Biden FBI Just RAIDED Trump DOJ Official Over POLITICS, Subpoenas GOP, Political Civil War IS HERE
Biden FBI Just RAIDED Trump DOJ Official Over POLITICS, Subpoenas GOP, Political Civil War IS HERE. In what may be the most dramatic escalation a former Trump official was targeted for political reasons as well as other GOP members in various states.
Republicans and Trump supporters say Jeffrey Clark was just concerned about the election and wanted it to be done properly. Democrats argue he schemed with Trump to stage a coup
Now the federal government and Biden's DOJ has been weaponized for political purposes to go after those who supported Donald Trump.
#democrats
#republicans
#biden
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
The FBI has raided the home of a former Trump DOJ official over his support for Donald Trump's claims about the 2020 election.
The Department of Justice has also gone after several Republicans for similar reasons, even seizing phone data.
Regardless of who you think is right or wrong, there is a political civil war at hand, and hopefully it doesn't escalate.
In our next story, a major victory for gun owners.
The Supreme Court strikes down a New York City gun control provision saying you need a legitimate reason to get a gun permit.
They said you can't require a higher burden on people in order for them to keep and bear arms.
And the right to bear arms extends outside the home.
If you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
Last night we got word that the feds were seizing data from Republicans who had supported
Donald Trump in 2020 and that the DOJ would be issuing subpoenas to several of these state
individuals as well.
We're now seeing that the Feds have raided the home of a Donald Trump-era Department of Justice official.
Okay.
These are really dark times, my friends.
This is political civil war.
It is escalating to an extreme degree.
And we just saw in Texas The GOP issued a statement that they do not view Joe Biden as legitimately elected.
I'm not going to sit here and talk to you about who's right or who's wrong.
You can make up your mind on that.
No, my view on this is just, let's be real.
The country is being gutted and ripped apart.
Now, many people on the left, they're publicly saying that we must hold Donald Trump to account for what he did in 2020.
That he must be prosecuted for January 6, 2021.
But secretly and passively, many of the more prominent left figures, Democrat establishment figures, point out the goal of what they're doing is just to stop Trump from running again.
That's it.
That's it.
In an op-ed for the Washington Post, one individual writes, if the reason we're doing this is because we're just trying to stop Trump, there's an easier way to do it.
Just pass a resolution through Congress that he can't do it.
I think it's fair to say this is not about any crimes committed by Donald Trump.
Now, of course, there are many on the left.
They'll try and claim that.
Sorry, I don't believe you.
Because what we're seeing flies in the face of what Democrats themselves were saying when Donald Trump threatened to arrest Hillary Clinton.
It's dangerous.
You can't do that.
Now they're going for it.
They just don't want Donald Trump to win again.
Probably because Trump's an outsider.
Because Trump was a disruptive force.
Because he wasn't supposed to win.
What do they call him?
The Pied Piper candidate?
They thought Hillary Clinton was going to win.
It was her turn.
And then she did not.
And now as more people come out and say they support Trump, the more we see the pushback from the establishment, from the intelligence agencies, and the worse things get.
A DOJ official for Trump having his home raided.
Now look.
If these people committed crimes, well then so be it.
Right now, innocent until proven guilty.
We'll see how these things play out.
But I've been reading quite a bit about the Civil War, and I think history rhymes.
For obvious reasons, it's not the same.
But I'm seeing more than enough, in my opinion, to suggest we're getting closer and closer to that point.
I don't even know what to say.
I mean, look, there was some good news today, and the Supreme Court struck down some gun control legislation in New York, and the left is losing their mind over it.
But all that's really happened now is it's exacerbated the political divide.
In reading about the timeline in the lead-up to the first American Civil War, they actually point out that there was a very different perspective.
The worldviews of the southern states and northern states were just so at odds.
John Brown's a good example.
I mean, by any accounts, the dude killed people.
But in the South, they said he was a terrorist.
He was murdering people.
He was trying to trigger a race war.
In the North, he was an abolitionist hero.
But the reality is, John Brown just straight up killed people.
It's tough.
I mean, slavery was abhorrent.
It was evil.
And so you had someone who said, nope, not taking it anymore.
The left likes to prop up John Brown, thinking that they would be like him.
I don't think so.
I think the reality is, is every faction throughout history, they have their individuals that engage in violence.
But when you lose, you're a murderer.
When you win, you're a martyr.
Well, if you win and then die, I guess.
Or you die while trying to win.
The point is, the North won, and rightly so.
But the things the North did in order to win are horrifying.
Take a look at Maryland.
They arrested 31 members of the, I believe, the State Assembly because they supported secession.
They just came in and did it.
D.C.
didn't like the fact that Maryland was a slave state, and they'd be surrounded, and they needed a passage to guarantee armaments to the North to defend D.C.
So they said, suspend habeas corpus from D.C.
up to Pennsylvania, which basically meant in Maryland.
Arrest anyone who opposes us, and even the politicians.
In fact, Lincoln tried to arrest a sitting Supreme Court Justice.
Crazy days indeed.
Abraham Lincoln justified it, saying, you know, effectively, desperate times call for desperate measures.
Is this what they're saying?
Look, it seems like, and I'll say this in my opinion, they're trying to trigger a civil war.
Because, what would they be doing differently if it was obvious?
If they outright said, we want to do this, what would they be doing differently?
Let's read the story.
Take a look at the escalation.
It's getting crazy.
Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to help support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments from the TimCast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m., not family-friendly, uncensored.
Good conversations, though.
Often very funny.
You'll also be supporting our journalists.
We just hired a couple more.
We're planning to expand.
We're planning on putting together some documentaries, but man, documentaries are very expensive.
So we'll have to figure that one out.
But with your support, the more people sign up, we'll be able to do this.
We want to do documentaries on gun control on the Federal Reserve.
So I'll say, in order to do that, we really do need your support, because these things can be really expensive.
Like six-figure budgets.
You've got to fly to like 15 states.
Could take like six months to produce.
But we really want to expand, so we need your support.
Don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show.
Let's read the first story from the Rolling Stone.
Feds raid the home of DOJ official Trump wanted to elevate to help overturn election.
They say, I'm choosing the Rolling Stone on purpose.
So, you know, keep in mind the framing.
Federal authorities on Wednesday raided the Virginia home of former Trump Justice Department official Jeffrey Clark as part of the Justice Department's investigation into the push to overturn the results of the 2020 election.
News of the raid was reported Thursday afternoon and confirmed by a U.S.
Attorney's Office spokesperson.
Clark is a key player in Trump's effort to leverage the Justice Department to help him stay in office.
Investigators believe Clark may have used his former position as Assistant Attorney General for the environment and natural resources to persuade
election officials in battleground states to change their state's results in favor of Trump,
according to the New York Times.
In December 2020, Clark helped draft a letter to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp baselessly claiming
that the Justice Department had identified significant concerns about election results
in Georgia and advised Kemp to create a separate slate of Electoral College electors supporting
Donald Trump. All right. I'm not here to argue in favor or against Trump.
I think the January 6th narrative is completely political.
That's why there's no cross-examination and it's non-adversarial.
But I'll put it this way.
Regardless of what I think, you have one of two scenarios occurring.
In one scenario, Donald Trump tried to stage a coup to overturn a legal election to steal power.
And Donald Trump is still the dominant force in the GOP and is polling favorably to win in 2024.
Trump-supporting politicians are still winning.
If that is what you believe happened, certainly you must believe we are escalating towards some kind of civil war, no?
Or fascist dictatorship?
The other scenario, Donald Trump did not try to stage a coup and during a contested election
period, arguments were being made in the courts and key officials were suggesting people continue
those arguments.
