Democrats Call For REVOLUTION After SCOTUS Roe v. Wade Ruling, SCOTUS Chief Orders Investigation
Democrats Call For REVOLUTION After SCOTUS Roe v. Wade Ruling, SCOTUS Chief Orders Investigation. Democrats accuse the conservative justices of leaking the draft to for other justices to stay in line with their opinion.
Either way the Supreme Court has been undermined and its confidence is shot. If the ruling changes from the initial draft in anyway people will assume it was due to the leak and public pressure.
Chief Justice Roberts has called for an investigation into the leak as Democrats begin to call for revolution and unrest.
Civil war may be coming as our institutions crumble
#SCOTUS
#RoevWade
#Democrats
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Breaking news last night, a leaked draft from the Supreme Court, which is unprecedented and has never happened, shows the Supreme Court is set to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In our next segment, it appears this could lead to civil war or civil unrest.
New information is emerging.
Chief Justice Roberts is calling for an investigation, and the left is calling for revolution.
In our last story, everyone's favorite journalist Taylor Lorenz published a hoax fake news story and then, when caught, just claimed it was all one big joke.
Wonderful.
If you liked the show, leave us a good review and give us five stars.
Sharing the show with your friends is the most powerful way you can help because grassroots marketing is how podcasts actually grow.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Last night, as we were live on Timcast IRL, the news broke.
Politico got its hands on a leaked first draft of a Supreme Court opinion overturning Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, effectively ending federal abortions and returning the issue of abortion to the states.
Now, we're still a couple months away from the ruling being set in stone, and the issue now is this leaked document?
It's never happened before in history, and there's a lot to talk about.
I think in this segment, what we're going to go through is what this means for the states and break down the news.
Now, the reaction is something else entirely, and I believe the reaction suggests—oh, come on, I'm going to say it—civil war.
Because you have an unprecedented obstruction and subversion of the highest court in this country, and the left is calling whoever leaked this document a hero.
What was the intention of the leak?
I believe, as many do, that it was to sway the opinion of the court to terrify Supreme Court justices, and it may work.
If, with this news, and the reaction from the left, they're hoping that someone, maybe Brett Kavanaugh, someone in the Supreme Court, will be like, I'm not, I'm not doing this.
Because of terrorism.
Not right.
That's what it is.
I don't think this country can withstand this.
But let's take a look at exactly what this is, because I know a lot of people are talking about it, but we've got some articles from TimCast.com explaining what is actually going to happen.
And as much as I'd love to jump in and be like, Civil War!
No, no, no, hold on, hold on.
We do have an excellent article from Stephen Marsh, where he wrote the book The Next Civil War, and he talks about how he thinks abortion could be a moral issue similar to slavery.
I've held the same opinion for some time, and we've talked about it.
But we need to understand what's actually happening if we're going to understand these motivations, because I will break it down for you, my friends.
This is not banning abortion.
First of all, there's no ruling yet.
And even if this ruling does come down, and Roe and Casey are gone, That all this means is that blue states will have abortion and red states will be able to ban it.
Politico writes, Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows.
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled, Justice Alito writes.
In an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.
It's possible that if this wasn't leaked, It would persist as such.
But some people have pointed out that in other rulings, I believe specifically in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, that there was a coup.
After a vote was made, and the opinion was written, several justices were like, nah, we're not, we're not doing this, we're upholding Roe.
The Supreme Court has voted to strike down the landmark Roe v. Wade decision according to an initial draft majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.
The draft opinion is a full-throated, unflinching repudiation of the 1973 decision which guaranteed federal constitutional protections of abortion rights and a subsequent 1992 decision Fascinating.
A 98-page opinion.
v. Casey that largely maintained the right.
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start, Alito writes.
We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled, he writes in the document labeled as the opinion
of the court.
It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected
representatives.
Fascinating, the 98 page opinion.
Let's talk politics real quick, and we'll break down what these states do.
There are people tweeting at me saying, why aren't I outraged over this if I'm pro-choice?
Why aren't I defending the left?
Because the left is pro-unfettered, unrestricted access to abortion, and I think there should be restrictions, like most Americans.
And more importantly, I'm mostly a constitutionalist, slightly center-left, libertarian kind of individual, and I don't have the answers for strong moral questions like this, but What I find fascinating on the issue is, no, I'm not going to come out and give a full-throated, as they say, defense of unfettered abortion in this country.
I also don't know... I don't have a strong moral position for the most part.
If I do not come out and just scream, you know, men shouldn't regulate women's bodies like the left does, they call me right-wing.
But when I talk to conservatives and I outright say I think that the government should take a step back from this, abortion access should be safe, legal, and rare, the right just argues with me and they don't call me a left-winger or a leftist and berate me saying, you're not, you're against us, simply because I disagree with them.
To put it simply, I actually partially agree with the left on a lot of this, and they still call me right-wing.
I don't get it.
Whatever.
I can sit down across from Seamus Coghlan, who on TimCastIRL is cheering on this news, and I'm kind of like, I don't know.
And he doesn't yell at me or berate me.
He's just like, I got what I want.
And I'm like, okay.
The issue with this is that According to the Constitution, there is no enshrined right to abortion.
The argument was basically that the 14th Amendment guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And if a woman doesn't want to carry a baby, which does impact life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, she shouldn't have to.
And that they can't restrict her from terminating that pregnancy.
And there is, I think, a very challenging legal precedent.
I don't agree with the right on.
The idea that a woman would be forced to carry another person and provide her body and blood to that, I don't know if I agree that the government has a right to enforce that.
There's an argument that abortion kills the baby that I get.
You don't have a right to terminate a life, but I don't think the government has a right to mandate a person give their blood and body to another person.
It's a long-standing argument, and I just... I don't know.
I don't know.
So, it's not a strong moral position for me.
I'm fairly moderate.
I say safe, legal, and rare, but the left... Here's what I don't understand about this.
It's not making it illegal.
The states will now be allowed to enshrine the laws as they see fit.
So, it's technically going to allow a lot of red states to make it illegal, and they will.
But I'm just wondering, do women have that many abortions?
I mean, this is a serious question.
Are women having so many abortions, like every woman everywhere, that they feel this strongly?
No, legit, I don't get it.
I see these videos coming out where these women are like, we're going back to the Handmaid's Tale, it's the Dark Ages, and I was like, have all of these women saying this have had, like they've had like multiple abortions?
Here's what I think.
When you look at what's going to happen, here we go, TimCast.com.
What happens to abortion access if Roe v. Wade is overturned?
If the landmark case is overturned by the Supreme Court, the legality of abortion access will become a state issue.
So, for the overwhelming majority of Democrat voters in this country, nothing will change.
I mean, if you live in a red state, yeah, you're going to see restrictions.
But red states already do have them, and they've been pushing them and advancing them.
And this is still a relatively new issue.
I think Roe, as we know, it only started in, what, 92 with Planned Parenthood v. Casey?
Let's break down exactly what's going to happen, and then we'll talk about this leak.
So, late Monday, a leaked document from the Supreme Court shows, as we understand, Axios provided an overview of what may happen if the court's final opinion matches the leaked document.
Wyoming passed a trigger law that would kick in right away if the court completely overturned its precedents, making abortion available only for life-saving measures for the woman.
Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia prohibit any protections for abortion rights.
In late April, Oklahoma state lawmakers passed a bill that would ban abortions if the court overrules in whole or in part Roe v. Wade.
Florida, Indiana, Montana, and Nebraska appear to be poised to ban access to abortion if the court overturns the precedent, according to an analysis from the Guttmacher Institute.
Alabama, Georgia, Iowa and Ohio and South Carolina may try to restore measures restricting
abortion that federal courts blocked after those laws were passed.
Michigan and Wisconsin have abortion bans still in the books that predate Roe v. Wade,
but would need to take steps to reenact them.
17 states and Washington, D.C. have passed laws that automatically keep abortion legal
if Roe is overturned.
In March, Colorado became the latest state to codify the right to having an abortion.
Abortion advocates are considering pursuing a ballot measure in 2024 to amend the state's constitution with a longstanding right to abortion.
In Vermont, lawmakers have advanced an amendment that would protect the right to get an abortion under the state's constitution.
The final opinion of the Supreme Court is not expected until the summer.
Roe v. Wade remains in place until the opinion is signed.
Votes and drafts may change up to that point.
We also have a closer look at laws governing abortion to see exactly what will happen, but you don't want to tell you my perspective.
I want to go through the laws.
