Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 8, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:21:32

Trump To Be INDICTED Next Week, Attack To Stop Trump, Tucker, And O'Keefe IN FULL SWING

Trump To Be INDICTED Next Week, Attack To Stop Trump, Tucker, And O'Keefe IN FULL SWING BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:18:02

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:31

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 question is, is the reporting true?
		Prosecutors ready to ask for Trump indictment on obstruction and espionage act charges.
		Espionage act.
		Yeah, they don't typically use that.
		It's rarely used, but Obama used it quite a bit.
		Now they want to use it on Trump.
		But Trump denies it.
		He says he's not been informed of any of this.
		He doesn't know that it's going to happen.
		The initial reporting was that Trump's team was informed the indictment would be coming next week.
		Trump denies it.
		Now we've got new reporting, slightly clarifying, saying that the independent has learned that prosecutors are prepared to ask grand jurors to vote on charges as early as Thursday.
		I hope you are all ready for this one.
		This next year is going to be wild!
		I'm excited for it!
		Absolutely.
		Tucker Carlson gets knocked off the air, and then they don't let him make a show?
		They say, you're not fired, but you can't do your show.
		So he does it anyway.
		Now they're threatening to sue him.
		Well, sending him a legal letter saying he's in breach of contract that some reporting has suggested is a threat of a lawsuit.
		You then have James O'Keefe suspended, terminated from his own organization, and then sued to stop his work.
		Oh boy.
		I wonder what is to come for the rest of us.
		Because I don't think it stops here.
		And I don't think it's a coincidence.
		Now, I'm not saying it's a grand conspiracy that somehow Fox News going after Tucker, Project Veritas getting rid of O'Keefe, Donald Trump being prosecuted.
		I'm not saying they're all related.
		Not directly.
		It may be more so a standalone complex.
		Which, for those that are not familiar, is when several people take actions that have a similar outcome, and it appears to be a conspiracy, but it's all individual actions.
		And this actually makes more sense to me.
		People do not like Donald Trump, they don't want him to win, and we know for a fact that many people will do anything to stop him.
		So you don't need a conspiracy.
		You just need amoral individuals, demonic individuals, I mean that figuratively, not literally, People of no moral framework to then decide they will come and destroy anybody who stands in the way of their victory in 2024.
		Surprisingly, Mike Pence seems to think that he's going to win and that that's hilarious.
		But let's read through this news and we'll talk about where we're at.
		The main purpose of this segment is not just to rehash some ridiculous story about Trump potentially being indicted.
		But it's to go over what Charlie Kirk calls the dragnet.
		I don't know if dragnet is the right way to describe it, Charlie, because that typically refers to weeding out corruption and crime, and this is not what they're doing.
		But this is what Charlie Kirk says.
		says. The dragnet is here. Crossfire MAGA 2024. Tucker benched through 2025. Bannon going
		to prison. Bongino out at Fox. O'Keefe out and sued Trump to be indicted again. Bragg
		and Smith coordinated. The worldview Trump has is so threatening to the regime, they
		are preemptively going scorched earth. Citizens or serfs, that is what this is about. Donald
		Trump was never supposed to win. Donald Trump is not supposed to be popular.
		The machine wants to control and squeeze.
		And you are supposed to keep your mouth shut!
		And do as you're told!
		As they indoctrinate your kids, destroy your industries.
		Shut your mouth.
		Live in the pod, eat the bugs.
		But what if you said no?
		What if you said, I, good sir, and am an unruly American and I don't take kindly to y'all telling me what to do?
		Well, the worldview that these powerful elites have is that they're better than you, and they know it!
		So, it's not that you need a conspiracy for any of this to happen.
		You just need powerful individuals to hate you.
		That's it.
		And then each individual does a thing because they all hate Donald Trump, and we know they do.
		We know Russia gate was fake.
		We know Ukraine gate was fake.
		We now know the Bidens are implicated in some kind of major bribery scheme that the FBI is desperately trying to conceal.
	Welcome to the Modern Era, my friends.
	I hope you're ready for this one.
	The Independent Reports!
	The Justice Department is preparing to ask a Washington, D.C.
	grand jury to indict former President Donald Trump for violating the Espionage Act and for obstruction of justice as soon as Thursday, adding further weight to the legal baggage facing Mr. Trump as he campaigns for his party's nomination in next year's presidential election.
	Can I just point out that this is shockingly insane election interference?
	The Independent has learned that prosecutors are ready to ask grand jurors to approve an indictment against Mr. Trump for violating a portion of the U.S.
	Criminal Code known as Section 793, which prohibits gathering, transmitting, or losing any information respecting the national defense.
	The use of Section 793, which does not make reference to classified information, is understood to be a strategic decision by prosecutors that has been made to short-circuit Mr. Trump's ability to claim that he used his authority as president to declassify documents he removed from the White House and kept at his Palm Beach, Florida property long after his term expired in 2021.
	Joe Biden had classified documents.
	Are they going after him?
	You see the game they're playing?
	They found a new way to go after Trump because everybody knew the classified documents thing would not hold water.
	So they said, okay, what else can we muster up?
	As the saying goes, you show me the man and I will show you the crime.
	And this is where we're at today in these United States.
	That section of U.S.
	criminal law is written in a way that could encompass Mr. Trump's conduct even if he was authorized to possess the information as president.
	Because it states that anyone who lawfully having possession of, access to, control over, or being entrusted with any document relating to the national defense, and willfully communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit, blah blah blah, you get the point, can be punished by as many as 10 years in prison.
	It is understood that prosecutors intend to ask grand jurors to vote on the indictment on Thursday.
	But that vote could be delayed as much as a week until the next meeting of the grand jury to allow for a complete presentation of evidence or to allow investigators to gather more evidence for a presentation if necessary.
	A separate grand jury that is meeting in Florida has also been hearing evidence in the document's investigation.
	That grand jury was empaneled in part to overcome legal issues posed by the fact that some of the crimes allegedly committed by Mr. Trump took place in that jurisdiction, not in Washington.
	Under federal law, prosecutors must bring charges against federal defendants in the jurisdiction where the crimes took place.
	We'll see.
	We will see.
	This ain't doing it.
	This ain't gonna do it.
	Whatever this strategy is, of going after Trump in the most ridiculous ways, grand jury is now in Florida and in D.C., and you know D.C.
	is going to return an indictment.
	New York already did.
	They are pulling out all the stops.
	But I have to wonder why.
	Are these people really that stupid?
	Look, I'm not the biggest Trump supporter in the world.
	I only lean towards Trump right now because I want him to get rid of bureaucrats in D.C.
	That's about it!
	I like his foreign policy a lot.
	I would love to vote for Ron DeSantis if Ron DeSantis appeared to be strong enough and had the charisma to be a leader.
	Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to rag on the guy.
	I'm a big fan of Ron DeSantis.
	What he's doing in Florida is tremendous.
	It is historic.
	And he would be a great president, no question.
	This whole infighting between Trump and DeSantis is so stupid.
	But I don't trust that Ron DeSantis goes in and fires the corrupt individuals.
	I think Trump does.
	I also think Trump is far, far from perfect.
	He had such bad personnel decisions.
	I mean, look, a lot of people don't want to accept it, but in his first term, he hired some dumb people!
	But I'll tell you this.
	His foreign policy was tremendous.
	The domestic policy was fantastic.
	He wasn't as successful in many areas as we wanted him to be.
	He secured parts of the border, I will take it.
	But what I'm really thinking right now is you can look at the people he hired and he was advised by and you can say, I don't know why he did that.
	Fauci, for instance, Burks, those are his weak points.
	And I can say, look, man, you come out and you convince me that Ron DeSantis will fire these corrupt deep state individuals.
	You get me to believe that?
	I see some action there.
	All right.
	I vote for DeSantis.
	But right now, what I think we need in a president, as we're approaching primary season and they're already campaigning, we need someone who's going to come in and say, look, I'm shutting that down.
	Give me a few months.
	I will fire these people.
	Deal.
	Ron DeSantis, you make that clear.
	I'll consider it.
	Absolutely.
	Now, to be completely honest, I probably would prefer a libertarian candidate, but I'm a realist, okay?
	So it's really coming down to Trump and DeSantis, and everybody knows Trump's the favorite.
	It's 2-1, and probably more than that.
	It's probably definitive.
	As of right now.
	Who knows what will change.
	I think Trump's biggest weakness is going to be Fauci, Birx, and the vaccine.
	No question.
	We're likely going to hear some exposés on Dr. Fauci and Big Pharma, and Trump loves touting all that stuff.
	There's a warning to all the biggest Trump supporters.