And for this, Democrats, the establishment, are using the power of the federal government
to destroy and shut down anyone who supported Trump.
Pick your narrative.
I'm not going to tell you which one to pick.
Just pick one.
Either way, we are looking at some kind of civil war or Takeover of this country.
Dissolution of its founding values.
A very serious constitutional crisis.
Rolling Stone continues.
Trump allegedly considered naming Clark Attorney General after Bill Barr, after he resigned, Acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen refused to go along with the big lie.
It's a political term.
I'm not surprised Rolling Stone's using it.
Trump dropped the plan to elevate Clark after Rosen, Acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donahue, and Steve Engel, the former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, all threatened to resign.
Russ Vought, President of the Center for Renewing America, where Clark is a fellow, tweeted that Clark's home was searched in a pre-dawn raid on Wednesday and that the former DOJ officials' electronic devices were taken as he was put in the street in his PJs.
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 hearing is expected to cover Trump's effort to corrupt the Justice Department into overturning the election.
Clark was subpoenaed by the committee last year but refused to comply.
The committee voted to refer Clark for contempt charges.
He eventually sat down with the committee but reportedly invoked the Fifth Amendment repeatedly.
So he pleads the fifth.
He gets raided.
On Wednesday morning, federal agents served multiple subpoenas to individuals who agreed to participate in the schemes by Trump campaign to secure a slate of fake Electoral College electors in an effort to keep President Trump in power despite his loss in the 2020 presidential election.
I want to show you this op-ed.
It's from today.
It's from this morning.
Opinion from Edward B. Foley.
There is a better option to keep Trump out of office than prosecution.
He writes, if the goal of prosecuting former President Trump is to protect American democracy from a Trump comeback in 2024, there is a better way to go about it than filing criminal charges.
Instead, Congress should exercise its constitutional authority to prohibit Trump from seeking the presidency again.
And that's the only paragraph you needed to hear.
It is entertained in the political class that the goal of the prosecution is not to seek justice, it is to prevent Trump from being president.
And he even goes on to state, all we got to do is say you can't be president.
And that's it?
And then you're satisfied?
So you mean to tell me that what they're doing to Trump's officials and to the GOP is not about justice or criminal activity?
It's about preventing Donald Trump from staging a comeback.
Okay.
At the very least, they're entertaining the possibility that is the case.
It's quite shocking, isn't it?
In the Washington Post, that's their position.
At the very least, that is a possible reason why they're doing it, and they should consider just barring Trump from running anyway.
Now that's something else, isn't it?
Here's a tweet someone responded to me.
So I tweeted the story saying, LOL Civil War.
And this Twitter account says, Idle Pillage made me laugh for a good 20 minutes.
I'm exaggerating, by the way, but it's funny.
It is the frog with the scorpion on his back who says, but now we shall both surely drown, said the frog.
LOL, said the scorpion LMAO.
I suppose you need to know the parable of the scorpion and the frog to get why this is hilarious.
In the actual story, the scorpion asks for a ride.
The frog says, why would I give you a ride?
You'll sting me.
The scorpion says, I wouldn't sting you.
I'll drown.
If I do, we'll sink.
And the frog says, good point.
Let's go.
And then halfway across the water, the scorpion stings the frog.
And he says, but now we will both surely drown.
And the scorpion says, but it is in my nature.
Something to that effect.
I think there's other similar stories to that.
LOL, said the scorpion, LMAO.
I see this as hilarious, but it feels like, you know, when we say, hey, what you're doing is burning everything to the ground, and their response is, lol.
It seems like they just don't care.
It gets worse.
Take a look at this from TimCast.com.
The FBI seizes cell phone of Nevada Republican Party chairman investigating efforts to undermine the Electoral College.
There's more.
They issued subpoenas on Georgia GOP chairman as fake elector probe grows.
Truly amazing.
From the Atlantic.
October 10th, 2016.
Trump's promise to jail Clinton is a threat to American democracy.
You bet it is!
But that's all it was.
It was bloviating.
It was Trump just talking.
Once Trump got elected, he was like, nah, I'm not doing that.
A lot of people got mad.
But he was like, I'm not doing that.
Well, here we are.
I believe the most likely scenario is that they don't want Trump to run again, so they're using criminal prosecution to go after him.
And it's kind of scary.
August 4th, 2020.
U.S.
election war game sees states ready to secede if Trump is sworn in.
An election wargaming exercise conducted amid the fears of counting chaos resulted in three states threatening to secede and the military being asked to help decide the winner.
This is a wargame.
Basically like, you know, a bunch of prominent Democrats and established Republicans played D&D.
That's basically what they did.
Innit?
Some suggested that should Donald Trump actually win, the West Coast should secede from the Union.
That doesn't mean they will.
But I think it's a real possibility.
I really do.
If you just take a look at the timeline of the first Civil War.
Trump threatening to jail Clinton if he wins election.
I thought that was bad, but he didn't actually go forward with it.
We have this from Daily Voice.
New poll reveals percentages of Americans who want to secede by region.
I've talked about this several times.
I bring it up again to make the point.
I took the state populations, combined the regions, broke down the percentages by politics, basically normalizing for population.
37.2% of people favor their region breaking off to form their own regional union.
I don't know if that means civil war.
They call it support for secession.
The point is, it's large.
And what you need to understand is, among the younger generation, it's a lot higher than the older generation.
So when they say 37.2, it is not that a third of the boomers, a third of the millennials, a third of the Gen Xers.
No, it's actually 80 to 90% of the boomers say no to secession.
80 to 90% of Gen Xers say no to secession.
And then half of millennials and half of Gen Z.
The polls show that younger people tend to heavily favor secession and civil war.
Maybe because the system hasn't been working for them.
Maybe because they're more radicalized.
But I bring this up in the context of what's happening with the federal government going after Donald Trump, his former staff members, and it's going to get worse.
I have to wonder why.
It's been a year and a half since Trump's been out of office, and they're only now raiding his former officials and the GOP.
I think it's weird, isn't it?
Maybe it's all political.
Here's an article from Wikipedia.
I've been reading the timeline of the...
The Civil War.
And a couple of these provisions stood out.
I'm not going to read through everything.
But they talk about compromise, lawsuits, escalation of violence.
John Brown.
They say, December 2, John Brown is hanged in Charlestown, Virginia, now West Virginia.
Across the North, it is treated as a national calamity.
Church bells are rung.
Rallies are held.
Brown is seen as a martyr to the cause of ending slavery.
In the South, he's seen as a fanatical Yankee abolitionist trying to start a bloody race war, as well as stealing property.
Well, they were wrong about their... They thought it was their property, but these were people.
The reaction in the North to his execution reinforces the Southern fear that more such raids would soon be coming.
Secession, for which support had grown steadily since the nullification crisis of 1832 and 33, is believed by Southern leaders to be their only option.
History does not repeat itself, but surely it does rhyme.
In 2020, the far left rioted across this country, causing billions of dollars in damage and resulting in several dozen people dying.
The federal government did nothing.
I mean, some people got charged.
Kamala Harris helped support raising bail money to get some of these people out of jail.
Joe Biden's staffers directly funded some of this.
Sending a wave of concern among Republican states and the voting population that powerful special interests will protect those who are overtly committing crimes in the name of their ideology.
It's not too dissimilar.
John Brown was a violent murderer.
It's a tough call.
I don't like the violence, but I do like the abolitionist movement.
I like the fact that he said enough, we're ending this very serious evil activity.
But I'm not a fan of just going and killing people like he did.
I think that's wrong.
So it's tough.
Yeah.
