Internet ERUPTS After Elon Musk Says Twitter DID Interfere In Elections, Vows To Expose Documents
Internet ERUPTS After Elon Musk Says Twitter DID Interfere In Elections, Vows To Expose Documents. This could just refer to Hunter Biden or could imply something more serious.
Democrats benefitted greatly from suppression on several platforms and now Elon Musk is vowing to expose files proving censorship and suppression. Musk had previously explained that it was worse than people knew and they needed to know.
Republicans of course have been toothless but now Section 230 may get reformed by the Supreme Court and Google is in panic
#elonmusk
#democrats
#republicans
Become A Member And Protect Our Work at http://www.timcast.com
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Elon Musk says on Twitter that Twitter did interfere in elections.
But what does this mean?
Are there more documents to be exposed, or is he just referring to the Hunter Biden laptop story?
In our next segment, Fuentes says he loves Donald Trump and was not part of a plot to hurt him, despite Milo Yiannopoulos having said he wanted to make Trump's life miserable.
In our last story, a woman in New York plowed into Antifa BLM rioters and is refusing a plea deal, saying that they were banging on her car, trying to open it, and she feared for the life of her child.
If you like the show, give us a good review and leave us five stars.
Share the show with your friends.
Now, let's get into that first story.
OK, well, a lot of people are tweeting about it like it's this really, really big deal.
But it could mean many things.
It could mean that Twitter censored the Hunter Biden laptop and that's interference.
Or it could mean that they directly and intentionally were suppressing content and speech for the purpose of controlling the outcome of election or swaying it.
I'm probably gonna stand on the side of, I think Elon Musk knows more than he's letting on.
He announced that what was going on behind the scenes with the suppression of free speech was chilling, and that he was gonna be releasing the Twitter files.
So I think it's particularly important that we get that information, and sooner rather than later, Mr. Musk.
But it's all good news, I suppose.
I think as much as people are talking about this, we don't exactly know just yet, and he may have been making a passive comment.
That's true.
And I was thinking about starting this video doing a thumbnail like, Elon confirms election interference, and I'm like, well, look, we know.
Semantically, colloquially, however you want to describe it, Twitter's suppression of the Hunter Biden laptop story was manipulation during an election.
Big news came out, they stopped it.
Facebook did as well.
We know they do those kind of things.
But now Elon Musk has access to internal communications behind the scenes and that's what I'm curious about.
I'm willing to bet that not only does Elon Musk have access to emails and communications where people are saying things like we can't let Trump win, there's probably some darker things about abusive imagery.
Where staff members say things like, we can allow that, because creepy dark things were happening behind the scenes at Twitter before Elon Musk took over, we know.
We don't know why, but we know that abusive imagery, I'm being very light on my language, mind you, was proliferating on the platform.
Elon Musk steps in, it's gone.
You have to, have to believe.
You know, you don't have to, but I certainly think it's the illogical conclusion that there are communications that would chill you to your bones.
Now, as for the political manipulation, Vijay Agade and Jack Dorsey were lying.
Maybe Jack Dorsey was just wrong.
You want to give him the benefit of the doubt?
Maybe.
Elon Musk said he has a pure heart.
But I think Twitter was actively engaged in political manipulation, which brings me to the latter portion of what this segment is about.
Google has announced a grant for fact-checking on YouTube.
Very, very interesting.
These people seem to think that they're immune from liability.
They're not completely wrong, and they'd like it to stay that way.
But the idea that you can pay someone to produce content, publish that content, and then not have responsibility for it is just downright nuts!
Some have pushed back, saying, Tim, that's true.
There's a case going back to, you know, several years ago, I believe more than several years ago, that says even if you pay for the content, you're not responsible.
Okay, well, I look forward to the lawsuit that comes for, which will nuke Section 230.
Because if that's the case, are you kidding?
I can contract someone, I can say, here's money, write news.
Then when they write something defamatory, I can put it on the front page of my website and be like, don't look at me!
That's insane.
Absolutely insane.
I had a phone call the other day with Google.
They're concerned about Section 230 reform, which is coming.
Gonzales v. Google.
I think it's v. Google.
And they're lobbying individuals to their side.
You know, I really think they should have done some research on me before calling me.
Because I probably know more about Section 230 than they do.
Okay, that's a little too much, right?
Too arrogant, perhaps.
I'm not going to pretend I know everything about it, because there's a lot I don't know.
But I know a lot of people get it wrong.
The idea that they would come to me and say, allow us to censor and be immune, is laughable when I know they suppress my content.
Look, it's my opinion based on the facts that have occurred over the past several years.
I believe it's fair to say there's a pattern of censorship and behavior on YouTube and most of you probably agree.
So when they say we need the ability to recommend content and suppress certain content, I say no.
I would rather see a reverse chronological feed on YouTube.
People know when my show goes live, they can subscribe to my channel.
I will take what comes because We don't trend.
Timcast IRL, a million views overnight, not trending.
Front page of TMZ, come on!
That is intentional suppression.
So I want to show you.
I have an image to show you, an email.
Showing that it is true, that they're engaging in these conversations.
And you will begin to see inorganic posts on Twitter, I've already seen them, where people are like, we must defend Section 230!
And I'm like, is this because YouTube's lobbying, which is on the level, or is it something darker that Elon Musk is trying to get rid of?
Let's talk about how the internet is being used to manipulate and control your minds.
And then maybe we'll talk about, you know, I will, the philosophy.
The philosophy of the authoritarian.
And I can tell you this right now, with everything I've been going through, I certainly understand why someone in power would love to just crush dissent.
The lies, the cheating, the clawing, the clout chasing.
Some of you maybe have some ideas of the drama and controversy.
But we must resist.
We must recognize the hard road that comes with success, and I certainly do.
But we'll talk about it.
First, we'll talk about Elon Musk and interference in elections and what that really means.
But before we get started, my friends, please head over to TimCast.com to become a member and support our work.
This is the promotion.
No sponsors, no ads.
We've done a couple in the past month simply because YouTube was demonetizing us.
Haha, how about that?
Even though I said nothing wrong, Broke no rules.
They strip ads.
I feel that's a breach of contract, but sure.
Go to TimCast.com and click Join Us and you can become a member and support our work directly.
We're trying to expand and build cultural products and endeavors.
Pop Culture Crisis, Cast Castle Vlog.
We can use your support, but more importantly, the one thing I always say, and it relates to this, share the video.
If y'all weren't sharing this, it probably wouldn't exist.
Because I believe YouTube is actively trying to suppress it.
And I'll talk about the pattern of behavior, the demonetization, and what suppression looks like.
But first, smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.
Post Millennial reports, Elon Musk confirms Twitter has interfered with elections.
Now, because this story is breaking, I'm going to refresh it.
And just make, if there's any updates, you know, I want to make sure it's in the article.
In a response to a report from Reuters about Twitter's move to free speech under Musk, he replied that the obvious reality is long time you just know, is that Twitter has failed in trust and safety for a very long time and has interfered in elections.
Twitter 2.0 will be far more effective, transparent, and even-handed.
Post Malino says this is a stunning admission.
And this was written by Libby Emmons, of course, who is a regular on TimCast IRL.
Shout out, Libby.
It was only a few days ago that Musk made the announcement that the Twitter files on free speech suppression soon to be published on Twitter itself.
The public deserves to know what really happened.
It has long been believed that Twitter interfered in the 2020 general presidential election by suppressing and censoring New York Post's bombshell report on revelations of shady international business dealings and influence peddling gleaned from Hunter Biden's laptop.
Musk vowed to make public the internal conversation that they had at Twitter in 2020 regarding that censorship.
Which polling later showed did have an effect on the election.
At the time, former FBI agents claimed that the reports were intentional misinformation.
And later, former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey had to apologize in front of Congress for the suppression of the accurate, verified reports.
There have also been concerns the Big Tech platform interfered with elections in African countries by suppressing and censoring information there, as well as claims that they interfered in Brazil.
Now, I don't know what Twitter was doing.
I don't know if this is confirmed.
And I think Elon Musk may just be talking about Hunter Biden.
And it's not so much.
You got to be careful here, because I really want to see the I really want to see the evidence.
There's a couple ways to interpret this.
You could say something like, they interfered.
And that could mean that Twitter actively had a plan to sway people to vote in a certain way.
Or it could be that they panicked when imbeciles banned a story and that had an impact.
It could be that they actively chose to ban the Hunter Biden laptop story because they wanted to have an impact.
But this is not fraud or anything like that.
It's political manipulation.
So, we see this tweet from Elon Musk, and then, of course, Maria Bartiromo says, Musk, Twitter has interfered in elections.
A bunch of other outlets, Post Millennial, Disclosed TV, announcing the same thing.
I'm seeing people say, boom, boom, boom, there it is.
However, keep in mind, we gotta see the files released, and we need to know the full context.
