Ray Epps To Be CHARGED Over J6 Says Lawyer, Media COVERING UP Story Now Calls J6 RALLIES And Protest 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
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| 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. | ||
| Right now, if you Google search Ray Epps, you will learn that he is suing Fox News for defamation. | ||
| Strangely, omitted from all of these corporate press articles is the fact that Ray Epps' court document, his lawsuit, says he was informed that he will be criminally charged for his role on January 6th. | ||
| He blames Tucker Carlson specifically For causing defamation and damage which resulted in his prosecution. | ||
| That's really, really fascinating. | ||
| It's an interesting way to say, crimes committed, allegedly, by this man, broadcast on TV, resulted in criminal charges. | ||
| How is that defamation? | ||
| You're literally about to be charged, if anything, including that in your lawsuit, is actually beneficial to Tucker Carlson, because when you say, he lied about me and made these claims and now I'm being criminally charged, like, wow. | ||
| So you're saying the DOJ has no justification and no evidence and no reason to charge you other than they just believe random things said by Tucker Carlson? | ||
| Or how about our justice system requires, at bare minimum, a preponderance of evidence to get a criminal indictment? | ||
| Interesting, to say the least. | ||
| Now, I don't know what they're going to charge him with or how far it'll go. | ||
| Some people say it'll be a slap on the wrist. | ||
| But the news is that Ray Apps, according to his lawyer, is going to be charged. | ||
| Now why is it that all of these leftists and all these liberals, they won't stop defending this guy? | ||
| That's my only question. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Tucker Carlson asked a bunch of questions about whether or not this guy was a federal agent. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know about any of that stuff, man. | |
| All I know is this guy is on camera, I'll play the video for you, telling people to go inside the Capitol over and over again, saying he fears he will be arrested for inciting this, and then is at the front line on January 6th when the barricades are torn down and they rush the Capitol grounds. | ||
| He's right there. | ||
| If for some reason the media keeps defending him. | ||
| My favorite component of the story is that all of a sudden you have these corporate press outlets referring to the insurrection that they call it an insurrection, right? | ||
| As a rally or a protest. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Huh? | |
| You mean after all this time? | ||
| What is going on with this guy? | ||
| Serious question. | ||
| Now, while many people who watch Tucker Carlson believe that he may be a federal agent, I think there's actually a simpler explanation for this. | ||
| Ray Epps is a cooperating witness and informant. | ||
| I don't know that's true. | ||
| What I'm saying is, instead of coming out and claiming that he works for the feds or something, how about, simply put, He was wanted for his role in January 6. | ||
| They easily found him and said, you are going to help us identify and criminally charge other people, otherwise you go to prison, which is a common thing. | ||
| I don't know exactly what happened. | ||
| I don't know why this guy is being defended in the press. | ||
| I don't know why he was being protected for so long or they weren't charging him for so long. | ||
| But I think it's possible he was just informing on people. | ||
| Like a cooperating witness. | ||
| That seems to be likely. | ||
| Because how are they going to go after all of these other people on January 6th, bumbling doddards who walked into a building on the opposite side of the building where there was no violence? | ||
| They're going to charge those people, lock them up. | ||
| But then Ray Epps, the guy who literally tells people to go in and do it, they don't? | ||
| Hmm. | ||
| Let's take a look at, uh, first, the news. | ||
| Ray Epps to be criminally charged for events on January 6th, his attorney says. | ||
| The Daily Wire reports, an attorney for Ray Epps, a man seen on video wearing a Trump hat during the J6 riot, says that his client has been informed by federal law enforcement officials they intend to charge him in connection with the events that day. | ||
| In fact, they stated this in a court document, which is, I'm assuming they genuinely believe this to be true. | ||
| I'm not, you see I'm phrasing it in a very particular way. | ||
| They filed this lawsuit. | ||
| I really don't think they're lying to the court that this thing is happening. | ||
| We don't know if it means he will actually in the long run be charged. | ||
| That's an important distinction. | ||
| Other than they are saying outright they have been informed he will be charged. | ||
| The revelation was made in a lawsuit that Epps filed against Fox News on Wednesday that accused the network and former host Tucker Carlson of defaming him. | ||
| Epps has long been accused by many of being an undercover federal agent who instigated some of the events on that day. | ||
| He is strongly denied being a federal agent. | ||
| And I'm not a big fan of that argument. | ||
| That he was working for the FBI or something or some kind of intelligence agency. | ||
| If, if, and I'm being careful because I don't know. | ||
| If there was anything, it's this guy was one of the most easily identifiable guys on January 6th. | ||
| They go to him first and say, you will provide testimony and evidence against people we bring to you and you will help us get charges. | ||
| That's a common law enforcement tactic. | ||
| Use one guy to get more guys. | ||
| That makes more sense to me, as to why he wasn't being charged. | ||
| And now, it makes sense to me, in that regard, as to why he is being charged. | ||
| Take a look at this, uh, from the lawsuit. | ||
| This is, uh, the document. | ||
| It is, uh, case 1-2-3, CV document, blah blah blah. | ||
| It is, uh, Epps complaint. | ||
| Section 94 reads, finally in May 2023, the Department of Justice notified Epps that it would seek to charge him criminally for events on January 6, 2021, two and a half years later. | ||
| The relentless attacks by Fox and Mr. Carlson and the resulting political pressure likely resulted in the criminal charges. | ||
| I do think it's funny that the idea would be, if you were to believe Epps, He did what he did. | ||
| He's on camera doing it. | ||
| The cops talked to him and said, okay, you're free to go. | ||
| You're the one person probably committing the most egregious crime of all on January 6th, the incitement, but we're letting you go. | ||
| And then because of pressure, you know, I'm imagining Ray Epps sitting at home being like, leave me alone. | ||
| I'm lucky to not have been charged. | ||
| And then Tucker is like, he must be a fed or maybe he might be. | ||
| And then the feds are like, well, I guess now we got to arrest him. | ||
| I think it's funny. | ||
| I refer to Tucker Carlson as Sedition Hunter. | ||
| Because you got these people online that are taking photos and they're scouring the internet trying to find out who all these people are. | ||
| They call themselves Sedition Hunters or whatever. | ||
| But, uh, I'm sorry. | ||
| Occam's Razor suggests otherwise. | ||
| It doesn't really make sense. | ||
| That narrative makes no sense. | ||
| Why would they? | ||
| They've got people who are locked up without charge or trial right now, and it's been two years. | ||
| Two and a half years. | ||
| There are people in jail who have not been charged with any crime. | ||
| Yet, Ray Epps? | ||
| Nah, sorry, something doesn't add up. | ||
| They're going to say, although it is difficult to believe that the DOJ would have pursued this matter if Fox had not focused its lies on Epps, ultimately the criminal charges conclusively demonstrate the falsehood of the story that Mr. Carlson and Fox told about Epps. | ||
| No, it doesn't. | ||
| That is literally not true. | ||
| And all this line has done, it's resulted in more people arguing that this is actually an intelligence... I kid you not. | ||
| Some people are saying that the reason they're charging him is to try and wash away the fact that he is a federal agent, right? | ||
| That's what they're saying. | ||
| I'm not saying that, you see? | ||
| I'm being very careful here. | ||
| The argument is, by charging him, it now may- Oh, of course he's not a federal agent! | ||
| He was arrested! | ||
| But that's literally what they do with agents. | ||
| During Occupy Wall Street. | ||
| Interesting thing happened. | ||
| There was this, uh, dude, who was very active, and one day, he gets arrested. | ||
| And, uh, really funny thing happened. | ||
| I'm leaving the subway, and I see this dude, and I'm like, oh, hey, it's so-and-so. | ||
| And the cops grab him and throw him in a squad car, and then drive off. | ||
| And I went, whoa, what happened? | ||
| I walked to the park and they were like, hey, did you hear so-and-so got arrested? | ||
| And I was like, you heard that already? | ||
| And they're like, yeah. | ||
| And I was like, wow. | ||
| I just watched it happen. | ||
| I figured I was the first person to find out. | ||
| And they were like, what do you mean you just watched it happen? | ||
| It just happened over here. | ||
| And I was like, what do you mean it happened over by the subway station? | ||
| No, it happened over here on the corner by the park. | ||
| And I was like, wait a minute. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| Apparently what had happened was this dude was at the park and the cops came and arrested him and then dropped him off somewhere else around the exact same time I came up and saw the guy and the cops grabbed him again and threw him in the car. | ||
| Really weird. | ||
| Really, really, really, no idea what it was. | ||
| It could be cops trying to sow mistrust or whatever, but the general theory was that he's quote-unquote arrested And then they drive him around the block asking him what's the plan, what are they doing today, where are the protests, how many people are there, have you seen this guy? | ||
| And then once he informs on everybody, they let him out. | ||
| Unfortunately for them, they let him out a few blocks away where I was, so they immediately were like, uh-oh, grab him, throw him back in. | ||
| I don't exactly know what that story was all about. | ||
| The point is, arrests are often used to obfuscate what their real plans are. | ||
| In fact, it's extremely common. | ||
| When they're extracting someone who is undercover, they literally arrest them. | ||
| So, this could be, quite literally, them being like, look man, everybody believes you're a fed. | ||
| The only way we can get past this is if you are charged. | ||
| Don't worry, we'll figure something out, blah blah blah. | ||
| I don't know if that's the case. | ||
| All I can say is the simple Occam's Razor thing. | ||
| They, uh, Ray Epps was not being charged for some reason. | ||
| And due to public pressure, he now is being charged. | ||
| So we'll see. | ||
| But this is a story that is going viral. | ||
| All the corporate press is running with it. | ||
| All the liberals are talking about it. | ||
| And where are the liberals bringing up the dudes being criminally charged? | ||
| Pro-Trump protester Ray Epps files defamation suit against Fox News. | ||
| Interesting. | ||
| Here's Google. | ||
| Take a look at this. | ||
| You search Ray Epps. | ||
| Go to News. | ||
| Here's what you find. | ||
| Ray Epps brings lawsuit against Fox. | ||
| Ray Epps sues Fox News. | ||
| Ray Epps sues Fox News. | ||