I'm a centrist.
How about that?
I don't believe that Antifa should be going around and smashing things and attacking people for their ideology.
But they view themselves much the same as John Brown.
And in their districts, in their areas, they painted Black Lives Matter on the ground.
They stole taxpayer funds to do it.
The police in New York City protected this.
It's alarming.
What do you do?
It doesn't matter whether you support or oppose BLM.
That's not the point I'm making.
The point I'm making is there is a growing sentiment among a large group of people that they're correct and justified in doing what they do.
And another faction, that they're not.
And that's all that matters.
The growing escalation.
I have this Wikipedia article.
This is the control of Republican legislatures.
This is control of states by party.
30 states are Republican.
17 are Democrat.
34 states are needed for a convention of states that will dramatically change things.
In the timeline of events, one of the most important points they bring up is that Democrats control the legislatures of the states that would eventually go on to become the Confederacy.
So we are seeing similarities and there's a lot more.
There's a lot of similarities and worrying parallels.
It doesn't mean we're guaranteed to enter a civil war.
I'm just looking at history and maybe it's wrong.
Maybe it doesn't add up.
I said earlier today maybe what happens is despotic government and you just end up with an empirical type government with a violation of your rights and people being locked up for dissenting.
You know, it happened in 1861.
I take you back in time, my friends.
May 27th, 1861.
President Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus is challenged.
So basically, in April, Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus between Washington D.C.
and Philadelphia to give military authorities the power to silence dissenters and rebels.
See, the issue was Maryland was a slave state, and it's north of D.C.
D.C.
was cut off from the north.
So they had no choice.
If they wanted to survive, they needed to seize Maryland.
So, when military resources were trying to move from the north to D.C., riots would break out.
Maryland is a southern state, and they did not like the Union, and many of the people here was split between secession and support for the Union.
So when the fighting broke out, Lincoln was like, all right, that's it.
We're going to arrest all of you without charge or trial.
Without charge or trial.
Holding these people.
Well, Chief Justice Robert B. Taney issues Ex Parte Merriman, challenging the authority, ultimately saying they had to release John Merriman, a vocal secessionist.
He was being held without charge or trial.
Ultimately, he was released, posted bond, and he never went to trial because the war broke out, and then it ended, and two years later the charges were just dismissed.
But Abraham Lincoln said, your right to a trial is forfeit because desperate times call for desperate measures.
Do you think that can't happen now?
Do you think we won't see someone say the same thing and justify taking these actions?
Donald Trump would not deploy the military to shut down the riots.
He's like, I don't have the right to do that.
I can't do it.
Democrats have no problem going and rounding up people across the country.
They will not arrest the people in front of the Supreme Court justices' homes.
They let the crimes continue.
Here's a paper from UMBC.edu.
The Arrest of the Maryland Legislature.
It's truly a scary story.
On August 7th, The General Assembly adjourned, intending to meet again on September 17th.
However, on that day, federal troops and Baltimore police officers arrived in Frederick with orders to arrest the pro-Confederate members of the General Assembly.
Thus, the special session in Frederick ended, as did Frederick's summer as the state capitol, as Maryland found itself inexorably drawn further and further into the heart of the bloodiest war in American history.
I'll mention that again.
They say, if Maryland seceded, D.C.
would be surrounded by hostile states.
It came to a head on April 19th, 1861, when soldiers from the six Massachusetts volunteers moving through Baltimore on its way to Washington were attacked by a Southern mob.
They met on April 22nd.
And as we can see, on August 7th.
August 7th?
They were supposed to... They adjourned.
They were supposed to meet on the 17th.
However, on that day, on September 17th, they arrested the legislature.
Alright.
Let's go back to the Wikipedia entry for the Civil War there.
The timeline.
And we come down to the election to the Battle of Fort Sumter.
It was early 1861 when all of this broke out.
The Confederacy had already existed, and they began to arrest members of Maryland's legislature, of the General Assembly.
Maryland ultimately sided with the North, partly because of this.
Do you think that won't happen?
We are right now seeing the feds and the DOJ going after the Republican chairman, Members of the Republican Party, former government officials, Peter Navarro, a Trump administration official, Steve Bannon, the government is going after the dissenters.
Do you think that this results in the Trump supporters being like, guess I'll stop believing what I believe and I'll just support the government and all their actions?
Or do you think it terrifies people, shocks the system, shatters confidence, and exacerbates the crisis?
Because I think it makes things worse.
If you look to the timeline of the Civil War, you don't see these things resulting in things getting better.
When they talk about John Brown, the hanging of John Brown did not result in tensions de-escalating.
All of these things contributed to the escalation.
The arrest.
The battle at Fort Sumter.
All of these things continually just freaked people out and made it all worse.
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.
DOJ releases a statement that they respectfully disagree with the SCOTUS ruling on the New York gun law, saying they remain committed to saving innocent lives and enforcing and defending federal firearms laws.
Sure, but this was about a New York law, so this may be a meaningless statement.
But there is a concern.
With DOJ breaking with the Supreme Court, eventually we could see more of this, which does result in the escalation into some kind of civil war.
A law gets passed.
Federal government is at odds with that law.
We saw that in the first Civil War.
Not repeating, but rhyming.
Here's one.
Nina Turner.
Oh, Nina.
Nina Turner is a, I don't know, former Ohio State professor.
You may have heard of her.
Why is the court allowed to rule on anything when one of the judges is married to a person who tried to overthrow the U.S.
government, and two other judges were appointed by a man who tried to overthrow the U.S.
government?
Okay, whatever.
I don't care what your opinion is on Nina Turner.
She's basically calling for some kind of nullification based on political issues.
Sure, here's Keith Olbermann.
Who tweeted, Great, you're a court.
That's right.
That's how it goes.
The Supreme Court knows they have no enforcement capabilities.
They simply say it, and it's amazing.
We agree to it.
the court has now forced guns upon to ignore this ruling.
Great, you're a court. Why and how do you think you can enforce your rulings? Ignore the court. That's
right. That's how it goes. The Supreme Court knows they have no enforcement capabilities.
They simply say it and it's amazing. We agree to it. Seriously. New York is supposed to
abide by a new gun, by a new ruling from the Supreme Court striking down their
law requiring a reason to get a concealed carry permit.
What if New York just says, we're gonna do it anyway?
That's when everything breaks.
When people realize the Supreme Court can do nothing.
Nothing.
What can they do?
They can do nothing.
If New York defies Supreme Court, what are they going to do?
Is Kavanaugh going to go there and bang pots and pans?
Are Marshalls going to go?
Not going to happen.
Carrie Lake.
Excuse me.
Said that when she is elected governor, running in, she's Arizona, I believe?
Man, I could be wrong.
Sorry.
Sorry, Kerry.
But she said she'll ignore unconstitutional gun laws and said, what are the feds gonna do, come down and arrest her?
She's right.
What will they do?
Nothing.
If the court is ignored by New York, nothing will be done.
We saw this pre-Civil War.
There were laws on the books.
The Fugitive Slave Act.
And when the North said, we ain't doing it, the federal government did nothing.
And so the South said, we out.
Already, California ignores federal law.
Already.
On immigration.
So, what if they just start ignoring the Supreme Court as well?
I think it's likely that's where we're gonna go.
Charlie Spearing says Joe Biden is not happy with the Supreme Court ruling on guns.
The ruling contradicts both common sense and the Constitution.
Yeah, okay, Joe.
It doesn't, but whatever.
From the Daily Mail, Senate votes 65 to 34 to break GOP filibuster clearing the passage for bipartisan gun control package.
Yeah, I feel like this country is going to get ripped apart, to be honest.
