All Episodes
Aug. 17, 2023 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:22:17
Democrat Plot EXPOSED, Dems Demand Trump Trial On SUPER TUESDAY To KILL His Campaign

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 Democrat Plot EXPOSED, Dems Demand Trump Trial On SUPER TUESDAY To KILL His Campaign Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants
Main voices
t
tim pool
01:19:56
Appearances
Clips
j
josh hammer
00:32
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool
Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
Now, let's jump into the first story.
It's not like we needed any kind of expose or leaked messages and documents.
What Democrats are doing is absurdly obvious.
And now we can see their plan coming to fruition.
Fulton County District Attorney wants Trump trial to begin March 4th, 2024, one day before Super Tuesday primaries.
That's right.
The reason why they're indicting Trump's lawyers, the reason why they're indicting Trump administration personnel, is they are doing everything in their power to financially and politically hobble the Donald Trump campaign.
I'm not entirely convinced they oppose Ron DeSantis.
I think many of them feel that DeSantis is more easily controlled, would probably try to negotiate.
This has been my argument for some time.
I'm not saying Ron DeSantis is a deep state plant or anything crazy like that.
Just that Ron DeSantis' view of this is probably, I'm gonna bring about these changes, these cultural issues are a problem, I'm gonna get rid of them, but I'm gonna go in and do things right.
We're gonna negotiate, we're gonna figure out where we can get things done.
I'm not sure that's the plan.
But that seems like the Ron DeSantis plan.
Don't get me wrong, Ron DeSantis did publicly say he was going to, quote, start slitting throats on day one.
But his campaign's in freefall.
Predicted now has Vivek Ramaswamy definitively in second place, and several polls are coming out showing Vivek in second place.
I actually think Vivek is the better choice, but I like Ronnie.
He's done a really, really great job in Florida.
It's just his campaign is spiraling, and he can't seem to get a foothold.
The argument from many people is that they are trying to shut down Ron DeSantis because he is the only one who can defeat Joe Biden.
I do not believe that's true.
The polling doesn't show it.
I don't necessarily trust the polling, but I'm going to tell you personally, personally.
Here's how I view things.
Donald Trump is deeply unfavorable.
Fact.
Ron DeSantis is also deeply unfavorable.
Vivek Ramaswamy is, I don't know, questionable.
I look at Vivek and I see quick wit, well-researched, thought-out positions, he's running a great campaign, he's skyrocketing in the polls, and I think he could muster up a decent amount of votes.
I don't see him defeating Donald Trump.
And to be honest, even with the people who hate Trump, I don't know who could actually defeat Joe Biden.
I don't see a legitimate reason anyone can offer as to why Vivek or Ron DeSantis could defeat Joe Biden.
But we'll talk about this.
The bigger issue at play is that Democrats are cheating.
I'll say it again.
Democrats are cheating.
Now, of course, they're coming out and telling you that Republicans are cheating.
They've been trying to suppress votes and all of that other nonsense.
And that stupid, age-old, typical politics.
Trying to argue in court for why the rules should be one way or another, whatever.
I don't think the system can ever be truly fair because, well, the Republicans' argument is that we don't want people who are dead on the ballot because you can get duplicate ballots.
We don't want non-citizens voting.
It sometimes happens.
Let's clean up the voter rolls.
We don't want people who have moved out of these districts or the state to come in, vote, and then leave and then go back to where they live now.
Let's clean up the voter rolls.
Makes sense, right?
Democrats argue this is voter suppression and that people should register so that they can vote and every vote should count and we're going to make it as easy as possible to vote.
The Republicans are trying to remove people's names off the ballot so that they can win.
It's all politicking.
But here, what we see the Democrats doing is more overt cheating than... I mean, look, if you're a sane, rational person, there's no conclusion you can come to.
If you're a liar and a cultist who desperately hates Trump, you'll probably just agree with the indictments.
But let's be real.
Indicting Trump's lawyers Is insane.
And they want the trial date.
They want the trial to begin just before Super Tuesday, one of the most critical, if not the most critical days in a presidential campaign.
CNN says Fulton County District Attorney Fannie Willis has asked a judge to set a trial date of March 4th, 2024 for former President Donald Trump and his 18 co-defendants.
A proposal that would put the Republican presidential candidate on a trial a day before he competes in the Super Tuesday primary contests.
This means, understand my friends, some may say it's the day before.
He'll have done all his campaign.
He won't be able to campaign if he's trying to muster up legal defenses and meeting with his lawyers right before his trial is to start.
And I got to tell you, I'm willing to bet that they will try to remand Donald Trump into custody.
It is August.
We are talking about half a year or more.
It's not that long, okay, in terms of the average adult lifespan.
Time's flying, huh?
Can you believe it's already August 2023?
Now, it may be a little soon to remand Trump, but I believe they're going to try, because they've already made the argument that Trump is a flight risk at the federal level.
They included in a... I think it was charging documents?
No, no.
It was the warrant for Donald Trump's Twitter, I believe it was.
Not the warrant, but the filing for it.
To get the warrant.
They said that Trump was a flight risk and the court agreed.
If they believe that.
Why would they let Trump go?
Well, for one, it's all political.
At the federal level, they're saying, we got to be very careful how we handle this.
We don't want to be too overt, but we do want to cause damage to his campaign.
Fulton County?
These people are nuts!
Charging as lawyers?
Here's the message they're sending.
If you work with Donald Trump in any way, we'll call you a co-conspirator.
Jenna Ellis is a really great example.
She's charged under counts 1 and 2 of the indictment.
I believe there are 31... No, no, no.
Is it 49?
41 maybe?
Different available charges in the indictment.
Donald Trump was hit with 13.
Jenna Ellis was hit on counts one and two, which was Rico.
And the second was, I think it was violating oath of office as a public officer or something like that.
They're basically saying, by being Trump's lawyer, she was involved in a criminal enterprise.
And by working on any of these requests, she had violated her oath of public office or induced someone to do such.
That's insane.
They want to make sure no legal firm will work with Donald Trump.
Who's going to do it now?
You mean they indicted his lawyers, calling it a conspiracy?
Okay.
So if you're a law firm right now and Trump comes to you and says, I need a lawyer for these cases, they're going to say, if I work to find you not guilty in these charges, they will claim that I am conspiring with you in furtherance of your conspiracy because they view the conspiracy as being law, as being fact, as being solid, physical.
They don't think, I'll put it this way, they probably don't believe it's true, but they're acting as though the conspiracy is already proven.
And any action taken by anyone to help Trump furthers that conspiracy.
So why would a law firm want to work with Trump?
Here's Super Tuesday!
Just so you understand the severity of what they're trying to do, Super Tuesday is the United States presidential primary election day in February or March when the greatest number of U.S.
states hold primary elections and caucuses.
Approximately one-third of all delegates to the presidential nominating conventions can be won on Super Tuesday more than any other day.
The results on Super Tuesday are therefore a strong indicator of the likely eventual nominee of each political party.
Right now, Vivek Ramaswamy is in a hard second place in the prediction markets.
I believe we have two new polls that have come out putting him in second place.
He is now surpassing Ron DeSantis.
However, in aggregate, Ron is still in second place.
Now, I'm a big fan of Vivek Ramaswamy.
Certainly, there are people starting to pop up, Trump supporters, who are calling him out, saying that his opinions have changed on this thing.
unidentified
Okay, dude, I really don't care about that.
tim pool
People's opinions change.
Vivek is allowed to make mistakes.
He was not an overtly political guy a year or two years ago.
I am sure he's learned a whole lot about what's going on.
I also believe that like any other person running for office, he probably said, here are the things I really care about and want to affect.
And then someone asked him, what about foreign policy?
He's probably like, I don't know enough about it.
So here are some things you should read.
He comes out and he says, here's what I think.
He gets people going, you are wrong.
Consider this.
And he goes, I was wrong about that.
I don't think every time a politician flip-flops on an issue, it proves they're malicious.
I do think, however, Vivek, like any other politician, probably has areas of policy where he's weak on and is being advised to assert certain positions.
It would be absurd to think otherwise.
But I have my conversations with Vivek, and my opinion of him is that he wants revenge on these woke people.
And revenge is probably the wrong word.
He feels threatened by, and he thinks this country is at risk of, ESG and woke policies.
That's why he started a financial firm to actually counter ESG.
He tells this story about how he got involved in this.
He was basically attacked by BLM woke extremists, got people to resign from his company, and I'm like, I see that.
If you were to come to me and attack something that I spent my life building, a multi-billion dollar company, yeah, I'd certainly feel threatened, angry, and I'd take action against you.
And that action would come in the form of legal challenges or running for office and making the conversation about ending what you're doing.
Ron DeSantis, he's going to be termed that as governor.
I think he sees this as the next logical step.
The governor, where do you go from there?
