Trump Just SUED The US Government Over The FBI Raid, Democrats Are Destroying The USA To Stop Trump
Trump Just SUED The US Government Over The FBI Raid, Democrats Are Destroying The USA To Stop Trump. Alan Dershowitz says major firms won't let their staff represent Trump in a shocking development.
Democrats and the major cult institutions are growing more fascist by the day and more people are waking up. Trump is suing the US over the raid saying it was a violation of the 4th amendment.
Many are pointing out that Biden denying Trump executive privilege is unprecedented and will result in the government falling apart. Republicans seem to only be reacting to these attacks.
However culturally it seems the left is losing with Liz Cheney and other uniparty politicians being ousted.
#trump
#democrats
#republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Donald Trump has filed a major lawsuit against the U.S.
government over their raid on his home at Mar-a-Lago.
He is representing himself, though it seems some lawyers are signing on.
But here's the scary thing.
Alan Dershowitz says that major firms are barring their attorneys from representing Trump or going anywhere near him.
What's happening in this country is getting worse.
And if you can't get a fair representation when it comes to legal matters, this country is going to be ripped apart.
The Democrats' war on Trump is unprecedented.
In our next story, a whistleblower from Twitter has come out and said they've lied.
about how many bots and the spam on the platform proving Elon Musk right.
And in our last story, YouTube has removed its ban on questioning masks quietly, without notice.
Apparently, now you can claim masks don't work.
If you like this show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
My view on what's happening to this country is no secret.
I think we are increasingly entering Civil War territory, and because of the way politics and news works, it's hard to know exactly when that shot heard round the world will be.
Perhaps we're in the Civil War, perhaps that hasn't started yet, perhaps this is the Bleeding Kansas phase, perhaps it's pre-Bleeding Kansas phase, and we don't really know exactly what's going to happen.
But Donald Trump has filed a lawsuit against the US government, claims most Americans are distressed by shockingly aggressive search of former president's home.
He's trying to stop the review of the documents that were seized.
Over on the left, in the establishment left, they're talking about how Donald Trump had 300 classified documents.
On the right, they're saying Donald Trump has Let's just call it very strong declassification powers.
In fact, he is the guy who declassifies things.
The argument being, if the President of the United States needs to negotiate or discuss sensitive issues, he has to determine whether or not it is classified or not.
Imagine a president negotiating with Vladimir Putin, but unable to negotiate on where our military would be leaving from.
Sorry, Putin, I can't tell you where our troops are, but we will move them, trust me.
That's not a really good negotiation, is it?
But of course, the left says he didn't have the authority to take certain documents, and I think PolitiFact proves that wrong.
So, of course, we're now seeing leaked letters.
We're seeing the FBI raid the home of Donald Trump.
We are seeing an unprecedented bifurcation of power in this country, which I believe will lead to a civil war.
And to make matters worse, in this lawsuit, Donald Trump has listed himself as pro se.
Now, many are pointing out this means he's representing himself.
And as the saying goes, the man who represents himself as a fool for a client I don't know if this will work out for Donald Trump.
There are lawyers listed on this filing.
Some have said that they just didn't file to enter into the case exactly, but they are perhaps assisting with this.
Alan Dershowitz has said he's spoken to many law firms and they've outright said their lawyers are not allowed to go anywhere near Donald Trump.
Things are getting crazy in this country, my friends.
Politico reported.
That a couple lawyers who won a major gun rights case split from their law firm because the firm dropped Second Amendment issues.
They won on gun rights, a good thing, and their firm dropped the issue.
Sorry, I just, I look at all this and I think everything is breaking down and falling apart.
It is not necessarily fascism that's on the rise, but some kind of totalitarianism, some kind of cult-like authoritarian ideology.
When people are just bending over backwards to the establishment machine without question, and there's little resistance, we know where this goes.
The government raiding the home of a former president is unprecedented.
And worse still, Donald Trump is filing a lawsuit challenging the government.
But it seems like the right, the MAGA crowd, only ever react.
Donald Trump, when he was president, He could have done a lot.
He didn't.
Some people blame Jared Kushner saying he was telling Trump, don't do these things, don't do this!
Trump could have left Twitter and created Truth Social at the peak of his presence, of his presidency, forcing the media to sign up to his system.
He didn't do it.
What I've heard is that Kushner told him, don't do it, don't leave Twitter, you gotta be on Twitter.
Now, I think Kushner's done some good things.
He's responsible for the Abraham Accords, so they say.
But when you enter into the lion's den as an outsider, like Trump did, and then you think you can just do your thing because you're the president, this is what happens.
And Trump only, only files a lawsuit now after they already raided him.
My question, why didn't Trump announce he was running for president before the raid happened?
When news was bubbling up, I said he should do it.
Now they're trying to say, well, you know, they're going after him because he's running for office.
Okay.
Now they're going to say the opposite.
He's only going to run because... And whether or not it's true, we know Trump was going to run.
But they're going to keep playing the narrative.
And the problem is, we know they're lying.
They know we know they're lying.
But the people who keep supporting them don't know or care.
And they march in lockstep with the bots and the lies and the manipulation.
You have to get proactive.
There's a lot of good news going around.
Liz Cheney's defeat.
Brian Stelter's out at CNN.
CNN is changing their tune.
Good news.
Fauci's resigning.
And now we're learning that Liz Cheney's talk about running in 2024 is actually really, really bad news for Democrats.
In fact, it would pull a ton of Biden support to Liz Cheney, and then Trump will win if he runs in 2024, and so does Liz Cheney if she runs as an independent, which I don't necessarily think she will.
It seems like every day there's some kind of crazy escalation.
And I hate to be the bearer of bad news all the time, but this is big news.
I mean, Donald Trump fighting back is good, but let's read the story and figure out what's going on with the latest escalation in the political civil war that's happening in this country.
Before we get started, head over to TimCast.com and become a member to support our work.
As a member, you'll get access to exclusive segments on the TimCast IRL podcast Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m.
As well as the Cast Castle vlog.
More silly comedy and fun that goes up tonight, Tuesdays at 7pm, as well as Tales from the Inverted World.
We are not expanding our political offerings.
We will a little bit.
But we're trying to just build culture.
We've got a new single being released from the first single under Timcast Records coming on Friday.
And it's just a song.
That's it.
Just a regular old song.
Because we want to build culture and we are not trying to make everything about politics, even though politics is pop culture.
But we do have a political song coming next.
We just didn't want to come out the gate with political music.
The next one that's coming out is very political, and it rags on the mainstream media, so you'll probably get a kick out of it.
But smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends.
Here is the story from Law & Crime.
Trump files lawsuit against U.S.
government claims most Americans are distressed by shockingly aggressive search of former president's home.
They said the litigation is positioned as a motion for judicial oversight and additional relief.
It is docketed under the caption, Trump v. United States government.
Politics cannot be allowed to impact the administrative justice, the motion asserts.
It also does not initially refer to Trump as a past tense president.
President Donald J. Trump is the clear frontrunner in the 2024 Republican presidential primary and in the 2024 general election should he decide to run.
Beyond that, his endorsement in the 2022 midterm elections has been decisive for Republican candidates.
Pause real quick.
It has been.
And he also endorsed Democrats.
And it's going to be funny when those Democrats win and then Trump's like, see, my endorsements are perfect even when I endorse Democrats.
Later, however, the document asserts that the search involved the former president's home, a tacit acknowledgment that Joe Biden is indeed the president.
What does that have to do with anything?
We had Rick Santorum on.
We referred to him as Senator Santorum.
It's a title, an honorific.
He is President Trump.
He's not currently the president.
We know that, but we still say President Obama because it's a title they've earned or achieved.
The motion calls the August 8th search of Mar-a-Lago a shockingly aggressive move with no understanding of the distress that it would cause most Americans.
Roughly two dozen special agents from the FBI, directed by attorneys at the DOJ, raided the home of President Donald Trump.
It goes on.
According to the government, the agents seized documents, privileged and or potentially privileged materials and other items, including photos, handwritten notes, and even President Trump's passports that were outside the lawful reach of an already overbroad warrant.
