Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

April 5, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:40:32

Democrats Have DECLARED WAR With FALSE Charges Against Trump, Even CNN Implies The Charges ARE BUNK

Democrats Have DECLARED WAR With FALSE Charges Against Trump, Even CNN Implies The Charges ARE BUNK Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlZ-vgqPXVQ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:24:30

Appearances

matt walsh

04:47

Clips

josh hammer

00:31

r c maxwell

00:16

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
		Now, let's jump into the first story.
		The charges against Donald Trump are fake.
		That's it.
		Even CNN says they're underwhelmed.
		That there's no new information.
		What Bragg has done has made a mockery of the criminal justice system.
		That's me saying it, not CNN.
		CNN simply called it underwhelming.
		And we have the National Review saying Bragg's indictment even fails as an indictment.
		The novel legal theory that Bragg has put forward is this.
		When Donald Trump paid Stormy Daniels illicitly, that may have been a misdemeanor, but he was trying to conceal other crimes.
		Therefore, every single transaction ever made in relation to this is a felony.
		34 felonies, 136 years in prison.
		The only problem, Bragg can't tell us what other crimes Donald Trump committed.
		He simply made it up.
		He said Trump was falsifying statements, and that's a crime, and federal contributions.
		And when asked, he simply said, the law does not require me to actually justify what other crimes I'm alleging.
		In fact, the Constitution does.
		It's called the Sixth Amendment.
		You can't say... This is almost... This is the political equivalent of arresting someone for resisting arrest.
		Sorry.
		I know there's a lot of people who are like, well, sometimes you can resist arrest when you're not being arrested.
		So you got a guy out in the street, and the cops walk up to him, and they say, you're under arrest for resisting arrest.
		It's paradoxical.
		It's, how am I resisting arrest if I'm not under arrest and you're arresting me for resisting something I'm not under arrest for?
		That's what is exactly happening with Donald Trump right now.
		How are you indicting him for felonies in concealing something in the commission of another crime when there is no other crime?
		This is a dangerous precedent, and I'm going to put it this way.
		I think the United States is crumbling before our eyes.
		This is it.
		To stop the frontrunner of the Republican Party.
		They have brought false charges that are so plainly obvious, even CNN is like, uh... But they won't stop.
		You know why?
		Because CNN also did a poll that found, while most Democrats, more than two-thirds, believe it is political, what they're doing to Trump, they also think it's a good thing.
		You know, up in Wisconsin, a liberal Supreme Court justice just won.
		In, uh, I'm sorry, in Wisconsin, a liberal Supreme Court justice just won.
		In Chicago, You had the far left candidate win the mayoral race, which I predicted.
		Because people in Chicago, when you look at the maps, voted purely on racial lines.
		And so my prediction was it's clearly going to be an election based on race.
		When you look at the white college areas, they vote based on race inverted.
		That's the far-left out-group preference that we've seen in many polls.
		You know, there's talk of a central bank digital currency coming up in July or whatever.
		I would not be surprised if there is a major banking collapse in a month or two.
		I don't know.
		I wouldn't be surprised.
		I'm not saying I think it's going to happen.
		I don't know.
		But I'll tell you this.
		Personally, I am now going to start taking actions as though that is the reality.
		This country is done.
		You can disagree with me.
		You can argue with me.
		Comment below as to why you think it's not the case.
		But when you have people in a country that are cheering and waving flags, knowing these are false charges, but they don't care.
		That's civil war.
		You know, and I'll say it again, I say it all the time.
		People think Civil War is like the American Civil War because they can't get out of their own perspective.
		They've not read about what actual Civil War looks like.
		Sure, a bunch of different sovereign states disagreeing on a federal union and then having their own standing armies resisting each other.
		That's not a classical civil war.
		That's the American disunion-ment.
		You know, that's when the union of sovereign states went at each other.
		It's more akin to, like, the countries in Europe fighting with each other than a civil war.
	No, in a civil war you have two or more factions fighting for control of a central authority.
	What do you think this is?
	The left faction knows, as CNN polling showed, that this is not legitimate, but they don't care because they're trying to destroy.
	They're trying to crush you and steal power.
	Let me read for you this article from the National Review and show you some data points.
	And the only thing I can really say is get out of cities, have a family, make money.
	And I do see a path out of all of this with a Donald Trump 2024 victory.
	And a gradual shift in the culture through people who are moderate, conservative, libertarian, leaving these cities, taking the power away from these individuals, taking the tax dollars away from these individuals, and just generally making that grassroots cultural shift, which in 20 years will dramatically change this country for the better.
	But let me read the story from National Review.
	Bragg's indictment even fails as an indictment.
	You know, before I do, let me show you what Bragg actually had to say.
	Here you go.
	Might be a little quiet.
	Let's see if we can listen to this.
unidentified		Mr. Bragg, indictment says that there were 34 false business records.
		And they were done to conceal another crime, but indictment does not So let me let me say as an initial matter that the indictment doesn't specify that because the law does not so require in my remarks I mentioned a couple of laws which I will highlight again now.
		The first is New York State election law which makes it a crime to conspire to promote a candidacy by unlawful means.
		I further indicated a number of unlawful means including more additional false statements.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so let's let's let's let on there a minute and see what Bragg just said.
		You see the layer upon layers?
		This is a crime because it's actually a crime committed in the commission of another crime.
		The other crime was a conspiracy to commit another crime which is he lied about stuff.
		Layer upon layer upon layer.
unidentified		Including statements that were planned to be made to tax authorities.
unidentified		I also noted the federal election law cap on contribution limits.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So that's basically it.
		And I want to stress this, and they mention it in the National Review article, which we'll read now.
		BRAC has no authority to bring federal charges and the Feds didn't bring any charges, so there is no crime committed.
		You can't just say, in my opinion, the Feds should have brought criminal charges, therefore a crime was committed.
		It's fake.
		That's it.
		The machine has been weaponized against you.
		Against Donald Trump.
		I don't, I don't, I don't see where we can go.
		Look, you want to talk about civil war, it could just be a revolution, as I've stated before, in that these individuals have seized power at the highest level and they continue to do so, and that's it.
		One day at a time they take more and more power and they use lies and manipulation and sometimes they just outright tell you that they are going to abuse you and abuse power.
		That's it.
		Here's the story from the National Review.
		They say, what a disgrace.
		It's always possible to be surprised the indictment brought by Manhattan's elected Democratic District Attorney Evan Bragg against Donald Trump is even worse than I imagined.
		Bragg's indictment fails to state a crime not once, but 34 times, and that ground alone the case should be dismissed, before one ever gets to the facts that the statute of limitations has lapsed and that Bragg has no jurisdiction to enforce the law.
		Bragg's indictment charges 34 counts based on media reporting that clearly came from illegal leaks of grand jury information, a crime, you can be sure, that goes in the overflowing bucket of serious offenses that Bragg refuses to prosecute.
		The 34 counts are arrived by taking what is a single course of conduct and absurdly slicing it into parts, each one of which is charged as a separate felony carrying its own potential four-year prison term.
		Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen in monthly installments during 2017 for the $130,000 paid to Stormy Daniels, right before the 2016 election, for her silence about an alleged affair.
		That, in reality, is a single transaction.
		Trump paying back a debt to Cohen.
		Yet, because Trump paid in installments, and each installment includes an invoice from Cohen, a bookkeeping entry by the Trump Organization, and a payment to Cohen by check, Bragg not only charges each monthly installment separately, He subdivides the installments into installments, as if the invoice, book entry, and check were independent criminal events.
		Voila!
		One transaction becomes 34 felonies.
		But I also want to make sure we stress.
		I want you to imagine this.
		You have a friend, and that friend buys burglars tools.
		And then they go rob a jewelry store in the middle of the night.
		Then one day, your friend, who is a carpenter by trade, sends you a bill for the remodeling work he had been doing in your garage.
		And you pay him back for that remodeling work.
		One day later, the district attorney files criminal charges against you for aiding and abetting a jewelry store robbery because the money that you were paying him was actually, as they attest, paying him for the burglar's tools.
		This is what they're doing.
		They're saying because Trump's lawyer filed invoices that he paid, those payments were actually for Stormy Daniels.
unidentified		Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
		Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet-and-greet experience for you.
		Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
		These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
		Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
		Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
		See you on the tour.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Despite the fact that Cohen's own lawyer said it had nothing to do with Trump, he was never
		reimbursed for it.
		But then Cohen later came out and said, actually, I was.
		Yeah, sure.
		The whole premise here is that Michael Cohen alleges that the money he received was actually to pay off Stormy Daniels.
		That's the only case they have.
		They have taken.
		A liar who had previously denied any of this, who flipped at his word, and his word is the only evidence.
		That's it.
		Because otherwise you just have Trump paying legal fees.
		For what?
		I don't know.
		That's the game.
		Now they've taken that, alleged that there are more crimes that were never charged but exist, and therefore these are all felonies and Trump should go to prison for 136 years.
		National Review goes on to say, Okay.
		This is exactly the sort of abusive behavior that rogue prosecutors engage in,
		and thus the Justice Department admonishes federal prosecutors to avoid.
		Okay, there's a solution here. Many people are a bit dejected, a bit upset over what
		happened in Wisconsin and Chicago.
		A liberal Supreme Court justice in Wisconsin has just secured the most important state, one of, for the 2024 election.
		Donald Trump, as Charlie Kirk pointed out, needs to win Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona.
		Tough spots.
		Unfortunately, with this liberal Supreme Court justice, it is widely believed that these dramatic election changes, which heavily favor Democrats, will be solidified.
		Ossified, as it were.
		There is one simple solution.
		Any jurisdiction in which the Clinton Foundation operated, in which Barack Obama's campaign operated, can file criminal charges against them.
		So, if you are a conservative in a red district and there is a campaign office for Barack Obama, you should file criminal charges against him.
		Play the game.
		Let's talk about the novel legal theories that you could entertain to push this criminal indictment.
		I don't know.
		Barack Obama killed a kid.
		You can argue that his re-election campaign Yeah, I think he killed Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki before he got re-elected, so you should be able to argue that he committed a murder and then just do what Bragg did.
		You know, Bragg just made it up, right?
		You see, this is the issue.
		The Democrats are fighting a civil war, but they're fighting an unconventional fifth-generational civil war.
