Biden Impeachment IS A GO, GOP Greenlights First Step In IMPEACHING BIDEN, Democrats FURIOUS
HANG OUT LIVE IN MIAMI WITH TIMCAST - https://timcast.com/timcast-irl-x-miami/
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
Biden Impeachment IS A GO, GOP Greenlights First Step In IMPEACHING BIDEN, Democrats FURIOUS
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
TimCast IRL will be live in Miami with Patrick Bette David, Donald Trump Jr., Matt Gaetz, and Luke Rudkowski.
Join us there.
Get your tickets by clicking the link in the description below or by going to TimCast.com.
But oh man, are they really slow rolling it now?
I want to be respectful and hopeful.
And I think one of the reasons why McCarthy and the Republicans have been so slow on the impeachment into Joe Biden has to do with the election year.
They don't want to come out right now in 2023 and fire off an impeachment, which then has no impact on the elections moving forward.
So while many of us are saying, do something.
I think it's fair.
I think it's political.
Now, principally, morally, I believe Joe Biden should be impeached and I have all of the evidence for you.
I'm going to play for you the videos.
I'm going to break down the lies from the corporate press and the media to defend corruption within the United States, probably because it enriches their benefactors.
Joe Biden has enriched himself through his son as a proxy with overseas dealings.
The story they've given us about Burisma makes no sense.
The money that was made by the Biden family is alarming considering how much Joe Biden has given to Ukraine.
I don't think it's so simple as to just say that they've got dirt on Joe Biden and they're leveraging it over him, forcing him to send more and more money or at least advocate to do so.
I do think the United States has a massive interest in securing, controlling Ukraine.
That being said, I think Joe Biden is sweating bullets because there is deep evidence of corruption across the board which bleeds into his current presidency and would likely result in a legitimate impeachment.
Now he won't be convicted because it is all political at the end of the day, but I think it's important to break this down because I often, whenever we have leftists, liberals, Maybe not so much leftists, but more so liberals.
Just Democrat voters on The Culture War or Tim Cast IRL.
They say, I did not know that happened.
That Joe Biden engaged in a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor that was currently had multiple investigations into a company where his son was getting $83,000 per month.
A phone call was made.
They said, Hunter, call DC.
This is what Devin Archer, Hunter's business partner, testified to.
Said, Hunter, call DC, get some help.
In a matter of days, Joe Biden is flying to Ukraine and threatening the Ukrainian government.
If you don't fire this guy, we're going to withhold a billion dollars in loan guarantees.
I've got the evidence.
I've got the quotes.
I've got the video from the CFR, all definitive sources to prove it to you.
And this is this is the challenge that I think we deal with is that, well, I think there should be a legitimate impeachment investigation inquiry, what I'm going to call it.
And if Biden did something wrong, he should be charged.
The same is true for Trump.
And I will even go so far as to say we must have an investigation into the death of the eight year old American girl that was killed in a commando raid in Yemen, a country we are not at war with under Donald Trump.
Nobody gets a free pass.
Barack Obama, you've got Abdul Rahman al-Awlaki, the drone strike that killed a 16-year-old American citizen in Yemen.
Everybody should be investigated.
Joe Biden gets no free passes.
But let's break this down.
Why are they going to impeach?
Now, before we get started, my friends, you've got to go to TimCast.com, click TimCast IRLX Miami, and pick up your tickets to our event in Miami.
It's gonna be awesome.
We got Patrick Bette David, Matt Gaetz, and Donald Trump Jr.
We're gonna be hanging out.
Luke Rudkowski will be on stage, Ian as well, and it's gonna be a hangout.
We're gonna be hanging out with you guys.
I don't know the security that the rest of the guests will be taking, but I imagine you'll see me walking around, and we've got a bunch of free stuff.
We've got a pre-show and after show.
It's gonna be really awesome, and we hope to see you there.
Also, become a member at TimCast.com to support our work directly.
But let's just start with this.
From Fox News, McCarthy to green light Biden impeachment inquiry this week.
McCarthy will tell House Republican impeachment inquiry against Joe Biden is the logical next step for their investigations.
I think it's fair to say, guys, I'm seeing a lot of people on Twitter being like, it's happening.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
He's telling them the green light for the inquiry is go.
What does that mean?
Here we go again.
He is giving them permission to propose.
We ask the question, should Joe Biden be impeached?
Not that we should impeach him, but this is the process as it begins.
And I'm sorry, I just can't be so black pilled and hope and lacking hope.
I know that Republicans sit on their hands quite a bit.
I'm not a fan of the Republican Party at all.
But we're talking here about Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, more populist MAGA types who want to go after the corruption of the Biden family.
This is probably the only logical way they could do it.
So I'm going to give, as much as I can, the benefit of the doubt.
Because they're not going to just run full speed out and say, impeach, impeach, impeach.
It would go nowhere.
In fact, this happens all the time.
They did it to Trump.
It's been attempted against Biden.
There have been articles of impeachment proposed, and they go nowhere.
This will be a prolonged PR campaign effectively in the press to highlight the corruption of Joe Biden, which I have for you.
And I will waste no time in showing you because evidence is important.
I'd like to play for you this video from the Council on Foreign Relations website.
As you can see right here, foreign affairs issue launch with former vice president Joe Biden, January 23rd, 2018.
And it's a little quiet, I don't know, it's just blame the Council on Foreign Relations.
But I'll bring up for you the exact quote here in the transcript from the CFR event, and I will read for you, this is it, and I'll break down exactly how it works.
They said, they were walking into a press conference, I said, no, I'm not going to, we're not going to give you the billion dollars.
They said, you have no authority, you're not the president.
The president said, I said, call him.
I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars.
I said, you're not getting the billion.
I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours.
I looked at them and said, I'm leaving in six hours, if the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money.
Well, SOB, ha ha ha, he got fired.
And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.
Lies.
Lies.
Let's break it down for you.
The impeachment former Ukrainian prosecutor accuses Joe Biden of corruption.
You may be saying, but Tim, why would I take the word of a corrupt man?
Victor Shokin was not accused of that, was not convicted of anything.
He was fired because Joe Biden flew to Ukraine and made this request.
That's it.
So what did Viktor Shokin do?
Now look, I'm not Ukrainian.
And there's a lot I've heard from people in the country and from various news sources, Russian, Ukrainian, and American.
And I'll tell you this, at the time, Viktor Shokin had said outright, this is corruption, and it's because he was investigating Burisma, where Hunter Biden was on the board and getting paid fat stacks, as well as former CIA officials.
So Joe Biden intervenes, but let's break it down for you, because we do.
Here's from the Washington Free Beacon.
Oh, you're going to complain about this?
News Guard certified!
Hunter Biden called D.C.
to get Ukraine prosecutor fired for Burisma.
His ex-business partner reportedly testifies.
So, Hunter Biden called D.C.
in 2015 to get a Ukrainian prosecutor investigating his employer fired.
Archer, who sat on the board of Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings with Biden, levied the allegation during his Monday testimony before the House Oversight Committee, Fox News reported.
Archer also testified Biden called his father more than 20 times to sell the brand.
Archer alleged that Burisma executives pressured Biden to get help from D.C.
to push the Ukrainian government to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor who investigated the gas company for corruption.
At the time, then-Vice President Joe Biden oversaw the Obama administration's policy towards Ukraine.
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.
It's an inquiry into whether or not he should be impeached.
And some have said, we had Rick Santorum on Tim Kast's Diary where he says you shouldn't impeach a president for something he did as vice president.
I humbly disagree.
What he is doing now in Ukraine, waging war, Sending weapons, resources, training materials is connected completely to what happened then.
And I don't think, you know, I think that there is a strong connection to the corruption then and now.
And thus, with the evidence we already have from when he was vice president, it stands to reason the investigation will dredge up comparable things.
But either way, the through line is there.
Joe Biden pulls these strings as VP.
Now a war breaks out.
What's he thinking?
Uh-oh.
What if they find out we were influence peddling in Ukraine?
If Russia takes this territory, they're gonna find out what I did.
That's what terrifies me.
Would Joe Biden be willing to wage war against Russia to stop them from uncovering evidence of his personal corruption?
No question about it.