President Trump, like all citizens, is protected by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
Property seized in violation of his constitutional rights must be returned forthwith.
Law enforcement is a shield that protects Americans.
It cannot be used as a weapon for political purposes.
Therefore, we seek judicial assistance in the aftermath of an unprecedented and unnecessary raid on President Trump's home.
The privileged materials referenced are purported to be communications between Trump and his top advisors.
The documents claim those materials are presumptively privileged and that protecting the purported privilege is important to the institution of the presidency, no matter who is in office.
And he's right here.
The craziest thing about this is that since this whole January 6th stuff started, they've been asserting Trump's inner circle executive privilege and it's been denied by Biden.
That means any president who leaves loses privilege.
Then what's the point of having privilege at all?
The executive branch needs to be able to have its communications to operate independently.
But if they can be stripped afterwards, that is the sort of Damocles hanging over the head of any president.
They're going to say, I can't talk about these issues because that branch will come after me.
No, a president needs to be able to negotiate.
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.
one section of the filing, balks that there was no exigency to support a forceful raid on Mar-a-Lago.
Exigency, however, is usually a word employed in legal circles to excuse the need for a warrant
in pursuit of a suspected criminal. Here, a warrant was secured. Yes, but I think we get the point.
There was no need to raid the house.
They could have shut up, knocked on the door and said, we need them now.
I suppose, however, in the event that they denied it, there would have been this or whatever, but apparently Trump was cooperating.
They say another section of the motion confirms that Trump was the subject of a May 11, 2022 grand jury subpoena which sought documents bearing classification markings.
The documents contain multiple hearty assurances that Trump was cooperative with multiple government efforts to glean boxes of documents from the partial palatial Florida compound.
One such visit is alleged to have occurred as follows.
On June 3rd, 2022, Jay Brett, chief of the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section in the DOJ's National Security Division, came to Mar-a-Lago accompanied by three FBI agents.
President Trump greeted them in the dining room at Mar-a-Lago.
There were two other attendees, the person designated as the custodian of records for the office of Donald Trump and counsel for President Trump.
Before leaving the group, President Trump's last words to Mr. Brett and the FBI agents were as follows, quote, whatever you need, just let us know.
Brett inspected what the motion describes as a storage room, and responsive documents were provided.
A follow-up conversation is said to have included a request by Brett that Trump secure the room a second lock was therefore installed at Trump's alleged request.
What followed was the now-famous search.
I think infamous is the appropriate word.
Trump's attorneys claim Brett requested that Mar-a-Lago's security cameras be turned off during the execution of the warrant.
That request, the motion indicates, was declined.
The motion additionally says Trump tried to send a message to Attorney General Merrick Garland through Brett on August 11th.
Trump wants the Attorney General to know that he has been hearing from people over the country about the raid.
If there was one word to describe their mood, it's angry.
The heat is building up.
The pressure is building.
Whatever I can do to take the heat down, to bring the pressure down, just let us know.
Garland held a press conference just hours after that phone call in which he admitted personally approving the warrant.
Okay, so we know a lot about this.
The point is Trump is suing, saying, stop.
Here's where it gets crazy.
MD Wheel points out, pro se means Trump is going alone.
Alex Mollen says, new, it appears Trump's legal team has filed an SDFL cause listed as motion for judicial review.
No document available yet, though.
Represented by Donald J. Trump pro se.
That's interesting.
Journalists, please stop burying the lead.
Pro se, Trump is representing himself.
A lot of people are saying, OK, it's no longer a pro se filing.
Here we go from Empty Wheel.
I forget whether Halligan is the garage lawyer or something else.
There are other individuals on this.
OK, so Trump initially filed this representing himself.
Apparently there are a bunch of lawyers listed who still needed to file that they were going to be signing on.
Here's where it gets crazy.
Trump has some lawyers.
But this is where I see this country breaking down.
And this is why it is so important we build culture.
Alan Dershowitz says every reputable attorney he's spoken with has told him their firms won't let them go anywhere near Trump.
Let's talk about music.
And this is relevant to this.
It is.
So, I think it was last year.
One of my favorite bands growing up, The Offspring.
When he was younger, he suffered from Guillain-Barre syndrome.
And so when he went to the doctor, they said, the risk is not worth it.
I'm sorry.
We recommend against the vaccine.
It's unfortunate.
He wasn't this hardcore anti-vaxxer dude.
He's just a drummer.
The offspring fired him.
Well, I talked to him and said, bro, I would be honored if you would play drums, write the drum tracks to the music that we write.
You know, the music I've been putting together my whole life.
If you told me that I would have the offspring's drummer playing music, I never would have believed you.
But here he is.
After 14 years, he's fired from The Offspring, and now he's working with me and many other bands.
A lot of well-known bands and punk bands and things like that.
We put out a promo.
Tremendous response.
Within, like, 12 hours, half a million views.
Amazing.
But on Twitter, people are really going after us.
There are other bands, you know, older bands, insulting him, calling him the anti-Vaxxed drummer.
Just really awful things.
This is important.
You see, the goal of the left is to try and make it impossible for you to work.
Cancel culture.
How could Trump not get a lawyer?
The Klan was able to get the ACLU.
Culture is the most important thing.
Cultural enforcement is more powerful than any law.
The ability for people to work and be comfortable is more important than any, any law.
That's the important factor here.
It's why it was so important that I thought we needed to immediately hire someone like Pete.
I mean, first of all, let me just say.
Yeah, when they fired this dude, they made a huge mistake.
The dude's an amazing drummer.
He's a really nice guy.
He's calm.
He's not super political.
And he's just a drummer, man.
I mean, he's a regular old guy.
Plays drums.
You know, for me, it's just like a dream come true to be able to play music with the guy who played with The Offspring for 14 years.
It's really crazy.
But the reality is, for me, we have to make sure we open up spaces for these people to exist and live.
Otherwise, this is what happens.
Trump can't get a lawyer.
They're insulting his lawyer, saying Trump's got the garage lawyer.
Trump's pro se.
I'm like, dude, that's not a good thing!
We as a country for the longest time recognize that the worst of the worst still got lawyers.
But what they're doing is making sure that anyone who goes against the machine will never be able to work again.
Now Trump can't get a good lawyer to defend himself.
Take a look at this.
You guys need to understand this.
This is important.
Firm splits with lawyers who won gun rights case at Supreme Court.
The exit follows a decision by Kirkland and Ellis to drop Second Amendment litigation.
We need lawyers who will fight for our rights under the Second Amendment to keep and bear
arms.
They got axed.
They won.
They got axed.
They are telling these lawyers, if you defend gun rights, you're gone.
If you defend Trump, you're gone.
If you go back a few decades, the ACLU defended the Klan.
You go back a few years, they defended Unite the Right in Charlottesville, but they got scared because these crackpot liberal woke whatever started pulling their donations.
They are trying to homogenize a machine to make it so you can't work.
Now look, I play music.
I'm not a lawyer.
So what can I do?
When they try to destroy the career of someone like Pete Parata, I can say, bro, it would be an honor for us to hire you to play music.
We hired Taylor Silverman.
You guys know Taylor Silverman?
She spoke out because as a female skateboarder, amateur skateboarder competing, trying to earn money, a biological male was allowed to compete against her and win.
And on more than one occasion this has happened.
Taking prize money away from biological females.
And they argue, well, it's a women's division and trans women are women.
But we didn't create a women's division because sometimes people feel feminine.
We did it because there's biological differences between males and females.
We hired Taylor for one.
She's great.
She's a good skateboarder.
We need the talent for the new skate projects we're launching.
And it's the same thing.
I want to make sure every single person that I can support, and it's not everybody, you know, I do what I can.
That if they're trying to destroy your career and ability to work over things like this, there will be a space and an opportunity for you.
It's why, at TimCast.com, we are using Parallel Economy for all memberships, starting now.
The default, when you sign up, is Parallel Economy, a censorship-resistant financial transaction service co-funded by Dan Bongino.
This is the nightmare scenario.
So, my point.
I'm not a law firm.
I can't hire lawyers.
I can work with lawyers.
