Trump Reports FBI Seized His Passports Indicating Criminal Charges Coming, Civil War Talk Escalating
Trump Reports FBI Seized His Passports Indicating Criminal Charges Coming, Civil War Talk Escalating. Trump said three passports were taken by the FBI which usually indicates they fear he is a flight risk and criminal charges may soon follow.
This could also be a political ploy to smear and hurt Trump as the president has broad declassification powers and its hard to see what charges they could actually get to stick.
Democrats are celebrating as more and more information comes out and now Ron DeSantis is favored to win the GOP nomination in 2024 on predictIt
#trump
#democrats
#biden
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Donald Trump has reported the FBI has seized his passports.
This indicates criminal charges may be coming.
The FBI, in our second story, is warning of a dirty bomb attack as talk of civil war is escalating.
And in our last story, a CPS worker, Child Protective Services, Caught on camera telling a child to be a prostitute.
This is what we mean when we say groomer.
If you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
That they will indict Donald Trump on criminal charges related to obstruction of justice or the Espionage Act.
But I'm not saying that with great confidence, to be completely honest, especially considering the latest report.
Trump says the FBI took his passport in Mar-a-Lago raid.
Not just one, all three.
One of them was expired, but two passports.
This is an indication that criminal charges may be coming.
They took his passports.
He can't leave the country.
That's interesting.
I suppose there's always the argument that it was within a bundle of documents that they seized and didn't realize they took them, but come on.
No, I think they took his passports because they are pursuing criminal charges, but the reason why I'm not convinced they're going to charge him, and again, they actually might, I really don't know.
I'm just leaning slightly towards no, no, because they need Trump to run.
But maybe they will charge him knowing that they won't stick the charges because they want to damage his ability to run for president in 2024.
I gotta be honest.
I don't know if that would actually help or hurt Trump.
I mean, the argument is that criminally charging him hurts his chances.
That seems to make the most sense.
But when Donald Trump comes out and says, they're not after me, they're after you, I'm just in the way, and then they do this, it might light a ton of people up.
That being said, it could do the inverse.
It could just sour regular working class people and, man, it's hard to know exactly what's going to happen.
I'd say taking his passport is indicative of charges pending.
And maybe that's the play.
The Democrats have been funding Republicans, at least their message, because they believe that if MAGA Republicans win the primary, they will lose the general, and that's their best bet.
Maybe.
Maybe this was their game plan the whole time.
They prop up these MAGA candidates, have Trump endorse all of them.
Trump is like on a near perfect streak in terms of his endorsements.
I think he's only been wrong a few times on who's won for who he's endorsed.
And then, right before November, surprise surprise, October surprise, Donald Trump is indicted and they say in every commercial, Trump, espionage, selling secrets, don't vote for the people he endorsed.
That may be Where this is all going.
And you know what?
Don't take my word for it, but the wisdom of the crowd.
According to PredictIt, Ron DeSantis is now the favorite to win the GOP primary.
Yeah, polls are one thing.
No, seriously, polls are one thing, but PredictIt is different.
Polls take into consideration who you want.
Predict it takes into consideration who you think will actually get it.
And if you go to a person and say, who are you voting for in the presidential GOP primary, most people are going to say Donald Trump by large margins, 2 to 1 or even 3 to 1.
But what happens if you say, who do you think will be the nominee?
Predicted shows, Ron DeSantis.
Perhaps because there will be criminal charges and Trump will be unable to run, I don't know.
Perhaps it's because Ron DeSantis, just a lot of ways, is a lot better.
In a lot of ways.
But I wish I could come here and confidently say I knew it was going to happen.
Look, there's a lot of things I predicted wrong, a lot of things I predicted right.
There's good reason why they will indict Trump.
There's good reason why they will not indict Donald Trump.
But this is all part of An FBI search warrant on his home, and new revelations from just the past week that Donald Trump is under criminal investigation for obstruction of justice and the Espionage Act.
In response, Rand Paul is calling for the end of the Espionage Act.
And so I want to talk about this.
And I want to show you some evidence.
Because people keep saying, well you weren't calling, you were saying that Hillary Clinton should have been investigated.
Yeah.
Yeah, I'll break it all down for you.
I'll give you all the evidence and all the facts so you can understand why Joe Biden should be criminally charged, or at the very least investigated, why Hillary Clinton should have been, and why we don't trust the raid on Donald Trump.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to support our work directly.
As a member, you get access to our exclusive uncensored Tim Pool, our TimCast IRL aftershow, Monday through Thursday at 11pm.
You'll also get access to Tales from the Inverted World, and we are about to launch the new revamped Cast Castle on the website.
Then we've got documentaries coming, comedy specials, we are going to be rolling out tons of content on the platform.
Because we need to, and want to, build culture.
With your support as a member, we're going to do a whole lot more.
Documentaries are expensive, and that's what we're really going for.
Some really good documentaries.
We've got one on the Federal Reserve.
Steve Bannon's come out hard against the Fed.
And we've got one on gun control, currently in the works.
Should be done in maybe two and a half months, two months.
So I'm really, really excited for that.
And then we're going to do big ad campaigns, pushing this documentary on gun control and all that.
So smash that like button.
Subscribe to this channel.
Share this show with your friends.
Let's read the breaking news.
Trump says the FBI took his passport in Mar-a-Lago raid.
In opposed to truth social, former President Donald Trump alleges that the FBI took his passport as part of the massive collection of documents they took with them from home.
This could indicate that the FBI believes Trump is a flight risk.
Yes, he has his own plane.
Let me tell you something.
When you're as rich as Trump, you don't need a passport.
Passports are so that the average person, and even some well-off people, some better-known people, can access a country without intervention, right?
You go in, there's a guy who doesn't know who you are, and he says, show me your proof, okay, and he stamps it.
When you are a billionaire like a Donald Trump, and this is true, when you fly into certain countries, most countries, Your people call their people?
Trump knows.
Like, for instance, he knows the Saudi princes.
You think he needs a passport to get in their country?
They know who he is.
He's gonna call them up and say, I've got a security detail, I've got a stretch escalade, I want champagne, my security will meet with your security, and you will greet me at the private airport where I land.
Passports.
So this is why I'm not so convinced.
I think it may be for show.
Quote, Wow!
In the raid by the FBI of Mar-a-Lago, they stole my three passports.
One expired, along with everything else.
This is an assault on a political opponent at a level never seen before in our country.
Third world.
Trump has claimed the FBI was playing politics.
Clearly, they were.
Trump then said, or actually, I think he may have said this one first.
Republicans could win many additional seats, both in the House and Senate, because of the strong backlash over the raid at Mat-a-Lago.
He meant Mar-a-Lago.
Polls are showing that some lost Republican territory over the last number of weeks has been more than made up with the unannounced break-in by the FBI, which never should have happened.
And I think that's the reality.
So, again, this is why it's so hard to predict and to know what's happening.
Because it's possible the backlash from the FBI will martyr Trump.
Politically martyr him, I mean.
And then people are going to come out more enthusiastic than ever to vote for him.
You have to expect that backlash.
And according to polling data, that's exactly what happened.
Conservatives, Republicans, Independents, Moderates, they're all more likely to vote now because of the raid on Trump.
Are Democrats?
No.
So here's some potentials.
The Democrats are just clueless and are accidentally helping Trump, or the FBI is not really political and they're just helping Trump, or the goal is to make Trump out to be a criminal to try and push middle-of-the-road people to the Democrats.
But I gotta tell you, man, I don't think anybody cares about this.
You know what they care about?
Under Donald Trump, gas prices got down to about two bucks.
And right now they're at four bucks.
And so Joe Biden and the Democrats can come out and be like, gas prices are down!
Come on, man!
And they're like, for the 40th consecutive day, gas prices are down.
And I'm like, dude, gas may have gone down a dollar, it's still up two.
I still see $4 a gallon gas.
Hey, I'm glad the price is coming down.
That's a good thing.
It was really bad, but we knew prices were always going to come down.
Just to what degree will they come down?
