Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 28, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:17:26

Trump Audio Leak A HOAX, Trump NOT CHARGED Over Iran Docs, Says IT WAS NEWS CLIPPINGS, Media LIED

Trump Audio Leak A HOAX, Trump NOT CHARGED Over Iran Docs, Says IT WAS NEWS CLIPPINGS, Media LIED 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

01:14:55

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.
		You may have heard the shocking story, leaked audio released by CNN of Donald Trump saying that he did not declassify
		these documents.
		And you know what I said the other day?
		I said, I bet Trump was being a braggart, was boasting, had these documents he thought he was allowed to have and said, I can't share them.
		And then later, because he's being indicted, he now says, no, I did declassify them.
		I was wrong.
		I was wrong.
		And this is why you have to wait three days whenever a story like this comes out.
		It is now proven that the audio tape is a hoax.
		Confirmed.
		How do we know?
		The documents in question related to the story about Iran are not a part of the indictment.
unidentified		Oh, so what was Trump talking about?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're not indicting Donald Trump over these documents.
		CBS News confirms Iran memo not among the 31 records underlying charges in Trump federal indictment from CBS News.
		So why does Salon say this is so bad for Trump?
		Legal experts say leaked audio even more damning than the indictment.
		It's a trick.
		It's a hoax.
		And now we have the context around what may have happened.
		Donald Trump, according to his defense, the reason why they say it actually exonerates him, which is a bit silly, He wasn't actually holding classified documents.
		And I think that we lean in that direction because he wasn't indicted for having any classified documents related to Iran.
		What was Trump doing?
		In the leaked audio, Donald Trump says, you can hear him rifling through papers, and he says, here's the documents.
		He doesn't say that.
		He says, he says, you take a look at this.
		Look at this right here, what they were trying to do.
		And then he says, you know, but this is all highly confidential.
		It's secret.
		We could have declassified it.
		What's the context?
		It would seem more likely than not that Donald Trump was flipping through copies of magazine articles that show, and we have this, I think I have this tweet from Jack Posobiec, the New Yorker running the story about Donald Trump.
		Here's one, Jake Tapper, quote, you're going to have an effing war, Mark Milley's fight to stop Trump from striking Iran, NewYorker.com.
		So now we know what is the most likely scenario to have occurred considering Trump was not charged for this.
		Donald Trump had that story from the New Yorker printed out, was flipping through papers and said, see this?
		This is what they were trying to do.
		Milley gives me this, and he says he wants to do it.
		He's showing them the New Yorker!
		And then he says, but you know, all this stuff's highly classified.
		He's referring to other information, not the papers he had in question.
		The easiest way to explain this Imagine you secretly recorded a teenager playing Grand Theft Auto, talking about his plans to steal cars and kidnap and hurt people.
		And then you played it in the media like, look at what this kid was saying.
		People would be like, whoa.
		But the context was he was playing a video game.
		He was talking about a video game.
		Now we all know that we have, we all know that our favorite leftist streamers like to incite violence and call for criminal activity and then say, in a video game.
		Because they think that will absolve them of the crimes they commit.
		No, you're just protected by the FBI.
		They're not going to go after you.
		But the reality is, if you were playing a game, like you're playing Monopoly.
		Imagine recording someone playing Monopoly and they're like, you owe me rent!
		I want the $300 now!
		And then they publish the audio and it's like, here's their, they're demanding money.
		It's like, dude, we were playing Monopoly.
		Context matters.
		What did the media run with?
		They tried.
		They said it was bad for Trump.
		They said Trump should go to jail for 10 years.
		Hoax.
		Alright.
		Let me read you the story from CBS News.
		Then I want to show you what they were claiming in the media.
		But I want to make sure I break this down and give you the gist right away.
		What we know for sure.
		Donald Trump is not being charged over whatever documents he may or may not have had.
		Suggesting, more likely than not, Trump is correct when he said, this wasn't classified documents.
		The papers you hear are magazine articles, copied.
		He's showing them the story from the New Yorker or something to that effect.
		Seems likely considering they did not charge him.
		They're taking it out of context to make it seem like Trump actually had the documents in question, but he's not charged with this.
		CBS News reports, The Defense Department memo on Iran, at the heart of the now public audio recording that was captured in a meeting with Trump, blah, blah, blah, is not part of the 31 counts of willful retention of national defense information in special counsel Jack Smith's indictment.
		In the recording of the meeting at Trump's Bedminster, New Jersey, golf club, the former president can be heard apparently showing and discussing what he describes as highly confidential secret documents with aides.
		False context.
		That's not what he says.
		You can hear him rustling through papers saying, take a look at this.
		He then says, you know, we could have declassified, this is all secret.
	He may not be actually referring to physical documents in his possession.
	He may have a story saying, invade Iran.
	And he says, that's fake.
	We could have declassified the information, but we didn't.
	Like, oh, I see.
	You get it?
	This is crazy, isn't it?
	How they lie about this.
	Or I should say, make assumptions.
	Sources of the documents were related to plans for a potential U.S.
	attack on Iran.
	It's, it is, it is like highly confidential secret.
	This is secret information.
	Look, look at this.
	Trump said in the audio tape obtained by CBS News.
	See, as president, I could have declassified, but now I can't, you know.
	Isn't that interesting?
	Is it possible that Donald Trump actually had classified documents?
	And he says, absolutely.
	I'm not saying he didn't.
	I'm saying it is likely not the case, considering he wasn't charged over any of that.
	Maybe he will be, sure.
	I don't know.
	I'm saying right now.
	This story they're claiming in the documents.
	These are not the documents related to the actual case.
	Let me clarify so you understand.
	When I say it's a hoax, Donald Trump is charged based on certain documents.
	They then run this audio and say, see, look, he knew they were classified hoax.
	They're totally different circumstances.
	Trump may have had classified documents, we don't know, but they're not in any way related to the criminal charges at hand.
	They're trying to make it seem like the charges against Trump, this proves those charges completely unrelated.
	The document and recording are described in the indictment Smith's team secured against Trump earlier this month, recounted as an alleged meeting with a writer-publisher to members of Trump's staff, none of whom possessed a security clearance, but according to a source made with the matter, Trump was not charged with unlawfully holding onto the Iran-related document discussed in the recording.
	Smith's 37-count indictment against Trump includes 31 charges of retaining national defense information, etc., etc., etc.
	You get the point.
	This story gets leaked.
	This audio gets leaked.
	The Hill reports Trump says he wasn't holding classified documents mentioned in tape.
	I would say it was bravado.
	Trump told Semaphore and ABC News in an interview on Tuesday that he referred to documents during a meeting with an author and book publisher who were working on a memoir of former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, but he did not actually have them.
	I would say it was bravado if you want to know the truth.
	It was bravado.
	I was talking and just holding up papers and talking about them, but I had no documents.
	I didn't have any documents.
	It's possible he did.
	It is entirely possible Trump is lying.
	I want to stress this to as much of a degree as I can.
	Trump may be lying here.
	He may have actually had documents in Bedminster and he was flipping around and showing them.
	The point I want to stress, they leak the audio.
	Trump says these secret documents, they, they, they apply a context to that as if to say the charges against Trump about documents, those were them.
	They are not, they are not.
	Perhaps Trump did something wrong with whatever this audio is, but the audio is unrelated to the criminal charges.
	The transcript of the meeting at Trump's golf club was included in the indictment CNN first obtained, but he is not charged related to any of these documents.
	Trump was there on the recording discussing a document he said contained information about a hypothetical plan to attack Iran and this is really interesting because we don't know that's true.
	I initially assumed that to be the case and I think it's fair a lot of people did, but if you now go back and listen and go, Oh.
	Trump may have been holding up a news story and then generally referencing intelligence he did not declassify, but was not holding the documents himself.
	We don't know.
unidentified		Guess we'll have to wait and see.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Here's what Salon wrote.
		A picture is worth a thousand words.
		This audio could be worth a thousand days behind bars.
		Yeah.
		Trump on the recording, which was cited in the 37-count indictment handed down by the federal grand jury earlier this month, suggests he is holding a secret document detailing contingency plans to attack Iran while talking to former Chief of Staff Mark Meadows' autobiography, Ghostwriters.
		These are the papers, Trump said in the recording, referring to something highly confidential.
