Steve Bannon Sentenced To FOUR MONTHS, Says November 8th Is JUDGEMENT Day & THE END Of Biden Regime
Steve Bannon Sentenced To FOUR MONTHS, Says November 8th Is JUDGEMENT Day & THE END Of Biden Regime. Biden's Corrupt DOJ Has arrested pro life activists but ignored the far left who protested at SCOTUS homes.
Bannon has been released pending appeal and the question of executive privilege may go all the way to SCOTUS. But this case further exemplifies the corruption in our government. Biden and democrats keep targeting the right while ignoring far left protesters who commit comparable crimes
Bannon says November 8th is judgement day and the end of Biden's regime.
#democrats
#republicans
#biden
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in prison for contempt of Congress, but he will remain out of prison until he files an appeal.
This should get interesting.
It may go all the way to the Supreme Court.
In our next story, podcaster Ethan Klein suspended from YouTube over comments he made about Ben Shapiro being gassed in a new Holocaust.
And in our last story, the embattled chess grandmaster Hans Niemann, who was accused of using vibrating anal beads to cheat, has filed a $100 million lawsuit, citing, of course, defamation against many individuals, including chess champion Magnus Carlsen.
If you like the show, give us a good review, leave us five stars, and share the show with your friends.
Now we need to know everything he said about everything relating to his presidency.
No, no, no, no.
Here's what may happen.
Steve Bannon's appeal will go up to the higher courts, eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, where they will say, nah, he's got executive privilege.
Donald Trump has executive privilege.
But it's not just about that.
I mean, that's a big issue dealing with constitutional questions, but I believe that we're looking at overt corruption here for one simple reason.
Hunter Biden is not going to jail.
I mean, that's it.
There's a lot more to this.
Evidence of 459 crimes was just sent to every member of Congress.
Crimes committed by Hunter Biden.
And we're likely not going to see anything.
They may go after Hunter Biden on, say, the gun charge, where he falsified a document.
I believe that's what the report is.
Or maybe some tax stuff.
That is their ground to then go after Donald Trump and be like, look, we're playing fair.
But the reality is we have tons of evidence of Hunter Biden committing serious crimes, be it the less dramatic like he's doing drugs and hooking up with ladies of the night.
But there's also questions about his international business dealings and what Joe Biden knew.
Well, this is happening.
We have, I don't know, rampant crime throughout the cities, represented by Democrats, only getting worse.
Crime is skyrocketing.
You have pro-life activists being arrested.
And of course, the left says, but they broke the law.
The law says you can't go out in front of a Planned Parenthood and protest.
Ah, yes, yes, indeed.
The law also says you can't go in front of a Supreme Court justice's home and protest, but we saw how they got away with that.
The law is being applied only in one direction.
So we will see.
Is Steve Bannon correct that the 8th of November is when the Biden administration ends?
Sorry, Steve.
I think some good things will come about on November 8th.
But if you think this is the end of the Biden administration, eh, I'd say it's a rallying cry.
He's trying to get people to go out and vote, and I can respect that.
But I'm not convinced that the Republicans are going to be able to do a whole lot.
We may get some America First Republicans, which is a good thing.
Some MAGA Republicans who actually care about this country.
Good thing.
So for that, okay.
I hear what you're saying, Steve.
But the corruption in the DOJ is insane.
Absolutely insane.
And I'll lay it out for you.
While people are being shot at in Chicago, the feds are going after pro-life activists and ignoring the threats against the families of the Supreme Court.
And maybe Steve Bannon is also right when he says that Merrick Garland will be impeached.
The AG.
Maybe Republicans will get in.
Maybe we'll actually see some movement.
And then maybe there will be some accountability and justice.
I wouldn't hold my breath.
But, at the very least, you have to try.
So, get out there and vote.
Get your friends registered to vote.
It may be too late now for that, but just get everybody to go vote.
Make sure you get it done.
Let's read the news before we do.
Head over to TimCast.com if you want to read the news, but also to click the Join Us button and become a member to support our journalists, our field reporting, and our original content.
As a member, you'll get access to the TimCast IRL members-only show uncensored Monday through Thursday at 11 p.m., as well as the Cast Castle vlog and Tales from the Inverted World.
And we have more shows coming for you.
We are working hard to build culture And I think we're doing what we can.
Maybe it'll take 10, 20 years, who knows, but I got big plans.
With your support, we can launch movies, we've already got people pitching us scripts, we can change the culture, we can make fun things, and we can say no to corruption.
TimCast.com, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share this show with your friends.
Here's the story, the breaking news from today.
Steve Bannon sentenced to four months in prison.
Christopher Burton reporting for TimCast.com says, Former Trump White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon was sentenced to four months in prison on Friday after failing to comply with a subpoena from Congressional January 6th Committee.
The sentence will reportedly be stayed if Biden and team file an appeal before November 15th, which they are doing.
Judge Carl Nichols says Bannon has, quote, yet to demonstrate that he has any intention to comply with a subpoena, appearing to agree with the Department of Justice.
However, Nichols agreed the criminal prosecution fell within Bannon's favor because the committee had not immediately attempted to enforce it.
That's interesting.
Nichols countered Bannon's executive privilege claim, citing the former President Trump advisor was a private citizen at the time of the riot on January 6th.
But he was talking to the President, and they want information relating to the President.
That's an interesting argument.
This should go to the Supreme Court.
So why four months in prison?
The information sought by the subpoena is information under which no conceivable claim
of executive privilege could have been made," said the judge of Banning, who previously
asserted his charges fell under the privilege.
Nichols noted, however, Banning appeared to be following legal advice and acknowledged
he had, in fact, engaged with the January 6th Committee.
So why four months in prison?
This is good faith across the board.
Let me tell you my thoughts.
Not a constitutional scholar, not a lawyer, so throw it in the trash if you need be.
But executive privilege should extend to private citizens.
The president can't contract advisors because those communications are up for grabs.
The president needs to be able to have conversations.
They're going after Trump's lawyers.
That's the crazy thing.
And there was a judge that said, Trump's legal communications are not privileged because they pertain to a crime.
What do you think lawyers do?
So when someone's accused of a crime, and the lawyer talks to him and says something like, here's our defense, tell me what happened, and the guy tells him, the lawyer's supposed to be like, whoa!
You're talking about a potential crime here!
I better give all of our communications to the government?
That's the opposite of what's supposed to happen.
That's why we have legal privilege.
Quote, "...executive privilege could not possibly permit the defendant's total noncompliance," asserted U.S.
Attorney Matthew Graves, who previously recommended Bannon pay a $200,000 fine along with serving six months in prison due to bad faith, defiance, and contempt in a sentencing memo.
The memo continued, "...the defendant was a private citizen who had not worked at the White House for years.
The subpoena's demand sought records and information wholly unrelated to the defendant's tenure there, and multiple categories of the subpoena were completely unrelated to communications with the former president."
From the time he was initially subpoenaed, Bannon has shown that his true reasons for total noncompliance have nothing to do with the purported respect for the Constitution, the rule of law, or executive privilege, and everything to do with his personal disdain for members of Congress sitting on the committee and their effort to investigate the attack on our country's peaceful transfer of power.
His noncompliance has been complete and unremitting.
We got a legal argument here.
They were seeking communications they claim are unrelated to the former president, but they don't know because they don't have the communications, so please spare me.
How would you... So, look, look, look, I'll put it this way.
Let's say you came to me and said, Tim, you had a conversation with some people last week.
We want those communications.
And I said, that involves the president.
And then you say, no, it doesn't.
OK, well, how would you know I haven't given you the conversations?
You see, therein lies the problem.
Fishing expedition.
I would have to give up evidence proving If the president himself comes out and says, I exert executive privilege when it comes to this, and Bannon's lawyers advise him to abide by that, then on what grounds are they arguing this information is nothing to do with the president?
Well, we'll see it adjudicated.
I think it needs to be.
I think, you know, criminal charges are the wrong way to go about this.
This should go through the appellate courts to make a decision.
I don't see why Bennett should go to prison for following advice on administrative issues.
Bannon faced two counts of contempt of Congress, each which carry a maximum of 30 days in prison, along with a fine of $100,000 to $100,000.
So how did he end up with four months if the max is 30 days?
In my view, the statute sets out a mandatory minimum of one month and a mandatory maximum of 12 months, said Nichols.
Quite frankly, Mr. Bannon should make no apology.
No American should make an apology for the way Mr. Bannon proceeded in this case, said David Schoen, Bannon's attorney.
There is nothing here to deter.
There is nothing here to punish.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
Remember, this is an illegitimate regime, Biden told reporters before his sentencing.