And to what degree are the Democrats working to get prices down?
Oh, I'm sorry.
The Democrats are passing bills that will actually drive the prices back up.
I'm not saying good or bad.
Reality.
It's what I don't get.
You get all these people on the left, and they're like, antifascist just means, you know, antifa just means antifascist.
And I'm like, actually, antifaschista action, or whatever it was called, was a militant wing of the Communist Party in Weimar, Germany.
I don't understand why you don't just come out and call yourself communists.
Why do you have to obfuscate?
Ah, it's manipulation.
That's what it always is.
It's a manipulation.
So this is the game they play.
They can't just come out and say it.
Washington Post ran an article saying, if we're trying to stop Trump from running, there's a different way to do it than prosecution.
Yeah, that's what they're going for.
Prosecute Trump, try and stop him from running.
It ain't just Trump, however.
The New York Times reporting that Giuliani is told he is target of a Trump election inquiry in Georgia.
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.
I'm getting people hitting me up being like, well, Mr. Poole, come on and talk to us about Civil War now.
And it's like, oh, here it comes.
You know, it's funny because it's the meme, like every time Tim says Civil War, take a drink, there you go.
On IRL, that's the gag.
And it comes up fairly often.
But now when you have Trump under criminal investigation, as for the Espionage Act, And you have Rudy Giuliani being investigated as the lawyer for Trump.
Do you see where this is going?
The Espionage Act.
This one's particularly interesting.
Take a look at this.
They say, A search warrant newly unsealed on Friday reveals the FBI is investigating Trump for potential violation of the Espionage Act and that agents removed classified documents from the former president's Florida estate.
A receipt accompanying the search warrant viewed by Politico in advance of the unsealing shows that Trump possessed documents including a handwritten note.
Documents marked with TSSCI, which indicates one of the highest levels of government classification.
And another item labeled, Info Re President of France.
Also among the items, an item labeled Executive Grant of Clemency re Roger Jason Stone Jr.
The warrant shows federal law enforcement was investigating Trump for removal or destruction of records, obstruction of justice, and violating the Espionage Act, which can encompass crimes beyond spying, such as the refusal to return national security documents upon request.
Conviction under the statutes can result in imprisonment or fines.
That's a few things to say.
One.
I heard this argument that Trump's lawyers claimed to have cleared the documents as returned to the Feds or certified as being, like, fine, right?
Then the FBI raids.
I heard people on the right say, that proves they're not on the level.
And I'm like, that doesn't prove what you think it proves.
If the FBI says, give us the documents, you say we did, then they raid you and say, hey, we found documents.
Yeah, it looks like you didn't give them all up.
Maybe that's why Trump was insinuating they were planting documents.
But regardless of this, Donald Trump has broad declassification powers.
He can just say they're declassified.
I mean, that's the reality.
The president decides if something is classified.
It wouldn't make sense if that wasn't the case.
The president negotiating with foreign powers.
I can't talk to you about that.
Like, who's going to negotiate?
The president's negotiating a nuclear treaty, but he can't talk about nukes?
Get out of here.
That's insane.
They're going to say the documents unsealed after the Justice Department sought their public disclosure amid relentless attacks by Trump and his GOP allies underscore the extraordinary national security threat that federal investigators believe the missing documents presented.
The concern grew so acute that Attorney General Merrick Garland approved the unprecedented search of Trump's estate last week.
The disclosure of the Trump documents comes four days after Trump publicly confirmed the court-authorized search of his Mar-a-Lago home by the FBI, marshalling his political allies to unleash fierce criticism of federal investigators.
But the details in the warrant underscore the gravity of the probe, an unprecedented investigation of a former president for mishandling some of the nation's most sensitive secrets.
Donald Trump has the president decides.
Let's talk about it.
Rand Paul wants to repeal the Espionage Act amid the Mar-a-Lago investigation.
And they're making it sound as though it's like a partisan thing where Rand Paul is this MAGA guy who's like, I gotta protect Trump.
No.
In fact, NPR actually points out that even professors at universities point out the Espionage Act sucks.
It's overly broad and dangerous.
They're going to describe that it was passed World War I, blah blah blah.
Heidi Katrosser, a law professor at Northwestern University, hardly a conservative institution, told NPR the danger with the act is that it's too vague and broad.
The law does not explicitly define what national defense is or what information could threaten it.
Although the U.S.
has since created a classification system, there's still a lot of room for interpretation.
More concerning, the law does not explicitly care about public interest or whether the leaker in the question had good motives.
That's why a broad spectrum of people can be under threat.
Quote, if the act had a public interest defense, that would give us some kind of focal point around so that we could draw a distinction between somebody leaking information about abusive government program to the American media versus someone storing highly classified secrets in a resort hotel.
Agreed.
If somebody steals a bunch of stuff and then tries to sell it, that's espionage.
If somebody's working in a program, sees it, and says, I need to tell the American people about it, that's very different.
I think there needs to be a penalty for people who leak information.
I think if somebody blows the whistle, and it is determined that they did expose a crime, they should be rewarded and regarded as heroes.
They are basically coming out being like, here's a crime, but assume you take the risk, like a citizen's arrest.
In many instances, depending on the jurisdiction, if you witness a crime, and you're like, I gotta stop that person, you take a risk.
You can go to jail, especially depending on what you do.
But let's say you subdue someone, it turns out you were wrong.
They can sue you for false imprisonment, among other things, you might get in trouble.
You take the risk.
Senator Rand Paul said the law was used to jail dissenters.
Is that true?
Yes.
But it would be difficult for the law to be applied the same way today.
Sure.
The anecdote referred to by Paul is due to an early section of the law that targeted people who spoke out against the war.
This is why free speech is so important.
Let's talk about the smears and the manipulations as it pertains to Trump and the investigation.
Rolling Stone reported, this was back on July 17th, Trump tells team he needs to be present again to save himself from criminal probes.
No, actually, if someone else won, they could pardon him.
It would be weird if Trump pardoned himself, although they've talked about how he could.
I don't know if he would.
No, it's better that Trump support DeSantis than DeSantis can pardon him, right?
Yeah, but they're not going to say that.
They say, when Donald Trump formally declares his 2024 candidacy, he won't just be running for another term in the White House.
He'll be running away from legal troubles, possible criminal charges, and even his specter of prison time.
You see, it's all part of the game.
I said a month or so ago or two, Trump needed to declare he was running ASAP to preempt all of this stuff.
They got him.
What they're doing now.
They said this before anything even happened with criminal investigations to get the narrative in the press.
That Trump's only running to avoid criminal charges.
That way, if he did announce, they could then go, see?
See?
We told you he'd run to avoid criminal charges.
Now, they've already charged him.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
They haven't already charged him.
They're seeking charges, it appears.
They're investigating charges.
If they charge him, then they'll say, see, he's only running because he's being charged.
Now, if he announces, see, he's only announcing because they're investigating him.
Trump needed to announce ASAP, and he held back.
This is where things get really interesting.
Predict it.
Who will be the 2024 Republican presidential nominee?
Ron DeSantis or Donald Trump?
Ron DeSantis is now in the lead by four cents.
As I stated early on, but to clarify in greater detail, predicted is wisdom of the crowd.
You buy shares.
If you think Nikki Haley is going to be the nominee, you can buy a share of yes for five cents.
So, you spend a dollar, you get 20 shares.
Let's say Nikki Haley all of a sudden for some reason gets bumped up to 10 cents.
You could now sell those shares at 20 cents a share.
You see how it works?
It's kind of like a stock trading thing.
People are betting on Ron DeSantis.
The reason his price is going up is because more people are starting to believe that he will be the nominee.
Once this ends, I believe the way it works, and I could be wrong, is that if Ron DeSantis does become the nominee, the yes price becomes $1.
So there are value bets.
You buy one share of Nikki Haley at 4 cents, if she became the nominee, you'd get a dollar back.
It's amazing, right?
You do the math.
Scale it up.
$0.40, you get $10.
$4, you get $100.
Look at that.