| Pro-Trump protester Ray Epps sues Fox News. | ||
| Fox News sued by defamation by two-time Trump voter Ray Epps. | ||
| Trump voter sues. | ||
| Fox News sued. | ||
| Where is the Ray Epps being criminally charged? | ||
| FBI Director Shoots Down Ludicrous January 6th Conspiracy Theory, Ray Epps Preparing to Sue Fox. | ||
| I don't understand. | ||
| When you go into the NBC article, for instance, they don't mention he's being charged. | ||
| Well, I'm fairly certain, unless they've updated since I... No. | ||
| No charges. | ||
| I mean, what is this? | ||
| Maybe... Prosecute. | ||
| Prosecute. | ||
| Nope. | ||
| I haven't seen a single corporate press outlet mention this fact. | ||
| The only outlet that I've seen mention it? | ||
| The Daily Wire. | ||
| Ray Epps to be criminally charged for events on January 6th, attorney says. | ||
| You pull up the court document. | ||
| This is Exhibit A. In the Superior Court of the State of Delaware, James Ray Epps Sr. | ||
| vs. Fox News Network Defendant. | ||
| They go on to mention all this. | ||
| You do a simple search for charges, and you find Section 94. | ||
| In May 23, the Department of Justice notified EPS that it would seek to charge him criminally for events on January 6. | ||
| Alright, let's pull up some video. | ||
| We got Darren Beattie here. | ||
| I want to play this video for you from January 6 so you can understand why this guy should have been criminally charged because maybe some people are not familiar with it. | ||
| Oh, you know, I always gotta fix the audio. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's, uh, let's make sure we get the appropriate audio and play this. | |
| We need to go into the Capitol! | ||
| Into the Capitol! | ||
| What? | ||
|
unidentified
|
No! | |
| Into what? | ||
| No. | ||
| Fed! | ||
| Tomorrow? | ||
| Real quick, I do want to point out, that's Baked Alaska, his name right here in the front, who begins the chant, FED, at this guy for claiming, saying to go in the Capitol, and then Baked Alaska went in the Capitol and got criminally charged for it. | ||
|
unidentified
|
FED! | |
| Tomorrow? | ||
| Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms 4 America with some very exciting news. | ||
| Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms 4 America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you. | ||
| Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person. | ||
| These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour. | ||
| Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson. | ||
| Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets. | ||
| See you on the tour! | ||
| I Don't even like to say it cuz I'll be arrested well | ||
| Let's not say we need we need to go I'll say it all right We need to go in shut the fuck up over to the capital base | ||
| fed pussy You're kidding me! | ||
| We need to go into the Capitol. | ||
| I didn't see that coming. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| The President is not speaking. | ||
| We are going to the Capitol where our problems are. | ||
| It's that direction. | ||
| Please spread the word. | ||
| Alright, no Dave, but one more thing. | ||
| Yeah, so can we go up there? | ||
| No. | ||
| When we go in, leave us here. | ||
| Are we gonna get arrested if we go up there? | ||
| We don't need to get shot. | ||
| You're gonna arrest us all? | ||
| USA! | ||
| So this video here, I'm gonna explain it because some people may just be listening. | ||
| Ray Epps is at the front line of the barricades on the Capitol grounds. | ||
| he's seen whispering into someone's ear, and then a few seconds later, they storm the barricades, | ||
| and Ray Epps is on the front line as they rush up the stairs onto the Capitol grounds. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Let's go. | |
| I don't know who was yelling all that. | ||
| But, uh, interesting to say the least. | ||
| There's no argument from the left as to why this man was not charged. | ||
| I don't see even people posting about it. | ||
| The Krasensteins, for instance, Ed Krasenstein, put up a tweet. | ||
| He's a liberal guy, if you don't know who he is. | ||
| Put up a tweet where he said Epps is suing Fox News. | ||
| And I'm like, no mention of Ray Epps being criminally charged. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Well, the thing is about people who live in a liberal bubble, they don't know. | ||
| Because they're reading NBC, they didn't see this. | ||
| If you read NBC, and you read Daily Wire, you would know that Ray Epps expects to be criminally charged. | ||
| If you actually looked into the legal documents for the lawsuit, you would see that they say they expect him to be criminally charged. | ||
| I like this one from Jack Bezovic. | ||
| Check this out. | ||
| Receipts, WaPo, New York Times, Bloomberg, and Rolling Stone are now referring to January 6th as an insurrection, are now not referring to January 6th as an insurrection or even a riot because they are now defending Ray Epps. | ||
| Well, Jack is wrong in one area. | ||
| Let me read this for you. | ||
| He's mostly correct, though. | ||
| Ray Epps attended the pro-Trump rallies in Washington in January 21. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Oh, I love it! | |
| No longer is it an insurrection. | ||
| The pro-Trump rallies, plural, yeah, there were two. | ||
| There were two formal rallies, one at the Capitol and one at the, what is it called, the Ellipse or whatever? | ||
| So, um, interesting. | ||
| Outside of the Capitol building, there was a permitted rally. | ||
| Permitted. | ||
| Where many people were speaking. | ||
| And because of this, many people were criminally charged because they did not know what was going on. | ||
| Violence was on one side. | ||
| Very bad. | ||
| Those people should be charged. | ||
| And then there were people like Dr. Simone Gold who were giving a speech at a permanent rally at the Capitol. | ||
| And then, well, they went in the building. | ||
| They shouldn't have. | ||
| Amazingly, Alex Jones is on video saying, do not go in. | ||
| Stop trying to warn people. | ||
| Alex Jones knew. | ||
| He knew. | ||
| Take a look at this. | ||
| He attended the pro-Trump rallies in Washington, but was not among the people found to have breached the Capitol building, and has not been charged for his conduct in subsequent weeks. | ||
| Really, really amazing. | ||
| Brandon Strzok, my understanding is, did not enter the building. | ||
| He was criminally charged. | ||
| There are many individuals who did not breach the building who were criminally charged. | ||
| Ray Epps incited people over 24 hours, or however many hours it was, to go in, was at the front line when they breached the barricades to enter the Capitol grounds, and now, they say, he is expected to be charged. | ||
| Washington Post, what's all this about? | ||
| Here's the New York Times. | ||
| What's known about the man, a two-time Trump voter, Ray Epps, is that he took part in demonstrations in Washington that day and the night before. | ||
| Whoa, whoa, whoa! | ||
| Demonstrations! | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Now I understand why people think this guy is a fed. | ||
| Because even when they expect him to be charged, the media all of a sudden wipes out the narrative of insurrection and will say whatever to make sure this guy is not viewed negatively. | ||
| Why? | ||
| If there is anything to be said of Ray Epps, it is that he is the principal figure in the incitement of January 6th. | ||
| And if you want to argue Donald Trump is, fine, let's just call Ray Epps number two. | ||
| The guy on camera telling people explicitly to go in the building. | ||
| That's amazing. | ||
| Oh, but that'll protect him. | ||
| Here we go. | ||
| Bloomberg reports, a former Marine who voted for Donald Trump and joined the January 6, 2021 protests. | ||
| I love it. | ||
| You got to be kidding me. | ||
| What the is this? | ||
| Wow. | ||
| What a world that we live in, I gotta tell ya. | ||
| Rolling Stone. | ||
| In the aftermath of the events of January 6th, Fox News searched for a scapegoat to blame other than Donald Trump or the Republican Party, the suit reads. | ||
| Eventually, they turned on one of their own, telling a fantastical story in which Ray Epps, who was a Trump supporter who participated in the protests on January 6th, full stop. | ||
| This is where I got a correction for Jack and a partial correction. | ||
| Or I'll say straight up correction for us. | ||
| This is a quote from the lawsuit. | ||
| Let me make sure in the aftermath we'll do a quick search to verify. | ||
| Right. | ||
| So here it is right here. | ||
| It's the opening statement, section one of the complaint. | ||
| This is a quote from the lawsuit. | ||
| This is not Rolling Stone saying it was a protest. | ||
| This is Ray Epps' legal team saying it was a protest. | ||
| That I understand. | ||
| You know, like, they're being charged, they're not going to call an insurrection. | ||
| So that's the one thing I think needs correcting, and probably our fault, because last night when we were reading this, we all laughed and said they're calling it a protest, and we went from insurrection to riot to protest very, very quickly, but Jack is correct in it. | ||
| So this is our fault from Tim Kast's IRL. | ||
| Jack probably saw that and then assumed it was a statement from Rolling Stone. | ||
| However, Jack then confirmed through Washington Post, New York Times, and Bloomberg, they're actually now calling it a demonstration, a rally, or a protest. | ||
| That I find truly, truly amazing. | ||
| Does he have any more in this? | ||
| No, just these four. | ||
| He tweets, Don't worry, it will be back to an insurrection when Trump gets charged for | ||
| seditious conspiracy by the Biden D.O.J. before the end of the year. Oh, yeah. | ||
| Yeah. | ||
| It's an interesting world that we live in. | ||
| Greg Price breaks it down very well. | ||
| Ray Epps saying, quote, we need to go in the Capitol. | ||
| FBI, we're arresting everyone who is near the Capitol except the guy who told people to go in the building. | ||
| Yo, Ray Epps is on video at the front line where they breached the barricades. | ||
| Tucker Carlson, why has this guy who told people several times to go into the Capitol not been arrested? | ||
| Media, Tucker Carlson is promoting conspiracy theories. | ||
| Ray Epps, I'm suing Tucker. | ||
| What an interesting, interesting time to be alive. | ||
| As they say, may you live in interesting times. | ||
| I got a conspiracy theory for you. | ||
| I got two of them. | ||
| Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was confronted by Alex Stein. | ||
| Afterwards, he called her a big-booty Latina. | ||
| Afterwards, she lamented the fact that there's no security in the Capitol grounds, and she wondered why it was that some police appeared to be working with protesters. | ||
| Something to that effect on January 6th. | ||
| She's right. | ||
| There are videos of police opening the doors to the Capitol, saying they don't agree with it, but they respect it. | ||
| There's videos of police taking selfies With the people who are walking in the building. | ||
| Certainly these people don't think they're doing anything wrong if the cops are facilitating them walking in the building, right? | ||
| Very weird. | ||
| AOC pointed this out. | ||
| So here's a conspiracy for you. | ||
| Maybe the police were in on it. | ||
| Well, thank you for that one, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. | ||
| I don't exactly know what really happened, but I got another conspiracy for you. | ||
| This one's even better. | ||
| AOC went on Instagram and claimed that, at a certain point on January 6th, there was a knock on her door. | ||