But lawyers are saying they can't work with Trump because they work for firms.
Y'all need to start your own firms.
Do something.
Don't stand for this.
This is the death of the Republic.
If you can't get a lawyer, what can I do?
I can launch projects with people who have their careers destroyed, who are good people, who shouldn't have had their careers destroyed, and resist the machine for as long as I can.
So Pete can't play?
You know what?
Pete Pirata, he's now on a Times Square billboard.
For the past several days and for the next week or so, there are two massive billboards with this dude that tried to destroy his career.
Nah, man.
This is a good dude and he's good at what he does.
And through no fault of his own, So we got him up on a Times Square billboard.
Bring the haters.
You're not going to get us down.
And this is why they're freaking out.
This is why they're coming so hard on Twitter, so angry about this.
On all the other platforms, everybody's digging the music.
And I'm not going to sit here and pretend we're writing, you know, legendary, epic composites.
We're writing music we like for people who might like it.
I don't expect to be a Billboard Hot 100 or anything like that.
We're just having a good time, and we're trying to run new businesses.
Not every song released by every person becomes a double-platinum hit.
Most music, they find their audience.
People make, like, trip-hop or whatever, and it's like, you're not gonna be Billboard Hot 100, but you're gonna have a show, man, and you're gonna have fans.
And we're going to make that space available.
We are going to build culture in all spaces to make sure, like the Daily Wire is doing, when they come to you and say, we're going to destroy your career if you dare defy us, they're going to say, bro, go ahead.
Because I can go work for the Daily Wire and I can go work for Tim Kast and they've created a space where it's possible to live and succeed without bending the knee to your psychopathy.
This is nuts.
That Trump can't get a lawyer is insane.
The FBI raided his home.
The dude needs to be able to find representation.
O.J.
Simpson got lawyers?
There are so many people that the worst of the worst are able to get lawyers.
Even if it's just a public defender.
Insider Reports.
Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer who defended former President Trump in a Senate impeachment trial, told Insider that most reputable law firms weren't letting their attorneys go anywhere near Trump as his legal issues snowballed.
All big firm lawyers have told me that their firms won't let them do it.
The firms won't let them go near any case involving Trump.
These are firms that want to continue to have clients, and they know if they represent Donald Trump, they'll lose a lot of clients.
Pathetic.
Absolutely pathetic.
Bro, every person in the world can rag on me for the stuff they're making.
I don't care.
Not everybody likes everything we do.
But we've launched a series of shows.
Cast Castle, Pop Culture Crisis, Tales from the Inverted World, Chicken City.
We got a new gaming show that we're going to be launching soon.
And we're just trying things out.
We tried to do a D&D show.
It didn't really work out.
We piloted it.
We couldn't make it work.
We're doing music.
Hey, guess what?
I write songs.
If people don't like the songs, that's fine.
I still write songs.
We're still going to put work into it and publish it.
We are going to build culture and build a space.
I don't care about, you know, what these people try to do to destroy us, to try and destroy you.
We're going to do it and we're going to be successful.
Here's the reality.
When it comes to anything, There are a lot of people that don't want to put in the elbow grease, the blood, sweat, and tears.
And the people who succeed are the people who don't care.
They're the people who carve themselves out of stone instead of sitting back and saying, I need you to help me.
And so I take a look at some of these bigger artists.
I take a look at these law firms.
If you knew in your heart of hearts that Donald Trump had a case, or at the very least, it was a great opportunity to make money and everybody deserves good representation, you would say, I'm out.
I'll do my own firm.
I'll make this work.
Trump needs representation.
But then what happens is they say, if you do this, you'll never work again.
And they say, okay, I'm backing off.
Sorry, that's the kind of spinelessness I won't stand for.
So maybe in the end, everybody hates everything we do.
Outside of the stuff that works, the Tim Pool Daily Show and TimCast IRL, we have fans.
Through the fans, we get members, we get support, we can sell ads, and then we're gonna keep trying to expand.
And maybe it won't work in the long run.
But if we don't, we will resign ourselves to this kind of nightmare.
This is the one that really freaked me out.
Lawyers who won the gun case split the firm dropped Second Amendment litigation?
Yo, this is crazy stuff.
We have to stand firm.
We have to be steadfast and we have to stand up for what we believe in regardless of who wants to spit in our face or mock or insult.
It's funny.
To have these woke, weirdo, authoritarian leftists try and rag on me.
It's like, bro, I don't care if you don't like the things we're doing.
It's irrelevant.
Some people don't like eating cake.
Believe it or not, I'm not a big cake fan.
You know, I cut the sugar out so I ain't going anywhere near it.
Sure.
You think a bakery cares what I have to say?
I'm not giving them money.
This is the most important thing about cancel culture.
These big corporations are pandering to a group of people who don't care about them and don't give them money.
It's like that South Park episode.
Cartman gets all scared because they're trying to put on a hippie festival.
And the city's like, a big hippie jam festival is going to be great for us.
Why are you worried about the people who don't shop at your store?
That's the weirdest thing.
The New York Post.
Michael Goodwin says Democrats' war on ex-president Donald Trump is without precedent.
No joke.
They said their dream to indict Donald Trump has turned into a determination, putting them on a collision course with history.
No president has ever been prosecuted after leaving office, with even Richard Nixon escaping the infamy, that infamy, after Watergate because of how it would tear America apart.
They don't care.
They will gut and burn this system to the ground, and you know what?
They probably want to.
It's probably their goal.
Trump had more than 300 classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, the New York Times reports.
The National Archives found more than 150 sensitive documents when it got a first batch of material from the former president in January, helping to explain the Justice Department's urgent response.
Ah, okay, hold on.
He had more than 300.
When?
Are you talking about recently?
Oh, we had 150 in January and he was handing them over?
In total, they've recovered more than 300 documents with classified markings since he left office.
The first batch in January, blah, blah, blah.
Okay.
PolitiFact.
Quote.
Quote, the minute the president speaks about it to someone, he has the ability to declassify
anything at any time without any process.
Mostly true, says PolitiFact.
They say, does the president have the ability to declassify anything at any time?
Blah, blah, blah.
Independent experts.
Experts agree the President, as Commander-in-Chief, is ultimately responsible for the classification and declassification.
When people lower in the chain of command handle classification and declassification duties, which is usually how it's done, it's because they have been delegated to do so by the President directly.
In the majority ruling of 1988, in the 88th Supreme Court case, Department of Navy versus EGAN, which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had denied a security clearance, addresses the line of authority.
Quote, the president after all is the commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the U.S.
According to Article 2 of the Constitution, His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the president and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant.
There is no greater authority.
If Donald Trump says they're declassified, they are.
That's why you'll notice they said, classification markings.
Because Donald Trump declassified them.
They're now saying he's going to go to jail for having these.
Yeah, they're burning this country to the ground.
They're saying things that aren't true.
He had 300 documents!
Yeah, in January, when no one cared, seven months ago, they recovered some of them, and he said, sure.
And according to Trump's filing, he said, whatever you need, man.
They said, just put a padlock on it, and then they raided him.
Interesting.
In a letter they wrote that many on the left are saying is damning to Donald Trump.
It seems they are acting with urgency.
Yeah, I can respect that.
But Donald Trump has the unilateral declassification authority.
He can just say it!
There it is.
Now apparently the intelligence community tried stopping the dissemination, distribution of some of these things like Trump Declassified, and they said, no, no, no, but we don't want it being spread around like crazy.
I don't know.
Take a look at this from TimCast.com.
Documents seized by FBI and Trump raid had info on Russiagate, a former aide says.
This information has to get out to the American public, said Kash Patel.
This is what people think.
Donald Trump declassified Crossfire Hurricane, the Russiagate investigation.
He brought copies of those documents.
For a variety of potential reasons.
One, it may have been for memoirs.
It may have been for sharing with the American public so they can know.
Who knows?
But he had the authority to do this.
The same team, it's been reported by Real Clear Investigations, that led Crossfire Hurricane, the botched Russia collusion investigation, the hoax, led this raid on Trump's home.
Could it be they don't want certain information to be getting out?
Perhaps.