I'd love to just jump into all of the outrage stuff.
I'll do the outrage segment for one, and we'll talk about the coming civil war, and then, I mean, this is going to be a crazy day.
We'll figure out what's happening with my 4 p.m.
segment.
I was thinking about the analogy, the similarities between this and slavery as a moral issue.
With slavery, you had the issue of an independent being having their lives, their rights stripped from them.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first-ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Now, interestingly, I think many people on the left don't understand that it was actually the North that wanted slaves to only have three-fifths of a vote.
The reason was, in the South, they argued a slave was a full vote.
Of course they would.
They wanted more power, right?
And the North was like, no, no, no, you can't have slaves and then also have them vote.
And the South was like, just because they have to do what we say doesn't mean they don't get to vote on political issues.
And the North was like, that's literally what it means.
They don't get to make these decisions.
So the compromise was three-fifths of a vote, which is just crazy to me.
But then I started thinking about what we have now with abortion, and where will the ball land?
On which side?
There's no middle.
There's no pedestal by which the coin can be flipped in the air and land on a pedestal in between the issues.
No, it's going to come down on one side or the other.
So I started thinking about this.
Fifty years from now, how will they look back at the compromise?
You know, because my position has typically been safe, legal, and rare, which is a compromise.
I understand that the right views life beginning at conception.
I actually agree with them.
I think any other argument is patently absurd.
That life doesn't begin at conception just defies logic.
And the left has no quantifiable or no logical point of when life begins.
We've heard after birth.
We've heard at 21 weeks.
We've heard at 30.
It's a conception.
That's when an independent life begins.
But there is an interesting argument about whether or not it's an independent life if it cannot sustain itself on its own.
Well, that's interesting.
It is its unique DNA.
But then you have the question of people who are, you know, comatose and on life support.
Ah, but they can't support their lives on their own.
And it's like, huh, a strong moral, uh, difficult moral issue.
So there's a compromise, and that compromise is safe, legal, and rare.
I wonder if in 50 years they'll look back and they'll call it the safe, legal, and rare compromise, and they'll be like, how insane that you would compromise on the life of, and then will it be the woman or the child?
I don't know.
I look back to slavery as an issue.
Where is the compromise on?
The life of the person being subjugated.
There was a person who was told, you must.
And your rights had been stripped from you.
And both, these two sides were willing to compromise on giving some rights, but not all.
The left would argue that the compromise strips the rights of the woman.
I don't, I don't know if I agree with that.
The woman has control over the fetus.
The woman has the ability to choose.
The fetus does not.
The fetus is a life.
I wonder if that's where we'll go.
Where if it's a continual push towards protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, how could you not argue to the Supreme Court that a fetus has protected rights the same as any other person?
Yo, there's no easy answer to this, because you're dealing with two different people in one body.
There's no easy answer!
So I only see it as gonna be, I don't know, this country getting ripped apart?
A closer look at the state laws governing abortion.
If the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade, state laws will govern the rights and access to abortion for Americans.
So, Alabama, HB 237, requiring providers to preserve the life of the child who was born alive.
Alaska, HB 69, includes a ban on using Medicaid funds.
Arizona, SB 1457, bans abortions due to genetic abnormalities.
I don't want to go through every single state, but suffice it to say, there are tons of states that already have varying restrictions.
This'll be a tough one.
The New York Times, how abortion views are different with the Supreme Court set to hear a major abortion case.
We look at the state of public opinion.
May 19th, 2021.
The reason this is important is that right now trending on Twitter, 70% of Americans is trending.
And the argument from the left is that 70% of Americans are pro-choice!
70%!
You see, this is a clever manipulation.
I will tell you the truth, because I'm not here to tell you how to live, and I'm not here to be the arbiter of truth and morality.
On TimCast IRL, we brought this issue up.
Our guest, I believe it was Ilad Eliyahu, who's also a reporter for TimCast, said, most people in this country are pro-choice.
If you ask someone Are you pro-life or pro-choice?
70%, according to most polls, will say they're pro-choice.
So that's the truth then, huh?
Actually, no.
If you ask them further questions, if you ask them this question outright, do you believe there should be restrictions on abortion?
The overwhelming majority say yes.
And therein lies the big issue.
I believe 70% of Americans actually believe abortion should be illegal after the first trimester.
I believe it's after the first.
It could be within the second and third, which is comparable.
Here we go.
A pro-Roe majority.
Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans, 60-70%, in recent polls, both Gallup and Pew, say they do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe.
Similarly, 60% of Americans say they favor abortion access in either all or most circumstances.
And a pro-restriction majority.
Now this is where it's interesting.
Roe for example allows only limited restrictions on abortion during the second trimester, mostly
involving a mother's health.
But less than 30% of Americans say that abortion should generally be legal in the second trimester
according to Gallup.
So that is, after the first trimester, no, you can't do it.
One sign that many Americans favor significant restrictions is in the Gallup data.
Gallup uses slightly different wording than Pew, creating an option that allows people to say that abortion should be legal in only a few circumstances.
And that is the most popular answer.
35% giving it, in addition to 20% saying it should be illegal in all circumstances.
This helps explain why many abortion rights advocates are worried the Supreme Court will gut row without officially overturning it.
Yes, the justices are often influenced by public opinion.
Well, there you go.
Public opinion.
Is that really the goal here?
I'd say the answer is yes.
Leaking this document is unprecedented, and I believe just shows this country is going to falter.
Now, Sometimes it's really tough to do segments because the overlap is so intense that it would basically be one 35-minute segment instead of two 20-minute segments.
So I'm going to hold the Civil War stuff for the 1 p.m.
segment, just talk about the law and public opinion for now.
And there might be some overlap on this issue, but I don't think I could give adequate time to both issues of the country is falling apart and there's going to be a civil war based on what the left is saying about what's going on and what abortion as an issue actually is.
Take a look at this poll.
Because it is important to break down where Americans actually are.
This is public opinion on abortion access.
Right now, you have about 35% saying legal in only a few circumstances.
You have about 28-29% saying legal in any.
You have illegal in all at 20%.
And around 13% saying legal in most.
What does legal in most circumstances mean?
It means some restrictions.
Legal in only a few restrictions.
Illegal in all restrictions, which means most people want restrictions to some degree.
I agree with that.
There's an argument to be made in the compromise that while I personally believe life begins at conception, perhaps there's an argument that if it can't sustain itself, which is pre-21 weeks, it's not an independent life form outside of the mother.
I don't think that argument really flies.
I just look, you know, once there's a unique set of DNA, it exists.
It's alive.
Any other argument, I think, is just nitpicking.
I can understand a compromise between two very angry factions.
I'm not going to pretend to have the answers, but I will say, The left hasn't given me an argument.
On constitutional grounds, the overturning of Roe v. Wade makes sense.
Brett Kavanaugh said this should be an issue for Congress.
He's right.
It should be an issue for states.
He's right.
And I don't see why the states should be barred from passing laws in this capacity.
Let's talk about, what is it, Oberfell?
The ruling on gay marriage?
That's different.
We're talking about legalities under the law.
I would argue this.
The only reason that the left argues life does not begin at conception is because they instantly lose the argument.
Take a look at Loving v. Virginia.
Interracial marriage now legalized.
Now, I shouldn't say legalized, but the Supreme Court upholds miscegenation laws are unconstitutional because individuals under the law, regardless of race, must be treated equally.
That was the point of the 14th Amendment.
Okay, so if a black man and a white woman want to get married, yes, they're allowed to, and they can, and should, if they love each other.
Well, should, I guess, is an opinion, but, you know, they should be allowed to.
The issue there is, two independent lifeforms have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Someone else should not have the right to upend their life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, because they don't like what it means for their worldview.
Oberfell.
Gay marriage.
Same issue.
An individual who wants to marry should not be barred based on protected characteristics.
Some people have said, but this means there could be polygamy and things.
No.
It is legal and has been legal for two individuals to get married.
If that is the case, then two individuals of the same sex can't get married.
But these are two individual adults who cannot have their liberties taken away from them.
Now you have the issue of abortion.
It is not the same thing.
If the argument is that life begins at conception, then the state must protect the life of the fetus, in which case they cannot infringe upon the life and liberty of the fetus to protect the life and liberty of the woman.
You can't infringe upon one person's rights to protect the other.
The issue then comes down to this question.
If the woman and child will both survive the pregnancy, Then, you must not allow the abortion.
Because abortion would terminate one life, and the other would persist.
