're still lying.
These establishment shills are still lying.
I can't prove a negative!
The media, intelligence agencies, and social media all lied.
And big tech colluded to suppress information that would have changed the outcome of the 2020 election.
And now people are realizing they were lied to.
And they're tired of it.
I'll throw it back.
That Reuters article where that Democrat in Philly said border security.
I'm sick of the lax border security.
Well, here you go.
Texas governor says he will bus immigrants to Washington, D.C.
following immigration changes.
Ron DeSantis vows to send illegal immigrants dumped in Florida to Biden's home state of Delaware.
And people like it.
They're tired of being taken advantage of, ignored, disrespected and lied to.
People aren't stupid.
There are many stupid people, and many of them, the midwits, just follow along with the establishment, unaware or uncaring as to what's going on.
But even someone of low IQ can recognize when the government is screwing them over.
The people who live and work in these areas saying, I need a job.
The best I can muster up is working as a clerk at a gas station.
Now, this may not be the most prestigious job in the world.
The people working these jobs may not be low IQ, but for many people, it is the only job that they were able to get.
Even these people in these low-skilled jobs can recognize the struggles they face because of porous borders and failed economics.
And many of the people who are just not smart enough to find themselves, you know, to be more successful and find better paying jobs, they can't even get the jobs they would normally be able to get because they're being displaced by immigrant labor.
These people are Americans.
Intelligence should not preclude them from work.
But there are certain jobs that they could do, and they're struggling because Joe Biden imports low-skill labor.
That's the reality of this country right now.
And it's not just low-skill labor.
No, I'm not trying to single out people who are dumb, who are low IQ.
And I mean that with no disrespect, but they exist.
There are people who are high IQ.
And these big tech firms are importing high-skill labor from foreign countries as well, displacing them.
This is why people are saying, enough.
This is why it is going to be apocalyptic for Democrats in November, and may already be with these local elections.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Over the past several months, Black Lives Matter has been embroiled in a major financial scandal.
It started, actually, last year, when people started complaining about one BLM high-ranking individual's multiple homes.
But some people were like, you know, look, if you're the CEO of a major, a massive non-profit making millions of dollars, well, of course, you'll get paid very well.
Then it turns out there was no one running this organization after one of the co-founders left, and that the address where the nonprofit was apparently registered to didn't have anybody working there, and no one knew what was going on.
We now have a bigger piece of the puzzle from TimCast.com.
Black Lives Matter purchased $5.8 million mansion from friend who paid $3.1 million days earlier.
Patrice Cullors described criticism of the purchase as racist and sexist in an Instagram post.
My friends, we have a mystery on our hands.
It may be...
That Black Lives Matter laundered $2.7 million to a friend, or was ripped off themselves.
It's hard to know exactly what happened, but I don't think we're giving anybody the benefit of the doubt.
I've done some digging on this story, rather quickly, just to try and verify some facts, and some things just don't add up.
It was reported by, I believe it was New York Mag initially, I believe it's New York Post now, actually, saying, the New York Post reported that the property was purchased from televangelists Sean and Sherry Boltz on October 21st, 2020 for $3.1 million.
But we do know it was sold October 27th for $5.8 million to Black Lives Matter.
First, why is Black Lives Matter spending $6 million on a massive mansion?
They called it Campus.
Well, I can't necessarily fault them, I suppose.
They wanted an operational headquarters.
They wanted to go in style.
And I get it.
If people want to donate to BLM, then they deserve to know what their money is being spent on.
I'm pretty sure most of the people who donated to BLM don't care what the money is being spent on, so I don't know if that scandal there is all that important.
But there are questions about whether or not this was a scheme.
To funnel donations in the amount of 2.7 million dollars to a friend of the organization.
That's where things get interesting.
Now it's tough.
We've gone through a bunch of public records.
We have the address and information behind the scenes, which we're not going to be publishing.
And I gotta say, something looks shady.
Very, very shady.
Could it be that the previous owners were trying to pay off their loan, which was, I could be wrong about this, I believe it was around 3.1 billion dollars, it was a mortgage.
Could it be that they were underwater and said, just pay it off, take it, and they passed ownership on to a friend of BLM, who then turned around and said, now you can pay market price, which will transfer 2.7 to me personally, or To an organization owned by Patrice Cullors.
I want to be very careful here.
We just have bits and pieces of information.
We don't know if anyone did anything wrong.
And I do want to mention, there are some legitimate reasons for what we may be seeing.
And it's hard to know for sure.
Take it all with a grain of salt.
I am accusing no one of wrongdoing.
I'm simply presenting the information as it was reported by major news outlets, and then asking questions about what that might mean.
Because, actually, I want to say I'm a bit of a skeptic.
See, I saw this story on my own website.
Black Lives Matter purchased a $5.8 million mansion from a friend who paid $3.1 million days earlier, and it is reported by a couple different outlets.
We have this from the Daily Mail.
Why did BLM buy L.A.
Mansion for $5.8 million from a developer friend who paid $3.1 million for it just six days earlier?