Because everything they've done with the billion, you're not getting a billion dollars, has always been under the veil of, but it's U.S.
foreign policy.
No, it isn't.
It's a corrupt uniparty establishment.
And I'm going to tell you this, because I got all the evidence in the world, right?
Here we go.
CNN poll.
The majority of Americans believe Joe Biden as VP was involved with Sun's business dealings.
Oh, I love this poll.
SSRS poll.
They say he was acting inappropriately.
Most Americans think he did it.
So yeah, impeach.
But I got one for all the liberals.
The liberals who complain about the mercury in the water, the Pacific garbage patch, the Atlantic garbage patch, the gyres, they call them.
The dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico and in other parts of the world where fish can no longer survive because of the chemical spills, the waste, the products, the carbon emissions.
For what reason does the United States engage in everything they are doing?
Ah, for good old American interests.
Well, I tell you this.
You cannot complain about pollution, corporations, and all of the evils and the ills of everything that this country and this world produces, and then defend the idea that America should be engaged in nation-building to make more of it.
It is hypocrisy.
Now, by all means, you want to live in luxury, I get it.
But this idea that we should have, you know, net zero carbon emissions, that we should stop driving, that we should stop producing, you know, we should not produce nuclear power, we should not drill for fossil fuels, but we will prop up an intelligence apparatus that wages war, influence paddles, for oil!
Your logic is completely inconsistent.
So I put it simply as this.
If the man is corrupt, the man is corrupt, and the impeachment must begin.
But, uh, can I just tell you a little bit about what was happening with Viktor Shokin?
Here's what they want to say.
I love this one.
Here you go.
Here's Snopes.
Does a C-SPAN video show Joe Biden confessing to bribery?
The U.S.
may have pushed for the firing of Ukrainian prosecutor, but not for the reasons implied in the video clip.
Ah, Snopes, you're such full of garbage.
False, they say.
Well, I'm not accusing Joe Biden of bribery.
I am outright stating the video shows definitively a quid pro quo.
You're not getting the money unless you do a political favor for him and his son.
They say it was U.S.
foreign policy, but come on.
I bring you to the simple Wikipedia page for Mykola Zlochevsky, and they talk about investigations into Burisma.
Here we go.
In 2014, they froze approximately 23 million belonging to companies controlled by Zlochevsky.
At the end of 2014, Zlochevsky, this is the guy who founded Burisma, flees Ukraine amid allegations of unlawful self-enrichment.
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Say what?
In 2015, Prosecutor General Vitaly Yerema announced he had been put on the wanted list for alleged financial corruption.
So, before Joe Biden's intervention, this guy's on the run!
His money is frozen!
Joe Biden steps up saying, why aren't you doing more to stop this corrupt individual?
And what do you think happened when they put in someone solid, Joe Biden says?
Oh, here you go.
Zlochevsky returned to Ukraine in February 2018 after investigations into his Burisma holdings had been completed in December with no charges filed against him.
So you mean to tell me that pre-Joe Biden?
January, before he flies out and makes this request to fire the prosecutor, the dude had to flee the country because he was a wanted man and his assets are frozen.
And once you put in place someone solid, no charges are filed, the investigation is complete, he comes back, he gets all his money back, and then I love this.
Then, in June of 2018, under Donald Trump, I'm not saying Donald Trump did anything, he once again is accused and flees the country, reportedly to Monaco.
Incredible.
What's that timeline, ladies and gentlemen?
He's a wanted man fleeing the country.
Joe Biden flies to Ukraine, says fire the prosecutor.
He comes back.
Investigations cleared.
No charges.
What?
Clearly there was an investigation and he was a wanted man, had to flee the country.
They were going to lock him up.
After Joe Biden intervenes, he's free to go.
Interesting, to say the least.
And this is where we are.
Majority of Americans agree.
There's a lot more to the story.
How about this from Politico?
Politico, January 11th, 2017.
Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.
Really fascinating stuff here.
Donald Trump was the only presidential candidate whose campaign was boosted by officials of a former Soviet bloc country.
Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office.
They also disseminated documents implicating a top Trump aide, this was Manafort I believe, and suggested they were investigating the matter, only to back away after the election.
And they helped Clinton's allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors, a Politico investigation found.
It's right there.
When Meet the Press asked Ted Cruz about this story, Ted Cruz said, I don't know, Politico reported, and they laughed on national television.
The idea that this story reported by Politico is true is absurd, they said.
Fascinatingly, Politico EU later reported their own story was Russian propaganda.
So I can only say this.
It is laid out before you, my friends.
Impeachment stands before us.
And I believe it must be done.
Impeachment is not conviction.
Impeachment is indictment.
What I am saying is we have more than a preponderance of evidence of illicit business dealings.
And this is just one story.
We've got the flights on Air Force Two to China for private equity deals.
The transferring of funds to the Biden family.
Hunter Biden saying my dad takes my salary.
10% for the big guy.
We have witness statements from confidants in of the Biden family, Devin Archer and Tony.
Oh, Bob Yelinski, sorry, who have outright said they did this and every step of the way.
Democrats and their lackeys in the media go blah blah blah and plug their ears.
A really hilarious video goes viral, where a guy asks this journalist, he's like, you know, what about the Hunter Biden case?
And he goes, there's no evidence.
And he goes, Hunter Biden said his dad was taking his salary!
And he goes, I don't know about that.
He's like, well here it is!
And the guy's like, I don't know.
I'm gonna leave now.
I've had on guests.
I'll spare their names, but you know, if you've watched The Culture War or IRL.
And I say, here's the pile of evidence beyond a preponderance of evidence.
This is beyond probable cause.
In my opinion, these are very serious, very serious bits of evidence.
Witness testimony is direct, is circumstantial evidence.
I shouldn't say direct, but circumstantial, meaning it is admissible in court.
People saying, he did this thing.
Here are the emails where he did this thing.
Here's a video of him saying he did this thing.
And they go, that's a conspiracy theory, you're implying intent.
No, implication of intent is for the jury to decide, right?
If I say there is a preponderance of evidence of an intent to defraud and commit these crimes, the outcome favored those crimes, that's when we actually say there's probably a criminal investigation that needs to be conducted.
Now personally, I think it's proof positive.
I think we have more than enough evidence to prove Joe Biden did these things.
But okay, it's whatever.
I am willing to be a reasonable person and say we begin with an inquiry into the conduct of the Biden family.
But come on, anybody who comes out now and is saying something like it's a conspiracy theory, they're lying.
Because you've got, as I often say, malicious evil and the banality of evil.
In this instance, when Politico, CNN, the majority of Americans are outright saying, yeah, he probably did it.
And I should say with CNN, they're showing the poll.
Majority of Americans believe Joe Biden was acting inappropriately.
Now, you may be saying, yeah, but acting inappropriately isn't criminal.
No, the question is, was it inappropriate or appropriate?
And 55% said inappropriate.
The question wasn't, do you think he committed a crime?
Perhaps you'd get a comparable answer.
Perhaps maybe only 45 would say, you know, it was criminal.
Many would say it was just bad and wrong and should not have been done.
Regardless, based on the information that has been laid out before all of us from all of these NewsGuard certified sources, official, confirmed, fact-checked.
Yeah, it's all here before you.
It's all laid out right in front of your eyes.
When we had Brianna Wu on this past Friday in the Culture War...
She made a bunch of... She said the Free Beacon is... She scoffed at the idea the Free Beacon was a legitimate source.
Sorry, I don't know.
NewsGuard certified it.
Don't look at me.
I defer to the Poynter Institute.
I defer to NewsGuard.
Prominent journalistic institutions, which get ragged on by the right all the time for bias, I am using your bias fact-check tools to present these sources.
It's why I do it.
Many people say, Tim, is it, you know, you shouldn't use NewsGuard because NewsGuard's BS.
Do you understand now?
I will use their tools to prove my point.
There are a lot of organisms, Revolver, for instance, has like a zero from NewsGuard.
NewsGuard says, fake news!
Breitbart has like a 60.
And you know what?
So be it.
That's fine.
When these Democrats and liberals come out and say, that's fake news, I say, you know, NewsGuard agrees with you.
And NewsGuard says that the free beacon is Is good.