And then we have this story.
It's not super related, but I think it's interesting.
Trust linked to Bill Gates is asked by North Dakota AG to explain how it got 2,000 acres of land worth $13.5 million near Canadian border when the state law puts limits on who can own ranches.
This one's not really related, but I did think it was interesting just to bring up.
Something's happening.
We had Dennis Prager on the show last week, and I believe Dennis is 74.
I'm 36.
So, uh, not even.
He's more than twice my age.
I ask the older guests we have, have you ever seen it this bad?
And they say no.
They say no.
People like to point out, the weather underground, they were fringe.
They were fringe.
Yeah, they were bad, they were crazy, but they were fringe.
Right now, we have Antifa.
They went out and engaged in some of the worst riots.
These far leftists are in violation of the law.
The AG won't go after them.
But the Feds are raiding Republicans.
A Republican is going to sit back and be like, guess I'll go to jail.
Well, that's where you're going.
I don't know what's going to happen in 2023 or 2024.
It's possible that with the red wave, Republicans win, but what are they going to do?
They're going to do nothing.
They're going to sit on their hands.
Maybe, uh, you get the Senate, you get the House, you get the Presidency, maybe Trump wins again, and then all this shuts down, but I don't see it.
I see Joe Biden as Buchanan.
Funny thing is, Buchanan was pro-slavery.
Joe Biden is probably on the losing side of history.
He wasn't voted in.
He was, he was voted in, I should say, he was voted in through hatred of Trump, not through support for his plans.
So he's not popular enough to beat Trump.
Not again.
Especially with gas prices in the economy.
If Trump wins this time, I believe before Trump even gets in, Democrats are going to lose their minds and they are going to take very irrational actions.
I wonder if the Feds will go after Trump long before he even has a chance.
The Southern District of New York will go after Trump before he even gets a chance.
What do you do?
One possibility, I suppose, Ron DeSantis ends up being the one to win and then issues a pardon on Trump.
Shuts it all down.
I like Ron DeSantis, and I think he's a rising star in politics, and he may actually be the candidate.
But the Democrats know they can't run against him and win.
They'll lose.
He's too popular.
He may be worse than Trump in a lot of ways, because he's got the plan, but not the problems.
So it's hard to know exactly what they'll do.
Maybe they want Donald Trump to run, but they want to make him look really, really bad.
So they go after his underlings, they go after the GOP, let Trump win, and then try and defeat him that way.
But I don't think they can beat him.
In which case, their only option is criminal prosecution.
Well, I suppose Washington Post says they can try and disqualify him.
That's not been working.
If they do disqualify him, they get Ron DeSantis, so... It's hard to know exactly how things will play out.
Wish I was psychic, but I'm not.
It just looks to me every single day when you see this stuff, we're escalating towards civil war.
If I were to tell you, I know I do this in a similar analogy, but again, if I were to go back to 2018 and said, mark my words, in four years, the federal government under the Democrats will be arresting Republicans, you'd say, that's insane!
In fact, many pundits said it.
They said they will start going after Republicans.
They have.
Peter Navarro was shackled!
It's remarkable, isn't it?
People didn't believe it.
Here we go.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
For the past several years, I've been talking about the prospect of another civil war.
And I often preface this by saying there are many mainstream media articles that I've been reading, and it's not just my opinion.
This started when I read an article saying that national security experts, and this is back in like 2018, said there was a really high chance the U.S.
falls into civil war.
Maybe civil war's not the right word.
Maybe the reality is we are headed more towards a, I don't know, authoritarian, communist, or fascistic system in which those who think they're in a civil war are actually just being crushed and don't stand a chance anyway.
What I mean to say is, when I talk about civil war, it's under the presumption that there are two large factions that are about to just go at each other like crazy.
And it feels like that's the case.
But when you look at how the federal government has operated over the past several years, maybe it's not the case.
Maybe where we're actually headed is just a dystopian authoritarian nightmare.
And that means people who are more likely to be conservative or Republican, you're going to be locked up, You're going to have your rights curtailed and people on the left, Antifa for instance, will get away with their crimes.
It's not absolute.
I mean, Andrew Gillum is being charged with 21 felony counts and he's a Democrat.
But it's a tendency.
That is to say that I don't know, the George Floyd rioters, Black Lives Matter, they went around and smashed and looted and destroyed.
Many of these people have not been criminally charged.
In fact, the Vice President and President supported them outright.
Kamala Harris even raised money for them to get out of jail.
Then you have the January 6th rioters, and you have, more importantly, the January 6th Magamemaws, as people call them, who sort of just wandered into the building and the cops opened the door.
Police opened the door, let these people in, and then these people were charged with very serious crimes, raided by the FBI.
One man so far has been acquitted because, you know, the police fanned him in.
I want to talk to you about this story from 8 News Now.
I, Team Sources, FBI seizes Nevada GOP Chairman's phone as part of fake elector investigation.
This is where things are currently going.
That is, federal law enforcement is being weaponized against people who oppose the establishment.
Was there a scheme to trick the Electoral College?
You see, what happens is, and this has happened historically, when there is a contested election, For the president, particularly, you end up with people, the electors of one party, sending in their votes just in case.
It's actually happened before.
It happened with Hawaii.
Nixon won, but Hawaii Democrat electors sent in their votes anyway, and then a court ruling happened.
They decided to count the Democrat votes instead.
It didn't really change all that much, but even Nixon himself, who was the vice president at the time, said, we're going to choose to count these unofficial electors.
This is crazy, isn't it?
Quite literally, there was a certified slate of electors coming from Hawaii, and the vice president chose to ignore them, and he chose to accept the unofficial.
I'll pull that up for you in a second to make sure I get all the facts straight.
But now we have this narrative coming from January 6.
Look at this one.
CNN.com DOJ subpoenas Georgia Republican Party chairman as it expands Trump fake elector probe.
I mean, this is just crazy.
From 8NewsNow again, Nevada Republicans sent National Archives fake electoral certificates saying Trump won the election.
But this is not the first time something like this has happened, and they weren't called fake, they were just called the alternate slate.
I made a video when this was going on, and you can see the narrative building was already happening.
I titled the video, Republican Electors Cast Vote for Donald Trump.
I got flagged on Facebook for fake news.
And the organization said, they're not electors, Tim.
And then I said, this is the Republican slate, right?
And they're like, yes.
And I'm like, and they cast a vote, right?
Well, yeah, but it's not a real vote.
Did I say it was?
In fact, in the first 30 seconds of the video, I said, this is not the certified slate of electors.
It's the Republican slate, and they're casting a symbolic vote anyway.
And this has happened before in the case of Hawaii.
And then they removed the fact check.
But, you see, they were already building up to the narrative.
This, in my opinion, is one of the most shocking and one of the most terrifying escalations in the ongoing culture war conflict.
I'm telling you, man, this is absolute breakdown.
This is the FBI just basically saying, we will crush the GOP.
This is Civil War level stuff.
You know, we did a members-only segment at TimCast.com.
If you want to support our work, go to TimCast.com, become a member.
We talked about Stephen Colbert and how his staff engaged in insurrection!
And I mean that somewhat facetiously, right?
His staffers were trespassing in the Longworth House building after being told to leave and they were criminally charged.
I said, this story seems silly, but it's actually one of the most dramatic escalations in the civil conflict that we're in.
You know, we're frogs in a pot.
As the saying goes, the water is cool and the frogs are in the pot, but it slowly starts coming to a boil and you don't realize how hot it's getting.
In reality, frogs would jump out of the pot.
I was reading about this, it's not true, but you get the metaphor.