I will stress, Elon may just come out again and be like, I was just talking about the Hunter Biden laptop.
You know what they were doing there.
He may come out and say, I have internal communications showing intent.
Now that would be the bombshell.
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.
Twitter not safe under Elon Musk says former head of trust and safety.
Twitter's former head of trust and safety, Yoel Roth, on Tuesday said the social media company was not safer under new owner Elon Musk, warning in his first interview since resigning this month the company no longer had enough staff for safety work.
Roth had tweeted after Musk's takeover that by some measures Twitter safety had improved under the billionaire's ownership.
Asked in an interview at the Knight Foundation conference on Tuesday whether he still felt that way, Roth said, no.
Roth was a Twitter veteran who helped steer the social media platform through several watershed decisions, including the move to permanently suspend its most famous user, Donald Trump.
His departure further rattled advertisers, many of whom backed away from Twitter after Musk laid off half the staff, including many involved with content moderation.
Before Musk assumed the helm, about 2,200 people globally were focused on content moderation work, said Roth.
He said he did not know the number after the acquisition because the corporate directory had been turned off.
I find that hilarious.
Twitter under Musk began to stray from its adherence to written and publicly available policies towards conduct decisions made unilaterally by Musk, which Roth cited as a reason for his resignation.
One of my limits was if Twitter starts being ruled by dictatorial edict rather than policy, there's no longer a need for me in my role doing what I do.
It may be.
I was speaking with a... I got a call from a journalist, and he was like, you know, Elon Musk sure does like to reply to right-wingers like you, and I was like, Elon Musk doesn't respond to me.
I think one time, in the past month or so, he responded.
I made a joke about him tweeting and then he put like 100 or like a bullseye in a laughing face.
I said that Elon's sitting there like, oh my god, what should I tweet next?
And the Saudi investor was like, tweet that the American corporate press is dumb.
And he's like, LOL, okay.
And then Twitter's value increases.
Musk thought the joke was funny.
But I said, he's not responding to me, but my point is this.
If Elon Musk is going to come in and not give us sound policy, then we are no better off.
It may be that this time the billionaire agrees more so with the people we like, responding to people like Ian Miles Chong oh so often, and others, but a billionaire who is banning and unbanning at the whims of his personal opinions is not solving the problem, and it's a bad thing.
Now, it is a good thing that there are more free speech people being unbanned.
It's a good thing that Elon Musk is granting amnesty, but what we need is a guarantee towards sound policy.
It's not about safety.
It's about knowing how we communicate.
Now I want to give a shout out to Michael Tracy because he nailed it.
He said, It's a ridiculous premise in the first place that Twitter must for some reason provide safety to adults who voluntarily use the service.
Mic drop, Michael Tracy.
Nailed it!
Look at me.
I'm here trending on the right side.
And boy, when you click it, do you see a sight.
Now, for y'all, you probably don't think twice.
Like, well, of course, you know, I'm trending.
Alyssa Milano's trending, too.
But I don't like it.
I don't like that everybody's talking about me.
And I mean it.
It's so weird.
We'll talk about the philosophies of authoritarianism, especially in this regard, because I don't like it.
But you are not allowed, I will say it this way, I know probably a stupid way to say it, you're not allowed to influence the public sphere without people being upset at you.
The Sword of Damocles, it is a real thing and it is not just for kings, it is for all men and women who seek to have a role in public spheres, in the public sphere.
You will always be at risk.
The higher your profile, the bigger the risk you get.
Me?
I get it.
We got armed guards.
We've got a bunch of other things in place that I'm not gonna talk about, but of course security is a major issue, and I'm getting hit up like crazy, like, dude, take it seriously.
Yeah, I know.
It is not the responsibility of Twitter to protect me.
At all.
There's no safety.
When I put out my opinion, and then clout chasers, evil vile people, people you think are your friends, try coming after you.
Why?
To make money.
And of course, what they exploit, and will always exploit, is that There are certain private things that people don't want made public.
Private things that pertain to relationships.
They can lie about it because they'll force you to talk about your private life in an effort to push back.
It is not the responsibility of Twitter to protect me from any of this.
It is not the responsibility of anyone.
If it crosses into illegal territory like swatting type stuff, then law enforcement should get involved.
But I'm not going to go to Elon Musk and demand that he keep me safe.
Right now, people are posting my address.
And they've been for the past week and a half.
Elon Musk has done nothing to keep me safe.
Let me clarify, let me clarify.
I don't live at that address.
They're posting an address and an image of a building that is not where I live.
And they're saying I live there.
That shouldn't be allowed.
Doxing is wrong.
And it's for the intent of inciting violence, sure.
But I'm not going to go to Elon.
I mean, maybe, you know, hey Elon, do something, I guess.
It is what it is.
I just hope whoever's actually at these buildings they're posting doesn't harm anybody, but they're on the right to defend themselves if someone does show up.
The point is, a lot of these things are flying around Twitter, and there are people trying to dox me, and there are people trying to expose where I live for the purpose of, they've said it outright, to make me live in fear.
I don't, guys.
I live in MAGA country.
But again, That's real safety.
Twitter should stop some of that, but I'm not going to cry that I'm getting a bunch of attention for doing things I chose to do.
We invited, yay, Milo and Fuentes on the show.
I voluntarily used the service.
Michael Tracy hit the nail on the head with a hammer.
And then we have this, an excellent post by Michael.
Let me close the image.
He says, It's interesting.
Elon Musk actually responded saying, this makes sense.
lobbyists lobbied for the company to become a giant online daycare center.
No direct threats of violence.
Beyond that, Twitter doesn't mediate disputes between users or remove offensive content.
If you feel a law has been broken, contact police."
It's interesting.
Elon Musk actually responded saying, this makes sense.
Elon, bring it back.
The abusive behavior policy.
They basically say, as a policy, we do not mediate content or intervene in disputes between users.
You may not make direct, specific threats of violence against others.
So Twitter is saying, like, you break the law, we gotta do something about it.
Offensive content?
Nope.
They say, users are allowed to post content, including potentially inflammatory content, provided they do not violate Twitter's rules in terms of service.
They do not screen content, doesn't remove potentially offensive content, unless it's a violation of the rules and service, blah, blah, blah.
They now say, of course, we have new rules.
We have new rules.
Okay.
Let's talk about what Google's doing, and then I'll talk about the phone call that I received.
And, uh, I have another phone call scheduled today.
Viva Frey says, How Fake News Laundering Cycle of Corruption Works.
Google Grants $13 Million to Fact Checker.
Factcheck.net works with Pointer, funded in part by the Washington Post.
An entity factcheck would have to factcheck.
What could possibly go wrong?
Google says, we want to help people access quality and accurate information online.
Together with YouTube, we're announcing a $13.2 million grant to factcheck.net for a new global factcheck fund.
I would like to stress, I personally know the individual behind This post.
At Google.
Maybe the entire endeavor.
I've known them for some time.
It's not like we grabbed dinner together or anything like that, but I know this person personally.
I think they're a good person.
I'm not gonna say their name.
But I will say this.
Corruption.
Absolute.
My response was, if you provide money to produce content to be published on your platform, you are responsible for the defamation and libel.
I look forward to the lawsuit that comes from this that will nuke Section 230.
Now, I want to highlight, there was one post.
Thinking Sapien responded, and I want to address this.
He says, this is false.
A brief glance at Blumenthal v. Drudge America Online shows that an entity can still be protected by 230 for content that it purchased.
Someone said, besides, a grant is not a purchase.
You misunderstand.
I am aware.
I don't know about Blumenthal v. Drudge specifically, but I am aware they're protected.
What I'm saying is, in my opinion, it should be that if you pay for the content to be produced on your platform, you are responsible.
Hence, I said I look forward to the lawsuit that comes from this that will nuke Section 230.
I understand they are protected by it.
I am saying that someone will file a lawsuit, they will make an assertion that we are protected under 230, there will be an appeal, it will go to a higher court, and they will say, how is it possible that you paid for the content to be made, then when the defamation was published by you, you claimed I have no responsibility?
A judge will interpret it and say, not the case, exactly what we are seeing now with Gonzalez v. Google.
Here's an email that I received.
I have redacted information that would reveal the identities of any individuals, and I will read for you this email so you can understand exactly what's going on.
Here we... I'm trying to make it bigger.
Make your voice heard.
Join roundtable about Supreme Court case and proposed legislation with potential creator implications.
Hi Tim, hope you are well.
Changes to a foundational law may significantly alter how platforms like YouTube operate and how creators reach audiences.
Recently, the Supreme Court announced plans to hear a case, Gonzalez v. Google, that directly involves YouTube and may have major implications for creators like you.
At the same time, Congress has proposed several bills that would amend Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which allows YouTube to host user content without facing potentially ruinous legal liability.