| And she got scared. | ||
| Thinking, oh no. | ||
| Did they find me? | ||
| Oh jeez. | ||
| She went to the bathroom. | ||
| She hid. | ||
| Someone enters the room and goes, where is she? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Where is she? | |
| That's actually how AOC described it. | ||
| And, uh, she feared for her life. | ||
| She thought she was gonna die. | ||
| Turns out it was a cop evacuating the building. | ||
| Here's the best part. | ||
| When she told this story, the immediate reaction from conservatives was, wait a minute, AOC's office is not in the Capitol building. | ||
| The media responded, no, no, there are tunnels that connect the entire complex. | ||
| So AOC must have assumed that they made their way through the tunnels. | ||
| Don't worry, apparently I was the only one at the time who actually tracked the timeline of events for January 6th. | ||
| Turns out, AOC's story, as she described it, took place one hour before the Capitol had been breached. | ||
| So why would she think anybody got into the Capitol? | ||
| That makes no sense. | ||
| Nobody expected this to happen. | ||
| Or did they? | ||
| One of the conspiracy theories, and I'm not suggesting this. | ||
| I'm being a bit facetious. | ||
| One of the conspiracy theories is that this was pre-planned in advance. | ||
| You see Ray Epps telling people to go in. | ||
| They knew there was going to be a breach of the Capitol. | ||
| If AOC knew in advance, her story makes sense. | ||
| If someone went to AOC and says, heads up, the protesters are gonna come in the building, they're gonna let them in, just so you know, her story makes sense. | ||
| This is a simple explanation. | ||
| AOC is a liar, and she was lying for internet drama points. | ||
| But, it's a weird thing to lie about. | ||
| It's weirdly specific. | ||
| It is. | ||
| That someone knocked on her door because what if she wasn't really lying? | ||
| What if she actually knew in advance that people would breach the Capitol and they warned her? | ||
| I gotta be honest. | ||
| The likely scenario is that AOC is a liar. | ||
| That's it. | ||
| But take your pick. | ||
| Either AOC had advanced knowledge of what was gonna happen, or she's a liar. | ||
| That's it. | ||
| It's real. | ||
| Pick one. | ||
| Huh. | ||
| You know, I don't know. | ||
| I don't know about what happened. | ||
| All I know is the whole circumstance is very strange. | ||
| Trump apparently offered more law enforcement and National Guard. | ||
| They did not accept it. | ||
| There's a video of a man walking up to cops being like, why won't you stop this? | ||
| Why are you letting this happen? | ||
| And the cops completely ignore him. | ||
| It is weird, isn't it? | ||
| But I will tell you one simple fact as it pertains to PR and strategy. | ||
| Donald Trump could have won 2020 very, very easily. | ||
| In one move. | ||
| On May 29th, 2020, far-left extremists tore down the barricades at the White House, set fire to St. | ||
| John's Church, and firebombed a guard post. | ||
| Donald Trump, the president at the time, was forced into an emergency bunker in the White House. | ||
| What ended up happening? | ||
| Law enforcement swept out the extremists, pushed them out, shut it down. | ||
| Here's how politics works. | ||
| If Donald Trump ordered the police to stand down and let the far left run rampant, 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 He'd be president. | ||
| No question. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Why? | |
| Because what would have happened is the fence at the White House would be torn down by far-left extremists, St. | ||
| Hammer. Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts. It's America | ||
| on Trial with Josh Hammer. | ||
| He'd be president. No question. Why? Because what would have happened is the fence at the | ||
| White House would be torn down by far left extremists. St. | ||
| John's Church would have been burnt to the ground. The president would be hiding in a | ||
| bunker. Donald Trump doesn't understand this. | ||
| He didn't want to look weak. | ||
| He even lied about being in the bunker. | ||
| Oh, we were just taking a look at it. | ||
| Apparently they were down there for like 45 minutes. | ||
| If the far-left extremists succeeded in tearing down the fencing and destroying buildings, the narrative would have been, far-left extremists ransack White House. | ||
| That would have been the insurrection and Trump would have come out and said, easily explaining how it happened. | ||
| When the protest started in D.C., we respected their right to free speech. | ||
| We had no reason to believe that far left terrorists would try and destroy and burn down churches and tear out fencing and things of that sort. | ||
| When it got to the point where we realized what was happening, we feared the loss of life would be too great. | ||
| And the smartest thing we could do was shore up the defenses on the White House and not take a confrontational approach with the extremists who had been riding through D.C. | ||
| But Trump and his administration did not understand politics, because this is how they do it. | ||
| Oh, no. | ||
| Oh, geez, we're being attacked. | ||
| Think about January 6th. | ||
| How were these people able to breach the Capitol building? | ||
| Where were Law Enforcement and National Guard? | ||
| Apparently, on May 29th, there was no problem for the police to stop the far-left extremists in the thousands who were throwing firebombs, but on January 6th, the police could do nothing to stop a thousand, I think it was like 800 Trump supporters who got in the building. | ||
| Let's say a thousand. | ||
| And there were more outside, don't get me wrong, there were hundreds of thousands of Trump supporters there that day. | ||
| But at the Capitol? | ||
| No. | ||
| They were at the rally. | ||
| There were a few thousand at the Capitol. | ||
| My point is simply this. | ||
| I don't know what happened or why it happened, it just did. | ||
| Simply though, if on May 29th, the Trump administration allowed the far-left extremists to ransack these buildings and then just feigned, oh, we were overwhelmed. | ||
| We were overwhelmed and we don't want people to get hurt. | ||
| Then the narrative would have been the far-left is dangerous. | ||
| People in D.C. | ||
| would demand justice for their destroyed buildings. | ||
| They would say, how did this happen? | ||
| Yeah, they'd be mad at Trump. | ||
| They'd say, how did you let this happen? | ||
| And he would say, these were antifa and far-left protesters. | ||
| Where was, where was the mayor? | ||
| Where was the, where were the police? | ||
| That's the narrative. | ||
| Instead, the narrative is Donald Trump led an insurrection, at least from them. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's how it works, I suppose. | |
| Maybe that's why Ray Epps was inciting violence, and that's why people think he's a fed. | ||
| No idea. | ||
| None whatsoever. | ||
| Show me the evidence. | ||
| For the time being, I wonder why it is the media is not reporting the dude expects to be criminally charged. | ||
| 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. | ||
| Did someone bring cocaine into the White House? | ||
| Yes. | ||
| Who was it? | ||
| We don't know. | ||
| And quite frankly, we don't want to know. | ||
| It's a news story we can do without. | ||
| I mean, could you imagine what would happen to this country if people found out Hunter Biden was bringing drugs into the White House? | ||
| I mean, Hunter Biden? | ||
| Why would I say that? | ||
| Sorry, I have no idea. | ||
| Someone. | ||
| Could you imagine what would happen to this country if the people found out a high-level official or family member was bringing drugs into the White House? | ||
| I mean, whew! | ||
| Could you imagine? | ||
| Right now the news is, in all seriousness, that the Secret Service is concluding its investigation. | ||
| No suspect has been identified. | ||
| And we're gonna let this one just go off into the sunset. | ||
| No more news cycle on this story. | ||
| Nobody needs to know. | ||
| Let's be serious for a minute. | ||
| Most people believe it was Hunter Biden because there's a video of him where people say it looks like he's tweaking out or something like that and he is a known drug addict. | ||
| I do think there is a modicum of unfairness in that someone who used to be a drug addict shouldn't be always blamed for every time something happens. | ||
| However, to make an educated guess, it's gonna have to be Hunter Biden. | ||
| I don't know that it was him. | ||
| The Secret Service has concluded they don't know. | ||
| There's no fingerprints or anything on the bag, so they're walking away. | ||
| But it is true that federal law enforcement has routinely protected the Bidens, and I got the receipts to back it up. | ||
| We know the media has been protecting the Bidens and other Democrats, and I've got receipts to back it up. | ||
| And let's be real about getting drugs into the White House. | ||
| It's not going to be a journalist or a tourist because these people have to go through security. | ||
| I know. | ||
| I've been to the White House. | ||
| I had to go through security. | ||
| You're not bringing anything in. | ||
| As Dan Bongino points out, it's got to be someone with some degree of a high-level person in the family who can bypass security. | ||
| It's the only way. | ||
| Here's the New York Post's official report. | ||
| The Secret Service has ended its investigation into cocaine found in the West Wing of the White House without identifying a suspect, a GOP congressman told the Post Thursday. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Rep. | |
| Tim Burchett stormed out of a briefing offered to lawmakers moments after it began, calling the conclusion bogus. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow. | |
| Is that... Is this the picture? | ||
| Is this literally... There's a picture. | ||
| They don't explain what the picture is, but it looks like a picture of drugs. | ||
| And then a bunch of other photos. | ||
| They have facial identification. | ||
| They have... Y'all know you can't go in there without giving your social security number. | ||
| And they decided it's just some weekend visitor, Birchett said? | ||
| That's bogus. | ||
| Nobody's buying that at all. | ||
| Birchett added that an official announcement that the probe had wrapped would come Friday. | ||
| Come on. | ||
| Who could it have been? | ||
| Ben Shapiro tweets, We are now being asked to believe that the most secure building on the planet has no surveillance necessary to effectuate the identification of the person who left cocaine there. | ||
| Sure. | ||
| And then Ben accurately points out, I mean, it's not as though Secret Service has ever tried to cover up a Hunter Biden crime. | ||
| That's right, ladies and gentlemen, Ben Shapiro brought the receipts and we are pulling it up for you. | ||
| This is from Politico. | ||
| 2021, March 25th. | ||
| Secret Service inserted itself into case of Hunter Biden's gun. | ||
| The bizarre incident involved a trash can, a man searching for recyclables, and eventually, federal law enforcement. | ||
| So it looks like, I can only assume, the drugs belong to Hunter Biden. | ||
| Not that I want to blame him as somebody who was a well-known addict. | ||
| But who else do we blame? | ||
| To be fair, I'm willing to bet all the Bidens are doing crazy drugs. | ||
| Come on! | ||
| Why wouldn't they be? | ||
| It's the old trope of the guy in the suit, the party, the high-level individuals in government and politics and corporations snorting cocaine at a party with hookers or whatever it is they're doing. | ||
| And we know that Hunter Biden quite literally did that. | ||