	That's your hurdle.
	Because if we get exposés, if they really want to stop Trump, I tell you this.
	This is not the way to do it, which is why I'm like, what are they doing?
	Persecuting the guy?
	That's only going to make him more popular!
	If they really wanted to stop Trump, they would leak something light, pretending to Fauci and Trump, and say Trump supported this.
	And throw Fauci under the bus.
	Because I tell you, that's the hardest, the hardest issue for Trump to overcome is I talk to people who maybe don't like Trump but would vote for him and they say like, yeah, but he wouldn't fire Fauci.
	And that was horrifying.
	People really need to, you need to make sure you remember exactly what happened from 2022, from 2020 to 2022.
	And even to a certain degree into 2023.
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 ▲ ● ▼		♪ People need to look at what was going on.
		Never forget what they were doing.
		Shutting down cities, putting sick people in nursing homes.
		And Fauci was the guy on camera.
		Fauci was the advisor.
		Fauci was the funding.
		So listen, that's Trump's weak point.
		And it means a lot to me, and every time I talk, you get Luke on the show, and he'll be like, Trump hired Fauci, he wouldn't fire the guy, or he didn't hire him, but Trump had Fauci on his team and he wouldn't fire him, and I'm like, ah, that's a good point.
		He shoulda.
		I'm not gonna blame Trump for not knowing this, but in all honesty, all this does is suggest that Trump does fire everybody when he gets in.
		So if you came to me right now and say, you know, Trump had Fauci on his team, I'm like, yeah, pretty sure he wishes he fired that guy.
		Pretty sure.
		Maybe that's what we'll end up seeing.
		Now I know, Ron DeSantis did fire that prosecutor, and they freaked out and they're like, how dare you do this, blah blah blah.
		And that's promising.
		It really is.
		You're not gonna be able to come to me and be like, because Ron DeSantis is, you know, receiving donations from certain individuals or whatever, that means he's bad.
		I'm sorry, dude.
		Ron DeSantis has given us everything we've asked for.
		He has absolutely pushed the line in that direction.
		And he was a heavy target by the extremists on the far left.
		And what they say on shows like The View is they want Trump to be the primary candidate because it's easier to beat.
		You know, to a certain degree, I understand what they're saying.
		Don't know if I completely agree, but I get why a lot of people would rather have DeSantis.
		I've gone and talked to regular people.
		I've, I've, you know, I got on the weekends and people will be like, man, you know, Trump's just can't vote for Biden, but Trump is so rough.
		Like they want to vote for Trump, but they probably would vote for DeSantis.
		So I don't know.
		Ultimately, I don't.
		I think there's two big challenges with DeSantis.
		One is, we know that Trump has been president and wants revenge.
		That's a big factor.
		And we know what his foreign policy is.
		Plus, of course, Trump's charismatic.
		In his own way.
		And Ron is lacking that.
		So it's tough, it really is, it's a coin toss.
		I tell you this, as I've long said, the one thing that gets me over that hurdle is Trump says he's gonna fire these people schedule F. That's all I'm asking.
		That's what I'm saying.
		And you know, a lot of people are like, Ron DeSantis has the foreign policy experience, he definitely does, but Trump's foreign policy was the best we've ever seen in my lifetime.
		Yep, agreed.
		So you gotta really convince me, man.
		These people.
		But to be honest, the Democrats, the establishment, the machine, they would prefer neither.
		Let's be real.
		They lie, cheat, and steal all day.
		They are trying to criminally prosecute Donald Trump in every possible way.
		Meanwhile, they accuse DeSantis of, like, don't say gay, of being a fascist, and they're having trouble with it, to be completely honest.
		So this is what I find hilarious.
		Maybe the reason Ron's coming out and being so tepid is that it makes it very difficult to attack him.
		When he comes out and he's like, Fredo is worth fighting for.
		It's like, what are you gonna do?
		The only people who are insulting him over that are us.
unidentified		It's us being like, where's the charisma?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Look at this, Newsweek says, Trump target letter signals final steps before indictment, according to legal experts.
		So, get ready.
		It ain't stopping here.
		Now, Trump has denied this.
		Trump said, no one has told me I'm being indicted, refuting claims DOJ has contacted him.
		But this story was initially that the DOJ reached out to the Trump team and said, you're going to be indicted.
		Trump then said, no, that never happened.
		Now the reporting's coming out being like, well, they're preparing an indictment.
		It's like, okay, we'll see.
		Now as for what Charlie Kirk said, this is where I think things get very, very interesting.
		And of course, we are all on a particularly high alert because of it.
		I'd like to give a shout out to Tucker Carlson's 102.5 million views on the first episode of his new show.
		I don't think all of his episodes will carry that much weight, but that one is particularly massive!
		But this is the point.
		This is where we're at.
		James O'Keefe, frozen.
		They're suing him.
		Tucker Carlson, targeted.
		Shut down.
		Silenced.
		Donald Trump, they're trying to indict.
		I wonder what they have in store for us, to be completely honest.
		I don't know.
		I really don't.
		Don't know what the game is, don't know what the play is, don't know what the plan is.
		But it looks like it's not going to be particularly effective.
		Try as they might.
		We talked about it last night on TimCast IRL.
		I said, I don't believe that is a coincidence that Tucker and O'Keefe were both frozen out in the exact same way.
		Suspended, but not fired.
		Claiming the companies.
		James O'Keefe says he was fired.
		And I think that's a fair assessment.
		The idea that he would be removed and told he can't work, and then, when he goes and does his own independent work, they sue him over it.
		Yo, that's crazy.
		Now with Tucker Carlson, basically the same thing.
		They take his show off the air, and then when he posts a video to Twitter where he just talks, they say you're in breach of contract.
		They are trying to silence the opposition.
		Completely unsurprising.
		They did it with Alex Jones.
		They did it with many right-wing personalities in, I think this was what, 2018?
unidentified		2019?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Made sense.
		These prominent individuals helped Trump get elected.
		So they say we gotta silence their voice.
		Do you think they will not do the same thing this time around?
		Makes me wonder.
		I don't know what they can do.
		The line only goes so far.
		Tucker Carlson's a fairly tepid individual.
		Now I know a lot of people think that he's a strong speaker with good ideas and he calls it the narrative.
		I'm not saying he doesn't.
		I'm saying he's not bombastic like Alex Jones.
		He doesn't have the same kind of presentation.
		He simply makes a show and he makes his argument.
		And his argument helps sway people away from the establishment.
		So what can you do?
		You can't just go and arrest him for nothing.
		You can't get him banned for nothing.
		Elon owns Twitter.
		Is promoting all of this stuff.
		What can you do?
		Legal jam up?
		Same thing for James O'Keefe.
		What are you gonna do?
		You can't arrest him.
		He's a media personality.
		They've tried censoring and banning him, but Twitter's back.
		Twitter brought him back.
		So it's getting tough.
		All they can really do is try and use lawsuits, a fairly weak strategy.
		And that's the challenge they have with channels like ours.
		Fairly tepid.
		You know?
		We make our arguments.
		We keep them fairly academic.
		We don't... I always tell people, especially TimCastIRL, look, man, we're not crass, we're not crude.
		We try to be... We try to be better, we try to be academic, but, you know, like, be yourself.
		I tell people all the time, there are certain things YouTube will ban us for.
		We have no rules.
		I mean, personally, I would not appreciate it if someone came on my show and said horrible things.
		Kanye West came on my show and said nasty things, and I just told him he was wrong.
		And he got mad and he stormed off.
		I don't play that.
		But we're fairly middle-of-the-road.
		You know, we're fairly calm, collected.
		Can't really censor us for these things, can you?
		So what do you do?
		I don't know.
		I'd imagine there might be attempts, and there have been, to get us to sign contracts that would eventually jam us up in certain ways.
		That's a possibility.
		Right now, we are beholden to no one.
		It's the best thing.
		The strategy that we've taken here at Timcast is decentralization of resource acquisition.
		So instead of doing a contract with a network where it's like they pay us X in exchange for a show, we've just made a bunch of shows and then diversified our revenue streams, which would be very, very difficult to stop.
		Not to mention, you all as members at TimCast.com also make it very difficult to stop.
		We use Parallel Economy to run our memberships.
		We use multiple processors, but primarily Parallel Economy, which is Dan Bongino.
		I believe he's the principal investor in that.
		We use Rumble infrastructure.
		Not perfect.
		No guarantees.
		But fairly resilient.
		And so I tell you this.
		The battle is not over.
		The war has not been lost.
	The war has not been won.
	If they were as powerful as some people believe they are, the people who believe in the big conspiracies, the propaganda would not be necessary.