		You see how they don't give you the actual transcript of what was said?
		Let me show you this.
		Jack Posobiec writes, DOJ claims Trump is on tape, showing classified docs on July 21, 2021.
		The docs have never been found.
		Never been found?
		Huh.
		But six days before, on July 15th, The New Yorker had an article where Milley accused Trump of wanting to strike Iran.
		Is it possible he was just holding the article?
		Here is Jake Tapper of CNN pushing the story just days before Trump's comments.
		Did Jake speak up when CNN published their exclusive audio?
		Trump's lawyer should subpoena him.
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 ▲ ● ▼		You mean to tell me...
		Six days before Trump was talking about this, the New Yorker ran this exact story.
		They never found the documents.
		This is the indictment.
		It says, on July 21, when he was no longer president, Trump gave an interview in his office at the Bedminster Club to a writer and publisher in connection with a then forthcoming book.
		Two members of Trump's staff also attended the interview, which was recorded with Trump's knowledge and consent.
		Before the interview, the media had published reports that at the end of Trump's term as president, a senior military official purportedly feared that Trump might order an attack on Country A, and that senior military official advised Trump against doing so.
		Upon greeting the ghostwriter, publisher and two of his staff members, Trump stated,
		Look what I found. This was Millie. We know it's Millie Millie's plan of attack.
		Read it and just show it. It's interesting.
		Later in the interview, Trump engaged in the following exchange.
		Well, with Millie, let me see.
		I can show you an example.
		He said that I wanted to attack Iran.
		Isn't that amazing?
		I have a big pile of papers.
		This thing just came up.
		Look, this was him.
		They presented me this.
		This is off the record, but they presented me this.
		This was him.
		This was the Department of Defense and him.
		It does sound like Trump is saying, here are the actual military documents.
		Understand this context, either of which may be true.
		I'm not saying I know definitively.
		I'm saying if they did not find any documents and they did not charge Trump with these documents, we should not make the assumption he was actually holding documents.
		He may have picked up the New Yorker report or any other newspaper clippings because we know that within his documents, it's already included all the stories Trump had newspaper clippings.
		That is a fact.
		So imagine it this way.
		Trump says, let me see, I'll show you an example.
		He grabs the New Yorker clippings.
		He said he wanted to attack Iran.
		Isn't that amazing?
		I have a big pile of papers.
		Picks up a bunch of news clippings.
		This thing comes up.
		This was him!
		It says in the news story, Trump, look at this, Mark Milley's fight to stop Trump from striking Iran.
		Interesting.
		It's very interesting.
		So a few days later, the people who are writing about Mark Milley are talking to Trump about this.
		Would it not make sense that Trump says, look, newspaper, this is, this was him.
		He was the one who, they presented me this.
		It was him who wanted to do it.
		And then they claim Trump was actually showing secret documents.
		Trump's showing a news report, it seems more likely, and saying, I could have declassified this and I didn't.
		Not that he was holding the papers that proved anything.
		He was saying he could have proven it if he took action while president, and now this story is out, painting him as the bad guy.
		Isn't that amazing?
		I will stress it again for the millionth time.
		It is entirely possible Trump did have classified Iran memos, and he was showing his reporter saying, I should have declassified this.
		Fair point.
		Absolutely.
		But considering they didn't find the documents and he wasn't charged with it, it seems we should not operate under the assumption that Trump actually had these.
		Trump saying, I didn't, they didn't find them, case closed!
		And of course the left will argue, well Trump got rid of the evidence.
		What?
		So Trump keeps all of the other classified documents but has the foresight to get rid of this one?
		If Trump genuinely believed he had a right to keep his documents and he did keep them at Mar-a-Lago, why would he get rid of these one documents?
		It makes no sense.
		The reality is he did not have classified documents.
		What did The View say?
		Lock him up already.
		The View co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin and Sonny Hostin suggested ex-President Trump could have been contemplating selling classified documents.
	Lock him up already.
	Sonny saying, I think allegedly it's possible he thought that he could sell them.
	That he thought he could.
	Did Hillary Clinton think she was going to sell her documents?
	I mean, maybe, right?
	If you want to play that game.
	Joy Behar.
	Well, everything was about him.
	Everything about him is making money, so why not?
	Sonny, exactly.
	Yeah, like I'm not saying everybody.
	I don't want to get sued.
	Alyssa Fargo, and to be honest, I wondered that, with the documents reportedly about the Saudis as well, because he obviously has financial interests in the Gulf.
	In the Gulf Gulf?
	In the Gulf Gulf.
	I don't want to speculate too much, but I think that what this prosecution is going to have to get into is, he's already broken enough laws, whether there's intent and, you know, and trying to undermine our U.S.
	national security behind it.
	But I mean, that's something that's... So why?
	What's the why?
	And you never have a blah blah blah.
	He's a grifter, he's a grifter.
	Lock him up already.
	Lock him up.
	He discussed the contents of classified information with people without security clearances, and then acknowledges he can't declassify since he's not president.
	It's a cut-and-dried case.
	Dried?
	He has no defense, which is why I said a couple weeks ago he is ripe for a plea.
	And I think I asked you, this is why these people, they keep doing this.
	And this is why it's the rule.
	When a story comes out about this, you've gotta wait.
	Okay.
	Legal experts say it's bad.
	These are the papers.
	There was no document.
	That was a mass amount of papers and everything else talking about Iran and other things Trump told the network.
	And it may have been held up or may not, but that was not a document.
	I didn't have a document per se.
	There was nothing to declassify.
	These were newspaper stories, magazine stories, and articles.
	National Security Attorney Bradley Moss tweeted the audio shows this wasn't newspaper articles.
	He has the document right there.
	No, he doesn't.
	It literally does not.
	Trump says, I'll show you an example.
	Isn't it amazing?
	I have a big pile of papers.
	This thing just came up.
	Look at this.
	This was him.
	They presented me this.
	This is off the record, but they presented me this.
	This was him.
	This was the department.
	There's a defense department in him.
	He could literally be pointing to a news story saying, this was Millie.
	This was Millie.
	They presented me this.
	I didn't want to do this.
	You see?
	Okay.
	If Donald Trump did wrong, please lock him up.
	No question.
	And I think most of the presidents have done wrong.
	But you better come to me with an indictment against Hillary Clinton, who did worse.
	I will stress that point again.
	I'm trying to be careful here.
	I don't know what's going to happen.
	During the Russiagate scandal, I was very on the fence and said, you know, we'll see what the evidence has to behold.
	And boy, did I learn a lesson.
	It was a hoax.
	Seriously.
	We know they fabricated evidence.
	They lied about so much and they won awards for it.
	Now it's possible Trump may have done something wrong here, but I ain't giving them the benefit of the doubt, because they lie about everything.
	The reality is, they didn't find documents, they didn't charge Trump with having documents, and Trump says he was talking about a news report, and there's literally evidence a news report had come out a week prior, exactly about this.
	So the story comes out, Trump says, look at this story!
	And there you go.
	That's the real context.
	But they lie.
	It's what they do, they lie.
	And it's crazy, isn't it?
	The implication of the Clinton sock drawer case laid out in my op-ed shouldn't be derided.
	The Constitution and the Presidential Records Act aren't as simple as former Attorney General Bill Barr and letter writer James Wendell think.
	Not every record created by a federal agency is an agency record.
	Basically, we had a member call in last night to IRL.
	Made a great point.
	Classification is for the President and no one else.
	The President is above all classification.
	The President can look at anything he wants.
	The President can retain anything he wants.
	End of story.
	Classification is for you, so that you don't share things outside of what the President determines you should be able to share.
	That is to say, under the Constitution, the President can keep whatever he wants.
	Now, there's the Presidential Records Act, but Congress doesn't have the authority over the executive branch.
	It's an interesting point.
	Therefore, when a president takes documents with him, it's not classified for him.
	He can have them.
	I'll tell you this.
	You want to play the game?
	I'll play the game.
	You better arrest Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden as well, because they also had classified documents.
	What about Bill Clinton?
	They say the indictment doesn't allege that Mr. Trump swooped down into agencies, took records that didn't belong to him, and hid them in boxes.
	It claims that he kept records received by him as president.
	30 years of legal precedent suggests that the records Mr. Trump retained aren't agency records, and that his decision to maintain these records can't be second-guessed.