| Smoked a lot of crack and banged many hookers. | ||
| Sorry, not very family-friendly. | ||
| With the conclusion of this story, a lot of people are left scratching their heads. | ||
| But for those of us that are in the know, it's actually quite simple. | ||
| Likely, Hunter Biden, even if only a small percentage chance, who else are our suspects? | ||
| And the Secret Service has protected him before. | ||
| Take a look at this story that Ben Shapiro pointed out from Politico. | ||
| On October 23rd, 2018, President Joe Biden's son and daughter-in-law, Haley, were involved in a bizarre incident in which Haley took Hunter's gun and threw it in a trash can behind a grocery store, only to return later to find it gone. | ||
| Are we going to criminally charge this woman? | ||
| Because apparently this was across from a school. | ||
| Delaware police began investigating, concerned the trash can was a cross from a high school, and that the missing gun could be used in a crime, according to law enforcement officials, and a copy of the police report obtained by Politico. | ||
| But a curious thing happened at the time. | ||
| Secret Service agents approached the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork involving the sale, according to two people, one of whom has first-hand knowledge of the episode, and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact. | ||
| The gun store owner refused to supply the paperwork, suspecting that the Secret Service officers wanted to hide Hunter's ownership of the missing gun in case it were to be involved in a crime, the two people said. | ||
| The owner, Ron Palmieri, later turned over the papers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which oversees federal gun laws. | ||
| The Secret Service says it has no record of its agents investigating the incident, and Joe Biden, who is not under protection at the time, said through a spokesperson he has no knowledge of any Secret Service involvement. | ||
| Man, these people are so crooked. | ||
| Days later, the gun was returned by an older man who regularly rummages through the grocery store's trash to collect recyclable items, according to people familiar with the situation. | ||
| The incident did not result in charges or arrest, but the alleged involvement of the Secret Service remains a mystery. | ||
| One law enforcement official said that at the time of the incident, individual Secret Service agents at the agency's offices in Wilmington, Delaware and Philadelphia kept an informal hand in maintaining the former vice president's security. | ||
| The person cited an instance in 2019 when the Wilmington office of the Secret Service called the Delaware State Police to arrange security for a public appearance by Biden. | ||
| The Secret Service declined to answer a question about whether it had informal involvement in Biden's security during this period. | ||
| Asked whether the Secret Service requested state police security for Biden during the period when he was not under the agency's protection, a Delaware State Police spokesman said, I've reached out to our sergeant who oversees the Executive Protection Unit with the Delaware State Police. | ||
| He is unaware of any such requests or service provided. | ||
| I got a question. | ||
| What is the Secret Service doing to protect the Bidens? | ||
| Why are they involved in this when the Bidens are out of office, especially Hunter, no less? | ||
| Well, I believe the Secret Service was not seeking to protect Hunter, but they were seeking to protect Joe. | ||
| I'm willing to bet that Democrats were seeking to protect Joe because they planned to have him run in 2020. | ||
| And so I believe this story was about an incident in 2019. | ||
| That's what it said it was. | ||
| I'm sorry, in 2018. | ||
| When Donald Trump Called up the President of Ukraine and said, what's this thing about Joe Biden saying he's going to withhold loan guarantees? | ||
| They said he was trying to dig up dirt on his political rival. | ||
| But at the time, Joe Biden wasn't running for President. | ||
| Now, I speculated, perhaps the reason Joe Biden did run was because they needed some kind of excuse to protect him from a criminal probe related to Donald Trump's inquiries into what the Bidens had been doing in Ukraine. | ||
| It could be, however, they always intended on running Joe Biden, and that's why he maintained this, let's just call it, um, less than public security detail. | ||
| Well, how about this one for you? | ||
| From the Daily Mail. | ||
| Are you protecting the Bidens? | ||
| FBI Director Wray is torched by his harshest GOP critics as he has read Hunter's shakedown message to Chinese Communist Party business partner during congressional grilling. | ||
| Wray faced a line of questioning on the Hunter Biden laptop, COVID origins and unlawful FISA inquiries. | ||
| I want to talk to you about the Biden family, right? | ||
| That's the context here. | ||
| But I have a clip. | ||
| Benny Johnson tweets, FBI Director Wray refuses to deny FBI assets or confidential human sources were present at the Capitol on January 6th. | ||
| I want to play for you just a bit of this exchange to understand the nature of the intelligence agencies. | ||
| Because if you think they're going to give you an honest answer, I'm sorry, I've got a bridge to sell you. | ||
| It has been reported that more than 40 FBI personnel agents or contractors were in the crowd on January 6th. | ||
| Is that number accurate? | ||
| I don't know if that number is accurate. | ||
| Former Capitol Police Chief Steven Son reportedly has asserted that the protest crowd was filled with federal agents. | ||
| Are you aware of his assertion? | ||
| I am not. | ||
| Would you agree with him that it was filled with federal agents on January 6th? | ||
| I would really have to see more closely exactly what he said and get the full context to be able to evaluate it. | ||
| How many agents were actually agents or Right there. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Do you get it? | |
| You're trying to communicate with someone. | ||
| We're trying to get to the bottom of a major breach of U.S. | ||
| security. | ||
| on January 6th. Well, again, it's going to get confusing because it depends on when we | ||
| deployed and responded to the breach that occurred. I mean, right there. Do you get it? | ||
| You're trying to communicate with someone. We're trying to get to the bottom of a major | ||
| breach of U.S. security. And Director Ray knows exactly what he just did. | ||
| They are protecting these individuals. | ||
| Federal agents who may have been involved in January 6th in inciting. | ||
| And Democrats. | ||
| I think it was Jack Passoe, but I could be wrong, who said that there are three. | ||
| It's a three-tiered justice system. | ||
| There's the protected, the indifferent, and the persecuted. | ||
| Let me break down for you exactly what he did. | ||
| Andy Biggs is asking about confidential sources, human resources, undercover agents. | ||
| We understand the context of his question. | ||
| Director Wray goes, well, it depends on when we deployed. | ||
| As if to accident- Oh, I thought you meant actual deployed law enforcement. | ||
| Whoops! | ||
| That right there is the greatest indication, in my opinion, that Wray knows there were undercover assets informants or otherwise on the ground involved in January 6th. | ||
| Changing the context with his answer was laughably stupid. | ||
| But it's the game they play. | ||
| Why? | ||
| Because you are being asked a question, and I don't know if this is under oath or not, but lying either way to Congress could be a problem for you. | ||
| And this is why I explain to many of these Republicans and conservatives, the answer is always what you want it to be. | ||
| There's always some circuitous justification. | ||
| As you see here, this is what Democrats do. | ||
| How many human resources or agents did you have on the ground during January 6th? | ||
| I think we deployed 50 uniformed and badged law enforcement officers. | ||
| That's not what I'm asking. | ||
| You were asked a series of questions about undercover agents, and then when the question comes up, how many were there, you change the context? | ||
| That says to me this dude knows he's lying. | ||
| Now, the interesting thing here is that Andy Biggs goes on to repeatedly ask him, and Ray just says, I don't know. | ||
| I don't know how many there were. | ||
| And he's like, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. | ||
| You don't know? | ||
| As if to imply there were some. | ||
| Now, there have been several law enforcement officers who have said that there were a ton. | ||
| Of law enforcement agents. | ||
| There's guys yelling, go, go, go, and things like that. | ||
| My point is this. | ||
| These people are corrupt. | ||
| They are dirty. | ||
| They have infected government. | ||
| And by all means, blame Donald Trump for Ray. | ||
| Trump should have gone in and fired everybody the first chance he got, but unfortunately he didn't do it. | ||
| Naive. | ||
| He didn't get it. | ||
| I think Trump gets it now. | ||
| And I think that's why he wants to get back in so he can fire everybody. | ||
| And unfortunately I think Ron DeSantis is probably on a similar track to Donald Trump. | ||
| He'll go in and try and play ball, they'll destroy him. | ||
| Take a look at this. | ||
| FBI Director Christopher Wray insisted he is absolutely not working to protect the Biden family, as he claimed the agency has not been politicized during a face-off with Republicans. | ||
| GOP Rep Matt Gaetz displayed a text message allegedly sent by Hunter Biden where the president's son wrote to a Chinese Communist Party official, Henry Zhao, on July 30, 2017, demanding money for a business deal. | ||
| I'm sitting here with my father, and we, he says we, would like to understand why the commitment has not been fulfilled. | ||
| Several days later, lots of money came into the Bidens. | ||
| Sounds like a shakedown, doesn't it, Director? | ||
| You won't answer the question, and everyone knows why you won't answer, because to the millions of people seeing this, they know it's a shakedown. | ||
| People trusted the FBI more when J. Edgar Hoover was running the place than when you are. | ||
| Yikes! | ||
| Gates went on. | ||
| In your home state of Florida, the number of people applying to come work for us is up over 100% since I started RayShotBack. | ||
| They deserve better than you, said Gates. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wow! | |
| Gates and other Republicans also torn to ray for the FBI's unlawful use of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA. | ||
| 702 under FISA allows U.S. | ||
| federal intelligence agencies to conduct targeted searches of foreigners, but sometimes Americans, are improperly searched in the process. | ||
| The provision is set to expire by the end of the year. | ||
| Crazy. | ||
| The FBI admitted to using FISA to run queries 204,000 times in 2022 on American citizens from January 6 protesters to BLM demonstrators. | ||
| People were looking themselves up, looking their ex-lovers up, using the FISA process as their creepy personal snoop machine. | ||
| Now, this is getting into a bigger issue here. | ||
| My big story, I think the main story was, not my big story, but the main story. | ||
| Hunter Biden seemingly getting away with everything. | ||
| To be fair, I don't know that the cocaine at the White House belonged to Hunter Biden. | ||
| But I'm going to tell you this. | ||
| Until they can actually tell me who it belonged to, in my opinion, probably belonged to the drug addict, Hunter Biden. | ||
| How else could it have got in there? | ||
| But this story here exemplifies exactly what we've been talking about. | ||