		There is no circumstance, in my view, where armed factions will go around blowing up buildings and shooting at each other.
		That's old school Civil War when people didn't have any understanding of power dynamics.
		Now technology and social media play a much more outsized role in these things.
		Don't get me wrong, Antifa's going around firebombing buildings and things like that, but that's rogue and random.
		When you look at actual hot Civil War, you see multiple factions with rifles just randomly shooting at each other.
		And it gets crazy.
		Then power starts to coalesce among a smaller group of factions.
		They band together and things like that.
		I don't see that necessarily happening in the U.S.
		outside of what we're already seeing.
		I do think it's entirely possible we get to the point where there's shooting in cities, but I'm saying it's not going to look like Syria.
		What's going to happen is we are in a fifth generational civil war.
		Fifth generational warfare is psychological manipulation.
		What Alvin Bragg is doing is perfectly on par.
		A loophole, a manipulation, and the knowledge Donald Trump will surrender.
		Donald Trump will walk right in and play their game.
		At a certain point, there has to be active resistance within the legal system as the game they play.
		That is to say, Donald Trump, in my opinion, should not have surrendered.
		He should have filed an emergency legal challenge.
		And he should have said, you will not extradite me for Florida.
		These charges are not legitimate.
		You can't have, in my opinion, A prosecutor make up a fake crime and then make you pay money to go surrender.
		Now, of course, Donald Trump is saying he's raised $10 million from this.
		His polls are skyrocketing.
		But I think if we are going to win this one, Trump probably would have had to just say, no.
		You will not.
		I will not.
		Have a nice day.
		Here's what I think would happen.
	If Donald Trump said, don't know, don't care.
	Right?
	Send me your legal paperwork and we'll talk about it.
	The idea that Trump voluntarily contacted New York and decided to surrender is hilarious to me.
	If some other country, if some other state claims you did a wrong thing, my response is, okay, when you can provide legal justification for extradition from a state, then we'll talk.
	But I didn't do that.
	Trump chose!
	So you know what, man?
	You know, part of me is just like, whatever.
	Here it all comes crashing down.
	Because the Democrats just outmaneuver the Republicans every step of the way.
	And then what's gonna happen is, you're gonna see something like January 6th, where a bunch of disorganized, ignorant individuals once again engage in street-level violence, which gives Democrats exactly what they want.
	Which is why I've been screaming this well before January 6th.
	Do not play that game.
	The game that needs to be played is a conservative in a red district saying, Joe Biden ran a campaign office here.
	Therefore, we have jurisdiction over anything he did at the federal level for this federal election.
	And then indict him.
	Right now.
	Do it.
	You know what?
	We have a local DA in New York.
	Local.
unidentified		Local.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		At the lowest level.
		Filing these criminal charges against Trump that are clearly made up.
		Causing Trump to play this game.
		Trump doesn't know what he's doing.
		Sorry.
		It's about time someone like Trump... He should have gave a speech and said, I do not recognize the legal authority of a Soros DA.
		No one, including liberal legal analysts, believe these charges are legitimate, as we have right here from Mediaite.
		Underwhelming.
		CNN legal analyst unimpressed by Trump charges, says there's not more to it.
		Nothing here.
		No new details, no new information.
		Simply put, a crime that, if it existed, had a statute of limitations of two years, has been extended to seven.
		And Trump said, well, I guess I'll submit.
		Whatever, man.
		Donald Trump submitted to them.
		The argument is, people are saying, this is the game they want Trump to play.
		They want Trump to resist.
		Okay, well, so long as Trump just says, I will do whatever you tell me, then we don't have any meaningful opposition.
		So long as conservative district attorneys ignore the crimes committed by, say, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama, we don't have any meaningful resistance.
		We have a bunch of whinging internet personalities, myself included, who are complaining about things that will never change, give it ten years, and it's done.
		The Democrats will solidify uniparty rule, single-party Democrat rule, and that's it.
		The country will become akin to Chicago or San Francisco.
		In Chicago, Republicans haven't won a meaningful election in like a hundred years.
		California's become a uniparty, single-party state.
		Democrats control everything, and people are so dumb they keep voting for the same people.
		You will see North Korea-style single-party rule.
		And it's because we don't have any strong leadership.
		Donald Trump tells people to go peacefully protest, a bunch of morons ride at the Capitol, and then the media gets exactly what they want.
		It's disunion, it's disorganization.
		I know a lot of people are probably saying, well, what are you doing about it, Tim?
		Fair point.
		I completely agree.
		Here I am, sitting in my proverbial castle, complaining to a camera, and the most I'm doing is talking about it.
		I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm trying to build culture.
		We're trying to influence at a great level.
		And I suppose the challenge is, you know, people have talked about Tucker Carlson running for office, and the issue is he's too influential.
		The idea that he, and to a much, much, much smaller degree, I, would abandon our post, speaking out about these things, would actually weaken the ability, the meaningful resistance that we have so little of already.
		That is to say, you know, I would never want to be in politics.
		But if I were ever to run for any kind of meaningful office, it would mean that the 60 plus million viewers every month are now without.
		Suppose there's a potential argument of running for office and doing the show, you know, in some fashion.
		A bunch of politicians have podcasts and maybe that's what needs to happen, I guess.
		But I don't know.
		I can't imagine a world in which I'm in any kind of meaningful office.
		The only reason I bring that up is because I don't see anyone, anyone resisting.
		I mean, to be fair, like a little bit, sure.
		But when Donald Trump faces a state level, a local level indictment, he says, let me spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to come down and bow before you.
		That's what he did.
		Flying that jet from Florida to New York.
		The cost on that alone has got to be $200,000.
		You get a private jet, private broker, a private charter from Florida to New York, you're looking at a hundred grand.
		Round trip.
		Trump's flying on a 757.
		That flight alone cost probably $200,000.
		And he was willing to spend it because a local Soros DA made fake charges against him.
		And he said, okay, I will do whatever you tell me.
		Look man, I don't know.
		I'm not gonna pretend that I know better than Trump.
		Maybe he's got a plan for all of this.
		Maybe there's a strategy in what he's doing.
		Maybe he knows that this is embarrassing them.
		Whatever.
		My view is, the Democrats know there's nothing here.
		They don't care.
		They are saying, come here, get in the cage, or else.
	And Trump said, okay, okay, okay.
	Let me come by, let me come by.
	Trump's been ordered to return on December 4th, so that's, nothing's gonna happen here, not for a long time.
	But Trump will be convicted.
	I mean, it's possible he's not, I don't know.
	I would just argue right now, things are only getting worse.
	And what's going to happen is, you are going to have a Manhattan jury, and they are going to say to themselves, during deliberations, they're gonna say, I know you all agree that Donald Trump didn't do anything here, but we stand before literal Hitler and a chance to stop him.
	So how about we just say guilty no matter what the circumstances are and lock him up.
	He is in that room.
	We do it now.
	They remand him.
	You see, Donald Trump, when he's convicted, will be sitting in court with a grumpy look on his face.
	The jury will walk in and say, we find the defendant guilty on all charges.
	The judge will then smile, bang the gavel and say, 136 years, Trump.
	And then Trump will be carried off.
	Instantly to be sentenced, and even if he does end up winning somehow, he can't pardon himself at the state level.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
		Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
		There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating Now, what actually might happen is the judge might say, 136 years is a bit extreme for a federal record, for a records violation, but these are serious charges.
		trial with Josh Hammer. Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
		It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Now what actually might happen is the judge might say, 136 years is a bit extreme for
		a federal record for a records violation. But these are serious charges. And what you've
		done, Mr. Trump is is damaged our country irrevocably. So I'm going to recommend a lower
		sentence because there must be some punishment.
		And I say six years.
		I'm being lenient on you.
		Or maybe two years.
		Two years in prison.
		Slap on the wrist.
		Based on the 136 years he's facing.
		And then Trump will be immediately carried off to jail where he will not be able to campaign.
		He will not be able to post on Truth.
		He will be silent.
		That's what they want.
		And if this doesn't work, you've got the D.C.
		charges.
		You've got the Georgia charges.
		They will not stop.
		This is what we're dealing with.
		A rogue faction and a bunch of American citizens know full well what they're doing has no merit, but they don't care.
		Why?
		What are conservatives going to do about it?
		They're sitting in their New York liberal social clubs laughing, knowing Yeah, the charges are bunk, but who cares?
		We won!
		As the saying goes, if you're not cheating, you're not trying.
		In the world, all is fair in love and war, right?
		If we're talking about winning a civil war, or a culture war, or a cold civil war, If you are not doing everything in your power to win, you will lose.
		And I hope every Republican and every conservative hears this.
		And I hope anyone who has any connection or knows any prosecutor, DA, or politician tells them if they don't see it themselves.
		You must go within the law and use the exact same legal theories to criminally charge Democrats.
		Now, every single one of you, you want to win the culture war?
		You want to put a stop to this?
		If every conservative D.A.
		drew up charges against the Biden campaign, the Obama administration right now, right now.
		And then filed 73 indictments in 73 jurisdictions, each with 57 counts of felonies against Clinton and Obama.
		You know what would happen?
		They would drop this.
		Instantly.
		You call their bluff.
		You re-raise them.
		When they say, we've got 34 charges on Trump, Trump folds like a cheap suit.
		Let me show up!
		This is unjust!
		You know what I'd do?
		If I was Trump, I'd go to Florida and say, as soon as the word was coming down about the grand jury, which we've known about for a while, I'd say, where are the charges you will be filing?
		Against Bragg?
		Against them?
		Against Joe Biden?
		Do it.
		And then, when they drop the 34 charges against me, at the same time, you announce 60 charges against Joe Biden.
		Do it!
		There's so much Biden could be indicted for.
unidentified		I'm not saying convicted, I'm saying indicted.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So do it!
		I'm just... You know what, man?
		That's where the real power probably lies right now.
		A simple, small-time county prosecutor can file criminal charges against any politician who campaigned in their district, in their county, in their state.
		They have the jurisdiction.
		So, there you go.
		File the charges.
		The gloves are off.
		I'm not kidding.
		We need to get every single conservative leaning prosecutor to file the charges.
		It's it's it's now or never.
		I think you do this.
unidentified		The Democrats fold.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You've got to push back, challenge them, see if they're really willing to go forward with this when it means the same thing happens to them.