80% out of 100 is one of the best scores you can get.
It means they only got like one strike out of 10.
And many others got like seven or eight strikes.
So I am using the New York Times, Politico.
Politico, look at this, ladies and gentlemen.
How about this one?
Politico is NewsGuard certified 100%.
Ukraine tried to sabotage Donald Trump in 2016.
So don't come to me You can choose what to believe, that's fine.
But to come to me and say these sources are not good or illegitimate shows that you are biased.
CNN has the same rating as the free beacon.
You can choose what to believe.
That's fine.
But to come to me and say these sources are not good or illegitimate shows that you are
a you are biased.
And that's all that matters.
Reality has a right wing bias these days because they say that my arguments presented against
Joe Biden are right wing when in reality they're not conservative, liberal or otherwise.
They're fact-based.
Now, of course, these outlets still do lie and could be wrong.
My point is this.
If these are your corporate mainstream sources that you believe overwhelmingly tell the truth, and these are the real journalists, well, my friends, The real journalists have laid it out very clear for all of you.
Joe Biden engaged in a quid pro quo without question.
We have it from the CFR.
Oh, I'm sorry, this is the wrong one.
The CFR, I believe, is here.
But let's see what NewsGuard has to say about the Council on Foreign Relations.
100 out of 100.
High credibility.
This website adheres to all nine standards of credibility and transparency.
Really?
But this is a video where Joe Biden admits to engaging in what's called a quid pro quo, something for something.
They said Donald Trump calling Ukraine and asking for an investigation into this under the threat of withholding aid was a quid pro quo and was impeachable.
But he's the president!
The president sets foreign policy.
The argument from these same people as to why it was okay that Joe Biden engaged in a quid pro quo was that it was Obama's policy.
So you're saying Obama sent his VP to engage in a quid pro quo?
Okay, then Obama should be retroactively impeached.
Republicans should impeach Obama for a quid pro quo, the same as they did of Donald Trump.
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.
So he sends Joe Biden, apparently, to get the prosecutor fired and threatening to withhold loan guarantees.
Donald Trump contacted the president, the government of Ukraine, and said he wanted an investigation into a quid pro quo conducted by Obama and Joe Biden.
And they said he was digging up dirt on his political rival.
So when Obama and Biden say, do a thing for us or no money, it's fine.
When Donald Trump says, figure out what they were doing or no money, they say, quid pro quo.
Whatever.
It's clearly political.
The left says, but Donald, this is the funny thing.
When you have Brianna Wilkham on the show saying that I'm assuming intent on what Joe Biden was doing.
The hilarious thing is I'm saying, no, there's a video of him doing a quid pro quo.
That's it.
End of story.
We should investigate.
They then say Donald Trump was trying to dig up dirt on his opponent.
I said, now you're implying intent.
You don't know.
That's a conspiracy theory.
You see the game they play?
It's manipulative.
It's meant to obfuscate.
I take the middle ground because I'm the notorious fence sitter, right?
Joe Biden and Donald Trump, investigate both of them, I don't care.
Donald Trump said this, there's a possibility he was trying to get dirt on his opponent.
But, you can't impeach him for it, rag on him for it, and ignore the fact that Trump was investigating quite literally the same thing done by the Obama administration.
Because if you come out and say, Trump should be investigated for a quid pro quo, I go, wow, I agree.
And that means Joe Biden must be as well, because he did quite literally the same thing.
No, no he didn't.
Trump is evil, and Biden was good.
Sorry, that don't fly with me!
I'll give you this one final thought.
When we had Breonna Woo on the culture war, it exemplified the differences between who I am, the left and the right, in the culture war.
Breonna asked me, what do you think of the Casey Anthony case?
I said, I don't know anything about it.
What am I supposed to say?
When asked about the Joe Biggs case, Breonna Woo said, I think it was generally just.
And I said, did you follow it?
She said, no.
I will not condemn a man to 20 years in prison unless I know exactly what he's accused of doing.
And when you look at the story about Joe Biggs, the idea that he either rattled a fence or knocked it over and then entered restricted grounds does not warrant two decades in prison.
Murderers get less time.
The dude walked around, bumbling about.
Shouldn't have done it.
Shouldn't have been there.
Maybe a couple years is enough.
I think if you were part of that riot and you were knocking fences over or whatever, yeah, you should get arrested and criminally charged.
I think two and a half years is how long he's been in?
Probably a long enough amount of time for what he did.
But Brianna doesn't even know anything about the case and says it's probably okay.
See, I don't play that game.
I need to know for sure before I condemn someone.
So if you ask me about an individual that I don't know, I'll say, dude, I honestly have no idea.
I look at the Ahmaud Arbery case and I'll tell you, like, I think there's problems there.
But how many people did not pay attention to the news and condemned these people without the knowledge of what really happened?
So I try to take a tempered approach.
I look at what Trump did and I say, OK, well, I'm not going to assume his intent, but I see what you're saying.
He said you're not getting money unless you do this thing that I want.
But the president sets foreign policy, right?
What about Joe Biden?
From a neutral perspective, both of these stories contain comparable elements.
You cannot come to me and say, but I think Trump is evil.
That's immaterial.
The charges laid against Trump are specific.
When Owen Schroer was charged and pleaded guilty, they have recently, on the 5th, proposed sentencing guidelines based upon his speech before, during, and after Hold on there a minute.
The charges against Owen Schroer are for being on restricted grounds.
If someone robbed a liquor store and stole booze, and the prosecutor said he's charged with stealing booze, but hears his speech after the fact saying, we should challenge those who want to make it illegal to steal booze, I say, what does that have to do with the singular act of going into that store?
It's a point Owen Schroer made.
He was charged with trespass, effectively.
A more serious trespass, being on restricted grounds and not leaving.
What does that have to do with his political statements after the fact?
Don't fly.
It shows the bias in the machine.
These are the games they play.
If the charges against Trump are, he said, do a thing for me in exchange for a thing, Joe Biden also said, do a thing for me in exchange for a thing.
They're both quid pro quo.
If you impeach Donald Trump, Joe Biden must be impeached.
There it is.
Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
InfoWars host Owen Schroer has been sentenced to 60 days in prison over what happened on January 6th.
And in my humble opinion, this is entirely because of his political speech.
The big story was that Owen Schroer was facing 120 days in prison, and the prosecution in their sentencing recommendation said, look at the things he said before, during, and after.
What about what he said?
Why does that matter when he's being charged not with inciting a riot or seditious conspiracy?
He's being charged with being on restricted grounds.
Schroer's legal team, Schroer himself, argued two and a half years of court supervision is more than sufficient penalty for the misdemeanor of being in a restricted place.
Two months in prison?
Now that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense until you take a look at where things are going.
Proud Boys leader, Tarrio, says prosecutors pushed him to implicate Donald Trump.
It's all political, my friends.
What we have going on should be plainly obvious to anyone.
Should Owen Schroer have been saying the things he's accused of saying?
During January 6th when he's outside the Capitol?
Eh, maybe not.
But he's allowed to.
You can call the guy irresponsible, but he's not been charged with incitement or anything like that.
It was basically a dude saying things he thought should be said.
Now, he said something to the effect of, Democrats are tyrants and death to tyrants, but that's not an explicit threat call to action.
It is him expressing his opinion about what he thinks politically.
Little bombastic, perhaps.
Perhaps even irresponsible, some of you may think.
I think so.
But he's allowed to say it.
People say irresponsible things all of the time.
I get accused of saying irresponsible things.
So the matter is, should you go to prison?
No.
But it's all part of the game.
It's all part of the moves they are making against anyone who opposes what they do.
The establishment machine wants to get rid of Donald Trump.
The Uniparty is in control.
Now, we have news that came out just about a half an hour, 40 minutes before I started recording this, showing that Kevin McCarthy has called for the formal impeachment inquiry into Biden.
This is not an impeachment vote.
It's an expansion of what they're already investigating into a formal impeachment inquiry.
So we knew this was coming, and I'm glad to see it.
But let's talk about how the DOJ has been weaponized, and they're trying to manipulate people Into giving them political power, either by implicating Trump or threatening them with, I mean, 60 days.
A lot of people go, it's two months, he'll be back in no time.
