Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

April 15, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:25:02

World War 3 Trending After Iranian Strike On Israel, Israel Threatens Retaliation, Russia Backs Iran

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 World War 3 Trending After Iranian Strike On Israel, Israel Threatens Retaliation, Russia Backs Iran Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:20:33

Appearances

Clips

bill maher

00:48

josh hammer

00:30

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Make sure to head over to TimCast.com, click join us, and become a member to support our work directly, because this show is made possible thanks in part to viewers like you.
		If you like the work we do, become a member, and you'll also get access to uncensored, members-only shows from TimCast IRL, Monday through Thursday at 10pm.
		You can also join our Discord server and talk with like-minded individuals.
		Now, let's get into that first story.
		Saturday may have been the most dramatic escalation of conflict that we have seen in generations.
		Iran launched around 300 drones and missiles from various territories, including its own, at Israel, for which several of these missiles actually broke through the defenses of not just Israel, but other countries, and actually struck military targets.
		It seems the damage is minor, but nonetheless, Israel is threatening a retaliation.
		Iran is threatening to hit the U.S.
		if the U.S.
		backs the Israeli counterattack.
		Iran had already threatened Jordan, and Jordan actually did assist in the taking down of these drones, missiles, etc.
		The important thing to understand is that the distance between Iran, Israel, Yemen and Israel, other countries and areas where they were launching these attacks from, is that it's hundreds of miles.
		And so people were actually watching these rockets and drones in real time flying over their countries and their homes, making their way to Israel.
		Will this be World War Three?
		I don't know.
		There are many people saying now that after a new report from Reuters, the Biden administration provided guidance to Iran.
		On what their attacks would need to consist of to avoid escalation.
		Some said it's just providing guidance or aiding.
		I don't think that's necessarily fair.
		I think it could be simply a threat.
		If you do this, it's our red line.
		Donald Trump had said similar things in the past to Iran.
		Iran still made their attacks.
		I think we're dealing with a very delicate situation, but I don't think this guarantees World War III.
		Iran apparently is concerned that their population would revolt.
		There would be a coup, so they have no choice but to strike in some way.
		Perhaps.
		Perhaps it's all just saber-rattling, I suppose.
		But if saber-rattling goes from the I-will-destroy-you phase into the actually launching of military attacks, which actually strike military targets, you are at war, period.
		Iran has declared war formally.
		Now, hold on.
		Hold on.
		I can already hear the anti-Israel crowd screaming, What do you mean, Tim?
		Israel attacked the Iranian embassy!
		The attacks between Iran and Israel have been something fierce for a very long time.
		It is true.
		It has been reported widely that Israel attacked an Iranian embassy, which is Iranian soil, and Iran vowed a response.
		What we're looking at with embassy attacks is very different from a nation's core territory launching strikes onto another nation's core territory.
		By all means, you can blame Israel.
		I really don't care.
		This conflict goes back way further than just Israel attacked an embassy.
		This is war.
		And I would say, you can argue that an embassy is a nation's territory, but there is a dramatic difference between embassies being bombed and a country launching from its own territory with its own military power into another country directly.
		But it doesn't matter, really.
		I don't think it's easy to just say, this war was started by someone.
		You could argue the war was started with the Balfour Declaration and the creation of Israel.
		That's it.
		It's nonsensical.
		All that matters right now is, by all means, bicker who you think's at fault.
		I really don't care why.
		None of these countries are the United States, and I don't want to see the U.S.
		dragged into this.
		Now, we may not be.
		A lot of people are speculating, oh, well, now we have to get involved.
		You know, Joe Biden said that our support for Israel's ironclad.
		Perhaps, perhaps.
		But it would be a huge mistake.
		A huge mistake for Israel to retaliate.
		No, no, no, hold on.
		I can already hear a lot of people saying, Israel's a right to defend itself.
		Yes.
		They do.
		And there's also Pyrrhic victories, and there's also knowing when to retreat, etc.
		Israel is dealing with a conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah already.
	Adding Iran to the mix by retaliating with strikes on Iranian territory directly would only escalate things in a direction that Israel could not handle.
	However, if that were to happen, because I don't know what will or won't, I believe the U.S.
	does get involved.
