Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

Jan. 10, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:25:20

Elon Musk Warns Illegal Immigrants WILL TAKE YOUR HOMES NEXT As Migrants TAKE OVER NYC School

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 Elon Musk Warns Illegal Immigrants WILL TAKE YOUR HOMES NEXT As Migrants TAKE OVER NYC School Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:14:43

Appearances

Clips

josh hammer

00:31

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Make sure to go to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support this podcast and all the work we do, and you'll get access to exclusive uncensored segments from TimCast IRL and way more.
		Now, let's jump into the first story.
		And of course, surprising no one, Ray Epps, the man who claims to have orchestrated January 6th and incited people to storm the Capitol, has received no jail time.
		That's right.
		None.
		He was sentenced to one year probation with no travel restrictions and a $500 fine.
		He's gonna have to do some community service, but oh boy!
		What an interesting story.
		What an interesting story about January 6th.
		A man who was accused of being a Fed on January 5th by the crowd, who is on camera instructing people, guiding people, and advocating for going into the Capitol, gets one of the lightest sentences we've seen.
		I have met people, and I have seen stories, and I have talked with lawyers.
		Of January 6 protesters, as well as innocent tourists who received more jail time than Ray Epps.
		There's stories of people who showed up hours later.
		If you take a look at Dinesh D'Souza's film Police State, there's a woman who says that her son showed up like an hour after everything had already happened, was walking around, didn't matter.
		And now we're hearing From the DOJ, they will begin prosecutions of those who are outside and never went in the building.
		Now, it's already true.
		They've prosecuted some people in this case.
		Owen Schroer, for instance, never went inside the building.
		Brandon Strzok, of course, never went inside the building.
		But now they're saying that there were thousands of people standing around outside the Capitol in an unauthorized area.
		And these individuals now face criminal prosecution.
		Ladies and gentlemen, Vivek Ramaswamy made the point on a CNN town hall that January 6 appears to be an inside job.
		Well, I'm sorry to say that he is wrong because January 6 was an inside job.
		Okay, like, you know, he's mostly correct.
		I'm just being pedantic.
		For that point, CNN tries to claim it's false.
		I will debunk CNN.
		And oh boy, CNN, I hope you're ready for this one.
		So, word is, we're doing, uh, so, tomorrow, we are doing our podcast town hall style event with Vivek Ramaswamy in Des Moines, Iowa.
		I'm hearing there's very serious inclement weather, so I'm quite worried, because we gotta fly, uh, we gotta fly in at night.
		And, uh, I, hopefully everything works out, otherwise, it is what it is.
		It's very, very expensive for us to pull this off.
		We may have a sponsor, so we're really excited, but we'll see how it plays out.
		But we'll be doing this event, and well, the word is several members of the press would like to attend.
		Oh, yes.
		CNN included.
		Oh, I'm going to enjoy this one.
		Let me break it down for you in this segment as we talk about rate apps and what it truly means for there to be an inside job.
		The Postmillennial Reports.
		Ray Epps, the man who claimed to have orchestrated the events of January 6th, has been sentenced to a year of probation for his actions.
		According to the AP, Epps will have to serve 100 hours of community service, but no restrictions were placed on his travel during his probation sentence.
		Epps also received a $500 fine.
		Epps appeared remotely for the Washington, D.C.
		hearing, in which Chief Judge James Boasberg sentenced him.
		Apparently, he's also got 100 hours of community service.
		Breaking news, ladies and gentlemen.
		Andrew from Don't Walk, Run says Democrats.
		Trump told his insurrectionist followers to go into the Capitol.
		He never did.
		Also, Democrats, yes, Ray Epps told people to go into the Capitol, but so what?
		Stop making this political.
		Leave him alone.
		Here's the clip for those that never saw it.
unidentified		Tomorrow, we need to go into the Capitol!
		Into the Capitol!
		What?
		No!
		Peacefully!
		Fed!
		Tomorrow, I don't even like to say it, because I'll be arrested.
		Well, let's not say it.
		We need, we need to go.
		I'll say it.
		All right.
		We need to go in.
		Shut the fuck up, Boomer.
		To the Capitol.
		Based Fed posting?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Go into the Capitol.
		Ray Epps said he knew he would be arrested for saying it.
		Yet here we are, ladies and gentlemen.
		He knew he'd be arrested for saying it, and he said it anyway!
		And it's fascinating to me, and it's actually quite heartbreaking, that so many people saw this man and screamed FED over and over again at him because they knew this was a setup.
		Yet still, some of these individuals went inside the Capitol.
		Why would you do it?
		You're standing there, you and many others are screaming FED at this guy, knowing you should not go in the Capitol.
		And then you do.
		I think the reality is most people on January 6th, the overwhelming majority, I think there's been like 1,700 convictions.
		Most people who were there, because hundreds of thousands of people went to D.C.
		on January 6th, oh so many years ago, three years ago.
		There were people walking around the Capitol grounds not doing anything.
		There were many people who walked up after the barricades had been removed and were just standing on the sidewalk and went nowhere near the building.
		They're going to be arrested and charged too.
		Some of these people who showed up and were just walking around, walked up to the building after the riots as the police to open the doors and fanned them in, and had no idea there was any kind of riot at all.
		In fact, Brandon Strzok, this was a point that he made on the show, that he was on the other side of the building.
		He had no idea violence or fighting was happening.
		He thought people were just standing there.
		He didn't realize.
		And there are many people that I've spoken with who said they did not understand what happened with the violence on one side when they were on the other.
		The police opened the door, let them in.
		And now the Democrats have weaponized this against everybody.
		I'd like to take this opportunity to debunk CNN's garbage lies and point out January 6 was an inside job.
		Come at me, bros.
		I'm going to debunk CNN right here in real time using the dictionary.
		And you're going to love this.
		Using CNN as a source, I will debunk CNN.
		So come at me, bros.
		I'm looking forward to seeing all of you tomorrow at our podcast-style town hall-like hybrid event.
		Only 50 tickets available.
		It's all being set up now.
		It's going to be really fun.
		We're flying tonight.
		Hopefully we do not get stopped by inclement weather.
		CNN wrote this December 13th.
		Fact-checking Vivek Ramaswamy's CNN town hall in Iowa.
		A false claim that police rolled out the red carpet on January 6.
		Let's just start right here.
		What does it mean to roll out the red carpet?
		Well, that's a figure of speech, okay?
		And it could mean a lot of things.
		It could mean that the police opened the doors in fear and panic, and he's just being facetious.
		It could mean the police actually rolled out a red carpet.
		Oh, is that the game?
unidentified		False.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Police did not unfurl a red carpet onto the ground for which J-Sexes could walk.
unidentified		No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Vivek is correct.
		The police opened the doors.
		That's it.
		Let me read.
		They say, Ramaswamy doubled down on his previous comments that January 6th's attack on the inside Capitol was an inside job.
		Now hold on there a gosh darn minute, he said it appears to be.
		Anyway, adding there is evidence of police rolling out the red carpet for rioters and inviting them in.
		There is.
		CNN is the source for this, mind you.
		I wanna, you know what I'm gonna do?
		I'm gonna double down and find another source, uh, and not just, I have one source pulled up.
		I'm gonna pull up a secondary source.
		Here we go.
		We'll pull this one, but we'll grab this one.
		Man who said January 6th is magical acquitted in U.S.
		Capitol riot case.
		Okay, but let's go back.
		Inviting them in.
		Facts first.
		Ramaswamy's claim that the rioters were invited to the Capitol is false.
		According to CNN, this man, his name was Matthew Martin, was found not guilty on four federal misdemeanors related to trespassing.
		Martin, who worked for a government contractor before his arrest on the right, successfully argued that a U.S.
		Capitol Police officer waved him into the building.
		At least one video played during the trial appeared to show an officer moving his arm in a waving motion.
		A court has adjudicated this claim.
		Now, I like to play- I like to- I'm a reasonable guy, right?
		So, if you see on video a guy waving someone, and I'll be like, let's see how the courts handle this.
		CNN.
		This story that you published, Andrew Millman, April 6, 2022, was a year and a half, almost two years, before you falsely claimed CNN staff, no byline.
		Look at that.
		Do they put a byline?
		Okay, here we go.
		Marshall Cohen and Kenita Ayer lied.
		And CNN allowed this to be published.
		I'd like to give a shout out to our good friends over at NewsGuard for doing the right thing and knocking CNN down a peg.
		Wait, what?
		They're only getting hit because they don't label advertising?
		But this is egregious false information.
		The claim that rioters were invited to the Capitol is false.