	If they were as powerful as some of these conspiracy theorists believe, they would not need to try and shut down Tucker or imprison Trump.
	They would simply control the narrative however they saw fit.
	The fact that the efforts being taken against Trump struggle shows that this is a winnable conflict for the heart and soul of America.
	And so, I leave you with this, my friends.
	We're winning.
	No question.
	Parents are rising up against the groomers.
	Bud Light collapsing.
	Regular people are saying, enough.
	We're not gonna go along with this and you can't control us.
	Try as they might, silence their opponents, everything.
	It does not work.
	It is the...
	Indestructible spirit of America.
	Though they may beat it back, it comes back stronger.
	And so I'm fairly confident.
	I really am.
	Seeing everything we did yesterday, these cities are collapsing.
	What did you have in San Francisco?
	The Hilton surrendered itself to its lenders.
	The company that owns the Hilton and Park 55 surrendered their hotels to their lenders.
	That's horrifying.
	Imagine having a failing business and then telling the lenders like, eh, it's yours now, bye.
	Your deal.
	Brutal.
	We're watching all of these things.
	These things happen in real time.
	And it's showing that the Democrat policies are failing, that regular people are succeeding.
	And I think we're gonna I think we're gonna make it.
	I think we're going to succeed.
	I think we are going to win this one.
	Despite everything they're trying to do, it doesn't stick and it won't work.
	And look, I know there's a lot of people who are just 100% for Trump, don't like DeSantis.
	Right now, what we're looking at between Trump and DeSantis is victory.
	No question.
	If DeSantis becomes president, we win.
	Now, don't come at me and be like, oh, he's a neocon, he's jab, he's whatever.
	It's like, bro, I'm sorry, man.
	You can't have a dude fight tooth and nail in Florida to give the people everything they need and want, and then be like, no, it's bad!
	If you can't accept that victory, you can't accept victory at all.
	So I don't buy it.
	But we'll see, man.
	I will say, as an aside... Dude, no, seriously, the air is really bad.
	It is... Like, I can feel it right now.
	This is nuts.
	This is probably... It's not... It's not easy.
	I'm not kidding.
	The air is really, really bad, so I gotta figure something out.
	I might have to go record somewhere else.
	No question.
	Because of how bad it is.
	Yeah.
	But I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 1 PM on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
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 And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
		We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
		Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
		It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Nope, nope, that's it.
		As of right now, Ron DeSantis is currently polling at 0% for me, and I don't blame him personally for what his campaign does, but I do not see how he recovers from this.
		Ron DeSantis' campaign has reportedly used deepfake AI images of Trump embracing Fauci to smear him, and I say outright, hard F no.
		Not happening.
unidentified		Nope.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You will not get me behind the scenes in any capacity now.
		This crosses the line in a way I can't even describe.
		It is beyond fake news.
		It is beyond lies and manipulation.
		And I am pissed off, I gotta tell you.
		I just recorded a segment where I said DeSantis gives us everything we want in Florida, it would be great if we had him as president, but this was basically like him spitting directly in our faces.
		I know that Donald Trump's biggest weakness is Fauci.
		They know it as well, and they just destroyed any opportunity they had to actually criticize Trump over the policies of Fauci and Birx.
		I do not believe that a disavowal from DeSantis would be sufficient at this point.
		They have run a deepfake ad and have effectively made themselves garbage in my eyes.
		And I'm kind of bummed to say it.
		I'm kind of bummed to see it because I really, really do like the policies and the hard work DeSantis' team has put in, but he better.
		I don't look.
		Whoever did this should be fired on the spot.
		DeSantis should put out a video right now saying the individual responsible for creating fake images of Donald Trump to smear him has been terminated from this campaign and we will not tolerate it.
		Only then will I actually consider bumping up my support for this man.
		I've been leaning towards Trump, and it's only because I think he's going to fire people.
		In fact, when it comes to the policies of these two men, I actually think Ron DeSantis' domestic policy hits it out of the park.
		I think that Donald Trump's foreign policy, best we've seen in a long time.
		We don't know exactly what DeSantis has in store foreign policy-wise, and a lot of people are concerned he'll be a neocon.
		Okay, let's have those debates in the primary, but now I'm done.
		I don't even know how he comes back from this.
		Here's the story from The Verge.
		DeSantis attack ad uses fake AI images of Trump embracing Fauci.
		The fake images depict Trump kissing Fauci on the cheek, allowing the DeSantis campaign to frame Trump as a close supporter of Fauci's policies combating COVID-19.
		It's right there.
		You can see it clear as day.
		The White House logo in the room doesn't even have English.
		It's very obviously fake.
		It looks like it might be mid-journey.
		Dude, I am pissed off!
		I'm seriously ready to flip some tables over, man.
		In my own office that belonged to me.
		I would never subject anyone else to that.
		I'm just, I can't believe it, man.
		Let me play the ad for you.
		Let me see if, uh, I think I have it right here.
		This is the ad that, uh, let's, let's zoom in.
		I'm gonna play it for you, you can hear it for yourself, and then, uh, it's 40 seconds long, we'll come back, and I'll show you where the deep, and we'll highlight where the deepfakes are.
		I assume most of you will easily be able to spot them.
		The tweet from the DeSantis War Room says Donald Trump became a household name by firing countless people on television.
		But when it came to Fauci and here's the video they made.
unidentified		You're fired.
		You're all fired.
		All four are fired.
		You're fired.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The day I walk in, I hear I'm going to fire him.
unidentified		I'm not firing him.
		I think he's a wonderful guy.
		Should you have fired Fauci?
		So, a lot of people asked me that question, and I did it right.
		Because if you do fire him, you're going to have a firestorm on the left again.
		Why did you feel unable to fire Fauci?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Personally, you're not allowed to.
unidentified		Every time he goes on television, there's always a bomb.
unidentified		But there's a bigger bomb if you fire him.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Frankly, you can't win that one.
unidentified		If I would have done it, I would have taken heat.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The DeSantis War Room has just done the unthinkable and probably... I don't... I don't know, man.
		Look, you go ahead and keep supporting me if you want.
		Don't know, don't care.
		I'm done.
		That... that... I have been warning about this.
		I have been talking about deepfake videos.
		I've been talking about how they will try to lie, cheat, and steal to trick you into believing fake bullcrap so they can win political power.
		And the DeSantis War Room decided that they would publish fake images Let's play it again.
unidentified		Right here.
unidentified		Here it is.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Plain as day, and obvious as obvious gets.
		In fact, some might argue they're simply trying to make a point about how buddy-buddy he was with Fauci using art.
		It says real-life Trump in the image.
		It says in the video, real-life Trump, and then it shows three fake images of Donald Trump embracing and even kissing Fauci on the forehead, or on the face.
		Man, I don't even know what to say.
		Look, this is over the top.
		Here we go, ladies and gentlemen.
		If you think it stops here, you're wrong.
		It's only going to get worse.
		I didn't think we'd see it so soon, and I didn't think it'd come from the DeSantis camp.
		The Verge reports the campaign backing Ron DeSantis as a Republican presidential nominee in 2024 has used what experts identify as AI-generated deepfakes in attack ads against rival Donald Trump.
		Now, I don't know if the DeSantis War Room is the official account of Ron DeSantis' campaign.
		It has been reported by a bunch of different outlets that it is the DeSantis campaign doing this, and the DeSantis War Room will just make sure we're getting it as clean as clear as possible.
		DeSantisWarRoom on Twitter says, So, as far as I can tell, this is the official campaign account, or an official campaign account for Ron DeSantis.
		I believe it was a super PAC they couldn't directly link and associate with him, so I believe the reports are correct.
		But I want to make sure it's clear, I don't know who runs the DeSantisWarRoom.
		On June 5th, the DeSantis War Room Twitter account shared a video emphasizing Trump's support for Anthony Fauci, a former White House Chief Medical Advisor.
		We know Fauci has calmed down.
		They say the video includes real clips of Trump discussing Fauci and a collage of six pictures of the two men together.
		Of the six images, three appear to be AI-generated, showing Trump embracing Fauci.
		In the collage below, they are top left, bottom middle, and bottom right.
		And you can see it says, Real Life Trump.
		I am infuriated by this.
		The brazen and disgusting attempt to trick us Trump should have sidelined Fauci.
		I'd be very careful here.
		Fauci is a weakness of Trump.
		When asked why he didn't fire him, he says he couldn't.
		He's not wrong.
		Bureaucrats are hard to get rid of.
		That's the point of Schedule F. It's why I think Trump is slightly better.
		He's gonna go and he's gonna fire these people.
		Not so sure DeSantis would.