As the temperature slowly rises, you don't realize how hot it's getting.
If you were to go back six years and tell someone, six years from now Stephen Colbert will have to address the nation as to why his staff members were arrested for trespassing inside a congressional building and being accused of staging an insurrection against the U.S.
government, you'd be like, what?
It's like a joke, right?
No, no, no.
His staff literally got arrested for trespassing and then were being accused of engaging in insurrection.
You'd be like, how does that?
And then you break it down for him.
Well, you see, when Donald Trump was president, he, whoa, whoa, whoa, what?
Yeah.
Okay, so Donald Trump is president.
Yeah, they're gonna be like, well, okay, sorry, six years ago, people could believe that Donald Trump was gonna be president because he was in the middle of running.
But if we go back six years, a lot of people still didn't believe, even with him running, that he'd win.
So let's go back seven or eight.
People would call you nuts.
But now we're somewhere else.
Now we've dramatically escalated.
Imagine going back 10 years and telling someone 10 years from now the FBI will be filing subpoenas will be will be going after Republicans because in 2020 there will be alternate electors Challenging the vote, a lawsuit between splitting the country completely in half, Texas v. Pennsylvania.
I mean, just go back six years and tell people, yeah, in December of 2020, Texas will file a lawsuit against Pennsylvania to the Supreme Court.
Half the country will side with Pennsylvania, half the country will side with Texas, and they will be challenging the validity of the election, and people would be like, no way, dude.
Never going to happen.
And I know this is true because I was alluding to that in 2018.
And I had conservatives being like, dude, you're nuts.
It's never going to get to that level.
And now the FBI seizing phones of Republicans You think it's not going to escalate from here?
They're trying to make it seem that because there was a contesting of the election, that an informal vote is some kind of scheme.
From the New York Times.
Panel ties Trump to fake elector plan, mapping his attack on democracy.
The House Committee investigating the January 6th attack showed how the former president leaned on state officials to invalidate his defeat, opening them up to violent threats when they refused.
All right.
I've shown this before many times.
Wikipedia for the 1916, I'm sorry, 1960 United States presidential election.
Here we go.
Let's read this.
A sample of how close the election was can be seen in California, Nixon's home state.
Huh.
Kennedy seemed to have carried the state by 37,000 votes when all of the voting precincts
reported.
But when the absentee ballots were counted a week later, Nixon came from behind to win
the state by 36,000 votes.
Huh, sound familiar?
Similarly in Hawaii, official results showed Nixon winning by a small margin of 141 votes.
the state being called for him early Wednesday morning.
Acting Governor James Kiloha certified the Republican electors, and they cast Hawaii's three electoral votes for Nixon.
And Democrats petitioned for a recount in Hawaii Circuit Court.
The court challenge was still ongoing at the time of the Electoral Counts Act's safe harbor
deadline.
But Democratic electors still convened at the Lulani Palace on the constitutionally
mandated date of December 19th and cast their votes for Kennedy.
Whoa!
A Democratic scheme!
No!
This is how it goes!
There was a challenge to the election, so they cast their ballots by the safe harbor
deadline in the event the court challenge won.
Bye.
At the time these other states were having the Republican slate fill out the paperwork same as anyone else would, there were legal challenges.
These were dismissed on standing, not merit.
Notably in Pennsylvania, where the argument was that the changes to the voter rules were unconstitutional.
Republicans in Pennsylvania challenged it.
Dismissed.
Texas challenged it to the Supreme Court.
Dismissed.
And then, in January of this year, a court ruled, in fact, it was unconstitutional.
That being said, with that going on, how is it they are now trying to claim That Republicans sending in electoral votes the same as the Democrats did in 1960 is some kind of scheme.
It's because they are using the weight of political power and law enforcement to crush their enemies.
So, maybe it's not going to be a civil war.
Maybe the reality is that the administrative state, law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and the Democratic Party, and their uniparty neocon associates, are just going to destroy you.
The Republicans, I mean.
They're gonna come, they're gonna arrest you, and they're gonna say, history be damned.
We do what we want.
So maybe it won't be a civil war.
It'll be more like a, I don't know, despotic, fascistic regime locking people up, putting them in solitary, and crushing them.
From the New York Times.
The House Committee investigating the January 6th attack directly tied to Donald Trump on Tuesday to a scheme to put forward fake slates of pro-Trump electors and presented fresh details on how the former president sought to bully, cajole, and bluff his way into invalidating his 2020 defeat, using sworn in-person testimony from Republicans and videotaped depositions from other officials.
The panel showed how the former president and group of allies laid siege to state lawmakers and election officials after the balloting in a wide-ranging plot to reverse the outcome.
The campaign led to harassment and threats of violence against anyone who resisted.
The hearing on Tuesday amounted to the most comprehensive picture to date on a president who directed an attack on democracy itself and repeatedly reached into its essential machinery, the administration of free and fair elections.
It was the committee's fourth hearing, and it captured how long before a throng of his supporters stormed into the Capitol on January 6th, Mr. Trump used election lies to whip up violence against anyone who dared to deny his false claims of victory.
The court cases were never adjudicated.
I mean, at least in Pennsylvania until now.
And I'm not talking about fraud.
Sorry, I think the fraud narrative is just nonsense.
It's remarkable to me when it comes to the fraud narrative that people would believe this over the bureaucratic or administrative narrative.
Because the Democrats don't need to have weird Chinese fake ballots.
They don't need to have Any of these stories, they're like, why were they blocking people from observing?
They're jamming you up and they're dangling the keys to the right while you're ignoring what's happening to your left.
And what that was, rule changes.
In Pennsylvania, in Georgia, in many states, over the year, and done, that's right, through often an executive process or a legislative process.
In Pennsylvania, Republicans and Democrats agreed to rule changes, and this is the Republicans' fault.
Republicans didn't want this thing in Pennsylvania, where you can be like, I vote Democrat, and then they just give all the Democrats your vote.
So Republicans were like, we will win if we get rid of that, because people will then stop voting for Democrats across the board.
And Democrats said, OK, but we want universal mail-in voting.
And Republicans were like, OK, because they did not see how universal mail-in voting would hurt them because they're dumb.
They did this in violation of the Constitution.
In my opinion, it was not a scheme to stop Donald Trump for the most part.
It was a huge error on the part of the Republicans.
Yes, many of the Republicans didn't like Donald Trump, that's true.
But they genuinely thought it was going to help them.
At least that's how I see it.
It was then in October that Republicans were like, wait a minute, this is bad!
Different Republicans.
And they sued.
And the courts were like, nope, too late, sorry.
Standing.
That's why it was dismissed.
A lower court said, you'll probably win on the merits, they can't have this law.
The election went forward.
And then this year, a lower court said, or I shouldn't say lower court, a mid-level court was like, yep, this was unconstitutional.
And it's kind of amazing.
It's like, okay, what does that mean then?
Unconstitutional rule changes?
So Texas lawsuits should have been heard?
Yeah, there are very serious problems that need to be addressed.
Right now, the law is being upheld pending a further court case.
So we'll see.
But now what they're doing, even despite the fact that it turns out the Republicans were right in terms of their lawsuit because they ended up winning, They're still saying it was wrong to have other electors fill out their forms and submit them.
Again, I send it right back to 1960.
Nixon took those Democratic votes.
They say the recount completed before Christmas resulted in Kennedy being declared the winner.
On December 30th, the circuit court ruled the Hawaii's three electoral votes should go to Kennedy.
It was decided that a new certificate was necessary with only two days remaining before Congress.
And to certify the Electoral College votes, a letter to Congress saying a certificate was on the way was rushed out by registered airmail.