Their judgment day is on the 8th of November, when the Biden administration ends, by the way.
And remember, take down the CCP.
Bannon is the first political figure to be found guilty of contempt of Congress since Attorney General Richard Kleindienst and Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy were convicted in 1974, the outlet noted.
We'll see what happens.
I will stress, This is an issue of, I mean, this outright, you know, this is the courts, this is the legislative branch, but this is an issue of legislation to break down what, if anything, is executive privilege.
That's fair.
So, okay.
I think that first what should happen is Bannon should argue his case.
It should go to the appellate courts, eventually maybe the Supreme Court.
If he loses, they should then say, okay, now you must abide by this subpoena.
Then I'd like to hear Bannon's argument.
For what reason, after the court's determined it is not executive privilege, will you claim you can't testify or turn over information?
But to say four months suspended until the appeal?
A little over the top.
I think it's political.
I think the goal is an October surprise so that they can run, you know, Steve Bannon, Trump's advisor, going to prison.
That's the game they want to play.
Here's the game they won't play.
Evidence implicating Hunter Biden and 459 crimes was just sent to every member of Congress.
The report was produced following a 13-month investigation into material found on Hunter's laptop.
Oh boy.
Here it is.
Every single member of the U.S.
Congress, both House and Senate, has just received a report chronicling a total of 459 documented violations of state and federal law, which were found in the laptop of President Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden.
Do you think we're going to see any action in this regard?
Sorry, the answer is going to be a no.
But, you know, maybe it'll be a slap on the wrist, you know, a fraction of what it's supposed to be, so they can justify going after Trump.
Here it is.
Quote, the report is a simple but extremely thorough roadmap for who needs to be subpoenaed, for which time frames and for what types of crimes.
Garrett Ziegler, founder of the firm Marco Polo, which just finished conducting a 13-month investigation into the laptop's contents, told The Sun.
Ziegler is a former official of the Trump White House, Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy, and says he launched the investigation to do some of the heavy lifting for Republicans who may wish to hold hearings on the matter should they retake the House and or Senate in the 2022 midterms.
Our number one goal is to ensure that Republicans don't waste time.
Right now.
People still don't know the entirety of what's on the laptop in terms of crimes, which is what my nonprofit cares about.
This report finally answers that question, so Republicans can go back and say they still need to look at what's on the laptop.
All we're seeking is the equal application of the law.
We'll hear, hear.
News of the shocking material found on the Biden laptop emerged prior to the 2020 election after Hunter left his computer at a repair shop.
This we all know.
Big tech companies worked fervently to prevent the public from knowing about the contents of Hunter's hard drive, which could be used to blackmail Joe Biden.
Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg admitted to intentionally suppressing news on the laptop at the behest of the FBI, no less.
Twitter suspended the account of the New York Post, which published the story, just three weeks before the 2020 election.
That suspension followed Twitter blocking users from sharing or sending a link to the article on their platform.
These people are evil.
They're evil people.
Hunter Biden committed crimes.
Twitter helped cover that up.
Oh, but wait, the corruption knows no bounds.
How about this one?
Biden administration may freeze Musk's Twitter acquisition, citing national security.
Oh, we can't know about the illegal goings-on at Twitter, can we?
And there it is.
When Elon Musk finally started getting close to gaining control of Twitter, something funny happened.
The Biden administration is contemplating intervening and stopping Elon Musk from acquiring Twitter.
Why?
In my opinion, there is evidence on Twitter of government corruption, violations of the Constitution, things that would make your stomach turn.
Here we go.
After the 2020 election, the Media Research Center polled 1,750 Biden voters in all seven swing states.
Survey data showed that not only were 45% of Biden voters unaware of the scandal, But had those voters known, 9.4% of them would have abandoned Biden, flipping all six swing states.
There you go.
Twitter, Facebook, they colluded, they suppressed pertinent information.
And that's dirty politics.
There it is.
Stars and Stripes.
A look into the claims that bank reports show Hunter Biden committed serious crimes.
Sure.
Whatever, man.
At the very least, the reports exist.
And what should happen next is these should go to the DOJ for prosecution.
It's not going to happen, though, is it?
We will never get justice or accountability.
Not unless we win.
And we get real America First candidates in office after November 8th.
Those individuals will then need to start filing subpoenas, investigating, calling people to testify.
We need this.
We need Hunter Biden and Joe Biden hearings.
From Politico.
You see, here's what's going to happen.
Trump and Hunter Biden might not get indicted.
Prosecutors aren't robots.
They have wide discretion when it comes to deciding whether to indict someone.
You see, here's what's going to happen.
First, the story from Politico, they want to conflate Trump and Hunter Biden.
Donald Trump trying to promote his properties through a State Department website.
We saw that, I think, in Scotland.
Okay, that was bad.
I'm interested to see what that was, but that doesn't sound like criminal.
It sounds just like administrative.
You know, like, ethics violation.
Trump wanted to get the G7 at Doral, his golf resort.
He walked that back when there was outrage, even from his own base.
So what do you got?
I hear all the time from the left, they're like, Trump's crimes must be answered!
And I'm like, which ones?
What are you talking about?
Seriously, present any.
No.
Because there aren't any.
They tried claiming it was Ukrainegate.
That Trump was trying to pressure a foreign leader and all that.
Get out of here, man.
It's just so stupid.
Let me show you the latest example.
Judge.
Federal judge finds that Trump lied under oath about voter fraud in Georgia while trying to overturn the 2020 election results.
Well, by the sound of that, the headline, it sounds that a federal judge has proven Trump lied under oath.
No, they're lying to you again, as they always do.
Read the story and you'll understand.
Let me show you.
They say, A federal judge said Wednesday that former President Donald Trump lied under oath about voter fraud in Georgia while trying to get the state's 2020 election results overturned.
District Judge David Carter made a determination in a ruling ordering the conservative lawyer John Eastman to turn over to the House Select Committee investigating January 6th a batch of his communications related to Trump and his allies' efforts to subvert the election.
On December 4th, 2020, Trump's legal team filed a lawsuit in Georgia Alleging that Fulton County had miscounted thousands of votes.
It also contested the state's court proceedings in federal court.
But later that month, according to Carter's ruling, Eastman said in an email that while Trump had signed a verification for the state court filing on December 1st, he has since been made aware that some of the allegations and evidence proffered by the experts has been inaccurate.
Eastman added, for him to sign a new verification with that knowledge and incorporation by reference would not be accurate.
So, did Donald Trump lie under oath?
No.
The judge is lying to you.
That's right.
I'll say it.
That's a lie.
It's politics.
If I go to you and I say, there are five lights, and you say, there's clearly four, and I go, you're mistaken.
There's five.
And then you sign a sworn statement saying there are four lights.
Did you lie under oath?
No.
Just because I made you aware That there were five lights does not mean you lied.
In fact, in that argument, there were four lights.
But let me let me tell you this.
If a lawyer goes to Trump and says, Trump, there are four lights, I assure you of it.
Trump can just say, you're wrong.
I don't believe you.
That doesn't mean you're lying, which is why perjury charges are so difficult to go against or to go to try.
Here we go.
Trump and his lawyers still filed their complaint citing those numbers.
And Trump signed a letter swearing under oath that the incorporated inaccurate numbers are true and correct or believed to be true and correct.
You see?
Trump says he believed it was to be.
This is why they don't go after the stuff.
I have seen people who believed stupid things, okay?
But if they really believe it, how do you prove they didn't?
It doesn't mean he knew, it means someone told him!
the specific numbers of voter fraud were wrong, but continued to tout those numbers both in
court and to the public.
It doesn't mean he knew, it means someone told him.
But if I tell you the sky is green, you don't gotta believe me.
Now I think Trump is wrong, hands down.
Don't get me wrong.
I don't know about the specific numbers he cited.
I think, I just, I really don't care for the fraud narrative.
I think if you want to talk about procedural changes, vote by mail, ballot harvesting, let's talk about it.
Fine.
But I don't like the idea about manufactured votes and fake ballots from China and watermarking.
Like, come on.
We can get nuanced in those conversations, but I just think Trump had bad info.
I don't think he's lying.
And that's the game they play.
Wednesday wasn't the first time Carter suggested the former president committed a crime in connection with his crusade to undermine the election.
In a March ruling, the judge said Trump likely obstructed Congress, a felony, when he tried to disrupt the election certification process on January 6th.
How did he do that?
He said, we got a count on Mike Pence and we're gonna march peacefully?
Those things are protected by the Constitution.
Carter pointed out the dozens of lawsuits Trump campaigned as Republicans filed in court.