Depending on what the Court and Congress do, YouTube may have to fundamentally change how recommendations work, including potentially ending recommendations altogether, impacting how you get discovered and build an audience.
It's critical your voice is heard as part of this debate, but we have a narrow window of opportunity.
Okay.
It is critical.
I respect that.
My understanding, based on the phone call that I had, is that they're trying to lobby me and others to defend their immunity.
They say, as an engaged creator with a significant stake in the issue, we invite you to attend a private roundtable conversation about the Supreme Court case, the legislative landscape, and potential implications for the creator community.
We'll also answer your questions and highlight opportunities to get involved.
Speakers include, redacted, I'm not trying to drag anybody, the guy I talked to on the phone was nice, I respect his position, I understand he's trying to lobby on behalf of the organization he works for, I just think people need to know this.
Then they have dates for when the session was going to happen, and they say, if you're able to join, you can join.
If not, you can schedule a one-on-one by clicking here.
Thank you, YouTube.
The person who emailed me is nice to me.
The person who emailed me helps me out a lot.
But I think YouTube has gone too far.
The person I spoke with on the phone yesterday, around 3 o'clock or so, I tweeted about it.
A bunch of leftists said, this never happened, you're lying.
I posted an image of the one-on-one confirmation call where the individual said they were trying to catch me on the phone.
I was in the car actually, we're doing a lot of stuff going on.
I have another call scheduled with them today.
I went off.
Let me tell you why.
YouTube has been demonetizing me.
For a period it was very, very bad.
This individual who emailed me helped rectify some of those problems.
I respect it.
I also want to stress that I hope you guys realize showing you this email could cut me off from the internal individuals at YouTube who do seek to provide help to my channel when there are issues.
I probably would be better off just keeping this stuff a secret and saying, take the benefit, take the money, right?
Despite what anyone who doesn't like me would try to say.
So I'll show you the email and I will respect the private individuals working for the company who don't need to be dragged over this because what matters is the public access to what's going on.
They reached out to me and basically said that this could make it so that you can't search for anyone anymore, that there's no recommendation bar, and I said, good!
I put out a video on Timcast IRL, 800,000 views in two hours, no trending, no recommendations.
Recommendations are gone for us.
You search for the news?
You don't get us.
You don't get our news.
You get authoritative voices.
YouTube has put their thumb on the scale to prop up the establishment press.
Then they have the nerve to come to me and say, please support us.
I started getting demonetized right before the election.
Revenue dropping.
Fortunately for us, we have viewers like you who supported us at TimCast.com.
By getting our business off of YouTube, we are able to survive the suppression tactics they are using for political purposes.
And you know how I know it's political purposes?
I recognize a pattern of censorship and abuse.
When I put up a video saying, here's the polls in the election, here's what people are saying.
Demonetized.
For what reason is my political poll demonetized?
And then I have to request a review?
By that point, I've already lost all the money that could come from the video.
And then it's confirmed.
Sorry.
After manual review, we found dangerous pranks and violence.
What?
It's a video about a poll Pew Research and Gallup and FiveThirtyEight.
It's me talking about whether or not Republicans can earn enough votes in this district.
Pranks, violence, lies, and a pattern of abuse because they do it every single time.
And then I've got to contact this nice person and say, please fix this.
And they manually go in and fix it.
But clearly, there are moderators on this platform who are actively suppressing ads and the videos to make sure we can't make money off it for political reasons.
Hey, guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill to this, to that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare, debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
TimCast.com, we are immune because we have a comment section.
You can comment, but we're not responsible for what you say.
However, if you decide that you will moderate, you have set an editorial position.
YouTube then says, creators of the world, make videos.
They then look.
There's a video.
I pick you to go on the front page.
So what happens?
YouTube can decide to highlight all of the videos that empower YouTube while suppressing criticism like this.
And they expect me to lobby on their behalf.
If Section 230 is reformed correctly, what may happen is that YouTube is forced to return to a reverse chronological system.
Meaning the only videos you'll ever see are the videos that were immediately posted at that time.
Otherwise, they just don't recommend anything.
Good.
Because you should be responsible when you editorialize.
If YouTube says, I got a handful of right-wingers and a handful of left-wingers.
I am going to push all of the right-wingers in the garbage and then choose the left-wingers to speak.
That's editorializing.
Why should you have immunity when you are propping someone up to speak?
That's the question that I think needs to be answered.
And it may be.
And I hope so.
Because the world works this way, right now.
YouTube says, we're a neutral platform.
Someone comes out and says, I would like to run for office, and they go, we want you to win, front and center.
Someone could come out, and this is what they were arguing to me.
They were like, you know, if right now, someone could sue you, you know, like, what would happen if you made a video, you wouldn't want to be sued, would you?
And I'm like, they can sue me already.
This is the crazy thing.
Like, if I say something about somebody that's defamatory, Like, what happens then?
Like, you know, you could get in trouble.
No, YOU could get in trouble.
YOU could get in trouble, because YOU want the right to put someone front and center when they lie.
That's on you, dude!
Now, if I post a video, and someone discovers it, then... okay.
Fine.
It's remarkable that, you know, we created a new YouTube channel, Timcast Music.
Put up a music video.
We get like, you know, 600,000 views or, you know, between 400 and 600 in like a day.
And then it hits YouTube Trending.
You click Trending and boom, there we are.
And you know what happens?
A cascade effect.
Because you're trending, you get more views.
And I'm like, wow, look at that.
People have said like, Your views stopped on your music video, Tim!
You know, yes.
The first week we heavily promoted it.
It hit the trending list, which gives it more steam.
Then it falls off the trending list.
We're still getting plays on Spotify, but I'm not a world-renowned artist or anything, so the people who listen to it is few and far between, I get that.
But the trending list really does help.
Timcast IRL should be trending almost every single night if that's the case, because we get 400,000 views like that.
But they won't put us on.
Hmm, sorry.
Some people have said the videos don't even appear, they don't get notifications, you can't even search for it.
And when you search for me personally, it's nothing but garbage and people who hate me.
The dude I called had the nerve to say that to me.
He was like, what if people were searching for you and instead they got something else?
And I'm like, that's literally what already happens.
So get rid of it.
Fine.
I don't care.
You are using this as a political weapon that is destroying this country.
And I'm supposed to be self-interested.
This is what they said.
They said, you know, someone, you know, like you, wouldn't get recommendations.
And I'm like, someone, you know.
I'm paraphrasing, by the way, because I don't remember exactly every single word that was said in this call.
But I will tell you this.
It's not about me.
You know the smartest thing I could have done was?
Not show you the email.
Not explain to you the interference that happens behind the scenes.
But I'm cheering for Elon Musk to expose this.
I'm cheering for reformation that will stop the political manipulation.
And that may mean I fail.
Okay!
These people don't know who I am.
My haters don't know who I am, YouTube doesn't know who I am, and they would be warned to simply watch my content and see what I have to say.
Because if that were the case, they probably would not have offered me this email.
They probably would not have called me on the phone because they would have said, this guy is adamant on his position, he has been suppressed by us, and all he will do is inform the public of what we are working on.
And the danger to them right now, whatever your opinion may be, maybe you agree that YouTube should have editorial immunity towards defamation and libel while also being able to editorialize.
I don't think so.
But maybe...
You disagree with them.
And you'll start to see on Twitter, as I have, people spamming, we can't allow Section 230 be reformed, these right-wing chuds don't understand.
But I do.
I understand.
YouTube wants to pick and choose the winners and losers.
And I understand why.
There's some things they like.
I mean, on TimCast.com, we pick the winners and losers, but we're not UGC.
We don't tell people, you're open and come create.
We don't create a system that is neutral.
They've created an editorial system.
So let me tell you this.
If they are choosing to recommend based on certain criteria that is editorial, then you should not have immunity.
If your recommendations are based off of metrics, then you're probably immune.
Let's see how the court interprets this.
I'll say this.
I think they're full of it.
I think they're lying.
If the court determines that recommendations are Editorial choices.
I also believe, what is likely, is that they'll say, however, if it's a metrics-based recommendation, then it's not editorial.
To explain, if a bunch of people watch a video, it has a good watch time and all that stuff, so they recommend it, it is probable, I think, the court is going to say, no, look, look, look, you're not choosing the content.
The reality is, behind the scenes, YouTube does pick and choose keywords to oppress and suppress and support.
And that should not be protected at all.
So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
It'll be interesting to see what they say to me when I get on this phone call later.
It's in a couple of hours and, um...
I have a feeling after this, they'll probably exclude me from future conversations.
Some people have asked me, Tim, have things like this happened before that you've not revealed?
Well, the answer to that is probably yes.
And what I mean is, there's probably been emails about things that aren't so material that I'm not going to share every time.
I've been emailed by them before about certain issues.
But I've consistently talked about my experience with YouTube.
Ten years ago, I was invited to a summit on countering Islamic extremism.
And I have repeatedly talked about what that meeting was like and why I was there.