		And you know, it's not even that.
		I think the prosecutors should go after Black Lives Matter leaders because where'd that money go?
		There's big questions about the missing money.
		They should go after anyone organizing for Antifa.
		Look at Georgia.
		Look at the people who cross state lines there.
		But you know what I think?
		I think the right is comprised of a lot of cowards.
		I mentioned this the other day on TimCast IRL.
		I love how conservatives call the left soyboys.
		These soyboys, with the pink hair, and their gaunt bodies, and their soy diets, go out firebombing buildings for their cause.
		And they're called soyboys.
		Meanwhile, conservative strongmen sit in their homes and say, I'd better not say anything because I could lose my job.
		Oh, how brave.
		Yo, the Soy Boys have more tenacity and courage than your average conservative.
		Isn't that a crazy thought?
		That there are people who are like, I have too much to lose.
		They don't have any kids, they don't have families, they have nothing to lose.
		You're at a disadvantage, I get it.
		But don't call a dude who's willing to go to prison for life a soy boy.
		That's the craziest thing to me.
		It's like, this frail, effeminate, low-T male, haha, what a loser, and I'm like, yeah, and he just firebombed a building and got federally charged for it, for the first time.
		Those are the lengths they're willing to go.
		Conservatives aren't.
		I mean, it's a good thing.
		We don't want conservatives going around firebombing things.
		Don't get me wrong.
		These people should be criminally charged.
		What I'm saying is, you want to call that guy a soy boy, and he's willing to go to such extreme lengths to actually kill people.
		And all we're saying is, conservative prosecutors and conservatives, you should be calling those prosecutors.
		The prosecutors should file some charges.
		Where yet?
		Now, I know, I know.
		I got a super chat the other day.
		They said there's not very many of us.
		I get it.
		I get it.
		But there are enough.
		What about in, like, Lauren Boebert's district?
		What about in any red state?
		Conservatives are weak.
		That's just it.
		So, I don't know what you expect.
		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.
		Ladies and gentlemen, we have shocking and breaking news.
		As reported by the Post Millennial, Leonardo DiCaprio testifies that CCP-linked Malaysian financier, now a fugitive, sent $30 million to Obama during the 2012 campaign.
		Quote, he told me that he, or he and a group, were going to make a significant contribution to the Democratic Party.
		I said, wow, that's a lot of money.
		Now, according to Leonardo DiCaprio's testimony, it is that this Malaysian financier wanted to give the money.
		Not that he did, or was in the process of doing so.
		DiCaprio said, he told me he wanted to.
		But there's some important factors to consider as to the Postmillennial's headline, in which they said, Leonardo DiCaprio testifies that he sent $30 million to Obama.
		Well, according to other outlets, because I think details matter, Disgraced financier tried to funnel $30 million to Obama, says Leonardo DiCaprio.
		The appropriate headline is that Leonardo DiCaprio testifies he wanted to do this thing.
		However, I think it's fair to say that the allegation is that he did do this thing, as there is a current criminal trial underway for the thing being done.
		That is to say, this individual told Leonardo DiCaprio he wanted to send this money to the Democrats, and now they're criminally charging a dude for having helped facilitate the transfer of the funds to Democrats.
		Innocent until proven guilty.
		However, I have some serious concerns here.
		Notably, the Obama administration's involvement in such a scheme, how the money made its way to the Democrats or Obama, And thus, I have to wonder if those payments that Obama was making to his legal counsel could have, in fact, been reimbursement or laundering.
		You know, Barack Obama has a legal team that had been invoicing him, and I think it's fair to assume that Barack Obama was actually paying these lawyers under these falsified invoices in an effort to funnel money.
	to them so that he could facilitate this illegal foreign contribution.
	Of course, you understand that I'm being somewhat facetious in what I'm asserting here.
	What I will say in all seriousness is if you know or are an investigator or a state's attorney or a district attorney or whatever, you should immediately begin the investigative process right now The process by which an indictment will come against the Obama administration, against Barack Obama himself, and against anyone who worked on his campaign.
	Now, I know, I know.
	Many people are going to say, Tim, what are you talking about?
	You're going to be hard-pressed to find any paper trail.
	Oh, okay.
	Like Donald Trump paying a lawyer a retainer fee gets turned into he illegally paid money.
	You see, they made that up.
	It's like, I got a lawyer.
	He sends me invoices.
	It says hours billed on it.
	I don't know.
	And I'm like, I'm on the phone with the guy.
	I call him on the phone.
	He then racks up charges against me for talking to him on the phone.
	So what they do is Trump then pays the invoice and they say, aha, that proves you were funneling money.
	Well, he's paying his lawyer.
	Okay, let's play the same game.
	Barack Obama should be indicted for this.
	Because I'm sure you'll find some dubious connection between him and this guy who's funneling money to him.
	Here you go.
	Hey, if those are the rules the Democrats created, I say we play that game.
	The Post Millennial Reports. Movie star Leonardo DiCaprio took the stand in a federal trial on
	Monday that seeks to hammer down the details of what appears to be a money funneling scheme
	that features a Malaysian financier funneling tens of millions of dollars through a prominent
	90s rap artist for the purpose of donating to former President Barack Obama's 2012 re-election
	campaign.
	DiCaprio plays into the saga because he was said to have partied with Joe Lowe, a Malaysian financier who apparently suggested to DiCaprio during a conversation that he intended to contribute to
	Obama's presidential campaign.
	DiCaprio said, it was a casual conversation about what party he was in support of.
	I told him what party I was in support of, and he told me that he or he and a group
	were going to make a significant contribution to the Democratic Party.
	I said, wow, that's a lot of money.
	Prack Israel, Pras, Michael, probably pronouncing his name wrong, founder of the Fugees,
	has been recruited by Lowe in an effort to funnel money to Obama's re-election bid
	because foreigners are not allowed to contribute to U.S.
	campaigns.
	And this is according to a current criminal charge.
	Now, innocent until proven guilty, I will add.
	The report indicated that Michael had taken tens of millions of dollars to lobby the government on behalf of the Chinese government.
	However, it turns out that much of the money was stolen.
	Lowe is now being accused of embezzling $4.5 billion from 1MDB, Malaysia's state investment fund, per Reuters.
	Lowe reportedly helped fund the film The Wolf of Wall Street.
	Okay.
	Prosecutors have claimed that Michael received over $20 million from foreign accounts, which were then passed off to 20 straw donors from June to November 2012, according to The Post.
	These donors were believed to have made the contributions to the Obama campaign in their names, so the money could not be tracked back to Lowe.
	Well, you know, I don't know if I believe that because there's a cap on how much you can give, but potentially the money could be funneled to Super PACs.
	Let's talk about what's currently going on.
	They say Michael was apparently paid $70 million for his assistance to Lowe.
	As a result, the Fugees artist is now facing 11 criminal counts of attempting to influence the Obama and Trump administrations, per the report.
	Prosecutors have also noted that the artist is being accused of attempting to interfere with Trump's investigation into Lowe.
	Surprise, surprise.
	The Democrats are just better at this.
	They got patsies, you know.
	This guy will take the fall.
	They'll say Obama had no idea what was going on.
	Okay, fine.
	Fair point.
	Maybe Obama had no idea what was going on.
	Let's play another game.
	James O'Keefe.
	Oh, we got a series of tweets here.
	He says, Clinton is great.
	He's not talking about Hillary or Bill.
	He's talking about Clinton Rary.
	He reached out to us to get on the names check to get out to get OK.
	He reached out to us on I don't know as a typo there and the names check out on FEC data.
	The vision is coming together.
	Reach out to us and let's keep knocking on doors.
unidentified		All right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Here's a video.
		Clinton Rary says.
		I decided to look into ActBlue in Austin, Texas.
		I spoke with Anne, who is 80-plus years old, living in a retirement home.
		Over the last six years, according to FEC, she made 26,143 donations, or about 12 donations per
		day for 2,190 days straight on average, totaling $161,541.70 in donations. Either someone is making
		donations on her behalf, has access to her bank account, or ActBlue is using the elderly to
		launder money to politicians.
		Well, perhaps.
		But it may not be ActBlue using the elderly.
		It may be that someone is using ActBlue to launder money.
		I will say this one time.
		Well, I've actually said it several times, but I'm going to say it here in context, in this context of what James O'Keefe has uncovered.
		If you are a conservative or moderate district or states or county or whatever attorney, prosecutor, seeing these tweets, if you do not take action, then you are complicit.
		We need, right now, all of you to contact your local DAs, wherever these stories that James O'Keefe is producing, and say, I demand an investigation into this.
		Austin, Texas.
		Austin, Texas is fairly liberal.
		It's fairly liberal, so maybe you won't get anything done.
		But this is how the game is being played.
		It is a fifth generational civil war.
		Chicago has been under Democrat authority for like 100 years.
		This means that you're not going to get a prosecutor or a mayor or any politician who will act against the single party control.
		This may be the last chance you have.
		In these states, it appears, in these jurisdictions, these donations are coming through.
		The question is, who's making them?
		How is it that one individual has 26,000 donations?
		She denies it.
		In the video, she says outright, I didn't make these donations.
		That's crazy.
		Of course she didn't.
		12 per day for years?
		So who's doing it?
		Well, you see, the issue is in this jurisdiction, the prosecutor ain't going to go after these people.
		They're not going to look into it.
		It's going to require federal action.
		I would only say this.
		The challenge, of course, is going to be that Democrats can funnel money through ActBlue.
		A portion goes to ActBlue, which funds them.
		They can then contribute whatever they want.
		And it's going to empower Democrats in these areas, locking down their control of these jurisdictions.
		And so long as a Republican or Conservative can't get in, there will never be accountability.
		Of course, you would then say, this is what the point of the federal government is.
		Sure.
		But is not the same thing happening at the federal level?
		Do you think Merrick Garland is going to go after his cohorts in his Communist Party?
		Of course not.
		This tweet was in relation to another video from James O'Keefe, which I want you all to listen to.
unidentified		We have our latest Citizen Journal showing another example of unclaimed contributions through ActBlue.
		An inquisitive detective with Brightline Investigations for Election Watch brought us the latest unwitting contributor.
		This time for Richard Schallert of Winnicone, Wisconsin.
		Let's hear what he has to say.
		You can step in if you want to.
		Yeah, that'd be great.