How is it a crime to file in court?
That's literally what you're supposed to do.
After filing and losing more than 60 suits, this plan was a last-ditch attempt to secure the presidency by any means.
The ruling saying, adding that the illegality of the plan was obvious.
Welcome to the Banana Republic, my friends, when filing court cases is considered criminal.
Did Trump file and lose more than 60 suits?
Now, I don't know the exact number.
What I can tell you is that most of the lawsuits that were filed in relation to the election were on procedural grounds.
Some were on fraud.
They were dismissed based on standing, not merit.
Not all of them, but many of them.
That means, if you throw a pie at me, a random person can't sue you.
Because they don't have standing, they weren't on an injured party.
I would have to do it.
That's a really interesting way to put it.
Great.
It's politics, baby.
It's all politics.
procedural issues, they said, you aren't one of the voters.
You aren't from that state and you have no standing here.
That's a really interesting way to put it.
They say Trump and Eastman launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, an action
unprecedented in American history.
Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower.
It was a coup in search of a legal theory.
Great.
It's politics, baby.
It's all politics.
Let's talk politics.
Somehow this from Austin Ulren.
Some of my missed that when Biden announced a pardon for everyone in prison for federal
marijuana position, the pardon applies to literally no one.
The Marshall Project says, there is no one currently in federal custody for simple possession of marijuana.
In fact, it will lead to none getting out of prison.
Here we go.
But this is what you will get when you vote Democrat.
Convicted killer, freed from prison by Fetterman-backed district attorney, now wanted for murder.
Yo, I'm all about non-violent offenders getting released on house arrest.
I'll tell you the solution.
Someone commits a crime, even a first offense that may be a lesser-tier violent crime.
House arrest.
I know, I know, some people may not agree.
Feel free to argue.
Here's what I mean.
If you grab someone's purse and run, that's a violent crime.
But it's not like you pointed a gun in their face, threatened to kill them, you just snatched their purse.
That person, ankle monitor, house arrest.
Somebody who shoplifts, ankle monitor, house arrest.
Put the costs on them, not us.
When we send these people to jail, we gotta foot the bill.
I don't care about that.
Somebody commits a murder or is accused of murder, okay.
Bail hearing?
I'm in favor of remand if there's a preponderance of evidence.
I don't like the idea that innocent people, without being proven, will be withheld, but We have to balance, as much as people don't want to hear, there are security issues and freedom issues.
I think the issue is, if there's a preponderance of evidence showing that you may have committed a serious violent crime, then we gotta lock you up.
We do.
And then you can have your court case and you're found innocent, then I believe there should be restitution.
I believe there should be laws protecting people who are currently awaiting trial.
You shouldn't have to lose your job or something like that because the state's accusing you of something and we're scared.
I believe that the detention centers for people who are remanded should be as comfortable as comfortable can get.
If the state accuses you of murder and says a preponderance of evidence suggests it, but we've not proven it beyond a reasonable doubt, I believe your detention center should be that of a hotel room.
And let me tell you, if we put people on house arrest, they gotta eat their own food.
They can't leave the house.
Then eventually, after a certain amount of time, we say, okay, you can leave your house for work.
You see how this works?
We save money.
With the money we save, we put it into detention.
Then, if somebody is accused, but not proven guilty, we're trying to balance this here, right?
Instead, this is what you get with Democrats.
They just let a convicted killer out, and then he goes and kills somebody?
He's accused of it?
Bro.
Here is Chicago.
Shocking video shows Windy City gunmen hanging out of car and randomly shooting with paramedics taking cover in their ambulance.
I talked about this the other day.
That's Chicago for you.
When you're in Chicago, you're not going to get mugged every day, you're not going to get attacked, but periodically you'll be driving and someone will start shooting at you.
It happened to me, it happened to me only once in my life.
You know, so I'm saying, it's not like it's every single time.
How about we lock these people up and people who are nonviolent offenders get put on house
How about if you're accused of a crime, instead of putting you in jail, like let's say you're accused of shoplifting or something, and you can't pay bail.
That's so dumb.
House arrest!
Plain and simple, it's gonna be cheaper, dude!
Why do we gotta have these jammed up prisons and pay all these bills?
You stay home, you don't go anywhere, the company shouldn't be, your job should be protected.
Look, I'm a liberal.
I think in that regard, the company should put you in a holding pattern and say, you shouldn't be fired simply because of a statement and accusation.
It should not be held against you.
But for these crimes, you know, instead of being locked up, just go home.
Now if you're homeless, okay, well then we got an issue.
I'm not gonna pretend to have all the answers, alright?
But maybe then you go to jail or something like that.
Or we put you in some kind of detention center which is more akin to an apartment.
You can't leave.
Let me show you what's going on.
Paul Vaughn, pro-life father of 11, arrested by FBI, speaks out.
It's all very shocking.
No one can believe the federal government would do something like this.
Bro, please, come on.
You've been paying attention.
You know they can.
You know Merrick Garland can.
While they're arresting pro-life protesters, why?
Well, they violated this.
There's a law here, okay?
They say about a year and a half ago, A small group that prayed regularly outside the carefem abortion business in Mount Julia, Tennessee gathered at the facility for what they call a rescue.
The focus of that march was prayer.
More than a year passed.
Then at 7 a.m.
on October 5th, the FBI showed up at the home of Paul Vaughn to arrest him.
Four federal agents pounded on the Vaughn front door.
Another agent walked around the family's yard, apparently told to the Vaughn's 11 children, waiting for their father to drive them to school.
Their dad was about to be arrested.
One child ran in crying, the FBI is here and they're arresting daddy.
In a video taken by Vaughn's wife, she asks, I want to know why you're banging on my door with a gun.
You're not going to tell me why you're here.
An agent responds, no we are not, I tried.
No you didn't, you didn't try.
Referring to the day in question, Mount Juliet Police Captain Tyler Chandler told the Wilson Post, a local newspaper, that people have assembled in front of the building since the opening of the women's medical facility that originally provided medication abortions and expanded its services.
Since the facility opened, people have been allowed to peacefully protest here and have done so.
This event was the first time they have actually went inside the building and refused to leave.
Mount Juliet Police Chief James Hambrick told the Wilson Post,
Our aim was not to arrest. We had a good dialogue. We're just glad everything went as peaceful and
orderly as it did. The morning of the FBI raid, Vaughn was taken from his home to a
federal holding facility and given a lawyer.
Vaughn has since notified the court of his change of legal representation to the Thomas More Society.
Vaughn said it wasn't until the end of the six hours at the federal facility that the charges were explained.
It's all very shocking.
Thomas More Society attorneys now defending Vaughn against alleged violations, commonly known as the FACE Act, freedom of access to clinic entrances, Uh, the Biden minister, uh, I'm sorry, that's what they're being charged with.
The Biden Department of Justice claims that Vaughn is guilty of conspiracy against rights secured by the FACE Act.
All right, all right, that's, that's the point.
A total of 11 people have been arrested with charges regarding the same date.
Okay, you may be saying that, and I just want to, I just want to pause.
Guys, National Catholic Register, put the charges right in the front so we know what's going on.
Don't make me read your narrative first.
It's not, anyway.
Here's the Washington Post.
Yes, experts say protests at SCOTUS justices' homes appear to be illegal.
Who got arrested?
Nobody.
Do you see now what's happening before your very eyes?
Do I need to make it clearer for you?
I don't know how.
May 11th, people illegally protested at judges' homes in violation of the law to stop bias in the courts.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Pro-life protesters went inside a clinic and prayed and then left.
Everything.
And more than a year later.
I hope you're paying attention.
There is a First Amendment right to protest.
I can understand the arguments for both of these circumstances.
Medical facilities being obstructed can be dangerous.
Especially if you don't know the exact reason why the woman or individual is at this medical facility.
Blocking that, I don't agree with.
Now, there's challenges because, you know, it's abortion.
It's not the same as, like, someone going to an ER.
But if your argument is that people should have access to medical facilities and you shouldn't be able to block their entrance, okay.
I can agree with that.
If you're gonna argue that you shouldn't be able to protest at a judge's home because if judges can't be free from political pressures, they can't administer the law, I actually agree with that.
The argument for the law On Judges' Homes is that you can't have constitutional freedoms if judges can be swayed.
These are appointments, not politicians.
They're not elected.
Some of them are.
But the Supreme Court judges, federal judges, how can they administer justice if they're being threatened?
You see?
So, certainly there's an argument as to why one thing comes first.
But it's only being administered in one direction.
And that's the name of the game, and it's what we've been experiencing for some time.