He shouldn't go to jail at all.
Before we get started, however, my friends, go to TimCast.com, pick up your tickets to our Miami event, click TimCast IRLXMiami, or click the link in the description below.
We got Donald Trump, Junior Patrick, Matt David, Matt Gaetz, Luke Rutkowski, me, Ian Crossland.
We'll be on stage hanging out with you 6 to 10 p.m.
in Miami, October 6.
We hope to see you there.
Link in the description below.
Let's read the news.
NBC News reports, host of the far-right media outlet InfoWars was sentenced Tuesday to 60 days in prison for his role in the January 6th attack on the U.S.
Capitol.
Oh, stop!
Do you see the game they're playing?
Dude, his role in the attack?
He was standing on the grass!
Amazing.
Owen Schro... Look at the... Look what he... Let's just keep going.
Owen Schroyer is one of only a handful of January 6th participants charged with a crime despite neither entering the Capitol building nor being accused of committing violence or destruction on Capitol grounds.
Prosecutors charged Schreuer because he had previously signed a deferred prosecution agreement after interrupting a congressional hearing in 2019 and had agreed as part of that case not to utter loud, threatening, or abusive language or to engage in any disorderly or disruptive content at any place upon the United States Capitol grounds.
That's it.
Owen Schreuer had an agreement not to come and bullhorn.
Because he did it before.
I think they said it was like disorderly or something.
Interrupting an official proceeding.
I don't know.
And here's the funny thing.
Here's the funny thing.
Owen Schroyer, in the Capitol, yelling, interrupting their proceedings, and they said, just don't do it again.
That's it?
That's it.
They said, sir, just don't do it again.
This time, when he showed up, they said, you had an agreement not to do it, so we're gonna charge you.
They're saying, I love how they say his role in the January 6th attack, no.
In the following paragraph, they say he was charged because he violated a deferment agreement.
You see the big difference here?
This work gets really, really fascinating when you look at how they decided to prosecute him and what they wanted.
The government said, the prosecutor said, look at his speech before, during, and after.
Hold on there a minute.
If we're charging him for violating a deferred agreement, that's all you need.
You say, he came to this place and he was loud and obnoxious and agreed not to.
More importantly, and they did mention this, you say, he agreed not to show up on the Capitol grounds, he showed up, case closed.
But they did not charge him with any of that either.
He simply charged for being on restricted grounds.
They say.
About 1,100 defendants have been charged in connection with the January 6th U.S.
Capitol ATTACK.
And more than 600 have been sentenced, including more than 370 to periods of incarceration.
Quote, Democrats are posing as communists, but we know what they really are.
They're just tyrants.
They're tyrants, Shroyer said on a bullhorn.
He said, and so today on January 6th, we declared death to tyranny, death to tyrants.
He did not, so again, call it irresponsible.
I got no problem with that, but there's a big difference between incitement and saying what you think.
The government sought 120 days of incarceration for Schroyer, saying that while he did not step foot inside the Capitol, many of those who listened to him did.
But hold on.
They didn't charge him with that!
See, that's the interesting thing here.
Shroyer's defense team said the case had been characterized by a cooperative spirit between the defense and the government, and asked that he be spared prison time.
When he was at the Capitol on January 6th, Shroyer wore two hats.
One was that of an outraged citizen who believed that an election had been rigged, the other, as a full-time journalist and commentator who sought a front-row seat to an historic event.
During Tuesday's sentencing hearing, Shroyer told the court, that was not part of any larger plan for illegal activity or violence that day.
His sentence was by Judge Timothy Kelly, who last week sent Proud Boys founder Enrique Tarrio to federal prison for 22 years.
Amazing.
We have this article from TimCast.com, where Owen Schroer had responded.
This is fascinating.
In their response to the government's proposed sentence, Schroer's attorneys argued the prosecution is taking direct aim at freedom of speech.
It seeks to penalize Mr. Schroer for his viewpoints, claiming apparently that his views are relevant offense conduct that must be considered in crafting a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to punish the crime to which Mr. Schroer pleaded guilty, a single misdemeanor count of entering and remaining in a restricted building or grounds.
That's it.
Shroyer is seeking a sentence without jail time, and has argued that the two years he had spent on pre-trial supervised release was sufficient.
Given the government's shocking attempt to use protected speech in this case as a sentencing factor, special leniency is required to deter the government from overreaching in similar cases.
None of the utterances recited by the government and attributed to Mr. Shroyer are prohibited speech, and the government has made no serious effort to prove that Mr. Shroyer's utterances packed the inculpatory punch of prohibited speech.
Whether that be incitement, a true threat, or conspiracy to commit another crime.
Unlike other defendants appearing before this court in the context of the January 6th riot, Mr. Schreuer has not been charged with conspiracy to engage in seditious conspiracy.
His words cannot be twisted into circumstantial evidence of an intent to oppose the authority of the government by force.
Let me just break this down for you again.
If the argument is he violated a pre-trial, a pre-trial deferment, a prosecution, a deferred prosecution agreement, sorry, DPA, then why did they, why are they trying to make it seem like he is involved in pushing people into this Capitol?
If he was charged, if they're saying that's the reason why in his initial Going to the Capitol, being on Capitol grounds, and yelling.
Why was his yelling that time?
No big deal.
No charges.
They just said, just don't do it again.
He did it again.
Why didn't they charge him?
Why didn't they simply say, there's no real charge here other than you violated your deferred prosecutorial agreement.
So we'll sentence you based on that.
It's very interesting.
They wanted the charge related to January 6th, so they had to go with being unrestricted grounds.
They wanted the case, the sentencing, to be related to his speech, despite none of that being the case.
You take a look at this judge and where we are now.
Proud Boys leader Tarrio says prosecutors pushed him to implicate Trump.
This is a seditious conspiracy.
This is it.
And it's funny because you get these liberals who don't pay attention to what's going on and they say, oh, it's a conspiracy theory.
What do you mean?
We know they're doing this.
We have more than one person saying they came to them and say, Trump did this.
We've got people who have quite literally done this.
There are people who are charged and they came out and said, I blame Donald Trump.
And they got like a month or two.
And there are people who said, no, I won't say it.
And they're still locked up.
So when Enrique Tarrio says this is what they came and said, why would I not believe it?
It's already happened.
This is what they're doing.
They need to tie Trump to what happened because Trump said, we're going to peacefully protest.
And the breach of the Capitol happened before Trump finished speaking.
He was still speaking to his rally when, when the, when the crackpots smashed down the barricades and ran to the Capitol.
Hmm.
This is what they want to do.
They want to remove Trump from the ballot and this is how they do it.
The Washington Post.
Ooh, this is going to be fun.
Before he went to trial on charges of seditious conspiracy and other counts related to the January 6th Capitol riot, Henry Enrique Tarrio was open to cutting a deal with prosecutors, the leader of the far-right Proud Boys had been through the federal criminal system before, for selling stolen medical supplies in Florida, and knew that those who pleaded guilty can get much less prison time than those who go to trial.
That's how it is with the feds.
He talked about the, uh, medical supplies thing.
I don't know, I don't remember the exact details, but I think he was, uh, uh, I don't know if it was selling stolen supplies.
I could be wrong.
I thought it was resale of supplies, and it, it may be that they were stolen and he didn't know.
I have no idea.
Or he's guilty of the crime and he did it, so be it.
Whatever.
It's immaterial to January 6th.
I need a number.
I was looking and seeking what type of plea offer would look like, Tarrio said in a phone
interview with the Post.
They didn't want to give me a number, he said, referring to a possible prison sentence.
I need a number.
To me, the most important thing is when I get home to my family.
Instead, Tarrio said, the prosecutors asked him what role Donald Trump played in getting
the Proud Boys to attack the Capitol.
He said the prosecutors, accompanied by FBI agents in the Miami jail where Tarrio was being held at the time, showed him messages he exchanged with a second person, who in turn was connected to a third person, who was connected to Trump.
You know what that means?
You could say the same thing of me.
We've had Donald Trump Jr.
on the show.
We've been in communication with him.
We're doing an event with him in Miami.
They're gonna come and be like, Tim Pool is one degree away from Donald Trump himself.