Well, maybe the Senate probably doesn't make as much sense, so he's going to go for the presidency.
I can respect that.
I think Ron DeSantis did a fantastic job in Florida, but he is doing a miserable job in his campaign, losing donors, losing supporters, and tanking in the polls.
That doesn't mean we should count him out.
And I'll put it this way.
First, Ron DeSantis' supporters are the most vile and unapologetically awful people for the most part.
Not all of them, not all of them.
We have a lot of fans, I know you guys watch the show, that are getting behind Ron DeSantis.
And I think those of you who watch the show and do understand where I'm coming from and actually listen to what I have to say.
But I can come out, you know, the other day I said, If Trump flees to Florida, will Ron DeSantis stand by his words and refuse to extradite?
And I get inundated with a bunch of these DeSantis supporters like, when did he ever say that?
Nice dig at Ron DeSantis.
And I'm like, why are you yelling at me?
Ron DeSantis literally said he will not assist in any extradition of Donald Trump.
Like, he will refuse to extradite Trump.
I didn't say he's going to get a bunch of good old boys to surround his Mar-a-Lago home.
And then block entrance to federal law enforcement.
I said, he personally wouldn't do it.
That's the question.
unidentified
Hey, it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall, and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
See you on the tour!
So I'll tell you this...
tim pool
The DeSantis campaign put out deepfakes.
It's slimy.
It's dirty.
And they never apologized for it.
They doubled down on it.
I think that's disgusting.
Many of his most ardent supporters defended it.
Tomorrow's gonna be really interesting when we have this three-way debate.
That's right.
We're going to have a DeSantis supporter, a Trump supporter, and our original guest who was on the DeSantis camp, who is not on the camp, who is on the train, whatever you want to call it, in support of DeSantis, and is now veering away saying, I'm not so sure about this.
We're gonna have that conversation.
I said, I'm not gonna support Ron DeSantis because of the deepfake thing.
I mean, it was really simple to come out and be like, no, no, no, we're not doing that.
Then you get the Ron DeSantis Sonnenrad video.
That's crazy.
Come on, how did you... What is going on, guys?
These people are just... I'm sorry, dude.
When it comes to the Republican primary, Trump is the cool kids.
DeSantis is the nerdy square kids.
They make good points, they're pretty smart, but they're not going to win a debate because they have no charisma.
Donald Trump guys, eh, not everybody likes them because they're kind of brash and arrogant.
You see where I'm coming.
But let me say this.
I'll vote for Ron DeSantis, even if he does not ever apologize for the deepfakes.
He can do one thing.
He can come out in a press conference right now and say, Don, come home tomorrow lago, buddy.
Put your feet up in your house.
Relax.
Because we will not allow extradition from our state.
If Ron DeSantis were to say they will not allow Trump to be extradited, he'd have my support.
He'd have my support back.
Because that's a bold, bold move that proves a lot.
Not that I'm happy about the deepfake stuff.
No.
But I'm looking for someone who's going to stand up to the machine.
And if Donald Trump can't win, and Ron DeSantis proves that he's willing to reject these political charges, that means a lot.
Here's what I think Donald Trump should do right now.
First, let me give you some context.
Alan Dershowitz said, Al Gore, his legal team, and I tried to find uncounted presidential votes, lobbied officials, and fought in the courts in 2000.
The only difference now?
The candidate's name is Donald Trump.
That's why this prosecution is an outrage.
We all know it's true.
We all know that every single time Democrats have lost, they've waged some kind of lawfare to try and win.
That's what you'd expect.
Donald Trump's team did the exact same thing.
Democrats have been doing this.
I'm not surprised by this.
I'm not surprised by this.
So here's what I think Trump should do.
I believe that Trump should not be in New Jersey.
He should be in Mar-a-Lago.
He should be in Florida.
It's safer, unless he doesn't trust Ron DeSantis that much.
And he should await legal documents to be served to his lawyers and he should say, When you come and knock on my door personally to contact me personally so that I can receive a receipt of delivery of service, I will respond to these charges.
For the time being, a public press conference is not legally binding and means literally nothing.
That's what he should say.
He should go home, go to Mar-a-Lago, and say, I await your peaceful knock at my door.
Until then, have a nice day.
I love this.
Trump is supposed to surrender in one week in Fulton County.
Okay.
I assume this means that the Fulton County District Attorney's Office has sent the legal paperwork to Trump's legal team.
They've accepted receipt of the documents and agree with them.
I think that's a mistake.
You don't just get to go on TV and say, we hereby declare.
Doesn't work.
There has to be legal service of documents.
Now Trump, I don't know what his strategy is.
I'm not saying his strategy is wrong.
Perhaps their strategy is we're going to play ball with this to try and win and then take the battle to the election.
I'm not so sure that'll work out.
I don't know for sure.
I have no idea.
Perhaps it's only because I don't know what's going on behind the scenes, I would believe that Trump's best play is to say, serve me legal documents, legal paperwork.
But I have seen a lot of people say that.
The one thing that puts this into an end right away is if all of those who are indicted refuse to surrender.
Oh boy, are you going to have a constitutional crisis?
Especially if it's Donald Trump.
Especially if it's his lawyers.
Imagine if Jenna Ellis says, I won't surrender.
These charges are unconstitutional.
They violate the right of a person to legal counsel.
And no, I won't be showing up in Georgia to face political persecution.
Mark Meadows already filed to have the case moved to federal court.
It's remarkable to me where we are right now.
Let me tell you about New York.
During the COVID lockdowns, churches were shut down.
Lawsuits were filed arguing that the governor has no right to shut down churches under the First Amendment.
The lawsuits succeeded.
The court said, yeah, you can't do this, dude.
And so the governor said, okay, we're gonna throw out that executive order.
And then I'm gonna make another one doing the exact same thing with slightly different wording, and you'll have to sue me again.
That's not supposed to be how it works.
The spirit of the ruling should stand.
That you cannot shut down churches.
Didn't matter, he did it anyway.
Who's gonna stop him?
Nobody.
The courts have no enforcement power.
And that's the secret to the system.
That's why the Supreme Court is often very terrified to rule in certain ways, because they know that if they push too hard, people will just say, hey, wait a minute.
We can do whatever we want anyway.
The court has no enforcement authority.
And so what they say matters very little.
I'm not gonna be wrong, they have marshals.
And the sheriff, like let's say that a court says you must do X, a sheriff can enforce that, but it really comes down to the executive.
He can say to law enforcement, no don't.
And who's gonna listen to who?
That's where things get dicey.
And so that's what I see going on right now.
That Donald Trump could be unconstitutionally charged, and he's supposed to submit to this?
Well, that doesn't make sense.
I believe before Trump and any one of these defendants surrenders in Georgia, there should be an emergency filing to the Supreme Court to have this thrown out.
They should not see any kind of processing or booking or fingerprinting or mugshots.
But, oh boy, this will be interesting.
They're putting Trump in a decision dilemma, as it's called.
He can submit, bow on his knees, crying to a county prosecutor, which he'll probably end up doing.
They will get fingerprints, they will get mug shots, and they will put him in jail.
I'm not saying they'll remand him to custody, but he's going to jail.
That's what they've said.
Maybe they won't.
Trump often negotiates, in the past several indictments, that he gets to come in, make his statement to the court, plead not guilty, and then leave.
Fulton County said no.
We're doing this by the book.
Mugshot, detainment, and county jail.
How are you going to put a former president in county jail?
The Secret Service going to go to jail with him?
How is this going to work?
They're putting Trump in a decision dilemma.
Either you submit and we get everything we want, or you deny, become a fugitive from the law in our state, we remove your name from the ballot, and then we claim Trump is a fugitive.
I think the smartest thing the Trump team can do right now is go to Florida, not claim to be a fugitive from the law, just simply say, we're awaiting the service of legal documents to understand what the charges are.
Look, you can't just go on TV and announce these things.
That pushes back a little bit.
In the meantime, they should be filing to federal courts, like Mark Meadows has done, and to the Supreme Court, which is probably what Mark Meadows' plan is, and then say, until the resolution of this, we will not abide.
There should be... I don't know if you'd call it an injunction or whatever, because it's a criminal proceeding.
But there should be a stay or whatever on the current charges until the federal courts and the Supreme Court most likely has a chance to hear the charges and determine whether or not under the Constitution Trump can even be charged.
But I gotta tell ya.
josh hammer
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
It's America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool
The constitutionality of the charges, considering especially that a court clerk published the indictments before they were even voted on, I think that shows that's a sham.
When it comes to Trump, perhaps Jeffrey Clark and Mark Meadows, those who worked in the administration, I believe they're all legally protected to varying degrees, but for the most part legally protected.
I believe the argument that the president can't be charged for acts he undertook as president, unless he's impeached, is sound.
It makes sense.