$4,000 invested in Nikki Haley, you get $100,000.
Value bet!
hundred bucks. Look at that. Four thousand dollars invested in Nikki Haley, you get a
hundred thousand dollars. Value bet. Although, not a good one I would say. One thing to consider
though is that you're also betting on the news cycle.
The reason Ron DeSantis may be up top right now is not because people really believe that he's going to be number one, he's going to get the nomination, but that with the negative news about press, people are less sure, so they're selling what they had.
It's become cheaper.
And people, surprisingly, 66 to buy a no, Trump won't be.
That's fairly expensive.
Interesting.
But for Ron DeSantis, $0.62 to buy?
No.
He's in the lead.
So, the reason it's $0.66 for Trump is because you don't get that much back.
You put in $0.66, the chance that he's not going to be—he's going to be up there.
He's going to be up there.
So the reason Ron DeSantis may go up is not because people are doubting Trump actually.
I'm just entertaining the possibility.
It could be that people expect in the next few months Ron DeSantis will be heavily promoted.
That if Ron DeSantis announces he's running, his yes price will go up and then you can sell it to people who think he will get it.
So there's a lot of factors at play here.
But I point this out simply because it's very different from asking who someone will vote for.
It shows that many people are starting to predict it ain't gonna be Trump.
Which is fascinating.
Now, before we move forward, I didn't highlight this in my earlier segment, and I want to.
For all of the people on the left, they're like, you were saying lock her up to Hillary, but what about Trump?
Ah, let me show you.
First and foremost, Donald Trump has broad declassification powers.
James Risch said on May 2017, The minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify anything at any time without any process.
PolitiFacts is mostly true.
It's mostly true because, you know, there's some subtlety in certain things, but for the most part, the president is the arbiter of classification.
It's what he determines.
There are other agencies that might label something without his knowledge because there's hierarchy.
But the President can't do it.
Which is the difference between Trump and Hillary.
She was Secretary of State.
She did not have declassification powers.
She had classified information on a server.
And they said, well, there was no intent.
So, no crime committed with Donald Trump.
We're supposed to believe that he didn't just declassify it?
Ex-FBI lawyer Kevin Kleinsmith sentenced to one year probation for altering Russia probe email.
The former FBI lawyer who altered an email during the Russia investigation that was used to justify the surveillance of former President Trump, campaign advisor Carter Page, was sentenced to one year probation on Friday.
He pleaded guilty.
This dude manipulated an email to claim that Page wasn't a source for the CIA.
He was working with the government.
Why?
So they could justify spying on the Trump campaign.
And you think I'm gonna believe now that you're on the level after all of this?
No thanks.
This is where things start getting dangerous.
Very dangerous.
Trump warns terrible things are about to happen to the U.S.
One week after FBI agents searched his Mar-a-Lago home, former President Donald Trump said during an interview with Fox News Digital that terrible things are going to happen if American frustrations linked to the search are not abated.
The former president said he has offered assistance to the U.S.
Department of Justice as its investigation continues because the temperature has to be brought down in this country.
If it isn't, terrible things are going to happen, he told Fox News Digital.
Days of political debate have followed the FBI's search, which Trump has described as a sneak attack on democracy.
Newsweek reported last week that an informant tipped off the FBI about classified documents Trump allegedly kept at Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House leading to agents' execution of a search warrant on August 8th.
I'll entertain the possibility, outright, that Donald Trump was ordered to give back certain documents.
His lawyers said, we did.
Someone came out and whispered, they didn't actually do it.
So the FBI executed a search warrant to get him back.
It doesn't mean Trump will be criminally charged.
However, I am not giving the benefit of the doubt to the establishment.
After everything we've seen, I do not trust them.
Sorry.
I don't trust Trump on everything, but the media, the FBI, the Democratic establishment has proven they are untrustworthy.
Which brings me to our questions about Joe Biden.
The Daily Mail reported this in October of 2021.
Joe Biden could become embroiled in the FBI's probe into Hunter's finances, experts say.
Emails reveal they shared bank accounts, paid each other's bills, and the president may even have funded his son's 2018 drug and prostitute binge.
Okay.
How could Hunter Biden be collecting $83,000 per month from Burisma and sharing a bank account with his dad?
I don't know how you do that legally, because there's going to be huge accounting issues and taxes.
Something doesn't make sense.
So I want to see Joe Biden investigated.
It's not hypocrisy.
I think if Donald Trump did something wrong, he should be held accountable for it.
I just don't believe them anymore.
Because we see Joe Biden.
We see him.
And they do nothing.
We see Hillary Clinton.
And they do the bare minimum.
And say, well, you know, it's no intent.
Okay.
We've seen the lies about Trump.
Trump said during his Monday morning interview that tremendous anger exists now in the U.S.
following years of scams and witch hunts.
He has described the FBI's Mar-a-Lago search as a witch hunt several times over the last week in posts on his social media platform, Truth Social.
Trump said there have been years of witch hunts, which he said included investigations into his alleged ties with Russia.
And then they break into a president's house, Trump said, adding that no one ever thought a thing like this would happen.
It's never.
It has never happened before.
Trump alleged FBI agents were able to take anything from Mar-a-Lago as his team was left outside.
He questioned whether agents could have planted items as they were completing their search.
Attorney General Merrick Garland has said an attorney for Trump has presented at the time the search was happening and received copies of both a search warrant and property receipt before agents left Mar-a-Lago that day.
Trump has denounced the FBI several times in the last week, including in a Sunday post on Truth Social in which he said, After a Sunday Truth Social post by Trump suggested radical left Democrats have a complete and total stranglehold over the DOJ and the FBI.
Radical left is not the right way to describe them, but problematic establishment corporate left for sure.
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.
Federal law enforcement agencies have warned of an increase in threats targeting agents in the wake of the FBI's Mar-a-Lago search.
Both Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray have condemned the unfounded attacks on officers and voiced their support for the DOJ and FBI officials under fire.
Violence and threats against law enforcement, including the FBI, are dangerous and should be deeply concerning to all Americans, Wray said in a statement last week.
Newsweek reached out for a comment.
So where are we going, friends?
From Insider, the far right is calling for civil war after the FBI raid on Trump's home.
Experts say that fight wouldn't look like the last one.
I agree.
I think the American Civil War was a unique remnant of the American War for Independence.
Thomas Jefferson wanted to include in the Declaration of Independence a statement condemning slavery.
It was removed from the final draft because southern states that had slaves would not have fought on the side of independence unless they were guaranteed they could keep doing it.
Perhaps it was an error.
I'm not sure.
The colonies, the leaders, the Founding Fathers, did not think they'd win.
French intervention is what aided them.
Perhaps they did not need southern states if French intervention ultimately came to their assistance.
Britain was dealing with a war in Europe and may have just been unable to sustain a war in the colonies as well.
It is important to note, Quebec was offered to join independence as well.
This is the funny thing.
A lot of people think there were 13 colonies, and they all declared independence, and that was it.
Britain had more colonies.
Canada.
Those were colonies as well.
And they said no!
They didn't want to fight for independence.
I wonder.
The remnants of those issues led to deep-seated hatred and confrontations as northern states started to adhere to the principles enshrined in the Constitution and the founding documents that you can't have slavery.
And the South said no.
And then eventually the states split up and they fought.
Today, Some northern states believe some things, some southern states believe other things, but there's no real Mason-Dixon line these days.
Today, there are pro-choice states and abortion states and anti-abortion states, but there's no delineation.
Like, they're just state borders, Insider says.
They mention Marjorie Taylor Greene calling for defunding the FBI, etc.
They say the raid on Trump's Mar-a-Lago home came at a historically divisive time for the U.S.
Fiona Hill, who served as a leading Russia expert on the National Security Council, blah blah blah blah blah, said that Trump and his allies have created a recipe for communal violence.
Hill warned the U.S.
could ultimately end up in a civil conflict.
I think it's funny that she said that, and I say that, and they call me crazy.