	I'm not surprised we are now seeing this hoax.
	Because this is the game.
	This is what the 72-hour rule, the media comes out, they accuse Trump of doing something wrong, and then sure enough, it turns out, they lied.
	They lied.
	Considering everything we've seen about the media lying about Trump, why would I believe in any way it's possible Trump actually did what they claim he did?
	He simply held up a news story and said, I should have declassified it.
	And he was talking about the news and the media's line.
	Now they're calling for him to be arrested.
	Now I assure you.
	Viewers of The View are at home saying, wow, Trump admitted it.
	He should go to jail.
	They're saying things like Trump's going to take a plea deal.
	I'll tell you what's really going to happen.
	The likely scenario, I'll be fair.
	I don't know what's going to happen.
	The likely scenario, nothing.
	Impeachment went nowhere.
	Second impeachment went nowhere.
	This will likely go nowhere.
	They are just trying to spin whatever they can to paint a picture of Donald Trump that is not real.
	Is Trump a perfect guy?
	No, he is not.
	Does he do dumb things?
	You betcha.
	Did he hire stupid people?
	You bet he did.
	Milley being an example of this.
	What a huge mistake.
	Bolton, huge mistake.
	But is he some Soviet agent trying to sell American secrets?
	That's insane.
	And they're lying.
	How many times did they say the walls were closing in, the end is near, it's the beginning of the end, and it was never true?
	That's why I don't think it will be true this time.
	But sure, if you want to believe that it is true, by all means, you're free to do so.
	But here's a scary reality.
	This has been going on for eight years.
	The lies about Trump.
	They say that every seven years, every cell in your body has been replaced.
	Ship of Theseus style.
	People now live in a reality where the entirety of their being has been built over the course of lies about Donald Trump.
	To their core, they believe these lies to be true and nothing will change their mind.
	So what do you do?
	I don't have the answers, man.
	They're just trying to stop him from winning the presidency.
	They don't want him to win.
	Why?
	Because Trump was trying to stop an invasion of Iran that Milley wanted.
	That's the real story.
	That Trump was trying to get our troops out of the Middle East, out of Syria, and they lied to keep them in.
	Because the war machine wants war.
	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 y'all then.
	NBC News defends We're Coming For Your Children chant at NYC Drag March, arguing it's been used for years at Pride events.
	You may have seen the clip.
	One of our reporters, Ilad Eliyahu, was on the ground in New York City and he filmed pride marchers chanting, we're coming for your children.
	And they tried to brush it off.
	They tried to claim it was nonsense, but the video is going viral.
	Even being picked up by the corporate press.
	Local affiliates are running the story.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's simple.
		This is what I refer to as the Bud Light Effect.
		This is ancillary, but somewhat related.
		When people start to find out what is actually happening at these events, they don't like it.
		And so what happens with Bud Light is they sponsor Dylan Mulvaney, they do this, whatever the video was for whatever reason.
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 ▲ ● ▼		Almost any does this promo for Bud Light.
		And then all of a sudden people stop buying the product.
		It's now in its worst week of sales ever in the boycott.
		And reportedly, they have fired the marketing executives involved.
		Regular people are starting to outright say no.
		But the reason I say this is the Bud Light effect is because what's happening,
		people are seeing that if you cover this stuff, people want to know about it.
		you get clicks, you make money.
		So let's start from the beginning.
		Our reporter goes on the ground and is just filming what's going on.
		This video, from the perspective of TimCast News, unremarkable.
		We know they say things like this.
		But the video went viral.
		Conservatives started sharing it.
		Regular people started sharing it.
		And then what happened?
		This is what I say is a part of the Bud Light effect.
		Corporate media outlets said, if we run this story, we will get 1 million views.
		Then we will sell more ads.
		We will make more money.
		You see how it works?
		When people are interested in a story, the story makes money.
		It's that simple.
		News outlets, individuals, content creators, they will start producing more content discussing this issue because they know people are interested in it.
		It's really that simple.
		The fact that this is now reaching the mainstream corporate press shows they can't run from it.
		Regular people are saying, I want to know more about this.
		Why are they doing this?
		So here we are.
		NBC News knowing this story has gone beyond mainstream, desperate to in some way challenge the narrative.
		And here they go.
		Let me show you this article, ladies and gentlemen.
		We're coming for your children chant at NYC Drag March, unless it's outrage.
		But activists say it's taken out of context.
		Organizers say the NYC Drag March is meant to be a light-hearted and poke fun at anti-LGBTQ sentiment.
		The only issue?
		They actually are coming for your children.
		There's videos of adult men spreading themselves in front of children and thrusting their genitals at these kids.
		Yeah, that's actually happening.
		Ian Crossland of TeamCast IRL purchased a book called This Book Is Gay.
		In the book, it provides instruction on how to use adult, and even it acknowledges the apps are for adults, adult sex apps, despite the fact that Amazon says the book is for teenagers.
		Why would minors need that kind of instruction?
		It also has graphic depictions of sex.
		And this book was being provided to middle schoolers, in some instances, to the point where parents called the police on this teacher.
		So yeah, they're coming for your children, and now they're chanting it in the streets.
		This is why people care.
		NBC News is desperate to try and contain the narrative.
		Here's the tweet.
		NBC News writes, the quote, coming for your children chant has been used for years at pride events, according to longtime march attendees and gay rights activists, who said it's one of the many provocative expressions used to regain control of slurs against LGBTQ people.
		Is it?
		Then why are we seeing sanctuary states for child sex changes?
		This is the funny thing, right?
		We have had this debate over the phrase, child sex change, but this is what they're doing.
		Maryland recently announced this month an executive order will make the state a sanctuary for child sex changes.
		Washington and other states have done the same.
		In fact, in some of these states, if an individual kidnaps your child, brings them to a doctor, I'm talking 13 years old, And then sterilizes them.
		That is protected in these states.
		In fact, they would not prosecute the individual who did the kidnapping.
		No, they will not answer any subpoenas, any warrants.
		They'll protect the gender-affirming care that sterilizes your child.
		And we'll talk all about that in a second.
		But first, let me show you the article from NBC News so you can understand the desperate attempt to try and contain the narrative.
		NBC News' Tyler Kincaid writes, Over the weekend, a short video circulated widely on social media of an unidentified person at a New York City march during Pride festivities saying, we're coming for your children.
		Lie.
	It was a group of people.
	There's a video of it.
	You can watch it.
	This is narrative control.
	They're panicking.
	In the 21-second clip circulated by a right-wing web streamer channel, dozens of people marched in the streets and are clearly heard chanting, we're here, we're queer, we're not going shopping.
	But one voice that is loud in the crowd, it's not clear whose, or whether the speaker was a member of the LGBTQ community, is heard saying at least twice, we're coming for your children.
	In fact, you can clearly tell it's multiple people, and you can see their mouths moving saying that they're coming for your children.
	But hold on there a minute.
	Hold on there a minute, NBC News.
	You can't have it both ways.
	How are you saying it's just one person and we don't even know that person is?
	Also, it's a long-standing chant and they all say it all the time.
	Which is it?
	Seriously, if activists are telling you outright, and you published this, that the chant has been used for years at Pride events, why then downplay it and try and claim it's just but one person who is saying it?
	This is the lie.
	It's the game they play, and the funny thing is, it's just oh so obvious.
	Here's the video.
	Drag Marchers chant, we're here, we're queer, we're coming for your children.
	I'm going to, I have to blur it because there is, I wouldn't call it nudity, like it's a
	woman with pasties. So I'll just do a light blur, but I don't think it's appropriate
	just to play out right. But let me play for you the audio.
	You can clearly tell that it was said more than once and by more than one person.
	The first thing you hear, it does sound like one loud person saying it.
	There's one loud voice that sounds male, followed by the entire group chanting it.
	That's just it.
	It's very obvious they are chanting it.
	So let me just stress this point.
	You cannot claim that it was just one person in the crowd, we don't even know who they are, but then also claim actually activists admit they do chant this.
	To conservative pundits, activists, and lawmakers, the video confirmed the allegations they've levied in recent years.
	The LGBTQ community is grooming children.
	We don't need that to confirm it.
	We have the books.
	We have books like this.
	This book is gay.
	This book on Amazon is listed as being for 14 to 17 year olds.