Perhaps that is the case.
I don't know how anyone can look at what's going on and conclude we aren't on track for a civil war.
Shout out to Joe Rogan.
He said on his show, I know I mentioned it many times, but not everybody watches every episode, so forgive me if you've heard it, I often say that too.
He said that a few years ago, I went on his show and said that I thought a civil war was coming.
He was like, come on, calm down, dude.
It's over the top.
Now I think he might be right.
That's what Joe said about what I was saying.
Now I think he might be right.
What do you think it means when I'm saying all of this?
Look, I don't know what the future has in store for us.
I do not have a crystal ball.
Technically, Ian does, but it's not like you can actually see the future in it.
So, technically, there's a crystal ball at the house.
Several of them, in fact.
Thank you, Ian.
What I can do is this.
I can take a look at what was going on on the street level in 2016, 17, 18.
People beating each other in the streets.
And it was getting bigger and it was getting worse.
I mean, there's one video with hundreds of people clashing.
I mean, Charlottesville, look at that.
I thought to myself, like, we're on track for a civil war, man.
Donald Trump comes out and condemns white supremacists and they lie and claim he supported them and called them fine people.
That was a lie.
That's not true.
He said they should be condemned totally.
That's the quote.
They're now trying to come up with weird scenarios how they justify him.
Well, it's still what?
No.
You look at all that and you're like, dude, we are on track unless de-escalation happens.
Donald Trump has offered to temper things, to calm things down.
They don't care.
They hate the man.
They know that if he wins, he's going to go after the Uniparty and the bureaucratic state.
He's going to fire people.
They would burn everything to the ground and spark civil war if it means stopping Donald Trump.
And that's why I feel we're on track for this.
In 2018, I said to a group of DC politicos, look, we're on track for a civil war.
Here's why I think so.
And a couple of them were like, you're nuts.
It'll never happen.
The security state is too strong.
Here we are.
I said, mark my words, the culture war will reach the highest level of government for two reasons.
One.
The ideology, the split in news sources, will infect the minds of everyone.
There will be some people who will just fall in line, be it because of cancel culture or otherwise, and march in lockstep with Democrat lies and media lies.
The other side will go to conservative and independent media and be like, that's not true.
There's another reason.
Young people are already bifurcated.
As they get older, And they get jobs in government and gain more and more authority and grant authority to each other as they grow in these institutions.
They will bring the division with them.
Why is it that Gen Z is based?
They're not entirely, but Gen Z is the first generation in like a hundred years to be slightly more conservative than the last.
Although Gen Z and Millennials are almost identical in terms of their political views, Gen Z is a teeny bit more conservative in some areas.
It's not because Gen Z is reading the Daily Wire.
It's because there are more young conservatives.
Because conservatives have more kids.
The bifurcation already exists.
And as they age, already divided, they bring the conflict with them.
As a teenager, what conflict do you have?
You're 16 and you're like, Trump.
The other 16-year-old is like, Trump sucks.
And you're like, you're dumb and you got Twitter beef.
What happens then when you're 20 and now you're in college?
Now you've got Antifa street-level fighting.
What happens when you're 30 and you're entry-level government positions?
Now you're filing things against each other.
What happens when you're 40 and now you are running these departments?
You are raiding the homes of your political opponents.
They're crazy, they've always been crazy, I know guys like you.
And that's where we're going.
That's where we are.
I can't tell you what's gonna happen.
I can tell you what is happening now, but who knows where it will end up.
What I can tell you is, where I have power is culture.
I'm not saying a lot.
I'm not saying, you know, I have authority over anybody, but there's influence within the work we do.
So what can I do?
I don't think the path to solving these problems is to just hire a whole bunch of political commentators to say the same thing I'm already saying.
We do want to launch some political shows.
We're talking with some people because, you know, politics is still an area of general interest.
But this is why the Cask Castle Vlog is behind the scenes and comedy.
It's why Tales from the Inverted World is mystery and gonzo journalism exploring certain topics.
It's why Pop Culture Crisis is talking about political, sorry, cultural politics.
It's cultural political issues, but mostly pop culture.
It's why Chicken City is just chickens.
And it's why TimCast Records is not overtly political.
We need to create a space for normal people who don't want to be involved.
I know some pro skaters.
Brave dudes.
I'm talking about doing content with them.
They don't want to do politics.
They don't care about it.
They care a little bit.
They believe in freedom.
And I'm like, let's just make skate vids, bro.
We're gonna build up the culture here, and I'm gonna say this.
The goal is simple.
If you are someone who skates, scoots, bikes, plays music, whatever, and they come after you because you don't agree with the crackpot zealotry of the cult, don't worry about not being able to find work because we are building that infrastructure.
It's the best way to combat what's happening.
It's fortification.
It's shoring up our cultural defenses.
Because in the end, culture is everything.
Politics is downstream from it.
I guess we can only wait and see how this lawsuit plays out.
Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Things just got particularly interesting over at Twitter.
An ex-executive has blown the whistle alleging reckless and negligent cybersecurity policies.
But the big news here, in my opinion, is that he is confirming Twitter is lying to Elon Musk about its bots.
They don't actually have the ability to track it.
And thus, Elon Musk is probably right.
They've been withholding information.
They don't want to admit it.
And Elon Musk will probably win his lawsuit with Twitter, but we'll see.
Really does depend on the judge.
Now the other news in terms of the Elon Musk lawsuit is that he has filed a subpoena.
He has subpoenaed Jack Dorsey in his acquisition suit.
This should be really interesting.
Now that a whistleblower has come out, made a bunch of claims, Elon Musk is going to be able to sit these people down and ask them about these claims under oath.
And what do you think they're going to do?
They will fold.
These people, you know, they testify and they give these wishy-washy answers.
It ain't gonna be like this.
We're gonna see a legitimate cross-examination.
Twitter is a dirty, dirty game.
Here's the story from CNN.
Twitter has major security problems that pose a threat to its own users' personal information, to company shareholders, to national security, and to democracy, according to an explosive whistleblower disclosure obtained exclusively by CNN and the Washington Post.
The disclosure sent last month to Congress and federal agencies paints a picture of a chaotic and reckless environment at a mismanaged company that allows too many of its staff access to the platform's central controls and most sensitive information without adequate oversight.
It also alleges that some of the company's senior most executives have been trying to cover up Twitter's serious vulnerabilities and that one or more current employees may be working for a foreign intelligence service.
There it is.
Why are they so adamant?
Why were they so adamant about stopping Elon Musk from acquiring the platform?
One or more of its current employees may be working for a foreign intelligence service.
Why is it that after Elon successfully put in his bid, there was panic, and then we saw a weird fluctuation between follower counts between the left and the right?
Something at Twitter ain't right.
And this guy's now blowing the whistle.
This is much bigger than I think any of us realize, and it's probably because we're only looking at the surface of it.
And the surface-level stuff is, oh, you got Elon Musk, he's an eccentric billionaire, and he's playing weird games, and the media's gonna be like, he just wants to buy new toys.
But we've often talked about maybe there's some 4D chess here.
Maybe something else is going on that we don't know about.
Maybe Elon does.
Elon has made a bunch of claims about bots on the platform.
I want to tell you why this is so important.
If a foreign intelligence service really does have assets in Twitter, and foreign governments have influence over Twitter, they could be manipulating our public perception.
And that's basically what the dude's saying.
They could be manipulating the American public on social media.
And I think that's probably the case.
You know what I pointed out last night on the member segment at TimCast.com?
There's a journalist who said on Twitter that she's getting heart medication because of long COVID.
I tweeted, it's a good thing you're double vaxxed, otherwise it would have been worse.
All of a sudden, like clockwork, An individual commented saying, it would have been way worse if she wasn't vaccinated.
The vaccine helps to reduce severe symptoms.
Why are you being so dishonest about this?
I thought it was funny.
And I tried to understand how is it that I tweeted, it's a good thing you're vaccinated, and someone responded as if I said the opposite.
It's weird, isn't it?
Unless you realize how these things work, here's my thought.
They're bots.
We know there are bots on the platform.
Elon Musk is trying to uncover the bots.