If the goal of the state is to maximize life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, you can't allow abortion at the federal level.
The argument from the left, the woman's rights must be maintained.
Therefore, they must logically argue the fetus is not a life.
I just think that's insane.
If the 14th Amendment as their own argument is to be upheld, the fetus and the mother must have their rights protected to the best degree we can.
Killing the baby terminates its life, so we can't do that.
Maintaining the pregnancy does not terminate the life of the woman, but does impact pursuit of happiness, but ultimately, quantifiably, maintains the most amount of rights.
Yo, I'm not going to pretend to have all the answers on this one, because I don't believe the state would have a right to say, you must give your body to someone else to preserve their rights.
The challenge arises in the case of, say, rape or incest, typically both.
If a woman did not choose to carry a baby, I don't believe the state should have the right to be like, well, to protect the right of the infringing force upon you, you must give your body.
That's a big challenge, isn't it?
So I think there's probably got to be some restrictions, but some compromise.
Health, rape, incest.
Okay, then it's up to the woman to decide.
And it's up to, um, And I don't think the state should impose that.
There's real challenges.
I'm not going to pretend to have the answers because this is such a difficult moral question.
I don't think I could answer it.
This is why I typically fall on the side of safe, legal, and rare.
I don't want... If a woman is victimized legitimately, I don't want the state to come and enforce some kind of Fill out these forms, swear under oath, provide evidence.
You know, this being inside of you was forced upon you.
That's tough.
Because the being forced upon the woman didn't choose to be there, but now its life is going to be terminated?
Mmm, man.
Their life, I suppose you'd say?
Their life would be terminated?
I can't begin to come up with an answer on this one.
I do not like the idea of the state saying give your body and blood to someone else under any circumstances.
I don't like the idea of the left arguing this BS life does not begin at conception for the sake of a political argument.
I just think there's no real answer to this and either we're going to have unfettered and unrestricted abortion as the left has been pursuing.
And in some instances, post-birth abortion, I know it's not the overwhelming majority of the left, but it has been argued, or the right's outright total ban in all circumstances.
I certainly don't have the answers.
But this is the situation we're dealing with now.
The next segment, I'm going to talk about the leak and the collapse of this country.
That'll be at 1 p.m.
Stick around.
Thanks for hanging out.
Comment below, let me know what you think, and I'll see you all then.
From SCOTUSblog, it's impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the court in terms of the destruction of trust among the justices and staff.
This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin.
The leaking of the initial draft in the Roe v. Wade ruling is a first in history.
The institutions are crumbling.
Many on the left are cheering this on.
They're outright calling for revolution.
I wish I was exaggerating.
They're actually saying, let's burn this place down.
Or, it's time for a revolution.
Or, so you say you want a revolution, well, have one right here, right now.
I have long stated that I believed abortion may be an issue not unlike slavery as a catalyst for a coming civil war.
We're probably in a civil war, but don't take it from me.
Take it from the author of The Next Civil War, Stephen Marsh, who goes on to explain.
Recently, mind you, the Supreme Court's coming abortion ruling may spark a new era of US unrest.
Now, Stephen doesn't go as far as to say it will be an outright civil war because of abortion.
But I think that issue may actually be a strong catalyst, just like we saw.
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.
In his article, which we'll go through in more detail, he mentions how, in April 1861, Confederate forces shot on Fort Sumter.
But at the time, even Jefferson Davis, the Confederate president, had doubts about whether the event mattered all that much, saying, either the beginning of a fearful war or the end of a political contest.
It's hard to know exactly how these actions we have seen over the past 24 hours will reverberate.
Past 24 hours, I should say past several years, but right now the conspiracy theories are rampant.
Who leaked this opinion?
Already barricades were up at the Supreme Court building.
This was because of a man who self-immolated over climate change.
But already people had protest signs pre-made.
They knew this was coming in some form or another.
Now on the left, there are arguments that it was actually the conservative justices who leaked this to force other conservative justices to fall in line.
The idea there is that now that the leak is out, any change, any deviation from this ruling overturning Roe and Casey would imply that public pressure got to the justices and influenced the court, and thus their credibility is completely undermined.
And as the Supreme Court, the judicial branch itself, has no real enforcement options, the only thing they have is their credibility.
Regardless, their credibility is basically gone.
The institution has been gutted by this move.
Now, following these accusations or theories from the left, they're saying, who cares?
However, on the right, the theory is, is that it was a clerk for Sotomayor, who has long
talked about breaking the rules and pushing back, who is a source for one of these journalists,
I believe the journalist who actually published the the the initial draft.
And so it may be that the left leaked the documents to incite some kind of reaction
that would terrify the conservatives and force them, force them to change their opinion.
Because even in this confirmation, Chief Justice Roberts is saying that it's not official.
It's just an initial draft.
Some even argue it was Justice Roberts himself who leaked this document, trying to gauge where the public will be because he wants to be on the right side of history.
It was funny because the other day when this news came out, I was like, I bet John Roberts
was on the side of maintaining Roe v. Wade because he's not really conservative.
Now the left argues that most people in this country want to see Roe upheld.
And that is, I would say, technically true, literally true.
Most polls show us that the majority, I believe it's like 58 on average, say yes, they want
Roe upheld.
It's not as much as the left has been like 70% are pro-choice.
Let's get to the nitty gritty here.
What's the actual numbers?
No, it's like 58%.
But most people in this country, I believe we're looking at around 72%, believe there
should be some restrictions on abortion.
The challenge now is that you either get one or the other.
In blue states, they're removing all restrictions, and in red states, they're banning it outright, and moderates are just left in the middle.
Somewhat in agreement with the right, because the very least, the Republican argument here is blue states will have abortion, red states won't.
The Democrat argument is, No, abortion legal everywhere, regardless of what red state wants.
Red states want.
Okay, I better slow down.
I want to make sure I get through all of the breaking news, show you what the left is saying.
And yes, my friends, my argument is this could be a catalyst on par with slavery, leading to some kind of civil war.
Now, Stephen Marsh, as I mentioned, wrote the book, The Next Civil War.
Even he is reluctant to say this is.
He's saying it could lead to unrest.
I definitely agree with that, but let's talk about possibilities after we talk about the news.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member if you would like to help support our work.
Our journalists have been covering this from the moment the leak came out, compiling data on all these states, their laws, what will change.
If you want to support our work, go to TimCast.com.
In the top right corner, click sign up, become a member.
You will also get access to exclusive members-only segments of the TimCast IRL podcast, and you will help us engage in what I refer to as culture jamming as marketing.
We bought a billboard, and at times we got a billboard, with the help of The Daily Wire, calling out the mainstream media and their deceptions, as it were, calling them out.
We want to do more stuff like that.
With your support, we're going to have a whole lot of fun, and you'll keep our journalists employed.
But don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends.
There's so much to break down.
I really do love the left conspiracy theories on this one, thinking it was the Republicans who leaked it.
But let's start with what Chief Justice John Roberts has to say in confirming the draft and ordering this investigation.
In a tweet from SCOTUSblog, the Supreme Court confirms the authenticity of the draft opinion revealed last night by Politico for immediate release.
Yesterday, a news organization published a copy of a draft opinion in a pending case.
Justices circulate draft opinions internally as a routine and essential part of the court's confidential deliberative work.
Although the document described in yesterday's reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.
provided the following statement.
To the extent this betrayal of the confidences of the court was intended to undermine the integrity of our operations, it will not succeed.
The work of the court will not be affected in any way.
Full stop!
Roberts, you're wrong.
You've lost already.
I'm not trying to be a dick, but you've lost already.
If this was not the final opinion, and this was just Alito writing up his thoughts, circulating it to the other judges, for which it may have changed, any deviation from this now, considering it was 98 pages, mind you, would convince people that leaking the documents swayed the court.
So what's the only option?
The ruling needs to stand as it appears now.
It's leaked.
It's out.
It's done.
So what do you do?
If you truly intended to debate the issue and possibly change your position, it's too late now.
No one will believe it was genuine.
And this is what's interesting about the left and right conspiracies.
The left is arguing conservatives leaked this for that reason!
That's not a bad theory in my opinion, but you're gonna need some evidence.
We don't know who leaked it.
There's some speculation.
Let's read more.
Quote.
We at the court are blessed to have a workforce, permanent employees and law clerks alike, intensely loyal to the institution and dedicated to the rule of law.
Court employees have an exemplary and important tradition of respecting the confidentiality of the judicial process and upholding the trust of the court.