	In it, you actually have at one part of the book, I don't even want to say this.
	Let me just say, they provide context and understanding around consuming feces.
	In the book.
	Why would a 14 to 17 year old need to do that?
	I have to tell you, Anyone who argues that the consumption of feces is about gay sex, it's not correct.
	I believe it's actually considered a mental disorder to consume human feces, as it can kill you.
	You can die from this.
	But hey, talk to a doctor about that stuff.
	It's in the book.
	To be fair, the book's not telling anyone to do it, as far as I understand.
	It's just describing the practice.
	Helping you understand it.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That can kill you!
		Okay, whatever, whatever.
		Why was this book given to middle schoolers?
		Because the teacher in question was grooming these kids.
		Why is the book providing instruction to minors?
		Amazon says the book is for 14 to 17 year olds.
		The book explicitly says these adult anonymous sex apps are for 18 up only.
		Here's how you use them.
		Why does the writer of the book think it appropriate to provide instruction to minors on how to use adult sex apps?
		It's overt grooming, okay?
		There's no context, none, where that is not grooming.
		An adult going to a child and saying, here's how you can secretly meet adults for, you know what I'm talking about, that is grooming.
		Anybody who defends that is an advocate for grooming and pedophilia.
		And boy, are they mad about it.
		Because they're all defending it.
		We have a leftist liberal on the show, and she outright says, I'm against censorship, so, you know, I think it's a good book.
		Really?
		There's no defending it.
		The book tells minors to do it.
		It explains it is for adults only.
		And it's listed online as 14 to 17 years old.
		There's no question.
		So when?
		They're marching in the streets, saying they're coming for your children?
unidentified		Hmm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Probably.
		Here's a story from Standing for Freedom.
		I'm not familiar with this website, but it's immaterial.
		Gay men's choir performs song with the lyrics, we're coming for your children.
		The San Francisco gay men's chorus posted a YouTube video where the choir sings, we're coming for your children.
		They say things in the song that are like, I just, I would say egregiously offensive.
		Now look, in the song from several years ago, they say, we'll convert your children, we'll make them tolerant and fair.
		I don't see anything wrong with saying that.
		They say, just like you were worried, they'll change their group of friends.
		Now that's a problem.
		You won't approve of where they go at night.
		Serious problem.
		You'll be disgusted when they start learning things online that you kept far from their sight.
		Now they're talking about grooming your kids.
		It's one thing to say, you know, we want your kids to be tolerant and fair.
		To a certain degree, that's, yeah, fairness is good, tolerance is good.
		Tolerance is tolerable, right?
		Live and let live.
		But when you start saying that you will meet their kids at night, they're children.
		Children does not mean adult.
		Children does not mean 18 and up.
		They're literally talking about sending information to minors who are under the protection of a guardian that you will not approve of.
		They're talking about your children, minors, going out at night when you forbid it and meeting with people and going on websites you forbid.
		This is creepy.
		Very, very creepy.
		It is literally grooming for them to target your children.
		Children does not mean 18 up.
		Of course, don't get me wrong.
		There's some context where children could mean that.
		If you're talking to an adult couple who's in their 60s, and you mention, like, do you have any children?
		And they say, I do.
		They're 40, you know, 30 and 40 years old now.
		Okay, in that context.
		But this is not what they're talking about when they say they're coming for your children.
		They're talking about grade school kids.
		Here we go.
		You want more?
		Here's what NBC News has to add.
		They say, but to Brian Griffin, Brian Griffin from Family Guy, no, I'm kidding, the original organizer of the NYC drag march, it's that the worst they heard, if that's the worst they heard, it's only because he wasn't there this year.
		Really?
		Because apparently, I can't, I can't read what he said.
		Griffin said he chanted obscene things in the past, threatening death, threatening to kill, he has threatened to kill political officials, He has joked about pubic hair and sex toys during marches.
		People at the drag march regularly sing God is a lesbian.
		It's all just words.
		It's all presented to fulfill their worst stereotypes of us.
		So, you're trying to be the worst possible thing?
		Okay, yeah, you're grooming kids.
		You admit it.
		They admit it.
		The Coming For Your Children chant has been used for years at Pride events, according to longtime March attendees and gay rights activists, who said it's one of the many provocative expressions used to regain control of slurs.
		What?
		Regain control by admitting you're doing it?
		That's exactly it.
		By coming out and proudly announcing they are coming for your kids, it's not a slur anymore, it's the truth.
		That's what it means to regain control, to assert it.
		You get it?
		But I love this.
		I love how they simultaneously at NBC News argue, no one was saying it, it was just one guy.
		Who was that guy even?
		But also, yes, they all admit they are saying it.
		Conservative politicians and pundits have increasingly referred to advocates for LGBTQ rights as groomers, associating people who oppose laws that restrict drag performances or classroom discussions of gender identity with pedophiles.
		See, this is how they try and lie.
		If you engage in a sex performance and bring children, you're grooming them.
		If you present books that show adult activities, sexual activities, to children, you are grooming them.
	Thank you, have a nice day.
	NBC News, for some reason, is desperate to try and downplay that they're doing it.
	And this is the funny thing.
	They try to hide behind defamation per se.
	It is true, my friends, that if you come out in the public and accuse someone of having a disease, of being a criminal, or of being a pedophile, it is so egregious, you don't need the actual malice standard.
	There's defamation and defamation per se.
	Defamation per se.
	Defamation would work like this.
	Someone accuses someone of doing a bad thing, and it is false.
	You say, person X once kicked a dog.
	And then you need an actual malice standard to prove that, like, actually saying you kick a dog could probably, would probably fall under defamation per se.
	But if you said, like, person attended a neo-Nazi rally, that's a statement of fact.
	You try and sue over that and they'll be like, actual malice, anti-SLAPP, it's very hard to sue over these things.
	Defamation, per se, is much easier.
	Accusing someone of being a pedophile, for instance, typically falls under defamation, per se.
	However, it does not, when an individual actually engages in said behavior, then it becomes opinion, which would just be standard defamation.
	That is to say, if the writer for this NBC News article outright says that it is normal to chant you're coming for people's children, well then there are questions about whether or not this person has certain predilections.
	I wouldn't go so far as to say they're a pedophile.
	But I will say this.
	Right now, the left is outraged.
	They're so angry with me.
	Because we had an individual on the show last week who defended providing children books which instruct them on meeting with adults to have sex.
	I said, at the very least, you're a pedophile advocate.
	But I have to wonder, if you have certain predilections, if you're trying to teach children how to meet with adults for sex.
	That is not defamation per se, because you publicly stated you support that thing.
	Okay, if you say that, my opinion will be that you must have some predilection for this.
	And so now you've got people saying, they should sue Tim Pool for saying this.
	How could you say this?
	I would love to see that in court.
	Well, why did I say it?
	Because they came on my show and said it was, and they defended providing instruction to children to meet with adults for sex.
	I said, that's wrong.
	That should not be allowed.
	And they said they disagreed with me.
	And I said, I only, I can only assume it's because they, they prefer the company of children.
	Trying to be light there, huh?
	They're child abusers.
	They got really mad about it.
	You can't, you can't sue over that, okay?
	The point of defamation per se is that if someone is in the public and they're like, um, a mayor, and the mayor is saying, we're going to raise taxes, and then someone accuses them of a crime, a disease, or being a pedophile, then they can say, that is way over the line.
	There's no basis for that defamation per se.
	I sue you, sir.
	But you can't sue someone for defamation per se if you're commenting on things they literally said that could give someone the opinion.
	Like, I'll put it this way.
	If someone is coughing and saying they think they may have a sickness, and then you go on your show and be like, I actually think they have this illness.
	That's not defamation per se.
	Like Hillary Clinton and all that stuff.
	They try to play that game.
	It ain't gonna work.
	The problem for these people is that they're publicly coming out and admitting they're saying they're coming for your kids.
	You have no defense in court if you say you're coming for people's kids and then someone accuses you of being a groomer.
	You've confessed to it and they say we're joking.
	Look, you claim it's a joke, but you give these books to kids?
	Sorry.
	Ain't gonna fly.
	If people don't believe you, that's on you.
	I often talk about how I'll make a sarcastic post, and the media will act like it's a real, serious post.
	They do this because it gets them clicks.