There's probably foreign intelligence influence on the platform.
So what's the goal of this weird bot tweeting the opposite on a response that makes no sense?
The response should have been like, you're absolutely right, Tim.
These vaccines do help reduce symptoms.
Instead, the response was, you were wrong.
It would have been worse.
I'm like, wait, but I literally thought it was a good thing.
Here's what I think.
These bots, they don't understand context.
Like we've all seen with YouTube censorship, they don't understand context if you say a word.
So what they probably have is a bunch of bots that presume, because I'm anti-establishment for the most part, and because people perceive me or it's the idea that Tim Pool is right-wing, whatever, because of that, they probably have the bots programmed to respond to certain keywords Thus, when the bot saw the word vaxxed, it probably assumed, because there's no context for these bots, I was saying something negative about them when I was saying something positive.
And its only response could be in the inverse, something positive.
You get it?
Like, if I tweeted the word, you know, ravioli, And the bots were like, people in this sphere of influence hate ravioli.
The only inference it could make was it must be a negative post, or it's more likely to be, and thus respond saying ravioli is good.
In this instance, the vaccine.
I said it was good.
The bot said, no Tim, it's actually good.
Get it?
That's the game they're playing with manipulation.
For most people, they're predictable.
I try to be somewhat unpredictable, but you know, a lot of what I do is decently predictable if you know who I am.
But typically what I do on Twitter is I'll post the opposite.
And it's just, that's what it is.
And then you'll often notice these bots are tweeting the things I say as if I said the opposite.
That's the foreign, or potentially even domestic manipulation.
I don't know who's manipulating.
But somebody operates bots to try and sway public opinion.
So, for instance, you're a Trump supporter, let's say.
You go on Twitter and say something like, Trump is great.
You get inundated with posts being like, Trump is a fascist, Trump is a loser, and all of that stuff.
Try posting something like, Trump is a fascist, and you will see the exact same responses.
Now in that case, it may be that they're agreeing with you.
But say something weird and nonsensical referencing Trump, and you'll probably see a bunch of bots going like, Trump is actually a fascist.
You could say, Trump bakes great cupcakes, and you're gonna get inundated with Trump is a fascist, Trump is a fascist, because they're all fake.
They're trying to convince you.
This is what's been happening on Twitter for a long time.
They're trying to convince you that public opinion is over here and you're over there.
Now, for me, I mostly don't care about public opinion.
You know, there's no winning.
You just gotta do your thing.
You know, for instance, here's a really good example, right?
Twitter is also a brigade machine.
So we just put out a promo for the new Tim Cast single, Only Ever Wanted.
It's a fairly basic pop and pop rock with some pop punk element song.
I don't expect it to be, you know, like a top 40.
That's just music we write, we want to publish, and we have the ability to do so.
On Instagram, overwhelmingly positive response.
On Facebook, overwhelmingly positive response.
On YouTube, overwhelmingly positive response.
On Twitter, Mixed.
On Twitter, it's a whole bunch of communist avatars and presumably, like, fake accounts with, you know, anonymous profiles saying the same generic things that don't really make sense.
I mean, they do.
It's like generic negative.
I think Twitter is heavily manipulated, influenced by bots.
I think Elon knows this.
And I think Elon's recognized that as a tech guy, he's probably seen that when he posts, he sees these responses like, that's not real.
Like, you can see that's a bot.
Why isn't Twitter doing anything about it?
That's the interesting thing.
So, I've long pressured the system with various posts to see how Twitter responds and how these bots respond, and sure enough, I tweet something like, the vaccine is good, and I get bots saying, no, Tim, the vaccine is good.
Clearly, something doesn't make sense.
The sophistication of these bots is not, they're not particularly sophisticated.
They can't understand the context of what I'm tweeting, and they just assume you and everybody else fall into certain boxes.
Now, it's true, there's probably a lot of people that do the same thing, but I think it's clear that some of these are just bots intending to manipulate.
They mentioned.
The whistleblower, who has agreed to be publicly identified, is Peter Mudge Zetko, who was previously the company's head of security.
Now, this guy got fired.
This is interesting.
He released this document.
He got fired and they said for, you know, bad leadership or whatever.
No, I think what likely happened is that this dude went to Twitter and said, these things are bad.
We need to fix them.
And they were like, don't screw with us.
So they axed him.
So he went public.
Quote.
Mr. Zetko was fired from his senior executive role at Twitter for poor performance and ineffective leadership over six months ago.
Strange.
It makes no sense.
This guy's been at the company for some time.
He's a top executive.
All of a sudden he's fired now?
They say, while we haven't had access to the specific allegations being referenced, what we've seen so far is a narrative about our privacy and data security practices that is riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies, and lacks important context.
Mr. Zego's allegations and opportunistic timing appear designed to capture attention and inflict harm on Twitter, its customers, and its shareholders.
Security and privacy have long been company-wide priorities at Twitter, and we still have a lot of work ahead of us.
I think they're lying.
Some of Zetko's most damning claims spring from his apparently tense relationship with Prague Agrawal, the company's former chief technology officer who was made CEO after Jack Dorsey.
According to the disclosure, Agrawal and his lieutenants repeatedly discouraged Zetko from providing a full accounting of Twitter security problems to the company's board of directors.
You see where this is going?
The company's executive team allegedly instructed Zetko to provide an oral report of his initial findings on the company's security condition to the board rather than a detailed written account, ordered Zetko to knowingly present cherry-picked and misrepresented data to create the false perception of progress on urgent cybersecurity issues, and went behind his back to have a third-party consulting firm report scrubbed to hide the true extent of the company's problems.
The disclosure is generally much kinder to Dorsey, who hired Zetko, and whom Zetko believes wanted to see the problems in the company fixed.
But it does depict him as extremely disengaged in the final months leading Twitter.
So much so that some senior staff even considered the possibility he was sick.
Very interesting.
CNN reached out to Dorsey.
They say Zacco believes his firing was in retaliation for sounding the alarm and about the company's security problems.
The scathing disclosure, which totals around 200 pages, including supporting exhibits, was sent last month to a number of U.S.
government agencies and congressional committees, including the SEC and FTC and the DOJ.
The existence and details of the disclosure have not previously been reported.
CNN obtained a copy of the disclosure from a senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill.
The SEC, DOJ, and FTC declined to comment.
The Senate Intelligence Committee, which had received a copy of the report, is taking the disclosure seriously and is setting a meeting to discuss the allegations, according to Rachel Cohen, a committee spokesperson.
Senator Dick Durbin, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and also received the report, vowed to investigate and take further steps as needed to get to the bottom of these alarming allegations.
Chuck Grassley, the same panel's top Republican and an avid Twitter user, also expressed deep concern about the allegations in a statement to CNN.
Quote, Take a tech platform that collects massive amounts of user data.
Combine it with what appears to be an incredibly weak security infrastructure and infuse it with foreign state actors with an agenda and you've got a recipe for disaster, Grassley said.
The claims I've received from a Twitter whistleblower raise serious national security concerns as well as privacy issues and they must be investigated further.
Now this is really interesting.
A Democrat and a Republican taking this seriously?
We've seen Democrats and Republicans criticize big tech platforms, but typically the Democrats want more censorship and the Republicans want less.
It'll be interesting to see how this manifests because this isn't inherently a censorship issue, this is a security issue.
This is getting crazy.
Elon Musk subpoenas former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey in acquisition suit.
Okay, so I guess it's just an audio transcript.
There's no full story.
That's just the story there.
CEO.
Sienna Smith, OK, so I guess it's just an audio transcript.
There's no full story.
That's just the story there.
I think it'll be interesting.
Nicole Perlroth, she is of the New York Times, says, Not much, who is incredibly well-respected.
They're lying to Elon Musk.
security community alleges Twitter lacks basic internal security controls, is lying to Elon
Musk about the number of fake accounts and bots, and says Parag Agrawal fired him for
You know, look, whether or not it's CNN or Democrats that are coming out and reporting
this stuff, this is hugely beneficial to the right who want to see Elon Musk win in his
lawsuit and take over Twitter.