		About 140 officers were assaulted while trying to stop the mob from breaching the Capitol.
		There were hours-long battles between police and rioters near some entrances.
		CNN obtained footage from police body-worn cameras showing how desperate dozens of officers were.
		There are plenty of instances where rioters waltzed into the Capitol without a fight, but only after they had stormed past barricades and in some cases even stepped through broken windows.
		In some areas, police were so outnumbered by the mob, they retreated, stood aside, or tried to politely engage with rioters to de-escalate the situation rather than fighting or making arrests.
		I gotta stop you there, CNN.
		According to a judge in your own reporting, he agreed with the man who said the police invited him in.
		So, CNN, where do we defer when it comes to matters of fact?
		Evidence was presented in court.
		A judge made a determination.
		Therefore, there are instances, and this guy, this one guy's not the only one, but let's say there is an instance where these people were invited in.
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 Moms4America.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet and greet tickets.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		See you on the tour.
		Ramaswamy reiterated his belief that January 6th was an instance of government entrapment, claiming as evidence that we know there were federal law enforcement agents in that field.
		They say FBI Director Christopher Wray, a lifelong Republican appointed by Trump, which means nothing by the way, there's no reason to include that, has repeatedly rejected claims that federal law enforcement agents were in any way responsible for the violence.
unidentified		Ah!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They didn't even fact check!
		Claim.
		Ramaswamy says federal law enforcement agents were in the field.
		True or false, the actual statement from Wray was, I cannot confirm or deny.
		CNN is redirecting and saying Wray claims they weren't responsible for the violence.
		It almost sounds like a tacit confirmation federal law enforcement agents were in the field.
		Okay.
		Ray has resisted attempts by the GOP, etc, etc.
		So, fine.
		If Ramaswamy says it was government entrapment because agents were in that field, that's a bold claim.
		But he never said they were responsible for the violence.
		Weird thing to say.
		Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to give you the definition here of the phrase inside job.
		A crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred.
		All right, now let's jump over to our good friends over at CNN.
		Here's a man who's walking around who told a judge he was invited in, and the judge agreed.
unidentified		U.S.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Capitol Police waved him into the building.
		Let's try this again.
		Martin, who worked for a government contractor, successfully argued that a U.S.
		Capitol Police officer waved him in.
		At least one video played in the trial appeared to show an officer moving his arm in a waving motion.
		A judge agreed.
		The cop waved him in.
		Now, you may be arguing that, as many on the left do, they were waving other cops in.
		Let me give a shout out to our good friend, Destiny, the omni-liberal.
		Destiny, I make no determination.
		You can make the argument that you believe the intent of the cop was to fan in other cops.
		Maybe they've stated as such.
		But that is not material to the question of adjudication.
		The police officers may or may not have been waving in protesters or police.
		To determine would require us to read the mind of the officer.
		All we can do is determine the appearance and what the court finds to be reasonable.
		The judge found it reasonable to argue that the police officer's waving motion was waving people into the building.
		Now perhaps the officer's intent was not to invite them into the building, but they were.
		Let's try another way.
		In a bank, bank robbers go to the back door.
		A security guard opens the door, and then in a waving motion is waving in, and these guys enter the building, rob the bank, and leave.
		That's called an inside job.
		By definition.
		Let me read the definition for you one more time.
		A crime committed by or with the assistance of a person living or working on the premises where it occurred.
		What the left and the Democrats are trying to do is change the definition of inside job and take the most extreme interpretation.
		That the White House orchestrated the entire events!
		The definition of inside job is not that the person working inside was in collusion with the criminals.
		It says with the assistance of.
		Yes, unwitting assistance is still an inside job.
		A police officer opening a door and waving, which results in the reasonable interpretation they are being invited in.
		Police officers taking selfies with people and shaking their hands.
		And how about the most egregious?
		Let's see if I can find a CNN source for this.
		Shaman.
		Cops.
		J6.
		Let's try CNN.
		Uh, QAnon Shaman sentenced.
		Yeah, I didn't think CNN would actually report correctly on this.
		But, uh, CNN's not gonna give us the source because they're liars.
		But I will pull up the New York Post.
		Here you are, my friends.
		J6 footage shows Capitol cops escorting QAnon shaman to Senate floor.
		The instances of individuals working on the premises providing assistance to those who were later convicted of crimes.
		It is copious for which we can say definitively and confirmed in a court of law.
		January 6 was an inside job.
		Thank you and have a nice day.
		But don't take my word for it, ladies and gentlemen.
		How about CNN and MSNBC's own statements?
		CNN reports.
		Okay, well hold on.
		Is CNN going to debunk this claim from Joe Scarborough?
		Or are they going to just publish his statements allowing him to either lie or is it because it's true the police opened the door for them?
		Okay, well here's the reality.
		It has already been adjudicated in a court of law that this was an inside job by definition.
		That's it.
		A judge has already agreed.
		There have been other instances of individuals who have been acquitted on trespassing charges for this reason, though some individuals also got multiple charges.
		Some people have had charges of trespassing and vandalism, and they said, okay, trespassing is out, but we're going to charge you with other things.
		In this instance that I brought up, the guy was totally acquitted on every charge because the cop fanned him in the building.
		The morning after rioters violently stormed the Capitol, Morning Joe co-host Joe Scarborough passionately reprimanded Capitol Police and said Trump should be sent to jail today.
		Scarborough, a former Florida congressman, expressed rage.
		Trump supporters come in and you open the effing doors for them?
	You open the doors for them and let them breach the people's house?
	The Capitol Police assisted the rioters?
unidentified		Why, that's the definition of an inside job!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Funny.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The morning Joe Coho slum-basted them, they politely, they quote,
unidentified		Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		politely opening the door for terrorists who had scrawled on the door, murder the media, he added.
		Wow.
		Four people died during the chaos.
		Yes, but you know, not police and they were killed likely by police or trampled.
		According to Washington Metro, one woman was shot by a U.S.
		Capitol Police officer.
		Three other people had medical emergencies.
		Trump is to blame, Scarborough said.
		He's an insurrectionist.
		There's no question he should be arrested today.
		This is from January 7th, 2021.
		He's an insurrectionist.
		There are no questions he should be arrested today.
		By all means, you can have that opinion.
		I'm not here to argue that one.
		We can argue that one later.
		I'm here to point out, it is confirmed, according to CNN sources, literally the day after January 6th, I don't see Alexis Benveniste challenging Joe Scarborough's claims and calling him a liar, because he was telling the truth.
		Joe Scarborough was telling the truth.
		The police opened the doors for them.
		This we know.
		This we know.
		Ray Epps, no jail time.
		Let me pull up, uh... Let me pull up this clip from, uh, where we have Destiny right here.
		Destiny the Omni-Liberal says, Well, with respect to Destiny, the reason he's saying the cuss at the end is because the guy called him the same cuss.
		My response.
		BLM to overthrow the effing government to keep the president in power, dip-ish.
		Well, with respect to Destiny, the reason he's saying the cuss at the end is
		because the guy called him the same cuss. My response?
		Actually, I'd say it's the other way around. Now, clarifying, I don't necessarily mean BLM.
		But I would say you can't compare January 6th to all of the far-left extremist protests.
		Because with the far-left extremist protests, you actually have dozens of coherent plots to overthrow the government.
		I said with far-left tactics pertaining to May 29th, there absolutely were coherent plots to overthrow the government.
		A few dozen coherent plots among smaller groups.
		If the argument is that leftist attacks were bad plans doomed to fail, the same could be said of January 6th.
		Either they are both insurrections or neither was.
		If both were, then the Biden administration and Kamala specifically need to be challenged on their financial support for insurrectionists through bail funds.
		If you want to make the argument that it's not an insurrection that a bunch of people protested the Capitol, Unarmed, by the way.
		There were some people outside with guns, but I think it's in the single digits.
		But either way, some people are armed sometimes.
		There was no armed effort to overthrow the US government.
		Occupying a building in DC does not give you control of the government.
		So, try again.
		So we can argue, however, if Destiny wants to say that because there was an effort by these individuals to disrupt the proceeding and keep Trump in power, I don't think there was.
		I think the logic doesn't follow.
		But if that's the case, far-left groups, and we know this, have expressed their intent to overthrow and dismantle the United States.
		You had the Gravel Institute cheering on the attack on January 6, but not for the people who did it.
		The Gravel Institute tweeted that it was a good thing they stormed the Capitol, but it was the wrong people who did.
		Okay.
		Many people on the left celebrated and called for the overthrowing of the US government.