	Like, I was talking about DeSantis and the deepfake, and I tweeted those audio tapes of Trump, and this was like a month or two ago, and I was like, all AI generated.
	I was literally making the point in the context of, if we enter the realm of deepfakes, nothing will be real.
	It will all just be, no matter whether it's real or not, people will just accuse it of being fake.
	What happened?
	Some Democrats ran an article arguing that I was literally saying that Trump's audio tapes were fake.
	Okay.
	Well, that's what they'll do.
	They'll hide.
	I can argue they're lying.
	It's false name and effect, but they'll argue he literally said it.
	Well, I literally did say it.
	They're twisting the context, but this is the public opinion.
	Anti-SLAPP laws in many states would stop me from being able to sue them because I may have made a joke and they misinterpreted it.
	Okay.
	If you, leftists, are giving children books on instruction for adult activities and then someone calls you a pedophile, you can't sue them.
	Because it is reasonable to believe you are.
	In that case, I think it's unreasonable to take a tweet from me out of context to smear me.
	Sure.
	Here's the difference.
	I don't use AI to make fake news.
	I made a sarcastic post to make a point.
	Leftists do give children books explaining adult activities, then publicly state they're coming for your children, and then desperately try to act like it's not a big deal.
	You see the difference?
	Yeah.
	They're actually coming for your children.
	It's really scary to us, said Fussy Lomane, a drag performer.
	It doesn't represent everybody.
	It represents that individual.
	I thought it was a dumb idea, and I started chanting on top of it with alternate verses.
	It wasn't one person.
	You can see the people moving their mouths.
	Multiple people are chanting it.
	So what's the argument?
	That a provocateur chanted it?
	Or, as you've already published NBC News, you always say these things.
	Interesting to say the least.
	They're trying to have it both ways.
	Well, you can't.
	Sorry.
	We won't tolerate harm towards any child and advocate for the protection and encouragement of every child to be able to live their true, authentic lives, free from fear and persecution, Huckleberry Ken said.
	I think we need internet restrictions on porn.
	I think the idea that websites can just publish this stuff and then say, hey, are you of age?
	Okay, come on in.
	Here's the example I gave.
	If you went out into public and held up a big sign with porn on it or something, you would get in trouble, get arrested.
	If you had an adult bookstore or movie store and a child walked in, you wouldn't just go, hey, wait a minute, are you old enough?
	And the kid say, yes, fine by me.
	That's what they're doing online.
	Maybe we need to consider that if you're operating certain businesses in the public space, internet or otherwise, you need to have an ID check.
	Imagine a kid walked into a bar, and the bartender was like, hey, wait a minute, you look a little young, are you old enough?
	The kid goes, yep.
	He goes, alright, come on in, have a drink.
	We don't do that.
	Why online?
	So yeah, I think we gotta have some restrictions on that.
	Now as for free speech, we have the worst of both worlds right now.
	Online, they'll censor your political opinions and allow porn.
	In public, you're allowed to have political opinions and not show porn.
	Maybe we've got to fix this.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
	Oh boy, I hope you're ready for the fight of the century.
	This will be probably the greatest MMA match ever.
	Recorded history.
	Elon Musk vs. Mark Zuckerberg.
	Apparently it's on.
	Although Elon Musk's mom is not too happy about it.
	Ladies and gentlemen, the image on your screen, for those watching on YouTube, is Elon Musk pinning Lex Fridman.
	That's right.
	Elon showed up to the mat and beat the cr- No, I'm just kidding.
	He was doing a training session with Lex Fridman.
	And Fridman also posted a training video with Mark Zuckerberg.
	Now, I have questions.
	I have questions, my friends.
	There's no video, my understanding of Elon Musk fighting with Fridman, but there is video of Zuckerberg.
	Zuckerberg actually is training in jiu-jitsu.
	So I have to wonder, was Elon actually, you know, was he actually sparring with Lex Fridman or was it a very, very preliminary, basic Kind of kind of training session in that Mark Zuckerberg's got some moves you can film because he's actually been in some competitions and Elon Musk I'm gonna lean towards probably does not so he's probably he probably did a few basic moves as part of the training I'm not so convinced that there was more action as it were The question is who's gonna win the fight.
	I Don't know technique versus size Elon Musk is a bigger dude weighs a lot more Mark Zuckerberg's a smaller dude, but he's got some more training and It's gonna be hard to know for sure.
	Here's the story from the Daily Mail.
	It's on!
	Elon Musk shows off his throw-down technique in epic sparring session with Lex Fridman, who lauded his strength and power as Twitter CEO gears up for $1 billion Vegas cage fight with rival Mark Zuckerberg.
	Dude.
	Elon.
	Amazing.
	Mark, incredible.
	This will be the coolest thing either of them, well, this will be the coolest thing Mark Zuckerberg ever does.
	Elon Musk is building a starship, so it's kind of hard to compete with because that's pretty cool too.
	But in terms of engaging in the cultural space, this is the coolest thing ever.
	I'm super excited for this.
	Yeah, let's read.
	Elon Musk has shown off his sparring skills during an epic training session with Lex Fridman as he gears up for a $1 billion Vegas cage fight with rival Mark Zuckerberg.
	Tesla and SpaceX founder Musk, 51, demonstrated strength, power, and skill in fighting abilities, according to Fridman, 39, who holds a black belt in jiu-jitsu.
	Podcaster Fridman shared photos of the training session on Tuesday, with Musk pinning him to the ground ahead of his blockbuster fight against the Facebook founder.
	Fridman has not taken sides, however, having also trained with Zuckerberg in a video posted online.
	I'm pretty sure, so in the video, Zuckerberg actually has some moves.
	I don't think he posted any videos of Elon Musk, because I didn't find him.
	Fridman tweeted that after his training session with Musk on Tuesday, I did an impromptu training session with Elon Musk for a few hours yesterday.
	I'm extremely impressed with his strength, power, and skill on the feet and on the ground.
	And I gotta say too, the photos, I'm actually fairly impressed as well.
	Elon actually doesn't look that bad.
	He's 51.
	He doesn't seem like a very physical guy, but this is actually, it's just a photo, but you can see there's some tension going on.
	They actually are pulling off some moves, so fairly impressed, fairly impressed.
	That being said, I kind of lean towards Zuckerberg in terms of the skill department, but size doesn't matter.
	Let's read more.
	It was epic.
	It's really inspiring to see Elon Musk and Mark doing martial arts, but I think the world is served far better if they train martial arts but not fight in the cage.
	That said, as Elon says the most entertaining outcome is the most likely, I'm there for them no matter what.
	Musk replied to Fridman saying, that was fun.
	Meanwhile, Zuckerberg is yet to respond to the latest developments on social media.
	The prospect of a scrap between two of the world's most famous tech entrepreneurs arose last week, when Musk challenged Zuckerberg to a cage fight in response to speculation that Facebook parent company Meta was planning to launch a Twitter rival.
	Zuckerberg responded via Instagram, accepting the challenge.
	He said, send location.
	With the pair now rumored to be discussing the finer points of a potential bout in Las Vegas with Ultimate Fighting Championship president Dana White.
	Oh man, I don't know.
	I think we gotta be there.
	How do we do this?
	Fridman previously tweeted a jiu-jitsu match between Zuck and Elon would definitely be a fun plot twist in the simulation.
	I'm all for it.
	To which Musk's mother replied, don't encourage this match.
	I got questions.
	I got questions.
	Yo, these are two billionaire CEOs.
	Okay?
	If either of them get hurt, hit their head or something, that's very, very bad for the shareholders and their companies.
	But what are you gonna do?
	He said, I did an impromptu training session with Elon Musk for a few hours yesterday.
	I'm extremely impressed with his strength, power, and skill on the feet and on the ground.
	It was epic.
	Really inspiring.
	Okay, so we read all that already.
	Look at this one.
	Looks like Elon Musk is doing some kind of throw.
	I don't know the names of these moves.
	I'm not a fighter.
	He shared photos of their training session with Musk pinning him on the ground ahead of his blockbuster fight.
	Now take a look at this.
	This is wrong, Daily Mail.
	It's fake news.
	It says Zuckerberg v. Musk.
	Alright, the ages are correct.
	It says 39 to 51.
	Zuckerberg, 5'7", Elon Musk, 5'11".
	Fake news, fake news, fake news.