	Russia has said they would back Iran in this instance.
	And World War III would happen.
	Here's a story from Times of Israel.
	Iran threatens to hit U.S.
	bases if Washington backs Israeli counterattack.
	While warning of much larger response if Israel retaliates for drone and missile attack, U.N.
	envoy says Iran now deems the matter concluded.
	Hamas jumps to support Tehran.
	You can't.
	This is not the game, Iran.
	This is what they think.
	They can launch these strikes, actually hit Israeli military targets.
	They did.
	And Israel just has to say, what was that, Iran?
	You said it's concluded?
	Okay, we're done.
	Have a nice day.
	I think, strategically, if Israel retaliates, this spirals out of control in a way no one can handle.
	And the best move now, I suppose, is de-escalation.
	The United States should be putting all of its efforts into de-escalation between Israel and Iran.
	Of course, I'm not convinced the military-industrial complex, the big corporations that make weapons and plan these things, would be too happy with that.
	And I'm sure their worldview is more based upon, we cannot allow rogue terrorist states like Iran to do insert-insert whatever.
	There have been people for decades salivating at the prospect of a war with Iran.
	You will not be able to convince me.
	That the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan were anything other than a pincer move on Iran.
	We launched military bases in two countries surrounding Iran.
	John Bolton saying, we will be celebrating in Tehran this time next year.
	Didn't work out for him though.
unidentified		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They want it to happen.
		And so my concern is there's a lot of people saying, no, no, it won't happen.
		Look, you know, saber rattling.
		Iran was praying the strikes were stopped because they don't actually want to escalate this into war, but they have to for political reasons within their country.
		And no, no, there are people in the West who want the war.
		And you can argue Israel bombed the embassy first.
		Others argue that Iran attacked Israel well before this.
		But either way, all that matters is the neocons and the neolibs in the uniparty establishment started screaming for joy when Iran launched that attack because it gives them a Cass's belly.
		They can now say, a U.S.
		ally has been attacked by an adversary in the Middle East.
		We must respond.
		We mustn't, but, you know, they want the war.
		We have this report for the BBC.
		What was in wave of Iranian attacks and how are they thwarted?
		So they're going to mention that around 300 drones and missiles were fired towards Israel.
		170 drones, 30 cruise missiles, and 110 ballistic missiles.
		The shortest distance from Iran to Israel is about 1,000 kilometers, 620 miles, across Iraq, Syria, and Jordan.
		On Saturday night, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps said it had launched drones and missiles, so this we know.
		The Israeli Defense Network dealt with this with a variety of defensive systems.
		They include, uh, let's see, the, uh, where is it?
		Where's the breakdown?
		It's a three-tier umbrella system.
		It's not just the Iron Dome.
		Arrow, intercepts long-range projectiles, dealt with most of the ballistic missiles aimed at Israel.
		Next, you have David's Sling, which is used to protect against short-range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones, taking them out as far as 186 miles away.
		And finally, the Iron Dome.
		Now, they're going to mention Israel's allies assisted.
		U.S.
		President Joe Biden said U.S.
		forces helped Israel take down nearly all drones and missiles launched by Iran on Sunday.
		In a statement, he said the U.S.
		had moved aircraft and warships to the region before the unprecedented attack.
		Two aircraft and two destroyers were involved in intercepting the barrage.
		I want to tell you where this is going, and I think it's fairly obvious, with the Biden administration's announcement that the U.S.
		would be building a port off of Gaza to assist with aid.
		Bull.
		No way.
		They're preparing for full-scale war.
		The U.S.
		is gearing up for the possibility, I say possibility because I don't know, of a full-scale takeover of Gaza.
		And when that happens, Iran absolutely will retaliate.
		However, now the U.S.
		already has its cast as belly.
		Iran fired the missiles, they'll say.
		Oh, now many will argue Israel fired at the Iranian embassy.
unidentified		I get it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We'll get to that.
		We'll get to that.
		No, no, no.
		Yeah, I'm not saying you're wrong.
		What I'm saying is the U.S.
		will go, Iran's attack on Israel cannot be allowed, blah, blah, blah.