		Now, Trump says he didn't want to fire him because it would make a firestorm and he just can't do that.
		But there's things he could have done he did not do.
		Trump could have sidelined Fauci, shut him down, stopped him.
		He didn't do it.
		That's on Trump.
		But you know what?
		Doesn't matter at this point.
		Not for now.
		We can absolutely criticize Trump over having Birx and Fauci 100%.
		But the idea Look at this image.
		So they actually show you this image right here.
		It says, the sign that appears behind the podium of the White House Press Briefing Room.
		It shows the White House and says the White House, Washington.
		In one of the images, it says, METAHAP W period EMS.
		Yes, because AI does not know how to create language.
		It can only create a facsimile.
		When it comes to the images of Trump and Fauci or any person, it basically just tries to recreate many of these features.
		When it comes to language, it can recreate the features, but doesn't have the ability to order them properly into cohesive language.
		The fakes were first identified by the AFP, who note that the real images in the collage above can be seen here, here, here.
		The three fake images show no results in reverse image searches, and have a number of tells that suggest they are AI generated.
		These tells include glossy and blurred textures, particularly in the hair and flesh of the two men, physically unrealistic poses, particularly in the top left image.
		This one's, uh, really important to point out.
		Trump's squ- Trump and Fauci embracing each other, arms around each other, and Trump's arm being so long that it wraps all the way around Fauci and comes out the other side.
		Ridiculous deepfake.
		Absolutely ridiculous.
		They say, and an inaccurate reproduction of the White House press briefing room.
		For example, the top left image, you can see a recreation of the sign that appears behind the press briefing podium.
		And that, in real life, says the White House Washington.
		So this is, we just, I just showed you this.
		Compare this to the sign that appears in the top left from the DeSantis ad.
		The shade of blue is different and the text is nonsense.
		Recreating legible text is a challenge for current AI image generation systems.
	Look at the image more closely, and you can see how Trump and Fauci's faces are unrealistically posed, almost overlapping one another, and how Trump's hair looks oddly smooth and featureless.
	Mehehap WMs.
	Amazing.
	Look at this.
	The hair is textureless and blurry.
	Haney Ferret, an expert in image forensics and professor at the University of California, told the AFP that it was highly likely that the images were fake, particularly as they could not be found in reverse image searches.
	Highly likely?
	Come on, it says Mehehap!
	Mehehap is not a real word that appears, as far as I can tell, anywhere.
	Digital media forensics expert, Si-Wei Liu, came to the same conclusion, noting abnormalities in the three images.
	I'm pretty sure these are not real photos.
	The DeSantis War Room Twitter account was launched last August by DeSantis' political aide, Christina Pasha, and its use of AI shows the increasing normalization of deepfakes in U.S.
	politics.
	Earlier this year, Donald Trump shared an AI-created image of him praying, as well as an audio deepfake mocking DeSantis' campaign launch on Twitter.
	After Joe Biden announced he would be running for re-election in 2024, the RNC published an attack ad that also featured AI-generated imagery.
	All of it bad.
	But I want to make sure this is clear.
	A lot of people are saying, That well, but Donald Trump shared an A.I.
	video mocking DeSantis.
	Are you joking?
	An obvious fake Twitter spaces where the FBI is like, we're here to get Trump.
	And then Trump comes and says, we're going to win.
	We're going to be the best campaign ever.
	Like, not believable in any sense.
	It was an obvious troll and everyone knew it was a gag.
	As for the context around the Biden A.I.
	generated attack, I think it's it's all bad.
	All of it is bad.
	What makes me particularly angry is Ron DeSantis's campaign passing off these images saying real life Trump.
	It's all bad.
	It shouldn't be.
	The ad depicts a dystopian version of the U.S.
	if Biden is re-elected.
	It also raises worrying questions about the place of deepfakes in political campaigns.
	It's from April.
	Let me play you this video.
unidentified		videos as beat Biden from the R.N.C.
		Financial markets are in free fall as 500 regional banks have shuttered their doors.
		Border agents were overrun by a surge of 80,000 illegals yesterday evening.
		Officials closed the city of San Francisco this morning, citing the escalating crime and fentanyl crisis.
		Who's in charge here?
		It feels like the train is coming off the tracks.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The video here that they're also concerned about, rightly so, but still to be fair, is clear fiction.
		It clearly says a fictional dystopian version of the U.S.
		if Biden wins.
		That's normal.
		Saying something like, if he wins, you'll see this, that, or otherwise, they do that in politics all the time.
		The use of AI images to create a fictional version of reality that they outright say is the future is not the same thing.
		I still think it's bad to get into this terrain, but it is nothing compared to what they did with this.
		They say although some of these cases are obvious fakes, like Trump's audio deepfake, which features the devil and Adolf Hitler, campaigns continue to blur the line between parody and disinformation.
		With this latest example, the mixture of fake and real images in a single collage further makes the distinction even harder.
		It takes what is a plausible narrative, of Trump and Fauci as friendly collaborators, and
		encourages viewers already inclined to believe this framing to see it as well-evidenced truth. Deepfakes
		are helping politicians create their own reality. Yo, I have to imagine that many on the left are
		also deeply offended because Trump supporters don't like Fauci and trying to paint this
		picture.
		They're probably like, excuse me.
		You know, the people who like Fauci are like, no, no, no, no, no.
		You don't get to accuse us of that.
		I'm just, this is crazy.
		Look, The Verge brings up in the same article, the AI ad about Biden.
		But the reason this did not raise alarm bells is because showing fake pictures of Biden smiling and winning with Kamala, and then showing AI images of fighter jets and war, When it tells you this is what the future has in store, no one genuinely believes it's an actual crystal ball future.
		It's a fictional ad.
		And, I will tell you, these images are much more clearly fake.
		Like, this is nonsense.
		It's not even anything.
		It says, the ad contains a series of stylistic images imagining Biden's re-election.
		Imagining.
		It suggests this will lead to a series of crises.
		A small disclaimer in the top left says, built entirely with AI imagery.
		So let me... Okay, it's very small.
		It should be bigger.
		But, again, if someone makes an artistic rendering to make a political point, I got no problem with that.
		And this is where we get into dangerous territory with AI.
		I think we have to be very, very careful in this regard.
		They may be using AI to create something fictional.
		But the line is being blurred.
		Ron DeSantis' team has stepped right over it in a way that is shockingly offensive to me and should be offensive to everyone in this country.
		A small disclaimer says built entirely with AI.
		An AI-generated look into the country's possible future if Joe Biden is re-elected in 2024, a spokesman for the RNC told Axios.
		It was the first ad of its kind put out by the organization.
		It's not clear what tools were used.
		I do believe likely it's mid-journey.
		Mid-journey is absolutely incredible.
		It's absolutely incredible what it can make.
		Images coming out where Donald Trump is being arrested or Donald.
		I made one where I called it a Generalissimo Trump and it was Donald Trump with a mustache
		and a military uniform surrounded by like South American like military personnel.
		And it's hilarious, but it looks real.
		It looks absolutely real.
		But I just don't think anyone would genuinely believe that Generalissimo Trump is a real
		thing.
		I wouldn't want to put out any AI images that would trick or confuse people.
		I put out pictures of like Donald Trump as Goku going Super Saiyan, which is like an anime thing for those that don't know.
		This crosses the line.
		Absolutely.
		Someone responded to my tweet saying, Trump's team used AI-generated video and audio to mock DeSantis' announcement on Twitter like 25 minutes into the spaces, so let's not get carried away.
		Are you kidding?
		The fake Twitter space that Trump put up had the devil in it!
		Did anyone actually believe the devil was in a Twitter space commenting on Ron DeSantis?
		Don't play that.
		Man, the people who are simping for DeSantis.
		No dice.
		It's crazy.
		Recently, in the past couple of weeks, I put out a tweet.
		It was about Jazz Jennings, who lives in Florida.
	And it was a video compilation of I Am Jazz, the show.
	I think it's called I Am Jazz.
	Maybe it's not.
	It's something else.
	I don't know.
	But Jazz, of course, received a child sex change operation as a minor and underwent a child sex change, I think, starting at the age of like 11 years old.
	In response to this video, I said, where's Ron DeSantis?
	This is all happening in Florida?
	Question, like, this is all happening in Florida?
	Where's DeSantis?
	And the DeSantis press people started attacking me over it, calling me a grifter, and DeSantis fans attacked me for it.
	Guess what?
	As it turns out, Jazz Jennings did receive gender surgery while living in Florida, while Florida was currently under the leadership of Ron DeSantis in 2020, I believe it was.
	So don't come at me and play these dirty games.