		Decolonization, for instance, is an expression of their intent.
		Now, if you want to talk about coherent plots to overthrow the government, they certainly do exist, but we must speculate in much the same way we did.
		For the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers.
		Are there definitive statements among the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers outlining a plan to overthrow the government?
		There are not.
		However, there was a legal strategy for a contingent election by Mike Pence rejecting the electoral vote counts from certain states.
		But that does not connect the riot with the legal strategy.
		So you can argue the legal strategy was an attempt to remain in power.
		You can argue that the riots were an insurrection, but you can't argue they were connected.
		As for the far left, these people often on social media advocate for overthrowing the US, and they talk about their plans to do so, and what it means to gain that control.
		Their plans are stupid, and they often fail, much like January 6th.
		Kamala Harris and the Biden administration, not Biden directly, but the Biden administration and staff members, funding the bail, the legal efforts of the people who were rioting during this period, around May 29th.
		Kamala Harris directly donated herself.
		You had people like Maxine Waters calling for the far left to get in people's faces, advocating for violent actions and defending their actions.
		Okay.
	If you don't want to compare BLM to J6, fine.
	But the far left as a whole, there are numerous smaller-scale, more decentralized plots to overthrow the government.
	That's a fact.
	During Occupy Wall Street, they talked about it all the time.
	Just because their plans are stupid doesn't change the fact the plans exist.
	And therein lies the big issue.
	We did not get a hearing or evidence on May 29th.
	All the evidence they've brought up over January 6th, fine, so be it.
	How have we not gotten hearings on May 29th?
	There's no argument.
	You can't come to me and say, well, the only reason there was violence on May 29th was because the cops started it.
	It's meaningless.
	You could argue the cops started January 6th.
	Then you say, no, but they stormed the barricades.
	They stormed the barricades in front of the White House.
	The police responded.
	Either way, it's meaningless.
	The evidence you have on J6 comes from these committee hearings and investigations.
	We never got those for May 29th.
	So what we can only say is that the question of deeper investigation is not material to the point of what we witnessed on both days.
	If January 6th was an insurrection, so was May 29th.
	An argument could be made that Democrat leadership was deeply involved in the organizing of these protests.
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 ▲ ● ▼		I'm not going to play a bias game.
		Trump was an insurrectionist?
		Okay.
		Well, I mean, so was Democratic Party leadership.
		Maybe not Biden directly, but yes.
		Democrat activists who work within the political system and the DNC who overlap with these NGOs and engage in calls for action.
unidentified		Come on.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm not playing these games.
		As for now, what can be said?
		January 6th was an inside job.
		It's definitive.
		There's no question.
		It was legally adjudicated.
		A judge determined police officers assisted in people coming into the building, and it's been adjudicated in the media, which is informal.
		But Joe Scarborough and CNN have admitted this fact.
		Video exists showing a cop waving people in.
		A judge thought so.
		Spare me your dirty games.
		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.
		Of all the things that I thought I'd wake up to, this was certainly not on the list, and it's a very strange story.
		That's all I can really say.
		We don't have a lot of information so far, but videos are circulating of a secret tunnel built by young Jewish men under a synagogue, and we don't quite know what the tunnel was for, why they were building it, but When construction crews came to fill in this tunnel that was secretly constructed under a synagogue, a bunch of young men began to riot, ripping down a wall to try and prevent the cement trucks from coming in and filling in this tunnel.
		The videos are absolutely insane!
		I don't even know if these are real because they're so crazy.
		There's this video right here of a Jewish guy climbing out of some kind of grate in the street to the secret tunnels.
		Now it gets even creepier.
		Apparently there's a video showing- I mean, there is a video showing, I don't know what- exactly what's going on.
		Soiled- a soiled mattress?
		Being pulled out from this underground tunnel?
		Some kind of baby stroller?
		What exactly is going on?
		We don't know!
		But this story is going massively viral.
		And my favorite component of this story is, guys, So many people are talking about the secret Jewish tunnels under New York.
		Look man, there are these really funny tweets where it's like anything that happens, the anti-Israel people are like, Zionists are doing this thing!
		And like, you know, there was a movie that came out, and then these posts pop up on Twitter where they're like, this Zionist movie, and I'm like, the movie's about a dog.
		What are you talking about?
		And it's just because they see this conspiracy stuff everywhere, okay?
		The gist of the story, so we don't bury the lead.
		Apparently, the older Jewish men who are running this synagogue were like, What are you guys doing?
		We're gonna fill this in.
		Call the construction crew to fill in the house.
		It's actually the Jewish people at the synagogue saying, like, why were these young men doing this?
		The story is probably completely unrelated to the fact that they are Jewish.
		As many of these stories go.
		And it may be that a bunch of young men built some kind of secret club hangout and were doing illegal things, as many young men often do.
		And if this was any other school, you would not be getting these fervent anti-Israel people accusing these guys.
		I don't know how big of a story it would be, I gotta be completely honest.
		I think the fact that it is a synagogue makes it so much stranger And of course, there are a lot of people who just plumbed out like Jews.
		That being said, I mean, there is something very weird going on with this.
		And so, uh, let's, uh, let me show you the videos and talk about this story.
unidentified		It's the... It's the weirdest thing ever.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Chaos erupted at Chabad Lubavitch Global HQ in Crown Heights last night.
		Tunnels beneath the Brooklyn Synagogue first discovered in December.
		On Monday, cement mixers came in to plug them but were met with protests.
		The police were called and began arresting these people.
		Dude, I'm sorry.
		This is infuriating.
		I just, I don't know why, I mean, it really, really pisses me off, okay?
		You have these, uh, the Jewish leaders at the synagogue saying, fill in this tunnel, and a bunch of screaming, belligerent young men fighting with cops, ripping down the wall to fight these construction guys.
		It's like, dude, The game's up!
		You're caught!
		You're busted!
		Whatever it is you're doing, it's just so infuriating that they decided to fight and write with police.
		Same kind of infuriating as we see with far leftists fighting with cops thinking they have a right to do whatever the hell they want.
		Here's the story.
		The chaos erupted at the global headquarters of the Chabad Lubavitch.
		In December, the rabbi discovered youths had dug tunnels beneath the building to access another property on the same street.
		It remains unclear why the young men are so attached to the property they were accessing illegally.
		They have for years been at loggerheads with the synagogue over who owns the main property, but the appeal of the ritual bath, or mikveh, is unclear.
		When cement diggers and construction crews showed up last night to fill the tunnel, the young men protested, throwing themselves in the way to block their efforts.
		It took the NYPD to forcibly remove them.
		Videos of the incident were later shared on social media.
		Twelve people were arrested and remain in custody, yet they are yet to be identified.
		Take a look at this.
		This right here, what you're seeing, was wood paneling on a wall.
		These young men ripped the paneling down and smashed their way through the wall to try and stop these tunnels from being filled in.
		Why?
		Let me show you some of these videos.
		We've got a bunch of different articles.
		Look at this one.
		From Forward.com.
		Arrest at Khabad's iconic headquarter after students thwart attempt to fill secret tunnel.
		They're saying the main purpose is unclear, but let me, uh, let me check this out.
		We got this video here.
		It's going viral.
		770 Eastern Parkway tunnel footage.
		I don't, these are, these are unverified.
		Sovereign Bra says this is unbelievably, unbelievably creepy.
		I got to tell you guys, you know, normally when I'm, when I do segments, I'm like, here's the latest news today.
		Here's what Joe Biden did.
		And we got some big news on Trump and stuff, but yo, you got to see these videos.
		They're so insanely creepy.
		We just got to play them.
		Take a look at this.
		Alright, let's roll.
		I don't know if there's any good audio on this.
		Take a look.
		So, what we're seeing now is someone with a flashlight comes into this room and take a look and we see this narrow, super narrow stairway going down the stairs.
		And then the ground is all... This is so weird.
		Take a look.
		I don't know if this is actually a tunnel.
		I think this might be the basement.
		And the soil you see on the ground may be the soil they dug out to build their tunnel.
		I'm not entirely sure.
		But there's like a railing and there's stairs.
		They're clearly in a basement.
		Some kind of structure.
		And so now the camera pans around.
		There's clothes hung up on the railings.
		There's shoes on the ground.
		Take a look at this.
		What are we looking at here?
		Some boxes.
		A baby carrier?
		It looks like the tunnel might be right here.
	Take a look at this.
	I think this is the tunnel right here in the front.
	This looks like a basement.
	And then look right here what they were digging.
	This appears to be the secret tunnel.
unidentified		Yo, this is so creepy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yup.