The president can commit crimes, but they have to be impeached for those high crimes and misdemeanors before you can bring about true criminal proceedings.
That seems to make sense.
Impeachment and conviction, removal from office, and then criminal charges.
Think about it this way, if Trump did shoot someone on Fifth Avenue, you would then impeach him for murder, convict him for murder, he'd be removed from office, and then charged civilly as a citizen.
But this is why you, the reason is, the argument comes up as to whether or not Obama had the right militaristically to bomb a cafe in Yemen, killing an American citizen.
I believe he doesn't.
I believe he should be criminally charged.
And that starts with impeachment, which is effective indictment, conviction, and yes, post-presidency.
So that way you bring about these charges.
That's why Trump was impeached after he was out of office.
You see how that works?
They say, well, they can still do it.
Now, as for the rest of Trump's legal team, hmm, not so lucky, not so lucky.
They're not going to get the same arguments.
They're going to say, we are lawyers, and they're going to say, well, you don't have the same protections as the president.
They can argue that working on behalf of the president confers the same protections because they were offering legal advice.
Jeffrey Clark is the most hilarious indictment, in my opinion.
Yo, this is a guy who is the Acting Assistant Attorney General.
That's like the second highest legal position in the country, offering up legal advice on the Constitution to the President, and they're calling him a conspirator.
Now that's amazing.
What you do as President in interpreting the Constitution can now be considered a criminal action.
We'll see where this goes, I suppose.
We know it's a sham.
We know exactly what they're trying to do.
I have to wonder, if this does hobble and remove Donald Trump, who then runs?
Lastly, what I want to see, to reiterate.
I want to see Ron DeSantis say, you will not set foot in Florida to extradite Donald Trump.
Now, it's a win-win situation for Ron DeSantis.
If Trump does go to Florida and say, we await legal documents to be served before we answer these ridiculous charges, and then Ron says, not only will we not assist in the extradition because it is clearly a political charge, we will not allow federal law enforcement to intervene in state law and take one of our residents out of state for what is clearly an unconstitutional charge.
Ron DeSantis can stand on the on the they published the charges before the grand jury voted.
This does not appear to be legal, constitutional or legitimate.
Now, here's what he gets out of it.
One, he looks strong by defending Trump and two.
Trump would have a hard time campaigning and leaving the state.
And how's he gonna come out and attack Ron DeSantis if DeSantis took a strong position like that?
But I got no idea.
I can only tell you that this is unprecedented.
We have no idea where this goes.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Oliver Anthony has hit the dream to write a song so good that it goes viral and everybody wants to hear it.
There have been many songs that have done such a thing, some organically, some not, and Oliver Anthony's Rich Men North of Richmond has organically, well as far as we know, but organically reached the masses sweeping across the country.
16, 17 million views in a week on one channel alone, not to mention all the tens of millions of views On Twitter, this song just will not stop.
And the left is seething!
Despite the fact that Oliver Anthony is not a hardcore partisan guy, he's a working class guy.
He says he's a middle-of-the-road guy, but they're calling him an industry plant.
Oh boy.
Let's talk about this.
There's a lot to break down in the industry.
I am not the biggest industry guy.
Phil LaBonte is probably way more versed in this stuff, but I do have some experience throughout my life.
I've been playing music since I was probably seven years old, and recording music to various degrees.
And then, as you know, we have TimCast Music, a bunch of songs we've put out.
And there's a lot I want to break down here.
But I will tell you this, as we get started, mainly I want to talk about the cultural ramifications of a powerful song like this, what it means, what it could lead to, the reaction from the left, and why they're so angry.
But I'll tell you, most music you hear, pay to play.
Now, that doesn't mean that, say, Taylor Swift goes to a radio station and says, we're gonna give you a bunch of money to put this song on your radio station.
But it does mean that, in effect, there is some exchange of value.
Now, if you go to a radio station and say outright that you want them to play your song, and you're going to pay the money, that's illegal.
Actually illegal.
I forget what it's called.
There's a term for it.
The one way you can do it is if you tell them, I want to buy, let's say you have a three-minute song, you're like, I want to buy three minutes of commercial time, and I want this song to play as a commercial.
They had to disclose that it's commercial, so they'll say something, and now, you know, a message from our sponsors, and then your song plays, or something like that.
But I still think it's a hard thing to pull off.
Nobody does it.
When it comes to being the top of the Billboard charts, the Hot 100, here's the secret.
Digital streaming playlists are the key these days.
So let me tell you, Oliver Anthony, he's got the top of the iTunes charts.
That's the real metric in my opinion.
Are your fans seeking you out to give you money because they like what you do or Are they claiming that you are the Hot 100 song simply because a lot of people have streamed your music?
The reality there is that digital streaming playlists will pick up an artist they assume to be popular, Taylor Swift, play that song by default when people press like pop radio, and then they'll say, wow, the song's so popular.
Well, if radio stations just choose to play songs and it puts them on top of the charts, doesn't really mean the song's popular, does it?
And sometimes a song can get in the mix, like Rich Men North of Richmond.
It goes viral.
Everybody wants to hear it.
They demand it.
And without access to the industry machine, you break through and hit that top spot.
If properly tracked, and I think Billboard will have no choice, no choice, if properly tracked, I believe Richmond, north of Richmond, will probably be somewhere on the Hot 100, possibly number one.
And I'll talk to you about this in a second, but let's talk about the, is Oliver Anthony an industry plant?
The Great Conspiracy.
Yes, you must consider it, right?
This guy seemingly comes out of nowhere with this working class anthem.
Surely this can't be organic.
No, I think it's organic.
I think it's organic because it's not the most complicated song in the world.
It didn't have the best marketing budget.
It was literally people being like, have you heard the song?
That's what every musician dreams of.
There were no commercials.
What is the conspiracy?
Are they arguing that record labels got together and then hired a bunch of social media bot companies to spam this guy?
Spare me.
John Rich hit the nail on the head with the hammer.
He said all the major record labels in Nashville are falling over themselves to lure Oliver Anthony.
The irony is, if he would have been signed to a label when he wrote this song, none of us would have ever heard it.
His song fried their brains, their greed is overriding their wokeness.
This is exactly what I have been hoping for, what I have been talking about, Money talks, BS walks.
We see it with Target.
First sales decline in six years.
You see it with Bud Light.
$400 million lost.
You see it with Target, down 27% in their stock.
Similar with Anheuser-Inbev.
They've taken a hit.
I think they may have recovered a little bit, and in recent times, Target has been recovering a little bit, but they're both down.
You see it with Sound of Freedom.
Massive success.
This is the boycotts and the boycotts combined.
It is the we are winning the culture war.
And who's we?
Working class, anti-establishment, libertarian, some moderate conservative types, not neocons.
Not everybody in this movement is the same thing.
Not everybody opposing the machine and the trafficking and the corruption believe in the same values or come from the same place.
I don't think it's fair to call me a working class.
I certainly had a working class upbringing, but now I'm a media elite.
So I think it's mostly libertarian-leaning anti-establishment for the most part.
This is victory.
We believe in this country.
We are sick of the corruption.
We are sick of the swamp monsters, and we want change.
Oliver Anthony isn't the most political person.
He calls himself, you know, middle-of-the-road kind of guy.
Hey, it resonates with, uh, with how I feel in a lot of ways.
Though I think we probably disagree on some things.
Apparently he opens a show, his first live performance after the song goes viral, with, uh, reading from the Bible.
I got tons of respect for that.
Not my cup of tea.
I'm not an overtly Christian person.
I do believe in God, but, uh, you know, more power to him.
I respect it tremendously.
Let's talk about the conspiracy, though.
I love this.
Variety writes, Is viral sensation Oliver Anthony too good to be true?
Too right to be true?
Or an authentic working class hero?
Which is something to be.
Since the Virginia natives' Richmond North of Richmond song began taking off out of nowhere less than a week ago, the Appalachian country folk singer has been acclaimed by freshly minted fans as a phenomenon.
Of the people accused by detractors of harboring ugly right-wing attitudes or suspected of being an industry plant.
I want to point out one of their criticisms first.
They say it's a phenomenon not unlike the rise of Jason Aldean's similarly right-rousing Try That in a Small Town, but with a literally friendlier face.
His critics maintain he is punching down as well as up with the song lyrics about the obese milk and welfare.
Well, God, if you're 5'3 and you're 300 pounds, taxes ought not to be paying for your bag of fudge rounds, as well as the supposed fat cats in Washington, D.C.
that are ostensibly the main target of the tune.
One of the big criticisms I've seen is that he's just insulting people suffering on welfare.
No, uh, he's right.
I like welfare.
I do.
I've had- I've gotten unemployment when I lost my job before.
Saved me.
Helped me keep my apartment, not go broke, and then I found another job and got off it.
It was fantastic.