	Y'all could have just said, we take it seriously, trust us, we're working on something.
	And I don't accept that.
	I think Ron DeSantis is doing a great job in Florida.
	Instead, they snapped.
	All the DeSantis diehards got culty.
	It's so weird!
	Yeah, I'm not interested in living in any of these crackpot worlds.
	You come out and you tell me that Donald Trump is the real president or whatever and he's gonna get reappointed in March.
	And I'm just like, no, it's not happening.
	And guess what?
	It didn't.
	You come at me and vomit up simping for Ron DeSantis no matter what, and I say, not interested.
	Prove to me you're a good candidate.
	I'm pissed off.
	I am seriously pissed at them running this deepfake.
	I don't know if there's coming back from this for Ron.
	At least for me.
	You know, I know a lot of people probably still want to support him.
	They don't care about this.
	That's fine.
	But you will never see anybody sit in front of me and get me to praise this man.
	Not unless he absolutely fires the people behind the DeSantis War Room.
	Done.
	End of story.
	He's got to personally come out, say they're fired, no scapegoating.
	Now look, I don't know who's responsible for this, but what the Verge says is that the DeSantis War Room, I believe it's the Verge that points this out.
	Let me make sure I get this right.
	The Twitter account, the DeSantis War Room, was launched by Christina Pasha.
	So I want to know who did this.
	Who signed off on it.
	If it's Christina running it, Ron, fire her.
	Dude, I'm not playing games.
	This was... This is a red line, ladies and gentlemen.
	If we allow anyone any leeway into using fake images to smear their opponents, we must stop it now.
	Run.
	Take the stand.
	Say, no, we reject this.
	Shut it down.
	Apologize.
	Delete.
	And fire whoever is responsible.
	Here's my concern.
	They're gonna scapegoat somebody.
	This is what they do.
	They're gonna find some low-level person.
	They're gonna say, we didn't know.
	Scapegoat.
	Not happening.
	They lost me on this one.
	I don't know, man.
	I really don't think there's anything they could do at this point to get me to vote for Ron DeSantis.
	They've just ended.
	Whatever support I may have had for them.
	Don't get me wrong, I've been ragging on the guy.
	I've said he's got no charisma.
	I've said, you know...
	But I believe there was a chance that, you know, look, Ron's got to pick this up.
	And I said even a few days ago, he's doing better.
	He's getting good.
	Doesn't matter anymore.
	Does not matter to me one bit.
	You lost me.
	What's going to happen to this country in the future moving forward with this kind of stuff?
	It sends chills down my spine.
	It's bad enough that Joe Biden used the Very Fine People hoax to launch his campaign in 2020.
	It's bad enough.
	When did it launch?
	It was 2020, right?
	Or was it late 2019?
	I don't know.
	Lying about what Trump said, manipulating the American people, and condemning us to a world of psychotic ignorance.
	You want to play that game, DeSantis?
	You want to be in that world?
	Do it.
	Fine.
	But I will make sure that just like Joe Biden, I will speak out against what you have done.
	Understanding the truth is paramount.
	We may disagree.
	Our opinions may clash.
	But if we can agree on what is true, then we can save this country.
	That's always been what we're about.
	So when I have a discussion or debate with even my friends on this show, maybe Seamus and I discussing various issues pertaining to abortion or child sex change surgery, We know that we agree on what is true.
	We may disagree on our political views of what is the appropriate solution to these problems.
	This?
	This is evil.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	Right now at the TimCast Studio, there is a haze, making it very difficult to breathe.
	And, no joke, I can feel it even indoors.
	It is intense.
	You go outside, you can't even see that far.
	New York had it a lot worse.
	It's supposed to get a lot worse here.
	And the question now on everyone's mind is, what caused the wildfires?
	Could it be a natural phenomenon?
	Where a drought led to high propensity for wildfires, which then simultaneously ignited and spread this smoke and soot all across the eastern seaboard?
	Or is it a conspiracy?
	Multiple arsonists, hundreds of miles apart, timing their attack perfectly to ignite fires everywhere!
	Come on!
	Dude, there are people who think the wildfires were all simultaneously started at the exact same time.
	That's not true.
	It's not.
	I'm sorry.
	I don't know exactly what started it.
	The media says drought.
	I don't know if drought is actually true either.
	Everyone's speculating, but what I can say is it's likely not arson.
	It may be that there is some arson, but probably not all of it.
	Some of it might just be Lightning strikes!
	I mean, for real.
	Lightning strikes.
	There's a map that tracks lightning strikes showing a whole bunch of lightning strikes happening.
	Now, if you don't believe that, then you'd have to assume that the lightning tracker map that I have to show you is fabricated data to cover up the mass arson committed over several hundred miles all at the exact same time.
	My dudes.
	If it really was a conspiracy to start a bunch of wildfires to send smoke down to the US, or for whatever reason, why would they do it all at the exact same time?
	They would stagger it intentionally.
	No, what happens is a storm rolls through, there's tons of lightning strikes, and then you get a large number of fires.
	It's also true there is some arson.
	Fact.
	We have this story from LifeSite News.
	So let's break down what's going on as we all struggle to breathe in this cloud of smoke and soot.
	Media blames climate change for Canadian wildfires despite arrest of multiple arsonists.
	They say, while the mainstream media continues to point to climate change as the source of the wildfires, reports show that multiple people have been arrested in connection with dozens of intentionally set fires in the country.
	And that's true!
	It happens a lot.
	In the U.S., there were videos and news reports about political extremists starting fires, and then the media was like, is Antifa starting fires?
	No, they're not!
	They're not doing it!
	Okay, it wasn't really Trump who said that, but I just felt like doing it.
	But there were some.
	There were some.
	Ultimately, we don't know, and so what I'm gonna do is I'm just gonna give you the data, and then you can figure out what you think is happening for yourself.
	But I think it is silly to imagine that hundreds of miles apart, a whole bunch of people got together and they said, at exactly 2 p.m., you are going to light these fires.
	And then they all were like, here we go.
	I just don't see that as being likely.
	If there was a large group of people, like, it's because, what, 140 fires, something like that?
	Are you saying that like hundreds of people coordinated this, traveled out and spread around Canada, and then all at the exact same time lit fires?
	I just don't see that as being probable.
	I guess the alternative conspiracy is space lasers, which I really, sorry, just, that's, that's just not.
	No.
	Like, I mean, maybe there's some.
	It's based in reality at the very least.
	Lasers exist.
	But you would have to have such ridiculously powerful lasers to all fire at the same time and start all these fires.
	Just, no.
	Guys, come on.
	Come on.
	Let's talk about the potential for arson.
	LifeSite says, As wildfires continue to spread across Western and now Central and Eastern Canada, burning forest land and homes, the mainstream media continues to imply that climate change is the main culprit, despite a growing number of reports showing that arsonists have been arrested for allegedly setting dozens of fires.
	Several arsonists have been arrested in the past weeks in different provinces for lighting forest fires.
	People's Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier tweeted, but the lying woke media and politicians keep repeating that global warming is the cause.
	The severe nature of the wildfires has caused Canadians to wonder why they have spread so rapidly, especially as many of the affected areas are not typically impacted by wildfires of this degree or at this time of year.
	In the past months, RCMP have arrested several arsonists who have been charged with lighting fires across several provinces, including Nova Scotia, Yukon, British Columbia, and Alberta.
	The motive behind lighting the fires is unclear.
	One Albertan, John Cook, has been arrested and charged with 10 counts of arson after setting a string of wildfires in and around Cold Lake, a hamlet near Edmonton.
	So, this is true.
	We have the story from the Edmonton Journal, a reputable news source certified by NewsGuard, 92%.
unidentified		.5, 92.5.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Cold Lake area man facing 10 arson charges after string of wildfires from May 4th.
		Now the fires that we are dealing with started, I believe, on June, around June 1st.
		Now the lightning strike map does not completely explain what's happening.
		In this video from Josh Kirkland, he says, on 6-2-23, satellite video shows all of the fires in southern Quebec, Canada, ignited at the exact same time.
		This is not correct.
		This is not correct.
		It's somewhat correct, but I want to clarify for you.
		So here's the video.
		I'll play it for you now.
		You can see, he rewinds it, and the fires are all starting around the same time.
		Around.
		But here's the thing you need to understand about these satellite images.
		Look how quickly the clouds are moving.
		Okay.
		The fires may already be burning, and they may be burning hours apart from each other.
		But the wind patterns could shift and then push the air at the exact same time.
		I am not saying the fires definitively started at different times.
		I'm saying we just don't know.
		And you're looking at a time-lapse here.
		See how quickly the clouds are moving?
		This is over a long period of time, this smoke is starting to spread.