And I was also invited to a meeting in the UK where they were talking about hate speech and stuff like that.
And then I raised my hand and said, what does hate speech mean?
And everyone agreed, but the room was all leftists, woke people.
And the guy on stage started making fun of white people, started disparaging conservatives.
I got up and walked out.
I was like, are you kidding me?
I'm not going to sit here for all this like racist, this bigotry and stuff like that.
But everyone in there was woke.
I'll talk about all of it.
I'm not going to hold anything back.
There are people who want to say that, you know, I tweeted, 99% of everything, 99% of things in politics and PR is a lie.
And then these leftists are like, haha, that's ironic coming from you.
And it's like, what have I lied about?
I'll tell you, man.
There's security issues.
For security reasons, I may have to obfuscate some things.
That's a reality.
But for the most part, I'm gonna tell you exactly what is going on with all of this stuff.
And there comes the storm.
Ooh, hefty one.
All right, everybody, I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcast.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
If there's anything I regret about Monday, it's not anything went down with Ye or Milo or Fuentes necessarily.
I mean, it went as well as anyone could have expected it to go, but what I do regret is not foreseeing being the news.
I knew that to a certain degree we were going to get press.
I mean, we had a journalist here.
And I was like, you know, we're gonna talk about these guys, these guys are the news.
And then all of a sudden, we end up, like, latched to the orbit of the story.
And, uh, I'll just say, I think moving forward, we're not- I'm never gonna do anything like that again.
And I'll explain, you know, basically...
Having guests on that are this hot, high-profile in the media, this was the biggest story in the country.
Donald Trump meeting with Fuentes.
Why did it happen?
How did it happen?
And I said, wow, we have an opportunity to actually hear firsthand how it happened.
And I don't care that Ye stormed out or whatever.
I'm not mad.
Milo texted me, and that's what we'll talk about.
We'll talk about, was this a plot to smear Trump?
And maybe.
Milo says it's not, but we'll talk about that.
But it's just the drama.
And I'll talk about it a little bit because I normally don't like addressing political commentary.
Let me try and move my chair up.
I don't like addressing nonsensical, WWE-style internet bloodsport type things.
You know what we like to do?
We like to talk about what's going on in the news.
And here's the issue.
I kind of have to talk about myself now in drama because this is the news story.
And you know what I was looking to do is I pulled up, right now Nick Fuentes is trending, it's like 150,000 tweets about him.
I pulled up some stories trying to break down what's going on with Trump and of course it involves me in that we want to understand Was Donald Trump set up by Milo Yiannopoulos, Ye, and Fuentes?
And according to a statement from NBC News yesterday, the answer is yes.
Fuentes is denying this, as of this morning, saying that, or it's being reported right now, it was not part of a plot and he loves, he says, I love Donald Trump.
That's what he said.
And then we have what I think makes politics very, very difficult and in a horrible place, and that's the Young Turks.
Normally, they're entitled to their opinions, I don't care.
But I think there's an interesting thing happening that normally I would want to talk about.
It just so happens to be that I'm in the middle of it.
And that is that simultaneously you have the diehard MAGA right attacking me, saying I didn't do a real interview.
And then you have the editorial left attacking me, saying I didn't do a real interview.
And it's interesting how To a certain degree, their opinions are very, very much the same.
It's weird.
I don't know how else to describe it.
I don't mean in the sense that, like, they believe politically the same things, everything.
I'm saying that they're all mad about how this went down, and it is for similar reasons, I guess?
I don't know.
I didn't do a good enough job, it wasn't a real interview or something like that.
But I don't care about what they think.
It's not going to change the way I address people.
What I will say is, it's not about what they think, it's about... You know, look, the reason I stopped doing field coverage on the ground, I used to go on the ground to report, is because I started becoming the story.
And then you get people claiming that that's the goal, and I'm like, not really.
You go out with a camera to film, and then people start coming up to you, either thanking you or insulting you.
You can't actually do anything.
Impossible to actually get the story and figure out what's going on when everyone's running up to you.
And so I'm like, you know, maybe doing the press was a mistake.
Doing magazines and stuff.
But I just want to say that, get it off my chest, I guess.
So, you know, look, I'm not trying to do a Joe Rogan show.
You get people who are like, Tim Pool wants to be Joe Rogan.
No, I want to talk about news.
Joe has conversations, sometimes it overlaps with news.
We have a multi-person conversational topical news show with a rotating set of guests.
That's it.
But let's talk about what's going on right now with Trump, and I'll tell you what I understand to be happening because, as I said, Nick Fuentes is probably the biggest story in the country right now, along with Trump for obvious reasons, and I'm privy to certain information that I should probably highlight as much as I would prefer.
I tried looking at other stories, man.
I was thinking of pulling up Dwayne Wade, New York Times, puberty blockers, crime in New York, and I'm like, this is the big story.
I like to do big stories for 10am.
I like to do, like, what's happening, what's...
Forgive my rambling.
Newsweek reports Fuentes denies being part of a Trump plot.
They say the podcaster took to messaging app Telegram on Tuesday in response to an NBC News report that said far-right commentator Milo Yiannopoulos had created a trap for Trump.
That trap was reportedly a dinner at Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence.
So let me just pull up the story from NBC News, the inside story of Trump's explosive dinner with Ye and Nick Fuentes.
What was supposed to be a private dinner ended up being a political nightmare.
Yeah.
It's interesting.
There's Ye sitting with the red hat on with Donald Trump.
Hey, there's Jared Kushner.
I think Ye's faking it.
I think he's distressed.
I think he was stressed out for a variety of reasons.
I don't know why he wanted to do my show.
He's going through a divorce.
He mentioned that in the pre-show.
He's saying that he's trying to figure out how to get his kids, but he's in a divorce.
It seemed like he was stressed out.
He mentioned on the show that they're trying to put him in prison because they're saying he owes a lot of taxes and stuff like that.
Dude's probably stressed out, but I think there's a loose plan to everything he's doing.
I don't know if he's mapped out and said, here's the moves we're going to make.
I think his moves are deliberate, is one way to put it.
Now I'll scroll down and get right to, we hear this, the master troll got trolled.
And then I'll jump to these quotes.
Iannopolis said Fuentes is serving in an advisory capacity to Ye.
Giorno is not an official member of the unofficial Ye campaign team, but flew to LA to meet with them this week.
Quote, I wanted to show Trump the kind of talent that he's missing out on by allowing his terrible handlers to dictate who he can and can't hang out with.
Iannopolis told NBC News.
I also wanted to send a message to Trump that he has systematically, repeatedly, neglected, ignored, abused the people who love him the most.
The people who put him in office.
And that kind of behavior comes back to bite you in the end.
And Yiannopoulos said, he arranged the dinner just to make Trump's life miserable because news of the dinner would leak and Trump would mishandle it.
Milo texted me last night during IRL insistent they did not stage the walkout.
He's very apologetic.
He was blindsided by it.
Okay.
Well, there's nothing I can say or do about it.
But these guys are in the news.
So it was an opportunity when these stories are coming out.
We had a bunch of questions prepared, of course.
And I think that may be one of the reasons they decided to just get up and leave.
They didn't actually want to have these questions asked.
I don't know.
Fuentes is saying that... I'll break it down.
You know what I see with this?
With this story?
Ye is using Milo.
Ye is using Fuentes.
Fuentes and Milo are using Ye.
It is... I don't know what you'd call it.
At the beginning of the show, I said that Milo had set up a dinner, and Ye said, that's not true.
He said, I was invited before, and then he got in contact with Milo, and that's interesting.
In the NBC News story, Yiannopoulos said he arranged the dinner.
Perhaps he just meant arranged Fuentes at the dinner.
Perhaps.
We heard before the show, Ye said that he was raising up their profiles.
I think they're all just using each other to be completely honest.
I think Ye is smarter than people give him credit for.
I'll answer some questions.
Some people said, you know, Tim said the media was being unfair to Ye.
What were they being unfair about, Tim?
He's an anti-Semite.
It's like your memory extends only a few months.
The media has been very unfair, and the easiest example is that they've been insistent that he is mentally ill and unwell, deranged.
And I'm gonna tell you this, the guy who showed up to my house with a smile on his face, completely lucid and coherent, talking about, asking us about what kind of food we got, Of sound mind as far as I could tell.
Okay, maybe.
You say bipolar or whatever and it can change on a dime or whatever.
Perhaps, perhaps.
But that's the point I'm trying to get off at least right away.
That you come out, Kanye comes out and says, I agree with Candace Owens and Donald Trump, and the media said his brain was broken.
Yeah, that's not fair.
You're allowed to have these political opinions.
So, I certainly think they've been unfair.
They've tried to, uh... And it was a light statement.
I mean, it's not like I'm trying to say that every single thing I've said about them is wrong.
I was trying to be like, okay, look, you know, I agree.