Transaction raises serious questions, but founder Patrice Cullors says criticism is racist and sexist.
Upon seeing that, my initial reaction was, they laundered $2.7 million.
That's a simple explanation, right?
I then looked up a couple different public records and our team over at Timcast, our journalists, did as well.
And it looks like it actually may be the case that for some reason this was transferred, arguably at a loss, very quickly to somebody who then six days later sold it for a premium and pocketed the cash.
But that doesn't necessarily mean BLM was laundering money.
It could just mean they got ripped off.
Or someone said, I got a really great deal, why don't you guys buy this mansion from me?
Depends on who you want to trust.
First, let's read from TimCast.com.
After a Los Angeles mansion was purchased by a real estate developer working for Black Lives Matter founder Patrice Cullors for $3.1 million, the activist organization bought the property six days later for $5.8 million in cash.
It also sounds like Patrice Cullor may have been laundering money to herself.
Again, don't know.
They say.
According to New York Mag report released on Monday, the National Black Lives Matter group purchased a $6 million mansion in Los Angeles with donor funds in October 2020.
BLM took measures to keep the purchase a secret.
On Wednesday, cullers responded to questions over the cash purchase, describing the criticism as racist and sexist.
Cutler spoke out, calling the New York Magazine article, a despicable abuse of a platform that's intended to provide
truthful information to the public.
She said the author had a proven and very public bias against me and other black leaders.
The expansive estate was purchased by Diane Paschal, the financial manager for the LLC
Janaya and Patrice Consulting.
Interesting.
The New York Post reported the property was purchased from televangelists Sean and Sherry Boltz, October 21st, 2020, for $3.1 million.
Now, we have, I do believe that is correct based on records we've seen, but again, not completely sure.
Just want to make sure that's being presented because the reason I'm saying not sure is not, look, I don't like covering stories where it's like, we're going to accuse someone of wrongdoing and we have no idea what happened.
Quite the opposite.
People are assuming very serious wrongdoing, and I want to point out, we don't know exactly what happened.
And I want to present some skepticism here, because I can, I can actually explain away some of the issues here, but take it with a grain of salt.
Again, make up your own mind.
Within a week of the purchase, ownership was transferred to an LLC in Delaware, named after the property's address, Public Records Show.
The mansion is reportedly dubbed Campus in internal emails from BLM.
Cullors and other BLM leadership have since used the property to serve as a backdrop for videos.
According to emails obtained by New York Mag, the property is also dubbed a safe house for leaders whose safety has been threatened.
BLM leadership offered a statement to New York Magazine regarding the purpose of the use of the property.
On April 1st, Shalamia Bowers, a BLM board member, said the house would serve as a housing and studio space for recipients of the Black Joy Creators Fellowship.
The Fellowship announced the same day.
Announced the same day?
Provides recordings, resources, and dedicated space for black creatives to launch content online and in real life focused on abolition, healing justice, urban agriculture, and food justice, pop culture, activism, and politics.
The $2.7 million increase in value in less than a week has not been explained.
Why transfer ownership to an LLC in the name of the property?
Some may argue Simple.
You want to obfuscate ownership, and not for any nefarious reasons, but because you want to protect the identity of the people who actually live there, or who own the property.
Now that doesn't necessarily work with LLCs.
You'd have to go with a private trust.
An LLC, you can easily look up public records on who owns the LLC, and it may obfuscate some shareholders in the property, that could protect them.
But you're going to see who the principal officers are, and it won't protect everybody.
So, it's some level of privacy having an LLC purchase it, and it protects individuals from liability.
If you own, say, five properties and someone slips, falls, and gets hurt on one of your properties, well, if the LLC holding that property owns other properties and the person sues, they can target all assets of the company.
Typically, what happens then is people set up LLCs to own individual properties so that liability is restricted to just that one property.
Makes sense.
But the question remains, A $2.7 million increase.
Well, my friends, questions, questions, questions.
We looked up public records and we did see what the New York Post had reported on earlier, that it was initially $3.1 million and then transferred a few days later, six days later, For 5.8.
And that seems to be the big question.
So let me pull up this right here.
Hopefully there's no identifying information on it.
Okay.
We have this image.
It shows sales records.
When I first saw the story, I immediately said, this sounds like a very, very serious bit of evidence suggesting money laundering on the part of Black Lives Matter, which may be the case.
However, They say it was six days later that it was purchased for $3.1 million and then sold for $5.8.
When I pulled up records on Zillow, what I found was that on September 29th, 2016, it was sold, the mansion was sold for $3.1 million.
That is likely it was sold to these televangelists.
On September 16th, 2020, it was listed for sale at $5.8 million.
I mean, okay, I guess that makes sense with a price increase.
However, as these other outlets have pointed out, the value of the home is 253% higher than neighboring properties.
That is to say, the home should not be worth $5.8.
Right now, Should be worth around 3.1.
So why was it listed in September for 5.8?
I believe, let me see if New York Post, I want to make sure I show this.
If I can pull this up.