		As the war escalates, and Israel says we must retaliate, we get a full-scale declaration of war in the Middle East, thus, you get, you get your second Cass's belly.
		The right of Israel to seize and occupy Gaza beyond what it's already doing with this war against Hamas.
		U.S.
		coming in, taking it over and saying the threat to Israel from Hamas in Gaza is too great, with Iran funding Hamas and these groups.
unidentified		Hey it's Kimberly Fletcher here from Moms4America with some very exciting news.
		Tucker Carlson is going on a nationwide tour this fall and Moms4America has the exclusive VIP meet and greet experience for you.
		Before each show, you can have the opportunity to meet Tucker Carlson in person.
		These tickets are fully tax-deductible donations, so go to momsforamerica.us and get one of our very limited VIP meet-and-greet experiences with Tucker at any of the 15 cities on his first ever Coast to Coast tour.
		Not only will you be supporting Moms for America in our mission to empower moms, promote liberty, and raise patriots, your tax-deductible donation secures you a full VIP experience with priority entrance and check-in, premium gold seating in the first five rows, access to a pre-show cocktail reception, an individual meet-and-greet, and photo with America's most famous conservative and our friend, Tucker Carlson.
		Visit momsforamerica.us today for more information and to secure your exclusive VIP meet-and-greet tickets.
		See you on the tour!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It may all just be on purpose.
		Two aircraft and two destroyers were involved in intercepting the barrage.
		The destroyers deployed the Aegis Missile Defense System to shoot down at least three ballistic missiles.
unidentified		U.S.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Central Command said its forces destroyed more than 80 drones and at least six ballistic missiles.
		Among these were a ballistic missile on its launcher vehicle and seven drones, which were destroyed on the ground in Houthi-controlled areas of Yemen before they were launched.
		It's ramping up, man.
		I don't even know what else to say.
		When we scroll down, the BBC, how many missiles got through?
		One of the missiles lightly hit the Nevatim Air Force Base in the Negev Desert in southern Israel.
		Rear Admiral Hagari said the base was still functioning.
		Two U.S.
		officials told the BBC's U.S.
		partner CBS that five ballistic missiles evaded air defenses and impacted on Israel territory.
		Four landed in the base, where the country's F-35 fighter jets are based, which the officials said was Iran's primary target.
		One missile hit a runway.
		Another hit an empty aircraft hangar.
		One hit a hangar that was out of use.
		A fifth ballistic missile seemed to be aimed at a radar site in northern Israel but missed its target.
		Of the 120 ballistic missiles fired by Iran, about half of them failed on launch or crashed mid-flight, one of the officials told CBS.
		Now again, I've heard far and wide from many people that Iran was praying the attack would fail.
		You see, why did Iran launch the attack?
		Seems to make no sense, right?
		They could launch a more powerful attack.
		They could launch a ground military force or something, right?
		The population of Iran demands it.
		It is the sentiment of the people there.
		They want retaliation.
		If the government of Iran allowed Israel to blow up an embassy, target its military, and they did nothing, they've lost.
		They effectively have no country, they have no military.
		And the people would revolt, and it could escalate things much worse.
		So that's why they decided to attack.
		Now, I do believe it's fair to say Iran was praying the attack didn't actually cause much damage because they're actually scared of what will happen.
		Now, of course, Russia says they'll back Iran, but we'll see.
		Iran threatens to attack Jordan if it cooperates with Israel.
		Well, it did.
		Jordan assisted in the defense of Israel.
		So we'll see how this escalates.
		Jordan Air Force shoots down Iranian drones flying over to Israel.
		I'm interested to see what the response is going to be from Iran on this one.
		Now here's where things get interesting.
		Many people I see are tweeting out retweeting this.
		I did retweet something from Tom Fitton.
		And I will just stress that when I retweet things, retweets are not endorsements.
		Iran told Turkey in advance of its operation against Israel, Turkish sources says.
		Here's what happens.
		Now many people have said that Biden provided guidance to Iran.
		with Turkey. They say Iran informed us in advance of what would happen. Possible developments also
		came up during the meeting with Blinken and they, the US, conveyed to Iran through us
		that this reaction must be within certain limits, the source said. In response, Iran said the
		reaction would be a response to Israel's attack on its embassy in Damascus and that it would not go
		beyond this. Now many people have said that Biden provided guidance to Iran. I'm not a fan of that
		sentiment. What this sounds like to me is that the U.S.
		was speaking with Turkey.