This was a singular and egregious breach of that trust that is an affront to the court and the community of public servants who work here.
I have directed the Marshal of the Court to launch an investigation into the source of the leak.
I'm hearing that's the FBI.
I'm not entirely sure.
We can see now that Oberfell is now trending as well.
I'm probably pronouncing that wrong.
Language used by Justice Alito in a leaked Supreme Court draft indicating plans to overturn Roe v. Wade has generated concern for other landmark rulings, including Obergefell v. Hodges, which legalized same-sex marriage in all 50 states in 2015.
Perhaps.
The language is particularly interesting.
SCOTUSblog, as I mentioned, says, it's impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the court.
The institutions are failing.
This has never happened before.
Many people are saying that it doesn't matter on the left.
It doesn't matter because the ruling is more important.
In response to SCOTUSblog, someone said the Supreme Court is losing its legitimacy from the inside out, not the other way around.
Why would anyone trust the Supreme Court?
And what enforcement capabilities do they have at this point?
Even if they issue this ruling, what's to stop red state Planned Parenthood from just saying we are going to do whatever we want anyway?
The states themselves intervening?
That's when things will get dark and civil war may be on the horizon.
Now, I don't want to wait too long to talk about the fears that I have here, but let me make one point for you as we go through what the left is saying when they call for revolution.
With the overturning of Roe v. Wade, and one reason why it may not be, with the overturning of Roe v. Wade, you will have states instantly ban abortion.
Already, Kristi Noem of South Dakota has said, if this is true, And it is.
She would immediately call for a special session to ban abortion outright in South Dakota.
If a fetus is codified in law as a living person, as everyone on the right basically agrees, you would be able to act in defense of this living person as per self-defense.
If someone was attacking another person brutally and viciously with extreme force, And you genuinely feared for the life of that person.
Typically, you are entitled to act in the defense of others.
That means to use force against another person, it would be justified.
An affirmative defense.
A man is strangling a woman on the ground, so you kick him.
He dies.
They say, why did you kick him?
He was strangling that woman and I needed to stop him.
You didn't intend to kill him, you just wanted him to stop.
Because he was going to kill someone else.
An affirmative defense.
What if a doctor is performing an abortion?
Illegally, to kill what is codified as a human life.
And you kick him.
And he dies.
Would the same law, the same precedent apply to you?
This is where things get dark.
If these abortion clinics try to operate in states that have banned them, what's to stop?
I mean, law enforcement will come in.
The left will not take kindly to this.
At the very least, hyperpolarization geographically will occur as Democrats in red states flee to blue states, and then you will get very, very strange laws, politics.
Things will get really, really interesting in this country very, very quickly.
What I see here with this ruling, It feels like the Constitutional Republic version of this country has taken back some ground.
The multicultural democracy has lost.
To put it simply, you want to know why I'm not crying about this?
Why I'm not freaking out?
As someone who has repeatedly said that I believe in safe, legal, and rare abortion, which is the traditional Democrat position, but not so much anymore.
It's because the end result is the Republicans have issued a compromise that state sovereignty will reign supreme.
That is, red states can pass their bans, but blue states can maintain the legality of abortion.
Republicans right now have not made a move to outright ban abortion.
The left has just lost their absolute guarantees at the federal level.
The Republicans are right now satisfied with a compromise.
You can have abortion, we'll restrict it.
The left wants an absolute answer.
No, it must be legal everywhere, no matter what your sovereign state wants.
I think there's deep concern as to what this could mean.
But ultimately, this is not a ban on abortion.
It's going to be up to the states.
So it's not apocalyptic in terms of a ruling, but the left is acting like it is, and it's very strange.
It's because the left operates under the principles of a multicultural democracy.
The majority has decided everyone must adhere to this, whereas the right adheres to a constitutional republic, that is, a well-armed lamb contesting the vote, and in its sovereign territory, having its own laws.
In this story from Esquire, John Roberts has as much control of his right wing as Kevin McCarthy does of his, which is to say none.
The Trump three are driving the train now, with Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas shoveling the coal.
This is where they try to entertain the idea that the leaks may have come from the right, It's interesting.
The general idea, it's simple.
It would force the conservatives to fall in line because they can see the public opinion.
And if it turns out that they really did want to dissent against Alito, if they really did want to uphold Roe v. Wade, now they can't because the public would never buy it.
Let's take a look at what's happening here.
Matt walking tweets, a person called Emmett Jane clerks for Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
As a Yale student, Jane blasted Yale for supporting Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.
Jane was quoted in a 2017 Politico piece by Josh Gerstein.
Today, Gerstein published the draft SCOTUS opinion on row. I don't know if this Supreme
Court clerk had anything to do with the leak, but this is certainly what the right is saying.
The right views it as the leak from the left to sway public opinion, to give them an advantage, to manipulate the courts before they've issued their final ruling.
It should not have happened.
What states will become hyper-polarized in this?
Well, you can see the country's split.
I don't think we need to go through every single state.
You can see the blue states, which are literally blue states, are protecting it.
And the red states, which are effectively red states, are banning it.
But there is interesting stuff in the Rust Belt.
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan.
Not necessarily deep blue, but restricting abortion.
Let me show you what we're hearing from all of these people.
First, we'll start with the politics here.
Nancy Pelosi says, if the report is accurate, the Supreme Court is poised to inflict the greatest restriction of rights in the past 50 years, not just on women, but on all Americans.
The Republican-appointed justices reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination, one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.
This is why I believe the leak likely came from a left-wing clerk or judge.
They want the opportunity to say, you will go down in history, we will win, and you will be evil.
And thus...
They're hoping that this early leak and the public response will terrify the justices who will then be convinced the American people want Roe upheld.
Maybe it will be.
And you know what?
I don't think the right would do a whole lot of anything.
I think the right would complain.
But I'm not entirely convinced the Democrats want Roe upheld.
If they want to win in November, they need a boogeyman and an evil to defeat.
And right now, inflation is that evil, but that's Joe Biden's fault.
If Roe v. Wade, if Roe and Casey, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, are overturned, then They're going to have a strong moral issue to campaign on.
I don't think it's the biggest issue, for the most part, for the left.
I think it's a big issue, but I don't think it's the biggest.
Not the way the right sees it.
The right sees this as the murdering of babies.
The left sees it as a woman not having to be pregnant.
It's a very, very different issue here.
To the left, they're talking about the temporary rights of a woman.
What I should say is, rights over the period of nine months.
When the baby is gestating and then delivered.
For that period, the woman has no choice according to an abortion ban.
The baby is alive and the baby has rights.
But after the baby is born, it can be placed in a basket in front of a fire department in most jurisdictions, and the woman can walk away without breaking any laws.
It can be delivered to safe zones and the woman doesn't have to think about it.
The baby will be fine, the woman will carry on with her life.
Just nine months.
The issue with the left is that To the right, their view of this is you permanently execute a child.
So there's a difference here.
To the right, they're talking about death, a permanent circumstance.
But to the left, they're talking about a temporary situation in which a woman is pregnant.
Now, the woman is absolutely burdened, and her life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are burdened, especially depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy, but her life isn't ended.
Matt Walsh made an interesting argument to me on TimCast IRL, Matt Walsh of the Daily Wire.
He said, Effectively, ending a pregnancy doesn't require the killing of the baby, in many circumstances, and some it does.
And I think that's interesting.
At 21 weeks, often babies are viable if they're kept in an ICU, in which case, why could not a woman who wants to have a second trimester abortion or beyond just deliver the baby?
The pregnancy is terminated, but the baby is kept alive.
The right views abortion as the deliberate act of killing the baby, whereas the left views abortion any procedure that ends a pregnancy.
We need to make sure we're defining our terms better.
But let's talk about where this country goes.
Ian Millhiser, on Twitter, is a senior correspondent for Vox.
He said, Yeah, they're revolutionaries.
Insurrectionists.
out to whoever the hero was within the Supreme Court who said, Eff it, let's burn this place
down.
Yeah, they're revolutionaries.
Insurrectionists.
Yeah.
Insurrectionists in the mainstream, in high profile cultural institutions.
Are any of the people being charged over January 6th, are any of them in powerful cultural institutions?
No, they aren't.
Do any of them have strong political power?
No, they don't.
Actually, I think some do, but those were the ones who were charged like trespassing.
Like, some of them are prominent personalities.
How about this?
Daniel Oldfelder, it's time for a revolution.
Okay.
Maria Shriver, but here we are.
So you say you want a revolution?
Well, we have one right here, right now.