Elon alleged that Twitter was lying to him about bots and not revealing the appropriate information.
And they came out and they said, actually, Elon is just incorrect.
We've given him everything.
And a bunch of people on the left were like, oh, Elon, you're wrong.
You're losing.
Oh, poor baby.
Uh-oh.
Elon Musk was right.
A whistleblower has come out and shown.
Yeah.
They're lying.
This is crazy.
Twitter whistleblower was on CNN 22 years ago.
Look at him all young.
Now he's older and he cut his hair down.
So Elon Musk is right.
What does this mean?
Twitter's days could be numbered.
He may end up getting out of the deal because of this.
And that kind of would suck.
What I'd love to see is Elon Musk winning.
Getting Twitter at a premium price, taking it over, fixing the platform.
We know it's got problems.
But it is a great platform.
It is social media for politics and news.
Unfortunately, political actors and foreign state actors have realized this, manipulated the platform, and probably placed foreign intelligence service agents within the company.
And now, you have our country at risk.
To a great degree.
I want to see Elon Musk win this lawsuit.
I want to see, well, you know...
I want to see him win the lawsuit, but it kind of means that he's not going to acquire Twitter then.
No, I want to see him acquire Twitter.
I want to see him settle this lawsuit at a premium.
I want to see him acquire Twitter at a discount rate, fix all the problems.
And I'd be willing to bet, I bet nobody uses Twitter.
I'd be willing to bet that Twitter is mostly bots.
No joke.
And when I say mostly, I'd be willing to bet it's like 80% bots.
They say that only around 20% of the country actually uses the platform.
We know that there are a lot of regular people on the platform.
You know, mom-and-pop shop people, teenagers, whatever, regular old people.
They post to Twitter.
But I think we may be looking at a dead Internet theory scenario.
For those that aren't familiar, dead Internet theory states that around 2016, the Internet was taken over by a bunch of bots and corporations to create the perception of public usage and user-generated content, when in reality, totally corporate.
At the very least.
These big platforms banned most regular people.
Tons of them.
I don't know about most, but tons of them.
You can't even really use YouTube anymore.
Now think about it.
Dead Internet Theory is really interesting when you consider that on YouTube, you have to go through a crazy review process that takes months to even get on the platform.
Used to be that you could sign up and upload.
Not so much.
I mean, you can still, but it's like, can anyone actually see what you post?
They can't.
I wonder about Twitter.
I hear these stories all day every day that people say they were banned.
And I say, how many followers do you have?
A hundred?
Yeah.
Most of the stories I hear about people being banned are from people who have tiny accounts.
Regular people.
And I think this is why Twitter is worried about banning high-profile individuals, because it creates ripples.
But if they erode the base, the grassroots, eliminate these people from the platforms, they can change everything from the ground up.
Here's how it works.
If you're on Twitter, and you post a meme of a frog, And then 100,000 real people follow you for it.
Twitter goes, uh-oh, this person's generating influence with these memes we don't like.
Well, if you ban the person, 100,000 people lose their minds.
But if you slowly start banning the followers, this person loses support.
Eventually, they stop posting the memes because the memes don't generate traction, and so they'll try to cater to those who do give them attention.
You see how this works?
If Twitter eliminates Let's say it's 50-50, Democrat-Republican.
It's not, but let's just say that it's the case.
So Twitter says, okay, ban 5% of the Republican side.
That's all they have to do, you know why?
Because now, a new person joins Twitter and posts a meme.
100 angry tweets, 50 tweets in support.
And they go, I don't like this!
Everybody's yelling at me!
And all of these other people are saying that I have a bad opinion.
If I want attention, I have to pander to the majority.
That's the game they play.
But that's not the majority of this country.
We've seen the polls.
Poll after poll in all aggregate, from good companies to bad companies, we've seen what people in this country think.
They don't like racism.
They don't like wokeness.
But on Twitter, for some reason, it skews so far to the left.
That's the point I was making about our song.
You can check out TimCastRecords on... Go to TimCastRecords.com if you want to see the promo.
It's a pre-save, but you can click the YouTube thing at the bottom and the video is up.
This is the point I'm trying to make.
This is the important thing you need to realize.
Something I've known for a long time.
I don't care about Twitter.
Twitter's fake.
On Instagram, you have real followers.
You know, I know because I talk to a lot of these people.
It's interesting.
On Instagram, I post a video clip.
Not everybody likes the song.
Some people are critical of it, but overwhelmingly, it's like, yeah, my fans follow me.
But on Twitter, you get a bunch of negative posts.
Now, these people would say things like, you're just deflecting criticism.
People just don't like your music.
I'm like, well, but we get, we got, you know, over half a million views and like 95% are positive responses.
Only Twitter is the place.
Now, what happens here is that some leftist, who just doesn't like me, will share to his followers and say, hey, smack talk this guy, we don't like him.
And that's another thing you should realize.
Like, there are real people, and they brigade, and they do these things.
Whatever.
You know, they're entitled to their opinion.
I don't think everybody likes every genre of music.
So people are like, hey, your music sucks.
I'm like, yeah, I don't know.
Like, there's a lot of bands I think aren't good, like, people like.
I think Lady Gaga's really good.
A lot of people don't like Lady Gaga, but she's, like, one of the biggest artists in the world.
I think Billie Eilish is really good.
I know a lot of people don't like her music.
It is what it is.
But when it's exclusive to Twitter, you can see something.
Something doesn't make sense on the platform.
For one, you've got a problem of brigading.
This creates just an awful space nobody wants to associate with.
How do you solve that?
I don't know if you can.
But I also think, as I mentioned with the vaccine post, it's fake.
It is bots programmed to respond in the negative to anything you do.
Google search these troll farms.
There's videos of people on their wall, phones mounted.
They'll have like 500 phones mounted, all logged in with bunk accounts.
And they'll go on each phone, send a tweet.
They'll go on each phone, load your account, send a tweet.
And that's why you'll notice these are farms where individuals are crafting tweets.
But there's also bots where you can see the same message copied, copied, copied.
Interesting how that works.
Here's a sad reality.
You end up with people believing the bots are real despite not getting any traction.
But they think they'll get traction by chasing after what appears to be a popular narrative.
And then they don't.
And it blows up in their face.
That's the sad reality of people who believe the bots, man.
They believe the bots are real.
Shout out to this dude.
What is his name?
Mudge?
Is that his name?
Mudge?
Where does that name come from?
Mudge.
Hackers.
Hackers and their hacker names.
You know?
Is it Mudge?
Am I getting it wrong?
I don't know.
Whatever.
Shout out for Mudge.
There you go.
For calling this out.
Spreading the word.
And inadvertently, whether intentionally or not, you know, it's helping Elon Musk.
In the end, with Elon Musk's lawsuit, I think we're going to get a lot of information.
Hopefully.
Maybe I'll just get shut down or dismissed or whatever, but I'm hoping that Elon Musk's lawsuit against Twitter exposes how the game is being manipulated.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 PM on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Yeah, I know there's a story about YouTube changing its mask policy, but can I just say that the real news is that Dr. Fauci has the Fauci devotional candle on his bookshelves.
You couldn't make this up.
Dude, legit.
Ian Miles Chong tweeted this out.
Dr. Fauci has the candle.
Okay, you know these devotional candles where it's like, you know, Jesus is on or whatever?
Okay, I had to lead with that just because it's too good to ignore, but the real story here is that YouTube updated its policies.
So last night, we had on Joe Latipo.
He is the Florida Surgeon General working alongside Ron DeSantis.
He's the top doctor in Florida.
He's a good dude.
He was a calm, reasonable, rational dude.
He was a doctor.
He took a look at my wrist.
How about that?
And then he joked, I agreed not to sue him.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
So here's what we got.
YouTube updated its policies to no longer ban claims that masks do not play a role in preventing spread of COVID.
Essentially, you are now allowed to claim masks don't work.
What Joe was saying was that, I made the joke, I don't know if people got it, he was like, there was a 10% reduction in, what's the word, I don't know the scientific terms, but virality of some sort.