		So it is possible that they started here, one fire starts, and now it's two or three hours later another fire starts.
		Now it's another hour later, two more, three more fires begin starting.
		It looks like they're starting at the same time because it is a time lapse.
		Now it is true, these fires all started around a similar time.
		I have for you this.
		This is BlitzOrTongue.org tracking lightning strikes.
		It is not definitive proof of anything, but something for you to consider.
		If I create a 24-hour loop on June 2nd, 2023, you see a wave of lightning strikes over here slamming Quebec.
		It is entirely possible.
		This is what's causing the fires.
		And I have to say, with the absence of evidence, the answer that makes the least amount of assumptions tends to be the correct one.
		I do not believe that a globalist cabal or Antifa or any group secretly got access to lightning strike data and fabricated it to create fake evidence that would explain why fires started.
		Yo, the simple answer is lightning strike, fires start.
		And there's way more lightning strikes than there are fires in this area.
		I am not saying I know for sure.
		According to... I'll come to this story in a minute.
		So, uh, do I have... I think I have the tweet here.
		Here we go.
		According to Robert Maloney says, trust the mainstream media?
		I think not.
		The wildfires are not drought related according to data from the Canadian government.
		Here's a screenshot of the drought conditions in Canada from the CA Department of Agriculture.
		The data show there is no extreme drought, no drought in Quebec.
		The record-breaking heat being reported are a few days of temperatures around 93 degrees.
		Yet climate change is being blamed for these fires.
		More propaganda?
		The yellow on the map is abnormally dry, not a drought.
		And you can see here in Quebec...
		Not abnormally dry.
		Here's what I think.
		I think lightning, lightning strikes started this.
		It says as of April 30th, mind you, so it's been two months, but fair point, whatever.
		It's likely the lightning started this.
		It's likely that political individuals are exploiting this for political gain.
		That's it.
		Wildfires happen.
		These kinds of things happen.
		When we covered this last night, many people said, we see this often when the fires blow smoke down.
		Nobody ever cares when it's on the West Coast or in Minnesota or North Dakota.
		But now that it's hitting New York, it's the apocalypse and everyone's saying, why is it happening?
		It's not that it's happening now.
		It's that most people live here.
		So they're all reporting it.
	And then it affects our society and culture.
	And then we say, you know, look, we're seeing it.
	Why is it happening?
	Here's a simple answer.
	Fires start.
	It negatively impacts us.
	People with political motives see an opportunity to exploit this for political gain.
	There you go.
	That seems to be it.
	In the story from CBS News, they say, what's driving the fires?
	And they do mention that it's drought.
	They say, uh, why are they out of control?
	Uh, how did the fires start?
	Dry, hot weather breeds more lightning.
	In a normal season, half of Canada's wildfires are started by lightning, but those fires account for more than 85% of wildfire destruction.
	The other half are human-caused.
	That's actually amazing!
	They say...
	In Quebec, for example, these fires were sparked by lightning, but officials in Alberta have said the cause of the fires is currently unknown.
	Elsewhere in the country, these fires have been human-caused in various ways, from discarded cigarette butts to sparks from passing trains.
	I'm highlighting this to let you know, even CBS is saying humans do cause the fires.
	I don't think there's a grand conspiracy here.
	I think the fires likely were mostly lightning with some human activity from intentional to accidental.
	And I think Democrats and politicians are exploiting the fires for political gain.
	The real conspiracy?
	It's not a conspiracy, it's a standalone complex.
	One, you have many leftists who are cult-like, whose cult-like mentalities are like, the only explanation is climate change because that's all they do, they scream in my ears!
	If the only thing a person hears over and over and over again is climate change, they're gonna attribute everything to climate change.
	Thus, they will exploit it.
	But then there are people who genuinely know it's probably just lightning and say, hey, doesn't matter, we're going to win anyway.
	Yeah, I don't play that game.
	Not interested.
	They say harsh weather conditions are fueling these fast-spreading fires, making them extremely difficult to combat.
	The country is currently at National Preparedness Level 5, meaning Canada has fully committed all of its national resources to mobilize the fight against fires.
	Chris Stockdale, a wildland fire research officer, With the Canadian Forest Service told CBS News late last month that as part of the Level 5 declaration, international liaison officers from Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa are flying in to help fight the fires.
	Glad to hear it.
	Glad they're doing something.
	Biden said Wednesday firefighters are coming from the U.S.
	We've deployed more than 600 U.S.
	firefighters, support personnel, and equipment to support Canada as they respond to record wildfires, events that are intensifying because of the climate crisis.
	You see, what Biden is doing there is like, hey, we're doing a good thing.
	Also, support us politically because our cult-like political ideology says so.
	That's what I think is the reality here, to be completely honest.
	Not that someone started these fires intentionally, because these fires, I think they're like, they're hundreds of miles apart.
	What could do that?
	A coordinated network.
	Space lasers, or... Lightning?
	Yeah, sorry, that's just, that's probably it.
	To be fair, however, we will highlight this story.
	There's two, but before I get into feminist firefighters set Banff ablaze, okay, we have this video.
	Poppystar shared it saying, arson causes fires.
	People in Canada say those fires are all started at the exact same time.
	P.S.
	Notice the color of the helicopter.
	In this video, you can see a helicopter flying and dropping what appears to be napalm or some kind of molten substance.
	And then you see a line of smoke emerging from the forest.
	Yeah.
	Yep.
	The idea here is that they're creating a burn line, a control line, so the fire can't go past it.
	You can watch videos of this.
	This is not unique.
	I am not saying I know exactly what they're doing or why they're doing it.
	But I've seen tons of videos where you've got farmers burning... I think they get, like, flamed or something, but they actually burn a line of crops on purpose so the fire stops.
	Because it needs that... It needs... So, like, imagine you have a field of wheat or something.
	The fire just sweeps across it.
	They put a burn line through, it gets to that point, and then it has nothing to spread because they already burned a line.
	You get it?
	I don't know if that's exactly what they're doing.
	It does appear that they're starting a fire, but just because we don't understand it doesn't mean we can say definitively what it is.
	I will highlight this, though.
	This is from May 6th.
	Feminist firefighters accidentally set Banff ablaze.
	Oh no!
	A woman in training exchange program accidentally set Banff National Park ablaze after a prescribed burn went out of control.
	And they want you to sign up to get into greater details, but you get the point.
	Okay?
	Do humans cause fires?
	They do.
	Sometimes intentionally, sometimes for malicious reasons, sometimes for noble reasons, and sometimes accidentally.
	A large cause of wildfires is like someone's got chains dragging from their car, or something metal sparks something on the ground.
	It could be dry.
	It doesn't even have to be very dry for fires to start.
	That's why I always tell people, dude, seriously, be careful when you're going out in wooded areas.
	We've got a bonfire pit, and I'm very, very much like, dude, we only do this when it's wet out.
	Like, right now, a lot of the grass is turning brown because we haven't had enough rain.
	It's supposed to rain tomorrow, which is good, considering it's really hard to breathe.
	It's even bad indoors.
	And, uh, but I'm always like, take the fire stuff seriously.
	We don't need to be starting fires if it's really dry, because we don't want this stuff to burn down.
	And it happened, like, last year.
	It was very dry, the leaves had all fallen, there had been no precipitation of any kind, and it was dry and cold.
	And I'm like, I don't want to do a fire because something could float up in the air and then light up some kindling and then boom, you got a forest fire.
	I am not interested in any of that.
	So we typically reserve, you know, doing any kind of fire stuff for when we know it's wet out.
	When, like, it's discernibly wet.
	For the time being, here's what I can tell you.
	It sucks.
	Yo, it's hard to breathe, okay?
	Not everything has to be a conspiracy.
	I don't know what even the conspiracy would be in this regard, like they're setting fires to harm the economy of the U.S.
	or something.
	Honestly, I don't know.
	So you tell me.
	I pull up the videos, we track them down, we try and figure out what's going on, but sometimes fires happen.
	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.
	Gavin Newsom wants to ban your guns.
	He's proposed the 28th Amendment, he calls it, that would enshrine federally-nationally restrictions on your right to keep and bear arms.
	It's nonsense.
	It will never go anywhere.
	And it's more so virtue signaling for a man who probably wants to run for president, because why else would he say something so dumb?
	But in all fairness, hey man, that's the way you're supposed to do it.
	So I can respect at least that.
	I completely disagree with it.
	He will lose, and I will oppose him.
	But at the very least, saying we should amend the Constitution is the right way to change these things.
	Instead of being like, we're gonna pass laws that violate the Constitution because we can't anyway, which they've been doing.