I want to be very, very careful on all the different sources.
So, I don't know if the New York Post has it.
Actually, maybe the Daily Mail.
The Daily Mail reported this the other day.
I believe they initially got it wrong.
The Daily Mail said 250 times when it's actually 253.
it's actually 253. Here we go. 257. There it is. The 1936 mansion is 257.43% more expensive
than similar homes in its Studio City Studio City neighborhood, according to realtor.com.
Makes no sense.
But what doesn't make sense is the house was listed four years after being purchased for close to double the price, which is already very high considering neighboring costs.
There was a price change on September 18, 2020 of 0%.
I don't know why that's listed.
Then it says October 27, 2020, it was listed as sold at 5.8.
Now when I saw that, I said something doesn't add up.
They said it was sold October 21st, 2020.
Six days later, told them it was sold on the 27th.
That is likely because there was a transfer between two individuals to the Diane Paschal in question on October 21st for an undisclosed sum.
Now that's where things get strange.
It seems that it may have been transferred.
I mean, we don't know.
It's an undisclosed sum.
The value listing was at 5.8.
It was listed as sold at 5.8, and then it was purchased at 5.8, so it's entirely possible.
It's all on the level, and everyone's got this wrong.
The issue, though, is they're the ones saying... Let me read this, okay?
There's a lot of redundant information here, but I gotta read through this so you guys can see the statements.
It's really frustrating, but let me read.
They say three leaders of the social justice movement, Patrice Cullors, Alicia Garza, Malina Abdullah, recorded a video last June in the house.
Cullors at the time said she was weeks removed from being in survival mode after the Post's exclusive reporting in April revealed the purchase of four high-end homes.
Cullors and her colleagues didn't reveal any details about the massive, the swanky 6,500-square-foot mansion.
The property was purchased in October 2020 with funds that had been donated to Black Lives Matter.
The seven-bedroom residence was purchased by a man named Diane Paschal two weeks after they received $66.5 million from its fiscal sponsor earlier that month.
Paschal is the financial manager for Janaya & Patrice Consulting, an LLC operated by Cullors and her spouse, Janaya Khan, New York Magazine reported.
Ownership was transferred within a week to an LLC in Delaware, ensuring the property's owner wouldn't be disclosed.
Okay, this is why I'm a skeptic, and I want to make sure this is out there.
It sounds like Diane may have just bought the house for what it was listed as being sold at 5.8 by the people who owned it and the price went up because it'd been four years since they bought it and it was transferred to an LLC very simply because they wanted to limit liability and this sounds like it's not that big a deal and there's no there's nothing really nefarious happening here.
The issue is, the initial transfer to Diane was an undisclosed sum, which seems to make no sense.
And I believe it's being reported that Diane actually said it was a sale for 3.1.
So it's hard to know because you've got so many different sources and conflicting information.
This is the story from the Daily Mail.
She insisted the expensive property was bought as a safe space.
That's Patrice Cullors.
Claimed it was racist and sexist.
They want to say that the property was purchased on October 21st by Diane Pascal.
That doesn't explain why it's not listed in the sale records.
On his Instagram page.
Okay, here we go.
Uh, Pascal bought the property from televangelists Sean and Sherry Boltz, according to property records, and Sean Boltz told the New York Post the sale was for 3.1.
There it is.
So, you mean to tell me Shane Boltz sold it for 3.1, even though they had listed it for 5.8?
That's what they're claiming?
That's what's being reported?
Is that Is that just incorrect reporting?
This is where things get hard to break down.
And so, I don't even see this guy listed in the New York Post story, to be completely honest.
They say, yet six days after it was purchased, it was transferred $5.8 million.
I think it's fair to say, and it's important to point out, this could just be bad reporting.
And that's what shocked me, and I was like, we gotta talk about that.
This dude may have bought it for what it was listed at.
It was listed in September.
And then transfer it to the LLC, all on the level.
The bigger question, and if you've got an issue with this, the real issue is, why is BLM buying a $6 million mansion with this funds?
Now what does it come down to for me?
Yo, people who donated to BLM, that's on them and I don't think they care.
I really don't.
Remember when they were doing that Build the Wall Foundation and Steve Bannon got in trouble?
And they were like, he said they weren't gonna pay this guy a salary and he ripped off the donors.
I'm like, dude, not a single donor cares that some dude was getting a salary from the non-profit.
It was crazy to me that they filed charges against any of them.
I think Trump pardoned them both.
So, if the donors don't care, then what's really the issue?
If Black Lives Matter chooses to buy a massive mansion, but people don't care what they do with the money, and I gotta be honest, that's a fact.
Like, no one knows what BLM actually does.
They don't pay attention to the news, so why would they care?
And then if they do find out, they're just gonna be like, well, it's quite, you know, I don't care what BLM does, so long as they're helping, I guess.
Could it be that this other Sean Boltz was selling the property to marked-up value to make money?
Here's where it gets, you know, there are some questions that need to be answered.
Why is the property selling for 257% higher than it's actually worth?