So you got somebody who is morbidly obese, buying cookies and candies and not working, and I gotta pay for it?
He's gotta pay for it?
Yeah, people don't take kindly to that.
You got someone who gets laid off from the factory, and they go on welfare, and we pay for that?
That I'm proud of.
I want to say to that working class guy when his factory shut down, don't worry man, I got a couch for you to sleep on, you're not going to be homeless, we're going to take care of you, and we're going to figure this out so you can get back on your feet.
You know, the left complains about the right saying, um, you gotta pull yourself up by your bootstraps or whatever.
There's a saying, if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach a man a fish, you feed him for the rest of his life.
My attitude is, I'm not gonna give you the fish.
I'm gonna teach you to fish, but I'm gonna help you get that fishing pole.
Because you still need the equipment to do it, right?
You can't pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you ain't got no boots.
So we gotta kick someone off from somewhere.
That's me, middle of the road, right?
Let's read more.
They say, he talks about in his speech that he's non-partisan.
He says, I sit pretty dead center down the aisle on politics, always have.
But the funny thing is, and he's anti-war, that's basically what he's saying.
Conservatives wanting war, I didn't understand that.
When he talks about this line, let me see if we can, here we go.
They're accusing him of harboring QAnon views.
Here's an interesting take on these lyrics.
You're gonna have to hear it from the man's mouth, but here's, let's talk about the bias in the media.
They say, when he does stick with social issues, he doesn't seem to like, he doesn't seem like a political scientist.
Exactly, the only three issues he addresses in his, uh, in his plaints against politicians are high taxes, welfare queens, and child trafficking.
His focus on the latter, which is the sole topic he addressed in his YouTube monologue, has led to the suspicion that he may harbor or represent QAnon views, since that is a key bugaboo of that movement.
Oh, this is laughable.
Although he has been limited in how conspiratorial he has publicly gotten.
Quote, I wish politicians would look out for minors and not just minors on an island somewhere.
He sings a slightly confusing couplet that seems to indicate belief in a government cover-up having to do with
Jeffrey Epstein.
You know why this is stupid? Because it's an interpretable lyric.
Let's phrase this line in a couple different ways.
I think it's fair to say what he's basically saying is they care more about doing awful things with Epstein than about the actual people of this country.
That's how it seems to me.
But you could easily make a more liberal argument, a more narrative-driven argument, that there are conservative politicians that care more about the Epstein narrative and culture wars than about the actual plight of the working class.
Let me ask you this.
How many Republican politicians who are prominent on Twitter have been posting about the plight of the miners in Appalachia who are losing their jobs?
How many tweets do they have about that versus how many tweets they have about Epstein and the Bidens and things like that?
You could easily say what he's really saying is the politicians care more about the conspiracy theories than they do about the actual working class who are experiencing real tough issues.
That being said, I think the dude probably actually understands that Epstein was a real guy who was convicted and there are a lot of dirty politicians who are exploiting this.
My point is simply, it's always the antithesis.
It is always the enemy.
To the left, unless you explicitly come out and say you worship and praise their deities, their DEI, they will call you right-wing.
They say non-fans may have to admit in the brief glimpses of him in public, he has a less belligerent, more conciliatory-seeming persona than that of, say, the perpetually-glowering Aldine.
They want to mention that he opened with Psalm 37.
This is John Rich, said the man.
With the biggest song in the world, Oliver Anthony doesn't start his show with a song, but rather Psalm 37.
The passage details the destruction of the wicked and God's protection for the righteous.
They say, yet there is a sense of righteousness in his undertones that may extend beyond his judgment of obese women.
At his public gig, he opened the show by reading a lengthy biblical passage from Psalm 37.
Here's what I think is funny.
Right now, there's a group that's called Midwestern Marks.
And they're going to be doing an interview with Oliver Anthony.
I just saw the tweet.
I don't know too much about it.
And now there's a conspiracy theory.
That Oliver Anthony's actually leftist!
I don't think so.
The dude's probably centrist middle-of-the-road, and so he probably has no problem talking to leftists who are actually arguing for the working class, albeit that Marxists, I think, are, for the most part, just really, really ignorant and don't understand anything about what's going on.
But, uh, I think... I don't think all of them are evil.
I think there's a lot of ignorance there, maybe a banality of evil.
They say it's almost seems as if Oliver Anthony hadn't come along, someone would had to have invented him.
And some progressives suspect he is an invention of behind-the-scenes forces.
I think John Rich hit the nail on the head with the hammer.
No.
If you wrote an anti-woke song like this with a reference to Epstein, they'd can that and be like, no way, sing about beer, your dog, and your truck.
Your girlfriend left you, but you still got your dog and your truck.
Write that song.
They're not gonna want this.
That's one of the reasons the song takes off.
Because people aren't being served.
People have expectations, they have desires, they have wants, they have things that resonate with them, and the corporate narrative and the media machine and the woke machine doesn't produce this.
I don't want Bud Light piss water, I want delicious Kraft micro-brew.
That's what we want, something that actually matters to us.
I don't drink, I'm making an analogy, get the point.
They're going to say, There's little evidence so far that he is not who he says he is, a factory worker turned farmer with not obscenely expensive resonator guitar without a ton of industry connections waiting in the wings.
Web sleuths may or may not make headway in proving that astroturfing accounts for his success, but it's not hard to grasp the niche he fills.
Let me tell you how I feel.
Maybe it turns out this guy's an industry plant.
They knew he was talented, he could sing and he had a good song, and they said, this is gonna make money.
This traditional beer-in-the-car stuff in the truck doesn't work.
You gotta sing about this.
Here's what I see.
We are sick of Disney.
We are sick of Netflix and Amazon.
The woke garbage.
These nonsensical, insane narratives they put in movies.
The attacks on our core values.
And so here comes a song from a guy who's just some factory worker turned farmer and we would rather him be famous for his words Then any of these other plastic garbage Instagram influencers.
Dude, I will take an Oliver Anthony any day.
I'm not a country music guy.
I like folk though.
I am a folk kind of guy.
So he's overlapping a little bit in a space that I actually enjoy.
I like the song.
You know, like, rap a little bit.
There are certain songs, like, world music, not a big fan.
You know, I can respect the artist and the message.
But, uh, but, you know, I get a little bit out of this.
I like folk music.
I like old-timey acoustic stuff.
I take this guy.
This is the narrative that we want.
Working-class dude, sings a song.
Gets that snowball rolling down the hill, breaks through the veil, and bang!
Here he is, working-class guy with the biggest song.
This is the kind of guy who deserves to be on the top of that stage, speaking his mind to people about how he worked hard, how he made it, how he used his talent, and he did something good.
You know what I'm sick of?
I'm sick of these AI-generated influencers.
I'm sick of OnlyFans.
I'm sick of these NPC women making $4,000 an hour Because they go on and make stupid noises and then do disgusting things on the internet for money.
Look, I'm not some hardcore conservative guy, but I believe in meritocracy.
I believe that there are corrupt forces in this world, degenerate forces in this world.
I believe that we are becoming Sodom and Gomorrah.
And I'm fairly liberal in so many ways.
I'm not a staunch conservative.
I'm in favor of gay marriage.
I got no issue with two gay parents, two women, two men, whatever.
Not a conservative like that.
I can certainly understand conservative arguments in that regard.
I'm more of a live-and-let-live person.
But when they're coming to your kids with nasty books and they're putting the books in schools and they're lying about it, I get sick of it.
When I go on Instagram, and what do I see is a bunch of AI-generated fake women engaging in weird sexual behaviors.
OnlyFans, for instance, I'm just like, dude, You know, I'm sorry.
Like, I'll say it again.
I'm not a staunch conservative.
But the kind of America that I want is the kids getting on their little bikes, riding around the neighborhood till the street lamps come on, and they come home, and they hang out, they talk about what they learned in school.
They don't talk about weird identity issues.
They don't go on social media and get manipulated by algorithms.
They don't have plastic, prefab musicians who can't sing and use autotune to write garbage generic music about how they're doing lewd and lascivious behavior.
unidentified
WOP.
tim pool
Well think about this.
You want to know why something like Oliver Anthony resonates with so many people?
Even people who don't necessarily like country music?
Because they put WAP in our faces.
Wet Ass Pussy.
Awesome.
Great.
Make the music.
Fine.
If you like it, you'll like it.
But man, this is the absolute inversion of that.
You see how many people are saying this is gross, it's nasty, and I'm sick of it?
Hey, a lot of people really like it, I guess.
But that's the culture war, isn't it?
You take a look at who supports this mainstream pop garbage.
Some of it's good.
You know, I don't hate all of it.
There's a lot of pop music I do like.
But there's so much nasty trash.
Hip-hop and rap talking about being rich and beating people and being hard and getting into shits.
No, that's all garbage.