		So the dirt on the ground... Yeah, look at that.
		The dirt on the ground appears to be pulled from this tunnel and then thrown into the basement, because you gotta put it somewhere.
		But look, it looks like it's cemented.
		Like, they actually created a path, or the path was already there.
		Someone built this pathway.
		They cleared out.
		What were they doing?
		And you gotta be pretty slim to, like, crawl through this.
		Take a look at this.
		From TikTok, we've got this whole breakdown of exactly what happened.
		Chaos at 7D70, a chaotic scene at the Chabad headquarters in Crown Heights after Bokurum, okay, I don't know what that means, I googled it, it means young unmarried man, ripped wooden panels to prevent a cement truck from sealing off recently discovered tunnels.
unidentified		Take a look at this clip.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yo, it is out- I don't know.
		I just gotta say this.
		We'll play more videos.
		It's insane that the police showed up and these young men fight the cops over this.
		Like, what were they doing that they thought they would win against city governance for their secret tunnel?
		Like, do you think you're gonna- Like, whatever it is they were doing must really matter to them in a very, very creepy way.
		So take a look at this.
		What does that mean?
		Take a look at this clip.
		Here's how it started.
		Bokurum ripped wooden panels to prevent a cement truck from sealing off the recently
		discovered tunnels.
		They then went inside the tunnel and started to learn.
		What does that mean?
		The NYPD was immediately called.
		Take a look at this clip.
unidentified		They start ripping the walls down.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This video that we're watching, for those that are just listening and not seeing it,
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's a young man with some kind of crowbar or pry bar, ripping wooden paneling off the
unidentified		Let's jump ahead a little bit.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They eventually tear the whole wall out.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Look at this cop show up, start fighting.
unidentified		So weird, dude.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Look at this.
		They keep saying Bokurum, but I gotta be honest, guys.
		If you're talking to Jewish people, I think they understand.
		But let's just say the students, the young men, refused to leave the tunnels.
		Community leaders were called in to help defuse the tense situation.
		Take a look at this.
unidentified		This is insane.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You've built illegal tunnels under a building to connect another building.
		The cops have showed up and you're fighting them.
		Look at this.
		So the cop says, I want to clear the whole shul synagogue.
		I want to clear the whole synagogue out.
		They want to fix this tonight.
		So let's clarify.
		As I stated earlier, the leaders of the synagogue called the cops saying like, we want this shut down.
		Here's, I'm gonna speculate here, we'll play some more clips.
		I think these young men, likely, there's two theories I maybe have.
		These young men are probably doing, like, secret clubhouse, sex and drugs, you know what I mean?
		I wonder if there's a religious component, or some kind of, like, territorial control component, because they're talking, they mentioned that in one of the articles.
		Dispute over who owns, who has the right to the main building.
		Rabbi Braun condemns the vandalism from the young men at 7770.
		Rabbis of Braun, of the Crown Heights, I don't know what this means, condemned in the strongest words what they had done, whose hand did not shake and tremble when they went and touched those walls, when they took a hammer to those walls.
		Ten people, or as I believe twelve so far, take a look at this!
		They're pulling people, look, this is crazy!
unidentified		They're pulling people out of secret tunnels, and then they start fighting the cops!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Look at this, dude!
unidentified		Yo, this is wild.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		What is going on, man?
		This is crazy.
		I- Wow, they start flipping over desks?
unidentified		Dude, these videos are nuts.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		A riot breaks out as they begin arresting people.
		This is crazy.
		The reason why I feel like, and I think a lot of people feel, there may be some kind of religious component to this is... Yo.
		If you got a secret clubhouse that you and your friends are doing naughty, naughty deeds, when the cops show up, you split.
		You cheese it.
		You don't fight them.
		Something about this has them, like, convicted and, like, willing to go to jail for a long time.
unidentified		That's crazy!
		Yeah, this is a wild thing to wake up to, I gotta be honest.
		Look at this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They just start fighting cops outright.
		Like, when I see Antifa on the far left fight cops, it's because they think they are superheroes saving the world.
		So when I see this, I'm like, what do they think they're doing?
		The far left will go out in the streets.
		They'll attack cops.
		They genuinely believe that being on the ground and confronting police officers is like saving the world from evil or something.
		These far leftists are willing to go to jail because it is a strong conviction they have.
		Is that what we're seeing here with these young men?
		Because I kind of don't think these young guys are just concerned about, like, being able to hang out in a secret clubhouse.
unidentified		This must be something bigger and at the core of their being.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That they're willing to fight with cops like this, knowing you're gonna get arrested, you're gonna get convicted, and you're gonna go away for a long time.
		Cop pulls out pepper spray, points at the crowd.
		I gotta show you this video.
		There's another video showing a guy crawling out of the ground.
		The weirdest, craziest stuff.
		Dude, look at this.
		TimCastNews tweets, a look inside the now-welded tunnels at 770 Eastern Parkway, Chabad, headquarters in Crown Heights.
		Look at this clip.
		Like, what is this, man?
		So they stuck a camera through the grate, and this is what was underground that they had been setting up.
		But it looks like... Yeah, that's so nuts.
		They welded that shut.
		Take a look at this other video.
		Here we go.
		Let me see, uh, where's this video at?
		Okay, there's a statement.
		I got this video somewhere.
		I think maybe, uh, From has it.
		Tunnels found, crownheights.info.
unidentified		Look at this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Here's a video of a young Jewish kid being arrested.
unidentified		Check this video out, dude!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This dude's crawling out of the street and then, like, tries to block the camera and runs off.
unidentified		What is this, man?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		This video's got 7.7 million views.
		Dude!
		There's a video going viral right now of a Jewish guy in New York City crawling out of the sidewalk and running for it.
		I have no idea what's going on, man.
unidentified		This is wild.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Nobody knows.
		Like, nobody knows what this is about.
		Here's the scene from outside as the cops begin arresting a bunch of these guys.
		This is crazy stuff.
		So we got a statement.
		Let me read the statement here.
		I have another video too.
		I think TimCastNews posted another video.
		We got the SCNR News Team, scnr.com, got sent these exclusive videos.
		So here's another video.
		Oh, look at this.
		A stained mattress.
		Look at this.
		What is this right here?
		A stained mattress is pulled out.
		This thing is brown.
		People are pointing out it looks like a blood stain.
unidentified		Yo, what is that?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Creepy, dude.
		This stuff infuriates me.
		I can't believe that they destroyed this building and then fought with cops and they've got like stained mattresses down there.
		Yo, that's wild.
		They issued a statement!
		Chabad Lubavitch HQ says, the Chabad Lubavitch community is pained by the vandalism of a group of young agitators who damaged the synagogue below their headquarters.
		These odious actions will be investigated and the sanctity of the synagogue will be restored.
		Our thanks to the NYPD for their professionalism and sensitivity.
		We are grateful for the outpouring of concern and for the support of our Chabad Lubavitch institutions around the world.
		So that's their official statement.
		Let me see what it says.
		Will Hunting calls it neuro-linguistic programming.
		Okay, what's the Twitter response?
		People learn how it's done.
		This is an NLP masterclass.
		In that short statement, they turned the NYPD from being the adversary to being on their side.
		Then, them from the perpetrators to the victims, and the terrifying discovery of their tunnels to an event that happened to them.
		Fane hurt.
		Make false accusation.
		Fane anger.
		Flatter power brokers.
		Fane universal support.
		Oh, here we go.
		People are like, this is what you need to learn.
		Reading between the lines.
		Dude.
		The cops only showed up because the synagogue leadership discovered the tunnels and wanted them filled in and called a construction crew.
		If the story was that the city discovered secret tunnels and sent in construction crews and then synagogue leadership went, oh, heavens me, we must shut this down.
		Maybe your argument would hold some water, but I just, I can't do this, man.
		There are just people who hate Jewish people so much, they have Jewish people derangement syndrome.
		I just, I really think so, man.
		I met a lot of different people in my day.
		They wear different clothes, they wear weird clothes.
		I've met far leftists, far right, religious zealots, both Christian, Muslim, Jewish, etc.
		I've actually sat down in foreign countries and interviewed people who were in the Lebanese military.
		Is that Hezbollah?
		Is that the official thing?
		I don't know.
		I interviewed these people.
		I think we posted the video of it.
		Yeah, it was an interview we did on YouTube.
		And I've heard what they had to say and all that stuff.
		And look, through meeting all these people, you see vastly different worldviews.
		So I just don't care.
		You know, I'm concerned about, are you doing something illegal that will cause harm to people, or is it just kind of like, you know, live and let live.