And if Sean Boltz is saying the sale was for $3.1 million, why would we not believe him?
Are we to believe that Black Lives Matter, Diane Paschal, who purchased the property for an undisclosed sum, are we to believe that Sean Boltz was able to convince this guy to give them $2.7 million on top of the actual value of the house, as per the neighborhood?
Or what makes more sense?
This is the challenge, my friends.
Does it make more sense that Diane Pascal secured the house for an undisclosed sum and then immediately transferred it for 5.8 so that they could pocket 2.7 million dollars in donations that were going to Black Lives Matter?
Perhaps a money laundering scheme to siphon funds away from Black Lives Matter, but this will require some real investigation, not property.
You know, look, there's a bit of investigation in the work that I'm doing.
And the team at TimCast.com.
And we can ask questions about what we think may be most likely.
We don't know.
The Daily Mail could have gotten this wrong.
Sean Boltz told the New York Post the sale was for $3.1 million.
Okay.
Maybe Sean Boltz is lying.
Maybe Sean Boltz is saying that because now this Diane Pascal guy is gonna be like, wait a minute, you ripped us off?
That's not uncommon.
You got people who are well off.
They go to someone and say, hey, I need this job done.
And the person's going to realize they're rich and say, okay.
And they're going to charge them 100% more than they would normally.
And the rich person's going to be like, I don't know, I guess, whatever.
They got $66 million.
They're told, you better buy it now.
It's worth $6 million.
They say, okay, here's the check.
Cash purchase.
Because they didn't need loans.
So they didn't even think twice about it because they were like, whatever.
We bought it.
And now we can just say the house is worth this much because that's how much we paid for it.
We're not going to sell it anyway.
Or it could be that Sean Boltz, you know, he just, it could be ripped him off or...
In desperation.
Selling the house for what they bought it for to pay off the mortgage and make a move to get a mortgage on a new property.
Because the house wasn't growing up in value.
I mean, think about this.
It was sold for 257% higher than similar homes.
Stands to reason it was a bad investment.
That they bought it at a very high rate, a very high price, and they weren't making any gains on it.
And they knew, so they said, how about we sell it, wipe our loan clean, And we can move somewhere else that will be a better investment, or just get out from going underwater.
Because if the prices tank, we're gonna be in trouble and trapped.
And then, this Diane Pascal guy, who purchased it for an undisclosed sum, cranks up the price and says, give me 5.8, puts 2.7 in his pocket.
I don't know, man.
That seems to be the insinuation here.
And based on what we've seen, it's hard to know for sure, other than for me to say, there are legitimate reasons why you would transfer this to an LLC.
That doesn't seem all that nefarious to me.
But BLM is.
Fed's pro-BLM activist for allegedly pilfering funds from charity.
March 9th.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt to these people.
We got some serious questions that need to be answered.
Monica Gannon Grant, the founder and CEO of the charity group Violence in Boston, rose to prominence in the Boston BLM community, and now facing several federal indictments, her and her husband, for pilfering funds, among other things.
Now, it's not the same organization as the BLM Global Network Foundation, but I'm not going to give the benefit of the doubt to these individuals.
I think it's entirely possible they just siphoned off $2.7 million.
I also think it's very possible the reporting is wrong.
I'm wondering why some of these finer details weren't brought up in these reports about the Zillow records.
It looks like the Boltes were trying to sell this for $5.8 million.
But I'll say this too.
If there was a scheme to funnel $2.7 million from Black Lives Matter into private hands, They would be planning it longer than six days.
In which case, could it be that even Boltz is in on it?
That they went to him and he said, it's worth 3.1 and they said, what if we cut a deal where we can extract money from this non-profit, give you a kickback?
It's all speculation.
It's all speculation and insinuation without evidence.
What I would say is, I think this warrants an actual criminal probe.
That is not to say anyone here did anything wrong, but law enforcement should start looking into these records and figure out what's going on here, because it may be that this Boltz guy knew his property was not worth 5.8, listed it so that it would appear in public records.
Then, here's the crazy thing.
There is no listed sale on October 21st to Dianne Paschal, only the transfer to the LLC at 5.8.
Something doesn't add up.
Maybe it's nothing.
Maybe it's nothing, man.
I don't know.
My question is, if it was sold 2016 at 3.1, why would it still be sold at 3.1?
According to Realtor.com, its price did not increase.
Maybe that makes sense because of the pandemic.
It could be that in 2016, it was 3.1.
But because people are fleeing these cities and these areas that don't want to live there, demand for it has gone down.
And now they're worried they're going to go underwater because nobody wants to move into cities anymore.
So they said, we need to get rid of this.
Listed it for sale.
Dude said, we'll clear your loan.
We'll give you a kickback.
But we're not buying it for 5.8.
We want a cut.
I don't know, man.
I don't know.
This is one of those stories where something doesn't add up, and I really just wanted to present that something doesn't add up.
But I believe the internet sleuths that all of you with your decentralized computing power can figure out what's going on in this matter.
We did some digging.
Story's busted.