		Turkey comes to the U.S.
		and says, Iran told us they're gonna strike.
		And then the U.S.
		told Turkey, you let them know, if they cross this line, blah blah blah.
		You get my point.
		Saying that you have a red line, and there's a limit on what you are willing to tolerate, is different from saying, okay Iran, you can attack Israel, just do it in this way.
		You can argue that's kind of what they did.
		But I don't think it's fair to say that that's actually how it went.
		Though, to be fair, I don't trust the Biden administration, so I don't really know.
		But I think it's fair to say the U.S.
		said, if they do X, Y, or Z, if they go beyond this, the U.S.
		will get involved.
		And so, it's sort of like providing guidance.
		It really is.
	But Trump has reportedly done similar things.
	I don't, I don't think it's, I think without more evidence we don't know for sure.
	I want to pull up this tweet from Matt Strickland, Matt for VA on Twitter.
	He says, to all the liberal pundits saying Iran attacked American troops while Trump was president and injured 109 Americans, that's not true at all.
	Iran sent rockets into Camp Taji in response to us killing General Soleimani.
	I was an intel analyst back then, and Trump's interaction with Iran in his specific incident is what caused me to vote for the first time in my life for Trump in 2020.
	Iran told us they had to respond, or they'd have a coup in their country.
	Trump told them if one American was injured or killed in their response, he'd obliterate Iran.
	Iran gave us the grid coordinates and time of attack so we could move our troops to the other side of the base.
	I saw the reports for all 109 injuries as I was the casualty analyst on my team.
	There were no injuries.
	There were complaints of a headache from several individuals who were then diagnosed with a concussion because of the symptoms.
	It's a subjective injury.
	They were all pretty far from the impacts, but claimed they still had headaches from the blast.
	Excuse me.
	A concussion diagnosis gets you a purple heart.
	So that's why these troops were reporting headaches en masse.
	That's the truth.
	Thirteen rockets landed inside of Camp Taji that day, and not one soldier was killed or injured.
	That's when I knew Trump commanded respect on the global stage, and he won my support.
	Well, they reported injuries.
	Matt says, as the casualty analyst, they weren't legitimate injuries.
	And that's a bold thing to say about 109 troops, that they just wanted the Purple Heart.
	I suppose.
	Now, I don't know or care about the defense of Trump in this regard, regarding the injuries, whether they're real or not.
	What matters is, Trump told them if one American was injured or killed in the response, he'd obliterate Iran.
	Is that providing guidance?
	Well, let's break down the way it's framed and what could have been said.
	So, Trump says to Iran, If you guys are going to launch an attack, if it crosses this line, we will respond with force.
	Okay.
	Is that guidance?
	Think about Joe Biden saying the same thing.
	The real issue here is, did the Biden administration say to Iran, okay, we want you guys to do an attack like this.
	That'll satisfy your political BS.
	Just don't hurt anybody.
	That's very different from, if you do this, we will destroy you.
	Either way, there is still an issue.
	Trump said if one American was injured or killed in their response, he'd obliterate Iran.
	So he basically said, you can attack us so long as it doesn't hurt anybody, which is still causing damage.
	Wouldn't it make more sense that Trump said, if you launch even a single rocket at us, we will obliterate Iran.
	Why even, why even allow them to do it?
	Fear of destabilization in Iran?
	A political coup which results in a more fanatical regime which you can't control and you don't know and can't predict?
	Perhaps.
	But either way, it's all about framing and unless we know what was said, it's hard to know for sure.
	Now we do have a bit more to pull up for you.
	This tweet from David Sachs.
	He says, April 1st, Israel bombed the Iranian consulate, an act of war.
	April 13th, Iran attacked Israel, an act of war.
	Biden says, you're even, Steven, and he's right.
	Israel says, no way.
	This is going to escalate.
	Of course it will.
	Look, an attack on a consulate and an embassy is not the same as a direct attack on the country.
	If Iran took a response that was targeting an Israeli embassy somewhere, perhaps it'd be different.