| It's not just the Bidens who are being protected. | ||
| It's the Democrat establishment. | ||
| Joe Biden had classified documents in his garage and his offices. | ||
| Any criminal charges? | ||
| None. | ||
| Hillary Clinton destroyed public records when she had her servers purged using bleach bit and phones smashed with hammers. | ||
| And to be fair, smashing the phones with hammers doesn't destroy the data. | ||
| They really don't understand what they're doing. | ||
| But purging the server was the destruction of public record that she had no right to do it. | ||
| Oh, his yoga emails. | ||
| Doesn't matter. | ||
| I don't care. | ||
| You destroyed public records. | ||
| I don't believe you. | ||
| But that's the game. | ||
| No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges against Hillary Clinton. | ||
| That's what we were told. | ||
| Yet Donald Trump is being criminally charged for what? | ||
| He had some documents. | ||
| The media lies about audio recordings of him. | ||
| And Trump is stupid enough to keep falling for giving these people interviews, but you know. | ||
| This is the game we're in. | ||
| Donald Trump is on an audio recording where he's like, I could have declassified the story. | ||
| Take a look at this story. | ||
| He says, take a look at this. | ||
| You know, look, this, this is them, blah, blah, blah. | ||
| The media tried framing the audio to be Donald Trump holding up, because you can't see any video, holding up classified documents. | ||
| I wonder why it's just audio. | ||
| Journalists were recording just audio, perhaps. | ||
| Donald Trump says he was holding up news stories and magazine clippings. | ||
| And just a few days prior, there was a story that came out about exactly this. | ||
| So what makes the most sense? | ||
| What context would Trump have to hold up a document they don't understand and say that was them, not me? | ||
| The document would be impossible to read. | ||
| It would be small text. | ||
| You'd have to go through it to understand the full context. | ||
| It's not a news report. | ||
| It would be a briefing. | ||
| What if, however, Trump was holding up a news report that had a big, bold headline that said, Trump X, Y, and Z? | ||
| Then Trump says, see this? | ||
| That was actually them. | ||
| I should have declassified that. | ||
| The most logical scenario is that Trump was holding up a news story that had just come out. | ||
| I think it was like, what was it? | ||
| The Atlantic or something? | ||
| And they falsely frame it to be that he was showing classified documents. | ||
| They all believe it. | ||
| Take a look at Ray Epps. | ||
| I don't know what his deal is, but boy is the media coming up to defend him. | ||
| Even liberal pundits right now are tweeting only that he's suing Fox News and ignoring the massive story that in the lawsuit he's saying he's being criminally charged or he's about to be. | ||
| Media outlets calling the January 6th a protest or a rally now. | ||
| Remarkable. | ||
| The machine is protecting criminal elites. | ||
| I don't care if you're a Democrat or Republican. | ||
| I don't care if you want a Democrat to win. | ||
| You're allowed to. | ||
| But something is wrong with this country when the Bidens keep getting away with all of this. | ||
| And you know what the laughable thing is? | ||
| If you are of the mind the Bidens did nothing wrong, you're an occult. | ||
| End of story. | ||
| Because I'm seeing these liberal pundits be like, if you really believe the Biden corruption scandal, it's a big nothing burger, nothing happened. | ||
| It's like, why are you defending Joe Biden? | ||
| Of all people. | ||
| Vote for Newsom or something. | ||
| The Biden family has a long track record of this kind of stuff. | ||
| Hunter Biden has text messages shaking down a Chinese Communist Party member. | ||
| I believe it was Chinese Communist Party. | ||
| Uh, yep. | ||
| Chinese Communist Party official Henry Hsiao. | ||
| There's a text message from him. | ||
| We have it! | ||
| And they're like, no, it's a big nothing burger. | ||
| Okay. | ||
| Then let's, let's break it down. | ||
| That same behavior you see from these liberal pundits where they act like nothing happens is the same attitude you're going to get from these crackpot intelligence agencies that are lying. | ||
| Because they're in a cult. | ||
| That's, that's really it. | ||
| I don't think there's like a moneyed interest. | ||
| I don't think there's an agent who has slipped some, they slipped him cash under his door and they're like, just do as you're told. | ||
| Like some, some typical, some stereotypical crooked cop or anything like that. | ||
| I think they are all psychotic cultists who want to march in lockstep. | ||
| That's the scarier reality. | ||
| They just do these things sort of as an emergent phenomenon. | ||
| They know Biden's crooked. | ||
| They know he's corrupt. | ||
| They know his kids corrupt. | ||
| They know there's shady dealings going on in this family. | ||
| But it is not politically correct to bring it up. | ||
| And if you do, you're conservative. | ||
| That's what they say. | ||
| It doesn't matter what your political views are. | ||
| It doesn't matter what your thoughts on policy is. | ||
| I actually said recently, I think Roe v. Wade, actually now I think about it, it's the right decision. | ||
| Roe v. Wade should have remained. | ||
| There should have been, I believe, some changes to the precedent. | ||
| It should be that, you know, up to a certain point, abortion is within the privacy of the individual, but 14th Amendment kicks in and creates some restrictions. | ||
| And that was sort of it, but not really. | ||
| What do they say? | ||
| They say that I'm conservative. | ||
| And that's a weird position. | ||
| My calling out of corruption in government makes me a conservative, they would argue? | ||
| I talk about freedom and free speech, and they say that's a conservative position? | ||
| Well, there you have it. | ||
| They're authoritarian crackpots who can do no wrong. | ||
| It is left-wing to side with corruption. | ||
| It is right-wing to call out corruption. | ||
| That's their definition, not mine. | ||
| But if that's what they're trying to argue, then okay, I guess. | ||
| I wouldn't know how else to frame it. | ||
| They say that because I'll say things like we or us, that means I'm conservative, which is the weirdest thing! | ||
| Because the context of we and us, in their mind, means conservative. | ||
| As if to say a liberal who says we or us is referring to conservatives? | ||
| None of it makes sense, does it? | ||
| Either you agree with the cult, or you're conservative. | ||
| Okay, welcome to the brave new world, I suppose. | ||
| All of you are conservatives, no matter how liberal you are, no matter how socialist you are, you're conservatives because you disagree with the machine protecting the Biden family and their corruption. | ||
| What a wonderful time to be alive. | ||
| Don't get me wrong, Donald Trump's the one who appointed Wray, so a lot of this is on his bad choice in personnel, but I think it's fairly obvious. | ||
| Trump thought he was going to go in, be a fairly normal president, enact policies he wanted, and play ball half the time. | ||
| He thought he would take the advice of these DC elites, appoint people they told him to, and boy, did that stab him in the back. | ||
| Talk about a major mistake on the part of Donald Trump. | ||
| And by the time he realized it, it was too late. | ||
| But maybe he'll get re-elected. | ||
| And he'll appoint some better people. | ||
| Maybe not. | ||
| I can only tell you this. | ||
| I don't think there's anyone else who would come close. | ||
| Ron DeSantis has good policy. | ||
| But I think there's a strong likelihood that he'll just play ball and try and negotiate. | ||
| Donald Trump, however, wants revenge. | ||
| He may not get it. | ||
| He may play stupid politics again. | ||
| I'll take what I can get. | ||
| Next segment's coming up at 4pm on this channel. | ||
| Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then. | ||
| The Democrats are basically abandoning Joe Biden. | ||
| And I can't blame them. | ||
| They shouldn't have picked him in the first place. | ||
| Joe Biden only narrowly has any kind of appeal that would result in someone voting for him. | ||
| And the reality is that most people just voted against Donald Trump. | ||
| So now that we're entering the next election cycle, we can see the longevity of Joe Biden was short-lived. | ||
| And for this, we are seeing many people rise up, namely Gavin Newsom and the prediction markets, but the polling suggests that RFK Jr. | ||
| is actually in second place. | ||
| Now, why is this? | ||
| Well, a new poll has come out discussing issues that we face today in the culture war, and lo and behold, guess what? | ||
| Democrats do not agree with the Democratic Party's position on these issues. | ||
| That is to say, the Democrats are embracing leftism and woke ideology that regular people do not care for. | ||
| I love the story from the Washington Post. | ||
| RFK Jr. | ||
| is surging only in polls among Republicans. | ||
| Really? | ||
| Okay, sure. | ||
| Take a look at the prediction market. | ||
| Who will win the 24th Democratic nomination? | ||
| Joe Biden, of course, has 67 cents. | ||
| I think it's a fair bet, because we don't even know if there's going to be a primary or what the plan is. | ||
| Gavin Newsom is a fair bet, but Robert Kennedy Jr. | ||
| is skyrocketing, now at 13 cents. | ||
| And in the polls, he's hitting nearly 20%. | ||
| If Donald Trump embraces RFK Jr., and a lot of people have talked about a potential Trump-Kennedy ticket, which seems like a long shot, a pipe dream, doubt it's gonna happen, but that could steal a large portion of Democrats away from the Democratic Party, and they may end up voting Republican. | ||
| Of course, the Washington Post is saying it's only Republicans supporting RFK Jr., and to be fair, there are a lot of Republicans and moderates who are supporting him. | ||
| But take a look at this poll from PoliticalPolls. | ||
| Do you think that Joe Biden is the strongest candidate that Democrats could nominate for president in 2024? | ||
| Yes, he is, say 20%. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| No, he is not, say 61%. | ||
| That's amazing. | ||
| Even among Democrats, Joe Biden only hits around 40%, with 36% saying no. | ||
| That's amazing. | ||
| Even among Democrats, Joe Biden only hits around 40% with 36% saying no. | ||
| That's amazing. | ||
| Dude, the Democrats are in serious trouble. | ||
| And this Substack article breaks it down in a rather interesting way. | ||
| I'd like to read for you this so you can understand. | ||
| Guess what? | ||
| You, my friends watching this at home, you're the regular person. | ||
| You're the average American. | ||
| What the media is portraying is a lie. | ||
| Wokeness is not popular. | ||
| It never has been. | ||
| But there's institutional capture because of clever activists. | ||
| The average person is saying enough. | ||
| And if the Democrats embrace this, they lose. | ||
| Don't take my word for it. | ||
| Let me show you this NBC News article. | ||
| Most Americans oppose including trans athletes in sports poll fines. | ||
| Really? | ||
| Well, that's strange. | ||
| I was told only fascists disagree with that agenda. | ||
| But maybe the reality is, institutions are captured by loud, angry activists, and they think, because of commercial endeavors of major corporations, this is what Americans want. | ||
| And then they're surprised to find things like Loudoun County. | ||
| No. | ||
| Parents don't want this stuff around their kids. | ||
| Check out this story. | ||