It could be exaggeration, speculation, and a lot of nothing.
But something just doesn't make sense.
Maybe you guys will find out.
Is Daily Mail just reporting wrong?
Is the New York Post reporting wrong?
What's with this undisclosed amount transfer?
Why?
Why would there be a transfer in an undisclosed amount?
Maybe it wasn't a transfer.
Maybe it was transferred to the individual who wasn't actually the purchaser, and it was just transferred back to the nonprofit, to Black Lives Matter.
Maybe the 3.1 number is incorrect, and maybe Black Lives Matter just bought an expensive house and didn't care how much it costs.
Maybe they're just not good at allocating funds, which wouldn't surprise me.
Amen.
I'll leave it there, and of course, we're going to keep digging into the story to see what's going on, but interesting nonetheless.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
I'd like to start off this segment with a shout-out to Tim Kast's good friends, Anna Kasparian and Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks.
You see, we have breaking news!
In the third trial pertaining to January 6th, that is right, just the third, A man has been acquitted of all charges because, wait for it, the police let him in the building.
The judge in the bench trial said, it seems clear as day in the video, this man was welcomed in by the police and thus, not guilty.
It's only the third trial.
There have been two other trials.
There's been a jury trial and another bench trial with the same judge.
Now, in the bench trial, this individual was acquitted of some of the charges, but still convicted of the unlawful entry charge.
Why?
Well, it appears he climbed up a closed-off area to enter the property.
Thus, the judge said, you knew you were trespassing.
Now, the reason why I give this shout-out to our good friends over at the Young Turks is because I made this point on TimCast IRL, as I often have.
First, that those who engaged in violent rioting should be and would be convicted.
Many people have been convicted, but typically because they pleaded guilty.
For those that tried storming the actual Capitol, yes, they engaged in violent actions.
Those that fought with cops, absolutely, they're going to get charged, and they're on video.
No one denies that.
Although I suppose maybe someone does, but generally speaking.
Now, in this segment from the Young Turks, they call it, Tim Pool Makes the Dumbest January 6th Argument Yet.
And they title it, Tim Pool Defends January 6th Rioters.
Which I did not do, as I have repeatedly said, the rioters should be and would be convicted.
Here's how they describe it.
Right-wing internet celebrity Tim Poole made an absurd argument against the punishment of January 6th Capitol rioters who entered the Capitol building.
Poole claimed that since there were no no trespassing signs posted, as well as many D.C.
monuments being public property, rioters who entered the Capitol should not be charged with trespassing.
Cenk Uygur and Anas Kasparian discuss.
Well, maybe.
You know, it's been a while since we had this discussion.
I don't think that's fair, though.
I don't think that's the case.
I think the Young Turks just don't actually watch TimCast IRL, don't know what I actually said, see some out-of-context clip, make a segment about it, and then when I reach out to them and try and talk to them, they just ignore it.
Because, well, they're not good people.
But the point I made was that there is an incident where the door was opened by police.
Police wave people in.
One officer says, I don't agree with it, but I respect it, or something to that effect.
Several officers have been punished for smiling and taking selfies with some of these people.
Not every single person charged in January 6th was rioting.
In fact, many of these people we refer to as, what do they call them?
Maga-me-mas.
Bumbling dotards who were just fumbling about, saw people walking towards the Capitol, saw the door be opened by police and cops waving people in, and they walked in.
Now, what I said in this was that those people that walked in because the police allowed them in, you can't just charge them with a crime unless there's intent.
And I know, because we deal with this.
We have very large no trespassing signs.
The issue is, if the Capitol building is typically open to the public, if there are no barricades or signs, And the police opened the doors for these individuals.
How are you going to convict someone on trespassing?
Now, disorderly conduct?
Perhaps.
Just because you're allowed in somewhere doesn't mean you won't get- you'll get off on a disorderly conduct charge.
So some of these people, maybe, like the dude who's carrying that podium and smiling and waving for the camera.
But the Young Turks don't care for nuance.
They don't care for honest arguments.
They just...
Post garbage.
They see a clip on Twitter out of context and they make a big segment about it.
They don't ask me for comment.
They don't respond when I DM them.
So when I say they're my good friends, trust I'm not being serious.
Ladies and gentlemen, Judge Fines, man, not guilty.
In first January 6th acquittal, the defendant Matthew Martin had claimed the police let him into the Capitol during last year's pro-Trump riot.
The judge agreed.
Yes, because the judge saw the video of the cops literally letting people in.
Expect more of this.
My favorite response so far from these leftists, because I've called out the Young Turks, is they're like, oh, it was one guy.
It was one guy.
Yo, there's been three trials.
Three.
Three.
If someone just pleads guilty, well, that's their choice.
And personally, I think it's really dumb.
But a lot of people are getting bad advice from lawyers, just plead guilty and go to jail.
Yo, if you walked up to the building, were not party to any riot, did not see any violence, there's no barricades, no signs, and they open the door for you, you go to trial.
And I gotta be honest.
A bench trial seems to make the most sense.