Man, it's crazy to me.
I think about, you know, you've got a lot of public enemy stuff, expresses politics that I don't like.
You know, there's that line in Bring the Noise where Chucky D says, Farrakhan's a prophet I think you ought to listen to, and I'm just like, yeah, no thank you, dude!
No thank you.
But I can respect A message about standing up for yourself in a lot of that public enemy music about how they work hard, about how they're disrespected.
I love that line, you call them demos, but we ride limos too.
Basically saying that, you know, back in the day they disrespected hip-hop.
They said, you don't have the money, you couldn't afford to do what we do, your production value is trash, but you know people liked it and they work hard.
And so this message comes out.
Then what happens?
10, 20 years later, you get hip-hop about bling bling, I'm rich, you know, doing Ludens, Savings, Babers, uh, drinking shots, garbage.
Just, just degenerate.
And I'm just like, man, I love that, that anti-establishment element of old hip-hop and the silly nature of a lot of it.
And then you get this weird garbage.
Now you have pop music where it's all just like, Look, I like a lot of Taylor Swift stuff.
I don't put it on the radio.
It's not what I listen to.
My favorite band is probably Metric.
I like Saint Motel.
Saint Motel, a lot of really good songs.
They're pretty good.
But let's see, Metric is probably... I like Fitz and the Tantrums.
You can see what kind of music I like.
I used to be a big fan of Death Cab.
Grew up on a lot of punk stuff.
But if a Taylor Swift song comes on, it's poppy, it's fun, I'll take it.
But so much of that music is this vapid, I broke up with my boyfriend again.
You know, like she's accused of, like, ah, dude, just, you know, come on.
How about this?
How about parents go to their kids, they're playing this song about working hard, about how you deserve to get paid for the work, you know, that you do.
Not these rich corporate multinational business guys.
Not these corrupt politicians.
That's what I like.
This is the kind of song that is good for culture.
So let me tell you this.
They have to say he's a plant.
They have to try and knock him down.
They didn't even mention Sound of Freedom here.
They have to pretend that he can't be natural because he can't be real.
He can't be organic because you can't allow this message to persist.
You need to be degenerate.
But you know what I think?
We see this message coming from the left.
And what is it?
They're sterilizing their kids.
They're aborting their kids.
They're doing drugs.
They're living reckless lifestyles that result in their own death and destruction.
Hey man, I'm libertarian to a certain degree, so I let you do your thing.
You want to sterilize?
You know what I said?
I said, the phobia in transphobia is the fear that children will be sterilized.
That's the fear that most people have when they talk about these issues, the sterilization of kids.
Hey, look, you know, there's a lot of conservatives that don't agree with any of these procedures, but for the post-liberal, disaffected liberal types, it's like, if you're an adult, do your thing, but keep the kids out of it.
In the end, I see two worlds.
You got kids who are being raised on sterilizing themselves and wet-ass pussy, and then you've got people who are being raised on, you're gonna have to roll up your sleeves, work hard, protect your family, and Oliver Anthony.
I like it.
I think try that in a small town is, uh, I roll my eyes a little bit at it.
I can respect it, I get it.
It's like, it's a message of standing up for your community, and I have, I tremendously respect that.
But, you know, look man, we've seen a lot go on in small towns that, you know, they got away with it.
Got away with it.
But again, I respect the message.
Stand up for your community.
And it's more remarkable, because I'm not a country guy, so it's really hard for me To find music that resonates and matters.
I would say with Oliver Anthony's Rich Men North of Richmond.
So I grew up on like acoustic folk and punk and these acoustic punk singer-songwriter types.
Like people who are just rocking and wailing on acoustic guitars because it's all they could afford and all they had.
So this definitely strikes close to home with the kind of stuff that I used to listen to.
And a lot of the stuff that I write, a lot of the songs I write are just pure acoustic.
But this is what we need.
And this is why they can't have it.
But I don't think they can fight against it.
This guy is not a MAGA guy or anything like that.
He just wrote a good song where he's like, yo man, my dollar ain't worth nothing.
They're taxing it.
They're giving money to people who are just eating fudge rounds.
And I'm just like, yeah.
It's so meritocratic.
And of course they have to come out and say it's QAnon, it's a right-wing grift and all that stuff, because it opposes their degenerate machine.
But let it.
Fine.
Whatever.
I hope everybody hears this song.
I hope it resonates with everybody.
I hope it wakes some of these people up.
I hope there are kids who hear it and they grow up with better values.
But in the long run, I tell you this.
Here's what really matters.
This song's succeeding.
Sound of Freedom succeeding.
Target failing.
Bud Light failing.
So be it.
Now I'll wrap up with some talk about, uh, the music we have.
We have a new song coming out.
Currently, uh, the song is done.
The music video's in production.
It was an ambitious idea that's, like, a two-month-long shooting process, where we had Ian.
He stopped—he's already—he was already pretty thin, but he stops eating for a few days and drinking, and he drops a bunch of weight.
Films Act 3.
He then eats and works out and exercises and sort of replenishes, films Act 2.
Now he's working out more intensely, drinking more protein shakes, and, you know, basically getting in shape.
And that will be Act 1, because the music video is about breaking down and slowly, you know, so we film in reverse.
It's an arduous project.
But the songs that we produce, I don't know how to describe it, you can call it whatever you want, the point is...
We have a couple songs that are overtly political, like Will of the People and Genocide.
And then we have two songs that are not, Only Ever Wanted and Bright Eyes.
Bright Eyes is mostly just about, you know, like not... no self-harm is the general idea.
And Only Ever Wanted is just like a generic emo rock kind of song or whatever.
But the purpose of the music is...
You know, I want to do what I can do.
And music is something I've done my whole life.
And if I can do it, I'll try.
We don't have a song anywhere near as big as this guy.
This guy's fantastic.
But we'll do what we can.
And if it's good, it's good.
If it's bad, it's bad.
If you don't like it, don't listen to it.
But I'm going to try.
I'm not going to stop.
Because we have to build culture.
We have to have a messaging that is positive.
We have to have programs that you can share.
We have to have cultural content that can be shared with young people to inspire them when they get older.
We have to create these cultural moments, and this nailed it.
We're lucky to have him.
So, of course, they'll try and dismiss it.
But whatever, man, I'll tell you this.
Right now, all that matters is the message is there, the success is there, sound of freedom is there.
As I mentioned, target Bud Light failing.
We are winning.
Now here's what we need to see from the post-liberals.
Hey, look man, the country stars and the conservatives have been hitting out of the park with songs like this.
With, uh, what do we got?
We had Progress by John Rich.
We have Try That in a Small Town.
Where are the post-liberals to be creative and bring modern rock, pop, dance, etc.
with these messages that push our ideals?
We need more of it.
What's working right now against the establishment is that there are Democrat defectors, people that used to be liberal, people who are still liberal but they're anti-woke, people who probably fall into our camp.
We need to start producing that culture.
We've got people like Eric July with Rip Reverse.
That's what we need.
We can't just have the only songs that are making it being country or conservative messages.
Not conservative messages, that I'm fine with actually.
It's got to be a style that will reach the more general audience.
Don't get me wrong, country music is some of the biggest music in the world, but we got to enter their space.
And that's kind of the thing.
Well, that's what I'm hoping we can do with the music we're making.
It's not country, but we're trying to just produce culture.
So we've got skateboarding too.
We need to break out and take over the mainstream, but I'll stop ranting.
I'll leave it there, man.
Props to Oliver Anthony, dude.
Amazing song.
Excellent work.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
Republicans in Georgia have signed a letter calling on the governor to call a special session so that they can review the actions of the prosecutor who is going after Trump, his administration personnel, and his lawyers.
Now, there's no guarantee that this gets anything done.
This is a Georgia lawmaker, Colton Moore, saying that they're going to review the actions.
So they may call a special session, bang a couple gavels and say, well, our hands are tied.
There's nothing we can do to make it seem like they're doing something.
Or maybe they come in and shut the whole thing down.
When the news broke, I decided to check on the commies to see how they're handling things.
And, oh, take a look at that headline.
Wow, ain't that something special?
Georgia lawmaker vows to bypass rule of law to shield Trump.
These people are absolutely insane.
The legislature calling a special session is quite literally the rule of law.
And the charges against Trump are novel and nonsensical.
There's already a constitutional argument that his actions while in office can't be prosecuted unless he's impeached.
But more importantly, you're going after his lawyers, dude!
But here we are.
My friends.
Perhaps... I don't know.
Civil War.
Yeah, I know.
A lot of people roll their eyes at the thought.
I don't know how this ends up.
And I don't know what you want to call whatever it is we're in.
But what happens if there is no legal proceeding against Donald Trump?
What if he never has to surrender because a special session is called and everything is just shut down?