I don't have any answers for you, my friend, other than the corruption is all around us.
Elon Musk may figure out what's going on with Twitter.
And, uh, I told you guys how much you want to bet.
How much you want to bet.
Elon Musk sits down with Twitter and says, let's buy it.
They say, okay.
They sign the contracts.
Upon the signing of the contract, they say, now you have access to all of our information.
Lo and behold, what does Elon see?
National security letters mandating bots and other extreme actions on Twitter.
And they say, you see?
It's the government.
And Elon says, I'm not buying that.
They say, too bad.
You can't back out now because you can't expose this information and you have no grounds for termination.
So what does Elon try to do?
He tries to get them to be forced to admit it with his claims about bots.
They resist.
The judge says, no Elon, you got to do it.
Elon says, fine, I'll do it.
Calling the bluff, the national security administration, uh, national security sector.
Now, to defend the illicit corrupt activities going on at Twitter, the Biden administration may intervene and stop the acquisition outright.
Elon Musk calling their bluff.
I'm not saying it's true and definitive.
I'm saying, what if?
I genuinely believe there's a strong possibility that's the case and that's why we're now seeing it.
The Biden administration is corrupt beyond all recognition.
I have laid it out for you.
I hope you realize how serious this is.
I don't know what this means, but for the love of all that is holy, you need to go and vote.
You need to tell each and every one of your friends and family members.
You need to go and vote.
That's it.
To all the naysayers, to all those who have doubts, what have you got to lose?
Trust me, if every single person did, you would win.
We'll see how that plays out with Bannon.
Appeal coming soon.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
YouTuber and podcaster Ethan Klein has been suspended after he said he hopes Ben Shapiro gets gassed first if there's another Holocaust.
It's a shocking, crude, and crass comment, but I'll just say it outright.
You know, we defended Ethan Klein, his right to free speech.
I mean, look, I normally don't comment on commentators.
Many of you might not even know who this guy is.
But there's a big thing happening pertaining to Ben Shapiro and Jordan Peterson, which makes this story particularly relevant and important in the culture war.
But I digress.
You might not know who he is.
He used to be a lot bigger.
He had a big YouTube channel.
He had millions of subs.
Stopped producing on it.
Started doing a podcast.
His channel seems to be kind of on the decline.
And so I think what we're seeing here is the death throes.
The death rattle.
That is, this dude's from another era.
And I think the gist of the story is he's a guy who's defended cancel culture.
He's a guy who said cancel culture was a good thing.
He's a guy who then makes a very, very crude joke, as he calls it.
I mean, I don't view it that way, but you know.
And now he's suspended.
His response is to blame Ben Shapiro and claim white supremacists like Ben Shapiro or something?
There's a story here that I think gets to the heart of the shallowness.
That's probably not a good word for it.
Is that even a word?
The limited function of what these people actually advocate for.
And I think it really breaks down the culture war really well.
That is to say, Ethan Klein is an edgy boy comedian.
From back in the day, 10 years ago, longer, he's making YouTube videos that were silly, that were gags, and now all of a sudden he's making podcasts where he's hanging out with Hasan Piker and they're talking about political issues.
And why?
I mean, this guy doesn't have anything to do with politics.
He doesn't know anything about politics.
Why is he in it?
Politics became pop culture.
So let me break down for you the story so far, and then I want to, this is a really great, again I want to stress this point, I normally don't care to talk about commentators themselves, but this story is a perfect example of the modern culture war, and why we're seeing this level of shock content, and why we're seeing the fake political positions of the fake left.
Look, Jacobin Magazine.
I know a lot of you guys, you know, we're not fans of socialism.
But I have a subscription to Jacobin.
Why?
Well, that's the real left.
And I mean it.
And I disagree with them on a lot of political issues.
But you know what?
They'll tell you the truth.
Look, I'm not going to say they're perfect, but the right's not perfect either.
But I got Jacobin Magazine.
I can open it up and they're like, the Democrats are lying to you about inflation.
They're like, free speech must be defended.
They're saying things, you know, like, war is bad.
Joe Biden sucks.
I appreciate that stuff.
I want to hear those opinions.
Ethan Klein is the fake left.
I'm not saying this to be disrespectful or start a beef or anything, but Hasan and Ethan are shock jock content.
Seriously, I encourage you to watch his show.
For real.
I would imagine that if you're a fan of TimCast IRL or of these videos, you'd probably get through a few minutes before being like, dude, I'm sorry, I can't watch that.
And I'll explain in a minute.
But let's start here and talk about what this phenomenon is.
From the Jerusalem Post, YouTuber Ethan Klein slammed Ben Shapiro because the Pundit's Daily Wire outlet employs political commentator Candace Owens, who the YouTuber said had taught West his anti-Semitic rhetoric.
So basically, this is the story right here.
He said if there's another Holocaust and people start rounding up the Jews again that he hopes Ben Shapiro gets gassed first or last.
Whatever that's supposed to mean.
In fact, when he started saying it, the interesting thing is his crew cuts to a breakaway because this has happened to Ethan Klein before.
He said things.
He once called for a terror attack on a Republican convention.
I think it was a Republican convention.
I think it was NRA maybe.
He called for a terror attack.
Overtly called for it.
They cut away, come back, and he goes, okay, sorry guys, I got a little carried away there.
Ethan Klein doesn't know anything about guns.
Ethan Klein doesn't know anything about policy.
There's a reason he's doing this, and it's because he's desperate for relevance.
I am not saying that to make a dig against Ethan.
I'll actually show you.
I have the evidence, right?
Or I should say, I have evidence which leads me to believe this is the case.
Here is the tweet from Ethan Klein.
He says, A few white supremacists successfully lobbied YouTube to suspend me, a Jewish dual citizen of Israel and the USA, for anti-Semitism.
Ben Shapiro and friends can virtue signal all they want, but ultimately, they are the ones platforming dangerous anti-Semites.
All I did was point it out.
Let me stop right there before reading.
Actually, no, no, no, let me read this.
He says Ben Shapiro, who was happy to perform a purity test on me and declare me a bad Jew for criticizing Israel, hosts Candace, I'm not reading this quote, Owens on his website, The Daily Wire, he is constantly excusing, enabling, and platforming real antisemitism.
He goes on to say, "...the joke that I was suspended for simply points out that Ben, who is desperate to be accepted by his Christian nationalist friends as white, will only ever be seen by them as a useful idiot, and sadly for him..." Okay, I'm gonna go... He's got a lot more tweets, but first, let's start here.
Ben Shapiro, according to the Anti-Defamation League, was the number one target for white supremacist anti-Semite neo-Nazi types.
Ethan Klein is arguing that white supremacists got him banned because of what he said about gassing Ben Shapiro.
I gotta pause right there.
Anybody who knows anything about politics knows that that statement makes literally no sense.
Ethan, buddy, white supremacists like your joke.
That's why we didn't.
But apparently they don't understand this.
You see, this is what you need to understand about the modern political space.
Someone like me, you know, you see Ethan Klein coming out here saying he's a Jewish dual citizen and all that.
Sure, I think that matters.
Good for him.
And then I will of course point out that I'm in fact mixed-race second generation.
Um, so let me tell you, Ethan, you and I, we agree on this.
White supremacists?
Bad.
Don't like them.
Um, really bad.
Yeah, we would like that stuff to stop.
But bro, your joke played to them, and they like that.
Just look at what the ADL has to say about it.
This is an important point to refute, and then I also gotta point out...
This right here where he says, Ben, who is desperate to be accepted by Christian nationalist friends, will only ever be seen by them as a Jew.
I'm sorry, Ben Shapiro is the principal talent, probably one of the most prominent conservative voices in the country, as is Dennis Prager, and they're both Jewish!
So, uh, no.
I mean, this literally makes no sense.
The Daily Wire has their top personality.
Most famous and biggest moneymaker is a Jewish guy.
You will not be able to claim that Christian nationalists are looking down on him.
They support him.
And Ben Shapiro talks about Judaism all the time.
If anything, he's helping spread his ideas and understanding to people who maybe don't know.
He says the people reporting me, accepting Ben, are tiki-torch-carrying white Christian nationalists.
They do not give an F about anti-Semitism or Jewish people.
They revel in the fact that YouTube and other institutions are so quick to act on bad faith and malicious outrage.
Then why do those people, the white supremacists, target Ben Shapiro?
That's what the Anti-Defamation League said.
Don't believe them?
Fine, whatever.
Now, you see, this is why I say, you know, Ethan is not political.