The country is at a point in which trust in the different communities and authorities has eroded to such an extent that people just start fighting with each other.
I don't think we'd end up in the kind of conflict that we had between the states, the Union and the Confederacy, back in the day.
But people's sense of the civil and civic ways of resolving disputes are out the window.
The reason it may be similar but not the same is that state borders are unique as to many other civil wars.
When you look at, like, Spain, for instance, you have a country with... it has jurisdictions, you know, it has regions and things like that.
It probably has states... I'm not sure what word they use, but it's very, very small.
In the United States, the cultures are very different between states.
And natural and legal boundaries... Many states have natural boundaries.
That's why they're all squiggly lines.
They're rivers.
And many have straight legal barriers.
But legal barriers create easy conflict barriers.
Texas doesn't have rangers on the other side of the border, so they're not equipped to defend or attack the other side of the border.
But they do have rangers on their side, and so they would be able to defend.
State borders are natural lines of delineation in a conflict.
And you look at these states.
Many states that are conflict border each other.
I mean, the potential is absolutely there that there would be some kind of similarity, but I do think it would be particularly different.
Trump has issued this warning that they need to bring him in, and they do.
Here's what Joe Biden could do to save this nation, and I really mean it.
If Joe Biden came out right now and said he was issuing an unconditional pardon Of all defendants that have been convicted for their crimes on January 6th, Republicans would have nothing to say but it was presidential, it was a bold move, it was the right thing.
The left would brag about how they're the compassionate ones.
The only thing that anyone would be able to do is praise Joe Biden.
It is the smartest possible thing the man could do.
So why wouldn't he do it?
They're leaning into it.
They're doubling down to shock and scare and drive a wedge.
I see no downside.
Now, I think the rioters, the people who actually fought with cops, should be charged.
I think what we're seeing in D.C.
is egregious, solitary and things like that.
I think the people who bumbled their way in should not be charged.
I think if you were aware of what's going on, if you were watching the violence and you walked in, you get trespassing.
But for these other people who are, like, welcomed in, No.
However, regardless of all that, Joe Biden can prove to be the compassionate and honorable leader by issuing an unconditional pardon and putting an end to this, and saying it was wrong what they did.
He should come out and say, it was wrong what you did, and you need to know that.
But, this country is on the verge of something dark.
Something terrible.
And the only way to move forward is to show an olive branch.
That we are willing to discuss how to move forward.
And for that, Joe Biden should issue that pardon.
His approval rating would skyrocket.
Undoubtedly.
Because the Democrats will gloat and be like, look how good we are.
While Trump was saying, lock her up, Joe Biden issued a pardon.
Here's what's interesting.
Some have suggested—this is actually, we wrapped on Tim Kast's IRL—and I think it was Jack Posobiec who said, maybe they are going to charge Trump.
You know why?
Because then Joe Biden says, we cannot do this as a country.
I am issuing an unconditional pardon and commutation, whatever.
Of Donald Trump's criminal charges, or so he cannot be charged, etc.
And he would say, this is wrong to go after a president in this way.
To go after a political rival is incorrect.
I will not allow this to proceed further.
And issuing an unconditional pardon of Donald Trump.
The right would not be happy with that.
They'd say, aw, get out, what?
The left would be like, oh, look at us, we're the honorable ones.
That's the power play.
Because then Joe Biden or the Democrats say, the only reason Trump is up there is because he was pardoned for his crimes and a sign of good faith.
And then they would tell regular Americans, we're here in good faith.
We don't want to lock people up.
We know how bad things are getting, but we are doing the right thing.
In fact, Donald Trump should have done the same thing.
Donald Trump could have just come out and said, after the news about the quid pro quo with Ukraine, he does not want political violence.
He is pardoning Biden for any of these crimes.
The Trump supporters would have been like, honorable.
Trump can do no wrong.
Some people would have been mad, and the Democrats would have freaked out.
But now it'll be Joe Biden.
I don't know if that'll actually happen.
This one, I gotta tell you.
There are some things that seem obvious.
1 plus 1 equals 2.
2 and 1 is 3.
What I see here, I have no idea.
I don't think they'll indict him because it's just normalcy bias, perhaps, but maybe I'm wrong.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
In shocking news, the FBI issued a bulletin warning of a dirty bomb threat and increasing calls for civil war in the wake of the Mar-a-Lago raid.
While former agent and GOP rep Brian Fitzpatrick says agency warned him that his life was in danger due to threats from Trump supporters.
Yeah, okay, I think this country is going to implode.
You know, I was commenting on a Facebook meme earlier, and I wanted to say, like, the Ukrainegate scandal is going to go down as one of the biggest political scandals in this country's history.
And then I thought about it, and I was like, okay, well, you know what the problem is?
Half the country doesn't know, and if they do, they don't care.
And so, okay, well, it'll probably go down as one of the biggest scandals of our lifetime, but I guess only among people on the right who know and care?
To put it simply, the FBI is coming out with this fear of civil war and all that stuff, increasing calls for civil war, I should clarify, and a warning of a dirty bomb, which is, come on, a dirty bomb.
And the thing is, as they're doing this, you actually have a leftist terrorist organization claiming credit for several acts of terrorism.
It's actually quite incredible.
This is the state of this country.
But I will tell you, my friends on the right, when y'all say things like, the right's gonna win the civil war because we have guns.
Okay, first of all, nobody wins a civil war.
That's just, it's just not the case.
I mean, to clarify, obviously in a conflict between belligerents, someone comes out on top.
But my point is, this idea that war can be won, Obviously, in a technical standard, what I mean to say is the destruction, the negative impacts are so widespread and so... I don't know, just... It's gonna get so bad.
That in the end, you might say you came out on top, but you are set back.
I mean, people lose their lives.
It's nothing to joke about or strive toward.
And there are accelerationists who really want this to happen.
But you know why I think that is?
I think the accelerationists and people like this group, Jane's Revenge or whatever they're calling themselves, they do not know.
You know, I've talked to many a leftist, and I have said to them, I will pay your travel to any one of these locations in the world that you often talk about.
Notably, like Israel, for instance.
And I mean it with all sincerity.
I was talking to a guy once, and I said, I will cover your trip to Israel.
We'll film it.
It'll be really cool.
What we'll do is, We'll film you, you'll explain your positions, you'll talk about what you think and why.
We will fly you to Israel to experience what it's like, you know, in the country and talk to locals.
And then we'll film you after the fact.
How do you feel about it?
For some reason, you know, every single time, they always back down.
And I think the issue is, my goal there isn't to prove them wrong.
It's to see how they think about things and then how do they think after about them.
Because maybe they're right.
But for some reason they just won't do it.
They never want to do it.
The FBI is coming out, and they're saying that we gotta be worried about the Betsy Ross flag, and the Gonzalez flag, and the Gadsden flag.
The Gadsden flag is a license plate in like, I don't know what, several states.
And they ignore stuff like this, that's in your face, overt, and happening right now.
So, to those on the right who think, we got all the guns here, They have the institutions who have more guns and more powerful guns.
So, no, you don't want a civil war.
And let me just stress again to these whack-job leftists.
Some of them do.
They do understand the violence and death they will bring through this conflict, and they want it.
Because I know this because I've talked to them.
And I'll explain this to you.
In it, they mention short, strongly worded, quote, communiques.
Because they're playing.
It's cosplay.
They're playing revolutionary.
They're putting on costumes and they're like, I'm going to issue a communique!
Bro, it's called a memo, it's called a letter, it's called a blog.
A communique, oh.
Deep underground revolutionaries.
Well, these people say words like that because they fantasize about being Robespierre.
Literally.
There was one guy at Occupy Wall Street, apparently, like, said he just really wanted to be Robespierre.
And it's funny, because, like, Robespierre killed tons of people, and then they killed him!
And it was brutal and gruesome.
The funny thing about the French Revolution was how all of these factions just started killing each other.
Like, they were unified in the revolution, right?