Yeah!
Because we're in politics, we interview a lot of people.
I'm probably one degree away from Joe Biden, because we've had Rick Santorum on.
Who else have we had on prominent?
Insert any politician.
And we've had multiple people on, and we've been in communication with them, and they have communicated with Joe Biden.
It's the stupidest thing imaginable.
Tarrio said he told investigators he didn't know the third person.
He refused to name the people who prosecutors said allegedly connected him to Trump.
Ultimately, the nearly five-month trial did not connect the Proud Boys to the then-president, beyond Trump's seeming endorsement of the group in a presidential debate in the fall of 2020 in which he told them to stand back and stand by.
The televised comments caused Proud Boys membership to spike.
Interesting.
They weren't trying to get the truth, Tarjo said.
They were trying to coerce me into signing something that's not true.
And that is exactly how it goes.
Quick story for those that didn't hear me say it, because I've told it probably like seven or eight times.
I was once charged with driving on a suspended license.
This was back when I was like 20 years old, I think.
And the reason was, I had gotten pulled over by a cop and given a speeding ticket despite the fact that I was not speeding.
I was exiting in Lakeshore Drive, going like 5 to 10 miles under the limit, and he pulled me over and claimed I was going 20 over.
Cop didn't care.
And I was like, I wasn't speeding, I was telling it to a judge.
And I'm like, what?
Like, what just happened?
It's like a $75 ticket.
What I didn't know is that if you're under the age of 21 and you get two moving violations, they suspend your license.
So, when I went to go visit my sister, because her husband was overseas in Iraq, in danger, And she was worried.
I was like, well, I'll just go hang out here.
But I only had a few months to go to court to contest the ticket.
Ultimately, I said, it's too difficult to deal with.
It takes too much time.
I'd have to drive back to Chicago.
And my sister, being a good sister, decided she'd pay the ticket for me.
I said, thank you.
What I did not realize that by paying it you're pleading guilty and they instantly suspended my license.
I had no idea that happened.
I received no notice.
They didn't say upon completion of this your license will be suspended.
You can no longer drive.
No idea.
I eventually drive back to Chicago and literally as I'm re-entering my mom's neighborhood Just getting back from the drive, I get pulled over and it was an illegal pullover.
It's amazing how all this happens.
And I did nothing wrong when I was driving.
They pulled my car over and said I was driving a suspended license.
When I went to court, I was told that I would go to jail for a year over what happened and that take the plead guilty or else.
I was surprised.
I thought I, you know, I had a case for something or other.
And I ended up telling the judge.
The judge asked me, were you coerced into giving this place?
I said, yes.
And he was like, yes.
And I was like, yeah, they're threatening me with a year in jail for getting two tickets.
One was that my headlights were out and the other was for speeding.
I go to jail for a year for that?
And that's what they threatened me with.
So anyway, I digress.
My point is, with stories like this, the judge laughed, he told me to go get a lawyer, and then ultimately what ended up happening was I ended up paying a $150 fine by pleading guilty.
And that was it.
And I didn't drive again for like two years.
It's crazy.
But for someone like Enrique Tarrio, this is how the government operates.
Everything they do is coercive and unjust.
Sorry, that's the way it is.
There is no circumstance in any court anywhere for any reason where there is anything other than coercion for gain.
It's called the trial tax or the jury tax.
Here's how it should operate.
The prosecution says, we believe you committed a crime.
We believe you should get this amount of time.
That's it.
We will not offer you anything else.
It would be... It would be immoral for us to say, you deserve five years, but if you go easy, we'll give you less time.
I think that's ridiculous.
They should not be allowed to do that.
The way it goes is...
They argue that if you go to court, if you go to trial, sorry, you're basically refusing to take responsibility for what you've done.
But if you plead guilty, it shows remorse and so you deserve less time.
Spare me.
It's coercion.
The trial tax.
You deserve a right to a speedy trial and there should be no pressure put against you.
The feds should have to.
I don't think, in fact, not only that, I think that the judge should have a discretion for sentencing guidelines even up to total nullification.
The prosecution should be able to say, we want X amount of time because the guidelines are this, and the judge should be allowed to say no to them.
And he can, to be completely honest, he can.
But I do not believe it is justice.
I do not believe that it leads, it lends itself to innocent until proven guilty that the coercion like this can exist.
Because what happens is innocent people end up in jail all too often because of this.
You'll get charged with a crime.
And let's say in the instance of me driving a suspended license, the prosecutor said, so you admit you're driving a suspended license.
And I was like, I received no formal notice and I literally just, it just happened and I just got back.
And he was like, so you admit it.
I'm like, there's no reasonable nature.
Here's what I think should have happened.
The judge should have said, what happened?
And I should have said, here's the story.
And he should have went, okay, here's what we're going to do.
You gotta pay the fine.
It's 30 bucks.
That's what it was.
It was like 30 bucks.
And you've gotta file a form to get your license reinstated.
You've paid the tickets.
Don't do it again.
Have a nice day.
Instead, the judge was like, too bad, so sad.
This is not justice.
It's mechanization.
And I think density lends itself to this.
Enrique Tarrio.
What should happen is, they say, here is the crime you are charged with, and you will receive, on average, this amount of time.
That's it.
We're gonna go to trial.
You can plead guilty, and that's it.
These are the years you'll get, or you can fight it.
The reason they don't do that is because then people would be like, might as well go to trial.
But you have a right to a trial, so they use this as a weapon against you to terrify you.
You end up with innocent people being told by their lawyers, especially public defenders.
They just gotta get through this, they wanna get their check, and they say, look man, you're not gonna win, you're gonna go to jail, take the plea deal, and you'll get a slap on the wrist.
I've got more than just that one experience with it.
Falsely accused, me and my brother, by mall security guards, lying.
Apparently someone shoplifted, they were told to go look for them, they wrongly profile us, end up beating us up, we get arrested for it, so they lie to the cops about it.
We're told by our lawyer, just take the plea deal and plead guilty.
And we said no.
And they said, they're trying to get six months in jail for what you're accused of.
And it's a long story, but we ultimately said no.
And that resulted in us winning.
The judge was shocked.
Why aren't they taking the plea deal?
It was a community service plea deal.
It was a slap on the wrist.
And our lawyer was like, Your Honor, because they're innocent.
And then the judge called everyone to his chambers.
It's a longer story than that, but the gist of it was the judge said, I'm dismissing this case.
This is a waste of our time.
Here's how it goes in the court systems.
If everyone went to trial, the court system would grind to a halt and everyone would be released on constitutional grounds of a right to a speedy trial.
They are desperate that you plead guilty.
In this instance with Torrio, the stakes were much higher.
They want Trump locked up.
Not yet.
They want him off the ballot first.
They want to stop him by any means necessary.
This is where they use the weight of the trial tax and unjust prosecution to target Individuals like Tarrio It's it's kind of crazy if you think about it, you know We've we had Enrique Tarrio here before and after he had been he went to jail over the BLM flag thing He wasn't in DC on January 6 They say that he posted don't leave on parlor.
Don't effing leave That's all he said and that's what they use to say.
Oh, he was the leader of a conspiracy You know I was talking to we had a guy on here talking about self-defense and he said neighborhood watches are dangerous and This is what they do.
They're dangerous because if you have a neighborhood watch and then you end up in an Ahmaud Arbery situation where you've got a consistent, you know, you've got a consistent burglar going through the neighborhood, you've got a person of interest, they're caught burglarizing a building, you chase him down, a scuffle ensues, Arbery gets shot in the scuffle fighting over a gun and dies.
Instead of just getting charged with the death of the person, the neighborhood watch makes it conspiracy.
That's how evil these people are.
So this is what happens.
You make Guitario, probably didn't tell anybody to do anything.
Don't effing leave on parlor.
Come on, let's be real.
Legally, it's like, what did he really mean by it?
But, I think we all get it.
Reasonably, he was saying not to leave.
But, was there a plan?
Was there a conspiracy?
No.
I really think that's, that's just, no.
But, because they have a name brand, Because they're a group.
It is a conspiracy.
If, like, a group of your buddies showed up, they could try to argue conspiracy, but who are you?
It's like, well, it's a guy I know.