Okay.
And then we have our good friend over at The Amazing Atheist who said, The Tree of Liberty is looking kind of dry lately.
I think she might be thirsty.
To which I said, The left and right agree on this point.
The left and right agree on this point.
NBC basically saying Republicans are Nazis.
Elon Musk slams MSNBC host Medea San for saying Americans far right wants to give us white supremacy and no democracy.
We know how people view things.
Which brings me to the article by Stephen Marsh, an opinion on Roe v. Wade that he wrote April 27th.
Stephen, you wrote this not even that long ago!
Did you think it was coming so soon?
He writes, there's a strong risk that the case will spark anger and violence whether the court overturns Roe v. Wade or not.
I already mentioned this early on, that Jefferson Davis said either this is the beginning of a fearful war or the end of a political contest at Fort Sumter.
He could not say which.
During the decades that preceded the assault on Fort Sumter, complex legal and political fissures had been working their way through the U.S., slowly rendering the country ungovernable and opening up the path to mass violence.
The U.S.
is in the middle of another such legal crackup, this time over the question of abortion.
The courts today face a crisis.
Americans' courts faced in the 1850s.
Is there any way to make laws for a country with furious and widening differences in fundamental values?
He says.
This summer, when the U.S.
Supreme Court makes its long-expected decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, it will inevitably alienate half the country.
In anticipation of the overturning of Roe v. Wade, several states have passed draconian anti-abortion laws in the expectation that they won't be challenged.
Idaho has already imitated the Texas law which allows private citizens to sue anyone who helps a woman procure an abortion, a law that the Supreme Court has refused to overturn.
Two American blocs are emerging.
In the South and parts of the West and Midwest, abortion laws are about to return to where they were in the 1950s.
The rest of the country has already set itself in opposition to these laws.
The division will not stay considerate and respectful, particularly in areas where liberal and conservative states neighbor one another.
In anticipation of a post-Roe world and a flood of out-of-state patients, abortion providers have established a series of abortion clinics in Illinois, across the river from more conservative Missouri.
Oregon recently invested in a $15 million fund for medical refugees traveling from Idaho for abortions.
Let me pause.
In many of these jurisdictions that are banning abortion, they say if you travel somewhere to have an abortion, you are still committing a crime.
It's interesting.
If these states say abortion is murder, and some states say it's not, you've got a very, very interesting predicament.
There are, right from the beginning, two factions to the new division.
The first is the use of force, as in the case of a 26-year-old Texan woman, Lizelle Herrera, who was recently arrested for murder for allegedly self-inducing an abortion.
The local district attorney's office ultimately released her.
without charge explaining. In reviewing applicable Texas law, it is clear that Miss Herrera cannot
and should not be prosecuted for the allegations against her. To be clear, current applicable Texas
law does not apply to Herrera's case. When it does, they will charge people like her with murder.
How far will the forces opposing abortion take a custodial approach? Do they want to set up a
DEA style birth police? Any enforcement mechanism would also probably be highly ineffective. After
billions of dollars spent on the war on drugs, the average price of a hit of heroin in the street is
between five and twenty bucks. Well, I do think states that outlaw abortion will see abortion go
down. It They won't see abortion eliminated.
But this misses the point, Stephen.
The right doesn't care.
Ask them.
They say, yeah, we're fine with that.
You say, if you ban abortions, you're going to see back alley abortions.
And the response is, yeah, we know.
That's not an argument against what they're saying.
They know.
They don't care.
The right is basically saying the state should not sanction, they should not allow abortion.
But people will commit crimes we recognize they do.
We'll try to stop them, but it'll probably still happen.
What do you say to that?
He says the second reaction to an America divided along abortion lines will be interstate conflict.
Missouri is leading the way here.
A recent bill proposed a travel abortion ban, explicitly focused on clinics in Illinois.
This looks on the face of it like a straight violation of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court is a partisan institution, and interpretation of the Constitution now follows the partisan affiliation of the justices.
They'll come up with something.
If you're in Missouri, and you go to Illinois for an abortion, and you come back to Missouri, they arrest you.
No one's gonna save you.
The feds aren't going to intervene to stop the states from prosecuting what they say is a crime.
In California, they call themselves a sanctuary state.
Colorado, or, well, probably not a good example, but Utah's not going into California to arrest illegal immigrants.
Neither, for the most part, is the federal government effectively doing so.
What I mean by effectively is they literally are, but they're not doing it effectively because California is resisting.
The federal government won't come in to un-enforce a law.
You see the issue?
Look, we've had Stephen on the show and I think he's a good dude, but I don't think he understands the right at all.
follow. Anti-abortion activists will feel that their political system has failed them
no matter what the court does. They have sacrificed everything, the dignity and integrity of the
party, the value of their national institutions, in the name of getting enough justices on
the court to enact this one legal challenge.
Steven, you're wrong. Look, we've had Steven on the show, and I think he's a good dude,
but I don't think he understands the right at all. I think his view of conservatives
and the right is based upon reading opinions of the left of what the right thinks. They
They didn't sacrifice the dignity and integrity of their party.
The right is not some, like, the average Trump supporter, at least the ones I've met, were not traditional Republicans.
They don't care about the Republican Party.
It's fascinating that they can come to me and say, I'm right-wing, and then I can go, the Republican Party is trash, the leadership should be removed, and every single one of them, save like two or three, should be primaried, and the right is like, yes, we agree.
No, I think What you're actually seeing from channels like mine is the average millennial says, neither party represents me.
The Democrats are a cult, and the Republicans are ineffective, stodgy, and typically neocon warmongers.
So no, I think, Stephen, you misunderstand what the right actually cares about.
He was gonna say, if the court upholds Roe v. Wade, they will quite naturally feel betrayed.
If the courts overturn Roe v. Wade, they will discover a fact, the new Texas law has inadvertently revealed.
The criminalization of abortion doesn't work.
Their basic assumption that the government can outlaw abortion is simply untrue.
At first, the Texas law appeared to cause abortions to decline by half, but quickly the numbers reasserted themselves.
The decline is less than 10%.
Women went out of state or bought chemical abortions.
The overturning of Roe v. Wade will make women's medical treatment more difficult and impersonal and humiliating.
It won't change the abortion rate significantly.
It will when the surrounding states ban abortion.
Period.
Absolutely.
There will be back alley.
It will cause a reduction, but that's not even the argument.
Every pro-lifer conservative I talk to says, we know, we don't care, it shouldn't be legal.
And I'm like, okay.
Well, what about the argument that it won't even prevent abortions?
They're going to go back to coat hangers.
The right just goes, yep.
And I'm like, okay, what they don't want is institutionalized abortion.
I don't understand what the left is arguing when they don't even talk to pro-lifers.
And then what is my response to a conservative and say, yeah, we know.
So, okay, this argument's out the window because it's not changing the mind of any conservatives or pro-lifers.
Now, we've heard from our pro-lifer friends, they don't want to see women going to prison over this, for the most part, that women are being taken advantage of.
I think that's a silly, silly argument.
You know, I've talked with Seamus Coghlan over at Freedom Tunes, and he's a regular on Tim Casteiro, a very frequent regular these days, since Luke left, Seamus has been filling in, and Seamus is a really good friend of ours.
We do comedy bits together, but I disagree.
When Seamus argues that he doesn't think women should be held responsible for being manipulated into getting abortions, I just don't see how that argument flies from a legal perspective.
I think the real challenge is, perhaps pro-livers are saying that because it's because they know women will not agree with law that puts them in prison for getting an abortion.
But if you break the law, you break the law, you go to jail for it.
This president, moving forward, will have no choice but to result in women being arrested.
Now, you can argue it doesn't work, that's fine, but I don't think it matters either way.
I think conservatives would be fine, deep down, with a woman who's trying to get an abortion, getting arrested for it.
I just think, for the most part, they're not willing to admit it, because it's unpopular.
You can't just be like, it's the abortion doctor's fault.
If a man and a woman hold down a child, if the woman's holding onto a child and the doctor's about to do something to kill it, you charge them both.
If the woman brings a child to a doctor and says, end its life, What would the difference be between an unborn or a born child?
Women will go to prison.
I don't like where it's all going.
I really don't.
I don't necessarily... This is tough.
Look, from a constitutionalist perspective, which I lean towards, I basically am.
This is the correct Supreme Court decision.
And I don't care about what the stupid left has to say.
The basis of this country, the branches, the Constitution must be respected.
There must be a set of rules by which we play by.