	The NFA, the National Firearms Act, completely violates the Constitution.
	Period.
	And there's no reason to pretend otherwise.
	But let's read the news and then see what people have to say about all this.
	Newsom proposes constitutional amendment to restrict gun rights.
	California Democratic Governor Newsom wants to change the Constitution to curb gun rights.
	Fed up with inaction on gun control, Newsom unveiled a proposed 28th amendment to the Constitution on Thursday that would implement common-sense gun safety measures he claims have widespread bipartisan support.
	Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution.
	So today, I'm proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that.
	The 28th Amendment will enshrine in the Constitution common-sense gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, independents, and gun owners overwhelmingly support.
	While leaving the Second Amendment unchanged and respecting America's gun-owning tradition.
	It's complete bollocks, but you know.
	Newsom's proposal comes after the federal courts have delivered a series of victories for gun rights activists, led by the Supreme Court's landmark decision last year striking down a century-old New York law that made it difficult to obtain a license to carry a concealed handgun.
	The Democratic governor's proposed 28th Amendment would not abolish the Second Amendment, which establishes the right to bear firearms for personal self-defense.
	WRONG!
	Wrong Fox News.
	The Supreme Court did not say that.
	However, it would raise the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm from 18 to 21.
	Mandate, you know, well, let's go with this.
	I got the tweet from our friend Brian Krasenstein, who breaks down the four points Newsom brings up.
	He says, Gavin Newsom, typo, 21 is not the age of majority, 18 is.
	And if you can fight and die for this country, you should be able to keep and bear arms.
	safety measures and enshrine them in our constitution. One, it will raise the minimum age to purchase
	any gun to 21. That's nonsense. Complete nonsense. 21 is not the age of majority 18 is. And if
	you can fight and die for this country, you should be able to keep and bear arms. I was
	at a gun store in Virginia and a young guy came in and he said he was looking to purchase
	a weapon and they told him he couldn't because he was I think he was 20 years old.
	And he was like, I can't.
	They were like, you can buy a rifle.
	He's like, well, that's what I want to buy.
	And they're like, okay, you can't get a handgun though.
	You're too young.
	Huh?
	That's, that's complete nonsense.
	You're 80.
	You're an adult.
	You live on your own.
	Crazy.
	It will require that there is a reasonable waiting period for gun purchases.
	A nebulous claim that does nothing.
	What is reasonable?
	Different to different people.
	Right now, there is a waiting period.
	When I went to purchase my first gun, I had to wait a week!
	That's- is that reasonable?
	We have- we have a guy trying to break into our house, and then I- and the cops are like, yeah, you should get a weapon.
	Now, New Jersey sucks, and they're- and- and in the end, they're like, you can't defend yourself anyway, but I was like, I'm gonna go get a weapon.
	It actually took me months to get a gun.
	And we'll get more into that.
	But the actual waiting period, when I signed up and everything, they said, we'll let you know when you clear.
	And it was like five days later, I get a call back saying, well, you know, you're cleared.
	Days.
	And then with the weekend, it actually took about a week.
	Is that reasonable?
	The left would say yes.
	I say no!
	I have needs now and the right!
	Ridiculous.
	It will require universal background checks.
	Already exist.
	There already are background checks.
	You fill out the form, you sign up.
	You know what?
	I'm not completely opposed to the federal background checks you do when you show up.
	It's not a difficult process.
	It asks you a series of questions.
	I don't completely agree with all of the restrictions.
	But it's basically like, are you a drug user?
	Are you a criminal?
	Are you a citizen?
	Are you a fugitive?
	And if you lie, you commit a crime.
	After that, it takes a few moments to get cleared.
	It is bad when they jam you up, and it is, in my view, an unconstitutional deterrent.
	But what they say is, I think they're allowed something like three days to do the background check, after which the Constitution kicks in, and they say, you took too long.
	This person has a right to keep in bare arms.
	I don't like that period.
	It might be 24 hours.
	I think it's three days or something like that.
	72 hours.
	They say it will ban the civilian purchase of assault weapons.
	Nonsense and meaningless.
	Here's what Krasenstein says.
	I would also add a stipulation that all guns should be insured.
	Insurance is a private act, should not be in the Constitution.
	I don't completely disagree.
	I just don't think it should be mandated.
	Make them jump through hoops.
	I would also add a stipulation that all guns should be insured.
	Insurance is a private act, should not be in the Constitution.
	I don't completely disagree.
	I just don't think it should be mandated.
	I do think any good gun owner probably should have insurance, because it really does protect
	you.
	They have this self-defense insurance you can get, where if like someone breaks into your house and you defend yourself, all of your legal costs are covered.
	I think that's actually pretty good, pretty smart.
	Mandating it?
	I don't think car insurance should be mandated.
	I think that's insane.
	Forcing someone to buy a product from a private carrier?
	That's nuts to me.
	Maybe there could be something, but ultimately, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
	And what we ultimately see with moves like this is an attempt to make it too difficult to even own a gun.
	Which is exactly what he says.
	Make them jump through hoops.
	No.
	That's unconstitutional.
	And I think we're winning in that regard.
	When I went to buy my first gun, they made me jump through hoops.
	In New Jersey, you've got to get a firearm owner ID, so you go fill out the background check, and I think it took a couple days.
	Then you have to get a handgun permit per gun, which also took, I think, several days.
	Then you have to go to buy the gun, where you will undergo the federal background check, which took me five days.
	So all in all, The entire process, first, when I first decided to buy a weapon, which is my right, in New Jersey, couldn't figure it out.
	Everywhere I went, they lied.
	The police lied.
	They all lied about what I needed to do to get a gun.
	And you know what?
	I finally realized the simple solution.
	I went to a gun shop and said, what do I do?
	And they pointed me in the right direction.
	And from that point, it took a couple of weeks.
	And then I finally was able to get my first gun.
	And it was the Smith & Wesson, I believe it's the Smith & Wesson Governor.
	It's a 45 long and 45 ACP, if you use a moon clip, and 410 shotgun shell is what it takes.
	And probably could have got something different, but it's a revolver.
	I dig that.
	And the versatility, the use of the 410, I thought was good.
	Now, it's a powerful little dude.
	We went to the range with it, and firing a shotgun shell out of a handgun, ya feel it.
	But the thing about the 410 I like is that there's a variety of different loads that you can have, so it's a very versatile weapon.
	I'm not gonna pretend to be a master or expert on any of the gun stuff.
	I eventually did pick up a Glock 17, as well as a couple 1911s and other things that are reasonable.
	I do think, for me, the most reasonable, a couple of the weapons that I really do like, in terms of self-defense, actually, my actual 410 shotgun.
	I have a breech loader, and I'm not going to get into too much detail about everything I do have, but just in terms of what I think is reasonable and effective for me.
	9mm hollow point and stuff, I think is very smart and reasonable.
	22, Ruger 10-22, I think is absolutely fantastic for a variety of uses.
	And then of course, I've got standard AR-15s and things like that.
	I actually have a lot of guns.
	I have an excellent collection.
	And it's because they're all different.
	The left seems to think that gun is gun.
	It's not true.
	That's why when they say they want to ban the purchase of assault weapons, you have to say no to that.
	Because it makes literally no sense.
	Define an assault weapon they can't.
	Define assault rifle.
	They don't even know how to do that.
	Actually, did they say assault rifle?
	They say, uh, and ban assault weapons.
	Okay, Fox News put assault weapons in quotes.
	Because there's no real definition to what that means.
	A Ruger 10-22 with a rifle stock is not, but give it a pistol stock and now it is?
	That doesn't even make sense.
	It's effectively the exact same weapon.
	So the arguments they put forward are seemingly nonsensical and therein lies the problem.
	If they don't know anything about guns, how can we have them regulate them?
	We can't.
	And for Newsom to try to pass a constitutional amendment, I can respect the proposal.
	I mean it.
	Genuinely and seriously.
	When they come and they say, we're going to change the law no matter what, I'm like, no, get out of here.
	If Newsom says, okay, we'll amend the Constitution, I say, okay, well, fair point.
	That's the way to do it.
	Now let's present our arguments.
	I don't think the American people will go for it.
	Rightly so.
	But he's welcome to try.
	Because if you take away someone's right to even try to amend the Constitution, that defies what the Constitution is all about.
	In the end, here's what we need.
	We need an absolute right to keep and bear arms.
	You see the video that went viral of the man stabbing children?
	A Syrian refugee in France?
	Not a single person could do anything to save these kids.
	Not one person?
	And they're yelling, police, help!
	In French or something like that.
	If that happened in Texas, a guy with a knife went to a playground, those children would be safe.