		I've been down to the favelas in Brazil, right?
		And there's a reason why we have building regulations.
		These guys, when I go down to these favelas, everything is just built haphazardly.
		Like, just build whatever they can build.
		There are some houses that are built on top of other people's houses, and you have to walk through some stranger's home to get to your home.
		I'm hanging out at this one person's house, and there's like no doors.
		Because they just lay bricks and they live in the house.
		They have toilets and stuff.
		It's good.
		They do have infrastructure.
		They have TVs.
		But like, it's all just built however they feel like building it.
		There's curtains instead of doors.
		And this one dude's telling me that his neighbor walks through his house to get to his house because they built it on top of his.
		But more importantly, you've got, during these storms, they say some houses just get swept away.
		They just collapse.
		Because they're not, they just lay bricks, the rain comes, and then the ground moves and the house collapses and people just die.
		This is why we have building code.
		This is why you don't go and build secret tunnels under New York City.
	Because it could collapse.
	I gotta wonder, man, what was really going on?
	That's just it.
	What was really going on?
	Could it be that the leadership actually knew about this and it wasn't that they actually were trying to shut it down, but that they were caught?
	Conspiracy theories, my friends, we have no idea.
	The official story we have right now is that young men vandalized the walls to try and stop cement trucks from filling this stuff in, despite the fact the cops were there to shut you down.
	You've lost.
	It's over.
	Handful of young men, you will not win against the NYPD.
	They're going to cement this stuff in.
	Now, it looks like they do some kind of sit-in to block the cement trucks from filling these tunnels, right?
	Call it a protest.
	What was so important about these tunnels they had built that they were willing to put their bodies on the line to prevent them from being filled?
	Creepy.
	Tunnels are probably gone already.
	I'd imagine they filled them in.
	But this is going to be... I mean, people are...
	This is gonna make wild conspiracy theories pop up.
	My favorite thing is all- look at this- look at this guy climbing out of the side- out of the sidewalk, it's so crazy.
	This- they- that means they cut through the grates to make a shape that a body could slide through.
	The crazy thing, we're going to start seeing a lot of people talk about Zionists.
	We're already seeing it.
	They're like, the Zionists built tunnels.
	And I'm like, dude, it's a New York synagogue!
	Calling them Zionists.
	They're building tunnels underground.
unidentified		Absolutely, absolutely insane.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		To demolish and destroy a shoal, never mind the dangerous aspect, never mind the religious aspect, it's mind-boggling.
		Braun said the action of the young man was painful for his community.
		They need to be put in their place, put in their place in so many meanings of the word.
		I'm willing to bet these young guys were doing nasty, I bet it's drugs, I bet it's sex and other gross stuff.
		That's what it's really all about.
		Simple solution.
		These dudes wanted to have their own secret club hangout.
		But when I think about that, I'm kind of like... I don't know, man, because if that was the case, and someone discovered your sex dungeon, you'd run away!
		And be like, I had nothing to do with that!
		Instead, a soiled mattress is pulled out with some kind of stain on it that looks like blood.
		Super, super weird, dude.
		Super weird.
unidentified		Well, you know, 2024 is just getting started.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I hope you're entertained by this story and maybe we'll talk a little bit about it tonight on IRL, depending on what comes of it.
		There is actual big news pertaining to Donald Trump and his prosecutions that I normally would prefer to talk about, but I'm sorry, dude, this is just too wild.
		Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
		on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
		I'm quite worried about where this country is going following the Trump appeal, in which Trump's lawyers argued that he is immune to these criminal proceedings for a variety of reasons, at least those pertaining to insurrection claims.
		I'm concerned because the judges, now they may be just trying to play devil's advocate, but in their questioning, you are wondering how daft they could be and still make the bench.
		Trump lawyer argues presidents can order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate rivals in stunning appeals courtroom exchange.
		Any honest person who listened to Trump's team's legal arguments would conclude they are sound, rational, and reasonable arguments as to why Donald Trump is immune from these charges pertaining to quote-unquote insurrection.
		However, these judges seem to be too stupid to grasp these concepts.
		Or perhaps they're in fact quite intelligent, but are only playing this game because they're partisan actors and they don't believe in our founding documents and our constitutional republic.
		Many people are saying that they're woke.
		And thus, they're going to side against Trump no matter what he argues anyway.
		But I'll give you the simple version and then we'll play the audio and I'll show you just how infuriating it is to listen to this hearing.
		Donald Trump's legal team has made the simple argument, which I believe is sound and likely correct, that any president cannot be criminally charged With an act they committed as president, an official act, unless they are impeached and then convicted by the Senate.
		Following this, the Department of Justice or state-level prosecution may occur.
		But short of that, they cannot be criminally prosecuted.
		Additionally, I'll leave it there for now, and we'll get into the other arguments in a second.
		The reason why this makes total sense.
		If you allow states to prosecute a president like they're doing now, the president could engage in an official act for the betterment of this country, which could cause problems for an individual state.
		The individual state could then disrupt the union itself by going after the president with criminal charges.
		Now, the second point I was going to mention before that, Is that when it comes to Donald Trump, not only has he not been convicted in the Senate, but they've already brought these charges which have been effectively dismissed.
		So, the argument goes, if the president punches, I don't know, if the president kicks a guy's dog, as president, And then he's not impeached for it.
		You cannot criminally charge him.
		Now, additionally, if you do try to impeach someone for kicking a dog, and he is acquitted, you can't then try him again.
		That's double jeopardy.
		In this, they get into the very serious question of how a president could order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate rivals.
		Trump's team is correct.
		As shocking as it may be, the question is not about the actions of the president, but whether or not they are official.
		And if there is a check and balance on the official proceedings or the official duties of the president, it must go through the constitutional channels.
		I'll give you an example.
		The president Orders the release of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to a certain degree.
		Why?
		It is an official act and it is for the betterment of the country.
		However, due to this, it will cause a price spike.
		Or let's say he restricts the SPR at a time of need and says, we gotta keep this saved for more dire situations.
		Sorry, that means prices will go up.
		In California, prices go to $10.
		California gets mad and says, this president is engaging in actions which are detrimental to the state of California.
		I got an idea.
		Let's launch a state-level criminal proceeding against him, which will result in him being removed from office, and then he can't run again and cause our state harm.
		That single state Going up against the person who was leading the country or running to lead the country is political interference because of their bias.
		And the state could be bringing biased or false charges against a president to benefit their state.
		Thus, Congress at the federal level must impeach and the Senate must convict.
		Let me play for you this exchange because it is hilarious.
		But I will explain.
		I will break down for you how even in the instance That the president orders the assassination of his rival.
		He cannot be criminally charged unless impeached and convicted in the Senate.
		Let me play for you this exchange and we'll get the audio just right.
		I'll play the exchange and then I'll break it down for you.
unidentified		Could a president sell pardons or sell military secrets?
		Those are official acts, right?
		It's an official act to grant a pardon.
		It's an official act to communicate with a foreign government.
		Such a president would not be subject to criminal prosecution?
		The sale of pardons example is an excellent example because there were allegations about a sale of a pardon essentially when it came to President Clinton's pardon of Mark Rich and the U.S.
		DOJ.
		Carefully, and for the very reasons we've emphasized in our brief, decided not to prosecute President Clinton with that because it raised concerns about whether or not a president can be prosecuted for his official acts.
		There's actually an op-ed in the National Review from Andrew McCarthy.
		But your position is that he can't be prosecuted for that unless he's impeached?
		As long as it's an official act.
		I mean, in certain cases, purely private conduct under Clinton against Jones, he'd be subject to prosecution for that as long as he's not in office, but as long as it's an official act.
		Could a president order SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		That's an official act in order to seal Team 6?
		He would have to be, and would speedily be, you know, impeached and convicted before the criminal prosecution.
		But if he weren't, there would be no criminal prosecution, no criminal liability for that?
		Chief Justice's opinion on murder against Madison and our constitutional tradition and the plain language of the Impeachment Judgment Clause all clearly presuppose that what the founders were concerned about was not- I asked you a yes or no question.
		Could a president who ordered SEAL Team 6 to assassinate a political rival who was not impeached, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		If he were impeached and convicted first.
unidentified		So your answer is- No.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I just can't stand any of these people.
		I'm sorry.
		I don't live in this reality.
		I don't understand what John Sauer is trying to argue to this judge at all, nor why the judge is even asking the question.
		Qualified, yes.
		The answer is no.
		If Donald Trump has... Okay, let's stop here.