You get a jury trial, you're gonna get a bunch of, you know, Democrat, DC, urban, liberal types, and they're just gonna be like, we don't care what you did.
A judge, on the other hand, still may be very much biased.
Probably better off.
I'm not a lawyer, so don't take my advice.
It's not legal advice.
Let me just tell you, though.
They want to claim, so what?
So one guy got acquitted.
We'll expect more.
Take a look at this story.
Cowboys for Trump leader is given a mixed verdict in his January 6th Capitol riot trial.
Oh, heaven's a mixed verdict?
You mean he was found not guilty and guilty on certain counts?
That's right.
This guy entered a restricted area by apparently climbing over, they say prosecutors alleged Griffin climbed over an outer wall and then went up A temporary staircase to an outside deck at the Capitol.
Judge Trevor McFadden presiding over what was the first bench trial said evidence showed Griffin crossing three walls and that Griffin would have seen fencing in the area.
I agree with the judge!
This dude, he was bypassing normal routes.
We also have this other story.
The first jury trial, this is back from February 8th, Was, uh, this was a guy named, what was his name, Refit?
I think his name?
Yeah, Wesley Refit.
Now, in the instance of this guy, he actually bragged about leading the charge.
He told his kids they were traitors if they turned him in.
This guy knew he was engaging in riotous behavior.
So, of course, found guilty.
So then we get, we get this guy being found guilty, we get the second trial being mixed, and now this guy, Matthew Martin, acquitted on all charges.
Here we go.
From the New York Times, a federal judge decided on Wednesday that a former government contractor from New Mexico who claimed the police led him into the Capitol during last year's pro-Trump riot was not guilty of four petty offenses.
The first acquittal connected to the sprawling investigation of the attack.
At a two-day bench trial in the federal district court in Washington, the defendant, Matthew Martin, admitted that he went into the Capitol on January 6, along with hundreds of other supporters of President Trump.
But he claimed that he had not broken the law.
Because two Capitol Police officers had waved him in through a door.
Prosecutors argued that Mr. Martin was aware that he had entered the building illegally, given the signs of the riot were clearly apparent all around him, including tear gas and alarms going off.
I will pause there and say, no.
You see, this is what the young Turks tried arguing.
They were like, you think that's stepping over broken glass?
You didn't realize you're breaking in?
That is not how the law works, young Turks, but they don't really care, do they?
See, I talk to lawyers about this stuff.
We have lawyers on the show and I ask them, Based on their legal expertise, I form an opinion.
Not a legal opinion, a personal opinion based on the news.
And let me just assure you, glass on the ground is not indicative of trespass.
Now.
We've dealt with issues like this over at our properties, and what people need to understand is, in certain jurisdictions, Maryland specifically, I believe this is true in many other jurisdictions.
Trespass is when you are warned you're entering private property without permission.
Burglary is when you bypass a barrier to enter a property.
That means if someone puts a gate up on their property with a sign that says no trespassing and you walk past it, that's actually misdemeanor burglary.
People think burglary means stealing from someone's house.
It doesn't.
It means entering without permission, knowingly.
That being said, they're not charging these people with things as simple as trespass.
This guy was being charged- Martin was charged with entering and remaining in a restricted building, disorderly and disruptive conduct in a restricted building, violent entry, and disorderly conduct in a Capitol building, And parading, demonstrating, or picketing in a Capitol building.
This is the same judge from the mixed verdict, Judge Trevor McFadden.
He said he found it plausible that Mr. Martin believed the police had let him in, and thus had not knowingly gone into the building improperly.
Case in point.
My point was, trespass requires intent.
Man, you know, maybe I understand this.
I used to work for non-profits, right?
We used to do street fundraising.
It's where you go at the clipboard and you wave to people.
Hi, how's it going?
You want to talk to me about the environment?
Well, the one thing we all knew, they wouldn't necessarily advise us of this, but they would warn us, is they would say, If you are at a store or a mall or some public space that's private property and someone tells you they're calling the cops on you, they actually can't do anything until you're warned to leave.
So don't worry about these threats from people because we are allowed to be there.
Now specifically, I think it was in California.
You're actually allowed to do non-profit fundraising and activist activities on private property, so long as that property is open to the public.
So that's why they were like, these threats are, you know, typically toothless.
But in the event that cops were called while you were talking to people and trying to fundraise for activism, the cops would be like, typically they would be like, you're not doing anything wrong, you're allowed to do this.
In the event that there was a specific threshold that you were not supposed to be on, the cops would walk up and say, hey, you gotta come off.
And we'd go, okay, sorry about that, we didn't know.
And they'd be like, thanks, no problem, and they'd leave.
The cops can't just walk up to you and be like, we're arresting you.
I mean, well, literally they can, but legally they can't.
There are a lot of really stupid circumstances where I've had, where I was fundraising, and people try calling the cops, and you've broken no law.
So when I see stuff like this, I'm like, dude, If you have a Starbucks, alright?
Typically open to the public.
But one day, it's not open to the public.
It's closed.