Now, I don't think Kemp is going to agree to this, to be completely honest, because he's basically a Democrat.
I love this.
There actually is a working conspiracy theory.
What I mean by working is there are actually people who are spreading around the theory that Kemp stole the election in Georgia from Stacey Abrams, and basically they're not going to investigate their screwed up voting system because it'll implicate them in 2018, which is funny.
Because Kemp responded to this narrative saying that in three years, no one's presented any evidence of voter fraud.
And I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Three years?
Don't you mean five?
Because Stacey Abrams has been accusing you of stealing the election, too!
So, uh, is there any evidence there?
Well, let's read the news from Boing Boing, and then I'll show you what Colton actually said.
They're right.
Georgia State Senator Colton Moore is not willing to let a jury decide if Donald Trump is guilty of trying to reverse the results of the 2020 election in his state.
He probably knows he wouldn't like the outcome.
Instead, he plans to attack Fannie Willis.
Quote, I'm officially calling for an emergency session to review the actions of Fannie Willis, he posted to X this morning.
America is under attack.
I'm not going to sit back and watch as radical left prosecutors politically target political opponents.
Moore wrote a letter to Georgia Governor Brian Kemp this morning, informing him of his intention to conduct an emergency review of Willis's actions.
Yeah, but it seems like he needs permission.
So here's a letter.
That's basically to wrap it up because Boing Boing doesn't really do much beyond that.
But I love this too.
It's how sad has Boing Boing fallen?
They were the first blog and now it's just like a Trump thing.
Trump is furious, MAGA woman, Marjorie Taylor Greene.
Oh, and here's an ad for a refurbished Lenovo Think Center.
I love that.
And a Dell laptop.
So while you're reading about how much you hate Donald Trump and anyone who likes him, you can buy a new computer!
Great, Boing Boing.
You guys are psychotic.
Here's a tweet from Senator Colton Moore.
He says he's calling an emergency session.
Here's the letter!
It says, Governor Brian P. Kemp, Office of the Governor.
Dear Governor Kemp, we the undersigned, being duly elected members of the Georgia House of Representatives and Georgia Senate, and comprising three-fifths of each respective House, pursuant to Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 7b, hereby certify you, in writing, with a I'm calling on patriots across America to join me in this fight.
Donate here!
Emergency exists in the affairs of the state, requiring a special session to be convened
under that section for all purposes to include without limitation the review and response
to the actions of Fannie Willis.
He says we must strip funding and if appropriate, impeach Fannie Willis.
I'm calling on patriots across America to join me in this fight.
Donate here.
Oh, donate here.
Uh-huh.
You want a donation?
Okay.
To review?
unidentified
Uh-huh.
tim pool
Yo, I don't think this is going anywhere.
Georgia is deeply corrupt.
I don't think this guy's gonna do anything.
Sorry, I'm not convinced the governor's actually gonna do anything.
I think this dude says, hey, here's an opportunity to raise some money.
Give me money.
Bro, what?
For what?
What do you need money for?
Investigate the office, uh, official petition.
So I say you can, so okay, alright, it's a petition he linked to.
Why did he say, he said donate here?
You mean sign the petition?
Yeah, the donate thing is, uh, is not helping.
I appreciate the actions, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, but we gotta see something real here.
We've gotta, I wonder, people, someone said finally a Republican, are they referring to this guy actually trying to file to do something about what's going on?
I don't know.
I don't know for sure.
I do know that Trump is expected to surrender.
Apparently Donald Trump has been in communications with the prosecutors, the lawyers in Georgia, and Trump will surrender.
And I want you all to understand, Trump surrendering is exactly what it means.
I don't view this as Trump just showing up to file some paperwork.
I view this as Trump surrendering in the grander sense.
They're going to put him in jail.
They've said this.
They're going to get a mugshot and fingerprints.
That's what they want.
Trump could challenge this and take the fight to the Supreme Court.
So far for now, it seems that Donald Trump will just surrender.
He will give in.
The Democrats, the woke leftists, they can file whatever they want.
If Trump is the top guy, That people need to believe in to fight back against the machine and he will surrender?
That's not confidence building.
But I don't know what else you do, to be completely honest.
I'm not going to sit here and pretend I'm an expert on anything related to these legal affairs.
My view is just that Trump should say, you must serve me the paperwork at my house.
I'm not going to answer to the television.
How he's in contact with them was by choice.
No, for real, by choice.
Look, Donald Trump's lawyers probably reached out to the prosecutors, or they reached out to a law firm and said, we want to get in touch with Trump and work this through, and they agreed.
They could have simply said, we do not accept service for Trump.
Legal service requires delivery to him.
You need to get a certified letter delivered to him letting him know, or something to that effect.
Maybe they did.
Maybe they overnighted something.
But I really do think Trump is just going to cooperate.
There's a lot of people are going to cheer him on for that.
Sure, fine, whatever.
But I don't think this ends in a good place.
And I feel in many ways that this is more than just a figure of speech and surrendering to the authorities.
He's basically just showing that he has nothing left.
I mean, look, I'm sorry.
I mean, a lot of Trump supporters might not want to hear that, but he chose... This is insane.
They're arresting his lawyers.
It's unprecedented.
And he could challenge this to the Supreme Court right now.
He's going to go down.
They may even remand him.
Don't be surprised!
Look, I lean towards they're going to release him on bail, for sure.
Apparently that's part of the negotiations, like Giuliani said he'll have to receive bail, and he was like, that's ridiculous even to even consider because he's showing up voluntarily, but fine, whatever.
But they already consider Trump a flight risk.
What happens if Trump shows up?
And they just say the crimes for which you are accused are so egregious and grand, we will not permit you to leave.
Bailiff, take the the so charged into custody.
A lot of people think it's slim chances.
Let me remind you of something.
They have just indicted Trump's lawyers, members of his presidential administration.
They are beyond nothing.
But Too many people are frogs in a pot just slowly coming to a boil and they can't believe it.
They can't say, no, that'll never happen.
Oh, please.
Name, give me a list of everything that people said was never going to happen.
Nobody believed anyone would storm the Capitol.
No one thought that was going to happen.
They'd have cops there if they really did, unless they wanted to happen, I guess.
Nobody thought Trump was going to be president.
Nobody thought that there would be widespread protests in the Summer of Love.
Nobody thought Trump would be indicted.
Nobody thought Trump would be indicted again.
And indicted again.
And indicted for a fourth time!
Nobody thought they would go for his lawyers.
So now when someone comes out and says, no, they won't remand him to custody, I'm like, yeah, okay.
I mean, maybe not, I have no idea, but there is a strong possibility in my opinion.
That if Trump shows up in Georgia, the judge will say, I understand that you have worked on an agreement for, you know, pretrial detention.
And the prosecutor will say, yes, Trump will be returning home.
The trial, we hope to have the trial set for a certain date.
The judge then goes, I do not accept the terms of this arrangement.
Donald Trump owns several jets and the crimes he's accused of are very serious.
We are going to remand him to custody for the duration until the trial.
Gavel bang.
Why not?
What does Georgia care?
It may cause unrest in the rest of the country, but what does Georgia care?
unidentified
I don't know, man.
tim pool
I guess we'll see.
In the meantime, things are getting pretty spicy with apparently there was a threat against the judge in D.C.
There's, uh, CNN is reporting that people are targeting the grand jurors.
All of this is predictable.
Look, let me show you this.
Purported names and photos and addresses of Fulton County grand jurors circulate on far-right internet.
Remember when I said this was going to happen?
That they were going to start running stories claiming that the grand jurors were being threatened?
And then it happened.
Why?
Because it's obvious!
Why would they not do it?
The only direction we're moving is escalation.
Now there's a bunch of variables.
They may or may not remand Trump.
Maybe there's more risk in remanding him than not to let him go.
Or maybe they're like, let's turn the heat up.
Maybe they want violence.
Look, if it's true that they want conflict and they're desperate, Trump's getting locked up in county and they're not letting him out.
We'll see.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment is coming up at 6 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
Greg Gutfeld says the reason there's rampant crime all over this country is because of women!
Female politicians with their soft on crime policies and uh, is he joking or is he serious?
Uh-oh.
It's one of these.
Get ready to trigger all of the feminists, because we have another story.
It's really messed up.
We talked about it last night in the members-only portion of TimCast IRL, but I think it warrants a main channel segment.
Horrifying video shows Winston Tate beating a female cop, Carly Travis, with a hammer as she shrieks in agony and fires shots in desperate fight for her life.
Felon flashes his stomach at the judge during $500,000 bail hearing.
I gotta wonder.
I saw this viral video a long time ago of these three female cops trying to fight some migrant guy who's attacking people.
And he mercilessly just beats all three women.
And I'm like, you know, anybody who thinks that men and women are the same needs to watch that video, I guess.
It's horrifying.