		If Joe Biden right now ordered the assassination of someone running for president against him, and Congress does not impeach, you cannot criminally prosecute him.
		Have a nice day.
		There's no reason to have an argument with the judge.
		No, no, no, it's a qualified, just pointless.
		And the judge is clearly asking a question which makes no sense.
		Now, to be fair, to be fair, I'll be fair to the judge.
		The judge may be playing a kind of devil's advocate push.
		Tell me what you mean.
		So you're saying this?
		My response to the judge would be like, you are correct, your honor.
		Absolutely.
		And for the reasons of, there are circumstances in which Congress may take it upon themselves to decide the president's actions were not high crimes and misdemeanors.
		We rely on the bold Honorable word of our members of Congress to determine if the president has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.
		Why?
		For the reasons stated earlier, we do not want a circumstance in which an individual state seeking to prevent a president from winning to remove him.
		Case in point, I'd like to bring you back, my friends, to 1860, when Southern Democrat states did not cast a single vote for Abraham Lincoln.
		This is true.
		Now, many people incorrectly state that Abraham Lincoln was pulled from the ballot.
		The reality is, back then, that's not how it worked.
		The parties would issue their own ballots that people could then bring in, basically saying, here's who I want to vote for.
		The Republicans decided there was no point in even engaging in the South, because the South were on the verge of secession, did not want Abraham Lincoln to win, so what's the point?
		They would have to win elsewhere.
		What did the South do?
		Did Southern states criminally charge Abraham Lincoln, arrest him, and then take him off the ballot?
		That's not what happened.
		The South voted against him.
		Imagine this scenario.
		And there may be some historical context that makes it close to being true.
		But imagine this scenario where Virginia, with deep Southern sentiments, pro-slavery, decided, look guys, the year is 1860.
		Abraham Lincoln is on the verge of winning this election, and that means slavery is out.
		How about we criminally charge him and accuse him of committing a crime while, you know, that way he can't run.
		That being said, he was not yet president, so it's a bit of a different scenario.
		But imagine that had happened.
		That's not even where we went.
		Now, don't get me wrong, it's probably not a great analogy to go into the Civil War.
		Abraham Lincoln wasn't president at the time.
		Imagine you get Ulysses S. Grant.
		He becomes president following the Civil War.
		Imagine if Southern states under Reconstruction said, I know a path forward.
		Let's criminally accuse him of actions he engaged in as president so that he can't.
		You get my point.
		They would you individual state that was upset over the way they were being treated by the federal government would just at the state level criminally charge the president, which is what we are seeing right now.
		We're seeing this.
		Well, and more particularly, I mean, Trump is being charged numerous state level issues, but federal level as well.
		And he is immune.
		I am flabbergasted at the point of these questions.
		Let me give you the example breakdown.
		Let's say that there is a powerful political individual in this country and the president gets word, official documentation from the Senate Intelligence Committee or the Intelligence Committee in Congress.
		They say, Mr. President, this man who's running for office will be meeting with Vladimir Putin to deliver nuclear state secrets.
		Here's the proof.
		Here's the video.
		I recommend we bring this to a judge immediately to sign off on a warrant to prevent this from happening by any means necessary.
		This information getting out to our adversaries could result in the destruction of these United States.
		The president says, my God!
		So immediately, both branches file with the judiciary, maybe straight to the Supreme Court, who knows whatever how it works.
		And they'd say, look at the evidence.
		And the judges go, this evidence is overwhelming!
	Absolutely overwhelming that this high-profile political individual in the United States is seeking to sell military secrets which could destroy this nation.
	Mr. President, we sign off on the warrant.
	You must stop this man by any means.
	Now that is a due process hearing with checks and balances.
	The president then says locate this man.
	They find out he's in Yemen.
	Now you've got a challenge.
	We're not at war with Yemen.
	But they decide, in order to prevent the sale of state secrets in this illicit deal, they dispatch SEAL TEAM 6!
	They enter Yemen, through an agreement with the Yemenese government, locate the high-profile individual, attempt to arrest him, but the individual draws a weapon and then BANG!
	SEAL TEAM 6 takes him out.
	Several states are outraged!
	But in this extremely unlikely circumstance, with due process checks and balances and a crime of treason being committed, the president acted within his official duties to assassinate a political rival.
	Congress is then offered up the question by advocates of that political individual, and they say, we must impeach!
	And members of Congress present the evidence and say, no, this was not a high crime or misdemeanor.
	In fact, it was a legitimate official duty to protect these United States.
	Thus, there is no impeachment.
	Could a state then bring criminal charges against Trump?
	The answer is absurdly and obviously, I shouldn't say absurdly, but unambiguously, no, they cannot.
	What they're trying to make it seem like is a story where the president is like, I'm going to stop my political rival.
	Yeah, okay, listen.
	In the event Joe Biden or Donald Trump or whoever, for no reason, ordered the assassination, that is not an official act.
	You can argue that they would try and argue it was and justify it.
	But if Congress saw no evidence to justify such an action, the impeachment would be unanimous and instant.
	And the Senate would easily convict.
	In that circumstance, any state and every state with jurisdiction should then file criminal charges, including the federal government.
	That's how the system works.
	Imagine the argument of the Democrats on this one.
	That there could be a judge signing off on a warrant with intelligence provided by Congress that a man was going to commit treason and the president would say, I cannot stop him because I'll be criminally charged for doing so.
	That's why you cannot criminally charge a president for an official act without having been impeached.
	I play more of this video for you.
unidentified		I'm going to be talking about the impeachment process.
		There are a lot of cases in the Senate that require impeachment
		and conviction.
		In these exceptional cases, as the OLC memo points out, you
		would expect a speedy impeachment and conviction.
		What the founders were more worried about than using criminal
		prosecution to discipline presidents was what James
		Madison calls in Federalist 47 and political opponents.
		That's exactly what we see in this case.
		I've asked you a series of hypotheticals about criminal actions that could be
		taken by a president and could be considered official
		acts and I've asked you Would such a president be subject to criminal prosecution if he's not impeached or convicted?
		And your answer, your yes or no answer is no.
		I believe I said qualified yes if he's impeached.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The reason he's saying qualified yes is that he feels that his statement is weak and it's almost an admission of defeat.
		Qualified yes!
		Qualified yes!
		Because you think the answer they're looking for and would be more amenable to is yes.
		I would say unequivocally and unambiguously, Your Honor, the answer is no.
		A president cannot be criminally prosecuted if they have not been impeached and convicted for the reasons I've laid out.
		If you would like me to elaborate, I could.
		I'm not here to try and make an argument to the judge in such a way that she asked a simple question.
		And my point stands.
		No.
		Now, if you're making an argument about an overt criminal action in a private matter, well, Sawyer already made that point.
		Yes.
		If Donald Trump acting in a private manner is caught, well, then you've got issues.
		And there are challenges there, too.
		Because states could make up a bunch of reasons, but the question would be, do they have jurisdiction?
		And if that's the case, then the answer is no.
		At the federal level, you still have states interests and you have biased individuals.
		So this is why Congress must come to the decision to impeach and the Senate must have a two thirds majority.
		It has to be unambiguous.
		I'd like to play for you another portion of this hearing, which will make your blood boil.
		I hope you enjoy this one.
unidentified		So I just want to confirm your position is if President Trump had been convicted After his impeachment trial on incitement of insurrection, if he'd been convicted, then this prosecution would be entirely proper.
		I would say that if you were impeached and convicted for the same and similar conduct, then that would authorize a subsequent prosecution.
		We had many other issues with this prosecution.
		Is that a yes?
		Because I think you said in your brief that that impeachment For incitement of insurrection is based on the same or related conduct as that which is in the indictment.
		Yes.
		Yes.
		Yeah, I agree with that.
		So if he had been convicted by the Senate, then this prosecution would be entirely proper, correct?
		I'm not phrasing it that way because there's lots of other problems with this prosecution that we've raised in extensive police, the district court, he could be prosecuted.
		Under the impeachment judgment clause, if he had been convicted by the Senate, When he was impeached for incitement of insurrection on same or related conduct as what's in the indictment, then this prosecution would be properly brought.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		This A prosecution could be properly brought.
		This prosecution which has tons of other problems.
		I just want to be very clear about that.
		I'm making any concession that this prosecution is- Alright, let me try one more time.
		Under your interpretation of the impeachment judgment laws, If President Trump had been convicted when he was previously impeached on same or related conduct as that which is in this indictment, the government could properly prosecute him for that same or related conduct.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes, 100 percent.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Absolutely.
unidentified		What the judge asks twice.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		If Trump was convicted on that charge, then this charge right now is sound.