Both Democrat and Republican electoral votes from Hawaii were presented for counting.
Wait a minute!
Both slates were presented for counting?
And Nixon chose, as the Vice President, which one was legitimate.
That's crazy to me.
So let's look at it this way.
Let's say the lawsuits presented by Donald Trump went to the courts and the courts sided with him.
Those electors would need to be rushed in and presented.
So I don't see it as crazy as they're framing it as some scheme.
But the FBI is going after anyone who simply filled out the form and submitted it.
As if it was on Pence.
Pence said no to it.
They're going to crush their enemies.
They don't want a civil war.
I don't want a civil war.
But this is actually quite scary if you were to ask me.
In order, I suppose in their mind, to avoid a political conflict and turmoil in this country, they will use the weight of government against anyone who oppose them?
Yo, you realize guys, my friends over at the FBI, that actually destabilizes things.
And you are pushing us towards the conflict.
Far be it for me to tell them how to do their jobs.
Perhaps they know they're pushing us towards conflict and they want it.
That's the only conclusion I can make.
When you see these stories that exacerbate It seems like they want a civil war.
Maybe it's because the woke cult, the left, they want to destroy the Constitution, and they don't want the United States to exist.
Perhaps they want China to become the unipolar.
It seems like that's the case.
Or they're just really dumb, and they don't understand, they don't read history, and they have no idea what they're doing, and they're just mindless cogs.
Perhaps.
But I will tell you.
There was that, um... I forgot what it was called.
After the Revolution, there were a bunch of people who fought in the Continental Army who were not paid.
And so, eventually, they revolted.
After the revolt was quashed, I believe it was Washington who said, you're exonerated.
Free to go.
And he was like, look, we can't, these people are mad because they're not paid.
We cannot have this inner turmoil.
Now, you have the FBI crushing anyone who spoke up and took legal issue with the election.
Okay.
Well, I can tell you where that's going.
When the Trump supporters and conservatives, 74 million of them, mind you, watch this happen.
Do you think they're going to sit back and just be like, well, guess I'll do nothing?
When 57% of Republicans don't believe the narrative, you've got a confidence problem.
The Texas GOP just came out and said they believed Biden was not legitimately elected.
Okay.
This is your fault, Democrats.
Intelligence agencies, FBI, Supreme Court, it's all... But maybe it's not their fault, maybe it's what they wanted.
You know, I sit back, I'm like, dude, I'm just some guy reading the news on the internet and complaining about it.
Far be it for me to know what's going on behind the scenes with classified intelligence and all that stuff, no idea.
Maybe they want the country to be ripped apart.
Fine.
I don't.
I'd prefer that not to happen.
But I tell you what, man.
Watching all of this go down, it seems like the only outcome, it seems like they intentionally want to rip this country apart.
That's where things are headed.
It's literally what is happening all around us.
So, I don't know.
How could they be taking the actions they're taking, knowing that the Republicans aren't agreeing with this, Maybe they're self-interested.
Maybe they're... Look, when the Supreme Court did not even listen to Texas, the Texas AG's arguments, that means there was zero chance anyone in Texas would change their mind.
If you're told, you know, there's a bunch of stories that come out in the news, and they say X happened, And then YouTube says you can't talk about it.
Do you think that's going to change people's minds?
No.
They're gonna double down.
It'll exacerbate fake news.
They must want it to happen.
It's the only thing I can think of.
You give me the opportunity to talk about an issue and I'll argue the merits and perhaps cast doubt on certain stories.
But there are certain names you can't say.
Certain things you can't do.
And all that does is make sure that people continue to believe the wrong thing.
If the Supreme Court listened to Texas, they could have said, here's why you're wrong, Texas.
And then people in Texas would be like, look, we petitioned the court, the court said no.
Now what happens?
The Supreme Court says, we won't even hear you.
Okay, well then our argument stands, they say.
So the country is being gutted and ripped apart right before our eyes, and it seems intentional.
Otherwise, these people are just very stupid.
And I don't think they're that stupid.
Maybe they're just self-interested and going along with things like, don't look at me, I don't know, don't care.
But, it's just getting crazier every day.
The FBI is now taking people's phones?
All right, they really don't want Trump to run.
But maybe it'll be Ron DeSantis anyway, so we'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The Bruin ruling has come down in a major victory for gun rights.
The Supreme Court has ruled that may-issue states are in violation of the Second and the Fourteenth Amendment, and they must issue permits.
I'm glad to see it.
I was hoping for the one-in-a-million broad ruling where the Supreme Court would just be like, any permitting is a violation of your rights.
But we have Brett Kavanaugh to thank for blocking that because Kavanaugh wrote in concurrence, no, states are allowed to require permits.
Buh-bye.
Okay, okay.
I'll take the win where I can get it.
Let me break it down for you so I don't bury the lead.
There are six states and D.C.
that claim to issue concealed carry permits because you have to.
You cannot block someone from keeping and bearing arms.
In Heller and McDonald, two cases, they have set forth your right to keep and bear arms, an individual right, and it extends outside of your home.
So what happens is, you get many states like New York, like Hawaii, you get D.C., and they go, okay, we'll give you a concealed permit.
You go and apply, and they go, what's your reason for wanting a concealed permit?
And you say, self-defense, wham, you're out.
Well, hey, that's not fair, right?
In this case, it goes beyond that.
One of the plaintiffs said, at first, just self-defense, and they went, buh-bye.
They gave you what's called a restricted permit, meaning that you can go to and from work or something, but you can't carry it in public.
So a few years later, this dude comes back and he's like, there's a major string of violent robberies in my area.
I need to carry this weapon.
And they went, oh, that sounds like a real reason.
Get out.
The Supreme Court came down with Clarence Thomas for the majority.
Thomas, of course, being a genius.
And he laid it out and was like, dude, you can't do that.
You can't be like, here's the criteria for which you can get a concealed carry permit and then arbitrarily reject people.
Further, they go on to say requiring a valid reason is a violation of our 2nd and 14th Amendment rights.
Surprisingly of all people, Brett Kavanaugh, after facing an assassination attempt and constant illegal protest at his own home, goes on to say the 43 states that have shall-issue permitting laws can keep them because the states have a right to determine whether or not you have permission from the state to have a gun.
Can I just say that again, Brett, in case you didn't hear me?
A permit is permission from the state.
Okay.
Well, Brett is of the opinion that you need permission.
That they can't infringe upon your right to have one, but they can require permission?
How does that make sense?
The right to keep and bear arms exists.
It is of the people.
Clarence Thomas clearly says it, but again, I will take what I can get because this is a victory.
This means, very likely, in Maryland, HA!
You gotta issue these permits.
Now, in Maryland, it's so ridiculous, and in D.C.
it's so ridiculous, that people don't even make it to this point.
It takes too long, so many people just give up on trying to get their permits.
They're infringing on your right.
Here's the story.
And then, my friends, we must venture forward to the beautiful land of Twitter, because we will bask in the liberal tears, falsely framing what's going on, lying to people about what the Supreme Court ruling means, Because this is what they do!
And then we'll gloat.
Clarence Thomas, you're a genius.
announces massive Second Amendment ruling. The Supreme Court on Thursday handed down its opinion
in a landmark Second Amendment case, the biggest win for gun rights since the court's Heller ruling,
holding that New York's proper cause requirement violates the 14th Amendment by preventing law
abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment
right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. Clarence Thomas, you're a genius,
Such a big fan.
The ruling came... I love this joke.
People, uh, when Ketanji Brown Jackson was up for, um, confirmation, or going to the confirmation hearings, all these liberals were like, Republicans just don't want a black person on the Supreme Court, and Republicans were all coming out like, the black guy is literally the only one I like!