But consistently, the left doesn't want to play by these rules.
What constitutional rights have you even lost?
Well, the Fourth Amendment under the NSA warrantless wiretapping How about my right to keep and bear arms?
Why aren't I allowed to have a .50 BMG in Maryland?
You can't have it.
Or an M1A for that matter.
You can have a SCAR-20S .308 modern AR style .308 rifle, but you can't have an M1A?
It's the stupidest thing.
The laws make no sense.
They are infringing on my right to keep and bear arms.
Yes, my rights are being curtailed.
The law doesn't care.
These are the same people that said, my body, my choice, but also, you should be mandated to get a medical therapy, the vaccine.
I think we're headed towards civil war because the left is completely inconsistent in their rules.
I would like to work through politics.
I would like to say, here's the rules.
We agree to them, correct?
Okay.
Now within these rules, let us challenge!
Challenge the system!
Well, the rule is simple.
In 2016, Donald Trump won.
He appointed three justices.
Those justices have now voted to overturn Roe v. Wade.
We'll see if it sticks.
What am I supposed to say to that?
Oh, geez.
Oh, no.
Well, we'll go out and vote.
Someone tweeted, it was Oren McIntyre, I think is his name, he was on Tim Kast's IRL, I think that's who it was, that IDW centrists, because of this, will now go and join the progressives.
And I'm just like, what?
How does that make sense?
You think because of Roe v. Wade, someone like me, who is pro-choice, safe, legal, and rare pro-choice, like Tulsi Gabbard, is now gonna be like, I'm gonna vote for the people who want to perform sex change surgeries on minors.
Yeah, that's not gonna happen.
I am of the faction that says neither party represents me.
The Democrats are insane, and the Republicans are Republicans, and they've always been Republicans.
The left has gone far left.
They're out of their minds.
The Republicans have wanted to ban abortion my entire life.
The left was okay with restrictions and compromise, and I said, that makes sense.
Now the left wants no restrictions, and the right still just wants to ban abortion.
So fine.
You can say the Republicans have always been far right.
Well then, if that's the case, you can't deny the left has gone far left, leaving me standing confused in the middle of a field like, I don't know where y'all are at.
I can tell you one thing.
I believe in free speech.
I think critical race theory is bad.
I believe what they're doing to kids is wrong, so I don't see why I would ever support the Democrats.
I gotta be honest, though.
Watching the corruption in the Republican Party over what's happening to Robbie Starbuck, I don't know if I would actually be interested in voting for Republicans at this point, either.
Because Joe Biden is crooked, and Donald Trump had some good policy positions for a second term.
We'll see what happens in 2024, but if DeSantis runs, I might do it.
I don't know if I would vote for a Trump.
Considering what the Democrats have become, I feel like I might have no choice, but we will see.
I despise the Republican Party, and if they think they've earned my vote, They are sorely mistaken.
I certainly won't be voting for a Democrat.
Fine.
Take that as a win, Republicans.
But if you think I'm going to go and vote for a Republican Party that would not defend Robbie Starbuck, that would seek to remove people from the ballot, Because they want to maintain their neocon garbage.
If you think I'm going to lend my voice to defending Kevin McCarthy, Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, you are sorely mistaken.
They got that support in 2020, and it was begrudging support because Biden is trash.
They have an opportunity now to clean up, or the Republicans can vote in the primary and start bringing in different people to challenge this machine.
It's tough.
I don't think I can stand to see the Democrats win.
I'm not a fan of what's happening with overturning Roe v. Wade.
I'm not zealous about it.
I'm not crying.
I'm not going to freak out.
I'm not going to flip tables.
I'm just going to be like, well, I guess you got to vote.
I just don't see a path forward for my position, because the left is psychotic and wants unrestrained abortion, and the right wants to ban it outright, and I'm like, compromise?
Safe, legal, and rare, like we used to have?
And you know what?
When I've said that, the left calls me right-wing, and the right says, we're listening.
That's the craziest thing to me.
I talked to Steven Crowder about it on his show, and he was like, we're willing to entertain restrictions.
And I was like, okay.
I agree with that then.
Or some exceptions, I guess.
If the Republicans are playing this game, and they're saying, we want abortion to be a state's right issue, what do I have to complain about?
Sovereign states can make their own laws.
If you don't like it, move to a blue state, you're fine.
Nothing will change.
For the majority of Democrats who live in blue states, nothing will change.
I think what we will see is hyperpolarization, and ultimately geographical polarization, and then Maybe Civil War.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
It's already proving to be a particularly crazy day, what with the leak from SCOTUS and the fear of some kind of escalating conflict in the U.S.
The left is losing their mind, but nothing is outright set in stone.
Now, I was planning on talking more about the conflict and Civil War, but there's so much breaking.
I'd be worried that if I made something too soon, I would miss out on a lot of the statements.
So, notably, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a statement.
So, I'm going to push this back to my later segment, which, for those listening on the podcast, will be the first segment.
That'll be 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
But I did see this other story that I thought was a really good example of the hypocrisy and the What's the ruthlessness?
That's a good word.
The ruthlessness of the establishment class and why we mustn't take them seriously.
Why, my friends, this story is about Taylor Lorenz and Elon Musk.
Because we have two stories.
First, The Daily Caller.
Taylor Lorenz walks back claims after falsely claiming a Drudge Report editor harassed her.
She said it was a joke.
She claimed someone from Drudge Report was harassing her.
It wasn't true.
She didn't fact check.
She had no idea what she was talking about.
And when she gets called out, she insults CNN.
Quite egotistical, I might add.
And then says, it was all a joke!
I didn't think anyone from Drudge was hurting me.
It was a joke?
Okay.
You guys may have seen that when I made a joke and bought a billboard in Times Square, Got a billboard in Times Square with the help of the Daily Wire.
That, you know, when she said it was all dark or harassment or whatever, it was a joke.
She must have been joking.
See, she wasn't serious.
When there's a true story, she'll twist it and claim, oh, I'm being attacked.
When it turns out she's wrong, I was just joking.
Here's what I find absolutely fascinating.
In another story, Newsweek says Elon Musk under fire for retaliatory doxing of journalists.
You wanna know what the real story is and how the media is spinning it?
Elon Musk posted an emoji under an article from Glenn Greenwald, so they're arguing Elon Musk was doxing a journalist?
All of a sudden, now they're angry about addresses being posted?
You have opened the door, Taylor Lorenz, when you posted the address of libs of TikTok and then lied about it.
Sure, let's talk about it, though.
You know, I posed this question on Twitter.
Would it be wrong to get an ad truck?
You ever seen an ad truck?
It's like a pickup truck, but then they have on the back is a billboard, and they drive around.
Would it be wrong to put a journalist's name and address on one of those boards?
I'm asking a question, because I think doxing is wrong, but I'm wondering what people would think.
And the reason I asked the question is because of what Taylor Lorenz did.
What is the extent to which people think it's okay?
And it was split.
Most people said it would, I believe said it would be wrong.
And then slightly less than half said it would not be wrong.
But of those who said it would be wrong, they responded by saying, but they would support it because of what Taylor Lorenz did.
Now, when I called out Taylor Lorenz for doxxing, the response I got from the cult was that, your side has been doing this forever!
My side.
Libertarian types of varying different backgrounds?
No, that's not a side or a group of people and I don't defend doxing no matter where it comes from.
I'm not a fan of doxing.
However, when you- I'm not gonna- I'll put it this way.
I am not a fan of aggressing against people.
I'm a fan of defending.
And when you start a conflict and then people retaliate, it's a tough position to be in.
I think doxing is wrong, but if Taylor Lorenz is doxing people, I'm going to shrug when it's like, live by the sword, you know what I mean?
I'm not going to be involved in that.
But at a certain point, the floodgates get opened.
If you dox someone, they will dox you back.
And that's where everything ends up.
So we'll talk about how they're smearing Elon Musk.
But the real issue here is, I want to put a segment showing you the hypocrisy.
It's almost pointless, to be completely honest, because there's so much hypocrisy.
But I don't understand how anyone could be defending Taylor Lorenz.
I don't get it.
You know, I was interacting with someone on Twitter.
And they were pulling the you guys thing, and I'm like, you know, it really is a cult.
Like, if you believe the Covington scandal, Russiagate, Jussie Smollett, the Trayvon Martin story, you know, to clarify Zimmerman, they edited the audio of him, what he was saying, they fabricated it.
If you believe hands up, don't shoot.