They've been unfair.
And I met the media.
Corporate press.
Which, amazingly, majority white.
White women.
How about that?
So, you know, but ultimately, I kind of feel like this is one big Molotov cocktail into Trump world.
Fuentes is saying he loves Trump.
They didn't plan this.
Milo's insistent that they didn't plan walking out on us.
But Milo told NBC News they were trying to make Trump's life miserable.
It's like this is a spike in the campaign of Donald Trump right when he announced.
It seems too perfect to have been anything other than planned.
Donald Trump announces.
Fuentes and Milo rag on his announcement.
I thought his announcement was actually fine.
I said he didn't get into the 2020 stuff.
He talked about his successes and what he wants to do.
I liked it.
And then, you know, this story comes along.
Fuentes shows up to a dinner with Trump.
How does that happen?
This is a point Michael Malice made last night on TimCast IRL.
You mean a former president isn't vetting who's just showing up?
He's saying, come to dinner and bring a plus three?
Well, Milo didn't go to the dinner, so I don't know who exactly was brought, but Milo put Ye in touch with Fuentes and got him involved.
Ye brings Fuentes.
He says that Trump was very impressed by him.
Trump doesn't want to denounce him.
This is the funniest and weirdest thing.
Last night, we were getting criticism, IRL-ist, because the title of the video was Trump refuses to denounce Fuentes, revealing more details on the Ye story, and it's taken negatively by Trump supporters, as if I was assuming he would have to denounce anybody.
So I kind of feel like the only outcome of this is that it had to have been staged.
This whole thing had to have been pre-planned.
Who are you gonna trust?
I suppose.
But, you know, for me, it's, uh... You know, I guess, was it a mistake?
Man, that's tough to say.
We're getting a lot of press.
I don't care, man.
I just want to turn the camera and talk, and now, you know, what I'm getting is, like, people advising me, and they're saying, it's, oh, man.
I'm getting people saying, like, talking about the appropriate response, how we deal with this.
People are angry about reports that are coming out, and I'm just like, dude?
And I tweeted this, if y'all think I'm gonna play this like corporate or a PR firm, you're wrong.
There will be pie.
I don't wanna play these games, I don't care about these games, I would rather leave it all and go live in a van down by the river than do stupid, fake statement garbage.
It's so dumb.
We saw a couple of guys who were in the news.
I was told, we can get them on and talk about this.
I said, let's do it.
Let's talk about it.
And then everybody just pretends.
It's all so fake.
Everything is fake.
I assure you, it is all fake.
It's all fake.
When we had our crew out in LA filming them, which we'll have video of, I said, get a photo of the crew, my brother, because my brother and our camera guy was there, as they're in the airport, and we'll have this photo.
And then a hiccup happens at the airport.
They're already on the plane.
They get off and I'm like, dude, I don't want you to get off and take pictures.
That's so stupid.
So they took a picture on the plane.
They agreed.
It's better.
And then there's the question of like, yes, but then they know they're in the photo and like, Milo's reading a Bible.
It's like... This is the world.
I wanted a real photo of them in the airport to be like, hey guys, we have them, they're coming, this is proof.
Because if we told people like, hey we're gonna have a big show tonight, you know, they're gonna say, prove it.
Oh look, we got a photo, they're here, they're in the airport.
That's what we wanted.
Ah man, the world is just fake.
So let me pull up our friend Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks, the preeminent fake pundit, the epitome of what is fake in media.
And I don't like, you guys, I don't like talking drama, but fair point, we're in the news, he's addressing the news, I get it.
He said, We all Kanye West is hateful and a complete idiot, but what's not talked about enough is what a bitch he is.
He's so soft.
Tim Pool said, I think they've been extremely unfair to you.
Because he didn't say the Jews in that sentence, Kanye walked out weakest man in America.
Well, I would certainly agree with the sentiment there that Ye walking out was very, very weak.
And what I was referring to is the corporate press, specifically that they've repeatedly just called him insane.
Instead of actually addressing his arguments when it came to MAGA or things like that.
I don't think that's fair.
I don't think Cenk Uygur is fair either.
But he directly addresses me.
Oh, and I'll talk about it for sure.
This is funny.
He says, I don't want Tim Kass getting any credit for Kanye walking out on him.
Tim was in the middle of kissing Kanye's ass when Ye thought it wasn't being kissed enough.
Poole did not say one word to challenge him before he left.
And then Sargon, shout out, Carl Benjamin says, he was literally in the moment of contradiction with him, Cenk.
I want to address this.
Because I guess I'm in the news.
I'll say it a million times, I guess I hate it, whatever.
People are like, maybe Tim shouldn't have interrupted, yay.
Nick Fuentes interrupted me.
Ye was finishing his point, and I said, I agree they've been very unfair, and then he says, who is they?
I said, the corporate press.
I don't use... I'm answering his question.
Fuentes then interrupts me, and that's totally fine.
It's a conversational show.
Jump in, chime in.
I was talking about this a week ago.
And then when he says, isn't it them?
No, I said, no, it isn't.
And then Ye says, what do you mean it's not them?
Gets up and walks out.
He asked me a question.
I began to answer it calmly and slowly.
He was like, well, look, there's like a transcript going around.
And I was going to say that I was going to bring up the majority of people in media right now are white liberal women.
I shouldn't say that.
I should say the plurality, the largest demographic.
It's white liberal women in New York.
There tend to be more females on staff.
We saw at the Huffington Post picture where all the women are there and they tend to be white liberal women.
And, uh, let me get to that point, I suppose.
I didn't interrupt anybody.
You've got people on the right who like Ye or like Tim shouldn't have interrupted and cut him off.
That was unprofessional.
And I'm like, he cut me off!
He asked me a question!
We had previously discussed that I'd put my hand up because I didn't want to cut him off.
People, if you watch IRL, you'll see when we do the multi-camera article view where you can see all the people in the show, I'll be holding my hand up, not just jumping in to cut people off.
Sometimes I will.
Nick cut me off?
I got no problem with it.
He can.
I don't agree with his point, and I'll push back.
I don't know what they expect, though.
There's no correct answer, right?
Cenk Uygur, of course, and Anna Kasparian just basically lie.
How are we supposed to have any real conversation?
You know, I gotta be honest, man.
You take a look at how the political world is, and there's no attempt at actually having a real conversation by anyone.
Ye refuses to entertain any real conversation.
He asks me a question, I go up to answer it, he gets up and storms out.
What am I supposed to do?
In a good faith attempt, bring them in, say, tell me about this dinner, tell me about Ye 24, and of course, we'll talk about the things you've said.
They don't care.
There's even the quote from me where I'm like, you want to just go right into it, okay.
You want to go to war right when we start, because it's going to happen, bro, because he knew this beforehand.
That's why I think he staged it.
That's part of why I'm pissed.
You know what we try to do?
I turn the camera on, I complain on the internet.
That's my, that's my bit.
I've been saying this for years since I got started.
I say, look, man, I'm just a guy who complains on the internet.
I put a GoPro on top of my monitor, and I pressed go, and I talked about things and how I felt.
And I was wrong about a lot of things, and I consistently am.
And I'm right about a lot of things.
Some things that I get right, I'm happy to say I did.
And I complain on the internet.
TimCast IRL?
Me and my friends talking about how we feel.
And people are like, why does Tim have Ian on the show?
Because Ian's my friend, and he brings up good points, and often we have to argue against his bad points.
I like it.
I like having the conversation.
I think Ian's a good dude.
He tries really hard to be respectful to even the most awful people.
And then I'm like, how could you defend these people?
And it's... Ian tries to be nice, even if it means being nice to bad people.
Luke, of course, is an anarchist.
He's a great voice to have on the show.
Me, I'm your, you know, middle-of-the-road, center, political compass guy, I guess.
And then we bring on whoever we can.
Tends to be a lot of, like, libertarian, independent, politically homeless anarchists.
Not so much left anarchist, you know, but Michael Malice types.
Libertarian is a big bet for the show.
Oh, the Young Turks here.
I'll talk to you guys, the Young Turks.
Anika Sperian says, what does a person need to say to you for you to agree that it's anti-Semitic?
This is the point.
The reason why the Young Turks have fallen so hard.
The video clip is Cenk just ranting and screaming.
And it's like, bro, you've been invited on the show.
Like, of all the people, Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker are like the ones we've consistently been like, just come on and talk to us!
But it's all fake.
It's all fake, man.
All of it is fake.
Of course, they'll say I'm fake, whatever.
I don't care, dude.
You know, like, I have no problem, outside of security concerns, I have no problem just literally saying what happened.
Talking about whatever.
If it's relevant, if it matters.
We literally did an hour and a half after Ye left talking about the problem with his views and anti-Semitism.
We had on Michael Malice, who is Jewish, wearing a... He took a sock and he cut... It was an Israeli flag sock.