Clarence Thomas is awesome.
Race is irrelevant.
The issue is, he is a great legal mind who gets it.
And he's fair and he's honest.
I don't think Kavanaugh is necessarily wrong when he's talking about states having permits and stuff.
It's an interpretation I don't agree with.
Here we go.
The ruling came down 6-3 with Clarence Thomas writing the majority opinion joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett plus concurring opinions by Alito and Kavanaugh.
Justices Breyer wrote the dissent joined by Sotomayor and Kagan.
Thomas's opinion explains in part that confining the right to bear arms to the home would make little sense given that self-defense is the central component of the Second Amendment right itself.
He wrote, In D.C.
v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, we recognize the Second and Fourteenth Amendment protect the right of an ordinary law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense.
In this case, petitioners and respondents agree that ordinary law-abiding citizens have a similar right to carry handguns publicly for their self-defense.
We, too, agree and now hold, consistent with Heller and McDonald, That the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual's right to carry a handgun in self-defense outside the home.
Great.
Thomas explained, The Second Amendment doesn't take a back seat to the other God-given rights defined by the Bill of Rights, as belonging to the people and not to be infringed upon by the government.
In his concurring opinion, Alito noted that today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear that they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.
And today, no less than in 1791, the Second Amendment guarantees their right to do so.
The landmark decision was immediately celebrated by Second Amendment advocates, many of whom pointed out that Thomas' majority opinion was released on his birthday.
Oh, wow!
Happy birthday, Clarence Thomas.
You know, it's not often that on someone's birthday they give you a present.
But talk about a good guy.
Wow.
You know, it's his birthday and he's bestowing this gift upon us.
Thank you, good sir.
Within moments, though, the usual leftist pundits— I gotta stop you right there.
Leftists like guns, Town Hall.
It's the liberals that don't.
Not all leftists, mind you.
Leftist pundits on CNN and elsewhere were quick to beclown themselves by ignoring what the ruling actually says and launching into nonsense.
CNN's greatest legal mind, Lubin Tubin, is a prime example.
Okay, let's hear what he has to say.
unidentified
You know, we know that in the United States, You have the right under the First Amendment to say pretty much anything anywhere because we have freedom of speech in the United States.
What the conservatives on the Supreme Court are saying is we want the Second Amendment to be a first-class right like the First Amendment.
And we want to be able to carry guns anywhere, anytime, without any sort of regulation by the government.
In this tweet from Rick Hasen, he says, from a very quick look, The most important three pages in the gun case, Bruin, is Kavanaugh's three-page concurrence.
It seeks to limit the reach of the majority and reaffirms limits on gun rights in 43 states.
Don't play these games, Tubin!
The corporate press lies.
You know they lie.
unidentified
Background checks, without restrictions on where you can take a weapon, without restrictions on how you can carry a weapon.
Now, they haven't gone that far yet, but they are clearly moving in that direction.
And, you know, we can't separate this issue from what's going on in the world, where,
you know, we have a tremendous problem with gun violence in this country.
Yeah, Alito actually addressed the gun shooting thing.
And he was like, I think it was Alito.
He goes, the state in question is New York, which restricts access.
The shooting in question that you're bringing up took place in New York.
How did this gun law do anything to stop it?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.
So this is great.
I'll add this.
Ladies and gentlemen, I was right.
And all of those whiny liberals can cry about it.
The Second Amendment protects your right to own nukes.
Don't take my word for it.
I give you this passage from the actual ruling.
Maybe I should not zoom in because it's easier to read if I don't.
We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment's historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances.
Its reference to arms does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th century.
Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Thus, even though the Second Amendment's definition of arms is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense.
Now, I know, I know.
Maybe I'm being a little bit hyperbolic.
Can you bear a nuclear weapon?
Is a nuclear weapon used for self-defense?
I'm gonna go ahead and make the argument you can bear it and it is used for self-defense.
But maybe that's not what Thomas is trying to say.
Tactical nukes are not that big.
Is a crew-served weapon a bearable arm?
I'd say yes, it is.
Cannons were considered protected.
Cannons cannot be carried.
Bear does not mean to hold, means to be in control of and possess.
And self-defense?
Well, yeah.
I mean, a .50 caliber belt-fed turret, butterfly trigger, whatever.
On the top of a building in a military base or whatever, that's self-defense, right?
And can a person bear that weapon?
Yes, they can be on it, holding it in full control of bearing that weapon.
That's how I see it.
I said, okay, but more realistically, if the legal argument is what you can bear, then light machine guns, bazookas, and etc.
are all protected.
So, um, you'll love to see it.
Now let's cruise on through.
What do we got here?
Alito.
We already read this one, but I have it from Tom Fitton just to reiterate, saying people are concerned about their safety these days.
I'm gonna show you this map here I got from Wikipedia.
And this map shows the current gun laws in the United States.
The green states are the good guys.
The green states are constitutional carry, of which there are 25.
You can see that New Hampshire and Vermont are constitutional carry.
Vermont doesn't even have permits.
They're like, have a gun!
Yeah, okay, Bernie.
You got Maine.
Look at this.
You got Ohio.
You got Iowa.
You got the Dakotas.
You got Wyoming, Idaho.
You got my great state, West Virginia.
Now, if you look over to the right of West Virginia, you get Maryland.
And that state is not green, it is yellow.
Yellow is May issue.
Uh-oh.
New Jersey, New York, and Long Island.
Well, those are red.
It says no issue in practice.
Hawaii, no issue in practice.
Well, what does that mean?
Okay.
The blue states are shall-issue states, meaning if you apply, they have to give it to you.
There's the criteria, you meet the criteria, here you go.
The green states, you don't need one.
In West Virginia, you can walk into a gun store, you give them your ID, you fill out the background check, you buy the weapon, you get the holster, you put it in your waistband, you walk out, you're all good.
That's constitutional carry.
Texas is.
Florida is moving towards constitutional carry as well, empowering the people to defend themselves.
But in parts of New York, most of it, it is no issue.
They say it's a May issue, but here's what happens.
In New York City, mostly, and in other cities, you'll apply and they'll be like, what's your reason?
And you'll say, someone tried to kill me.
Too bad, you're not rich, you're not famous.
In Maryland and New Jersey, it's the same way.
When I was trying to get a gun in New Jersey, first of all, they lied to me left and right.
Here's how you do it, here's how you do it.
It was nuts.
Finally, I was able to get my permits and everything, and it took like two months.
So.
In New Jersey, I was told, I need legitimate reason.
And I was told that for the most part, they won't give you one.
If you do work, and you're like an armored truck driver or whatever, they'll give you a work permit.
There are many people I know, they're allowed to carry to and from work because you can't really get one in Maryland.
That's done now.
Now they have to give it.
But, you still gotta get a permit, you gotta take a class, you gotta file paperwork, you gotta pay.
Not all perfect.
But they're now going to be blue.
They are going to be shall-issue states.
Thank you, Supreme Court.
All right.
Let's see how the left is handling this.
The liberal tears.
Mark Joseph Stern with a bold-faced lie.
Before today, about 83 million people, one in every four Americans, lived in a state that strictly limited concealed carry to those who had a heightened need for self-defense.
Now, zero people live in such a state.
Wrong!
You're a liar, sir!
The plaintiff, I believe it was Koch.
There's two plaintiffs here.
The plaintiff, Koch, applied saying, there is violence and robberies in my area.
I need to protect myself.
I have a heightened need for self-defense because of this string of crime.
And they said, too effing bad.