So we have an issue, I suppose.
An issue that's pretty interesting.
It has a lot of ramifications.
We are putting women in positions of physical confrontation.
But, I think people need to understand that perspective on law enforcement is different based on your personal perceptions and what you've experienced.
That is to say, in the larger picture, if you are someone who has never experienced crime, you're probably soft on crime.
You're gonna hear these stories in the news, and you're gonna say, like, well, they didn't have to shoot the guy!
I mean, jeez!
And then one day, you're walking down the street, and some dude pulls a gun on you.
And then you think to yourself, oh boy, I wish I had a weapon to defend myself.
I'm not gonna play the video of the woman being beaten, because it's... It's too horrifying for YouTube.
We have to play it on the members only, uncensored.
Like, it is pretty brutal.
I mean, she shoots the guy, he's beating her with a hammer.
And, um... You know, the video starts with her, Responding to some kind of call, and she sees this guy with a hammer.
And she says, sir, can you put that down?
And he goes, why?
And she's like, sir, please put that down.
And then he says something like, let's go!
And then he runs at her, and she pulls out her gun.
It's too late.
She's screaming, knocked on the ground, shrieking.
She shoots him, apparently.
I think more than once.
I can't tell.
And then he still attacks her.
Then he walks away.
I think she shoots him again.
I'm not sure.
If she were to have shot him as he approached her with the hammer, she would be in prison.
Yeah.
As the guy approached her, there was no threat.
He was just walking towards her.
If she shot him then, they'd say, it was just a guy who was working.
unidentified
He was hammering a picture in his living room.
tim pool
And he had a hammer in his hand.
And she shot him.
But because he charged her and cracked her several times with the hammer, now she's not going to go to jail.
She just had to get mercilessly beaten with the hammer before shooting the guy to avoid jail time.
Here's what Greg Gutfeld said.
He said that its recent spate of looting lies with men being in positions of power.
He suggested the solution to a recent spate of lootings lies with men being in power, and that such crimes would simply fade away if women were to vanish from the earth.
Ah, yes, we get it.
It's a joke.
The assertion from the network's most viewed star came in a reaction to a recent incident in L.A.
where 30 thieves... I thought it was 50.
On the five, two days after the broad daylight robbery, the brazen, Gutfeld said such illegal activity isn't discouraged enough and honed in on the city's Democratic Mayor Karen Bass.
The mayor on Saturday said the incident was absolutely unacceptable, but Gutfeld said her claims were empty and at odds with policies that he says allow such acts to occur.
He went on to declare that smash and grabs, that's what happened, would disappear if women like Bass were removed from their posts.
I don't know if that's true, but I do think if you look at the voting data, if only women vote, the country is full Democrat.
If only men vote, the country is full Republican.
Not like 100%.
There's a couple states that deviate, but I think that says a whole lot.
Is that it?
The Democratic Party is the party of women and the Republican Party is the party of men?
It explains a lot.
It really does.
I think there is something to be said there.
On the left, they say masculinity is toxic.
They have no definition of good, positive masculinity and they have no definition of toxic femininity because they are toxically feminine and bringing about chaos and destruction.
I think it's that they're isolated and insulated from all of this stuff.
There's a video, uh, there's a woman in Portland.
I think it was in Portland.
She gets bashed in the face with a metal water bottle, presumably full of water, left covered in blood.
She said she thought she was going to die.
Only then did she decide to switch from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party.
And boy, isn't that interesting.
So, lady, it wasn't when they took over the city and were shooting people.
It wasn't when Aaron Danielson got shot and killed.
You didn't care about any of that?
Oh, it is infuriating!
I do not believe it is indicative of women.
It's a cultural thing.
It's a cultural thing of people who have not experienced crime.
That's why Democrats have a lot of male voters, too.
And I wonder if the issue is... There's a big divide, obviously, between rural and conservative.
I wonder if a large component is... And not to say that it's not gender-based.
I'm sure biological sex does play a role, because it plays a role in how you see the world, how you experience the world, and how you think and feel to a certain degree.
I mean, hormones are different.
But I wonder if a large component is, you live out in the middle of nowhere, right?
You live out here.
What do we have?
Well, for one, we have a ton of fruit growing everywhere.
It's crazy.
The grapes!
Frost grapes just everywhere.
Pawpaw everywhere.
Apples!
Oh, man.
Food is abundant.
And, uh, but outside of that, just saying it's different.
Outside of that, also you have rot and stuff like that with the fruit.
But we have predators, right?
We had a bear attack our chicken coop a year and a half or so ago when the chicken coop was in the front of the property.
We double layered up the wiring around the chicken coop, and the bear was grabbing and trying to rip at it.
Apparently it like climbed onto the porch, was looking around, it was hungry, and that's freaky because normally these things don't come on your property.
But if you grew up in a place like this, with bears, Male or female, you understand the danger.
Typically, a male, in a position like this, is going to tell the wife to stay inside and stay safe, and they'll take care of it.
You have that to a certain degree in cities with burglars.
Obviously, the husband's not going to be like, honey, you go deal with this.
But, there's substantially less danger in that regard.
You could be outside.
I mean, outside there's a fox.
You know, we used to let Mr. Bocas, the cat, go out and do his thing, and a fox tried to get him!
I was in the middle of recording, and I see this fox sneaking up, and Bocas just looks at it like he doesn't care, and I'm like, ugh.
The fox was gaunt-looking, probably starved, and I'm like, y'all are about to get into a fight.
So I ran full speed out of the house, screaming, jumped off the stairs, ran over, and the fox ran off.
And I'm like, it's just... You know, and here's Mr. Bocas just sitting there like a moron, and I'm like, whatever.
But there are things like that that I think you experience growing up out here where you realize there are dangers you must protect against.
I think for people who grow up in the city who only now are starting to experience this crime, they didn't perceive that when they were younger.
Thus, they enact policies now that lead to this rampant crime.
You grow up in a safe place because strong men make good times.
Those strong men punish criminals.
Well, this leads to a safe environment where people grow up seeing none of the crime, experiencing nothing, and thinking everything's fine.
They forget why they had those policies in the first place, and they say, we need to do away with these policies and these awful police, and then crime runs rampant.
Now they're going, oh heavens, help me!
Getting bashed in the face with a water bottle, like, I think I'll vote Republican now!
I love it because you had these far-left extremists smashing things, and this woman still decided to vote Democrat?
Yeah, it's just, it's insane to me.
I've never heard a decent justification.
You know, it's funny, because I know people who are Democrats, who live in Democrat cities, and they'll say things like, crime's getting really bad, you know, we had to move out of our neighborhood.
Who'd you vote for?
The Democrats.
And I'm like, uh-huh.
Why?
I don't care, don't vote Republican, just stop voting for the same thing!
Look, if you were getting, after a hundred years in Chicago, rampant crime and shootings and all this other craziness, at a certain point, you don't gotta say it's the Democrats' fault, but you could say, this is what they give you, and it's what they give you.
It's just remarkable to me.
So I do think biological sex plays a role.
I think it's because women experience the world differently.
Women are more likely to be protected by the system than men.
Women are less likely to experience violent crime in general.
Women are less likely to get harsh prison sentences when they commit crimes.
And these things lead women to view the world in certain ways.
I don't think it is inherently because they're female.
I think it's because any person who experienced the world in this way is going to vote for these similar policies.
There's a viral video right now where someone goes to Beverly Hills and asks teenagers, how much do you think the average person in this country earns?
The average family.
And they say, I don't know, 400, 500,000.
Which is like, the 1%!
Amazing.
They have no idea.
And they're male and female, they have no idea.
So when it comes to policies, they're going to assume everyone views the world the way they do, because they're unlearned and they're unworldly.
Which brings me to all this stuff.
If you have women who are less likely to be punished and less likely to experience violent crime, but told they are most likely to experience it, here's what happens.
Men are five times more likely to experience violent crime in the streets.
It's a fact.
Women are then told in media that they're the ones in danger.
Women then associate the degree to which they experience violent crime as the pinnacle, the peak.
So if they're not being attacked, they assume men aren't either.
They also walk around, this is the joke we were talking about last night.
Women think every guy is like a CEO.
They think every guy is capable of being a CEO.
It's insane.
Only a small handful of guys ever reach that level.
But this is how they view the world.
Thus, anyone, male or female, who views the world that way, with a disproportionate amount affecting women, they're going to vote for policies that lead to more crime.
So Greg can joke, but there's some truth there.
I'll leave it there.
The next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash timcastirl.
Come hang out live, and we'll see you all then.
My friends, soon, all of your greatest dreams will come true.
From the Daily Mail, leading womb transplant experts say it's medically possible for transgender women to have natural pregnancies, and they hope to offer procedure to trans couples in years.
Oh boy, we got a lot of breakdown in this one.
So, I wouldn't call it natural.