And then they're all sitting there screaming at each other, like, you're the threat, because everybody was vying for power, and everybody was worried everybody else was gonna kill everybody else, so eventually they started killing everybody else, and then eventually, eventually, they were like, okay, the guy who was chopping everybody's heads off, Robespierre, kill him.
And his friend, Danton.
But, uh, yeah, it doesn't work out well.
The FBI.
Claiming that there's increasing calls for civil war.
But my question is, are you talking about what the left is doing?
Oh, okay.
A bunch of right-wingers are posting dumb memes.
Am I gonna cry about it?
Or am I gonna be concerned that where I live, not even that far away, I believe there were two crisis pregnancy centers that were attacked.
I think one was firebombed.
Yeah.
The Daily Mail reports The FBI has warned of a dirty bomb threat and increasing calls for civil war after agents raided Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate.
The bureau said in a leaked memo they had received an uptick in violent threats on social media following the morning search last week.
The chilling note revealed thugs planned to put a dirty bomb in front of the agency's headquarters amid a suggested armed rebellion.
Yeah, well, please, please, for the love of all that is holy, can we go nowhere near that?
Can we retreat back to arguing over sports teams?
And, um, I don't know.
So I was talking about this meme just a moment ago, and Ukrainegate, but let me tell you the context of it.
People are talking about, all these Trump supporters said, lock her up, lock her up, and now they're not saying lock him up, but Donald Trump had classified documents.
Allow me to break this one down for all of you quite simply.
Hillary Clinton had 30,000 emails on a private server.
These are public records that are property of the public, and about 110 of them, I believe, were classified, some as high as top secret.
Hillary Clinton had the server purged with software called BleachBit, which attempted to completely eradicate records of those emails, and her staff even smashed phones with hammers!
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State.
The FBI investigated, rather calmly and informally, and said there was no intent there, so there's no crime.
Donald Trump, well, first let me say the president has broad declassification powers.
According to PolitiFact, the president is the arbiter of what is classified.
I mean, think about it for two seconds.
You're the president.
You get, this is top secret classified.
We have nuclear bases in these places.
You now have to go negotiate with Vladimir Putin about where his military bases are.
Let's go back in time and say Gorbachev or something, Reagan.
Is he going to be like, I can't tell you what we're going to declassify, you know?
Sorry, it's classified.
I can't negotiate on behalf of this country.
No, there's no supreme authority.
The president is the guy.
He says, okay, let's negotiate.
We want to shut down nuclear facilities.
We don't want these weapons.
We've got some here.
We know you've got some there.
Agree to shut them down.
We'll shut ours down.
Imagine if he couldn't because it was classified.
I see you want to shut down those we know about.
I can't tell you where ours are unless someone approves declassification.
Who's going to approve it?
We elected the President to be the President, Commander-in-Chief to negotiate this stuff.
So when Donald Trump has classified documents, he's the guy who chooses whether they're classified or not.
What's the issue?
It gets better.
The search warrant was broad for all documents during the presidency of Donald Trump.
That's not specific.
Some have argued it violates the Fourth Amendment because it's overly broad.
It needs to be narrowed down to what you are seeking.
Additionally, considering I believe it was Kevin Clinesmith was convicted of altering an email to justify spying on Donald Trump, nobody believes this is legitimate.
I hope that's clarification for the people who don't understand why there is outrage over the FBI raid on Donald Trump and why people wanted Hillary Clinton to be investigated.
Because Trump, this is like the fourth major scandal that appears to be fabricated.
I mean, seriously, I'll tell you what I think this is all about.
I don't think they're going to indict Trump, but I don't know for sure.
I don't want to say that the probability I'm seeing here is like a 100% chance they don't indict.
I mean, maybe they do.
My prediction right now, I should say this, my speculation, is that they don't want to indict Trump.
What they want to do is just have this story percolate through the media that Donald Trump is a criminal, that he did this.
Because he wasn't cooperating and they raided his home and they found classified documents.
So, in the minds of the public, it's confirmed he's guilty.
Now, it may turn out the classified documents are declassified by the president and there's no crime committed.
But that's not what the media is saying, right?
The media is saying civil war and dirty bombs from the right wing.
No, to be fair, The Atlantic is reporting on Jane's revenge, but the FBI isn't taking action.
And if they are, where are they?
Now, I want to be reasonable and fair.
I know that there are people in the FBI who are legit.
I would probably argue majority of them are.
But there are bosses.
There's two big factors at play here.
One, the leadership is heavily politicized.
That's an issue.
Two, they're compartmentalized.
So we talk about how Donald Trump had this locker or whatever that was locked and had documents in it.
The FBI apparently put a lock on it.
Rudy Giuliani says it was their lock.
Well, it was reported by NBC.
They said, lock them up, these documents.
And then several months later, they come and bash the lock off and take the documents.
Now, how does that make sense?
A lot of people are acting like it was a setup.
No, it's compartmentalization.
The FBI agents in the office that said, hey, secure these documents are different from the ones who went in and raided Trump.
Just so happens, Epstein's lawyer, who became a judge, is a guy who signed off on an overly broad warrant.
Really, really amazing stuff.
Here's what I think the Democrats' goal is with all of this.
DHS Bulletin.
Civil War and dirty bombs.
From FiveThirtyEight, Americans are pretty concerned with political polarization.
Yeah, but mostly Democrats.
Now look, around 23% of Republicans say that political extremism or polarization is an important issue.
It is around 33% of Democrats.
Take a look at this.
Immigration matters way more to Republicans, 32 percent, and budget and debt way more to
Republicans at 28 percent.
And election and security, election security and fraud is 19.
It's trailing political extremism among Democrats.
Political polarization is the third highest.
Crime and gun violence is the highest.
And inflation is at 40%.
You're not going to win on inflation.
So what do you do?
I think the Democrats, or at least elements of the DOJ that are heavily favoring Democrats, are looking at this and saying, we need to rile people up to get them to go vote.
And how do we do it?
Political extremism and polarization.
Mix in a little bit of that gun violence.
You get a story about some crackpot who goes to an FBI office in Cincinnati and tries using a nail gun to penetrate a bulletproof glass door or something like that.
Not all that bright.
Tragic story.
Psychotic.
The dude ends up getting killed in a cornfield.
I don't know if he was killed in a cornfield, but he's in a cornfield shooting at people.
Gun violence and political extremism.
That will be weaponized by the Democrats ad nauseam throughout this cycle.
That's why I say, like, I'm like, this guy must have been a Democrat.
I know he wasn't.
He was very clearly, in his postings, pro-Trump.
He, for some reason, made a post about watching Viva Fry, and it's like the weirdest thing, because Viva is such like a moderate, legal commentator.
He's like not hyper-partisan in any capacity.
But anyway, this guy, many people think it was a false flag.
They're saying they don't believe it.
Well, I hate to tell you guys, but look, the simple solution is this guy is just a Trump supporter who snapped.
That's it.
There are a lot of people who are at the brink.
And this is why we have to be adamant and say, do not engage in violence.
It's wrong.
It's always been wrong.
But it's been the act of desperation for so many.
I'll tell you why it's bad and it's quite simple.
We are months away from Republicans gaining control of the House and the Senate in what is supposed to be the misery index predicted decimation of the Democratic Party.
All indicators right now suggest Democrats are going to get defeated handily.
Unless something like this happens, which is perfect for two of the biggest issues that Democrats care about.
Gun violence and political extremism.
How convenient for the media apparatus.
It's great timing.
And that's why, look, if there was going to be a conspiracy, and I had to believe in one, I'd argue the FBI did the raid to try and rile up Trump supporters.
Not that the Trump supporter himself was secretly working for the FBI, no.
And I gotta be honest, the reality is, I think it's more conspiratorial that the FBI is not politicized than I think they are, but I think the simple solution is Merrick Garland is heavily biased.
I'll put it this way, this is the problem with conspiracies.
And I'm not saying you don't have to disbelieve or believe, it's just my thoughts on it.
Merrick Garland is biased.
The Republicans took away his Supreme Court chances.
He gets put in the AG.
His view of all of this is that these people are bad and evil.