So, no.
The issue was, they were claiming, here's the boxes to check off, to get the gun.
And when you did, they would go, eh, we're not going to give you one anyway.
Crumple it up and throw it in the garbage.
He says, Thomas's opinion for the court suggests that judges may not consider empirical evidence about the dangers posed by firearms when evaluating gun control laws.
They may only ask whether a modern regulation has some analog that is rooted in American history.
Yeah, that's called being right.
Alright, we got more!
Neil Katyal!
This verified Twitter user with 14,000 retweets says, It's almost like one's an amendment and one's not.
very weird if Supreme Court ends a constitutional right to obtain an abortion next week, saying
it should be left to the states to decide, right after it just imposed a constitutional
right to concealed carry of firearms, saying it cannot be left to the states to decide.
It's almost like one's an amendment and one's not.
More importantly, the Supreme Court did not say there was a constitutional right to- they're
not ruling on your right to bear arms.
They're saying that is already in the Constitution.
What they're saying is, yo, stop arbitrarily denying people and lying about it.
Kavanaugh explicitly states, you can set the ground rules.
The states do get to decide.
Lies.
Nothing but lies.
Uh-oh.
It's Governor Kathy Hochul of New York.
It is outrageous that in a moment of national reckoning on gun violence, the Supreme Court has recklessly struck down a New York law that limits those who can carry concealed weapons.
You mean bans people from carrying it?
In response to this ruling, we are closely reviewing our options, including calling a special session of the legislature.
Just as we swiftly passed nation-leading gun reform legislation, I will continue to do everything in my power to keep New Yorkers safe from gun violence.
We've got journalist Kate Brennan, who says, I invite the judges who wrote today's opinion to come up to
New York City and ride the subway in a world where concealed carry is allowed. My response is, is
it because the criminals who want to kill people will now apply for a permit? I'm sorry, do you think
the people that are intent on hiding a gun to kill you with are telling the government they have
them? Dude, please just think for two seconds.
And then we have Tim Kast's good friend, Chris Hayes.
He says, I'm sorry, but the idea that the Constitution requires universal concealed carry is plainly insane.
Bruin, thankfully the concurrence, stops short of quite coming out and saying this, but the arrows point in a deranged direction.
Keep crying, my friends.
You are losing.
I've told you why you're losing.
Y'all gun grabbers are losing because you are too, I'll be nice, lazy to actually research guns, how they work, what semi-automatic means, what caliber certain weapons are.
Because you prefer to dance around on mindless rhetoric, you lose!
And you know what?
Fine.
I've talked to many a person who is a gun grabber and said, you're wrong about assault rifles.
Assault rifles are already regulated.
We have the Hughes Amendment.
We've got the NFA.
And they go, what are you talking about?
A guy went and bought an assault rifle in like 10 minutes.
You can buy it online.
And I'm like, that's not true.
You're not talking about assault rifles.
Assault rifles are colloquially known to be selective fire rifles or machine guns.
Assault weapon is a vague term that doesn't define anything universally.
They don't listen.
So what happens is they come out and they go, assault rifles should be banned!
And I go, okay.
Look at this, the Hughes Amendment, 1986, and you win.
Congratulations, go home.
Fine.
You know, if you don't want to do the research, if you don't know what you're talking about, don't be surprised when you lose.
It's like, Imagine two people were arguing over... Someone said, I want to go get ice cream at Baskin Robbins.
Someone said, I want to go to Cold Stone.
And then someone said, I want to go to Arlington's.
And then you were like, the furniture store?
It's not a furniture store!
Okay, if we're going to have a debate about where we're going to buy ice cream, you just proposed a furniture store.
So when we all talk, no one votes for your idea and you're like, why won't we go there?
I think Arlington's is furniture, right?
Is that what it is?
How about we do, um, um, what's that?
What's the Coat Factory?
Burlington Coat Factory.
And it's just, okay, if ten people are going to vote on where they're going to get ice cream, and you're like, I want to go to Sweet Frog.
Okay, well, alright, it's a yogurt place, you're a little off, but, uh, it works.
Then someone else says Burlington Coat Factory, and you're like, bro, that's, that's, there's no ice cream there.
And then you're just like, it's insane that we would not go to Burlington.
And then you do.
And there's no ice cream there.
You wonder why it is no one's going to vote for your dumb ideas, because they make no sense.
You reap what you sow.
So, you know what?
I'm not gonna cry about it.
If these people don't want to do their homework, so be it.
You will keep losing.
Fine.
But I'd like to give a special shoutout to Brett Kavanaugh.
He said, quite explicitly, First, the court's decision does not prohibit states from imposing licensing requirements for carrying a handgun for self-defense.
In particular, the court's decision does not affect the existence of licensing regimes known as shall-issue regimes that are employed in 43 states.
The court's decision addresses only the unusual discretionary licensing regimes known as may-issue regimes.
All right, all right, I'll take what I can get.
New Jersey, New York, Hawaii, D.C., Maryland, parts of California, y'all are now shall-issue.
So that's good news.
Maybe I can now apply in Maryland.
But here's what we're doing.
Maryland's trash.
Maryland hates business.
They beat you over the head if you run a business.
They are terrible.
So we're leaving.
We're going to West Virginia.
Now, we're building our new headquarters in West Virginia.
You know, I actually live in... I don't live in Maryland.
I live in West Virginia.
But we're doing construction, so it's a bit murky.
But once the construction's done, we'll have the new HQ set up.
It's gonna be absolutely fantastic.
We'll have a small recording stuff still going on at the castle in Maryland.
But I learned my lesson.
It was a mistake coming here.
It was.
And it's sad.
We went over...
I won't get into the nitty-gritty, but it was a bad idea to set up in West Virginia.
It was just better property.
It's basically why we did it.
We found the place where we can use it, so now we're getting set up in, you can see I'm already, over the past couple weeks, been in an entirely new place because we're getting set up with our new headquarters.
Changes are coming, and hopefully within the next two or three months, we will have the new West Virginia headquarters set up, and we will be saying goodbye to these awful states that hate business and hate your rights.
However, I want to give a shout out to Shelley Moore Capito, the Republican Senator from West Virginia, who just sold us out voting in favor of this provisionary gun control bill.
It's not in effect yet, but mark my words, man.
I will unleash political rhetoric if this goes through and she supports it.
I'm already mad about it.
These people think they can trample all over you.
They think you won't notice and you won't care.
Shout out to the Republican senator who deserves to be recalled, but you can't recall a senator.
Come 2026, I will not have forgotten.
And I'm not someone who's gonna do something dumb like make a commercial where it's like, Shelly Moore Capital voted for gun control.
That's dumb.
No, I'm gonna do more fun stuff, like opening a restaurant called Shelly Moore Capital is Trash, or starting a port-a-potty business that rents port-a-potties to local festivals and we call them Shelly Boxes.
That's what I'm gonna do.
Because I'm tired of playing these games.
I'm tired of people getting crapped all over by the establishment elites.
And then all they do is they're like, I'm gonna keep complaining.
Eh, pfft.
That didn't work.
They keep doing it.
No, it's about sending a message.
It's about saying, I'm just going to rag on you.
And it will be my- It's not gonna be political.
You can do what you want.
I'm just gonna call you trash every opportunity I get.
Now, I don't want to be too harsh, because if Shelley Moore Capito comes out and apologizes and says it was a bad idea and I made a mistake, I will accept that apology.
So Shelley, I am asking you to rescind your support for the gun control bill, to apologize to the people of the great state of West Virginia, and it is a great state, standing up for freedoms all the way back to the Civil War.
Apologize.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash dimcast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