| Ry Teixeira says, He recounted some of the findings. | ||
| He says I'll do the same here. | ||
| Taking immigration first, we asked voters to choose from three options. | ||
| important issues and political ideas shaping the 24th presidential election. | ||
| He recounted some of the findings. | ||
| He says I'll do the same here. | ||
| Taking immigration first, we asked voters to choose from three options. | ||
| One, people around the world have a right to claim asylum and America should welcome | ||
| more immigrants to the country. | ||
| Two, America needs to secure its borders and create more legal and managed immigration paths. | ||
| And three, America needs to close its borders to outsiders and reduce all levels of immigration. | ||
| Under Recorder chose the first option. | ||
| That is, people around the world have a right to claim asylum. | ||
| Only 24% agreed with that. | ||
| Check this out. | ||
| Emphasizing the right to asylum, admitting more immigrants, which is closely associated with the Democratic Party. | ||
| By far, the most popular option was the second one. | ||
| Emphasizing border security and skilled migration. | ||
| 59% favored. | ||
| Only 17 wanted the draconian issue. | ||
| And you know what? | ||
| How much do you want to bet? | ||
| Most of you watching would take a similar approach. | ||
| We must secure our borders and we can create legal managed paths to immigration. | ||
| That's been my position the whole time. | ||
| I say this, everyone should come to America. | ||
| Every single person in the world. | ||
| That's right, all 8 billion. | ||
| But they gotta come here legally. | ||
| And you know what that means? | ||
| It means they won't be allowed to. | ||
| It means that the people who apply and get approved so we can manage economically the admission of these immigrants, then they can come in, but it will be controlled because, let's be honest, 8 billion people would destroy the country. | ||
| You can't maintain a system like that. | ||
| That's why you need secure borders and legal systems. | ||
| Now, check this one out. | ||
| Turning to climate and energy. | ||
| One, we need a rapid green transition. | ||
| Two, we need an all-of-the-above strategy. | ||
| And three, we need to stop the push to replace domestic oil. | ||
| Once again, the Democratic-identified first position, emphasizing ending the use of fossil fuels, was embraced by only 29% of voters. | ||
| Amazing. | ||
| The most popular position is the second. | ||
| Hey, look at that! | ||
| Yes, I agree. | ||
| We want oil and gas. | ||
| We want renewables. | ||
| We want nuclear power. | ||
| We want to be energy independent. | ||
| I think the most interesting thing was the issue on transgender individuals, because this is one of the core tenets of wokeness right now, and this is the one that shows you how out of touch the left is, because this one gets interesting. | ||
| Check this out. | ||
| The distance from the center is even more obvious when we take a look at voter views on transgender controversies. | ||
| Here are three choices we offered voters. | ||
|
unidentified
|
1. | |
| States should protect all trans youth by providing access to puberty blockers and transition surgeries, if desired, and allowing them to participate fully in all activities and sports as the gender of their choice. 2. | ||
| States should protect the rights of transgender adults to live as they want, but implement stronger regulations on puberty blockers, trans surgeries, and sports participation for trans minors. | ||
| Or, number three, states should ban all gender transition treatments for minors and stop discussion of gender ideology in schools. | ||
| The first position, emphasizing availability of medical treatments for transgender children and sports participation directed by gender self-identification, is unquestionably the default position of the Democratic Party today. | ||
| Indeed, to dissent in any way from this position in Democratic circles is enough to earn one of the sobriquet of hateful bigot or worse. | ||
| Yet only about a quarter, 26% of voters endorse this position. | ||
| Indeed, the most popular position of the three is the most draconian. | ||
| That medical treatments for trans kids should be banned. | ||
| As should discussion of gender ideology in public schools. | ||
| That's embraced by 41% of voters. | ||
| Another third of voters favor the second position, advocating stronger regulation. | ||
| Together, the latter two positions make it 3-1 among all voters against the Democratic position. | ||
| That's right. | ||
| You are the regular person. | ||
| Now why is it then that YouTube would censor us? | ||
| Why is it that these big tech companies would shut down our videos, delete our speech? | ||
| They do not represent this country. | ||
| These are captured institutions. | ||
| You know what? | ||
| This is why we're winning. | ||
| Because they live in a fake bubble world. | ||
| They live in this world where they've crafted a reality of their own refuse. | ||
| I've talked about this with Jack Dorsey. | ||
| Once Twitter was the free speech wing of the free speech party. | ||
| And then, he created this prominent A network of verified journalists who all started crapping in each other's mouths. | ||
| A sewer of deranged information circling among themselves, not among the general public. | ||
| And he started consuming that information in his own circles. | ||
| He plagued his own mind and then started enforcing policies based upon his plagued mind. | ||
| And what happened? | ||
| An implosion. | ||
| Donald Trump emerges. | ||
| People were sick and tired of this. | ||
| Take a look at this. | ||
| A mere 18% of moderate voters back the Democratic position. | ||
| In contrast, a healthy 47% favor the stronger regulation of transmedical treatments. | ||
| Another 35% wants trans treatments banned for children. | ||
| That's amazing. | ||
| 35% of moderates say, ban it outright. | ||
| Surprised? | ||
| I'm not. | ||
| The rather startling unpopularity of Democratic positions in these areas and their obvious distance from the views of the electoral center raises the question of where these unpopular views came from. | ||
| Part of the answer is that not all Democrats have been enthusiasts for these positions, but the ones that have been punch way above their weight in the party. | ||
| I can answer that question for you. | ||
| It's a correlation. | ||
| It's a relationship. | ||
| You see, big tech promotes content that advocates for these views. | ||
| Democratic politicians, seeking more viewership and more popularity, will advocate for these views, creating a cycle where people like AOC say insane things, gain more followers, become more prominent, causing big tech to favor this view once again in an ever-increasing spiral of insanity. | ||
| There were hearings on social media. | ||
| And Republicans asked Twitter why it is that when you log into Twitter, it default recommends Democrat politicians. | ||
| They didn't have an answer. | ||
| Oh, our algorithm just does it. | ||
| Ah, there it is. | ||
| This is what is creating the psychosis in people today. | ||
| We talked about a story the other day. | ||
| A doctor was live, was posting videos of surgeries on TikTok. | ||
| These people are insane! | ||
| Remember all the dancing nurses during COVID? | ||
| Dancing on the corpses of the COVID dead? | ||
| I'm not even exaggerating. | ||
| One of the videos of the dancing, they were carrying a fake body with a toe tag and they were dancing. | ||
| That's psychotic. | ||
| Absolute psychotic derangement. | ||
| Dancing in a hospital. | ||
| There's one video where people are filming them do this dance and they're like, what's going on? | ||
| Is this why we can't get treatment? | ||
| What are they doing? | ||
| Now imagine being a regular person, as you are. | ||
| Your arm's broken. | ||
| They're saying, you're gonna have to wait, sir. | ||
| And then you see a bunch of nurses dancing and doing stupid TikTok garbage. | ||
| Wow. | ||
| Yeah, you're gonna be like, what is happening to this country? | ||
| That's what's happening in this country. | ||
| Social media has made these people insane. | ||
| The Democratic Party now espouses views that make no sense, that nobody supports, and they're hoping that their influence grows on these platforms and the younger generation adopts these views. | ||
| I don't think so. | ||
| The Sound of Freedom is winning. | ||
| Apps like Public Square are taking over. | ||
| So, you know, I don't see them winning. | ||
| They're aborting and sterilizing their kids. | ||
| Okay, the end result is obvious. | ||
| This is why Joe Biden is being rejected for a variety of reasons. | ||
| This is why RFK Jr. | ||
| is rising in the polls. | ||
| Is RFK Jr. | ||
| perfect? | ||
| Absolutely not. | ||
| He's actually fairly bad in a lot of ways. | ||
| No joke. | ||
| That's policies. | ||
| But I'd rather see him lead the Democratic Party than Joe Biden. | ||
| I want to see people snap out of the spell of the algorithmic nightmare. | ||
| Maybe we'll see it. | ||
| I'll leave it there. | ||
| Next segment's coming up at 4 p- I'm sorry, 6 p.m. | ||
| on this channel. | ||
| Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then. | ||
| Maybelline has sparked a backlash and calls for a boycott after they had two bearded men advertise their products. | ||
| I'm not sure if it was both of them. | ||
| I know that this... I saw this guy on the left advertising the Maybelline products. | ||
| I'm not so concerned. | ||
| Like, I don't care all that much about if a guy wants to put on makeup or whatever. | ||
| But this did get me thinking about where we go as a society, what this will result in, and why it's happening. | ||
| So first, here's the story. | ||
| Maybe he's born with it. | ||
| Fury at Maybelline for using bearded men to promote new makeup line. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hmm. | |
| I don't know if I actually care that guys are putting on makeup. | ||
| They're not the kind of people I would personally associate with, but live and let live, right? | ||
| But women are upset because they feel like men are invading their space. | ||
| A space that men aren't typically in. | ||
| Well, I started thinking about this. | ||
| First thing I want to say, there's a lot of prominent YouTubers who are guys who put on makeup. | ||
| It has become popular to a certain degree for whatever reason. | ||
| Social media promoting it, LGBTQ issues and all that stuff, and it results in things like this. | ||
| The question is, do men actually use makeup? | ||
| Why is this happening? | ||
| Well, I think it's funny that women are mad. | ||
| I would just say if you're a woman who sees this, don't buy the product. | ||
| It's that simple. | ||
| And now's an opportunity for, I don't even want to say conservative makeup brands, but I guess, to emerge and cater to women. | ||
| But the reality is, if this company wants to advertise makeup to men, so be it. | ||
| There's an obvious reason why they're doing it. | ||
| In fact, there's two big reasons. | ||
| An immediate short-term capitalist reason and a long-term evolutionary reason. | ||
| The first is obvious. | ||
| You're a makeup company. | ||
| Your market share is half the country. | ||
| That's it. | ||
| Not even every woman wears makeup. | ||
| How do you expand your market cap? | ||
| You need men wearing makeup! | ||
| I am sure what happened was, You get some executive going into a boardroom and saying, why have our sales stagnated? | ||
| And all the executives sitting around like, well, I don't know, is it because we need more colors? | ||
| And then a guy goes, no. | ||
| It's because we have sold to every woman already. | ||