	But that would mean Iran declaring war on whatever that country was too.
	Now, Adam Fisher says, I fixed it for you.
	He says, I fixed it.
	1992, Iran bombed the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires, killing 29, an act of war.
	In 1994, Iran bombed the AMIA Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, killing 85.
	2023, Iran funded and armed an invasion by Hamas that murdered 1,200, kidnapped 230.
	Iran funds and arms Houthi and Hezbollahs that attack Israel.
	2024 Israel kills the Iranian general responsible for working with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthi.
	Yesterday David Sachs begins to look into the conflict and shares his analysis.
	This is what people don't understand. War didn't start yesterday.
	Didn't start the day before.
	Didn't start in 1992 or 94.
	And the conflict today isn't necessarily directly linked to the 94-92 bombings.
	The point is this.
	Israel targets a general in an embassy because that general is working with militias and Hezbollah.
	What do you think's gonna happen?
	It's silly.
	War is war.
	You know, I talk about civil war in this country, and I say I don't see reconciliation.
	This is what people don't get.
	Here's a guy.
	And he has a brother.
	And his brother has a river on his property.
	And one day, he goes to his river, and sure enough, there's some oil or something in it.
	And he says, what's going on?
	And he goes to his family and says, don't drink the water.
	There's something wrong with it.
	He walks upstream to a separate property where there's a man dumping waste into the river.
	And he says, hey, you're dumping waste into the river.
	I'm downstream.
	My family can't drink this.
	Please stop.
	And the guy says, hey, I'll do what I want.
	Conflict ensues.
	The guy who's dumping into the river, he dies.
	The guy says, I'm not gonna let you poison my family and I need water.
	You gotta stop doing this.
	And the guy says, no.
	And he says, then I have no choice but to stop you.
	They get into a fight.
	Death isn't the intent.
	But the guy who was dumping the waste draws a gun.
	The guy who lives downstream draws his.
	The guy who was dumping in the river dies.
	The guy who was dumping in the river didn't think he was- He said, it's my property.
	I can do what I want on my river.
	Maybe he's a bad guy.
	That's fine.
	The man goes home to his family, and he says, it's terrible, you know, the guy was dumping oil and waste in the river, hopefully it clears up and we can start drinking the water again.
	The man who was dumping, he's got a brother.
	His brother comes home and finds his brother dead on the ground, and he screams in bloody rage.
	He sees the footprints, he goes down to the house, where the man and his family are, and he says, you killed my brother!
	And he shoots the guy dead.
	The man's son then says, no, and grows up.
	Finds the old man and kills him.
	That man had a kid.
	And he says, you killed my dad!
	You get the point.
	Who started the fight?
	Why did it start?
	We can even go back and just say, a hundred years in the future, you end up with two warring families and factions that absolutely hate each other, and the shooting never stopped.
	Revenge.
	Ah, those people over there, you know, you know what they did?
	You know what they do?
	They killed my brother, they killed my cousin, my uncle.
	It doesn't stop.
	We want it to.
	It's possible that it could.
	But this is the point.
	Everybody's gonna say... Or, you know, you've got all these people being like, I think it's Israel's fault.
	I think it's Iran's fault.
	Sure, fine.
	Even if you go back to the Balfour Declaration.
	Even if you go back to, um... The, what is it?
	The 1967 war.
	You go back to all of these things.
	You can go back further.
	Go back to World War II.
	Conflict is all interconnected.
	It's not going to stop.
	I don't know what you do.
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 How about you just... I don't know.
		Don't retaliate.
		Build up your defenses.
		Maintain your defenses.
		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 ▲ ● ▼		How about you just, I don't know, don't retaliate.
		Build up your defenses, maintain your defenses, become powerful.
		And I don't have any good answers for you.
		I really don't.
		I can tell you that, uh, let's see what we have here.
		I'm trying to find this.
		Uh, well, this is important too.
		We'll get this before we wrap up.
		Will support Iran.
		Putin threatens Biden not to interfere in Iran and Israel tensions.
		And then we have from the Economic Times.
		What will happen in 2024?
		16th century seer Nostradamus predicts naval war, climactic catastrophe, and rise of new monarch in Britain.