		Thank you very much, ma'am.
		Hi there.
		Are you Richard, sir?
		Yes, that's me.
		My name's Kyle Corrigan.
		I'm with Brightline Investigations.
		I'm a private detective.
		Just had a couple of questions here.
		I've been hired by an election watch company, and they noticed that your name was on a federal elections commission that's donated several thousand dollars.
		In the last seven years, you've apparently donated 8,333 times to elections.
		Wow.
		That many?
		I know I did donate a lot.
		That seems a little odd.
		Yeah.
		That seems too high.
		Maybe $800.
		Okay.
		But not $8,000.
		No, there must be an error there.
		No, I can't believe it.
		Okay.
		I'm generous donor, I grant you that.
		Sure.
		But nothing like $8,000.
		Okay.
		So, but just once a month is all you're donating?
		As far as you know?
		Well, once a month for, you know, up to the election.
		Sure.
		So 12 times a year, you know.
		Yeah, 12 times a year.
		Okay.
		Yeah, that little bit of something else.
		Yeah, that doesn't sound right.
		Yeah, I say maybe over the period of 7 years.
		Yeah, maybe 800 donations all the time.
		But that's 10 times, you know, what it should be then.
		Yeah.
		Oh yeah, that's way out of line.
		That's not... I'll look through some of my old records and see if I can find anything.
		Alright.
		Well, I appreciate your time, Richard.
r c maxwell ▲ ● ▼		As we were producing this piece, we received additional footage from citizen journalist Kyle Corrigan out in the field.
r c maxwell ▲ ● ▼		Here's what Wisconsin residents Sydney Grossberg and Dale Wing had to say when asked about their alleged contributions.
unidentified		We obtained this from Election Watch.
		I was hired by an attorney with Election Watch to interview several different residents in the state of Wisconsin that had some significant amounts of political donations in their name.
		The information that I have is in the last seven years it says that you've donated 10,989 times.
		Over how many years?
		Seven years.
		hundred and eighty nine t many years? Seven years.
		to about four times a day Wow. That's what we thought too.
		You're one of the highest.
		To my knowledge, I don't think that I gave that kind of information concerning my credits.
		Right, but 10,000 times, I'm reasonably certain that you would have seen some sort of charges on there that you thought, you know, this looks odd.
		This recurring charges, this would be like four times a day for your particular amount of donations.
		That will be four times a day that they're making this every single day of the week.
		24-7, 365.
		Nobody I've spoke to yet has actually had any unauthorized transactions on their account.
		What you told me is startling.
		99.9% I put on one credit card.
		Well, I confess.
		I confess that I have no concept.
		11,000 donations.
		11,000 donations?
		You've made 4,085 donations in the last seven years?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Do you know if that's accurate?
unidentified		You've made 4,085 donations in the last seven years.
		Do you know if that's accurate?
		That doesn't sound accurate.
		$4,000?
		Yeah, so $4,000, not just $4,000, but 4,085 donations.
		So that's about almost two a day, I guess, in the last seven years.
		Do you have like a ballpark idea of about how many times you have donated?
		donated? Okay. Like a co James O'Keefe and his O'Keefe Media Group have been recruiting young citizen journalists.
		I shouldn't say young, just citizen journalists, to go around and ask these questions.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So my question is simply, where are the investigations?
		We get the point on these videos.
		James O'Keefe and his O'Keefe Media Group have been recruiting young citizen journalists.
		I shouldn't say young, just citizen journalists to go around and ask these questions.
		So my question is simply, where are the investigations?
		Where are the prosecutions?
		Where are we?
		Where are the where where any of the district attorneys or prosecutors to actually start
		digging into this to fight back and stop what appears to be overt corruption?
		I'll sit here and say it every day.
		If we don't have any, we lose.
		We have this tweet from Greg Price.
		He says Wisconsin now has a Supreme Court that is going to strike down voter ID, bring back ballot
		harvesting before 2024. It was the most important election of the year and conservatives allowed
		themselves to get heavily outspent and didn't even notice until it was too late. Jane Protesewicz
		probably pronouncing it wrong, Protesewicz and liberal groups spent $23.3 million on this race.
		George Soros gave $1 million to Wisconsin Dems right before the election.
		Conservatives only spent $17.6 million, with Dan Kelly himself only spending $2.2 million.
		Total disaster.
		This can't happen in a race where the stakes are so high.
		And no, we didn't lose because it was rigged.
		Conservatives lost because our voters didn't turn out to vote.
		Complete disaster at every level, and now election integrity in a key swing state is in doubt for 2024.
		I mean, here it is.
		When all is said and done, Janet Patasiewicz will likely have broken 40% in Waukesha County.
		This is the bleeding heart of the Wisconsin Republican Party.
		There you go.
		It's amazing.
		It's absolutely amazing.
		He says our opposition has built up a massive political and money machines designed to drive out votes.
		They are laser-focused on winning.
		It seems like the only person on our side who was doing anything was once again Scott Pressler.
		We keep losing elections because we are being out-fundraised, out-ground-gamed, out-messaged, and out-manned by our opponents.
		Conservatives need to stop waving white flags and fix it.
		Now this crazy lady is in charge of the court in Wisconsin.
		Okay.
		Here's what you can do.
		Research what Scott Pressler does.
		Copy him.
		Simply put, going around registering voters.
		Or, you can reach out to Scott Pressler and help him do his work.
		There's more.
		If you find that you are an individual of means, you can team up with someone like Scott Pressler.
		I don't know what else you should or shouldn't do.
		I can simply say this.
		There are so many people who watch these videos who want to win.
		The Democrats have to spend money to win.
		Because most of their voters are just ignorant.
		The advantage that we have is that we have people like you who are motivated and trying to figure out how to win.
		You don't need money for ideology.
		While the Democrats certainly have their crackpots who are ideologically driven within the cult, I believe there are more individuals who are disaffected liberals, libertarians, or conservatives who are willing to step up and donate their time and energy to winning.
		That's an advantage I think Democrats don't have.
		Democrats rely on ignorant voters who vote by mail.
		They rely on activists who ballot chase and ballot harvest.
		Okay, it's time that the Freedom Faction does that thing as well.
		So all of you who are listening, you say, but what can I do?
		You don't need money to go take a walk and knock on doors.
		You don't need money to contact someone like Scott Pressler and say, what can I do to help you?
		It's funny because even Greg Price points out Scott Pressler seems to be the only one doing anything about this.
		But I'll say, what we need now Ground game?
		Oh, you bet.
		I don't think all is lost simply because Wisconsin elected this lady.
		I think it shows that moderate regular Americans are completely removed from the revolution that is happening before our eyes.
		And it'll get bad.
	Now, part of me thinks this.
	There's a tweet Says the reason this election happened, like this is because Gen Z voted.
	This is what conservatives don't get.
	It is 2023, and you are getting a wave of new cult member Gen Z voters.
	I keep warning the Republicans!
	If you listen to Tim Castellaw, you heard me say it.
	When these kids turn 18, they will vote.
	And they are all going to vote far left.
	But you know what?
	Apparently abortion's the big issue.
	Hey, look.
	I'm not a conservative.
	I've never been staunchly pro-life.
	I've always been moderately pro-choice.
	I don't believe in absolute abortion, whatever you want, but this is a huge driving factor, they say.
	Okay.
	Well, look.
	I'd prefer it if people weren't getting abortions, right?
	At the same time, I recognize if I ain't winning that fight, I ain't crying about it politically.
	I know many of you may lament the death of these children, and that's a very serious issue.
	I get it.
	Politically, These people are killing off their own kids, okay?
	It's horrible when you view it that way, but the end result is a future that is dominated by conservatives.
	Mathematically, they cannot keep winning.
	I think of it like a dolphin in the depths of the ocean, swimming faster and faster towards the surface, and then breaching into the air, getting six, seven feet of air, and then falling right back down.
	Where we are right now is the breach period.
	The dolphin has launched into the air, but it is impossible for it to stay up there.
	The Democrats are winning a lot of these fights, and it is impossible for them to stay up there.
	It's impossible.
	They will terminate the lives of their own children and sterilize them.
	They're losing in the schools because more and more conservatives are getting out of cities and homeschooling their kids.
	So they will try to indoctrinate your kids, but they're clearly losing.
	And that's been a big problem for them.
	Give it 20 years.
	I don't see them winning in this.
	However, before they do ultimately lose, perhaps they get violent.
	Here's what I think.
	I think the night is always darkest before the dawn.
	And Greg Price is highlighting this and we are talking about it and more and more people are going to get active.
	I think there's a strong chance that Trump wins in 2024 for a variety of reasons.
	Republicans understand now the power of ballot harvesting.
	They're beginning to build that infrastructure.
	It may very well work.
	Ballot chasing and harvesting where it's legal.
	And then if Trump wins and drops the hammer on the corruption, the system could be fixed.
	The corrupt left could be marginalized and then as they abort and sterilize their own children, eventually their ideology will cease to exist.
	That's it.
	As more and more conservatives have children, Markets will start saying, if there are six conservatives and four liberals, I make more money by catering to conservatives.
	That's the future when you have kids.
	Simply put, there is one way to win the culture war effectively, decisively, and all be all, and it is for you to have, like, ten children.
	I know it sounds crazy, right?
	That's literally it.
	Have, like, ten kids.
	Now, I know a lot of people are like, Tim, where are your kids?
	Well, you know, we'll see.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4pm on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	Matt Walsh was recently speaking at a university, I believe.
	I believe this is at NMSU, Las Cruces, New Mexico, sparking protests.
	And while he was there, he spoke with several transgender individuals and leftist activists.
	The videos you may have seen, they've gone viral, and I think you should hear them if you haven't, so I want to play for you two clips, but I also want to provide for you my commentary and explain my view on Matt Walsh's statements pertaining to these individuals.
	In this video, Matt Walsh says, I asked a trans woman to explain how he knows that he's a woman.
	The answer was about as coherent as you'd expect.
	Following up, he says, I've had a few conservatives already message me to tell me that I ruined this exchange by being cruel and telling this trans person that he looks like a man.
	But there's no cruelty in it.
	He does look like a man.
	He's lying to himself, and he's the one who put his identity on the table for discussion.
	I'm not going to lie to these people.
	I will tell them the frank truth, and I'll tell it to their face.