He doesn't know what's going on.
cancel culture and in the politics and moral outrage it's incredible that they have become the party of free
speech what the crying and lobbying for mighty platforming they both contend and
defend cancel culture in the same breath now you see
this is why i say you know even is not political is not going on is anything
about this ben shapiro defended you
I mean, he criticized your policies.
He said you shouldn't have been banned.
TimCast IRL, we talked about this and we said you should not be suspended for this.
He's not calling for violence or anything.
He's just saying something awful.
He should be allowed to say awful things.
So who are you referring to, Ethan?
Ah, he's making it up.
That's what they do.
He's making it up.
This is performative outrage.
It genuinely- because I can break down how none of this makes sense.
It's performative outrage because Ethan Klein is not political.
He's only in politics now because politics became pop culture with Trump.
Because of this, people who have no business in politics all of a sudden now are in the political arena and don't understand it.
Let me put it this way.
When Ethan Klein was making FUPA videos, you know, fatty upper pubic area videos, and you know, they were good.
It was good comedy.
He was making all these funny, silly, rambunctious videos.
I was covering politics.
I was actively working in non-profits, fundraising, activism, policy, my whole life.
I've worked some of the biggest non-profits.
I wasn't making edgy comedy videos.
I was covering major protests.
Once politics started becoming pop culture, it meant that channels like mine started becoming more and more prominent.
Comedians like Joe Rogan, who used to tell jokes about cats, all of a sudden now he's talking politics.
Politics became pop culture.
Ethan Klein, seeing that he needs to shift with the times, enters the political fray, but doesn't know anything about it.
And here you are.
He goes on to mention that he's filed several lawsuits to defend the First Amendment, and he has.
And this was back in the day.
He mentions that someone was trying to come after him for copyright when he was engaging in fair use.
He won, and good for him.
He says, once again, I humbly request that all naysayers, haters, detractors can, you know, yeah, yeah, yeah, suck his tiny wiener or whatever.
He says, our current lawsuits with Ryan Kavanaugh seeks to accomplish the same.
I will not back down to be silenced by bad faith provocateurs.
I make no apology.
As Ben Shapiro says, facts don't care about your feelings, if only he meant it.
Now, here's the question.
Ethan Klein made a bad comment about Ben Shapiro.
Ben Shapiro doesn't know who Ethan Klein is.
He's now engaging in a spat with Ben Shapiro.
Like I said, it seems the point here is specifically for audience, for clicks, for entertainment.
Ben Shapiro responds.
I don't believe that Ethan Klein should be suspended from YouTube for his awful garbage, but I'll shed no tears for a person who has routinely engaged in cancellation of others' world's smallest violin.
Here is a tweet Ben Shapiro posts.
Ethan Klein said, Years ago, I interviewed Jordan Peterson.
Before, I was very familiar with his politics.
He was an interesting guest who I enjoyed sitting with, but especially now, I can see he's a dangerous gateway to alt-right transphobia and COVID misinfo.
I removed both interviews today.
Why?
A mob got angry with Ethan, and so he removed Jordan Peterson.
Here we can move forward and see Jordan Peterson's response.
Also, I should warn you that those who engage in cancel culture generally live to regret it.
I'm not going to come after you except politely in this Twitter stream.
But the chickens will definitely come home to roost, as they always do.
Ethan said, they are currently the greatest beneficiaries of cancel culture, identity politics, and moral outrage.
It's incredible they have become the party of free speech.
We read this.
Let me show you several times.
This has come back to haunt Ethan Klein.
So, following this Twitter thread, with Jordan Peterson responding, there was another story where Ethan said, Apparently he had inadvertently mocked, made light of a gay stereotype, and for this he lost his sponsors.
Cancel culture came for him.
Here's Zero Hedge.
YouTuber who said cancel culture was a good thing gets cancelled.
I believe this was that story, but take a look at this Twitter thread.
Ethan Klein responds to Jordan Peterson saying, Actually, Ethan, he did.
But I mean, I don't think Jordan came out and said, Oh, Smackdown!
I smack you down!
Nothing like that.
Instead of acknowledging my response, you retract further into your bubble of flatterers
and devotees, talking of how you schooled me on cancel culture.
You didn't school me, Jordan.
Your room is as messy as your mind."
Actually, Ethan, he did.
But I mean, I don't think Jordan came out and said, oh, smack down, I smack you down.
Nothing like that.
That's not Jordan Peterson.
Ethan Klein says, and Jordan, regarding cancel culture, the only thing that has ever guided
me is my own moral compass.
Everything else is just noise.
The mob is free to cancel me as it will, and they have plenty of times.
And actually, canceling as you call it, sometimes is a good experience, as painful as it is.
The times when I've received the most flack on things, I've said, are the times I've learned the most about myself and the world and how to be more mindful and caring of others.
said are the times I've learned the most about myself and the world and how to
become how to be more mindful and caring of others." Man, I butchered that. He said,
"'Canceling' is sometimes a good experience."
Ethan, you made a joke, as you say, that Ben Shapiro should be gassed first.
Okay?
Maybe you should understand why people are upset with you for that.
Now, why is it when you get cancelled over your sponsors, you say you're an existential threat, but when you make comments about Jewish people, you think it's white supremacists?
Because he's lying.
He is.
Let me show you.
This is the H3 Podcast.
I got a lot of subscribers.
I got way more subscribers than we do on their podcast.
Granted, I suppose if you were to take active production, I have more subscribers between my three channels.
But there's probably overlap, so more unique subscribers probably to H3 Podcast.
So I decided to take a look at their latest show.
And for the first five or ten minutes, I started to understand what his show was.
And normally, I'm not so crude and crass as, say, someone like H3.
But now I'm going to be.
I watched a bit, a couple of his clips, and I really started to figure something out.
Yo, I'm sorry, H3 Podcast listeners.
Not all of you, but this show really is quite idiocracy.
In this latest episode, it's him arguing with his hosts, and it's some of the lowest Common Denominator content I've ever seen.
That's just me.
I know a lot of people like it.
But I view it as lowbrow.
That's just it.
I am not saying you're not allowed to like lowbrow content.
I mean, some people like Big Bang Theory.
I personally don't.
When you watch Timcast IRL, we immediately start with, boom, introduction.
Here's what's happening in the news.
Here's the story.
Here's what we think.
Check out our website.
Promo pitch.
Here's our guest.
Let's talk politics.
I generally avoid talking about other commentators or doing drama bait stuff.
It's why, and I'll say it, it's why we won't have people like Sam Seder on the show.
We invited him on the show in good faith.
He turned it into drama.
I just don't talk about it.
I'm bringing it up now because it's relevant to the context here.
But there's a reason why we don't invite certain people on the show.
People whose whole YouTube, like everything they do on YouTube is just like ragging on YouTubers and doing drama TMZ style YouTuber stuff.
We don't.
Yesterday we had Doug Mastriano on the show.
He's running for governor in Pennsylvania.
I think he's pretty great.
We'll see how things play out.
Yeah, that's what we like to do.
We like to have, you know, people who are running for office, members of Congress, and talk about high-level political issues, and civil war, right?
You know how it goes.
Ethan Klein is an edgy boy.
I'm not saying that's disrespectful.
I mean, he's an edgy comedian.
He started talking politics because it is pop culture.
For whatever reason.
But Ethan Klein is not a political guy.
The end result is fairly obvious.
You take a look at the H3 Podcast.
They've gotten 14.619 million views in the last 30 days, down 37%, and they've lost 10,000 subscribers.
I mean, that sucks, man.
He's on average losing subscribers every single day.
I have to imagine that something like that eats away at you.
I talk about this quite a bit.
I should say, I talk about it every so often.
YouTubers who break down.
Take a look at any one of these YouTubers when they have their breakdown moment and they go, guys, I just can't do this anymore.
It's just too stressful.
And then they want to take a break.
Typically, you'll notice among these YouTubers that their previous videos were in decline, their viewership was in decline.
This is what we see.
People who are on YouTube are looking at their real-time analytics going down every day, and they don't know why.
And they try as hard as they can to keep viewership, but they're losing it, and they're like, no, what am I doing wrong?
Why don't people like me?
The reality is, dude, ebbs and flows.
There's nothing you can do about it.
I mean, during the 2020 election, we were getting 150,000 concurrent viewers on TimCastIRL.
Now we're getting 45.
45, and at one point in 2021, we were getting 27,000.
I know that's a lot for, you know, a lot of people are like, that's actually a lot, but that was low for us.
Going from 150k, and a year later, we're all of a sudden doing 27 on some nights.
Granted, we were averaging 35, but our lowest point.
And I'm like, you know, it is what it is.
I don't do this show because we're going to get a billion viewers.