And then you walk up, and a cop opens the door and says, howdy!
And you walk in, and the cop smiles.
They can't then turn and arrest you for it.
They let you in the building.
But let's read, this is interesting.
Other judges are not bound by Judge McFadden's analysis of Mr. Marne's claims about the police.
But in the wake of the acquittal, some defendants facing low-level charges who might otherwise have entered guilty pleas could feel emboldened to go to trial and test the government's case against them.
More than 200 people have already pleaded guilty to misdemeanors connected to the riot.
You see, many of these people knowingly crossed thresholds, like climbed over walls and stuff like that.
We've seen photos.
Some of these people, many of them, fought cops.
Y'all are gonna go to jail for that.
But the memaws, the bumbling fools who had no idea they were walking into a trap, and I don't mean fool as in, like, they're stupid people, as in they were ignorant of what was happening around them, is what I mean to say.
The case of Mr. Martin, who once held the top-secret security clearance as a private contractor, was the third connected to the Capitol attack to go to trial.
In early March, they mentioned that Wesley Refitt was convicted.
Thomas Robertson, who is now on trial, faces charges of obstructing the certification of the election and interfering with law enforcement, blah, blah, blah.
So one of the things they point out in this story, I think I have it right here, was that the judge said in the video, so we actually have photos of this, so this is interesting, this is Daily Mail.
The dude, Martin, actually puts his hand on the cop's shoulder as if to thank him for letting them in.
They very clearly thought they were allowed in.
They say, Trevor McFadden, the judge, said it was reasonable for Martin to believe the outnumbered police officers allowed him in.
Video played at the trial appeared to show an officer moving his arm in a waving motion inside the building as rioters moved past them.
Trevor McFadden said it was reasonable.
McFadden, who was nominated by former President Trump, also said Martin's actions were about as minimal and non-serious as anyone who was at the Capitol that day.
Interesting.
Martin's acquittal is a major milestone in the January 6 trials.
Now, we already know this judge has convicted another guy for trespass, for entering illegally.
So we have this video.
You have the cops standing right here, allowing everybody in, not even trying to put their hands up to say stop.
If the cops weren't letting people in, I would have not gone in, Martin said during his testimony without a jury on Tuesday, adding that he enjoyed the day of the riot.
It was a magical day in many ways.
I know some bad things happened.
You understand that police officers died.
Justice Department Prosecutor Michael Romano asked him.
That's not true.
They say at least nine people died in the riot or its aftermath.
One officer died after he collapsed hours after being sprayed with bear spray, and other officers who tried to quell the riot died by suicide.
You see the manipulative, dirty game that, you know officers died, right?
The officer who died after the fact, it was ruled natural causes.
It's been a while since I've gone through the story, but I'm pretty, I'm sure that was the case.
I'm pretty sure that was the case.
In the same courthouse where Martin was acquitted, a fourth trial continued on Wednesday.
Now this one's different.
It's a former police officer who was charged with storming the Capitol with another off-duty officer.
Martin, whose bench trial started Tuesday, testified that a police officer waved him into the building.
A prosecutor dismissed that testimony as nonsense.
The judge, however, said video shows two police officers standing near the rotunda doors and allowing people to enter as Martin approached.
One of the officers appeared to lean back before Martin placed his hand on the officer's shoulder as a possible sign of gratitude, the judge said.
McFadden described Martin's testimony as largely credible.
The judge said it was not unreasonable for him to believe the officers allowed him to enter the Capitol, even though alarms were blaring and broken glass was strewn about the floor.
Martin was charged with four misdemeanor counts, entering remaining blah blah blah.
You know the young Turks don't come out and say no?
This judge is a Donald Trump appointed judge!
It's his part of the insurrection!
He convicted the other guy.
Spare me your lies.
Broken glass on the floor does not mean you're not allowed to enter a building.
I've gone too many a Starbucks with broken windows.
I've once gone to a restaurant, and someone broke a window, and they say, sorry about that, you know, come on in.
Broken glass doesn't mean you can't come in.
You're not gonna- that's unreasonable.
The glass was broken!
Clearly, the glass fell to the ground in a way that's spelled, do not enter, and I just didn't see it.
It's ridiculous.
The judge said Martin appeared to be a silent observer of the actions of others.
McFadden did not find any evidence that Martin intended to disrupt Congress.
Dozens of capital right defendants have pleaded guilty and been sentenced, but Martin is the first to testify at a trial.
Always!
I will go to trial.
I don't play these plea bargain games.
And, you know, you guys know that story.
I went to, um...
I was once arrested and charged for skateboarding.
When I showed up at court, this was hilarious, the judge asked the prosecutors, because the cops were there who arrested me, he was like, what is this?
It was criminal damage to a state-supported location.
And they were like, yes, your honor.
And the judge was like, and what is the defendant accused of?
And they're like, he was skateboarding, your honor.
And the judge takes his glasses off, and he was like, excuse me?
And they're like, your honor, he was skateboarding outside the sidewalk of a federal building.