His actions will be directed in that direction.
He doesn't need to be told, go after them and destroy them so the Democrats might win.
He's sitting there going like, these Republicans are evil, I have to stop them.
So there's no conspiracy, it's just partisanship.
And it's hyperpolarization getting worse.
This is a guy who would not go after the people who were legally protested in front of Supreme Court justices' homes.
I bet he's salty about it.
He's like, that was my seat that Brett Kavanaugh is sitting in.
I guess it's Gorsuch, probably.
But, you know, he's probably thinking that.
He's like, oh, you're getting protested?
Well, I was supposed to be there, so you think I'm gonna defend you?
It's not a conspiracy.
It's bias.
And then when this happens, he's like, Donald Trump and the Republicans.
You know, those guys, I know something about them.
I better investigate.
They did something wrong.
Just like the left screams Donald Trump, Trump derangement syndrome.
Merrick Garland's got the same issue.
You don't need a conspiracy when people believe this stuff already.
Let me make it simple.
People think behind the scenes.
These Democrats are going like, I know it's evil and wrong, but we must do it anyway.
What they're actually doing is, we are right and just and must stop Donald Trump.
It's a cult.
You don't, okay, so here's the thing about a conspiracy.
Conspiracy implies they know what they're doing, why they're doing it, and they're coordinating it.
What I'm saying is it's much simpler than that.
They're in a cult, they're biased, and they can't see outside of their blinders.
That's why they do it.
Now, of course, Democrats, consultants, and media are going to weaponize what's happening for political gain.
For political gain, and for who?
Who is the political gain for?
Well, it ain't the hard left.
No, seriously.
Jacobin reports, the Democratic base keeps getting richer and whiter.
Uh-huh.
And it's been the case for six years now.
A startling poll shows how rapidly the Democrats are trading away their traditional multi-racial working class base for white, highly educated voters.
And the shift is causing a change to the party's political priorities as a result.
I gotta tell you what's so funny about this, is I just watched a lecture on Revelation in the Bible, because a lot of people keep saying things are coming, and I just say, read that!
Then read Revelation and watch a lecture on it, and you're going to be like, huh.
It's so weird.
Not that I think it's actually happening.
I don't.
I just think it's interesting how history rhymes.
I'll put it this way.
In part of the lecture I was watching, it was explained by the theologian that while it may be prophecy—a prediction of the future, prophecy meaning the Word of God, that's what he said—it may actually just be a reflection upon what was already happening to them.
Similar things had occurred with the oppressive government and its expansion, and the prediction was that similar things would happen again.
Now, it depends on who you are and what you believe, but I actually, uh, reading it, I was like, it's really fascinating because my view of it is not that it will happen, like it's a prophecy of what's to come.
It's, it's, it's a reminder or a statement about what had happened.
Meaning, this is a person who was seeing things happen and writing down, like, if this stuff happens, like, this is what you'll see.
And you could argue it was metaphorical or it was prescriptive.
You could argue that it was using metaphor from the Bible.
In fact, one guy said that the symbols of Revelation are just so you understand the concepts because these symbols appear in the Bible itself.
Not that it was discussing magical things occurring.
I don't know.
I'm not even Christian or religious.
I just think, a group of people watching things happen, write down what happened, and then say, this will happen again.
That, to me, sounds like, yeah, that's literally what does happen.
I mean, if you go back and read all these novels like Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, Even Atlas Shrugged.
Elements of these things are all happening.
Why?
Each one of these people could see a piece of the whole, but not the whole itself.
So, Atlas Shrugged, right?
You got Ayn Rand being like, all the rich people are gonna leave.
Yeah, they will.
Industry will flee when you get oppressive government.
You've got 1984, oppressive government.
You've got Brave New World, pills, video games, dopamine, stimulation.
You've got Fahrenheit 451, people saying, censor this, ban this.
That's where we're going.
You got a little bit of V for Vendetta mixed in there.
It's all of them at once.
Happening right before our eyes.
The issue, I suppose, is the DHS bulletin itself is indicative of a civil war.
Yeah, I know.
I know, I gotta do it again.
I know I mentioned it several times last week, but shout out to Joe Rogan, who said that at first he thought I was crazy.
Years ago, three years ago, when I said I think we're heading towards civil war, and he said, come on, calm down.
The thing is, Joe as a comedian doesn't read the things I read.
He's not in the thick of the fray, talking to people on the ground.
Like, I'll put it this way.
I'm not surprised Joe didn't believe me at first.
I have been on the ground, in, Civil conflict, precursor to civil war, and war.
I was in Ukraine during the major protests at the end of 2013 into 2014.
It eventually turned into what people referred to as a civil war, but it was mostly the Donbass region.
Eventually it was a separatist movement, people in the country called it.
Now it's full-blown war.
I watched that.
I talked to people.
I heard what they had to say, and I said, wow.
I was in Turkey during Gezi Park.
Didn't turn into a civil war, but I was in, you know, I've been in Brazil.
I've been in a bunch of countries where I've seen these uprisings, and I've seen them peter out, and I've seen them escalate.
So here's what happens.
I see Venezuela and how crazy it's gotten there.
I was in Venezuela.
I had to flee the country.
Ukraine is probably the best example.
I look at the polarization, and I said, why in these countries did things calm down, and why in these countries did things get crazier?
Now I take a look at what's happening in the U.S., and I'm like, these are not the things that precipitated things getting better, these are the things that precipitated things getting worse.
I read the news, I see what they're saying, and when the FBI comes out, and keeps screaming, the right!
You know you are getting ramping up towards civil war.
Now look, I understand you just had a crazy right-wing dude go to an FBI office and do some crazy stuff.
It's horrifying.
But I will make this point.
When we see stuff from the right like this, it's targeting government.
I mean, it often is.
The ADL makes reference to separatists and all that stuff, and they're targeting government.
The left targets the people.
That's the crazy thing.
Now, the left has targeted government as well.
We had that guy, I think it was in Tacoma, who tried firebombing an ICE facility, for sure, and they protest cops.
But we see a ton of terrorism against working-class Americans and the people.
The Summer of Love riots, that was all lower and middle-income people.
Jane's Revenge?
They're targeting local charities.
It's all bad.
I don't want anyone to do it.
You had January 6th.
Most people who entered the Capitol on January 6th, this is a fact, the doors were open for them, but many people, a lot of them, I think hundreds, fought cops and beat their way in, and they should be charged and arrested and held accountable.
So, it can happen.
It does.
But it's a tendency on the left and an exception on the right.
The right typically does not engage in this stuff.
When they do, it can be bad.
But the left is doing it all the time.
The FBI warns of the right because they don't care about you.
Think about it.
It's not a conspiracy.
I mean, it may be, but my point is this.
Why is the FBI so worried about the right?
Because the right's pointing the finger at them and the left isn't!
The left is cheering them on!
So, of course, they're like, the right wing is scary!
Yeah.
Well.
I imagine, unfortunately, that things will escalate.
So 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.
Not all LGBTQ people are groomers.
In fact, I would say the overwhelming majority of them are not groomers.
I would say the issue I take with people who are targeting children is that they're targeting children, and it has nothing to do with being LGBTQ.
Which brings me to this story which has been going particularly viral.
Shocking moment!
Texas Child Protective Services worker tells a 14-year-old girl to become A lady of the night.
So she can afford food.
Agency fires employee and apologizes after video surfaces.
It's quite incredible.
This individual was going above and beyond grooming, just literally telling a 14-year-old girl.
You see, this is exactly what I think most people are talking about.
That within governmental systems, we must be careful about people who are seeking to exploit children.
Now, the fascinating thing is that you end up with this parental rights and education bill in Florida, which basically says sex ed, period, off-limits for certain ages, and parents have to consent.
And then all of a sudden, every single Democrat comes out and says, don't say gay.
And we're like, hold on.
I jokingly refer to the bill as Don't Say Straight because it barred discussions of heterosexual marriage as much as it would have barred discussions of homosexual marriage or anything else.