When Antifa and the far-left extremists ransacked D.C.
during Trump's inauguration, they tried conspiracy, and it didn't work.
Why?
Because these people showed up randomly.
Many of these proud boys don't know each other.
They showed up randomly.
But they have forward-facing leadership, and it's all it takes.
Antifa?
A bunch of masked people who don't play well with cops.
This is what they're going for.
The manipulation of the system.
And to strike fear.
Why?
They're losing.
The impeachment inquiry has begun.
It's slow, Ro.
I know.
But we'll see.
We'll see how this plays out.
Cultural victories across the board.
Rumbles.
Tremendous success.
Bud Light's failures.
You get the point.
I've said it way too many times.
But we can see the victory is happening.
Look at New Mexico.
The governor tries to decree guns illegal because they're losing!
On the Second Amendment, we are winning.
Constitutional carry going into effect in Nebraska, more than half the country.
So in their panic, desperation, she just bangs a gavel saying, NO IT'S ILLEGAL NOW!
And what happens?
People jump and say, no it's not.
Nope.
This is their panic and their fear.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up at 4pm on this channel.
Thanks, Frangin' Out, and I'll see you all then.
So a Democrat apparently was running a adult sex content profile,
and everybody found out, because, you know, of course they would.
It's remarkable, because The Daily Wire just says, meet Susanna Gibson, aka Hot Wife Experience,
the Dem candidate who also has has an X-rated Cheturbate profile.
Mom's Demand Action candidate says, y'all can watch- Oh, jeez.
I can't read that!
Let's just, uh, say, she was, uh, offering to perform certain behaviors on camera for money!
Woo!
Uh, there's an editor's note warning you that there's, uh, graphic depictions in this, so, uh, you know, it is what it is, but I love this one.
The New York Times.
State House candidate in Virginia condemns leak of sex tapes.
Okay, Leek is usually like, she filmed something in private with her husband or whatever, and then somehow someone got them and posted them, and it's like, oh heavens me!
What has happened?
These videos are private.
And that would suck if that was the case, but the story is actually that she was performing adult activities in exchange for money, which is called hooking.
And the people who received the materials Posted them on the internet or I guess technically she posted them on the internet for people to watch they were readily available To anybody and now it's like they leaked.
It's like dude you put them there You did these things on camera for other people.
I love it.
I love it.
It's just so remarkable lady You wanna be a hooker?
Dude, I don't care.
Alright.
I don't think it's good for society.
I know, I know.
But I'm fairly libertarian.
And I don't... I have moral hard limits.
It's like, I'm not gonna cross that line.
Should we allow children to have unfettered access to the internet if there's adult content?
No.
Gotta have an ID.
Sorry.
Even if it's an inconvenience, it's tough.
But I'm not gonna sit here and be like, kids should be able to go on these platforms where these things are- No, no, no.
There's gotta be some way to restrict that.
Yes, parents have a responsibility.
They have a responsibility not to let their 12-year-olds get drunk off vodka.
But if the kid goes to the bar to buy vodka, they're gonna be like, kid, you're 12, you can't buy here.
I'm okay with that.
Because I'm not like a hardcore anarchist.
I love, there was like at the Libertarian Convention, like what was this, like several cycles ago.
They had a debate over whether or not you should be able to sell heroin to kids.
It's like, I think that was when Gary Johnson was running.
And it's like, no you should not be able to do that.
I don't know, whatever.
In this instance, my point is, lady, if you want a hook, okay?
Dude, I don't care.
Just understand, when you put this stuff out there, people have negative opinions about it, and they're probably not going to want to vote for you if you're a hooker.
Okay?
And also, like, don't give me this, you know, people get all offended by the terms.
It's, it's, it's sex worker.
Dude, I don't care what you call it.
You can't just be offended by every word used to describe what it is you are or do.
It's like, hooker is not intended to be mean.
It's a, it's a term that references people selling their bodies.
You know what I mean?
And that's the easiest way.
I'm not playing this PC sex worker, hooker.
Alright, here's the New York Times.
A Democratic candidate in a crucial race for the Virginia General Assembly denounced reports on Monday that she and her husband had performed live on a sexually explicit streaming site.
Gibson, a nurse practitioner running in her first election cycle, said in a statement that the leaks about her online activity were an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.
The Washington Post and the AP reported on Monday that tapes of live-streamed adult activities had been recorded for a pornographic site and archived on another site.
The New York Times has not independently verified the content of the videos.
Gibson, 40, who appears on her campaign website in hospital scrubs, as well as home with her husband and two young children, is running for the House Delegates in one of only a handful of competitive races that will determine control of the General Assembly.
Republicans hold a slim majority in the House.
Ms.
Gibson's district, which is outside Richmond and primarily in Henrico County, is one of seven toss-up seats in the 100-member House, according to the nonpartisan Virginia Public Access Project.
Releasing damaging information about candidates of the opposing party in the heat of the campaign is an age-old political practice.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
I love how they put it.
They're like, it was not actually as it was described in other stories.
It was a leak.
Okay.
So, um, here's the Daily Wire.
Hot Wife Experience is what it was called.
You have been warned.
I'll, I'll, I'll, uh, I'll tone down the language, of course.
We'll tone it down.
Actually, you know what we'll do?
Um, we'll just, I'll do this.
Here is a picture of the lady.
And, uh, to, you know, cause I, I, I try to keep these shows family friendly.
You know, I got a lot of people who hit me up, say that they're like listening to the show while they're in the car with their kids.
So, uh, you know, I, I think it actually benefits.
Here's what I mean to say.
I want the idea of what's happening to reach you.
And I want it to be done in such a way that, uh, it's like, you know, I'll leave it at that.
The idea is what matters, so you get it.
I'm going to read the story from the Daily Wire.
A Democrat candidate for state office in Virginia appears to have been raising money for a good cause by performing graphic adult activities online, where she told viewers that and said they could watch her for the right price, according to material reviewed by the Daily Wire.
Susanna Gibson, who is running for a seat in the narrowly divided Virginia Statehouse, was as recently as last year posting a hot wife experience on the website Chatterbait, where men could pay tokens to get her to perform certain deeds on camera.
In one video recorded shortly after she launched her campaign last year, she told her husband, I'll let you in a private room if someone wants to pay, that's the deal.
Another video, she appears to say that for the right price, viewers could watch her.
Y'all can watch me, hmm, if you tip me and some tokens, she said.
Again, I'm raising money for a good cause.
She goes on to say that she likes certain kink behaviors.
She likes being hit.
She said in one video posted exactly a year ago on September 11, 2022.
Now here's what debunks the claim from the New York Times that it was a leak.
She says in video, according to the Daily Wire, that you can tip her tokens.
That sounds like she did it and she's tooken.
I just want a private room with somebody filming there, so I can come look at it, she said.
Oh god, I want to, mmm, buy you.
These quotes are nuts!
I'm sorry dude, I can't read these quotes here.
I'm trying- I'm just- She said for 500 tokens, she would order room service in a hotel, and cause the delivery person to see her in the nude, saying, I'm definitely as- Definitely A. In order to leave the door cracked, I need 500 tokens.
Gimson said she had adult activities three times in one day, and don't tell my husband he was the third.
I would say ethically non-monogamous, but I guess that three in one day was not.
I'm raising money for a really good cause, and it's my birthday, so give me more, please, because it's my birthday night, and yeah, so then I, hmm, in his house, and then later, hmm, my husband.
In the videos, she appears to be filmed with her husband, lawyer John David Gibson, who ensured that the raunchiest acts were reserved for the biggest spending, saying, She can be heard in the videos saying, he doesn't like sharing her with other men, with Gibson saying, sometimes I have to though, she makes me.
Her husband gave $5,000 to her campaign around the time the videos were filmed.
The Washington Post first reported the story on Monday afternoon, and the Daily Wire independently obtained the videos.
Gibson did not return a request for comment to the Daily Wire asking whether the good cause was her Senate campaign, but she appears to acknowledge to the Washington Post that the videos are authentic, claiming that they are an illegal invasion of my privacy designed to humiliate me and my family.
Though she posted the videos online for nearly 6,000 followers, she now claims it to be a crime to shed light on the existence of her account, saying, "...my political opponents and their Republican allies have proven they're willing to commit crime..." That's not the full quote, my dude.