	Law-abiding citizens save lives.
	Good guys with guns save lives.
	There's no perfect answer, but I'll tell you what, this is no answer.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
	Stick around and I'll see you all shortly.
	Why are we seeing an increase in individuals identifying as conservative?
	Is it because the left has gone too far left?
	Democrats have gone insane and regular people are saying, yo, no way.
	Yes, absolutely.
	But there's a bigger thing, there's something bigger at play here that I've been talking about for some time.
	Conservatives in the 2000s had more kids, so now we're probably looking at like 3 to 1, I'm sorry, 4 to 3.
	For every 4 conservative kids, you have 3 liberal kids.
	Now, the left tries to subvert this fact, not subvert, but tries to compensate for this by indoctrinating your kids.
	But it is not working.
	I've got some amazing data for you, my friends, from Gallup, social conservatism in the U.S., highest in about a decade.
	With many people asking why it is.
	Gallup reports more Americans this year, 38%, say they are very conservative or conservative on social issues than said so in 2022, 33%, and 21, 30%.
	At the same time, the percentage saying their social views are very liberal or liberal has dipped to 29% from 34 in each of the past two years, while the portion identifying as moderate remains near a third.
	The last time this many Americans said they were socially conservative was 2012, during a period when consistently more U.S.
	adults identified as conservative rather than liberal on social issues.
	So here's the chart.
	Americans, liberal, conservative, self-identification on social issues.
	Thinking about social issues, would you say your views are liberal?
	It says very conservative, conservative, moderate, liberal, or very liberal.
	Very conservative and conservative currently sits at around 38%, to liberals 29%.
	Moderates somewhere in the middle.
	And moderates are favoring conservatives 2 to 1.
	This is tremendous.
	And I'll tell you what I think it is.
	You know, I'm all in favor of gay marriage.
	I am 100% in favor of gay parents adopting kids and all of that stuff.
	But there are challenges that come with it that are testing my moral limits.
	When I look at someone like Dave Rubin, and shout out to Dave, he's a great dude, a great personality, a hardworking guy, and a great dad.
	I look at Dave Rubin with inspiration.
	He and his husband, as a gay married man, have kids.
	Now many conservatives don't like, I think they use surrogacy, and they view this as completely wrong.
	I say, Dave Rubin's children will have one of the best and most responsible upbringings of any child in this country.
	Personally, I do think a child is probably better off with a mom and a dad.
	And there are questions and limitations to what two dads can offer that a mother and a father would be able to provide more.
	There are certain things that are probably missing from that.
	But I take a look at the picture holistically.
	If I look at what life is like for many people growing up on the South Side of Chicago, I'd say these children would be lucky if they grew up in Dave's household.
	For that reason, I am in favor of this, and I think there's hard questions to ask, but This is where the line comes in.
	There are many parents who are not like Dave Rubin.
	There are many parents who would indoctrinate their kids in creepy and offensive ways.
	These parents introduce their kids to things that children are not capable of understanding.
	Now, of course, in society, children do understand birds and the bees, moms and dads, and all that stuff.
	And now, with gay parents, it does open the door.
	And this is where the moral line is challenged.
	With any gay parent, you now have the question arising in schools where they ask, if there is a parent, a child with, you know, two dads or two moms, well, that's going to come up, right?
	And we have to explain it.
	I disagree, though.
	You can explain it as to a child would need something explained.
	There are two moms that take care of you, your parents.
	When it comes to teaching about the birds and the bees, it's an entirely different subject.
	The moral line is challenged when these people introduce books on overt sex to children to explain these things, and I think that's wrong.
	And that's where I think many people may be becoming more socially conservative.
	Because of this introduction, you now have an easy argument for conservatives to say, listen, I understand your point on a well-to-do, responsible, gay-married couple having kids.
	However, this does mean they're going to start teaching their kids about things, and it's going to normalize things which will put children at risk.
	It's long been the argument.
	It's not 100% completely wrong.
	It's just to what degree.
	And we can see now that the left has abused it to an extreme degree where they're trying to keep information from parents and target and groom children.
	For that reason, I'm not surprised many people are now saying that they're conservative.
	I do think the bigger component here though is younger people, more likely to be conservative than any other generation, are aging into these brackets where they're now being asked.
	Let's read more. Gallup says the results are based on Gallup's annual values and beliefs
	survey. The survey comes at a time when many states are considering policies regarding
	transgender matters, abortion, crime, drug use, and the teaching of gender and sexuality in schools.
	The increase in conservative identification on social issues over the past two years
	is seen among nearly all political and demographic demographic subgroups.
	Republicans show one of the largest increases. Independents show a modest uptick.
	And and they say, well, there has been no change among Democrats. Fascinating. Take a look.
	Take a look at this.
	2023, Republicans, very conservative or conservative.
	It's also possible that we're dealing with a perception shift in that if liberals used to say safe, legal, and rare on abortion, but now they say abortion at any time for any reason, any reason's good enough reason for me, a regular person who doesn't know much about politics might conclude, well, I must be a conservative.
	But that's wrong.
	The far-left becoming prominent does not change what a liberal is.
	And a far-leftist lying and claiming they're liberal does not change what a far-leftist is.
	But the perception may change.
	And for that reason, independents, Republicans, middle-of-the-road people, they may be saying, you know what, maybe I am conservative.
	If that's what it means.
	This is a victory for the left, if we allow it.
	So I reject it.
	The left, they love to call me a conservative, but I'm not.
	I'm pro-choice.
	I don't call it mutilation, I call it child sex change.
	Had the argument last night.
	I am a traditional liberal, a social liberal.
	I am not even a classical liberal.
	While my views do tend to skew libertarian, And there is an overlap between traditional and classical liberals to a great degree.
	Traditional liberal is a center-left position, and classical liberal is a center-right position.
	The reason they want to call me a conservative is so that all of you who agree with me on social issues and political issues think you're conservatives, and thus the conservative movement becomes liberal.
	You get the point?
	Hold the line!
	That's what I say.
	Make sure you say, we know what a liberal is, we know what a conservative is, we know what a far-leftist is.
	We know what a far-rightist is as well.
	Don't let them change the narrative.
	However, it may be that they are succeeding.
	They say, since 2021, there have been double-digit increases in conservative social ideology among middle-aged adults.
	Those between the ages of 30 and 64, at the same time, older Americans' ideology on social issues has been stable.
	And therein lies my great point, my friends!
	Let me read this for you again.
	They say... How could that be?
	for you again. They say among middle-aged adults, those between 30 and 64, there's been a double
	digit increase. At the same time, older Americans' ideology on social issues has been stable.
	How could that be? How could it be that someone who's older stays the same?
	But an age bracket becomes more conservative.
	Younger people enter that age bracket.
	That, my friends, is the best news you will hear for a long time.
	The future is going to be moderate to conservative.
	The liberals can't succeed, and for this reason, they're fading.
	Take a look at this.
	In 2023, 18 to 29 year olds You've got an increase.
	Changes in self-identification as conservative on social issues.
	In 2021, 18 to 29-year-olds, 24%.
	In 2023, 18 to 29-year-olds, 30%.
	But hold on there a minute!
	Understand this.
	Many of these people... So we're singing across the board, don't get me wrong.
	18 to 29-year-olds age up.
	So a portion of those people enter the later bracket.
	So in 2021, here's what you really need to consider.
	A 29-year-old in 2021, where do they find themselves?
	Because in the next year, they're now in the 30 bracket.
	Someone who's 49 into 50, they're in a different bracket.
	Understanding that would be very important.
	But what I see here is, if 18 to 29 year olds are becoming more conservative, it's because young people are entering that age group.
	Don't get me wrong.
	If you look at 30 to 49, you can see from 22% in 21 to 35% in 2023.
	see from 22% in 21 to 35% in 2023. That is much more likely due to say a channel like mine on
	YouTube. The majority of our viewers are 25 to 54. So that's the middle of the younger bracket
	into the older bracket.
	Which means the largest, the spike you'll see, is I think actually the average age of the viewer that watches my channels is like 30 now.
	A couple years ago it was like 28.
	A little bit younger than me, I'm 37.
	I should say a bit younger than me.
	But you can see that big uptick, a major swing, because, well, they're watching channels like this.
	More and more creators are calling these things out.
	So there is a shift.
	Don't get me wrong.
	I just think the best news is that younger people are shifting heavily conservative as well.
	Now, listen, it's only 30%.
	I don't know exactly where the liberals sit on the same line.
	But as we can see, the data shows People are becoming more conservative.
	One reason or another.
	Perception or otherwise.
	And this change spells bad news for the left and good news for the right in the culture war.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
	over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