Why did they frame it as though it was strictly about saying gay?
Huh.
Then along comes groomer issues.
There are adult men putting children in, let's just say, inappropriate adult circumstances.
It doesn't matter if they're LGBTQ or otherwise.
I'd call it out all the same like I would this.
And then all of a sudden, Media Matters on the left says, he's saying every gay person is a groomer.
No.
Not at all!
Because Gays Against Groomers exists, and I'll say it right now.
I know a lot of gay people, not a single one of them is a groomer.
My whole point with all of this is that there are pedophiles that are seeking to exploit our acceptance and tolerance of the LGBTQ community to squeeze themselves in, which is why they've tried doing LGBTP a while ago, and the LGBT community outright said, no way dude, get out.
My concern now is that with the help of leftist organizations like Media Matters, they're actually—the pedophiles are starting to gain ground in manipulating the tolerance and acceptance we have for LGBTQ into trying to give themselves protections, and I say, no dice.
Not gonna happen.
And so let's talk about it.
With this example right here, I mean, look, look, look, the story is quite simple, okay?
It was a 14-year-old girl who said the CPS employee was telling her to do these things, so she filmed them.
Got it on camera, was reported on by a local Fox outlet, and they have fired the worker.
That's it?
I gotta be honest, I think criminal charges.
If you expose children to lewd adult materials, that's criminal.
How is it not criminal to be in the government, and I'll put it this way, maybe the real issue is, if you are in a position of authority, and you abuse that authority to groom children, criminal charges.
Isn't it something, encouraging illegal activity, facilitation of child trafficking, or something like that?
You just get fired?
When asked if a child would be removed from a parent if they said the same, comments as a CPS worker, Schneider, a lawyer, said they should and they would.
This is shocking stuff. The commissioner of the Department of Family and Protective Services in
Texas, Jamie Masters, made a pilgrimage to Harris County to personally apologize to Basley and her
daughter over the comments. Schneider said, I've never seen that happen before where the commissioner
of CPS comes in from Austin just to apologize about something horrible that's been done to
a child involved with CPS. Now, this is obviously substantially more egregious than what we have
been concerned about with grooming.
This is a brazen, direct, superliminal act of grooming.
Typically, grooming is subliminal.
The idea being they're going to introduce a child to an idea at the front door of an adult activity so that it looks normal.
Then, over time, guide them through it.
That's basically what grooming is.
Often, it can seem innocent.
You have, for instance, child drag shows.
And the left says, it's a costume party!
It's a dance thing!
What's the big deal?
And then you play the video of the child stripping.
I'm not exaggerating.
Quite literally stripping as people throw money at the child.
And it's like, okay, y'all have crossed well beyond the line.
You're well past it.
But what happens is you'll get left media organizations claiming the opposite.
I bring you now to a tweet from Jack Posobiec.
There's this organization.
In a PDF they released, 4.4, grooming tweets from just 10 key figures were viewed 48 million times.
They say a small number of individuals have an outsized influence in promoting the hateful grooming narrative.
Oh, hateful to call out pedophiles.
I want to stress the point.
These people that are calling out pedophiles aren't calling out the LGBTQ community.
They're specifically referring to pedophiles.
Anyway.
They say with just 10 users responsible for tweets estimated to have reached Twitter users nearly 48 million times, the equivalent of 66% of the total estimated number of Twitter users reached by the 500 most viewed hateful tweets.
Oh, hateful tweets.
Marjorie Taylor Greene at number 1, she reached about 18 million.
James Lindsay reached 12 million.
Lauren Boebert, 7.
Jack Posobiec at number 9.
He says, the only thing I apologize for is not being the top of the list.
I can say it 800 million times.
When you have, like, Blair White, who's trans, calling out groomers.
When you have Ariel Scarcella, who is a lesbian, calling out groomers.
They can try as much as they want, and it's not going to stick.
However, if you're someone who just watches the mainstream press, you probably believe that these people are just accusing the LGBT community in general of grooming.
Tim Pool exemplifies YouTube's failure to moderate anti-LGBTQ hate speech.
I've never engaged in anti-LGBTQ hate speech.
Not at all.
You see, what this article is, is it's a fabrication.
And it's interesting because they say, in a brazen violation of YouTube's policy against hate speech, right-wing influencer Tim Poole spuriously claimed in a video last Friday that the LGBTQ community is now dominated by pedophiles and levied the same slander against a Daily Dot journalist.
It's not slander, and my point, if you actually listen to the whole of it, was that gay people are not groomers, but groomers are trying to exploit them, and with Media Matters and the Daily Dot, they have basically taken over the narrative.
So, let me simplify.
When Blair White, or Ariel Scarcella, for instance, actual LGBTQ people, Come out and say, hey, this is a problem.
I go, okay, I hear you, I hear you, and I hear your problem.
And they say, groomers are trying to take the narrative.
And I say, oh, okay, I hear you.
So I'll call that out.
Because LGBTQ people are concerned about what groomers are doing to their community.
Then Media Matters comes out, manipulates the narrative, and makes up fake garbage.
They say false accusations of LGBTQ people abusing children remain abundant on YouTube, one of the few major platforms refusing to commit to addressing the problem.
Interesting.
I'm not accusing LGBTQ people of abusing children.
I'm abusing child abusers of exploiting the LGBTQ community to try and shield themselves, and Media Matters is helping them.
Uh-huh.
Here's what they write.
They say the fact that this video remains up nearly a week later, accumulating more than a quarter of a million views is emblematic of YouTube's systemic failure to crack down on even the most egregiously hateful content.
This is a really, really fascinating article that creates an interesting cultural circumstance, but let me read a little bit more.
Last week, following mounting pressure, Twitter told the Daily Dot it would ban targeted use of the word of the term, groomer, to spread unfounded accusations of child abuse against LGBTQ people.
Use of the word groomer as a way to disparage LGBTQ people is part of a larger strategy by right-wing figures to co-opt language about child abuse to malign gay and trans people.
It's not, in fact, Blaire White's awesome, and I'm a big fan and a friend, and again, I'll shout out Ariel Scarcella.
Brandon Strock, for instance, also a gay man.
Cool dude.
Got no issues.
Yeah, nice try.
A tactic that has led to harassment and violent threats against LGBTQ community.
In fact, I'll even go so far as to say this.
I pointed out on TimCast IRL and on TimCast last week.
When it comes to the Parental Rights and Education Bill, we often talk about how parents have the final say in how they raise their kids.
What treatments they get, right?
And we had, our guest said, that if a child has cancer or something and the parents want to do holistic medicine, the government should intervene.
I said, I disagree.
I disagree completely.
I do not like the idea.
The state knows better than the individual parents.
And that means, if there is a child who is experiencing gender dysphoria, I don't know.
If the doctor prescribes something and the parents decide it's what's right for their kid, I don't know if it's right for us to say the government should intervene to stop the parents.
It is a difficult challenge.
Now, I know.
Conservatives will outright come out and say, no way, no how, don't allow it.
Well, surprise!
I'm not a conservative.
And so many may take issue with my position on this, and it's a... Most of my positions are, I don't know where the government's authority should extend to.
I typically don't like government authority extending too far.
The reason I make this point is, you get to the point where you say, it is child abuse to do X.
Well, what does X refer to?
In this instance, you could be saying that you think a doctor performing transgender surgeries on a child is abuse.
I certainly think it is inappropriate and wrong and shouldn't be done.
However, do I think the government should intervene and stop the doctor from doing it?
That's the challenge.
Because what I don't want is for the X in that scenario to be, I don't know, mandatory medication in any capacity.
That's just simply put.
What if You said the government should intervene to prevent it.
And they said the government should intervene to force it.
I say both are wrong.
What's happening now in many places is that the government is enforcing transition when a parent says so.
And I'm like, the government shouldn't mandate.
But that's not even the worst, I mean, to be completely honest.
Because usually there you have a parent saying something.
How about mandatory vaccinations, for instance?
Well, I don't like the idea of pharmaceutical companies getting guaranteed contracts and, by law, your kid has to undergo it.