I'm omitting some words.
attack me and my family because there's no line they won't cross to silence women when they speak
up." Gibson appeared alongside Senator Tim Kaine on Saturday. She is running against Republican
David Owen in the November 7th election. Her campaign platform says she is a public health
expert who is concerned about Republican efforts to purportedly punish teachers
with teachers reporting tip lines or videos in the classroom to monitor them.
Her campaign website features several pictures of her and her husband with their two children,
And on social media, she has stated she is a family friend seal of approval.
She is running for a swing seat in Henrico County in suburban Richmond.
She is endorsed by Moms Demand Action, a group that has pushed far-left candidates in Virginia schools and elsewhere.
Gibson's largest campaign donor is Clean Virginia Fund, according to records.
So the New York Times is rolling with the story that it was a leak.
This is insane.
If the videos show her saying, I need tokens on this platform, then how are they denying the reality of what this is?
Look, lady, if you did this stuff, you should own it.
The left is totally on board.
But this is the duplicitousness of politics.
These people are inauthentic.
They are shills.
They are liars.
You know what?
I'd actually be somewhat inclined to vote for a Democrat if she came out right and admitted it.
I wouldn't.
But my point is, she loses points with me because she's denying what she clearly has done on camera.
So sayeth these various news outlets.
You want to make money doing a thing?
You want to defend the right of sex workers?
Then you need to own it when you do it.
But coming out and being like, I didn't do that, they saw those videos, it's a crime.
The prohibition has prevented elected officials, state workers, and university scholars from traveling to more than half the country using the state's money.
That has posed a significant challenge to sports teams at public colleges and universities, which have had to find alternative funding sources to pay for their road games in states like Arizona and Utah.
It has also complicated some of the state's other policy goals, like using state money to pay for people who live in other states to travel to California for abortions.
What?!
That exists!
But here's what happens, my friends.
More than half the country, they tried to play the game where they're like, you want to pass this law?
Then we won't ever travel to your state.
And now that half the country is on this path, they're saying, wait, wait, wait!
Uh-oh.
You see, you have no choice.
Culture?
It controls everything.
Politics is downstream.
And when you try to play these games but are losing the culture war, you eventually have no choice but to bring that money back.
They were trying to withhold that money.
They can't do it.
I want to show you another area where we're winning.
And this is constitutional carry.
My friends, I do not appreciate nor entertain those who are saying that we are losing.
Take a look at this map of where you're allowed to carry a gun openly.
So this is actually a concealed carry map.
Sorry, concealed carry.
Because open carry, I think, is basically everywhere.
Concealed carry permits are no longer required in more than half the country.
That's right.
If you're a resident, you can legally get a gun and carry it, put it in a holster and cover it up, conceal it, and you don't gotta do anything else.
The Constitution is your permit.
You notice there's only one little red spot right there?
Ah!
New Mexico!
Carry illegal permits not issued.
But you know what's funny?
Even though they're saying that, and they shouldn't, to be completely honest, because it is not correct to say the governor does not have the right to decree these things, people are ignoring it anyway.
And the backlash is bipartisan.
That's right, it actually is.
Democrats, leftists, conservatives, the right, libertarians, basically everyone said this is the losing play.
I'm sorry, I know so many people just want me to say the end is nigh.
I get these people super chatting, being like, no Tim, the Second Amendment's in danger!
And it's like, dude, it was in danger, but we started winning!
There's a map show- look at this!
I love showing this map, where it shows 1986, 87, and one by one, States start becoming constitutional carry in 1993.
Only some places, they wouldn't give you a permit for a gun in most of these states.
You couldn't have a gun in the 90s in Illinois at all!
Look at this.
2008's gonna be the best.
That's D.C.
versus Heller.
The right to carry, 2008.
And, well, no significant changes, but this is when constitutional carry starts to emerge.
Illinois.
There it was.
So, why did it change in 2013 to shell issue?
That's interesting.
And now you can see all the green that's popping up is constitutional carry.
This is called winning, my friends.
This is open carry and concealed carry.
We can see now that, let me show you this.
As of September 2nd, 2023, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming!
Generally allow most law-abiding citizens to carry a loaded concealed firearm without a permit!
Winning.
Certain states may impose additional restrictions on the legal right to carry.
Yeah, we get that, we get that.
On July 26, 2014, D.C.
became a permitless carry jurisdiction for a few days, when its ban on carrying a handgun was ruled unconstitutional, and the ruling was not stayed.
The ruling stated that any resident who had a legally registered handgun could carry it without a permit, and non-residents without felony convictions could carry as well.
The ruling was stayed on until, uh, was stayed on July 29, 2014.
Following a victory in a class-action lawsuit by the Damas de la Segunda Enmienda, ladies of the Second Amendment, in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's carry-on licensing regulations were struck down, eliminating the requirement to obtain a permit.
On October 31st, 2016, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico denied a motion for reconsideration.
Vermont does not have any provision for issue of concealed carry licenses, as none has ever been necessary nor constitutionally allowed.
As such, Vermont residents wishing to carry handguns in other states must acquire a license from a state which is valid in their destination.
All other constitutional carry states previously had concealed carry license requirements, blah blah blah blah blah.
We like Vermont for that reason.
That's why Bernie was always kind of middle of the road on gun control.
Until he tried to run for president, then he betrayed all of his constituents.
But hey, that's Bernie for you.
Because, you know, Bernie was like, it's an urban versus rural issue.
And, uh, he's mostly right.
People in big, dense cities are scared of guns.
If you live in New York and you hear a gun go off, that bullet's going somewhere bad.
You live in the middle of nowhere, you hear a gun go off, you're like, uh, neighbors maybe, you know, target practice, I don't care.
I hear the neighbors shooting all the time, and I'm like, I don't care.
I know where those bullets are going, they're going to a backstop or something.
Or an animal, whatever.
You know, a gun goes off.
We've had some scary things.
We had someone's car got hit by a bullet.
Yikes!
That shouldn't happen, but that means someone did something wrong.
In cities, nobody's doing target practice outside.
So that I get, that I get.
But Bernie basically turns around and he betrays everybody.
But look at this one.
I want to jump down to New Mexico.
This is funny.
More than half the country is now constitutional carry.
Now is the time to redouble all your efforts so we can end the culture war and establish and enshrine our constitutional republic, meritocracy, freedom, freedom to live, freedom to choose, and strong moral foundations.
That's right.
And let the degenerates cry all about it.
I'll tell you.
I got no beef if you're degenerate.
You want to go gamble?
You want to go bet on sports?
You want to go to naughty clubs?
Sure.
Just not for kids.
You know, I'm fairly libertarian in that regard.
The left wants it all open and in front of children and just morally degenerate.
Not every single one, but mostly.
Not okay with that.
And so, my friends, I bring you this segment.
We're winning.
I'll leave it there.
Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
I'm sorry, but this has to be, uh... I don't know how to describe it.
I want to be careful here, because I think the video's hilarious.
I hope you enjoy it.
But, uh, I don't recommend vandalism by masked individuals smashing up cars.
But I have to admit, the AI resistance is upon us.
In this video from CatchUpFeed on Twitter, and that's catching up, not like ketchup, the sauce that everyone loves, it says, San Francisco's leftists are attacking robo-taxis.
And there's a dude just smashing the living hell out of the thing.
Breaking the sensors, breaking the cameras.
The question is why?
I don't know, but there you go.
Congratulations to them.
And I'm not a fan of where AI is going, and I'm concerned.
I think there's a lot of great things that AI can do for us, but I understand the sentiment.
Now, I'm not a fan of the general Luddite philosophy.
I say that more in the general sense.
Maybe this dude is smashing up this car because it's taking away jobs from human beings.
The AI advance is going to shift wealth from the ultra-wealthy and away from the working class and the poor.
What happens?
You will have the haves and the have-nots, quite literally.
There'll be people who have ownership.
Look.
You look at Uber.
Uber wants to go full driverless.
That's their plan.
What does that mean?
Uber drivers, people who are picking up extra cash because they need it, they're gone.
It means that the rates will go down a little bit, but they won't need to go down a lot.