		Yeah, yeah, yeah.
		They're claiming there's gonna be- What is this from?
		This one's from January.
		There's another one they put out just now.
		Where they're like, a red adversary in a naval war.
unidentified		Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We'll see, man.
		Gold is shooting through the roof.
		Yeah.
		The price of gold.
		This one'll get interesting.
		Well, I hope you all had a better weekend, considering the news.
		There's a lot going on right now, Trump's criminal trial, and it's gonna be, it's gonna be a spicy week.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment is coming up at 1pm on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
		Currently, jury selection is underway in Donald Trump's criminal trial pertaining to falsifying business records.
		The claim, Donald Trump had Stormy Daniels secretly paid through his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to keep her silent in an extramarital affair.
		Now, while this is typically a campaign finance violation, the argument is that Cohen paid her personally.
		Trump then reimbursed him, claiming it was a legal expense.
		Now, normally this would be a misdemeanor, but Bragg is arguing that Trump was trying to cover up an additional crime, a campaign finance violation.
		Therefore, this is a felony.
		There is only one big problem, according to legal analysts across the board, and it's that the FEC and the federal government have declined to pursue any charges relating to this.
		There is no underlying crime, which is a big hole in the case.
		They are trying to get Trump on a felony for what should be a misdemeanor if you can even prove Trump did anything wrong at all.
		This is where we're currently at.
		The prosecutors want to hold Trump in contempt.
		This seems to be, to anybody paying attention, something malicious.
		And I'll tell you why.
		When it comes to campaign finance violations, according to the AP, DNC and Hillary Clinton campaign agreed to a fine related to the Steele dossier.
		That's it.
		This is from March 31st, 2022.
		Hillary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and the DNC have agreed to pay $113,000 to settle an FEC investigation into whether they violated campaign finance law by misreporting spending on research that eventually became the infamous Steele dossier.
		I am not sitting here to say that because Hillary did bad, Trump is fine or otherwise.
		No, what I'm saying is when it came to instances Of campaign finance violations.
		The Clinton campaign did pay a fine, and that was it.
		The FEC actually said, there's nothing to pursue Trump on in this regard.
		Now, whether or not Trump falsified business records will need to be proven, but again, that's just a misdemeanor, which makes this all very, very strange.
		Now, I want to play for you the statement from Donald Trump, and we'll get started on where we're currently at with the legal proceedings and what this is all about.
		Here we go.
unidentified		Nothing like this has ever happened before.
		It's never been anything like it.
		Every legal scholar said this case is nonsense.
		It should never have been brought.
		It doesn't deserve anything like this.
		There is no case, and they've said it, people that don't necessarily follow or like Donald Trump.
		So this is an outrage that this case was brought.
		This is political persecution.
		This is a persecution like never before.
		Nobody's ever seen anything like it.
		And again, it's a case that should have never been brought.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's an assault on America.
unidentified		And that's why I'm very proud to be here.
		This is an assault on our country.
		And it's a country that's failing.
		It's a country that's run by an incompetent man who's very much involved in this case.
		This is really an attack on a political opponent.
		That's all it is.
		So I'm very honored to be here.
		Thank you very much.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, let's do this.
		Before we get into the nitty gritty of the politics, because there are some interesting revelations.
		We have this great article from Fox News.
		As of today, nine questions about the Trump trial answered.
		Now, beyond what we know in the, what I would describe as the strangeness of this case, we do know that there is a conflict involving the judge's daughter, who according to the New York Post, they say, Democrat clients of daughter of New York judge in Trump hush money trial raised $93 million off the case.
		We have a clear conflict of interest.
		The judge, however, this morning, it has been reported, has refused to recuse himself in this matter, despite having clear financial gain present based on his family's personal business.
		Now, it is always the judge's decision whether to recuse or not.
		Fox News starts off with this.
		Former President Donald Trump's hush money court case will kick off on Monday, making the first time a former president will stand trial over criminal charges.
		The historic trial will require Trump, the Republican Party's presumptive nominee, to defend himself from the Manhattan courtroom while simultaneously campaigning as the election season heats up.