	You can just look at photographs of Elon Musk to know that he's not 5'11".
	Elon Musk's height, according to CelebHeights.com, is 6'1 1⁄2".
	Elon Musk has said before, 6'2", or 6'1 1⁄2".
	When you look at photos of Elon, He doesn't look 5'11", okay?
	I could be wrong, but he doesn't look 5'11", alright?
	I'm like, I'm just about 5'11", and I'm pretty sure Elon Musk is taller than me.
	It is funny too, we have a lot of guests on the show who are relatively tall, and it's like, I did a picture with Vosh and Charlie Kirk, and dude, they're both like 6'3 and 6'5", okay?
	And so I look very small, it's kind of funny.
	And then people, I guess, think that because of the way the cameras are above the seats, because they have to be, otherwise you'd see everyone's heads.
	And so I guess that makes it look like people, it creates a perception of people being shorter than they are.
	And then I post a skate video and they're like, oh, Tim's actually a lot taller than that.
	Yeah, so I'm like, Elon Musk is taller than me.
	I'm pretty sure.
	I don't think he's 5'11".
	Look at this one.
	Weight.
	154 pounds for Zuckerberg and 178 for Musk.
	No way, dude!
	Look at this.
	You think that's 174 right there for Musk?
	I don't buy it.
	That woman's in high heels.
	I don't buy it.
	Sorry, I don't buy it.
	Net worth.
	103 billion to Elon's 236 billion.
	Okay, fair point.
	American and South African.
	Met a Twitter.
	Children, 3 and 9.
	Because that matters for the fight, apparently.
	Companies owned, 1 and 7.
	Now, hold on there a minute.
	That's not true.
	Companies owned?
	I saw that number and I was like, dude, they probably both own thousands of companies.
	Like, I mean it.
	Every little thing you do, they're creating some kind of LLC to house some IP or to run some specific element.
	So, 1 and 7?
	Nah.
	This is interesting.
	They say Zuckerberg is trained in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu and Musk is karate, taekwondo, and judo.
	What?
	Elon Musk is trained in karate, taekwondo, and judo?
	Maybe.
	Maybe we underestimated Elon Musk.
	They gave him the exams.
	I love this picture.
	Maybe he's got more training than we realize.
	Errol Musk, 77, said, The thing is, if this crazy fight does go ahead, if Elon beats this guy, Elon will be called a bully.
	Being so much heavier and taller, well, if he loses, the humiliation would be totaled.
	No way, dude.
	Quote, It's a no-win situation for Elon.
	I think Elon has got himself into a difficult situation as a result of high school behavior they both have, he told The Sun.
	No.
	They're both having a laugh.
	I don't see this as very serious.
	I think they're probably on the phone with each other laughing about how fun it's going to be.
	They're probably going to go easy on each other.
	It will be a fun match.
	It will be a big spectacle.
	It'll raise a lot of money.
	However they want to do it.
	Maybe charity.
	It'll make some people rich.
	I think it's the coolest thing we've seen in a very, very long time.
	And a shout out to Zuckerberg and Elon.
	This is just awesome.
	It's just flat-out awesome.
	I hope no one is seriously injured in this.
	I think it'll be a fun, friendly match.
	I think it is very cool.
	I think it is humanizing.
	And I think they're both very, very awesome for entertaining this.
	It's gonna be epic.
	Media, social media tech titans!
	Duke it out in the ring!
	It's gonna be fun!
	Dude, I hope it happens.
	We'll have a party.
	We'll get up the pay-per-view, however they want to do it.
	We'll have pizzas and wings.
	It will be amazing!
	Now!
	Depending on when they want to do it.
	If they do it on a weekend, I hope that we can actually go down there and do some special content or something.
	That would be epic.
	Check this out.
	They say Musk has trained in Kyokushin Karate, Taekwondo, Judo, and Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu briefly throughout his life.
	He revealed on the Joe Rogan Podcast.
	And he shared a photo of himself fighting a sumo wrestler in the past.
	So we underestimated him.
	Now look at this video.
	This is Zuckerberg training with Lex Fridman.
	You can see that he's got some training.
	You know, they didn't show any videos of Elon.
	But here's Elon Musk sumo fighting.
	So Elon Musk has done some fighting.
	Hey, admittedly more than me.
	Now, I can come out here and say, I've done some, I've done hostile environment conflict training, which included very little combat scenario stuff.
	So it's like 0.1%.
	He was talking about real world conflict, engaging someone, basic self-defense.
	But I've actually taken Taekwondo and Kung Fu and Capoeira.
	Brazilian dance fighting.
	I will never pretend or post a photo claiming I'm a fighter.
	Just not gonna happen.
	The fact that I've taken some classes, you know, my point is this.
	Elon Musk doing some kind of sumo thing may have just been a one-time-for-fun thing.
	I've done a handful of capoeira classes.
	I've done a handful of kung fu classes.
	I actually did.
	I actually did basic kung fu.
	I think Kung Fu.
	It's been a long time.
	Is it Kung Fu?
	Is that what it is?
	I don't know.
	It was weapon and physical combat training.
	It was for a couple months, periodically, like once or twice a week.
	Nothing super serious, and it was like 20 years ago.
	Or no, it was about almost 20 years ago.
	I am not saying this to make it seem like I know how to fight.
	I'm saying it for the opposite.
	I don't know how to fight.
	I'm not a fighter.
	Having done some of these things does not mean anything.
	So Elon Musk coming out and being like, oh, I've done these things in the past.
	I'm not convinced.
	Okay?
	That's what I'm saying.
	I'm sure most of you, when you were a kid, you did some Taekwondo and you can claim that.
	Come on.
	Does not mean you have any real skills.
	This is gonna be fun.
	Okay?
	This is gonna be fun.
unidentified		Alright.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		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 y'all then.
		It's only a matter of time.
		What we refer to as the Bud Light Effect will hit everything.
		YouTube, for the longest time, has been censoring people, and they've had enough.
		We now have two big stories.
		Jeremy Hambly of The Quartering, with millions of followers, has announced that he is going to be leaving YouTube.
		Not completely, but he's going to make the home for his new show on Rumble.
		We also have this story as well from TimCast.com.
		Comedian Tim Dillon will move podcast to Twitter and Rumble after YouTube age restricts his show.
		Two prominent, high-profile individuals announcing their departure from YouTube.
		Now, to clarify, I do believe you'll still be able to find their content on YouTube, but the home for their content will be elsewhere, because YouTube's gone insane.
		YouTube recently announced that you will be allowed to now deny the 2020 election.
		I think the people working at YouTube are psychotic, incompetent, and A combination of evil mixed in there.
		I do think there are many good people at YouTube, and I think they do try very, very hard.
		I still think YouTube is a core piece of the culture war battleground that I don't want to cede, but, my friends, this video?
		It's on Rumble, too.
		We post these things in more than one place.
		These videos appear in other places.
		Why?
		YouTube is unreliable, censorious, and they don't give you an actual breakdown of what you can or can't do.
		It's all vague and nebulous.
		So why invest your business on YouTube?
		We don't.
		Over at TimCast.com, we use Rumble infrastructure.
		Why?
		Well, they're more reliable.
		Now, don't get me wrong.
		We've had some hiccups.
		Just the other night, we were doing a members-only show for Timcast IRL, and there was some lag on Rumble's end.
		But you know what?
		It's worth it.
		It is.
		Even with some stuttering, Rumble is still more reliable, because I'll tell you this.
		They're investing, they're growing, they're doing right by people, they're allowing people to speak their minds and their opinions, and they deserve to grow and win because YouTube is doing the opposite.
		But I'll be real.
		Even if we have these hiccups, guys, YouTube has the same problems and worse.
		Sometimes the videos don't even load properly.
		I'll upload it, have to delete it, and re-upload it.
		Sometimes when we go live, people will be like, uh-oh, the stream's going down, and our internet is perfect.
		YouTube has all of those problems and more.
		We can't say a certain name of some guy?
		They never made that rule!
		Look, there was a period where a CIA agent was blowing the whistle, and if you said his name, they'd delete the video without warning.
		I think, if that were to happen today, I'd file a lawsuit so quick.
		But back then, you know, less experienced.
		There's no rule against saying the name of a person who's in the news.
		Yet that's what YouTube does, because people at YouTube, they're evil.