I never did.
I've only ever made these videos because I have a million things going through my mind that I want to talk about.
And I think that's all you need.
So for us, that's led to us generally improving.
And we have our dips.
Sometimes it's because of the weather.
Sometimes people go outside.
Sometimes people party on Friday night.
But what I see here with the H3 Podcast, why would Ethan Klein constantly say things that are dancing on the edge of getting banned and then getting banned?
Why would he make stereotypical jokes about gay people?
I mean, we don't even do that!
We don't do any of that stuff!
They say we're conservative, it's like, dude, the most we get into it is outright saying, like, we think trans people should live and be happy, but we think parents should be the ones deciding and kids probably shouldn't get sex changes.
I don't come out and scream and deride people and say things like this.
I don't want to.
I don't need to.
I would rather be destitute and homeless than engage in content like that.
A lot of people say, like, oh, but Tim, you know, you talk about civil war all the time, like, yeah, I genuinely believe these, based on the reports we've seen from CIA operatives, security officials, Princeton professors, and I think there's a strong possibility of things like that happening.
I don't just say that people are, you know, some people, it's the weirdest thing.
There's an article about me or something where I criticized Andy Ngo, and then people were like, that proves you're grifting.
And I'm like, no, it proves the opposite.
If I wanted to come out and just pander, I would just defend everything everyone ever did.
Who would I be pandering to?
The left?
They don't like me.
No.
I say what I mean.
I try to be tactful.
You know, we've had Andy on the show a couple times since then, and he's fantastic.
Here's the issue.
What I have pulled up right here is SocialBlade tracking H3 Podcast analytics.
And they're way down.
Okay?
He's down 37%.
Don't ask me why, I don't know.
I watched his latest episode, and for the first several minutes, it's them playing this intro with music and weird imagery.
And it's artistic, you know, I'm not trying to drag it.
And it's him saying, guys, stop.
Guys, come on, man.
Guys, stop.
And then his producer's like, sorry.
Sorry.
And I'm just like...
I get it.
It's more like... It's entertainment, it's not politics.
You come to TimCast IRL, you're gonna get politics.
Here's where we're at.
We're down.
We were getting 60-some-odd million a year ago.
So we are down, but we're generally improving.
We're up 20,000 subs in the past month.
29.217 million views in the last 30 days.
We're up 23%.
Plus, I've got this channel, my other channel, all generally improving.
And all we strive to do is be cordial, amicable, host good guests, and talk about important issues.
Here's why I'm showing you TimCast IRL Social Blade.
We are not the same show.
H3H3 and TimCast are not the same show.
I do not expect Ethan to ever try to emulate us, nor do I think there's a correlation between our viewership in such that he should be like us to a certain degree.
What I do want to say is, One, I would say, Ethan, get off politics.
You can see it's already getting suspended.
You're not a political guy.
You're doing leftovers.
Bro, I feel like you are dipping your toes in to try and get views or something, but you're just not there.
You don't know this stuff.
What you said about white supremacists getting you banned makes no sense.
The Anti-Defamation League says Ben Shapiro is their primary target.
If anything, they like the joke you made.
If you knew anything about the political landscape, you'd probably recognize that.
The reality is, you said something offensive to Jewish people, and the Jerusalem Post wrote it up.
It is probably viewers from places like this who complained to YouTube and got you taken down.
I can only assume you're either mistaken or lying.
You choose which one makes more sense.
But I will tell you this.
If you want to get into politics, be calm, have fun, be a bit irreverent, but be serious.
Otherwise, dude, this ain't it.
You know, you had six million some odd subscribers on your H3H3 productions of doing gags and comedy.
Why'd you stop?
You started doing the podcast.
You hosted interesting people like Jordan Peterson.
Bro, if you want to be in the realm of culture war politics, you can be, but recognize that a large portion, if not most of your audience, They're with us.
They don't like cancel culture, even when it's you getting banned.
But they don't like what you said about Ben Shapiro.
They believe in free speech.
They believe in edgy comedy.
They don't like leftism.
Maybe some of your fans did.
Maybe you're trying to ingratiate yourself with the sponsors.
Well, congratulations.
Your views are down substantially.
Now, it's probably got other channels and everything too, but bro, your podcast is bleeding subscribers.
Have you stopped to ask yourself why?
You've stayed on this course and you are losing subscribers.
Get back to being edgy comedy.
Don't be this, you know, shock leftist.
Just talk about pop culture stuff and challenge those who would seek to take away the fun from life.
Instead, you're marching alongside with them.
Bro, why are you making comments about Palestine and Israel?
I don't even do that and I've been in politics for decades!
We talk about Palestine and Israel, and I ultimately say, you know, look, man, I don't know a whole lot about it.
The history there is pretty crazy.
The other day, Doug Mastriano said he didn't want to legalize recreational pot.
I actually think it should be legal.
And I think we should pardon a lot of these guys.
He said, no, look, I've looked at the data from Oregon, Colorado, etc., etc., and I don't think it plays out.
I don't think the money's coming in.
I think crime has gone up.
And I said, okay.
You know, look, I haven't read what he's read.
What am I supposed to say?
I think you're wrong.
I've not read that stuff.
I don't know the point you're making, but you're wrong.
If you are trying to make comedy and entertainment, I just say, stay away from the politics, otherwise this is what's going to happen.
I see it happen to friends, or whatever.
But there you go, man.
Just to bring it all back together, the point I'm bringing up, when people see their followerships decline, when pop culture became political, people who weren't political tried getting into the space, and this is what's happening.
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.
If there's one subject I know all of you can't get enough of and will generate millions of views, it is chess commentary.
So welcome to my channel where we discuss chess.
No, not really.
We talk politics and stuff like that.
But this story is really fascinating.
You've probably heard it a little bit and I am really interested in this.
The reason I am.
The chess cheating scandal.
Is because of the defamation lawsuit around this.
And of course, as we talk about the media, the lies, the corporate press, I am fascinated by this story.
Embattled chess grandmaster Hans Niemann sues Magnus Carlsen and others for $100 million over cheating allegations.
Let me give you the gist of it.
You got this guy named Hans Niemann.
He goes up against the best, the best, the best.
Magnus Carlsen.
The best chess player ever.
Or so they say.
And Magnus Carlsen loses.
And not only does he lose as the best to this Hans Niemann, who's nowhere near the best.
I mean, he's in the top 100.
I think he was, like, ranked number 40 after this.
I'm not sure.
But he is a good player.
Magnus Carlsen lost with the advantage of playing with the white pieces, getting the first move.
So naturally, a lot of people wondered how it's possible.
It turned into this crazy scandal where Hans Niemann was accused of cheating by using vibrating adult toys inside his body, if you know what I mean.
It's such a crazy, sensational story.
It captures the attention of many a cultural commentator.
But for me, the big story here is the defamation.
The idea that simply because this dude Hans Niemann won, they're going to accuse him of cheating with no evidence, and they outright destroyed his career.
That, to me, is fascinating, and it matters.
You've got big corporations, big celebrities, internet commentators, all accusing this guy Hans Niemann with zero evidence.
Maybe he cheated, I don't know.
I am nowhere near a chess grandmaster.
But the defamation element is fascinating, because we might actually see something come out of this.
In response to the allegations about, you know, adult toys, Hans Niemann's career has been destroyed.
There's even a video where he's coming to play in a chess tournament and they wand with a metal detector, or it's like an EF reader, his butt!
No joke.
They spin him around and they wave it around his butt.
That's what defamation does.
And that's why you sue.
Now, Chess.com, this behemoth in the chess world, has apparently released a report saying that they think he did cheat, but they have no evidence to substantiate it.
They've banned him from the platform.
There's a whole bunch of... Let me make sure I get the details right, because I was reading through the lawsuit.
But this just goes to show.
That there are many people who are willing to lie, cheat, and steal because, in this story, either it is the story of an up-and-coming young star who displaced the world champion, embarrassing him to the point where they tried to destroy his career, or Hans Niemann's a cheater and trying to get away with it, and lying about what's really going on.
Fascinating scandal nonetheless.
Yahoo!
reports the bizarre chess cheating drama surrounding world champion Magnus Carlsen and American Grandmaster Hans Niemann has officially reached the U.S.
court system.
Niemann, under fire since Carlsen claimed he cheated in a game between the two in the prestigious Cinquefield Cup last month, has filed a lawsuit against Carlsen, as well as Carlsen's company PlayMagnus, the internet chess giant Chess.com.
Chess.com's Chief Chess Officer, Daniel Wrench, and Chess.com's top streaming partner, Hikaru Nakamura, the Chief Chess Officer.