| What if I told you there was a way to double our market cap? | ||
| In a span of only a few months. | ||
| Maybe in a few years. | ||
| They say, well, that's absurd. | ||
| How could you double it? | ||
| And he says, men. | ||
| That's right. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Get men to wear makeup and bang! | |
| Now we're talking. | ||
| Now you're selling your product to a whole new market that has not worn makeup before. | ||
| That's obvious. | ||
| I think the first problem is these guys, they're not the typical guy. | ||
| In fact, they're a very, very, very small portion of men. | ||
| You can see this guy is doing duck face. | ||
| This guy is, he's got curls in his beard. | ||
| Like, you know, do you, man? | ||
| I got no beef. | ||
| But the average guy is not going to want to wear makeup. | ||
| The average guy is not going to engage in this behavior, so they're not actually going to double their market. | ||
| They're just going to get a slightly larger market than they previously had, but it makes sense. | ||
| Market to a new market, right? | ||
| But there is an evolutionary reason why this is happening. | ||
| The one thing I noticed that with these two guys is that they behave in a very effeminate way. | ||
| And again, I'll stress this. | ||
| Like, I got no beef. | ||
| Live your lives, man. | ||
| But see this guy doing the duck face thing as he applies his makeup? | ||
| This guy looks like he's got some kind of Northern European ancestry. | ||
| He's got the reddish beard. | ||
| Maybe he's Scottish. | ||
| Man, back in the day, these people were brutal warriors! | ||
| And maybe he's Nordic, I don't know. | ||
| They were kidnapping people and raping and pillaging and all that really crazy stuff. | ||
| How did it come to be that now these men have decided to take on a feminine, effeminate role that we did not see in the past? | ||
| You know, when I look at this stuff, I think it's decently obvious, but it's just my hypothesis. | ||
| Why is it that we did not tolerate, say, homosexuality, for the most part, in the past? | ||
| I can already hear the leftist saying, that's not true, there were many societies that did tolerate it, blah blah blah, to varying degrees it was and was not tolerated. | ||
| And religious European groups tolerated it much less for a period of time, but of course it's true, like in the Roman Empire and in Greece, there's a lot of really crazy stuff going on. | ||
| But it's fairly obvious. | ||
| Gender roles emerged through evolutionary pressure. | ||
| Now, I don't understand why that's a controversial statement. | ||
| Perhaps it's because the left takes a religious approach to their worldviews, | ||
| and thus, you cannot make an evolutionary argument. | ||
| I think it's insane. | ||
| But if you make the argument that, uh, I'll put it this way. | ||
| If you have 100 men and 100 women in a tribe, living in a little village, and 99 men die, the village will struggle, but mostly be okay. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Why? | |
| Because women can do most things men can do. | ||
| Men may be stronger and faster when it comes to many activities. | ||
| Hunting, for instance. | ||
| But women can still hunt. | ||
| And so, there's a great degree of success in that if the woman had taken up that role. | ||
| But with one guy, he can have 100 babies in 9 months if he really gets at it. | ||
| Not literally, but you get my point. | ||
| One man can have a ton of kids, but each woman can only make one child every 9 months. | ||
| That's why women tend to be in the more protected or restricted, depending on your argument, roles. | ||
| This is why men tend to be gruffer and tougher because they were, as many people described, expendable. | ||
| Not intentionally, but that's just the way things were evolutionarily. | ||
| Because if the guys went on the hunt, and so you got ten guys, and seven of them died because a grizzly bear mauled them to death, the strongest, the fastest survived. | ||
| He comes back and says, I'm sorry, the men didn't make it, they were killed by a bear. | ||
| That man, those two other guys, the survivors are the only ones who end up procreating for the most part. | ||
| This creates an evolutionary pressure where the men who succeed in the roles they take on tend to be more gruff and masculine as we traditionally know. | ||
| Let us say, the guys who survived had kids. | ||
| Those kids tended to be taught by the stronger and toughest of men. | ||
| Those men also knew that if the women died, they would cease to exist. | ||
| Therefore, they would greatly protect women, and thus came the emergence of gender roles. | ||
| The women would gather. | ||
| This is why women tend to, uh, there's, women have, some women can see more colors than men. | ||
| Uh, called tetrachromats. | ||
| And they argue this is because women would forage for fruit and the shade of a fruit or berry mattered. | ||
| If I go out and I pick a berry that's slightly too unripe, well then it's not as good for you. | ||
| It's not, right? | ||
| There's an optimal color for these berries. | ||
| Blackberries, for instance, start green, turn white, then red, then black. | ||
| And knowing the color difference matters. | ||
| So women developed slightly different gender roles. | ||
| Thus, the effeminate, the caring, the nurturing emerges. | ||
| All hypothesis, not original ideas to me, things you can read online and perhaps could be wrong. | ||
| I am not an evolutionary biologist. | ||
| My point is, why do we see men wearing makeup? | ||
| Because there's no survivor bias anymore. | ||
| There is no reason to be gruff. | ||
| There is no looming bear threat for the most part. | ||
| Why are women becoming more masculine? | ||
| For the same reasons, there's no threat to the women. | ||
| I'm sure in the past, there'd be a woman who says, I want to go on the hunt. | ||
| And they'd be like, no! | ||
| Because if you die, we cease to exist. | ||
| The women must be protected at all costs. | ||
| And minimizing risk to women is the most important thing imaginable. | ||
| So they would say, absolutely not. | ||
| Women don't do men's roles. | ||
| But then what happens? | ||
| Women want to work in an accounting firm. | ||
| There's no danger there. | ||
| There's no risk to the woman. | ||
| Plus, we're massively... Maybe you don't agree with the term overpopulated, but let me just say, we are at no risk of extinction. | ||
| Well, I take that back. | ||
| Maybe nuclear war or something. | ||
| But in terms of reproduction and food consumption, humans probably going to be around. | ||
| And even after nuclear war, I am not convinced humans would go extinct. | ||
| Thus, there is no bias in favor of femininity or a female gender role. | ||
| Women have no reason to be barred from anything. | ||
| Men have no reason to fight grizzly bears or go to war, so there's no reason for men to be gruff masculine. | ||
| You can have effeminate men and masculine women. | ||
| Thus, we see the emergence of the non-binary ideas and things like this. | ||
| Now, to be completely honest, I think the whole non-binary thing is... I think they lack understanding in gender roles. | ||
| Because there's no right or wrong way to be a boy or a girl. | ||
| There's no right or wrong way to be a man or a woman. | ||
| There are just certain social expectations and values that you may or may not adhere to. | ||
| Some of these things border into the criminal, like don't attack people, and some of them are just result... they would result in the socially unacceptable. | ||
| And then there's the socially acceptable behaviors. | ||
| This, what we're seeing here, is socially controversial. | ||
| Men deviating from the traditional gender roles, but there's no reason for them to uphold their traditional gender roles. | ||
| Now, I'm not saying I agree with men putting on makeup or anything like that. | ||
| I think there is a good reason for traditional gender roles. | ||
| What I mean to say when there is none, there is no mandated threat to life based on what these guys are doing. | ||
| So there is no natural threat to them by doing this, other than some people just reject the concept. | ||
| Personally, I think that the increasing risk... Here's my view on this. | ||
| There's a good reason for male and female gender roles. | ||
| They don't need to be adhered to 100%. | ||
| Men and women are free to choose to live how they want to live, and my view is fairly libertarian. | ||
| But I'll tell you what the result will be. | ||
| If we were to follow the same logic in thought, the end result is men like this will cease to exist. | ||
| They're less likely to have kids, less likely to teach their kids, less likely to survive, more likely to abort their kids, more likely to sterilize their kids. | ||
| And so what happens? | ||
| Once again, we will see, while there may be an ebb and flow to this, a survivorship bias will return. | ||
| With the emergence of limitless, restrictionless abortion, with the advocacy for child sterilization and medication, these pressures are emerging through natural social behaviors Because people don't care about reproducing anymore. | ||
| I'm not saying every person, I'm saying because we've gotten to this point, now those who don't care survive, and their ideas flourish, and result in kids who will not reproduce. | ||
| What happens then? | ||
| The ebb and flow. | ||
| The end result will be, given enough time, give it 20 years, this group will be in the minority again, because their ideas are not popular, and you will end up with, once again, a more traditional space, because traditional values have a higher survivorship rate than non-traditional values. | ||
| Not all of them, and it's not absolute. | ||
| We have a bunch of really bad ideas we get rid of. | ||
| Traditional medicine, we inject mercury for syphilis. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No. | |
| Bad idea. | ||
| Progress can be a great thing. | ||
| In fact, naturally it is. | ||
| But when these people argue progress is something that makes no sense, you get the point. | ||
| And when people say progressives are, you know, they don't agree with it. | ||
| Ultimately what I end up seeing here is these behaviors can't persist. | ||
| They can't. | ||
| Because All that matters is these groups are more likely to sterilize their kids, or abort their kids. | ||
| End of story. | ||
| We're done. | ||
| That means less kids from these groups, more kids from conservative groups, and then people argue, yeah, but they're coming after your kids. | ||
| Non-argument. | ||
| Non-argument. | ||
| That does not matter. | ||
| Everyone's influencing everyone all the time. | ||
| Conservatives have influence as well, and they're gaining more. | ||
| The idea that children deviate from their parents to such a great degree leftists, leftism will survive, is incorrect. | ||
| Now, it is true that if you send your kids off to them, you may lose your kids, ideologically. | ||
| But as they say, the apple does not fall far from the tree. | ||
| So I do not see this stuff persisting for a very, very long time. | ||
| But who knows? | ||
| Far be it for me to be a psychic or to know the future. | ||
| Those are just my arguments as to why this stuff probably won't exist. | ||
| I'm not a fan of it. | ||
| I wouldn't want to associate with these guys. | ||
| But you know what, man? | ||
| I'm not gonna, you know, we call it tolerance. | ||
| Tolerate. | ||
| I don't even care about tolerating. | ||
| I'm just saying, like, I won't interact with these dudes, so I don't care. | ||
| They can do their thing and live how they want to live. | ||
| I just think in the long run, cultural ideas like this can't survive. | ||