I'm a fan of vaccines, by the way.
I just think it should be the parents who decide.
Now, that being said, what are they trying to claim about me?
I'm not even aligned with the conservatives on many of these positions.
In response to the Twitter news, Poole took to his YouTube channel, which has well over 1 million subscribers, on July 22nd to disparage Claire Goforth.
Disparage is the correct word, perhaps.
The Daily Dot journalist who has covered the issue calling her a pedophile, while also admitting he lacked any evidence to support his claims.
Poole also falsely claimed the LGBTQ community had been taken over by pedophiles.
It's not false, it's an opinion.
And if you don't like my opinion, that's too bad.
My point here, in that video, which is not only over a quarter million of views, but Fully monetized!
And made lots of money.
There you go, Media Matters.
My point there, quite simply put, Claire Goforth, who wrote the article, she has no reason to defend pedophiles in this regard.
In the video, I'm quite literally and clearly stating, gay people aren't groomers.
The LGBTQ community is not the issue.
It's the manipulation of.
Yet here's Media Matters doing exactly what Claire did, acting like that's not what I'm doing, and putting up a shield for the pedophiles.
Again, there's a reason why I'm stressing it.
I want them, and I want them to assert it, and I want you to know.
The delineation between these two groups should be clear.
So I will say it for the fifth time.
The LGBTQ community are not grooming kids.
Pedophiles are pretending to be LGBTQ, and YouMediaMatters and Claire Goforth are protecting them.
You know, this is perfectly consistent with my world if you go back to Ferguson.
When I watched those young black men link arms to protect their local grocery store, little liquor store, Meanwhile, the media was running articles saying in defense of looting and saying looting was resistance.
And I'm like, I'm here to protect the community.
OK, these young men who said outside forces were destroying their neighborhood.
Y'all came in and defended the people who were destroying the neighborhood.
This is what's happening right now as well.
Now, my point about Claire Goforth, I specifically said I have no evidence that she's done anything like that to be a pedophile.
My point was, in my opinion, I would assume she is because she's actively protecting them.
And I can only assume, as I stated in the video, she is either a pedo or pedo-adjacent.
They say despite the fact that YouTube's hate speech policy bans content promoting violence or hatred against individuals or groups based on their characteristics, including gender identity and orientation, the video remained up as of publishing.
Whoa, and there it goes.
They say YouTube reaps financial benefits from Poole's presence, yadda yadda.
There it is.
They basically admitted it.
For this to make sense, what they have to be arguing is overt protection of pedophiles.
I'm not kidding, and I'm not exaggerating, and I'm not trying to be cute.
If YouTube took that video down, it would be an interesting breach of contract.
I did not accuse the LGBTQ community of doing anything, anything untoward.
And so if they took it down, it would be a breach of contract, because I've followed the contractual rules of YouTube and their community guidelines.
But what they're saying here is gender identity and orientation.
What they are saying at Media Matters is that pedophilia is an orientation.
We've heard this before.
I am not being cute, and I think it's time that people stop defending or placating or trying to correct for.
A lot of people I know are going to come out and be like, no, no, that's not, that's literally what they're saying.
And it was my point from the previous video.
Why are they coming out and trying to claim the pedophiles are the community when I keep saying that's not the case?
That CPS woman, that has nothing to do with gay people.
That's the issue.
I think what they're doing, and what we've seen them do, is repeatedly claim pedophilia is just an orientation.
It's not.
It is child abuse, it is twisted, and there is something deeply wrong with these individuals.
Notice they didn't say, in this, LGBTQ people, they said, orientation.
There are many videos where you can see these gender doctors, Libs of TikTok had one recently, last week, where a doctor says, minor attracted persons are just experiencing an orientation.
This is what they're trying to protect outright.
They are trying to manipulate you.
And they are engaged in hate speech against LGBTQ people.
It's just, it's absolutely remarkable.
Media Matters and Claire Goforth are smearing LGBTQ people as groomers.
It wasn't me who did it.
In fact, I'm trying to defend them.
This is what's absolutely fascinating about how they play these games.
James Lindsay gets banned for calling out child abusers.
YouTube's refusal to crack down on Poole's extremism reveals a deeper problem with permitting anti-LGBTQ rhetoric.
Here's another article.
They wrote two articles.
On YouTube, Poole basically accuses a Daily Dot journalist and the majority of the LGBTQ community of being pedophiles.
Quite literally didn't.
Quite the opposite.
They're lying.
Pool cites Marjorie Taylor Greene, intern Milo Yiannopoulos, among the many prominent gay people who are not for this.
Yeah.
Uh-huh.
Milo is gay.
Well, I guess he said he's not gay anymore.
Fine.
Fair point, Media Matters.
This is where we're at.
The Center for Countering Digital Hate says Twitter and Meta fail to enforce their own rules failing to act on 99% of the most viewed tweets with LGBTQ plus hate, CCD hate, and HRC report.
Here's a game.
What they'll do is they'll repeatedly change what hate speech is so they can keep saying it's not being enforced against.
Media Matters is claiming that my defense of the LGBTQ community as not groomers is actually hate speech against LGBTQ people.
There's only one way that's possible.
They literally believe that being a pedophile is an orientation and is included in that acronym.
And there it is.
This is how they're normalizing it.
They have the overt, that woman who talks about it.
You had the TED talk that went viral where the woman claims it on stage and people clap for it.
And now, they're claiming that even when I say Pedophiles are trying to exploit the LGBTQ community for protection, and gay people are not?
Groomers.
This is what they do.
We've had an increase in anti-LGBTQ plus tweets of 406 emerging.
Blah blah blah blah.
Okay, I don't care to read this.
You get the point.
Lookit.
Groomer.
Predator.
Pedophile.
You see what they've done here?
First, prominent TED Talks emerge where they claim it's an orientation.
Memes emerge of LGBTPEDO in the LGBT acronym.
Those get rejected and fail.
Finally, they start going in and grooming children, and when you call it out, it is the Human Rights Campaign, it is Media Matters, it is the Daily Dot that connect them into a single entity.
It's fascinating.
They say, for instance, the tweet from America First meme account makes the claim that pedophilia is the end goal of the LGBTQ movement.
Now, full fair point.
There are people who are saying that.
They're wrong, in my opinion.
And this is an issue.
But, um, Why are they going after... They're lumping this in.
They're using this as the shield.
Certainly, Maximus Decimus Meridius is not one of the most prominent users.
He might be on here.
Is he on here?
Oh, look at that!
I don't even see that guy in the top 10 list!
Interesting.
Why highlight a random anonymous account and not perhaps something said by, I don't know, the top 10 individuals?
Now, I don't think I agree with everybody on that list.
I don't know if I agree with any of them to the full extent of their ideas, because like I mentioned, some people might argue that the government should intervene in parental decisions on how they raise their children.
I don't know if that's the right thing to do.
Perhaps the issue is there are lines where sometimes the government should or shouldn't, and we have to realize that it's not about logic, it's about personal values.
In which case, I am against sex changes for children.
But there are people on the left that favor it.
I think sterilizing kids is bad because kids can't consent.
That being said, the left argues that all kids should be force-vaccinated with every vaccination, and, well, I'm actually in favor of vaccination for kids.
I just don't think the government should mandate a private pharmaceutical product.
I think the parents need to decide.
Quite simply put, if a kid has Guillain-Barre syndrome, or is at high risk for it, the government shouldn't be mandating these things.
Different circumstances for different people.
My point is clear, ladies and gentlemen.
The game is afoot.
Media Matters is desperately trying to normalize pedophilia.
And I'm not being cute!
I think I've made my point.
They're trying to get me banned for calling out pedophiles while saying overtly, in defense of the LGBTQ community, they are being manipulated.
It's fascinating, isn't it?
But you know what?
It's not even my opinion.
Gays against groomers.
People like Milo.
I guess I shouldn't say Milo because he's straight now, he said, or something like that.
But there's conservative LGBT people calling this stuff out.