And he was like, is this a joke?
And they were like, no, your honor.
And he goes, dismissed.
What did he say?
SOL, get out of my courtroom.
Or he asked me like, I think he asked me like, is that true?
And I was like, yeah.
And he's like, get out of, stop wasting my time.
It was kind of hilarious.
Another instance, my brother and I were falsely accused.
And then the guys, the security guards who attacked us at a mall, Lied under oath on the police reports.
The cops just went along with it.
And we refused.
They were going to give us a slap on the wrist.
Community service at our own discretion.
And we were like, no.
It's a longer story I've told before, but suffice it to say, I was like, I'll go to, I'll take a jury trial.
And the court was like, a jury trial over like, a first offense slap on the wrist charge?
And I was like, oh yeah!
We're going to get a full jury.
We're going through all of it, baby.
And they were like, get out of my, I don't want to deal with this.
These courtrooms don't want to deal with this.
So this guy does a bench trial.
Bench trials can be risky.
You never know the judge's perspective.
But jury trials can be risky, too.
I'm not a fan, necessarily, of jury trials.
I like the idea, but people in juries, you're just trying to win a popularity contest.
You're trying to convince people to feel a certain way.
There are challenges though with bench trials in that a judge can be like, letter of the law says X, go to jail.
And a jury can be like, that makes no sense, not guilty.
You never know, man.
In this instance, I think you've got too many people in D.C.
who are left activists, and it was the smarter move for this guy to go for a bench trial.
I think I want to say, you know, Defense Attorney Dan Cron said Martin saw another person shake a police officer's hand and enter the Capitol.
Martin placed his hand on an officer's shoulder as a gesture of thanks and goodwill.
The idea that he thought he had permission to do that is nonsense, Romano said in his prosecution.
Other riot defendants have claimed police waved them in or said they could enter.
Yeah, and they all pleaded guilty, so congratulations.
McFadden presided over a bench trial last month of Coy Griffin, a county official in New Mexico.
The judge on March 22nd convicted Griffin of illegally entering restricted U.S.
Capitol grounds, but acquitted him of engaging in disorderly conduct.
Yes, and that was because we know he climbed up and over some walls and, you know.
Now we have a couple more trials happening.
They say a jury in a different courtroom heard a second day of testimony for the trial of former Rocky Mount, Virginia officer Thomas Robertson.
The town fired Robertson and another officer, Jacob Fracker, who joined him at the riot.
Fracker was scheduled to be tried alongside Robertson before he pleaded guilty last month to a conspiracy charge and agreed to testify against somebody who is his mentor and father figure.
Sounds like they're related.
I absolutely hate this, Fracker said.
I've always been on the other side of things.
The good guy's side, so to speak.
No, you haven't.
Come on.
Fracker testified that he and Robertson both believed the election was stolen.
Fracker said they both wore gas masks as they joined a mob in storming the Capitol.
And that is why you go to jail.
Because violent riots are wrong.
What did these people think was going to happen?
It's the stupidest thing ever.
I'm sorry.
The people who stormed the Capitol, I'm sorry, dumb as a box of rocks.
Trump was speaking at the Ellipse, decently far away.
People who were there were listening to a man give a speech.
That was it.
Many of these people didn't even go anywhere near the Capitol building that day.
Many people showed up after the fact, when the ride had already happened, having no idea what was going on, and seeing barricades torn down, and just walked in.
On January, I think it was, what is it, January 20th, 2017, a whole bunch of black-clad Antifa types stormed through D.C.
starting fires and destroying property.
These people were mostly acquitted.
Well, we couldn't prove who did what or why.
They tried charging them with conspiracy.
It didn't work.
The people who got acquitted, it makes no sense to me.
You showed up all black because you know what the plan is to smash and destroy, and that's why they do it.
You know people around you are smashing and destroying, and you still stay in this group as they run around smashing and destroying.
Well, the courts basically said you can't prove any individual did anything, and that's the point of the black block tactic.
So, if you can't prove someone's guilty, you can't convict them.
What if you went outside one day wearing a black hoodie and sweats because you wanted to go for a jog, and you see Antifa, and they arrest you and charge you for conspiracy, and you're like, dude, I was literally jogging.
Clothing is not evidence of a crime, necessarily.
With the Black Bloc stuff, I think you've got a bigger argument there.
But these people were all acquitted.
Now, most of these people, I believe, wanted trials.
Because they were advised by legal groups to request a jury trial.
Some of them pleaded guilty, but mostly they all said, not guilty, we want a trial, and they all get released.
Because the courts can't handle it.
Unfortunately, these J6 defendants are all just pleading guilty.
They shouldn't be.
In my opinion, at least.
For anyone's individual cases, you talk to a lawyer.
Just, I think people typically should always demand a trial.
Make the government prove it.
Prove it to a judge or to the people.
There you go.
Bravo, Young Turks, I look forward to that correction.
Oh, you'll probably just make an argument that, well, he's a Donald Trump-appointed judge, so, yeah, but he convicted the other guy, so how about that?