That's it.
That's an interesting one.
Now, my friends, I have been playing chess my whole life.
I was taught how to play before I can remember.
I am not that great.
I've played at chess.com, and I have a really easy time up until around the robots at 1400, ELO.
I don't know a whole lot about chess.
All I know is what the pieces do, and then I try to think about what comes after I make a move.
I'm not that good.
I don't know if 1400 is good.
I typically, I have a hard time at 1400.
I am.
I am no chess master or anything like that.
I like Magic the Gathering, a strategy card game, but that's like poker and chess combined, and I know a whole lot more about that game and its elements, and so I'm a bit better at that.
Far from a world champ or anything like that.
It's not really my beat, but I do really, I really do enjoy playing chess from time to time.
And so, when this story started breaking, we started hearing about these lawsuits, or I'm sorry, the accusations and then the lawsuits.
They were trying to say that this Hans Niemann guy cheated, and there's easy ways to do it, so I played a few games.
And that's why I said, you know, the low-tier robots, like 400, 800, 1,200, I think 1,200 or it's 1,000 or something.
I pretty much have an easy go of it.
And then you can play online, chess.com, with these robots.
1,400, it's really like, kind of have a hard go of it.
But anyway, check this out.
This actually is a really, really interesting drama and scandal that goes into the realm of defamation, media lies, etc.
So, I just really want to talk about it.
Here's the lawsuit filed by Hans Moak Niemann.
Complaint.
Hans Niemann, by and through his attorney, Ovid and Ovid, and local Missouri council, the Gartner Law Firm, alleges upon information and belief as follows.
Niemann is 19 years old.
He's a self-taught prodigy.
Neiman became the youngest ever winner of the Tuesday Night Marathon in the Mechanics Institute Chess Club, the oldest chess club in the U.S.
And then he got a scholarship and stuff like that.
It's his life.
Defendant Sven Magnus Owen Karlsson is a 31-year-old chess player from Norway.
He is presently the five-time reigning world chess champion and the highest-ranked chess player in history.
Carlsen has exploited his notoriety and success in chess to create an incredibly lucrative global brand and online chess company, the PlayMagnus Group.
Prior to the axe giving rise to the complaint, PlayMagnus proudly touted Niemann as one of its brand ambassadors.
So let's, whoa, hold on a minute.
Neiman plays Carlson.
Carlson loses.
Carlson eventually accuses outright Neiman of cheating.
Chess.com says, we've gone over it, we think he cheated too.
They all say, we have no evidence that he did.
Bro, that to me, outright, how is that not defamation?
Banning him, putting out these rumors with no evidence?
Okay, dude, maybe the success of Hans Neiman doesn't make sense, but I You cannot do that.
I think it's defamation.
If you've got evidence, file a complaint, present your evidence, have it tried, but to go out in public and be like, I can't lose, I'm too good!
Because let me just tell you how I see it.
As a layman who knows the rules of chess, but is not that good, I see Magnus Carlsen as an old guard, losing to a 19 year old, with no evidence, accusing him of cheating, trying to destroy his career.
That's amazing.
In fact, they even bring up in this lawsuit that a bunch of people point out Magnus made a bunch of mistakes in that game.
Here we go.
Here's what they say.
On September 4th, Neiman soundly defeated Carlson during an in-person game at the prestigious Sinkfield Cup Chess Tournament in St.
Louis, Missouri.
Notably, this was not the first time that Neiman beat Carlson at chess, just the first time he did so in an FIDE-sanctioned event.
Neiman's upset victory effectively dashed Carlson's two remaining statistical ambitions, achieving the 2,900 FIDE performance rating for the first time in history, and breaking his own world record unbeaten streak in the FIDE-sanctioned events.
His accomplishments, if achieved, would have solidified Carlson as arguably the greatest chess player of all time, and made his burgeoning chess empire even more valuable.
Making matters worse for Carlson, Neiman embarrassed Carlson by playfully taunting him during his post-match interview.
Notorious for his inability to cope with defeat, Carlson snapped.
Enraged at the young Neiman fully 12 years his junior dared to disrespect the king of chess, and fearful that the young prodigy would further blemish his multi-million dollar brand by beating him again, Carlsen viciously and maliciously retaliated against Neiman by falsely accusing Neiman without any evidence of somehow cheating during their in-person game, and demanding the organizers of the Sinkfield Cup immediately disqualify Neiman from their tournament.
That, right there, is insane.
Without evidence.
Sorry, man.
I'm with Neiman on this one.
Maybe he cheated?
A lot of people are pointing out, you know, these weird statistical things, making their argument.
Don't know, don't care.
Innocent until proven guilty.
When the tournament officials refused to comply with Carlson's corrupt and cowardly demand to baselessly eliminate Neiman from competition, Carlson lashed out again, this time by boycotting the remainder of the Sinkfield Cup in protest, an unprecedented act for a top chess professional, let alone the reigning world champion.
Carlson then confirmed his defamatory accusations against Nieman with a provocative post on Twitter, which had the intended effect of disseminating Carlson's false accusations that Nieman had cheated against him across the globe.
Days later, Carlson was scheduled to play Neiman again in the Julius Baer Generational Cup.
Rather than seek to redeem himself from his unexpected loss to Neiman, Carlson gutlessly forfeited the game after making one move, and then issued a press release repeating his false accusations that Neiman had cheated against him at the Sinkfield Cup.
I'm gonna pause right there.
That right there put me even more on the side of Neiman in this debate.
You didn't even make a move, bro!
That doesn't add up to me.
He says, OK, I'll play a game.
Hans makes one move.
He makes one move.
Hans makes one move.
Carlsen quits.
Forfeits.
How does that prove cheating happened?
It proves that you just walked away with no evidence and no reason to believe he was cheating.
I suppose the argument that was made, I'm not, look, I'm sure the chess commentators made more arguments about the game itself than I could, the better ones than I could.
But one thing I read was the second move made by Carlsen was weird and shocking for his skill level and seemed to have played right into the strategy that Carlsen would have had, but he made one move!
Like, adapt, bro!
I just don't buy it.
I don't.
They say Carlson's unprecedented actions, coupled with his unfounded accusations, sent shockwaves through the chess world and instantly thrust Neiman into the center of what is now widely reported as the single biggest chess scandal in history.
Is Hans using adult toys—I'm trying to be very careful here—in his own body?
I don't buy it.
They wanted him.
He's played these games.
Dude, if Neiman has found a way to cheat that is undetectable, well then, there you go.
He broke your game.
He broke your machine.
Following Carlson's defamatory accusations, a flurry of independent and unbiased sources, including the tournament organizers and arbiters of the Sinkfield Cup, and FIDE and the world's foremost experts in cheat detection, have uniformly confirmed there is no evidence that Nieman cheated in any of his games against Carlson, including at the Sinkfield Cup, particularly given the more than ample anti-cheating security measures used at the event.
Unbiased top chess analysts have dissected Niemann and Carlsen's Sinkfield Cup game in excruciating detail and concluded that Niemann's victory resulted more from Carlsen's particularly poor play than Niemann's particularly exceptional play.
I have seen that commentary as well.
You know, if you want to ask me what I think happened, I just tell you, excuse me, People make mistakes.
That's it.
Carlson is arrogant.
He's playing against a young and up up and coming young star as they call it and he made a couple mistakes and then
was like, oh crap, I lost.
Let me tell you how I see this I am a skateboarder my friends i've been doing a lot of
rollerblading lately because I just like to get air I can go up on the vert wall and just fly up and then come
down But i've been skateboarding for a long time
I am particularly good at flip tricks That is, on the ground, jumping up at the board, making the board do weird things.
I am nowhere near the best in the world, but I'm pretty good.
Probably could beat some of the biggest names because, well, it's a hyper focus of mine.
I have played games against people who are not that good.
And you know what I do sometimes?
Even when there's something on the line, I'll hold back a little bit.
I'll screw around and I'll just be like, whatever, man.
You know, I won't go for the victory.
There's ways to play for victory, and there's ways to play for fun.
And I'll be at a skate park.
And for those that understand skateboarding, you'll understand this better than those who don't.
But I'll walk you through this.
There's basic tricks.
Pop shove it.
The board spins under your feet 180 degrees.
A frontside pop shove it.
It spins, I guess this would be with your kick, with your foot kicking forward.
There's a kick flip, you know, the board flips under your feet.
A heel flip, it flips under your feet while going forward.
Those are the basic tricks.
So let me, I'll break it down.
When you're playing to win, you go through your fundamentals—the easiest tricks you can do and try and land everything to force your opponent into eventually making a mistake.