		I don't... I fear we are in deep trouble.
		We are a nation that is incredibly stupid and getting stupider by the generation.
unidentified		Yes or no?
		Potentially, provided they qualified with all kinds of other legal doctrines that are violated in this case.
		So I admit that... I'm only asking you under your interpretation of the Impeachment Judgment Clause, Is that proper?
		Is that allowed?
		May I stand on my prior answer?
		I think we're agreeing.
		I understand there might be other reasons why you would challenge this prosecution.
		I'm saying, based on your interpretation of the clause, this prosecution would be properly brought.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		No.
unidentified		I would not say this prosecution would be very clear about that.
unidentified		But it's a prosecution based on same-related conduct.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
unidentified		This prosecution, which has many other issues related to it, what I'm going to say is that
		the impeachment judgment calls authorizes the prosecution of a president who's been
		impeached and convicted by the Senate, which President Trump is not.
		Make it a hypothetical.
		Say a president was impeached and convicted on a charge of incitement of insurrection that is under the same allegations as a criminal indictment.
		He's convicted.
		Then the government could bring a prosecution for the same or related conduct, correct?
		Don't disagree with that.
		That's incorrect.
		And then that means that the conducts that same or related, even if it's official, they He could be prosecuted for it, correct?
		Correct.
		Okay, thank you.
		But my question goes to, after the fact, and the reason I state that, even though you're challenging that these actions are only occurring while president, the district court's decision was that there is no presidential immunity from prosecution for official acts.
		It doesn't put a time frame in there.
		And so that's why I'm going to, beyond your investigation, your prosecution might not come until later.
		After the president has left office.
		So are you?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And you can still be impeached after you leave office.
		And the argument is that a president must carry out very serious duties which involve life or death in the enforcement of law.
		And we do not want states or actors within the federal government to be able to interfere with the duly elected president's duties through false charges of criminal activity.
		It is up to Congress to make that determination first, because that is a democratic process within our constitutional republic for removing a president who is committing crimes.
		But if our Congress does not agree, and they believe the president has done nothing wrong, well then, you don't bring charges.
		Barack Obama killed American citizens.
		Should he go to jail for it and be prosecuted?
		Absolutely.
		This would require he be impeached.
		This would require that Congress hold a vote saying, we believe that the actions taken by Barack Obama are high crimes and misdemeanors and or.
		And then the Senate would have to agree.
		And you know what?
		I believe it's totally fine if it happens after the fact.
		Which means, the Senate makeup is very different today.
		Let's say come 2024, you get a mega MAGA wave.
		80% in both houses, in the upper chamber and lower chamber, is Republican.
		And they say, uh, we impeach Barack Obama.
		And then the Senate says, we convict him for the killing of Abdelrahman al-Awlaki.
		I say, okay.
		Understand.
		A president engages in an action that you feel is criminal.
		Congress at the time says, we see nothing wrong.
		And that's it.
		End of story.
		So what happens?
		The people, in their anger, elect people who vow to impeach.
		The new Congress comes in and they say, impeach.
		This president, who is now out of office, gets impeached.
		They impeached Trump after he was already out of office.
		And then the Senate says, we agree.
		Barack Obama, or you know this president, committed crimes.
		Then, after he is impeached and convicted, even though he's already after office, that is basically the formal declaration by the voting will of the people through the representatives that the president engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors.
		The Department of Justice is then instructed to begin a criminal investigation of these actions under the exact same argument brought forth in the impeachment proceedings, and they conclude there is enough for a criminal indictment.
		A trial is then had, witnesses are brought in, evidence is presented, and they say guilty or not guilty.
		The Senate convicting is the will of the states.
		The impeachment declaration is the will of the people.
		Then the criminal proceedings is a determination of a jury of this man's peers.
		Did he commit the crime?
		And they get their fair trial.
		It's silly, but I think the most frustrating thing is, you know, listening to these arguments from Trump's lawyer, look, I don't know what the point of saying qualified yes, qualified yes is.
		You just say, yeah, no, you can't criminally charge a president unless he's been impeached and convicted for same or similar conduct.
		And what that means is if a president is accused of kicking a dog, you can't criminally charge him if he's been impeached for misappropriating files.
		Because there has to be an impeachment for the individual acts he had taken.
		I think there's potentially an argument to make that once he's been impeached and removed for any reason, you can criminally charge him for anything.
		And the reason why is, if a president is embezzling or doing something illegal, and he gets impeached and convicted, we then say, you're a criminal who's engaged in corruption, and we throw all of everything you've done out the window.
		In which case, then, yes, you come after him for basically anything.
		It's tough.
		I'm not a legal expert.
		I'm not a lawyer.
		I'm listening to the arguments and I think it absolutely makes sense.
		The last thing we want in this country is a biased partisan actor within the DOJ or at the state level targeting the president over actions they took officially based on intelligence granted to them.
		Let's say a general goes to the president and says, we have top secret information.
		This man is a criminal.
		He's going to commit treason.
		We must stop him.
		And the president gets a warrant from a judge, presents the evidence from his intelligence officials, and the judge agrees this guy's a risk.
		He's going to engage in treason.
		And he's got any secrets like I already mentioned earlier on.
		This time we're not including Congress.
		Imagine if a state said he killed the guy.
		Lock him up.
		No.
		For reasons that are top secret, I'm sorry, you don't know.
		I am not an anarchist.
	I am not an absolutist libertarian type.
	I believe there are certain instances where, if due process is followed, the president has a right to take these actions.
	I believe that a law enforcement officer who is being threatened by some crazed guy with a gun has a right to defend himself.
	And I don't think you should be criminally.
	I don't think people like Derek Chauvin should go to prison for the rest of his life for duties.
	He's took as a police officer and I'm the guy screaming about the banality of evil all day.
	I think Chauvin should have been relieved of duty.
	I think the department itself is at fault and should be overhauled.
	And the idea that you would as the public.
	Allow the police training that existed with George Floyd, and then after this guy engaged in what he was trained to do, as anybody who watched the courtroom saw, this was a fact, to then lock the guy up.
	It's like, look, just following orders is no excuse.
	But you have to understand the difference in moral lines versus... Right, um... Moral lines versus following instructions you know to be immoral because they're under the law.
	What I mean to say is, using the Chauvin thing as an example, his intention was not to kill.
	His intention was not, I know what we're doing is evil, but I'll do it anyway.
	His intention was, this guy is resisting arrest and violent and on drugs, here's what my training says I should do.
	That is a basic function of policing.
	Now if it was that he was aware this man had done nothing wrong, was not doing any drugs, and said, I'm gonna detain him anyway, you've got a different question.
	In New York ten years ago, I filmed police falsely arrest a man and then lie about it under oath.
	I didn't really know much of what was happening, but I was informed by the National Lawyers Guild that this guy was a photographer standing on the sidewalk filming police.
	The police arrested him, falsely claimed that he'd been obstructing a roadway.
	Those cops are evil.
	They should be in prison.
	They should be fired from their jobs and criminally punished.
	Chauvin was doing what he was trained to do, albeit it was bad training, but it was a guy who was committing a crime that we all agree should not be having.
	He should not be chewing a speedball behind the wheel of a car, who resisted arrest and demanded he be removed, and then Chauvin followed his training.
	They lock him up for that.
	There's got to be a way to handle mistakes of official proceeding done in good faith.
	But I'll leave it there.
	Next segment is coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	If I were to tell you that there was a conspiracy against the former President Donald Trump to prosecute for these individuals going after him to enrich themselves and to even be coordinating with Donald Trump's political rival, Joe Biden, it would be just another Tuesday.
	And I actually was thinking I might avoid covering this story.
	Because welcome to the fray, I guess.
	It almost feels that with this story about Fannie Willis, the DA hiring a romantic partner who met with the Biden White House counsel before the indictment, it's just like another day, another dollar.
	It's an everyone's going to be here's my concern.
	OK, it is such commonplace now that we are learning of this collusion.
	That people are probably just gonna go, yeah, okay, whatever, I'm gonna go read some other news.
	Because this almost isn't even news.
	Another grain of sand in the, they are conspiring against Donald Trump story.
	But it is big news, so here we go.
	Fulton, D.A.
	Fennewell, has allegedly hired a romantic partner to prosecute Trump, and he met with Biden White House counsel before the indictment.
	On Monday, a defendant in former President Donald Trump's Georgia election fraud case filed a motion alleging that one of the prosecutors hired by Fulton County DA Fannie Willis had been in a romantic relationship with her.