| Evolution. | ||
| And of course these people say that the evolutionary arguments for these things are bigoted and racist or whatever. | ||
| It's biological essentialism, etc, etc, etc. | ||
| Fine, don't believe in evolution. | ||
| Whatever, I don't care. | ||
| Have a nice day. | ||
| Next segment's coming up in a few minutes. | ||
| Stick around and I'll see you all shortly. | ||
| Major breaking news just happened as I was preparing to record a different segment, but this one must be discussed. | ||
| I just got the notification. | ||
| I just tweeted this out. | ||
| I want to give a special shout out to Elon Musk. | ||
| This is one of the most brilliant moves we have seen in social media. | ||
| I am obviously very excited to hear this. | ||
| Yo, Elon. | ||
| You are doing an amazing job with Twitter. | ||
| For all the problems we've seen and all the complaints, I see a lot of conservatives complaining about getting censored. | ||
| I'm like, dude, Elon is doing a fantastic job here. | ||
| The breaking news? | ||
| I'm getting paid! | ||
|
unidentified
|
What? | |
| I had no idea this was coming. | ||
| I did not do anything special. | ||
| And Elon Musk straight hits me up and he's like, bro, how would you like $6,000? | ||
| Holy, wow. | ||
| Check this out. | ||
| Not literally Elon, but right after I finished recording the other segment, I go to Twitter and this pop-up appears, and I'm like, what is this? | ||
| It says, Congratulations, TimCast. | ||
| As your share of our ad revenue in replies, you're receiving $5,823. | ||
| Your portion will be deposited into your Stripe Connected account within the next 72 hours. | ||
| Thank you for being a creator on Twitter. | ||
| Round of applause, round of applause. | ||
| Take a look at this. | ||
| On my homepage, this is what it says. | ||
| Awesome! | ||
| We're delighted to share a portion of our ad revenue in replies with you. | ||
| We want to make sure you can benefit from your post as a creator, and this is yet another step towards that goal. | ||
| You'll receive your share via the Stripe account you use to register for Creator Subscriptions in the next 72 hours. | ||
| We'll follow up soon with information about an official new program. | ||
| If you have any questions, please reach out to us at Creator Support at Twitter. | ||
| I don't even want to click the finish button. | ||
| I am so excited! | ||
| Seriously, Twitter has just changed the game. | ||
| Threads comes out. | ||
| What's that, Threads? | ||
| We signed up 100 million users in the first few hours? | ||
| Bro, you can't make money on Instagram. | ||
| I do not make direct money on Instagram. | ||
| TikTok banned Tim Castile for no reason. | ||
| We're back. | ||
| But they banned us for no reason. | ||
| They don't tell us why, they don't tell us what we did. | ||
| Facebook locks us out of our accounts for no reason. | ||
| Now look, we make money on Facebook ads, we do. | ||
| Twitter launching a partnership program is the smartest thing imaginable, especially right now with all the news about Meta's threads. | ||
| Check this out. | ||
| One week of threads. | ||
| Meta's Twitter killer app breaks record to pass 109 million users, but are people actually using it after signing up? | ||
| The reality? | ||
| No. | ||
| I mean look, of course that's hyperbolic. | ||
| They are using it. | ||
| I pull up the app, and I gotta tell you. | ||
| I'm not seeing it, honestly. | ||
| I do not see the same degree of engagement as we saw on the first day. | ||
| I think that's fair and obvious. | ||
| I'm not trying to drag threads. | ||
| I can respect that they want to launch some kind of platform, but when I come on the platform threads, I don't see it. | ||
| I don't see the same degree of interaction, but it's obvious. | ||
| The first day it was really, really exciting. | ||
| Everybody wanted to use it. | ||
| Now it seems like people are starting to go back to Twitter. | ||
| Here's where the good news kicks in. | ||
| I got 1.7 million followers. | ||
| I do not... I don't really think about my tweets. | ||
| I don't plan tweets. | ||
| I don't schedule tweets. | ||
| The idea that I did literally nothing, no planning, no work outside of just being me, and I'm gonna make six grand? | ||
| Yo. | ||
| There's a lot we can do with that. | ||
| We've talked about at TimCast.com wanting to give members a grant of some sort, like $10,000 once a month to someone. | ||
| We've given out... I should say, it's my money, so I've given out... | ||
| A decent amount of money, like 30 or 40 grand, to various individuals over the past month or two. | ||
| So we want to more formalize it. | ||
| But this is something that we could absolutely use to contribute to helping people launch new programs. | ||
| I did not expect this revenue stream, but I'm excited to see it. | ||
| And for that reason, I think it would be imperative that TimCast begin uploading segments to Twitter. | ||
| Check this out. | ||
| I don't know if full length videos like this one would do well on Twitter. | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| The formatting system for Twitter doesn't necessarily support this. | ||
| But short form makes a lot of sense. | ||
| Considering what they have just paid me for doing whatever. | ||
| I think we're gonna start uploading shorts to Twitter, which is only a couple per day. | ||
| Most of you probably won't notice, some of you will. | ||
| But if these get retweeted, generate conversations, and we can generate real money from this, it's a tremendous opportunity for business growth, growth we did not expect, and an opportunity to grow more users on Twitter for Twitter to succeed. | ||
| I think Elon Musk is hitting this one out of the park. | ||
| The most important factor in growing a social media platform Is revenue generation. | ||
| No question, no joke. | ||
| This caught me off guard. | ||
| Now, let's be real. | ||
| I got 1.7 million followers. | ||
| It's fair to say that because I didn't plan any of this, I'm making less money. | ||
| Ashley St. | ||
| Clair tweeted that she's getting about $7,000. | ||
| I don't know, I think I have more followers than her, but the reality is I don't take Twitter all that seriously. | ||
| Now all of a sudden, I got a message saying, yo, Twitter's it. | ||
| I don't gotta worry about getting censored. | ||
| I'm wondering if perhaps we should actually start to carve out a space for content specific to Twitter, and I think the answer is overwhelmingly yes. | ||
| This is how Twitter wins. | ||
| This is how they defeat the competition. | ||
| It's how they start to gain in the space. | ||
| Already we know that Twitter is the news hub. | ||
| You're not gonna go anywhere else. | ||
| Threads? | ||
| Not gonna be it. | ||
| A lot of people are upset that they're still banned. | ||
| They should get unbanned. | ||
| I think Alex Jones should be unbanned. | ||
| But I've long talked about how do you win in the social media space, and there's two big ways. | ||
| One, Elon needs to do targeted marketing towards Gen Z. Elon needs to find a way to bring them into the conversation. | ||
| There's something I noticed that's really interesting. | ||
| Twitter tends to be a news space, a news and activist and political space. | ||
| But as I've started to play more poker, which most of you have probably noticed, I've come to see that Twitter's actually a very, very prominent space for poker players. | ||
| For some reason, whatever, I don't know why, Twitter is the place they choose to communicate. | ||
| Perhaps because poker is an information game, and you can share clips, and you can do hand breakdowns easier on Twitter than you could on, say, Instagram or TikTok. | ||
| But there are vloggers who use Instagram and TikTok. | ||
| If Elon Musk can figure out ways to capture more subcultures, Twitter absolutely can take over, and I'm excited to hear it. | ||
| I've got more Twitter followers on my- I've got more followers on Twitter than any individual account. | ||
| TimCast on YouTube is 1.3, TimCast IRL is 1.54, uh, this channel I think is like 1.18 or something, and Twitter is 1.7. | ||
| That means, the biggest opportunity for us in terms of growth? | ||
| Twitter. | ||
| Less censorship. | ||
| There's still censorship. | ||
| Revenue generation. | ||
| People have been asking us if we're going to multicast TimCast IRL. | ||
| I think... I think it's about time we multicast onto Twitter. | ||
| I would love to talk with people at the Twitter team about doing that, and I'll tell you why. | ||
| The amount of comments that we get on YouTube. | ||
| Massive. | ||
| Think about this for a second. | ||
| If the revenue breakdown Includes replies to replies. | ||
| The amount of revenue we would generate from Twitter based off what I've already made could be in the millions of dollars per year. | ||
| No question. | ||
| Elon Musk just unleashed the hordes. | ||
| Here's my consideration. | ||
| I believe, based on what I've read, I could be wrong so I'll look into this. | ||
| If I tweet something, and people see ads in the replies, I get a portion of that revenue. | ||
| My understanding is that if someone replies, and then someone else replies, and they read that reply, I get a portion of that revenue. | ||
| The same, because it's all part of the same parent thread. | ||
| If that's true. | ||
| That means launching a live stream like TimCastIRL on Twitter will generate millions of comments because the threads will result in threads, will result in arguments. | ||
| It will be massive. | ||
| And we're gonna be talking about generating a ton of revenue. | ||
| Not to mention having 1.7 million followers makes it a viable option as it is. | ||
| If we... I'm gonna look into this tonight, no question. | ||
| We're gonna start looking into how we can do multicasting onto Twitter immediately because Elon Musk opened the door for us. | ||
| We're less worried about censorship. | ||
| We're gonna make money off this. | ||
| I think this is how we win. | ||
| Now, I don't know exactly how the system works. | ||
| I don't know exactly how- We've looked into live streaming a bit before. | ||
| I'm still a big fan of Rumble, and we use a lot of Rumble infrastructure, and we'll still use Rumble infrastructure for our members only. | ||
| But wow. | ||
| I don't know what else to say, man. | ||
| I mean, this is absolutely incredible. | ||
| Threads ain't got nothing on this. | ||
| It's hard enough to monetize on other platforms, and Twitter has just rolled out this new program. | ||
| I'm just super excited, man. | ||
| Winning. | ||
| How would you feel if one day you were sitting at your computer and you got a notification saying, oh by the way, we're sending you $6,000. | ||
| I'm like, what?! | ||
| Holy crap. | ||
| This is how we do it. | ||
| Here's the last thing I'd add to this. | ||
| Elon, you gotta create an easier way to access video feeds. | ||
| It should be, there's gotta be like a window feed. | ||
| Like a graph or whatever, however you describe it. | ||
| This reverse chronological feed for videos is harder to navigate. | ||
| So, if there is a video section that can show you thumbnails and clips, that's how we do it. | ||
| I'll start uploading everything. | ||
| I think the first move we're gonna make is gonna be shorts. | ||
| Minute-long clips to upload to Twitter, and we'll probably start doing that ASAP. | ||
| I need to figure out how we connect all of our business accounts into this, so I'm gonna be seeking that out, but this is big news, everybody. | ||
| I'm super excited for this. | ||
| Maybe, I don't know. | ||
| Had to get out there. | ||
| I'll leave it there. | ||
| Next segment is coming up tonight at 8 p.m. | ||
| at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL. |