And what that means is, if there was a seroprevalence, I think that's the word, He said if there was a 12% seroprevalence of the virus, people who wore masks saw 11% seroprevalence, so a reduction of in total of 1%, but a relative 10% reduction between one group to the other, and he called it clever or whatever.
And I was like, look, we have we have a couple of stories we had to go through because this is why this is big news that it's been removed.
From the L.A.
Daily News, mask mandate didn't work against COVID-19 in L.A., say doctors from USC and UCLA.
Letter from doctor said masking has limited effect and it's best to stress vaccines.
Other doctors still back masks.
You know, I asked Dr. Latipo on the Tim Cast Member segment about vaccines and he's fairly neutral, you know.
Science is a science.
He said he doesn't view it in terms of does it work or does it not work.
It's not absolute.
I don't know exactly how he explained it, but my understanding was kind of like, what's the efficacy, what's the reduction, what's the general response we see in the population and things like that.
And he was very critical of the pharmaceutical industries and the political gamesmanship that's been going on around it, but he was a relatively moderate guy.
When it came to all of this stuff, take a look at this tweet.
I said, essentially, you are now allowed to claim that masks don't work.
Let me just jump right to the YouTube misinformation policy here.
I don't know exactly when the update happened.
I've been checking the archives, but I can tell you from April of this year, there was the ban in place, and Dan Bongino actually got suspended and demonetized in January for questioning mask fascists.
Are they going to apologize?
No, and I'll explain why in a moment.
Here's the COVID-19 medical misinformation policy from YouTube.
YouTube doesn't allow content about COVID-19 that poses serious risk of egregious harm.
YouTube doesn't allow content that spreads medical misinformation, etc, etc.
They're going to mention there's some things that have been in place for a while.
Notably, it's misinformation to recommend the use of ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.
Look, I've never been a big fan of either.
I'll be completely honest, never been a big fan.
A lot of people have come out and they were saying things about ivermectin.
I was just like, guys, like I've looked at a lot of the data and I can understand there's observational studies and there's conflicting information on this one.
I think there's tribal things around this where people wanted it to work and other people didn't.
Joe Rogan said that it was a protease inhibitor, and that interfered with the virus's ability to replicate and things like that.
Look, when I got sick, I got monoclonal antibodies, which was an EUA-authorized treatment.
Not that I'm a big fan of the government or anything, and I got better.
And then they wanted me to take ivermectin, and I didn't want to.
I did not think it worked.
In fact, the argument I made to Joe was that in Uttar Pradesh, this province, I guess you'd call it, in India, the idea was that by treating parasites, it freed up the immune system to go after COVID, and that's why they saw improvement.
You know, Joe disagreed with me and said, no, it's a protease inhibitor.
I've not seen, I've looked at the website, looked at the data, never been a big fan.
I'm not interested in making claims about any medical treatment.
Claims that any medication or vaccination is guaranteed prevention method for COVID-19.
Now, this is an interesting thing.
That has been the policy for as long as I know.
I'm pretty sure that's been the policy for a while now.
That you can't claim the vaccine guarantees that you won't get it.
The funny thing is a lot of politicians did.
Guess which politician got banned?
Rand Paul.
We'll get into all that.
Take a look.
Claims that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are safe to use in the prevention of COVID-19 are not allowed.
Claims about vaccines, vaccinations that contradict expert consensus, blah blah blah.
Alright my friends, I would like to pop you over to this archive.ph from September of 2021.
Actually, I think I have April.
April of 2021.
In April of 2021, we can see here in the prevention misinformation section, it says, claims that wearing a mask is dangerous or causes negative physical health effects.
That's been removed!
YouTube, are you saying now that it is okay to claim that masks cause problems?
Below that, claims that masks do not play a role in preventing the contraction or transmission of COVID-19.
The CDC still says data shows masks work.
This is what I don't understand.
YouTube is saying we can't contradict the World Health Organization.
Do they say the CDC as well?
No, just the World Health.
Well, hold on, let me jump over.
Here's the current policy.
They say, uh, you can't, you can't go against the World Health Organization, but not the CDC?
Okay, well, whatever, I guess.
Now, isn't that weird?
In the United States, we have a CDC.
Center for Disease Control and Prevention.
They say masks work.
YouTube says, doesn't matter anymore.
You only got adhered to what the World Health Organization says.
Okay, well, look.
I'm never one to try and, uh, uh, you guys know me.
I don't care to, to push any of this stuff.
I don't know, whatever.
In, I'll mention this too, in September of 2021, I'm sorry, in September of 2020, there was no mask policy.
So this is where I was going to bring it before.
Transmission misinformation does not mention anything pertaining to masks in September of 2020.
In April of 2021, this was the first instance I saw of YouTube's policy including you can't say masks don't work or whatever.
Today, if you go to, this is the non-archived version, this is the live version of the website, it does not mention masks at all.
That's big.
Probably because we have this reporting.
This is from August 15th, so I wonder when YouTube updated, saying, A letter from top-level doctors and researchers arguing against the effectiveness of indoor mask mandates, along with pushback from health departments, cities, and business groups, possibly played a role in a surprise decision not to reinstitute the mask mandate in Los Angeles County last month.
This newspaper obtained a copy of a February 22, 2022 letter signed by doctors from UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine, L.A.
County Board, blah, blah, blah, blah.
You get the point.
On July 22nd, some of the doctors published their views in an op-ed in the Orange County Register.
I got a question.
There's that group of frontline doctors that they got a bunch of beliefs.
They've been banned.
If you show their press conference, you get banned.
Many people have gotten suspended.
I think Breitbart got suspended.
They're doctors giving their opinion.
Why were they shut down, but these doctors are not shut down?
The Surgeon General from Florida, Joe Latipo, used to be a professor, I believe, at UCLA.
Let's go back in time, my friends, to August 11th, 2021.
YouTube suspends Rand Paul's account for COVID-19 mask misinformation.
ABC reported, YouTube has suspended Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky from uploading content for one week after he posted a video claiming most masks are ineffective in combating COVID-19, making him the second GOP lawmaker this week to be disciplined by a social media platform for misinformation.
It's fascinating.
Um, it's technically true that's why YouTube did this, but I think ABC News needs to issue a correction and update.
And I'm not coming down on them for not doing it right now.
I think, shout out ABC News.
Come on, ABC.
Someone tweet at them because they need to say, you should update this because the latest update is YouTube eventually rescinded that policy and they should reverse this strike against Rand Paul and apologize to him for being wrong.
I'll tell you why they won't in a second.
Public health experts have said masks, even cloth masks, which Paul took particular issue with, offer protection against COVID-19 transmission, which in turn prevents infection.
Paul claimed in the video that cloth masks don't work and that most over-the-counter masks don't prevent infection.
Well, this is an important mathematic distinction.
Technically, okay, well actually literally, even Joe the other day said masks work.
He didn't quite put it like that though.
He said a 10% relative reduction is a 1% reduction and I said, Sounds like you're saying masks work.
And I mean, that's the reality.
This is what I've long maintained.
Dude, it's kind of common sense that if you're wearing a mask, you won't spit on people.
Even Joe agreed.
Yeah.
And that will prevent some transmission.
However, according to the data coming out from UCLA, or I should say, according to the scientists, they're saying now that it actually didn't do anything.
I think it's fair to say it probably did almost nothing is what they're trying to get across.
That is to say that the masks did have some effect.
Maybe not enough to actually warrant any of the mandates or whatever the policies are.
Far be it from me.
I'm not a doctor.
You should go talk to a doctor.
Hey, wait a minute!
Rand Paul is a doctor!
How come Rand Paul was suspended from YouTube and taken down when he's literally a doctor?
Okay, he's a dentist or something, right?
I don't know.
Let me tell you why.
Let me tell you about the real issue here.
Why these two men were suspended.
Dan Bongino jumped ship.
He went to the Rumble where he had more subscribers anyway.
January 15th.
It's only a few months after Rand Paul got hit.
The Wrap reports, popular conservative pundit Dan Bongino had his YouTube channel temporarily suspended and demonetized Friday after he said in a video that masks are useless in stopping the spread of COVID-19.