	There is no other way.
	And I'm actually shocked by that, and I believe it.
	Matt Walsh isn't mean at all in this exchange.
	In another exchange, Matt Walsh says, a trans EMT tried to use his medical training to prove that sex is not binary.
	He ran into trouble when I asked him how he'd respond to a patient with a penis who claims he's having a miscarriage.
	These are really great videos and I think it needs to be said Look, this individual who shows up, the trans woman, and wants to assert that they are correct and what they say is true, has opened up the floor for debate on their identity.
	And I think it's fine if they want to live the way they live and they want to believe the things they believe, but I believe Matt Walsh is correct.
	Let me play for you this exchange, they're both a few minutes long, and I will provide my commentary as they go on, because you may have seen this, but you should definitely watch this.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		And so I'm going to say, you wouldn't fool me at all.
		I mean, I see a man 100%.
		And I think that most people would.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Now, notice when Matt Walsh says, I see a man 100%, the trans woman has this look of like, huh?
		The point being made here is that the trans women said that they know they're a woman because people all around them, their friends, their family, tell them they see them as a woman.
		Let me play the video for you.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		The fact that you have people in your life who are saying to you, oh, you're totally a woman, that's exactly what I'm talking about.
		No one in my life has ever once said to me, You're totally a man, Matt.
		If a friend of mine called me on the phone and said, listen Matt, I want you to know, you're really a man.
		I would think that there was something wrong with him.
		I would say, why are you saying that at all?
		It doesn't make any sense.
unidentified		So the fact that there's something wrong with him, that's interesting.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Could you imagine someone calling you and be like, John, you're a guy.
		I'd be like, okay, is something wrong?
		Like, I don't understand.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		This is a conversation to begin with tells me, it only proves the point that I'm trying to make, that your identity, even in your own mind, is up for, it's something that you need to be assured of.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Now, what I would like to ask you, again because you're standing here and so you've brought your identity on the table for discussion, so how did you, how do you know that you're a woman?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I want to pause here and say this is the important element of the video.
		This is the individual explaining how they came to know that they were a woman, but they never actually described feelings of womanhood.
		You'll hear this individual go on to say, they think they're a woman, they feel they're a woman, because they share an experience with transgender people, not with women, as Matt Walsh later points out.
unidentified		It was first when I heard transgender persons describe their experience in their own words, and this was only about two years ago.
unidentified		Hearing somebody describe things, it was a woman from like England, describing her experience, her childhood, her teenage years, and it blew my mind to be listening to her because it was just some podcast that I was listening to while I was like doing laundry.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And I want to stop here and make sure you understand the context.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He's talking about a biological male when he says she and her.
unidentified		But it blew my mind to hear somebody so eloquently and precisely describe things that I had experiences that I had experienced.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		What was the description?
unidentified		What did they say?
		I am honestly hesitant.
		I know that you touched earlier about the difficulty that transgender women might have in describing their identity, but I want to state, I honestly don't feel that you would engage in this conversation in good faith.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Lie.
		Full stop.
		This is the game.
		They can't define what it is.
		This individual goes on to explain that after listening to a podcast and hearing a trans person talk about being trans, he now thinks he's a woman.
		But hold on.
		If a trans person says, here's my experience and here's what I am, wouldn't you then just say you were a trans person?
		Not, in fact, a woman, but a trans woman.
		And that's fine.
		You can be whatever you want.
		Notice right here the deflection.
		Matt Walsh said you... Here, let me just play it for you.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Why are you here?
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Why did you stand up to talk to me if you don't want to have a conversation?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		You're saying that you discovered that you're a woman.
		I'm asking you how you did.
		That's a very fair question.
unidentified		Okay, okay.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		How do you know that you're a woman?
unidentified		That's fine.
		Alright, so first of all, listening to transgender people, and it was like, okay, this is a one-off, you know, one person describing these things.
		Things like looking at yourself in the mirror and not recognizing yourself.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Full stop.
		A lot of people go through that.
		There are various forms of body dysmorphia and that does not mean you are the opposite gender or a different race.
		I want to elaborate on these points being made as well.
		When Matt Walsh previously said, no one ever called me up and said, Matt, you're a man.
		I never needed anyone to affirm me.
		One of the challenging things in my life was, as many of you know, I come from a mixed race background.
		And I bring that up specifically because of what the left is and how it affects their arguments.
		No one in my life!
		There was never a moment where it was strongly a matter to me of what my race was.
		And I hear this from the left all the time when it comes to critical race theory, that white people don't have to ever think about race, and that's white privilege.
		And it's like, okay, well, I grew up in a mixed-race area with a mixed-race family, and we did have to sort of think about it, but it never played a role in how I decided to make moves in my life.
		I didn't stop and think, well, You know, if I go into this space that is mostly Mexican, they're gonna like, no, it's never an issue.
		I never went to, say, Pilsen, for instance, in Chicago.
		Mexican neighborhood.
		Go to a Mexican restaurant.
		I never had them insult me and be like, uh-oh, the gringo's here.
		They never said anything.
		I'd go in, and I'd order food in Spanish if I could.
		It was fun.
		Never go to Mexican restaurants.
		They smile on their face.
		They say, would you like the food?
		Can't speak Spanish.
		They would be endearing.
		It's so weird, the world these people live in.
		But let me play more.
unidentified		Yes, this is called self-doubt and a lack of self-esteem.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Not because you're a woman.
		And it is kind of strange because I've never heard that either.
		So hold on.
		How many of you, and you can comment below, how many of you dudes have had someone ever come up to you and say, you are a shining example of masculinity?
		I've just, even Matt Walsh, with a beard, I don't think experiences that.
unidentified		It means feeling alone, even when you're surrounded by guys, even when you have a lot of friends, and I was active in, like, Boy Scouts, I'm an Eagle Scout.
		I had great masculine role models my whole life, and yet I never felt like I belonged.
		I felt welcome.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Why does that make you a woman?
		As opposed to just a man who doesn't get along with some other men.
		Or a man who's depressed.
		Or a man who doesn't feel at home totally in his body.
		Which, by the way, is a pretty universal human experience.
		Everybody goes through it at one time or another.
		So in what way does that make you a woman, though?
		It's interesting, you're telling me that you listen to the experiences of other transgender people.
unidentified		Well, yeah.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		But what about women?
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Trans women are women, you would say, right?
unidentified		I would say that, yes.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Exactly the same?
unidentified		Yes.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Okay, well then why do you need to hear the testimony of trans, quote-unquote, trans women?
		Like, how do you pick any actual woman in this room?
		In what way do you know that you belong in the same category as them?
unidentified		I know because they tell me.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		You need them to tell you what you are?
unidentified		Women.
		Yes.
		I trust the opinions of the women around me.
		It's incredible.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		You might try it sometime.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You hear that snark?
		This is common, and in the next exchange, which is more important, when Matt Walsh is talking to the EMT, I think you can actually see the doubt in this individual's mind as they're realizing they're wrong.
		What I think we're seeing here is a depressed individual being affirmed into some kind of category or lifestyle because they don't have Let me put it this way.
		This individual said, I don't feel right in my body.
		I don't feel like I belong.
		And Matt Walsh says, how is that different from anyone else who's just depressed or doesn't get along with guys?
		Now think about the exploitation here.
		And I don't necessarily think it's intentional.
		But an individual who is confused, depressed, doesn't fit in, is then told by a bunch of women, take hormones, sterilize yourself, act in this way, and we will then accept you.
		This individual is being affirmed.
		Wouldn't that feel great?
		Finally, people are coming to you and saying, hey, hey, hey, do this thing and you're good.
		Well, it's like love bombing.
		It's what cults do.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Let's play more.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		If most women voted and said they don't see you as a woman anymore, would you then relent and say, I'm not a woman?
unidentified		I would say most people on the planet have no idea who I am.
unidentified		I'm going to trust the opinions of the people who've spent their lives with me.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		So you, but you are relying on other people to tell you who you are, is what we're establishing.
unidentified		For context, I know you would like to think, I know you like to say, I know you like to say everybody's raw-rawing and supporting transgender people and yet they're still killing themselves, etc.
		But I'm standing here in a room full of people applauding you and asking questions like, how can I put out legislation here in New Mexico, you know, my home state I grew up in, to try to reverse transgenderism?
		Like, I'm not safe.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		How are you not safe?
		You just said you're standing in a room and people disagree with you and you're perfectly fine, so how are you not safe?
		Okay, look, we're going round and round.
		You don't want to answer any of the questions.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're unable to.
		Matt, let me say this.
		And I think most of you already understand it.
		You don't even need me to opine on it.
		What we see is all the same thing.
		This individual doesn't fit in.
		It happened to the best of us.
		It happens to most of us.
		I clearly don't fit in with a lot of people, so I did my own thing.
		But I suppose there is a combination of factors in my life which led me to being where I am, as opposed to this individual being where they are.
		When I was younger, and I didn't quite fit in, I didn't play sports, wasn't necessarily the popular kid, I was probably more... I don't even know how to describe myself when I was a kid.
		I don't know.
		I, uh... I don't know.
unidentified		I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I didn't go to high school, so maybe I don't really understand.
		I was there for, like, two months and then left.
		In grade school, I wasn't, like, on the sports teams or the popular kid, hung out by myself for the most part, and then played music with some kids that I went to school with at a different school, and we just kind of did our things.
		Punk rock.
		We didn't fit in.
		We were the weird kids, to a certain degree, and that was it.
		Not so much like weird, I guess, or goofy, but I played Magic the Gathering and Pokemon.
		The other popular kids were mostly playing basketball and football.
		Go figure.
		Now imagine if someone came to me and said, the reason you don't fit in with sports, when we would play softball in gym, I don't know what I was doing, I would throw the bat, and they would be like, pull it in everybody, pull it in!
		I remember one time we were playing softball.
		Because they didn't play baseball, it was on an asphalt parking lot.
		And they would always say, oh it's Tim, pull it in.
		I would never play any of the outfield.
		I would only ever be catcher.
		And here's the best part.
		Whenever there was actually a risk that someone would bring it home, I would back off and the actual kid who was good at sports would step in to catch the ball and actually act as the catcher.
		Because they knew I was only catcher because I had to do something.
		And catcher usually didn't have to do much.