I think that's probably legally misleading.
There's like requirements as to what natural is.
So, transplanting a womb into a biological male and then taking the baby out via c-section is not a natural pregnancy.
And look, I'm sorry, this is a whole level of experimentation, human experimentation, that I'm not sure we should be doing.
There are trans women.
Who, uh, biological males who talk about this as being a major breakthrough and it could, you know, change the game for them.
A few things.
One, well, there's no opening for the baby to come out of other than a C-section.
So in essence, what they're actually doing with a womb transplant is a, a partial, it's a, it's a partial, uh, child-bearing transplant.
You need more than just a womb to, to carry a child.
And so I'm wondering, If this could even actually work based on hormones, and what bodies produce, and fat levels, and how that would impact the child.
Which is why I say, this is human experimentation.
It's terrifying, and it may result in... death.
But let me slow down, and I'll read you the story.
Doctors pioneering womb transplants believe they're on the cusp of allowing transgender women to give birth to their own children.
The team at the University of Alabama-Birmingham became one of the first in the country to offer the medical procedure to hysterectomy patients and women born without wombs earlier this year.
And they believe it is medically possible to perform the procedure in trans women who were assigned male at birth but have had sex change surgery.
No, no, no, no, no, hold on.
The sex change surgery, what they're describing, let's say like a penile inversion vaginoplasty, I think would conflict with the uterus implant because they create a cavity, not a canal.
So I believe there's probably some obstruction and surgical issue.
I believe it'd be more likely that if they're going to do a womb transplant, it would have to be in an individual who has not undergone a sex change surgery.
But hey, far be it from me.
I'm not the doctor here.
Dr. Paige Porrett, the lead surgeon at the Comprehensive Transplant Institute at UAB, told Daily Mail.
I think there's a lot of providers, such as myself, who would envision that is the case.
I think that is certainly medically possible.
So, here's how it works.
We've got a little graphic here for y'all to look at.
The uterus is removed from a deceased or living donor.
It is resupplied with blood.
The organ is transplanted into the recipient.
The recipient starts a course of immunosuppressant medications.
A fertilized egg is placed into the uterus via IVF.
Now hold on there!
How?
Are they going to... So I guess what they're saying is they need the penile inversion canal to be crafted for which they will then be able to inject the fertilized egg?
The recipient starts a course of immunosuppressants.
The fertilized egg is placed.
The patient undergoes a C-section at 37 to 40 weeks of gestation.
The patient can undergo one more pregnancy if he, uh, if she wishes.
If not, the uterus is surgically removed.
If she wishes?
That's a bit bigoted there, Daily Mail.
If a he can undergo a pregnancy, then why would you say she?
You should put they, right?
And section 8, um, number 8, they stop taking immunosuppressants.
However, Dr. Poritz cautions it's still too early to put a timeline on that kind of breakthrough, and warns there could be increased risks in trans patients due to hormones and previous gender-affirming surgeries.
You see?
Spoke too soon.
I think it'll happen in the future, but there's going to be a lot more work that our community needs to do to be able to offer that safely.
The procedure is already considered high risk in cis women due to increased risk of complications, and many women needing the procedure having structural differences in their vaginas and sex organs.
Doing this to a trans woman, especially one who still has male organs, would be even more difficult to those anatomical differences.
Hormone replacement therapy and gender reassignment surgery could make it more difficult for a trans patient to produce enough eggs for- Wait, wait, wait, wait, what?
IVF, which is part of the transplant protocol.
Wait, wait, wait, what?
Yo, males can't produce eggs.
So what are they implying here?
I don't understand.
A uterus transplant has only been done about 100 times worldwide in tightly controlled clinical studies.
The first was performed in Sweden in 2014 and the procedure has slowly been gaining traction in the U.S.
UAB's uterus transplant program is one of only four programs in the U.S.
that performs uterus transplants and is the first to do the procedure outside of a clinical trial.
In May, a baby boy became the first born from UAB's program.
His mother had been diagnosed with a rare condition that caused her to be born without a uterus.
There's not many transplant surgeons like myself, either in the States or in the world, frankly, that can do this procedure.
It's a big operation.
Uterus transplant is a multi-layered process that takes about 18 months on average.
This is interesting, even for this biological female.
Mallory, who prefers to keep her full name anonymous, gave birth to a healthy baby boy via transplanted uterus.
Her son is the first baby born from this method, outside of the clinical trial.
I'm really interested in how they connect blood vessels to the uterus, uh, if someone doesn't have one.
And I'm really interested- I mean, they clearly have done it.
I mentioned how they would do that in a male.
Very, very interesting stuff.
Although, um... I don't know, man.
I don't know.
They go on to mention how it's done.
They say these are amazing donors that are giving the gift of life to other people.
While not a requirement, many doctors prefer using a uterus from a woman who previously had children.
We are really eager to use a uterus that has delivered a baby before.
That's not necessarily an absolute exclusion criterion, and we will transplant a uterus that is from a young individual who has not delivered a baby before, but one of the things we like to know is that the uterus works.
Now here's something to consider which I find interesting.
A young biological female, trans, wants to be male, says, I would like this uterus removed.
The doctor then says, how would you like to provide the uterus to a trans woman so that they can experience the joys of motherhood?
The biological female then agrees and then they transplant the womb from a healthy young female to a healthy young male so the male can carry the baby and the female doesn't.
What happens when you get a trans woman and a trans man in a relationship together, which already does exist, and then they decide who is going to have the baby?
The trans man has their uterus transplanted into the biological male and the male then carries the baby.
Man, the future is going to be really interesting, isn't it?
More so what I'm interested out of all of this is more CRISPR technology stuff.
Where we're currently at with cellular and genetic technology is pretty amazing.
Stem cell therapies are becoming quite common when it comes to regenerative therapies, injuries, things like that.
I was recently in Tijuana because I was having some hip issues that we thought may have been a tear.
Fortunately, it wasn't, but there was some hip damage.
So I received donor stem cells.
Umbilical donor stem cells hoping that it would take down the inflammation and do a general regenerative healing process and it seems to have worked for the most part so I've been feeling really great and that's fantastic.
Some people don't agree with it.
Some people think it's bad.
Joe Rogan talks about it.
A lot of MMA guys get this stuff because it fixes you.
But then I started thinking about the stem cells that they're using, right?
Theoretically, couldn't they put cells in someone's body, based on today's technology, to say, change eye color?
Maybe not eyes, because I don't think eyes ever regenerate, I think they slowly just degenerate.
But, um, they slowly break down.
But they say that every seven years, every cell in your body is replaced.
So what if they give you a gene therapy through stem cells or a virus that slowly starts overriding your DNA over seven years?
What if someone comes in and says they're transracial and they want to be a different race or whatever?
So, the therapy they get is a gene therapy that slowly starts bringing in cells into their body that have different DNA, and over time, doing this once a week for seven years, at the end of seven years, they say, congratulations, you're a completely different person.
Wouldn't that be possible?
Now there's some challenges here.
Alright, let's say that there was like a male wanting to be female, female wanting to be male.
I don't think there's a genetic engineering thing that could do that.
Because, how do you, like, changing one organ to another is a totally different process as compared to starting as a baby and growing with those organs within you.
Which is why they're doing transplants.
Plus, I don't think they're going to change your skin collagen.
I do think, however, this is the future we're headed towards.
And I have a question for Conservative, I suppose.
If they created a therapy, a gene therapy, that was rapid and transformative, and could make someone into anyone else, would you oppose it?
I'm not just talking about transgender, I'm talking about transhumanism outright.
I think the answer is yes, they would oppose it, but imagine this.
Imagine you've got a baby that's born with porphyria, or what's the other one?
The one where they age really fast, and they say, the DNA is bad.
It's a rampant, widespread genetic disorder for these reasons.
Or what if someone has Down Syndrome?
And they say, your baby has Down Syndrome, but we have a therapy that if you give this IV treatment to the baby, over the course of five or six years, it will overwrite the DNA and cure them of Down Syndrome outright.
By the time they're five years old, they will be totally normal.
Or I should say, totally average.
I have no disrespect.
I mean, no disrespect to people with Down Syndrome.
This could avert the idea of aborting the baby.
Or more importantly, if they say, in the womb, the baby appears to have Down Syndrome.
How about instead of aborting it, we say, we're gonna give you a gene therapy which will alter this, and the baby will be born without Down Syndrome.
Would that be preferable?
I wonder about this future.
I really do.
Because I do think it's possible, I do think we may get there, where someone may be a white British guy who wants to be a Korean woman, and they say, well, if you take this gene therapy once a week, take these pills once a week for, you know, probably not pills, you'll need some kind of IV injection, and then within a few years, you'll be transformed completely into a petite Asian woman.
I wonder what people think about that.
Let me know.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Export Selection