		Not all of them.
		I'll put it this way.
		There are many people at YouTube who are evil.
		No question.
		Here's the story.
		It's time Jeremy Hambly of the Quartering to leave YouTube while streaming his show on Rumble.
		He says, I lost my checkmark so I could make the biggest announcement of my 10-year online career.
		On Tuesday, Hambly released a YouTube video entitled, YouTube is no longer my home.
		I've been somebody who has supported, who has championed, who has backed free speech.
		I've been outspoken against platforms that censor, platforms that de-boost, and blacklist.
		Hambly said the practice was used by nearly all social media companies as far back as 2018.
		That's a fact.
		Adding, there was light at the end of the tunnel following Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter.
		There are more and more places that are no longer a place for just the outcasts.
	A very real option, a very real home for people that maybe have their own opinions that are not backed by the mainstream.
	One thing that's been ingrained in me since the beginning is my support of NewTek.
	He says the number one reason why NewTek fails is because the groups of people, they fail to reach critical mass.
	You can't just walk away from everything, can you?
	You have to take the plunge.
	People just have to put their foot down sometimes.
	Well, Tim Dillon got censored.
	He got age-restricted.
	blacklisting, shadowbanning, they still view NewTek as the redheaded stepchild.
	It's just a place for Alex Jones to go.
	Big Media does not, in my opinion, want NewTek to succeed.
	The Twitter files told us all what we needed to know.
	You can't just walk away from everything, can you?
	You have to take the plunge.
	People just have to put their foot down sometimes.
	Well, Tim Dillon got censored.
	He got age-restricted.
	That's why he's moving over.
	Let me read this for you, and then I'll talk to you about my views on how we handle this.
	I don't comp... I'm middle of the road.
	I agree a lot with what Jeremy Hambly is saying, and I think it's a good move on his part, and we'll talk about it first.
	Here's the other major personality jumping ship.
	Dylan revealed his plan after Saturday's episode titled Enjoy the Can was age-restricted by YouTube, requiring users to sign in to verify their age before viewing the comedian's content.
	The episode featured the comedian discussing the recent Ocean Gate Titan submarine which imploded last week, killing five people on board.
	The comedian said YouTube's move to age-restrict the episode on Sunday was dumb.
	Three episodes of his show have been age-restricted.
	After YouTube has made people sign in to watch the show for the third time, I've decided to start uploading the complete podcast to Twitter and Rumble as well.
	I don't think YouTube is the future for comedy.
	I don't think YouTube is the future at all.
	I think YouTube is destroying itself.
	And don't think it's impossible.
	Bud Light was the number one beer brand in the country, now it is not.
	YouTube may fall if they keep this up.
	Why?
	You can't have fun!
	You can't have fun!
	You can't post cra- You can't have fun!
	That's just it.
	Everybody's walking on eggshells.
	Nobody feels that they can actually have honest conversations.
	There's so many psychotic, nonsensical restrictions.
	Like I said, the people at YouTube running this stuff, they're evil.
	They think they're smarter than you.
	They think they're better than you.
	They're trapped in this sewage whirlpool where they're like, we have to do it for the betterment of mankind.
	Nonsense.
	Nonsense.
	There are real challenges when it comes to censorship.
	Don't get me wrong.
	But the idea that YouTube allows certain kinds of really awful content and they ban other kinds of content, it just, it's right there.
	Leftist ideology is promoted, it's mainstream.
	Conservative ideology, libertarian ideology, defective liberals, they're targeted and suppressed.
	Don't play it.
	Now, this is why we put all of our content on a bunch of platforms.
	Not just Rumble, but mostly Rumble.
	These videos that you watch, they're available in other places.
	In fact, it's available as an audio podcast on Apple and Spotify.
	I don't believe the answer to what's going on is to announce... This is where I somewhat disagree with Jeremy.
	I agree with his move.
	And so I think like 99% agree.
	What I mean to say is you don't need a home, right?
	Just put everything everywhere and the best platform succeeds.
	YouTube is easier to monetize for a variety of reasons, but Rumble you can monetize as well.
	Rumble is growing, it's building an audience, they're going after sports, they got skateboarding, they got gaming, they're growing.
	You've got other streaming platforms too.
	We try to be as many places as possible.
	We have no real reason for TimCast IRL to be exclusive to YouTube, but at the same time, we have no real reason for it to do anything else.
	So we have a lot of people say like, why don't you move TimCast IRL live show somewhere else?
	Yeah.
	We could, but there's no real reason to do so.
	Many people have said the only reason they use YouTube is to watch the live show.
	Multi-streaming is complicated, and we do get a marketing boost right now from YouTube, so there's an advantage to being on this platform.
	I'll tell you basically how I see it.
	We put the clips everywhere.
	We put the clips from this show everywhere.
	We put the full show on all podcast platforms.
	The live show is one of the top live shows in the world.
	I'm not saying it's like the biggest, but it is one of the biggest and one of the most superchatted shows.
	And that provides us some opportunity.
	So long as YouTube is the most used platform by the younger generation, we want to be on it.
	Do we trust YouTube?
	Of course we don't.
	And that's why we use other platforms.
	That's why we have TimCast.com.
	And we're also working on some other deals to license shows.
	We'll get to that when the time comes, but these are big things that are coming up in the future.
	YouTube is unreliable.
	My recommendation to anybody starting in the space, whatever content you may be making, Rumble is your opportunity, not YouTube.
	I know a guy.
	Comedian.
	He made edgy comedy.
	YouTube, without warning, deleted his channel of 300,000 subs and he broke no rules.
	You may be familiar with the internet comedian, Mumkey Jones.
	I think he goes by a different name these days.
	But, uh, back in the day...
	He had, I think, 350,000 subs.
	He was making money.
	He broke no rules.
	His account was all monetized.
	And then one day, YouTube deleted his channel without warning.
	I think he should sue.
	I mean, it's been a long time.
	Granted, hindsight being 20-20, I have more experience now.
	Were I to see something like that happen today, I'd probably move towards a lawsuit.
	But he didn't break any rules.
	His comedy was just too edgy.
	Seriously.
	And YouTube said, just get rid of it.
	You could dedicate your time and energy to building a platform, to building your show, and YouTube would nuke it outright without warning.
	Rumble could too, but I don't see reason for them to do so right now because they're starting to win the fight.
	They're gaining more and more creators, but not just that.
	Gaming, skateboarding, comedy, People are opting to go to Rumble.
	Videos there are starting to rival viewership on YouTube.
	If you are a new creator, there's no incentive.
	It is difficult to start on YouTube, they gatekeep, and they could ban you in a moment.
	So why use them?
	I gotta be honest.
	In 10 years, YouTube may just be like cable TV.
	They will destroy themselves.
	And you know what?
	If that's the game they want to play, so be it.
	We'll put our content on a bunch of different platforms.
	We're banned from TikTok, by the way.
	They don't like our ideas.
	How about that?
	But you get my point.
	I think it's important to use YouTube for the time being, but we do put all our clips elsewhere.
	YouTube, whatever, grind yourself to dust.
	See if I care.
	We are all finding ways to support our businesses outside of your ecosystem.
	Welcome to capitalism.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up in a few minutes.
	Stick around and I'll see you all shortly.
	Marco Rubio claims he's heard shocking firsthand accounts of UFOs from top Pentagon officials who claim the U.S.
	owns crashed non-human craft and is working on reverse engineering their technology.
	Whenever I hear non-human, it sounds like some kind of weasel word, and I'm imagining, like, they found a beaver riding on a log, and they were like, look, a non-human craft!
	And then they're like, how did the beaver do it?
	And the reverse engineering is just, like, trying to figure out how the beaver knocked the log into the river and then got on top of it.
	You know, you can describe things in certain ways to make it sound more interesting than it really is.
	Non-human craft.
	Oh, he's being honest.
	If they said extraterrestrial or non-terrestrial, that might mean a bit more to me.
	But okay, okay, UFO means flying object, so we're not talking about a beaver riding a log down a river.
	I'm just saying.
	I bring that up to say the language they use could be intentionally misleading because they want you to think it's aliens when in fact non-human craft could mean something totally nonsensical.
	But anyway, let's not dash your hopes and dreams just yet.
	Let's read the story and entertain the idea that perhaps aliens really are out there.