		I'd catch the softball and throw it back to the pitcher, and then if anyone was running home, the other guy would run in to catch the ball and tag them out.
		That was it.
		I didn't cry about it, I didn't care, and I knew this wasn't my thing.
		I do remember, however, one time, they were like, bring it in, it's Tim, and then I cranked that mother- they were so pissed.
		It happens.
		I got like one out of a hundred.
		Usually I would hit like a ground ball catch, I'd be out, but I had to play because it was school, you know what I mean?
		The point is, When I didn't fit in with those kids and didn't want to play those games, and I was more interested in playing with Pokemon cards, and there were very few other kids in the school who did, I was like the odd kid out, and a handful of us did.
		We were like the dorks and the nerds, the AV club kids.
		I did not say, maybe I'm a woman.
		I said, I'm going to do my own thing.
		I believe in myself.
		I am what I am.
		I didn't need anybody to tell me.
		I just said, I don't care for what you do.
		I'm not going to go drink and smoke with you guys.
		I'm not going to go play sports.
		What I see here is an individual who fell into that, then was surrounded by individuals who said, join us and do this thing.
		And that's it.
		That's it.
		For me, I said, I'm right, you're wrong.
		I know what I'm going to do and I'm going to do it well.
		And so what does that mean?
		This company that I and you have helped build is unique.
		We are of an interesting sort of middle-of-the-road, maybe right-leaning, libertarian-leaning perspective.
		We clearly differ from those that say, like Turning Point USA, when we went there and did the show, here I am wearing my unbuttoned shirt and beanie and everyone else is wearing suits.
		We're clearly different, but we're clearly confident.
		I did not need anyone to tell me what I was.
		I know what I am and I know what I want to do.
		And if I think you're wrong, I'll do whatever I want.
		And if you want to do your thing, I say go ahead and do it.
		I don't care.
		I'll be over there.
		But for many of these individuals, they say, I don't know how to lead.
		So you have two people, in my view.
		An individual like myself, who, you know, I gotta be honest, I think testosterone may play a role in it.
		Clearly, with the lack of hair, there must be too much of it in my body.
		At least that's what they claim.
		Or maybe not, I don't know.
		Maybe I'm just headstrong and kind of a dick.
		Maybe that's the defining factor.
		I do kind of think that testosterone plays a role in aggressive behavior, so maybe that is the case.
		But my point is this.
		When I'm young and not fitting in, I just decide I will find my own way and do my own thing.
		When these individuals, who are maybe less aggressive, more agreeable, or maybe it's lower testosterone, don't fit in, they say, please won't someone tell me what I am and what to do?
	They hear someone else say, if you experience these things, then you are this, and they say, okay.
	And I think that's where we are.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		We'll end with this, because we're talking about womanhood.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		So people can probably shout out the question I'm going to ask you right now.
unidentified		Okay.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		But you know that you're a woman.
unidentified		Yes.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		What is that?
unidentified		So gender is a social thing?
unidentified		I don't want to hear that.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		What is a woman?
		Word woman.
		Define in the dictionary.
unidentified		Go.
		A woman is somebody who is included and respected and seen and participates in society recognized by other women.
		If you speak with women.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So full stop.
		That would be like saying, what is a blobbo?
		A blobbo is an individual who is seen as a blobbo by blobbo.
		That doesn't mean anything.
		You're basically saying, what is a zombie?
		A zombie is an individual who has been zombified by other zombies.
		I will give you the legitimate definition, because I actually research these things.
		Of course, Met Walsh's definition of woman is an adult human female.
		I believe that is the widely accepted definition by most adult humans, and even children.
		However, to these individuals on the left, who seemingly can't actually answer the question, I'm very confused!
		If we're talking about gender as a social construct and sex as a biological form, then the answer is actually quite simple as to what woman is.
		A woman is an individual who identifies with the social norms of femininity and of females.
		Whereas a female is an individual with the XX chromosomes and female gametes.
		That's it!
		Simply put.
		There you go, leftists.
		There's your definition.
		I don't understand why that's so hard.
		I'll say it again.
		A woman is an individual who identifies with female social customs.
		We're done.
		Have a nice day.
		If you were trying to define woman and female separately, that's literally what it is.
		But these people can't define it because they've not actually looked into what it is they're doing, who they are, and they are clearly followers.
		Now, if they want to live their life this way, I have no issue.
		My point is simply, how is it I've done more to research the social issues surrounding these concepts than the individuals themselves?
		It's quite obvious.
		As someone who reads the news and comments on culture, I am actively researching and trying to understand what it is that is being said and bring these ideas into a concise form that a person can understand.
		Matt Walsh was able to travel around the country speaking with people who could not define the word woman.
		The whole time I was like, it's kind of hilarious.
		These people are, in my view, the left, the woke, zombies.
		They can only define themselves as they are told to define it by someone else.
		And if no one else within their pack can actually define it, they have no definition.
		Me, I'm looking from the outside.
		If gender is a social construct, then woman is defined as the social constructs based on female biology, female social development.
		There's your answer.
		But there's more.
		This will be a long one.
		We have this video, also from Matt Walsh, that I need to get to.
		Both of these have millions of views and require intense commentary.
		Let me play this video for you.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		He says you're an EMT.
unidentified		Yes.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Okay, if you're responding, you're responding to a health emergency.
		Biological male.
		Somebody with a penis is having a medical emergency.
		And they say to you, I think I'm having a miscarriage.
		Would you check them to see if they're having a biscuit?
		Would you consider that a possibility for them?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Shrug.
unidentified		No answer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No answer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No, but... There you go, no.
unidentified		That's because some people don't have body parts.
unidentified		Doesn't mean they're not a woman.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Therein lies the problem.
		You know, this is the craziest thing.
		I need to sit down with Matt Walsh.
		Matt, we need to get you back on the show.
		I know Matt was supposed to come on.
		I would love to devil's advocate have a discussion with Matt from these people's own argument because I can clearly craft it better than they can.
		It's so disappointing, but I think the reality is the reason why I'm more inclined to agree with Matt Walsh is because if you are actually trying to assess the circumstances surrounding these issues, then you would come to a logical conclusion.
		I believe Matt Walsh can argue their point better than I could.
		So what I'm saying, like, if I sat with Walsh and said, here's what I'm gonna do, I'm gonna play devil's advocate and argue on their behalf, Matt would do it better than me!
		Because he knows and he understands what's going on.
unidentified		Okay.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		It sounds like we've established there are some people who, in principle, can get pregnant, and there are some people who can't.
		So there's two categories, otherwise known as binary.
		Lots of women can't get pregnant either.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Low information argument, which Matt Walsh will destroy.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, but they're still of the nature to get pregnant.
		But they can't get pregnant.
		Truth matters, right?
		It does, that's what I'm trying to explain to you.
		The truth matters and they can't get pregnant.
unidentified		That's the truth.
unidentified		So how are they still women?
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		Because they are... For the same reason that I can rightly say that human beings have two legs.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		And if a person is born with only one leg, that doesn't call into question the statement that human beings have two legs.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Or, to add to that point, If we say, all humans have two legs, we know that some people have lost their legs.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The argument then is, well, they're not human then, because humans have to... No, they're a human who lost a leg, which Matt elaborates on, but I think he glazed over that point.
matt walsh ▲ ● ▼		A person being born with one leg doesn't mean that now legs are on a spectrum, and we can't say... We can't say anything at all about how many legs a person has.
		Who knows?
		They could be a centipede.
		You know, they could have a hundred legs.
		No, we know human beings have two legs.
		If a human is born without two legs, something went wrong.
		They were supposed to have that second leg.
		Something went wrong.
		If you meet a person on the street who only has one leg, maybe they had an accident.
		Maybe they were in war.
		Maybe they were in a car accident.
		Maybe they had cancer.
		A leg was cut off.
		But you know that something went wrong because, by their nature, they're supposed to have two legs.
		Same thing for a woman.
		A woman, by her nature, can get pregnant.
		A man, by his nature, never can.
		So if you meet a woman of childbearing age, say she's 28 years old, and she can't get pregnant, you know automatically that something has gone wrong.
		And she can go to the doctor and find out what that thing is, even if they can't fix it.
		So, that proves that women by their nature can get pregnant, because the simple fact that she can't shows you that there is something wrong.
		This is what is known as the exception that proves the rule.
		Whereas if a male with a penis can't get pregnant, no doctor on earth is going to run tests to see what's wrong with him.
		Because they already know, it studies a male, and there's only male and female, those who
		can get pregnant and those who can't.
unidentified		So that's it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I feel bad for these individuals.
		I feel bad for these people who are being misled.
		If you are of strong mind, If you are disagreeable, I'll put it this way.
		Someone comes to me and says, X is true.
		I say, are you sure about that?
		I believe Y is true.
		And I will argue points even if I'm wrong because I'm more confident in myself and I don't trust other people as much.
		If you are less confident in yourself and you have low self-esteem, You're not going to feel like you fit in.
		You're not going to know what to do.
		And you're going to be more persuadable.
		This individual came there, and I have respect for the willingness to speak up to challenge Matt Walsh, probably because people encouraged this person to do so.
		But clearly, without proper tools.
		I like to practice before doing things.
		I don't just walk into the music studio and say, alright, let's start singing.
		I actually work on the song, I practice extensively, I make sure I have it down, the best of my possible abilities, and then I warm up, and then I go in.
		Or we go in and we do vocal warm-ups and stuff like that.
		I'm not the greatest singer in the world.
		My point is, I'm not going to pretend to be.
		But you know what?
		I like doing what I do.
		I think that's the important thing here.
		Many of these people, they're demure, persuadable, and agreeable.
		So, what happens when they feel like they don't fit in?
		Someone comes to them and says, this is your truth.
		And they say, okay.
		That's a sad reality.
		There are many people who are young, many of them are autistic, don't know how to fit in, and are told by those who have these ideologies, this will make you fit in.
		And then it condemns them.
		You know, this other individual, and I want to make sure this is clear, for both of these individuals, I'm sorry, they don't appear to be women.
		In the sense that, if my view is a woman is an adult human female, they can make the argument that they're women because they have long hair and they're effeminate.
		I don't view that as womanhood.
		However, they do, because they view it as a social construct.
		But they don't appear female, so they can call themselves whatever they want.
		It's not going to change my perspective, my use of language.
		This individual is discernibly male.