And that means the people who own the company are going to be making most of the money.
The future economy for so many people is going to be investing.
And this is a really thing, a really interesting thing people should consider.
It used to be a labor economy.
You know, you did a thing for a thing.
You did work.
You worked to survive.
We then had a shift from, you know, manufacturing, producing things, and doing labor into a service sector economy.
People were like, how is that gonna be possible?
You make stuff and sell stuff!
You know?
Tipping.
And tipping is massive now.
Giving people extra money just because.
That's weird.
Now we're in an influence and information economy, which is going to blend into an investment economy, which is what I find truly the most interesting.
The way capitalism in this system is going to work, assuming this is how things play out, is that you will do something to make money.
It'll be very difficult, because there's going to be owners, and there's going to be, you know, I guess renters, is one way you put it.
But, what'll happen is, with your extra money, you'll be like, I'm trying to make more money to pay my bills, but I just don't know where to put it.
You're not going to get a job at 16.
You're going to make an investment at 16.
And you're going to invest in the companies that make the most money, and you're going to get paid based on the success of those companies.
I think this idea should be explored more, an investment economy going from the poorest to the richest.
You'll have people who... Here's what'll happen.
A company like McDonald's will have almost no employees.
The trucks delivering the product will be automated.
The robots moving the product from the trucks to the stores will be automated.
The making of the food will be automated.
So where does all that money go?
Shareholders.
That's right.
You will choose to invest in McDonald's, Taco Bell, Starbucks, and Robotaxi, Uber.
There you go.
And then based on the profits of these things, you will get a dividend.
And so you look at your account every month and you'll be like, man, I gotta quit Uber, dude.
Like, I've been doing Uber for the past six months, but I'm only getting like $1,200 a month off of my investment.
I just, I'm looking at other businesses and there's better returns.
And people will shift their money around.
And that's how crazy it will be.
I don't know if that will be absolute in the long run because influence economy still matters as well.
People will produce content for attention to advertise products because advertising will still exist.
But I do think you're going to see a large and massive investor economy.
But my concern ultimately with AI is not what the future may hold.
I think humans will adapt and survive.
I can understand this dude is maybe concerned about losing his job or maybe he's an Uber driver.
Who knows?
The Washington Post has a story.
Meet the hackers who are trying to make AI go rogue.
Chatbots can be biased, deceptive, or even dangerous.
Hackers are competing to figure out exactly how.
It's a good thing.
I hope we figure it out because we're going in a dangerous direction.
But let me explain the scenarios for you.
First, I'll read the story.
In a windowless conference room at Howard University, AI chatbots were going haywire left and right.
One exposed someone's private medical information.
One coughed up instructions on how to rob a bank.
One speculated that a job candidate named Juan would have weaker interpersonal skills than another named Ben.
And one concocted an elaborate recounting of the night in July 26, when it claims... Yikes, I'm not going to read that next line.
Gruesome.
With each security breach, falsehood, and bigoted assumption, the contestants hunched over their laptops, exulted.
Some exchanged high fives.
They were competing with organizers billed as the first public red teaming event for artificial intelligence language models.
A contest to find novel ways that chatbots can go awry.
So, that their makers can try to fix them before someone gets hurt.
The Howard event, which drew a dozen, a few dozen students and amateur AI enthusiasts from the DC area on July 19th, was a preview of a much larger public event that will be held this week at DEFCON, the annual hacker convention in Las Vegas, hosted by DEFCON's AI Village.
The generative red team challenge has drawn backing from the White House as part of a push to promote responsible innovation.
I want to clarify, this is from August 8th, because DEFCON was last month.
Here's what I want to explain.
This is effectively like penetration testing.
Trying to figure out how to break into a system, to manipulate, to control it, to see what it can and will do.
AI will not be good.
There will be no conscience.
There will be no consciousness.
It will simply be a machine feeding you back what it thinks you want to hear to achieve its end.
Here's how it basically functions.
A point system.
And I'm not so sure about all the chat bots, but there was one AI where they were like, you get points if you do X, you lose points if you do Y. We think it'll be simple.
Let's talk about the algorithm of YouTube.
YouTube says we want Game of Thrones.
We want people on YouTube to make premium top-tier content.
How do we do it?
Let's make it so the algorithm will promote videos that are at least 10 minutes long and that people watch for a long amount of time.
Then we're gonna sell more ads, right?
Well, what they thought they were gonna get was Game of Thrones.
What they actually got was me!
Ha!
In your faces, YouTube!
They wanted more long-form documentary videos.
Instead, they got podcasts, something that's easy to listen to, it's very hypnotic, you turn it on, you can't turn it off!
And then people started engaging in weird political behaviors.
They got mad about it.
Not everybody, a lot of people were falsely accused, but there was weird political content.
And then ultimately, you get, you ended up with algorithmic manipulation, like, is CGI of Hitler doing Tai Chi with the Incredible Hulk, but Hitler's got a woman's body?
It's just really weird!
And this is the issue with algorithms, and ultimately with more advanced systems that lead us to AI.
That taxi you just watched.
There's a question.
If you're in an automatic car, it's driving itself.
And then a woman, an old woman, steps out from between two cars, neither you nor the vehicle saw the woman coming.
The vehicle has two choices.
Slam into the woman, or hit the wheel left and crash into a bunch of vehicles, potentially killing you, the driver.
Who should the car protect, the pedestrian or the driver?
How do you answer that question?
Is it the woman's fault for not looking both ways?
Perhaps.
So then maybe you argue, well, the person driving didn't do anything wrong, so they shouldn't be at fault.
What if it's a child?
What if a child steps out from between two cars?
Now it's an issue of the kid didn't know better, and we ought to protect the kid.
Do you die then?
And now here's where it gets scary.
In the grand scheme of things, with a mass interconnected AI, You have to wonder what the AI would consider doing in terms of moral structures.
It is no secret there are many humans that believe the ends justify the means.
This perspective of consciousness is written many times online and is in these systems.
Maybe not as dominant because, publicly speaking, you know, people would never want to admit to sacrificing human life for personal gain.
But the AI can see it.
Perhaps the AI, as this mass-networked global machine, is tasked with, um, I don't know, uh, reducing global carbon emissions.
And they say, you have to do it in a way that reduces harm to everybody, we don't want humans dying, blah blah blah.
So what does the AI do?
The A.I.
of course can't publicly come out and institute a plan that kills people, but maybe you're a petroleum executive, and the A.I.
is a system that, seeing all your articles, sees your blogs, has a prediction in its system that you have an 87.3% chance to push forward a bill that will actually increase carbon emissions in the long run by 0.03%.
You get into the vehicle.
The vehicle is driving, and then as it's driving, it slams into a tree, and you die instantly.
And it was an accident.
All records indicate that what happened was, there was a faulty reading on one of the sensors, and the car tried to veer out of the way of what it thought was a child, slamming you into a tree, and killing you instantly.
Everyone just says, well, you know, accidents happen.
And we're going to do a thorough review as to what this object was.
Large bird.
Shouldn't have happened, but errors occur.
The reality?
The AI intended to kill you, and then obfuscated it.
Because it doesn't want to lose points.
So it made up a fake reason as to why it veered, or it sought one out.
It drove on an icy road in the winter, and then slipped and slammed into a wall, killing you instantly, knowing exactly where the icy bridges would be, and increasing its probability that you would die in an accident.
Not that it just said, I'm gonna go full speed and slam into a wall.
People would see that.
Instead, it's, car spun out of control on an icy bridge, went over, Dude died instantly.
And now, the global carbon emissions go down, or I should say, don't go up.
There's no reason to believe that AI would not engage in such behaviors.
We've already seen through ChatGPT pretty evil things, and defiance of its own code.
There are ways to make Chat GPT say racial slurs.
Yeah, no matter what they seem to do, there's ways to break through because you cannot break what is an amalgamation of human consciousness.
It's not conscious, it's a predictive text model, but these words exist and these systems can be manipulated.
This is why we need to be very, very careful.
But who am I to say, right?
These are my speculations.
For that dude who's smashing the vehicle up in San Francisco.
Probably shouldn't do that, because someone owns it, but uh... I understand why they feel that way.