We love Michael Malice.
And he cut the flag off and put on his arm like an armband.
And then we talked all about what's wrong with what Ye thinks.
And Fuentes, and what Milo had said, and we got into it, and we talked about how we thought it was fake.
But they don't care.
So much of the world is fake.
I talk about this with Deepwater Horizon, and I think South Park made the joke.
We're sorry.
We're sorry.
Blah blah blah.
This is why people like Trump.
Because Trump came out and he shattered the veil.
He just started saying stuff, and you're like, what?
I love it!
When Donald Trump came out and says, we've got a big billion dollar weapons deal with Saudi Arabia, and then all the anti-war left was like, he just, he just came out and said it?
He just admitted what they do and why they're doing it, and it's like, yes, people loved it.
I love this.
There was some journalist and he has this tweet thread where he's like, he's like, I've been working on this story for a year and Trump just came out and said it.
He just came out and admitted it.
I can't remember what story it was.
But like, imagine you're a journalist and you're like, oh, I've got dirt on the president.
I'm going to get this.
I'm going to report it.
And then seven months into you investigating, getting confirmation, Trump comes out and goes, I'm totally doing this thing.
This is a thing that I'm doing.
And you're like, And you're like holding all of this work and he just says it and your story's worthless now and then every other journalist everywhere is writing up the story you've been desperately trying.
And I suppose people would say don't talk about them.
Look man, right now in Tim world you've got desperate individuals trying to clout chase They make up stories, they try and drum up drama.
They want me to say their names.
There are high-profile leftist commentators and others who are trying to do this.
They tweeted at me.
Congratulations!
The only reason I'll respect this, young Turks, is because, fair point, the story is what's going on with Trump and Fuentes, and we put ourselves in that story.
And that's the one thing I probably regret.
That it wasn't going to just be discussing the news.
That it turns out, we become the news.
Okay.
I don't like it.
I don't like giving these people an excuse to make drama or whatever.
Cenk has some other clip, I guess.
He looked genuinely surprised and hurt that Kanye was leaving.
Man up and do a real interview, you loser.
Cenk, when you did your show for the midterms, nobody watched.
And nobody watched.
I'm not saying that as like, ahaha, we're bigger than you.
I'm saying it as, bro, stop, man.
I thought you used to do a good job.
Cenk once talked about how he was in golden handcuffs with MSNBC.
I can relate to that with Fusion.
But it's so fake.
It's so fake, I guess.
They say, here's how you do a real interview when you have a fashion show or whatever, and they invite Matt Gaetz on.
Guys, come on.
I don't get it.
I know Cenk and Anna.
I've hung out with them.
Not like a lot.
I was at a party in Los Angeles with Anna, and we were all talking politics.
They used to be real political commentators.
Now it is blood sports internet drama, and I think, and it may be, it's an addiction.
It's a drug.
This is why I avoid it.
But again, fair point.
I put myself in this position.
I'll eat that one.
We'll avoid it in the future, I suppose.
Maybe we can't.
You become the news.
Ian brought this up.
He's right.
He says, you can't help it.
Eventually, it just happens.
You get bigger.
The show gets bigger.
I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Fair point.
Fair point.
Joe Rogan became the news just talking to random people.
Like, Joe Rogan says this just because he said it.
And I'm like, I get it.
I get it.
But it's a drug.
The Young Turks start producing videos where they're like, you know, we don't like Tim Pool.
I'm like, since when?
Like, you had me on your show.
But one day, Cenk just went off on me and started screaming at me in public for no reason.
Generated a lot of attention.
Got a lot of drama.
I addressed it.
I made a video about it.
Mistake.
You know?
Because at the time, I was like, a bunch of journalists were filming it, so, you know, I'm going to make a video explaining what happened.
I look back on that stuff and I'm like, I don't want to do that.
A lot of people have pointed out that I avoid the drama at all costs.
At all costs, sure, but it's fair when we're in the news and people are talking about it.
And, you know, I guess with rare exception I probably will talk about some of the stuff.
I'm not perfect, I'm not trying to be absolutist or anything.
What happens is they produce a video, they complain about me, it gets views.
They produce a video about Trump, doesn't.
So they say, hey, make more videos about Dave Rubin and Tim Pool and we'll get more views.
Because they talk about me a lot!
It's so weird.
It's an addiction.
I remember a few years ago, there was this dude who was getting like 5,000 views on videos talking about me, and I had like 100,000 subscribers.
It was so weird.
I'm like, I have a silver play button, small channel.
It was funny because like other people I knew, commentators, were like, you have a small channel.
It's okay.
And I'm like, I have 100,000 subscribers.
Like, isn't that, that's not, that's not, that's not big.
I got a play button.
Like, no, it's small.
And I'm like, huh.
And like, even right now, having over a million is still not considered, it's considered big, I guess, to have like a million.
They call it, they call them YouTube millionaires or something.
But I told this guy, and I was like, hey man, I appreciate that you're doing criticisms and analysis, but my advice to you is that if you want to be taken seriously, you need to focus on issues that affect people.
Nobody knows or cares who I am.
I suppose eventually it will be the case that they do.
We've done a lot of videos about Joe Rogan and Elon Musk.
At a certain point, people are the news.
And Joe Rogan is.
And Elon Musk is.
And it's weird.
I brought this up before.
It's weird for me to do a video about Joe Rogan.
But when he talks, he creates ripples because he's so big in influence.
Fair point.
So I suppose I can say it this way.
The Young Turks commenting on me, talking about me, is absolutely fair in the context of we sat down with Ye and Fuentes and Milo during this big story.
Same for anybody.
They're obviously not being honest about it, because to them it's all about blood sports and WWE.
But if they really want to repair their channel or something, Cenk needs to stop doing this, like, he does it all the time, where he's like, I'm so dumb!
Screaming and yelling.
It's unfair to Alex Jones, but some people have said he's turned into left-wing Alex Jones.
He's pushed weird theories.
It's true.
Or I should say, he's pushed fake news.
And then he does this.
So anyway, I guess this is more of a personal drama vent session, I guess.
It's frustrating.
And I prefer to be not in the fray in this regard, but to be talking to individuals to understand their views.
And of course, the more we have these people on, the crazier it's going to get.
So maybe I should bookend this by saying, early on, at the beginning of the segment, I said maybe we shouldn't have on these individuals right at these key moments.
Yeah, but I should also reconcile that with, if we want to talk to people who are in politics or whatever, we will become the news.
And with increasing frequency.
We've had people on the show, they've said things, those things have become stories, and I probably can't ignore that.
So there's the challenge.
Is this what we really want to do?
I don't know, man.
I think it comes with the territory.
You have to accept it.
So I guess I should wrap up with the news story, too.
Milo said he did this on purpose with Fuentes.
And I'm supposed to believe that they're being honest when they say they didn't plan the walkout of my show.
They had a private plane a few hours later.
It's entirely possible to get a private plane.
It was at an airport about a half an hour's flight away.
They left, I think it was around an hour after the show, they called to book a plane, and they had the plane ready in three hours.
I was told by a charter agency that's extremely unlikely.
It means that there had to be a crew already working on the plane to dispatch it right away.
However, I was also told that Ye probably knows people, man.
And then it brings up another question.
Who's holding back Ye if he can summon a super mid-private jet from DC to LA in a few hours' notice with a crew, standby crew, ready to launch a private plane?
If it's not staged in the sense that they plan to walk out, it's performative for Ye.
Let me tell you, my friends, it's all fake.
You think that when Ye went up on stage at Taylor Swift, they didn't know he was gonna do that?
You think that when he went up and said, George W. Bush doesn't like black people, they didn't know he was- or he didn't plan it at the very least?
And they love it.
They love the drama.
It's humans, man.
Humans love high-emotion drama.
It's disheartening, I guess, for me.
Because I'm trying to be like, hey, what's going on?
What's going to happen?
Are we going to get clean water?
Are we going to get clean food?
Are we going to end these wars?
They don't want any of this stuff.
The Young Turks, they don't care.
And I didn't actually watch anything we did.
We ragged on antisemitism for an hour and a half.
We ragged on identitarianism for an hour and a half.
They didn't watch it.
It's fake.
They're just doing blood sports.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
The Summer of Love, as it's called, when far-left extremists rioted about this great nation, causing a whole lot of problems.
And there were some really, really dark moments.
There was that incident in Austin, where a guy was in his car.
Dude walked up with a group of extremists, let's call them terrorists, and he was armed, so the dude in the car saw it, fired on him.
There was also the inverse where there was a guy minding his own business driving his car when a group ran up to his car and a BLM guy just shot the driver!
For no reason!
And then we had this.
A mother of three slammed into a group of BLM protesters sending 50 flying across 3rd Avenue in 2020 when they attacked her car.
And they did.
They've offered her... At first, it was a desk appearance because they were like, we get it, man.