You go with—it's actually, surprisingly, not too dissimilar from chess.
In chess, you want to control the board using the least valuable pieces possible early on.
Not a chess grandmaster.
It's just what I've read from this lawsuit.
When I'm playing Skate to Win, I will go for the easiest, most basic tricks that I can do in rapid succession, hoping you make a mistake.
Then, we get to the, uh, I guess you would say the hammers.
After you go through basics and work your way up, eventually you're doing crazy tricks like hardflip lateflip and fakie hardflip late 180.
Trust me, those are just more difficult tricks.
One of my favorite moves is called a forward... I call it a big dolphin flip or a killer whale.
It's a forward flip backside 180, a big forward flip.
You don't gotta understand what that means.
And then I can do a bunch of late flip tricks.
When I'm playing against someone who, you know...
Is not that good.
I'm not gonna go for the finisher right away.
Long story short, I see this story, and here's what I think, based on my competition in one-on-one games, not like chess or, you know, even sometimes like Magic the Gathering.
I think Carlson was goofing off.
I think Carlson thought that he could play around and make some funny moves and it would be fun.
I don't think he played to dominate.
I think he underestimated Neiman and got really upset that he screwed up because I've played games of magic.
I've played games of skate where I've been like, this person's not that good.
I can get silly with it and try and do like, just go straight into weird tricks.
You know, my first trick, I'm gonna try and do a fakie ghetto bird.
You know what I mean?
Like, not my best trick, but it'd be cool to land.
And then all of a sudden, I get two, three letters, and I'm like, yo, this person's actually playing to win.
And then I lose.
Now, for me, I'm not playing for, like, millions of dollars, so I go like, ah, you got me.
If I played just to be cutthroat and go right for the victory, it'd be boring.
But I know sometimes it happens.
You get Neiman, who's young, not that highly rated, goes up against Carlsen, the best of the best, undefeated, and he's like, that's not even the best player I've ever faced!
There's a number 2, number 3, number 4 player.
I'll go up against him.
And then what happens?
Whoops!
He just broke my streak!
So what does he do?
Temper tantrum.
He cheated!
It's the only explanation!
Bro.
You lost.
For whatever reason, you lost.
And then, he refused to play again.
I don't believe it.
I just don't.
If the dude had a bit more tact, maybe I would.
If he handled things behind the scenes and said, you know, look, I'm not going to say anything until we can work through this, but this will postpone certain games, I'd be like, wow, I wonder what's going on.
But the appropriate way to handle it?
Shut up.
Instead, all of these different outlets come out making accusations they can't prove.
Yeah, I'm not cool with it.
Sorry, man.
If Nieman did cheat, then I think he should be exposed.
But that doesn't mean you come out with zero evidence accusing a guy of having cheated.
He goes on to say, despite the falsity of defendants' accusations, defendants' malicious defamation and unlawful collusion has by design destroyed Nieman's remarkable career.
I mean, that's crazy.
He's banned, boycotted people, or cancelling events.
Look at this.
Vincent Kiemer cancelled an upcoming game with Nieman in Germany.
For what reason?
Teenage Grandmaster.
Because he beat Magnus Carlsen.
Now they're trying to claim he cheats all the time because he admitted to cheating in inconsequential games.
I think what's really important here in this filing is they mention that Neiman actually beat Carlsen before, just not in a sanctioned event.
So there it is.
Carlson is arrogant, in my opinion.
They go on to mention a bunch of stuff.
Jurisdiction and venue.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
They mention the facts of the case.
There's some interesting stuff here.
I think it's around, you know, .75 or whatever.
I'm not going to read through the whole lawsuit ever.
They mention that Neiman is an American prodigy.
He was a young player.
Chess.com merges, all of that stuff.
Here we go.
Let me read some of this.
Between September 1st and the 13th, Neiman competed at the Sinkfield Cup, invitation only, and won a total prize pool of $350,000.
The Cup is one leg of the Grand Chess Tour, with a total prize pool of $1.4 million.
Dude won $350,000.
So, I'm sorry, man.
I don't see it.
I don't see the evidence.
I've heard the arguments.
Tell me this.
Why would Neiman, who's making $350K, sacrifice everything with an improbable... by cheating against a dude where he has no business winning?
Because he wants to win $1.4 million, is that it?
Win the $1.4 million, then retire and... are you gonna live off that?
I mean, Gratz, bro, you're a millionaire.
But at 19 years old, you're gonna need a little bit more money than that.
You know, maybe his goal was to cheat and to beat Magnus Carlsen, to create an empire and become worth millions or whatever.
The reality is, whatever happened, it's destroyed everything.
And they don't have any evidence.
Sorry, man.
I just find it hard to believe for one reason.
They have outright said they have no evidence.
All the matches in the Sinkfield Cup were held live and in person, over the board.
The third round took place on September 4th.
With Neiman facing Carlson.
By all accounts, Neiman was a massive underdog, particularly given that Carlson was playing with white pieces, which afforded Carlson the distinct competitive advantage.
Yet unlike the vast majority of Carlson's opponents, Neiman was not intimidated by Carlson's stature and did not play for a draw like most would have done.
It's also possible Carlson underestimated Neiman and assumed he was going to try and play for a stalemate.
And so he... he made a mistake.
Neiman played to win.
He attacked Carlsen early and flipped the advantage to the black pieces, which rattled Carlsen for the remainder of the game.
Unnerved by Neiman's unexpected confidence and early strategic advantage, Carlsen made numerous mistakes upon which Neiman capitalized to secure a tremendous victory.
By all accounts, should have propelled Neiman's career to the next level, allowing him to continue realizing his enormous potential as the next great American chess player.
Unbeknownst to Neiman, defendants would do whatever it took to ensure this never happened.
Nieman not only beat Carlson, Nieman embarrassed Carlson by defeating him with the Black Pieces and playfully taunting him.
He also shattered Carlson's historic 53-game unbeaten streak and made it practically impossible for Carlson to ever achieve a 2,900 FIDE performance rating.
What is more, Nieman handed Carlson this stunning upset while Carlson was in the midst of negotiating and finalizing the merger to solidify Carlson's chess empire around his play Magnus Brand.
I'm sorry man, look.
Doesn't mean any of this is true.
But some of these facts, you can't fake.
Was he really negotiating to merge his company?
And then he had this stunning defeat?
That's really, really bad.
It just is.
Carlson responds by falsely and baselessly accusing Niemann of cheating.
And he did.
Without evidence.
Now he goes on to say, like, unable to accept his defeat.
Ah, there's a lot of loaded language.
Because Carlson had absolutely no evidence of Neiman's cheating, Khodorkovsky refused to comply with Carlson's dictatorial demand.
He was saying that Carlson knew that Neiman's son's expulsion from a major professional chess tournament would send a clear, albeit false, message that he cheated.
Yet it did not stop Carlson from disseminating false and defamatory accusations.
At 2 p.m.
on September 5th, the day after Nieman's shocking upset, Carlson publicly announced on his Twitter page that he had withdrawn from the Cup.
In that post, Carlson linked a video of soccer manager Jose Mourinho infamously reacting to a controversial referee decision by saying, This was the accusation.
Not only did they accuse him of cheating, but the narrative that went out was that Nieman was using, alright, you ready for this one, wireless anal beads to receive secret communications.
That right there says to me, shenanigans.
You can accuse him of cheating.
You can say, I don't know how he did it, but something doesn't add up.
Okay, I'm hearing you, but you better show me evidence.
But when the narrative came out that is embarrassing and just so shocking that anal beads were used, I'm like, dude, that is just an attempt to destroy someone's career.
Outright.
You got proof?
Prove it.
They've wanded the guy.
They had a guy wand his butt.
Bro, not okay.
Not okay?
Sorry, man.
If your system is so broke that you can't deal with cheating and you knew it was possible to do these things but you didn't check for it...
That's crazy, man.
Now look, this goes on... I could probably talk about this for 37 years, but admittedly, I don't see this as politically consequential, but I do see it as culturally.
I think we're dealing with a breakdown in culture across the board, and this story to me is just dramatic and fascinating, so... I don't know.
Look, I'll be honest.
Part of me was like, do people really care about this?
I do.
I want to talk about it, so I will.
It's not political or anything like that, but I do think that you've got something interesting here with how defamation works.
We've talked about Times v. Sullivan.
We've talked about defamation quite a bit.
So I am fascinated as to how this plays out with this major lawsuit.
I do not believe Carlson or any of these people have a right to come out and make these claims without evidence.
And they've done it.
And those are harsh statements of facts causing clear damage to Nieman.