		Both of them are.
		There have been a few people I've seen in my life who I would argue are passing.
		Ben Shapiro even made this argument that it would be confusing to some if he pointed to Blaire White and said he in public because people would see Blaire White as female.
		However, that being said, in my experience, I would say it's probably like 95% of trans women appear to be overtly male, discernibly male.
		And then maybe about like 70% of trans men appear to be discernibly female.
		There are some trans men who are, I believe, convincingly passing.
		But it's harder for males who tend to be larger with broad shoulders and deeper voices.
		There are males who are short and squeaky voiced, so, you know.
		But it can go either way.
		Ultimately, what I want to say about all of this is, I think of the conclusion here with what Matt Walsh has presented with these videos in his speech.
		Both of these individuals don't have strong arguments.
		They're not thought leaders.
		They cannot quantify their positions, nor argue.
		I can make the arguments better than they could.
		And I'm not a leftist.
		I am not transgender.
		But I think that's the point.
		I don't believe there are strong gender ideologically driven individuals who actually are thought leaders.
		Because if you actually assess the ideology and then bring it to its logical conclusion, you're more likely to agree with Matt Walsh.
		You wouldn't say the same broken talking points over and over again.
		You would have an answer to your questions.
		So let me argue for this person.
		How do they know that they're a woman?
		Let me try to articulate some thoughts for you, which may or may not apply, but you could simply say that you were listening to individuals describe womanhood and what it was like to grow up and feel like a woman, and that resonated more with you than the thought of being male.
		That's it.
		So you decided to adopt the social norms and use medical intervention to more align yourself
		with the experiences that resonate more with you internally.
		Simply put, a woman is an individual who chooses or experiences the social constructs around
		female humans.
	That's it.
	That's it.
	There you go.
	I just did it for you.
	Congratulations.
	I'll say it one last time because I just... A woman, according to these people, is a person who adopts female social characteristics.
	Thanks for hanging out, everybody.
	That's it.
	So there, I've defined it for them.
	Of course, I think, in the end, as I've stated, the logical conclusion still leads you to Matt Walsh's view of these things.
	That adopting social characteristics does not change your biological sex, and typically people will not view you as biologically female.
	There's a lot more to be said about this.
	I think there's a greater conversation, but I'll leave it there, because this one went pretty long.
	These videos were absolutely fantastic.
	Matt Walsh is a...
	Smart guy.
	Smart guy.
	I'd love to have a longer conversation with him about all this stuff, too.
	Well, I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	In a move that has Democrats rattled, a North Carolina Democrat is expected to switch parties, and this could have a profound ramification for the region and the state.
	It could result in the banning of abortion in the state.
	Axios Rally says a North Carolina Democratic lawmaker is expected to flip her party affiliation.
	Multiple Republicans with knowledge of the discussions tell Axios.
	The move would cement Republicans' toehold in a fast-changing swing state, handing them a veto-proof majority in the middle of the legislative session and a clear runway to enact their agenda, despite opposition from Democratic Governor Roy Cooper.
	Oh boy.
	Well, here's what the crazies are saying.
	Mark Joseph Stern, this guy is a writer at Slate, so you know he's a cult member.
	This flip may very well lead to an abortion ban in North Carolina, with Florida on the brink of passing a six-week ban that would choke off all access to legal abortion in the South.
	He goes on to say, Now I wonder why it is a Democrat would quit the Democratic Party.
	in South Carolina, that's probably about to end too.
	Republicans appointed a new conservative justice to the state Supreme Court who is likely to uphold
	the state's revised ban very soon.
	Now, I wonder why it is a Democrat would quit the Democratic Party.
	It seems to happen a whole lot. Here's what they say.
	Republicans who are currently just one seat short of a super majority in the legislature have been hoping that state rep Trisha Cotham, a Democrat from Charlotte, might switch parties at some point in this session.
	But the prospect began to seem more realistic last week, a Republican House member said.
	Cotham is expected to announce her decision Wednesday.
	House Republicans announced a 9 a.m.
	press conference Tuesday for a major announcement.
	Why it matters?
	Republicans have held majorities in both the State House and Senate for more than a decade.
	But in recent years, the threat of Cooper's veto has kept the party's power in check.
	A super majority could free up party leaders to more easily push long-hoped-for legislation, restricting abortion, and all but eliminate their need to compromise with the governor on the budget, changes to election laws, and education reform.
	This is what conservatives need to consider.
	This is where we are headed.
	With Donald Trump's indictment, with the Supreme Court appointment or election, the judge's election in Wisconsin, you are heading towards permanent rule by single parties.
	And you realize that probably means, I'm gonna say it, I know, civil war.
	Because what happens?
	When you have states that are so at odds with each other, their views are inverted.
	What happens when North Carolina bans abortion outright, and Colorado basically says you can have an abortion whenever you want, even up to the point of birth?
	The worldview of these two factions will diverge to the point where you will end up with war.
	I mean, simply put, do you think, let me put it this way, because I get so many conservatives being like, ah, it'll never happen.
	Do you think the left will be satisfied to leave you alone?
	Simple question.
	You already know the answer.
	The answer is no.
	They already come to rural areas and try and invade your schools and pass their weird cult ideology.
	So what happens?
	Let's just put it this way.
	Let's say in a scale of 10 to negative 10, we have ideology.
	10 is, for example, a total ban on abortion, and negative 10 is abortion at any point, for any reason, up to the point of birth.
	Do you think Democrats, when viewing what they see as akin to slavery, are... they're staring at you.
	You think they're going to be like, well, you know, hey, look, that's North Carolina.
	We're going to mind our own business over... No.
	They already travel across the country and world for their cult.
	So they will come to your state.
	They will infiltrate, destroy, and attempt to... They will attempt to infiltrate, destroy, and then rebuild.
	That's what they're doing right now.
	They're doing it in West Virginia.
	It's funny to me that people are like, no, no, my kid goes to a good school.
	Oh, spare me, dude.
	Because I see it in MAGA country.
	Parents don't pay attention, and the cult is tenacious, and they're working very hard.
	Education reform, they say.
	Cobham didn't respond to Axios' request for comment, so it's not clear what's driving her consideration to switch.
	I don't know.
	Maybe it's that Democrats are nuts.
	They're indicting Trump.
	Who wants to be involved with that?
	One possible factor, though, is that Cotham recently skipped a vote to override Cooper's veto of Republican-sponsored legislation relaxing some gun laws, handing Republicans the votes they needed to usher the bill into law.
	That set into motion a cascade of blowback against Cotham, driven by Democrats criticizing her for not showing.
unidentified		Rep.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Cecile Brockman, who is also a moderate Democrat, told the News & Observer
		he doesn't blame Cotham and said he thought the reaction from Democrats drove her to
		switch parties.
		I think she just wanted to do what's best for her district.
		And when you're constantly talked about and trashed, especially the way we have been over
		the past few weeks, I think this is what happens, Brockham said.
		Democratic House Minority Leader Rep.
		Robert Reeves called for Cotham to resign in a press release Tuesday afternoon.
		Oh boy.
		Maybe this is it.
		Maybe we will see more and more individuals abandon the Democrats as they continually lose their minds.
		So what happens?
		They're trying to basically ban guns across the country.
		They're insane.
		That's it.
		I don't care what you think about them.
		I don't care what Ian says on Tim Castile.
		He's like, we gotta bring people together.
		Dude, we had Stephen Marsh on the show.
		He is a multicultural, democratic, liberal leftist, I guess you'd call it.
		He blames the right for a lot of the Civil War stuff.
		But he does think a Civil War is coming.
		And I asked him a simple question.
		Would you be willing to compromise to avert crisis?
		And he's like, yes, of course.
		I said, OK, so would you be willing to give up, in say, Canada, universal health care if it meant we stop fighting?
		And he said, no, absolutely not.
		And I said, you see, well, we're at an impasse.
		And he understands.
		He is unwilling to give up Canada's health care plan if it means Ending the conflict.
		That is to say, you and I both know there will never, never be a time where you or I agree children should get sex changes for any reason.
		They come to the table and they say, we want to avoid a civil war.
		Here's our proposal.
		We will agree with some of the voting law changes if you accept children getting sex changes.
		Not a single conservative would agree to that.
		They'd say no.
		And they would be like, well, I mean, we have to negotiate, right?
		We have to compromise to avoid war.
		No, they're not going to do it.
		It will never happen.
		So this is what we're seeing.
		Perhaps what will happen is, as the news spreads, and I think it is, and people like Bill Maher start to wake up to what these Democrats are doing, you may actually get someone like Bill Maher in 2024 say he's voting Republican.
		Now here's an interesting point.
		I like Trump more than DeSantis for president, but there is something to be said about this.
		Bill Maher, in my opinion, would consider voting for Ron DeSantis.
		Maybe not right now, maybe you don't believe it, but he would never vote Trump.
		He wouldn't vote Trump because of his ego and because of his Trump derangement syndrome.
		But I do believe many viewers of Real Time with Bill Maher would likely consider voting for Ron DeSantis.
		Which brings up the question of electability.
		Now, Donald Trump, I think, if an election were held today, would probably win.
		Because the economy is so awful.
		However, the media going after him like crazy, Ron DeSantis is a clean slate.
		Now I don't think Ron DeSantis gets in there and does what needs to be done.
		I don't think he fires everybody.
		I think he just plays the game.
		You know, we'll get some victories.
		The question is this.
		Is it better to win with Ron DeSantis, a small victory, or lose with Donald Trump going for the harder pitch?
		I'm not going to tell you who you should vote for, whatever.
		We'll see who wins the primary.
		Right now, I favor Donald Trump because of his tenacity.
		I do not believe Ron DeSantis has that same degree, and I don't believe Ron DeSantis will go in and fire the people who need to be fired.
		That being said, I've talked to regular people, and they've lost it.
		I'm wondering if a Ron DeSantis victory can get us over that line to start to solve the problems and be that snowball rolling down a hill that Donald Trump could not be.
	Donald Trump is the bull slamming through the doors.
	Ron DeSantis is the start of a snowball rolling down a hill.
	Therein lies the deep challenge.
	A North Carolina Democrat probably will switch parties, but would they actively support Donald Trump?
	Probably not, because they're moderates.
	They know that the people in their district will likely vote for someone like them, whether they're Democrat or Republican or not, but not if they're on board with Donald Trump.