A riot surrounds your vehicle, starts banging and screaming.
You get your kid in the car.
It's an adult woman, but still, your kid.
And she was like, screw that.
Hit the gas.
Slammed into people.
But this is a riot of violent extremists whose ideologues and ideological allies have killed already!
So of course she panicked.
Maybe even panic isn't the right word.
Maybe she took action to protect her family from a violent group that was attacking her.
I don't like violence.
I don't think people should be going out banging on cars, and I wish these people did not get hit.
I in no way enjoy seeing any of that.
So first they said, desk appearance.
You're free to go, just come back.
Then, there was outrage in the media, so they brought charges against her.
They offered her a plea deal.
Just take it, just take it.
Community service.
Six hours.
Like nothing, basically.
And she said, no.
I did nothing wrong.
Bravo to this woman.
We cannot stand by and tolerate extremist, violent, political ideologues murdering people in the streets.
I do not like that people got hurt, but we need the violence to stop.
And this woman should not be punished for trying to flee murderous, psychotic individuals.
Now hold on.
What I'm trying to get across there in that statement is, what's going through your mind when they're banging on the car, trying to open the doors, you've got your child in it, and these people, similar rioters and ideology, it's the same ideology, it's Black Lives Matter, shot people.
Now, after this, you had the other moment in, I believe it was Seattle, where Aaron Danielson took two to the chest when a guy with a BLM tattoo on his neck shot him twice.
People are scared.
She shouldn't take a plea deal.
She should go to trial and stand her ground before a jury of her peers.
She will be tried.
Good.
And we'll see.
But it's getting crazy out there, man.
It's getting so crazy that we have this story.
San Francisco police clarified it would not arm robots with guns.
Instead, they would be equipped with explosives.
That's a real headline.
I didn't believe it when I saw it.
I thought it was a meme.
Because this is a story that's been going around, that SF is gonna use killer robots.
Robots with the ability to use deadly force.
Why?
A robot breaks, who cares?
A person dies.
Yo, that's bad.
These are machines.
I can just see it now, it's like a hundred years from now, and they're like, Tim Pool, the bigot, thought machines should break and die.
I'm just saying right now, we as human lifeforms can't be repaired or recreated.
So a robot, it's very, very difficult for it to be in a deadly force situation.
Not that I'm ascribing to it any kind of soul, but for future audiences of AI individuals who have rights.
I'll just point that out.
Right now we're talking about machines that can be repaired and humans who can't.
So, if there is a bad person, why kill them?
Why have a robot do that?
But we'll get into all this stuff, because the reality here, where it all comes together is, you know, crime is through the roof.
And this woman was reacting to being attacked.
She was not attacking.
The Daily Mail says, a New York City mother of three who plowed her BMW into a group of BLM protesters, they were rioting if they were attacking her, in 2020 has yet again refused a plea deal in favor of a jury trial.
You know what?
I can respect it.
But I hope Kathleen is aware she may just go to prison.
She's facing seven years in prison instead of taking six hours of community service.
Respectable.
Stand up for what you think is right.
I commend that she knows she's putting herself at risk of going to prison for seven years.
Probably wouldn't happen.
That's the max.
They'd probably give her something else.
But if she was being attacked and she was trying to protect her family from violent extremists, then she didn't do anything wrong.
It's the violent extremists who we have to arrest and put on trial.
Instead, it's her.
I think she may go to prison.
I'm not entirely sure.
I don't trust these cities.
There's going to be a jury that's going to say, I don't care.
You attacked our ideologues.
So be it.
We will see.
This is a very important case, mind you.
And interestingly, I think this should be getting attention on par with Rittenhouse.
And I get it.
Rittenhouse, there was a livestream of it.
There was a shooting.
It's crazy.
But this is a woman who was also attacked and was fleeing for her life with her family.
This should be getting more attention.
Casillo appeared in a Manhattan criminal court nearly two years after she was accused of driving into pedestrians during a protest at the Manhattan intersection of 39th Street and 3rd Avenue.
It was a riot, y'all.
Casillo could face seven years in prison after turning down the deal, which involved six hours of community service and a one-year license suspension, and also would require her to admit to committing a crime, which she did not do.
Casillo and her attorney told the court they did not have an interest in the plea deal and would opt for a jury trial.
They turned down the same plea deal a year ago.
The Howard Beach Queen's mom had previously claimed the demonstrators had come up to her car and called her a white privilege bitch before banging on the vehicle.
She said she then panicked and hit the gas when they tried to open the doors of her vehicle which led to nine activists being injured.
in the exclusive interview with the Daily Mail last year.
The mother said she feared for her daughter's life as a group of protesters started attacking her car and decided to hit the gas, eventually plowing into a group of activists.
Beautiful language there, Daily Mail, in 2020.
Casillo was issued no more than a desk appearance ticket for the incident and was released only hours after her arrest.
Her 29-year-old daughter was also in the car at the time, but was not charged.
Why would she be?
She's a passenger!
Casillo was later charged with reckless assault.
She says, my side of the story was we were attacked by people who were going to break my daughter's window and pull her out of the car, so I feared for my life.
Casilla, whose husband works as a car mechanic, told the Daily Mail.
Casilla said she turned down the plea deal in December because she did not do anything wrong, saying, I'm going to court to clear my name because I'm not guilty.
I feel sick.
I never intended on hurting anyone.
I just feared for my daughter's life more than anybody.
I thought they were going to pull her out of the car, and they may have.
They had, in Utah, ran up to a car and shot the driver.
In Portland, they walked up to Aaron Danielson and put two in his chest, and then lied about it, and said, oh, he was trying to pepper spray them.
The dude had the gun, drew the weapon first.
Watch the videos.
And then what happened was, the shooter apparently, and maybe it's been a long time, when he shoots Aaron Danielson, hits the can of spray, causing it to explode.
They're just making the black community look like thugs.
One of my closest friends is a woman of color from when I was 19 years old, so it's not a black-white thing.
I don't even know the color of the people that I hit.
It was all mixed.
That's a crazy thing to say.
Video posted to social media in the aftermath showed the moment she plowed through a group of 50 Black Lives Matter protesters that night.
Just say rioters, man.
Damage to the 2019 black BMW sedan is clearly visible in photos from the incident.
Multiple injured protesters were taken to Bellevue Hospital to be treated for their injuries.
Since then, cops have been forced to guard Casillo's home of death threats sent to her and her family, her daughter Dominique said.
When Casillo appeared in Manhattan criminal court last year, she had to be escorted into the building by security officers as a group of protesters outside compared her to a female Kyle Rittenhouse.
What was I saying?
Rittenhouse claimed self-defense when he shot three people, two fatally, at a Black Lives Matter riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
Daily Mail, get your language correct.
These aren't people peacefully protesting.
In one incident in Kenosha, an old man was clubbed over the back of the head with a stone and left bleeding on the ground.
Buildings were set on fire.
And Kyle Rittenhouse was found to have acted in self-defense.
He was later acquitted of all charges.
That's right.
Well, to everybody who is tired of violent terrorists smashing their windows and destroying their businesses, maybe.
It doesn't mean what the left think it means.
You know, people came out and they said Rittenhouse was a hero.
Things like that.
I've never said anything of the sort.
It was funny, I think... Was it the Young Turks?
Someone claimed that I had said that.
I think it was maybe Rugged Man.
I was like, I never said that!
Like, being force-hacked in self-defense is... I don't know if that's a heroic thing, right?
But, you know, people are entitled to their opinions.
I'm not saying people are wrong.
I'm just saying this is what I think.
I think that you could argue Kyle Rittenhouse was trying to help everybody.
That was heroic.
He had a first aid kit and was rendering aid to these leftists who had been injured.
That, sure, heroic.
If that's the context, then I get it.
I don't think that we should praise or encourage any kind of incident where people are injured or lose their lives.
I think we should absolutely condemn those who would seek to cause that harm.
I think we should absolutely commend those.
Maybe, I'm not going to say as heroes, I don't know, maybe that's just my opinion on the semantic understanding of the word hero, but this woman refusing to go to take a plea deal and saying she wants her day in court, I respect.
She alleged that people who were attacking her car weren't really part of the protest, as the actual protest was a block up.
They were just lingering and pulled out of nowhere before we stopped the car.
We waited, watched the light turn green, then red.
We waited a long time and they were just there like this, doing nothing.
Then they walked away just a little bit so we could move.
We started driving and they started attacking the car, so naturally we stopped again.
And that's when they started hitting the car, cursing us out.
I was really scared, honestly.
Finally, there was that bit that actually cracked the window open on my side, and that's when my mother started to roll, Dominique said.
We said, we have to get out of here because they're not going to stop.
And there's videos of this.
People being pulled out, them jumping on the car and smashing the windows out.
There was no other car around, she continued.
There might have been cars behind us, but we were the first car on an empty sidewalk.