If you believe the Kyle Rittenhouse, all of those lies, if you believed all of those lies, you're on the left.
That's it.
So it's basically a cult.
And if you're not in the cult, you're right wing.
Well, that's what they call it.
Taylor Lorenz is a perfect example.
Take a look at this story from the Daily Caller.
Washington Post columnist Taylor Lorenz walked back harassment accusations Monday against the Judge Report, claiming her tweets were a joke.
CNN reported late Monday that Lorenz claimed an editor from the Judge Report relentlessly harassed her and threatened to use the site to destroy her life.
The news aggregation website told Darcy, so the CNN, that they told Darcy they and nor any associate had never contacted her.
Okay, copy editor guys, what?
They told Oliver Darcy that they did not, and no one else associated with them had ever contacted her.
Drudge emailed Lorenz requesting for a correction of her allegations made on Twitter, leading her to delete the tweets and clarify that the alleged editor had no connection with Drudge.
For anyone who saw my post about this man claiming to be from Drudge calling me non-stop, good news, I heard from Matt Drudge, and this man has zero power over Drudge.
He's claiming to be an editor all over the internet, but he's not.
Sorry to disappoint everyone saying Drudge is based.
What?
Lorenz told CNN that her initial tweets were a joke, and believed the thought of someone harming her via Drudge is hilarious.
So, I have some sources, some people who have deep connections to New York media, considering I used to work there.
As many of you know, I used to work in some of these New York newsrooms.
So I know a lot of people who also know Taylor.
My understanding is that behind the scenes, she actually is freaking out.
That's all I know, that's what I've been told.
I've requested some kind of proof, but she's apparently, according to some people with the know, behind the scenes, she is flustered, extremely angry, freaking out, and then putting on this haha facade on Twitter.
Try and maintain some composure, I guess.
I don't know if that's true or not, because I requested, like, you know, you got to prove it to me.
I'm not just going to claim something.
I'll also fight against these.
Lorenz Dumbledown, on her initial comments early Tuesday, by calling them objectively hilarious, then accused CNN senior media reporter Oliver Darcy of being thirsty for a media story.
Check this out.
Oliver Darcy says, Drudge himself contacted Taylor Lorenz to ask for a correction, after she said in tweets that a Drudge editor had harassed her.
Drudge told me no one associated with the Drudge Report had contacted her prior.
Taylor Lorenz says her tweets were mostly a joke.
Were they?
She said, lol I didn't even know Drudge Report was even still around.
I still think someone claiming to ruin my career on the Drudge Report is objectively hilarious.
I know you're thirsty for media news.
Maybe you can report on someone claiming to destroy me on GeoCities next.
Taylor, did you make tweets without doing any fact-checking and issue statements without doing any fact-checking?
That sounds like your MO, I guess.
I'm going to mention that Taylor Lawrence has been under fire for the recent doxing of libs of TikTok this weekend.
The columnist doubled down on the doxing during an April 24th appearance on CNN's Reliable Sources, saying she revealed no personal information about the owner at all.
We absolutely did not reveal any personal information about this woman at all remotely.
I know that sometimes reporting practices can seem foreign to people that aren't familiar with journalism, but this was very by-the-book and very benign.
The thing is, the right-wing media will lie, right?
They kind of just spin up these narratives.
The goal is to sow doubt and discredit journalism, and that is their agenda.
No, I don't know.
I have a news outlet and I'm hiring journalists.
So, I don't know if that last one makes sense.
I also know that if you go to the archive at archive.ph and look up Taylor's original article, includes a link to a real estate license, which has the private address of the creator of Libs of TikTok.
That's personal information.
What's your argument?
Are you trying to argue semantics, Taylor?
Well, it's not personal, it's professional information.
Not to rehash that story again.
But this is the point.
Don't trust these people.
Show this to your friends.
You know, I'm always- people are like, what can I do to tell my friends and family?
I don't know.
Show them this stuff, and if they don't want to learn, then let them be zombies.
Let them be in the cult.
You don't get to take their phone away from them.
Because I don't know how many times a story has to be debunked.
Once again, Taylor Lorenz published garbage lies.
She didn't fact-check.
She posts garbage lies.
That's what she does.
Here we go.
Elon Musk under fire for retaliatory doxing of journalists.
Elon Musk doxed no one.
What's his headline news week?
Ayla Slisko.
Fake news.
Take a look at this.
Elon Musk is under fire for allegedly supporting the doxing of a journalist on Twitter who criticized him.
Toxing refers to the release of personal information about a person, such as a home address, that could be used for targeted harassment.
Musk was accused of supporting the practice Monday after weighing in on a Glenn Greenwald Twitter thread, criticizing the Atlantic writer Molly Jong Fast for calling the billionaire's complaints about woke censorship an example of old, rich, white men.
Being upset with young people during an MSNBC interview.
After Greenwald shared an article about Jong Fast purchasing a $5 million condo in New York City's wealthy Upper East Side neighborhood, Musk shared a SpongeBob SquarePants Mrs. Krabs meme.
While the neighborhood has over 200,000 residents, and the article shared by Greenwald did not include an address as of Monday, although some Twitters have suggested the address was removed after Greenwald shared the article, the soon-to-be Twitter owner was slammed for the alleged doxing of Molly Jong Fast.
Elon- Here we go.
David Rothschild says, Elon Musk joined Glenn Greenwald to attack Molly Jongfast with super witty 1984 jokes and her home address in response to her statements regarding which rich white men bullies who feel threatened by progress.
This version of free speech, bullying, hatred, doxxing, stifles speech.
Thank you, David.
Thank you so much.
So I can now help explain this to people.
Do you think that what Taylor Lorenz did is not doxing because she only published public information?
Okay.
Well, then you can't be mad about this either because, first of all, Elon Musk didn't publish anything, and Glenn Greenwald linked to a story from I think it was 2007 with public information.
Okay.
I think it's wrong for the journalist who wrote that story to include the address, be it the person over at The Observer who published the address, presumably, and for Taylor Lorenz to do the same thing.
But if you're going to come out, as many on the left have said, it's not doxing because the information was public, then you can't claim Glenn Greenwald doxed Molly Jongfest.
You've caught yourself in your own trap!
But of course, It's a cult.
And cults don't care about facts.
Now, whenever I bring up the cult, I always want to give a special shout-out to our good friend Jordan Klepper.
Hey, those people are also out of their gourds.
Call it a cult if you want.
I just don't know if it's big enough and it's a bunch of weird ideas that don't mesh with each other, but okay, sure.
Call them culty, call them cultists, call them whatever you want.
There is a Trump cult, and these people believe Donald Trump will be reinstated on this day and this day, and I'm just like, dude, that's not gonna happen.
That's nuts.
Like, the probability of Trump being reinstated is nuts, and Trump himself wasn't even saying this stuff.
Call it a cult.
Those people, heaven forbid, the Trump cult, actually became journalists at major publications like the New York Times.
Yeah, then I'd complain about it.
But the Grey Lady, as it were, employs a bunch of crackpots who are in a cult?
The Washington Post and the New York Times and the Atlantic.
These are mainstream institutions where the mainstream left gets their opinions and it is a cult.
It's a cult because they do something and then later don't realize they're doing what they're complaining about.
It's insane.
I'm sure smarter people up at the higher, you know, echelon of this cult know exactly what they're doing.
Rothschild added that Musk could encourage and promote attacks.
Bully hate doxing of progressives on Twitter as its new owner but warned that very quickly far-right anti-woke going to find themselves alone in their wasteland.
You know, I don't think they care.
The right has been trying to create the space forever.
If your goal is to harass every left-of-center person off a platform to create a place where only right-wing anti-woke thought is acceptable and safe, you are not a free speech warrior.
Um, actually, If the left doesn't want to be around people because they don't like their opinions, they are the ones who are not for free speech.
If I go out into the city, if I drive to DC, while there could be someone screaming political nonsense, I have to accept that.
If you go on Twitter, same thing.
But you see, these crybabies, these crybullies, went, I'll leave the platform unless you ban these people!
And Twitter was like, okay.
And then they did.
Here we go.
Aaron Rupar.
Ah, we love Aaron Rupar.
To Rupar, it's a verb, is to take things out of context to push fake news.
It's actually a slang term because of what Aaron Rupar does.
Incoming owner of Twitter has a chuckle about a tweet Greenwald, he puts an asterisk there, posted to harass Molly Jongfest by listing her address for his deranged followers to see.
Gross stuff.
Okay.
All right.
You know, I invited on tons of lefties to come on TimCast IRL.