	So I don't know for sure.
	This person, this Democrat, may be betting on picking up new voters who are Trump supporters who are going to say, you made the right move switching parties and thus we will now vote for you.
	Or maybe they're just saying, I can't do this anymore.
	The Democrats have lost their minds.
	They're in favor of abortion with no limits.
	They're sterilizing and castrating children.
	Something needs to be done.
	Maybe.
	It's not all about ballot harvesting.
	I think it's mostly.
	Maybe a large component is we need to be lobbying moderate Democrats to quit the Democratic Party.
	We need to create a path for these Democrats to safely say, my future lies with someone else.
	Then marginalize the Democrats to the point where they don't matter politically.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 630 on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	So, uh, I'm assuming you've all seen Kid Rock fire a fully automatic rifle at a bunch of Bud Light.
	Uh, well, here's the story.
	Bud Light partnered with a trans influencer and defended its efforts to authentically connect with diverse groups of people after anti-trans backlash.
	From time to time, we produce unique commemorative cans for fans and for brand influencers like Dylan Mulvaney.
	How is Dylan Mulvaney A histrionic, narcissistic sociopath, in any way representative of people who drink beer.
	The funny thing is, Dylan Mulvaney even said they had no idea about what March Madness was or why Bud Light mattered.
	But sure, whatever.
	That's the story, I guess.
	I'm not super concerned in talking about Dylan Mulvaney, I suppose.
	It's ancillary.
	But, uh, Kid Rock recently made a video where he says Grandpa's feeling a little frisky.
	He then takes the rifle and just unloads on a bunch of Bud Light.
	You guys want to play this game?
	We can play this game.
	Alright?
	Conservatives.
	Let me pull up this tweet here.
	This is from FloridaGirl0850 on Twitter.
	Florida Girl was retweeted by Dana Lash and she said, I'm not surprised.
	our Bud Light orders for my liquor store.
	We are pulling it from our shelves.
	We are not the only ones, according to our reps.
	They said it's bad."
	I'm not surprised.
	But is that all?
	Is that all you're willing to do?
	Anheuser-Busch owns Budweiser.
	So how about instead of Bud Light, you get rid of any and all Anheuser-Busch products.
	Take them out back, throw in a dumpster.
	Or, I mean, look, if you don't want to lose money for your business, I understand it's hard, put them on bargain bin sales at cost, because once they're gone, they ain't never coming back.
	I mean, me personally, I'd throw them in the trash and just get rid of them.
	But, uh, I'm glad to see that, uh, the rep said it's bad.
	Bud Light, you should absolutely get rid of, and, uh, I'm done playing games.
	I remember back in the day I said, I don't care about boycotts, it's silly.
	Not anymore.
	Now I want to ramp it up tenfold.
	So, Florida girl, and anybody else, here's what you do.
	Any Anheuser-Busch product, out of your stores.
	You're a restaurant, you're a bar, get them out.
	And you don't even have to think twice.
	Because I know a bunch of bars and a bunch of places that don't even serve any of their products.
	Let me, uh, let me do a quick Google search on some of these beers.
	Let's do, uh, let's, uh, what's it?
	Oh, here's one that people like.
	Let's say, uh, let's do this.
	Who owns Blue Moon Brewing Company?
	Miller Coors!
	Oh, there we go!
	Blue Moon's great.
	Everybody likes Blue Moon.
	I'm not a big drinker.
	I don't drink a lot of beer.
	I like Blue Moon.
	It's good.
	What do you do?
	You put an orange slice in it?
	Okay, so you're good there.
	What about, you know, Guinness?
	Who cares about Anheuser-Busch?
	Guinness owns Guinness.
	There you go, everybody.
	It's time to start boycotting these products.
	I personally don't have a Netflix account.
	I personally don't have a Disney Plus account.
	I don't drink garbage piss water as it is.
	And I don't drink beer, for the most part.
	So, me, there's not much I can do when it comes to Budweiser or Bud Light.
	I do think it's funny, though, because some lady tweeted, We're never going to drink Bud Light again.
	From here on out, it's Budweiser and Coors.
	And it's like, yeah, Bud Light is Budweiser.
	Okay, come on.
	It's like the same thing.
	Just one is garbage, and the other is just kind of garbage.
	So, sure.
	You know what?
	I gotta be honest, though, as an aside.
	I've never quite understood why people drank Miller or Budweiser.
	Because I've always viewed them as just, like, garbage beer.
	That's just me.
	You know, I've never been a big drinker.
	But, uh, when I go out, you think about, like, a Guinness.
	It's a very unique thing.
	What is a Guinness?
	Like a stout?
	It's, like, thick.
	It's almost creamy, in essence.
	And, uh...
	You take a look at some other beers, I mean, Old English, a Dark, um, take a look, a Heineken, you know, nice import.
	I look at those and I'm like, these are good.
	Miller and Coors, uh, Miller and Budweiser, I'm sorry, have always been garbage.
	Like, here's the thing.
	You go to a party, you want to get drunk, they have, like, Natty Light, or they've got, like, Bud Light, or, you know, what's the other one?
	There's a whole bunch of these generic garbage bargain bin beers that taste like water, but they get you drunk.
	And then I would see people at bars with, like, a Budweiser or a Miller, and I'm like, why are you drinking that?
	PBR is big in Chicago.
	So Kid Rock's mad about this.
	Here's what I think.
	I think they don't care.
	Here's the quote from Dylan Mulvaney.
	I kept hearing about this thing called March Madness, and I thought we were all just having a hectic month, but turns out it's something to do with sports.
	She jokes in the video.
	I'm not exactly sure which sport, but either way, it's cause to celebrate.
	I love it!
	Not only did they try to do a March Madness commercial, but they intentionally insult the fans of March Madness.
	I think it's hilarious.
	I just love it.
	So, are they really trying to make money by doing this?
	Here's what I think.
	The reason they do this here, let me show you a response to Florida Girl.
	This guy Vote for Pedro says, I have two friends that are bar lounge owners that have done the same.
	People saying, just not Bud Lightwin at all.
	One person says, great question, which I believe should extend in full to the entire product lineup.
	Anheuser-Busch is a corporation that took an astonishing decision and hope they realize it sooner rather than later.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Here's what you need to do right now.
		Stop buying any Anheuser-Busch product.
		Tell your friends not to buy any Anheuser-Busch product.
		And, you don't even gotta tell them why.
		Here's what you do.
		You go out to drink with some friends, and if one of your buddies, like, I'm gonna get a Bud Light, or I'm gonna get a Budweiser, or I'm gonna get a Busch, or whatever, just be like, no, no, no, you should really try this other beer.
		Check this one out.
		Try the Blue Moon.
		Have you ever tried this one instead?
		Because here's what needs to happen.
		Anheuser-Busch, in the next month, will be going over their sales.
		Right now, the stock is in likely surplus.
		Liquor stores already have their orders in.
		We're entering a new month.
		This just happened.
		What needs to happen is, at the end of the month, they need to see a marked decrease in sales to an extreme degree.
		If everybody who goes to the bar, everybody who goes to the liquor store, does not buy their products and opts for an import or something else instead, they will see it and they will feel it.
		And they'll get scared.
		And what you need to invoke is an apology.
		It's not just about them saying, we're gonna weather this storm and feeling pain.
		It's about them seeing such a dramatic drop in sales that they beg for your forgiveness.
		That's what must happen.
		So here's what you do.
		Got a poker game coming up?
		Okay.
		Opt to be the person.
		Say, hey, I'll go pick up the beers.
		And then choose a different company.
		Miller.
		In fact, let's make it so that Miller sees their sales go through the roof.
		Choose a different brand.
		Be the volunteer to do it.
		Go into a party?
		Buy the beer.
		And buy a different brand.
		Going out with friends to eat or drink?
		If your friends are even slightly politically minded, remind them of this and say, just don't order their products.
		At the end of the month, the bars will say, we couldn't sell any of your product.
		We don't need to order anymore.
		It's sitting on the shelves.
		Budweiser will then be like a 10% drop in sales from this campaign.
		Whoops!
		We better not do it again.
		But if you get a big enough boycott, they'll actually say, this will take a couple months, they'll actually say, we better apologize.
		Otherwise, we're in trouble.
		I'll tell you what, though.
		Let's see, let me, I'm gonna do this.
		I'm gonna look up the, in real time, we'll do this.
		Pulling up some stock apps, and I'll look up Anheuser-Busch.
		Are they publicly traded?
		Anheuser-Busch beverage.
		Trading at $66 per share.
		It's down a little bit.
		Overall, over the past month, they're up 8%.
		This is really, really good.
		Oh man, over the past three months, they're up 10%.
		Wow, talk about a good investment.
		Here's what happens.
		If their sales drop and they issue a report at the end of a quarter saying we saw a marked decline in sales over the double digits in percentage-wise, then their stock drops.
		That sends a tremendous message to this company and that's what the activism is all about.
		I'm not telling you to buy or sell or anything like that.
		I'm just saying that's what will move the needle.
		So it won't be until, like, the end of the quarter, which is not going to be till, what, August or so?
		What are we looking at?
	We got, no, it's going to be probably end of June into July, I think will be the end of the second quarter.
	And when their sales are in such decline, That the shareholders meeting, they're gonna be like, what happened?
	They're gonna say, well, we decided to sign an influencer who's a narcissistic, histrionic individual who is deeply offensive and divisive, and people stopped buying our drinks.
	And they're gonna be like, why would you do that?
	Why would you hire this person?
	Kid Rock.
	You know, he shot up a lot of these cans.
	That matters, because Kid Rock has fans.
	Kid Rock needs to do more than just shoot them up.
	He needs to say to all his fans, we will never serve an Anheuser-Busch product at my events ever again, nor will I, and you should never buy from them ever again.
	However, if Anheuser-Busch issues an apology, the first thing I will do is I will go out and I will buy five cases.
	And we will stock our fridge for our guests if they issue an apology and retract this.
	Because I always believe in giving a path to redemption.
	But so long as they don't, stop buying their products.
	End of story.
	And let the left whine and complain about it.
	I'm done playing these games.
	I will make sure that we never buy from anything associated with them ever again.
	That's what I'm gonna do.
	Not that we do a whole lot anyway.
	We like supporting local breweries, but I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
	over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