So was it just like wrong place, wrong time?
I don't know.
She noted that it was sad because I definitely think there's some bad menaces that go and ruin
protest because there were people there protesting for a cause and they were just
uh that there were people there protesting for cause and they were just looking for for for a trouble.
In the aftermath Dominic said her mother was slammed as a racist on Twitter calling it really traumatizing.
People took to social media to post screenshots of her Facebook and Instagram accounts.
The City reported at the time, showing posts supportive of then-President Donald Trump's handling of the COVID pandemic, and likes for a group called I Stand With Rudy Giuliani.
But Casillo has denied claims of racism, telling Daily Mail in December, one of my closest friends is a woman of color.
That doesn't really do anything, to be completely honest.
You don't got to say it.
I don't even know the color of the people I hit, so I remember this, look.
She was arrested.
They also know that Casillo did not have a prior criminal history and has no history of having hurt anybody.
Her heart goes out to the victims.
Don't go around slamming people's cars and attacking them and threatening them, especially at a time when riots are resulting in dead people.
That's what I can say.
And it's crazy that we live in this world that the instigators can be called the victims.
These people were out at a riot.
That's it.
I don't want anybody getting hurt.
But you're providing cover for them.
And here's the sad reality.
The extremists use peaceful protest as cover.
But here's the other reality.
Peaceful protesters stand by while people get violent and they call it respecting a diversity of tactics.
Sure.
You and a buddy.
You're both men at banks.
So you both decide to go into that bank.
You hold up a sign saying banks are bad because of usury and interest rates, and then your other friend decides to rob the bank.
And you go, well, I'm here with him, you know.
I will provide protective cover.
I don't agree with what he's doing, but gotta respect the diversity of tactics.
That's called being an accomplice.
You'll get arrested and charged.
Don't do it.
In this capacity, I understand people might go out thinking they're peacefully protesting, but you've got to stop the violent extremists.
There was a video out of D.C., I think it was, where a bunch of people are peacefully protesting, blocking a street.
Some dude starts hacking away at the ground or something to pull up bricks, and the peaceful protesters grab him and bring him to the cops.
The cops take him away, grab another guy, and everyone's like, no, no, no, he's cool, he's cool, and the cops let him go.
Oh, surprise, surprise!
When you self-police, the cops stay back, they don't want to get involved.
It's the craziest thing.
You think that cops want to walk into a violent riot?
Sure, I'm sure some do.
Some of these guys are crazy.
Crazy people exist.
But I'll tell you this, I bet the average cop just wants to go home and watch sports and have a beer.
They don't want to be there.
So if you stop the extremists, they're going to be like, good, I don't got to do anything.
I don't got to worry about it.
But they don't.
They don't.
And then when these people stand by while violent extremists hurt and kill, they then say, oh, oh, help, help, we're under attack, we're peaceful protesters, and the media covers it up.
Cities are being riddled with crime.
The Daily Mail reports, cops in crime-ridden San Francisco will be able to use killer robots in deadly force situations as cities' crime soars.
Comes a year after woke Mayor London Breed U-turned on her decision to slash the police budget by $120 million.
Yeah, welcome to the future, my friends.
This is where we're going.
We are heading towards a world where they're gonna defund the police, and then, with their limited budgets, they'll rely on robots.
Robots will be marching down the street.
Let me tell you how fun that's gonna be.
I have a Tesla.
Tesla is self-driving, and there's problems.
Heaven forbid.
So on Route 340 out in West Virginia, there are stoplight ahead signs and they have yellow flashing lights.
It's a big yellow box and it says something like stoplight ahead or something like that.
And it's got two yellow lights that flicker in and out.
The Tesla vehicle thinks it's a yield light.
Like it's a yellow light.
So you know what happens when you're auto driving?
It will just slam its brakes on on the highway when it sees it.
And then you've got to tap the accelerator to make it stop and keep going.
Not all the time.
It stopped.
It was doing it before.
There's other instances where I was driving on the road, and it was like a six-lane highway, like three on one side, three on the other, with a median.
And because you're on a rural area, there are turnouts on the highway.
So a pickup truck pulls into the median and stops.
And I'm driving to the Tesla, and it's on autopilot.
They have full self-driving now, because I'm like, let's see.
And then all of a sudden, for no reason, it slammed the brakes on all the way.
On a highway with a 65 mile an hour speed limit, and I was like, we just jerked forward.
I like Tesla.
I think Elon does a good job.
It's actually a really awesome thing.
Just because there's a couple problems, I mean, I'm trying to rag on Tesla.
What I'm trying to point out is, when your vehicle slams the brakes on, it's dangerous.
Most of the time, we've not noticed any other problems, and it's really cool that you can be sitting in the car, you gotta keep your hand on the wheel, and it just drives itself, and you're kind of just like, wow, this is crazy.
It is really cool.
Like, turns and everything, it pulls in.
It's really cool.
But there are problems.
A human is still better than this machine.
You release killer robots...
They're gonna make big mistakes.
Someone's gonna be holding a cell phone, and it's gonna be like, for an object, deadly threat perceived.
And it was a cell phone.
Hey, cops do it all the time, I know.
But police can still make better decisions in this capacity.
Slamming the brakes on, and also periodically, it'll be like forward collision warning, when I'm like on a straight, I'm like, what's happening?
Like, the road's totally clear, why is it saying that?
Imagine what happens if a robot gets a false deadly force warning.
And then it fires a taser, even.
Or hits somebody.
Like, you know that man-robot that walks around that Boston Dynamics has?
What if it goes BOOM and punches someone in the chest to stop him, thinking, like, less lethal?
And the person wasn't doing anything.
So anyway, let me wrap this together, my friends.
This is where we're headed.
They're gonna defund the police, and then say, how can we keep costs down?
Cheaper to maintain a robot.
You buy it one time, doesn't gotta pay a salary, right?
Release the robots and give them lethal force, because then, when two people are fighting, and one person is fighting for survival, the robot won't know the difference.
So what?
How do you tell the robot who to take action against?
City Supervisor Rafael Mandelman said SFPD will have access to seven robots designed to neutralize, dispose of, uh, neutralize, dispose of bombs and provide video reconnaissance for operators.
None of the robots will have firearms attached, but Mandelman said they could be asked to carry out deadly force in extreme situations.
We get it.
The bomb squad sends a, you know, they want to detonate the device or try to if they think it's a threat.
This is, they'll also have the ability, none of the robots will have firearms, but they could be asked to carry out deadly force.
So like what?
Slowly go over a man's neck and then just squeeze or something?
Okay, let's be realistic.
What this probably means is that they're going to deploy a robot into, like, a hostage situation.
Or into, like, if there's a shootout.
Let's say there's a guy pinned behind a building.
They'll send in the robot, and the robot will be allowed to kill the person.
Let's be realistic.
What this probably means is that they're going to deploy a robot into like a hostage situation
or into like if there's a shootout.
Let's say there's a guy pinned behind a building.
They'll send in the robot and the robot will be allowed to kill the person.
I get it.
I do, man.
I mean, what do you do?
Will you stop a madman, a shooter, by any means necessary?
Think about those cops in Uvalde who were too scared to go in.
If they sent in a robot, robot could have done something.
Or at least tried to.
And then the madman wouldn't be able to stop the robot because the bullets wouldn't be as effective against a robot than it would be against a human.
I do think there are certain circumstances where it makes sense and we shouldn't immediately just have a knee-jerk reaction of like, oh no, oh no.
But I do fear what this opens the door to.
Defunding the police and other crackpot nonsense, and then making up the difference with AI death robots.
Sounds not fun.
Now we sit here and say, oh come on, Tim, that's not going to happen.
You kidding me?
I remember back in 2008, you know that meme where it's like, what did it say, if we legalize gay marriage, none of these things are going to happen, and then like, they happened?
I'm not saying they're a direct result of legalizing gay marriage.
The point I'm making is, don't come out and be like, a thing can't happen.
Because then you'll be surprised when it actually does.
The fact that we are expanding these robots and that they've already been deployed for law enforcement purposes, some of these dog bots and things like that.
We've already seen the videos of them equipped with fully automatic weapons.
They're gonna go to war.
Then, once the war is over, they're gonna get repurposed and sent in for domestic use.
They're gonna be like, hey, we got a potential shooting, deploy the dogs.
And then the robo-dogs are gonna run out with their guns and they're gonna seek out threats.
It's gonna get crazy, man.
Hey, I'm hoping things stay chill for the time being.
As it pertains to the violent extremists and to wrap this story up, we'll see what happens to this woman.
She's not the same as Kyle Rittenhouse.
There are similarities.
I think the story of her should be way, way bigger based on what happened.
This is a similar situation where far-left extremists were attacking innocent people and the innocent people said, I will not just sit by and defended themselves.
And it is unfortunate that the violence happens.
They're trying to compare it to Rittenhouse, so be it.