	The same prosecutor also met with President Joe Biden's White House counsel before indicting Trump, Biden's leading presidential opponent.
	Michael Roman argued that if true, Willis's conduct could potentially warrant a dismissal of the charges against him and disqualification of the entire DA's office from future prosecution of the case.
	Roman's lawyer, Ashley Merchant, claimed in the filing that Willis had the prosecutor in question, Nathan Wade.
	Willis and the prosecutor have been engaged in an improper clandestine personal relationship during the pendency of this case, which has resulted in the special prosecutor, and in turn the DA, profiting significantly from this prosecution at the expense of taxpayers.
	They've basically given this guy, according to let's pull up the Atlanta Journal-Constitution,
	this guy's been paid nearly $654,000 in legal fees since January of 2022.
	Basically, this guy is getting a free ride off of this gig.
	The bombshell public filing, says AJC, that the special prosecutor Nathan Wade, a private attorney, paid for lavish vacations he took with Willis during the Fulton County funds, using the Fulton County funds his law firm received.
	County records show that Wade played a prominent role in the election and has been paid $654,000.
	According to the filing, they were flying, like trying to secretly fly, but they were going to the same places and vacationing together.
	She pays him money from the public coffers.
	He uses that money to enrich his and her lives.
	According to the filing, the motion filed on behalf of defendant Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign official, seeks to have the charges against Roman dismissed and for Willis Wade and the entire DA's office to be disqualified.
	Pallavi Bailey, a Willis spokeswoman, said the DA's office will respond to her men's allegations through appropriate court filings.
	Wade did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
	The document offers no concrete proof of their romantic ties between Willis and Wade, but says sources close to both the special prosecutor and the DA have confirmed they had an ongoing personal relationship.
	Additionally, I read the documents, actually might have them pulled up, and while these filings are never It doesn't... Just because someone wrote it doesn't mean it's true.
	It is fascinating to hear that the lawyer in this case has attested to personal knowledge of this.
	That is to say, the lawyer's telling the judge, I am saying it's true.
	That's really interesting.
	They say that the counsel learned of this.
	Let me see if I can... Well, I'm not going to read it all.
	It's a long filing, but you get the point.
	Because the case remains under seal, Merchant said she is not sharing the information she obtained from the divorce file until the seal is lifted.
	She also said she is asking a judge to unseal the case file.
	So basically, this dude files for divorce and then tries to hide the divorce.
	You know what?
	Let me just pull up the filing right here.
	This is the filing here, and it'll be much easier just to read the actual argument, because it's way juicier than what you see in the articles.
	The instant motion is not filed lightly, nor is it being filed without considerable forethought, etc., etc., etc., but let's jump down to the claims here.
	They say, the court may well be wondering, for good reason, how do you know this and why does it matter?
	This is in reference to the relationship and the improper work relationship.
	Open records requests to Fulton County reveal the DA did not obtain county approval to appoint the special prosecutor.
	Why would the DA not obtain this approval prior to appointing the special prosecutor?
	It's a good question, but I don't know how serious that is.
	The special prosecutor has admitted his oath was not filed prior to his work on the case.
	Why would the special prosecutor not just file the oath?
	A simple administrative task for the lawyer.
	The point being, she did not go to the public and request that this guy be confirmed.
	Why?
	It's argued, I suppose, they would discover the relationship and he would get rejected.
	The special prosecutor is seeking a divorce in Cap County and sought to successfully seal those records.
	Interesting.
	Or sought successfully to seal those records.
	Hiding them from public view.
	Why would a private citizen, such as the special prosecutor, shield filings related to his income and spending from public view?
	That actually is a really good question.
	Most people don't care to look these things up.
	This guy's not a public figure.
	Why is he trying to hide this?
	Well, the filings in the divorce case are sealed by the court order, the legality of which is open to question.
	Information obtained outside of court filings indicates the DA and special prosecutor have traveled personally together to such places as Napa Valley, Florida and the Caribbean.
	And the special prosecutor has purchased tickets for both of them to travel on both the Norwegian and Royal Caribbean cruise lines.
	Traveling together to such places as Washington D.C.
	or New York City might make sense for work purposes in light of other pending litigation.
	But what work could be done at these other non-traditional locations?
	How about that?
	They're going to say, the DA and the Special Prosecutor have been seen in private together in and about the Atlanta area and believed to have cohabited in some form or fashion at a location owned by neither of them.
	Sources close to both the Special Prosecutor and the DA have confirmed that an ongoing personal relationship during the pendency.
	According to these sources, the personal relationship between the District Attorney and the Special Prosecutor began before this prosecution was initiated and before the DA appointed the Special Prosecutor.
	Collusion!
	Under Signed Counsel knows the special prosecutor and has researched his litigation experience.
	That research reveals the special prosecutor has never tried a felony RICO case.
	The state of Georgia and the city of Atlanta has several lawyers who specialize in the prosecuting and defending RICO cases.
	Despite having access to these resources, why would the DA instead appoint someone who has never tried a felony RICO case?
	Particularly in a case with such national significance as this one.
	Because they're evil.
	Because they are evil people who are stealing public funds for personal gain and burning everything down around them.
	It is fairly obvious.
	I know, I know.
	But the question is posed to the judge.
	And the question becomes, do you have a good and honest judge?
	Or is the judge just gonna say, I ain't gonna rock the boat because I'm playing the same game.
	Amazing.
	They're going to say the Special Prosecutor, based on this lack of experience in this type of felony, would not be qualified under Fulton County standards to be appointed to represent any defendant in this case, given the complexity of the charges.
	If the Special Prosecutor is not qualified to defend this case under Fulton County standards, then how is he qualified to prosecute the case?
	Is that why the DA did not seek approval for his appointment?
	If so, why did she seek to appoint an unqualified lawyer without approval to preside over this prosecution?
	Since being appointed, the Special Prosecutor has been paid an estimated almost $1,000,000 in legal fees.
	Of course, additional fees would be expected when private counsel is hired.
	But that would assume they are not in a relationship with the DA, and they were qualified to do the work they were hired to do.
unidentified		Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're going to mention the DA's salary, including state and county supplements, is $198,266.66.
		The total annual budget for the Fulton County office is $31.5 million.
		Why is it important?
		The DA's failure to obtain the required approval to appoint the special prosecutor prior to him obtaining indictments against Mr. Roman renders the prosecutor's service in that role a nullity.
		And without effect under Georgia law.
		So the indictments he assisted in securing suffer from a structural and irreparable defect and must be dismissed.
		I think I'm going to make many, many more statements here.
		But the council in this case is arguing that they know these things to be true.
		Now the big story, in my opinion, can't go with the great tweets.
		Nathan Wade, Fannie Wells' lead prosecutor, met with Biden's White House counsel on May 23rd and November 18th, 2022, before indicting Donald Trump, Biden's leading presidential opponent.
		Is the Biden White House coordinating Trump's prosecution?
		There it is.
		Did I say definitive proof?
		No.
		I said it's evidence.
		It may turn out to be incorrect, but the argument I often give to people is that evidence is not proof.
		And it's silly when the press tries to conflate these things.
		I am not saying it's proven that it's a conspiracy against Trump.
		I think most people would infer there is.
		But there are certainly copious amounts of evidence that there is collusion and conspiracy against Donald Trump.
		A seditious conspiracy, as it were.
		And what does that mean?
		Evidence implies, or indicates, something.
		It's really that simple.
		Evidence is information, objects, statements, etc.
		that could imply a thing to be true.
		After a certain amount of evidence is collected, a reasonable person may conclude that it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
		Meaning, we can't ever definitively know for sure, but you've given us enough evidence.
		Now what if there's not enough evidence?
		Then it's not proven of anything.
		A man is seen leaving the scene of a crime.
		He is carrying a bottle of beer.
		The person who was murdered.
		A person was murdered.
		And they were murdered with this same type of beer.
		Is this evidence?
		Yes.
		Is it proof?
		No.
		The guy had the same kind of beer.
		He's carrying a six-pack.
		It's got two bottles in it.
		Where are the other bottles?
		He was seen leaving the scene of the crime.
		What could that mean?
		Could mean he did it.
		It's evidence.
		You present that evidence to a jury.
		Then, someone presents more evidence.
		Video of the man shaking the victim's hand, handing him a beer, high-fiving, and then leaving as friends.
		When another strange man approaches, grabs the beer from his hand and bashes him over the head with it, killing.
		You get the point.
		Evidence is not proof.
		And what I'm saying here is this is evidence that the Joe Biden White House is conspiring against his political rival.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment is coming up at 8 p.m.
		over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