	More whistleblowers in the Pentagon have come forward with first-hand knowledge of secret UFO crash retrieval programs Marco Rubio has revealed.
	The Republican Florida Senator said officials with very high clearances who have occupied high positions within our government have come forward with first-hand knowledge or first-hand claims of top-secret government programs.
	Ex-Air Force officer David Grush made worldwide news earlier this month when he claimed alien craft and bodies had been recovered and back-engineered by U.S.
	officials.
	You know, I gotta be honest, I don't believe it.
	They're always trying to distract from something.
	Grush noted that these beings are cautiously described as non-human intelligences by insiders within these highly classified programs because even experts can't say for sure where these beings really come from.
	Oh, I get it.
	Interdimensional?
	Extraterrestrial?
	Alien planets?
	Or maybe underground?
	Senator Rubio said that some witnesses who spoke with the Senate Intelligence Committee, where Rubio is vice chairman, were likely some of the same individuals referenced by Grush.
	You got some of these videos here.
	A lot of these people came to us even before these protections were in the law for whistleblowers to come forward, Rubio told NewsNation Monday.
	Grush, an Air Force veteran who went on to post at both the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency and the NRO, told the Inspector General that he had faced illegal retaliation for his inquiries into these same highly classified UFO programs.
	I don't believe it!
	I don't believe it.
	These stories always come out when there's some damning controversy around Joe Biden.
	It's like, evidence emerges that Joe Biden was kicking dogs, and then they're like, oh, but UFOs.
	And then everyone goes and runs to the UFO story.
	For their part, the Inspector General described Gersh's complaint as credible and urgent in July 2022, forwarding the filing to the U.S.
	Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines and Rubio's own Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, among others.
	Senator Rubio, who is vice chair of the Senate's Intelligence Committee, emphasized that there have been similar credible threats to the committee's other unnamed witnesses, their livelihoods and their lives.
	I'm not trying to be evasive, Rubio said, but I am trying to be protective of these people.
	Some of these people still work in the government, and frankly, a lot of them are very fearful.
	Fearful of their jobs, fearful of their clearances, fearful of their career, and some, frankly, are fearful of harm coming to them.
	I can understand that.
	Maybe it's true.
	Maybe it's a reality.
	Rubio's comments illustrate the need for Congress's newly created UFO whistleblower protections, which were enacted last year through a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.
	But the Senator's comments also help explain the bold recent moves by the Senate Intelligence Committee.
	Last week, the committee unanimously adopted a provision to cut off all federal funding to any secret UFO reverse engineering program, whether conducted by the U.S.
	government or hidden away in the private sector via a defense contractor.
	The Intel Committee chose their words carefully, broadly targeting any reverse engineering programs involving an identified craft of non-Earth or exotic origin.
	Now, hold on there a minute.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Why do that?
		Why cut off funding to these programs?
		Seriously.
		If you want to know about them, I get it.
		If Congress isn't being given this information, they should be.
		But don't we want to reverse engineer exotic, non-Earth aircraft or vehicles?
		We should be doing that.
		I suppose the argument is, this bill is intended to force them out into the open to address the issue.
		The Intel Committee chose their words carefully.
		Despite the shocking directness of these legislative moves, Rubio was more circumspect about the complete accuracy of these high-level whistleblowers and their claims.
		I don't find them either not credible or credible, Senator Rubio told NewsNation.
		Washington correspondent Joe Khalil.
		Understand, some of these claims are things that are beyond the realm of what any of us has ever dealt with.
		Very interesting.
		They say, earlier this June, AARO director Sean Kirkpatrick played a 2022 military UFO video taken by an MQ-9 Reaper drone in the Middle East for NASA's own UFO advisory panel.
		We see these orbs all over the world, and we see these making very interesting apparent maneuvers.
		I'm not super, uh, convinced.
		An orb flies by, and you can see on camera they filmed that orb.
		The orb can be a quadrotor.
		Seriously.
		You could take a drone, like a quadcopter that you see it best by, and you can put a sphere around it, a cage sphere, air can still pass through, it may inhibit its ability to move as well, but then you'll have an orb floating around and flying around.
		The thing is, depending on how you design the outer casing, you won't be able to tell the pitch, the roll, or the yaw of the object, so it'll just be moving around seemingly by some unperceivable means.
		Look at it this way.
		Let's say you have the quadcopter.
		Here's my hand.
		If it goes like this, it'll move left.
		If it goes like this, it'll move right.
		If it goes like this, if it pitches forward, it'll move forward.
		If you put an orb around it, that does not inhibit airflow, when it pitches forward, you won't be able to tell.
		All you'll see is the orb moving around, even though it is actually pitching left and right.
		When I see these things, they call them UAPs or UFO, my first response is, it's probably just some very basic military surveillance tech.
		I'm not impressed by it.
		Yeah, the orb flies by.
		It could be anything.
		It could just be a quad-rotor drone.
		And they can move very, very quickly, and if they're big enough, they can move, zip, zip, zip, and fly around.
		Have you ever seen people fly those helicopters?
		The remote-control helicopters?
		They can, like, zip, zip, zip, like, move around like crazy?
		Actually, let me pull up a video.
		Because this one, I think, really does debunk a lot of this.
		If I can find the video of it.
		RC Nitro Stunt Helicopters.
		Because people get seriously hurt by this stuff, too.
		I think, I think this might be one of these videos.
		I'm not entirely sure.
		I just grabbed a random video.
		And, uh, let's just play and see what we get.
		So this is, uh, RC Nitro Stunt Helicopter.
		Let me turn that down.
		They have these videos.
		Look at that.
		Okay, for those that are just watching, it's zipping straight up, straight down, stopping, holding ground.
		These are crazy.
		These are cool things.
		Let's, uh, let's zoom forward.
		For those that can't see it, it's flying upside down, it's stopping, changing, and going like zigzag, freezing in midair, flipping in the other direction.
		If you took this tech and applied it to the military, you could make it a hundred times more powerful.
		And people would be like, whoa, what is this weird thing we're seeing?
		It's like, bro, it's a remote control helicopter.
		It's not that big a deal.
		It's kind of crazy they fly like this though.
		Now apply an AI flight algorithm to one of these objects.
		This is cool to watch, to be completely honest.
	Apply an AI to these things, and it's gonna be zipping around like crazy, and you're gonna have people be like, I saw this weird sphere and it, like, shot forward, stopped immediately, then shot straight up into the air.
	We've never seen anything like it.
	And it's like, dude, what are you talking about?
	I saw a kid fly that thing in the park the other day.
	Now, these things are dangerous.
	Those blades, they can seriously hurt you, so make sure you got a professional when you're flying those things.
	But they're like toys.
unidentified		They're like toys.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Come on.
		Now, if you're talking about an actual craft, non-human craft, let's play that game.
		They say it was a non-human craft.
		Oh, what does that mean?
		That helicopter was a non-human craft, meaning a human can't fly in it.
		Get it?
		You gotta be careful how they play these games.
		I think they may just be trying to distract us for the most part, but who knows?
		Who knows?
		If there really is something going on, we should hear about it.
		We should know about it.
		I do think a lot of the UFO stuff is just gimmicky clickbait manipulations and distraction.
		Most of these people at some point are currently or even currently hold high clearances.
		So you do ask yourself, what incentive would so many people with that kind of qualification have to come forward or to make something up?
		Orders?
		10 people.
		How many people are we really talking about?
		And they say, hey, go to the press and claim you saw this.
		We want to distract people today.
		These are serious people.
		Given the stature of these sources and the volatility of their claims, the Senator called for a mature understanding from his fellow legislators, policymakers, and the general public, saying that he sees a duty to intake the information without any prejudgment or jumping to any conclusions in one direction or another.
		We're trying to gather as much of that information as we can, Rubio said.
		I'll see it.
		I'll believe it when I see it.
		Come out with real evidence, and even then, I gotta be honest, I won't completely believe it.
		You can't just... If they just come out and say it, it's not enough.
		They can show me a video and I'll say, come on.
		Ian talks about something called talking plasma.
		If they point three lasers into a single space, it looks like a physical object.
		And then they can move the lasers around, and it'll make the object look like it's zipping around.
		There are illusions, there are tricks.
		When the aliens land in their ship, walk out, and we can prove they're aliens, I'll believe it.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
		over at YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