The suspension lasts a week.
This is the Fox News personality's first strike on the platform.
He had 870,000 subscribers.
His Bongino Report Twitter account tweeted Friday, breaking YouTube just suspended Dan's channel for daring to question the masked fascists.
I guess they were waiting for an apology from us, but that's not quite how it worked out for them.
The tweet shared a screenshot and said it was an email Bongino had sent to a YouTube representative.
In the note, he wrote, If I said I was surprised here, I'd be lying.
We knew it was just a matter of time before the tyrannical, free-speech-hating, BS, big-tech asshole you work for would try to silence us.
I anxiously waited for this moment, however, as I've said on my show many times.
He went on to say he's an investor in Rumble, the YouTube competitor, that has attracted a number of conservative creators in recent months.
He called it a video platform that respects free speech.
As a matter of fact, he said, I have more than double the number of followers there than on your ish platform.
And he's correct.
But a lot of people have said, Tim, why don't you quit YouTube and go to Rumble?
We do post everything on Rumble.
But we primarily are on YouTube.
Why?
95% of Gen Z is on YouTube.
That's extremely important.
Respect to Dan Bongino for, you know, he's got a much bigger platform, but I don't think he should have just walked away.
That being said, they suspended him.
I think maybe he should file a defamation against YouTube because this took money from him and they claimed it was misinformation when it wasn't.
No, seriously.
Issuing a strike, suspending the channel, is a public statement of fact.
You pushed disinformation breaking our rules.
I don't know, you know, there may be a Section 230 thing there, but the question is claiming it's misinformation.
That's what I challenge on.
YouTube's rules say it is misinformation.
So if they were to suspend you right now for something that could be discerningly, which is, you know, not disinformation, I think you may have an argument there and maybe it should be pursued.
But anyway, look, I'm not going to tell Dan how to run his business or anything like that.
I'm going to tell you why they took Rand Paul and Dan Bongino down.
It has nothing to do with what is true, in my opinion.
It has everything to do with bending the knee and obeying the rules and doing as you're told.
That's the reality.
You see, Rand and Dan... Rand and Dan... There you go.
Sounds funny.
and he needed to be punished.
Rant Paul as well.
You see, Rand and Dan...
Rand and Dan...
There you go. Sounds funny.
They challenged the narrative.
YouTube doesn't care what's true.
They care what their agenda is.
And their agenda was in favor of masks, and that was opposed by Rand Paul.
Do you think YouTube will come out right now and apologize and admit fault?
Of course they won't.
They could get in trouble.
So they won't.
I'd argue that right now, depending on the information that was available in January 2015, you need to approach these things... Everybody needs to approach these things and understand what's being done here.
Section 230 is a reality.
Section 230 says that, you know, they can ban you for whatever they want.
Basically, that's what it says.
And they can't be held responsible for what you say.
But if they claim X equals misinformation and then ban you saying you pushed misinformation, well then, that's a statement of fact that you pushed misinformation.
Is it an opinion?
Is it YouTube's opinion?
Okay, well get them to state that.
Get YouTube to say, these are just our opinions and they could be wrong and we're allowed to have our opinions.
Make them say it.
The issue, one of the biggest hurdles when it comes to defamation, and maybe defamation isn't always the appropriate approach.
Maybe you want to go for like consumer protections or unfair business practices, things like that.
And the challenge is, when you levy an argument in court saying they asserted X, they don't even respond to your argument.
They go for a summary dismissal on, we have a right to say whatever we want.
But they don't even say that, they'll just be like, First Amendment, have a nice day.
And so I've talked with lawyers about a lot of the stuff and they'll be like, watch how quickly they retreat and claim that they have a First Amendment right to say whatever they say.
My response?
Get him to say it.
Tucker Carlson claimed his show was opinion in order to respond to, I think it was Tucker, and Rachel Maddow did the same thing and Alex Jones did the same thing.
Everybody does it.
And then all of a sudden everyone's like surprised that pundits say opinions.
This is different though.
YouTube claims that they have rules on misinformation.
Misinformation is a thing.
Misinformation is not an opinion.
It's a noun.
It describes something.
Claiming that you pushed it could be argued to be an opinion because you can say, I think that is misinformation.
Okay.
What would need to happen is, someone needs to file a suit against YouTube for this, and outright say, this is not disinformation, here's evidence, and then question this.
They might argue they can still ban you, but I think you should challenge them.
This is what happened with Alex Berenson when he sued.
His case was kind of unique.
But YouTube asserted they had a policy.
Their policy was X. X was violated.
Okay, that's a statement of fact.
You violated X policy.
You have to prove the policy was violated.
If YouTube's claiming that you violated their misinformation policy, then you can show them that what you said is not misinformation.
You may be able to win, the same as Alex Berenson did.
Anyway.
Here's the big problem with all of this.
Outside of just going the lawsuit route, just...
Let this be the shining example to all of you.
There will come a time soon.
I mean technically the time has already come.
YouTube has made a bunch of claims.
All of these in their misinformation policy are assertions by YouTube of fact.
They say the safety of our creators, viewers, and partners is our highest priority.
We look to each of you to help us protect this unique and vibrant community.
It's important for you to understand our community guidelines and the role they play.
Take care to read the policy, blah, blah, blah.
They say their policy on COVID-19 are subject to change in response to changes to global or local health authorities' guidance on the virus.
There may be a delay between new LHA and WHO guidance on policy issues, given the frequency with which this guidance changes, and our policies may not cover all of their guidance related to COVID-19, blah, blah, blah.
Okay.
Don't post content on YouTube if it includes any of the following.
Treatment misinformation.
Prevention misinformation.
Diagnostic misinformation.
Transmission misinformation.
All of that stuff.
All right.
Well, you know, I don't know what to say as to their changing policy without telling everybody.
I think it's fascinating that the word mask no longer even appears here.
This is so weird.
Yeah.
I suppose it's because of these universities.
I suppose it's because of them.
But my question then is, when you had other clinical trials questioning mask efficacy, why didn't YouTube adopt these policies?
Why are they adhering to the policies of an international body and not the CDC?
I don't know.
I don't know.
They say, content that denies the existence of COVID-19.
They say, this policy applies to videos, video descriptions, comments, live streams, and any other YouTube product or feature.
Keep in mind that this isn't a complete list.
Please note these policies also apply to external links in your content.
This can include clickable URLs, verbally directing users to other sites in video, as well as other forms.
Now, that one's really interesting.
Denying that COVID exists.
Now, what's really interesting here is all the other policies You're allowed to link to other websites, but not the one that denies COVID's existence.
This is really, really interesting.
I don't know.
I don't know.
They say, if your content violates this policy, we'll remove the content and send you an email to let you know.
This is the first time you're violating, blah, blah, blah.
We may terminate your channel or account for repeated violations.
Well, Rand Paul and Dan Bongino both got bumped over this.
Their argument is, at the time, that's what we believed.
I can respect it to a certain degree, and I mean that.
I mean that.
You got a pandemic.
You're not a doctor.
What do you say?
Guys, this is what medical organizations are saying, and we're going to stick to that because we don't want chaos.
The problem is, these one-in organizations, they're not correct.
I'll put it another way.
You know, I've got my issue with NewsGuard.
I've talked about it.
But NewsGuard is just another organization with lower standards than TimCast, right?
NewsGuard says, TimCast is 82 out of 100.
I say, NewsGuard is 50 out of 100.
Who do you listen to?
This just proves it's all about trust, and there is no expert.
MediaBiasFactCheck, in their bias rating of us, calls us right-wing, don't care about that, said we were mostly factual, which is wrong.
We are completely factual.
Completely.
But they've had to issue some corrections.
The article that they wrote is also incorrect!
They falsely represent one of my arguments.
They took one argument I made about one issue and combined it to another issue, completely fabricating the context.
I'm assuming it was an accident.
And therein lies the issue here.
If you go to a rating agency, regardless of whether they're one or the other, and I've used both, But they also are just fallible people who get things wrong.
There is no top tier.
There is no authoritative source.
There are just people feigning authority.
Case in point.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm over at youtube.com slash timcast.