We're a sit-down show not unlike Joe Rogan.
He does a sit-down show as well.
They never take it.
They never do.
We are booking Matt Bender.
For a while, he hadn't gotten back to us.
He got back to us, so I will apologize for my impatient statements when I called him out saying, where's the email?
I thought you were going to get back in touch with us.
He did, and it was not a particularly unreasonable amount of time he took, so I apologize for that, and I'm glad to see that he's willing to come out and we cover all the costs.
But there are so many people on the left, I recently invited another person associated with the left, and they just won't do it.
They smack talk all day and night about how the right is dumb, about how they can easily disprove their opinions, but these people all know, if they sat down with me, they would not, they wouldn't win a debate.
For two reasons.
One, they don't know half about what they're talking about.
And two, they don't know anything about me.
For example, they'll come out and be like, most people support abortion, or most people are pro-choice.
My response is not to be, that's not true, most people are pro-life.
My response is, interestingly, there's different polls showing different numbers.
One suggests the overwhelming majority of people want restrictions on abortion, but legal in some way.
But only around 28% want it to be unrestricted, which is you, the minority.
I'm not here to argue for banning abortion.
I'm here to point out what the data is.
But see, these people, they won't come on the show because they know exactly what will happen.
I'm not going to debate them.
I'm going to have a conversation.
And their ideas are wrong.
They will try and make all of these narrative lies, statements, and I'll easily just debunk them.
That's why they won't come on the show.
That's it.
I got heavily criticized over Kyle Rittenhouse when I said that what was going on with Kyle Rittenhouse convinced me to vote for Trump.
The issue was they were trying to destroy this kid and he was acting in self-defense.
Even Destiny, the left-wing commentator on Twitch, agreed.
It was the clearest cut case of self-defense he'd ever seen.
That's what he said.
He got in trouble for saying that.
The left overwhelmingly believed these insane lies.
I called it out, so they call me right-wing.
And it's funny, then, when, you know, like, I look at my Wikipedia, and it's just like, he said this about Kyle Rittenhouse, later turned out to be correct, and a jury agreed with Poole.
It's like, dude, my opinion on what should happen about the law is predicated upon the facts of the case.
Same is true with Ahmaud Arbery.
Aaron Ruppar.
Here's why I bring this up.
I bring it up because these people on the left are like, Taylor Lorenz didn't dox anybody.
The information was already public.
Glenn Greenwald doxxed Molly Jung fast by posting a news article with her address.
Look.
Let's even say this.
There's a big difference between finding someone's name and real estate license and posting it, and tweeting an article in a news publication that's already published from 15 years ago with an address in it.
15 years ago?
Does she still live there?
Maybe.
Now, I personally don't agree with posting the address, even linking to it.
There's a difference.
But the point I'm making here, the left was outraged at what Glenn Greenwald did, but not at what Taylor Lorenz did, because they're a CULT.
They're a cult.
You must protect the cult at all costs.
What they do, they're infallible.
It's similar with abortion.
They say, my body, my choice, and it's like, what about vaccines?
And they're like, no!
But it's not a contradiction.
A lot of people are pointing out it's hypocritical of the left to say, my body, my choice, when it comes to abortion, but not vaccines.
And I'm like, it's not.
What they're saying is, my body, my choice, your body, my choice.
They're consistent.
Their worldview is predicated upon they are the authority and you must do as they tell you.
Which is, they can do whatever they want with their bodies, and you better do what they tell you with your bodies.
It's consistent.
They're authoritarians.
I look forward to consistently inviting more and more people on the left on the show.
And I think I'm going to have to maintain a policy of if the left... So here's what usually happens.
When I invite a lefty on the show, I don't publish their answers.
I don't, you know, leak the communications or anything like that.
Because I'm, I'm acting in good faith.
And if I started just publishing their ridiculous responses, then why would anyone take it seriously?
So, there have been, uh, there was one individual whose messages I did leak because he was lying publicly about what had happened, and I won't stand for the lying.
There's one individual now who made demands that aren't I don't wanna say criminally legal, but there's legal restrictions on what I can do.
Basically, someone said, this lefty guy, I'll come on your show if you do all of these things for me, and I'm like, we will accommodate you, but those two things, like, aren't legal.
And I don't mean criminally, I mean, like, regulatory, regulation-wise?
Regulatorially?
If there's a word for that.
In terms of business regulation, there are things we can't do.
And it's like, you can't, we can't do that!
And so I guess the idea is the left knows they can't go on a show.
They're scared.
They make up these excuses like, well, give us special provisions and change the format of your show and we'll come on.
It's like, we don't do that.
We don't.
We don't do it for anybody.
I didn't change the format of the show for Andy Ngo or for Lauren Southern.
We told them you have to come out to come on the show.
And that's the point.
We had Ari the Rugged Man on.
He smacked the microphone.
We got heated.
He came on and sat down, but these left-wing personalities, they know they will get eviscerated on the facts.
Now, I got no issue with someone like Hassan saying, bro, I do my own show and I'm too busy.
I get asked to go on shows all the time, and for that reason, I'm like, it is just really difficult for me to do.
So, when it comes to any left person, I was like, I can't travel for that.
I do my own show.
I'm like, you're right.
I'm not going to drag someone over that.
I do think that when, you know, Hasan agreed to come on the show in the first place, publicly, but then privately refused, that's BS.
Recently he said, look, I host my own show seven days a week.
I can't just travel for this.
And I was like, fair point.
I got no issue with that.
You're right.
I don't expect you to come on the show if, like, you have to do something like that.
There are a lot of people on the left who don't have that schedule, don't host their own show, but will refuse to come out.
And I think it's because their opinions are backed by nonsense.
That they're emotionally driven and they can't win actual arguments.
I'm not seeking to have anybody on the show to have an argument.
I'm seeking just to ask them their ideas.
Vosh, for instance, and Destiny are two people who I think actually have ideas.
Well, you may not like them.
You know, for Vosh, a lot of people are highly critical of his stance on children, but they've thought out their positions and they argue them.
I think Destiny was actually our best guess from the left.
That dude was smart.
He is smart.
Knows what he's talking about and has arguments to make.
And he knows the facts.
So when you're actually in a conversation with him and you're like, here's how I feel about X, he'll respond with, I understand those data points and now what about this position?
And I'm like, well, seems like we have different opinions.
That's really what it came down to.
I'm like, I think it's wrong to exploit crises to change public policy because it manipulates people.
And Destiny's response was, when else would you do it?
And I'm like, through a normal democratic process, and he's like, I think it's a perfect opportunity to change things.
And I'm like, alright, well we have a difference of opinion then on what is right and what is wrong.
That's all it is.
With this stuff.
It is ever so obvious that there is no standard for the establishment left.
This includes many leftists, but there are people like Lee Camp or Jimmy Dore who are on the left, I think, are good.
Destiny, I disagree with, but I think his, you know, I think he's got, he actually, I think he actually makes arguments.
And I think it's fascinating too.
Even for someone like Destiny, these people, I think one of the reasons they won't come on the show is that they know they'll lose the argument because I actually agree with them on many things, and they won't have a leg to stand on for the irrational things they state or the false things they state.
We had Hunter Avalon on the show.
He was a former anti-woke conservative guy, turned liberal, and he actually tried challenging me on the Hunter Biden Ukraine Joe Biden story, and I'm like, are you joking?
Do you really think you're going to come in here?
When all I do all day for 10 years is read the news, and technically longer than that, I've been reading the news and involved in activism my entire life.
So as a little kid, I was on the internet.
I remember when I was like 15 being like, dude, the Supreme Court, blah, blah, blah, and reading all these stories.
But you're gonna come on my show, having done no research, asserting something that is patently false.
You come on my show and say, X is true.
And I'll say, I don't believe that's correct.
Pull it up.
I pull it up, it's wrong, I go, oh, guess I was wrong.
See, even to my own detriment.
I was on the Joe Rogan Show in November, and I'm a bit upset with myself.
I said that most of the country was now constitutional carry.
Joe disagreed with me, and I said, I'm pretty sure it is.
Pull it up.
Jamie pulled up a bad source from years ago that said 13 states, and I said, I'll eat that when I stand corrected.
But I wasn't corrected.
We have 25 states that are constitutional, Kerry, and we're on the verge of a 26th.
I was actually right.
But see, I deferred to the search, saying, okay, you know, because I'm willing to have the evidence change my views, and I'm willing to be wrong, even when it's to my own detriment.