		Fox News Digital compiled the top questions regarding the case ahead of its kicking off Monday at 10 a.m.
		in Lower Manhattan.
unidentified		Now, I want to stress this.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, this may be right into Trump's hands.
		These major breaking press events make Trump look like the victim and give him maximum political exposure, which can only be partially bad.
		Trump's supporters are not going to leave him.
		Trump's detractors are not going to join him.
		But people in the middle of the road are going to be swayed one way or the other.
		And right now, it is not clear.
		Right now you have the argument that what should be a misdemeanor is being treated as a felony.
		Many middle-of-the-road individuals may stop and take pause with that and say, why?
		And if that works out for Trump, which I think he's banking on, he gets maximum name recognition, he becomes the dominant name in the press, and that may be all you need.
		But it also may swing independents who believe this may be political persecution of a president.
		But let's read.
		Box News says.
		Dubbed the Hush Money case, the trial's origins date back to October of 2016, when Trump's former personal attorney, Cohen, paid former porn star Stormy Daniels $130,000 to allegedly quiet her claims of an alleged extramarital affair she had with then-real estate tycoon in 2006.
		Trump has denied having an affair with Daniels.
		The case is also expected to feature two other payments, including a $30,000 payment to a Trump Tower doorman who claimed that Trump fathered a child out of wedlock.
		And arranged a $150,000 payment through a tabloid publisher to a former Playboy model named Karen McDougal, who also claims she had an affair with Trump and sold her story to the tabloid.
		Trump has also vehemently denied these allegations.
		Prosecutors allege that the Trump organization reimbursed Cohen and fraudulently logged the
		payments as legal expenses. Quote, During the election, Trump and others employed a catch and
		kill scheme to identify, purchase and bury negative information about him and boost his electoral
		prospects, says Manhattan D.A. Alvin Bragg. Trump then went to great lengths to hide this conduct,
		causing dozens of false entries in business records to conceal criminal activity,
		including attempts to violate state and federal election laws.
		Catch-and-kill schemes are understood as tactics used by media and publishing companies to buy the rights of a person's story, with the intention of burying that information.
		Bragg announced the charges against Trump in April of 23, with 34 counts of falsifying business records in the first degree.
		The charges stem from checks reimbursing Cohen over a roughly 12-month period for paying downs in 2016.
		Cohen was separately arrested in 2018 and pleaded guilty to campaign finance charges and lying to Congress.
		He was sentenced to three years in prison and has since been released.
		Falsifying business records is a misdemeanor, but prosecutors are working to prove that Trump falsified records with an intent to commit or conceal a second crime, which would be a felony.
		The charges against Trump carry more than a decade in prison if he is convicted on the counts.
		Legal experts across the nation have weighed in that it is unlikely Trump would face a long prison sentence.
		Many have speculated he'll get probation.
		How has Bragg turned this into a felony?
		Charges of falsifying business records are misdemeanors in New York.
		However, the argument is that Trump violated federal election laws.
		Now hold on, let me read a quote that we have here.
		This is from, let me see who is it, I believe it's a legal expert, Heritage Foundation, Zach Smith, saying that prosecutors are trying to bootstrap what would ordinarily be a misdemeanor charge into felony offenses.
		Quote, some of the charges he's trying to bring are false records charges against Donald Trump, which are ordinarily misdemeanors, unless they were done in furtherance of another felony, simply to cover up another felony.
		And in this case, as I understand it, Alvin Bragg is saying that the other felony was a federal campaign finance violation.
		So you simply have a state prosecutor pursuing a state case against Donald Trump based on a federal felony offense that the federal government, the DOJ itself, declined to pursue.
		I don't actually believe declined to pursue is the best way to phrase it, Zach Smith.
		I believe it's there's no criminal charges against Trump at the federal level.
		There was no other crime.
		The argument Bragg is making is, so what?
		I believe there was, and we don't need to pursue that.
		Now let's break down the simplest of this defense.
		What happened?
		Donald Trump hires a lawyer.
		And I think this is where we see many of the prosecutors, when it comes to Letitia James going after Trump with the civil charges, when it comes to now Alvin Bragg, the exploitation of ignorance of the general public.
		Donald Trump has a lawyer.
		Donald Trump hires a lawyer, and I doubt, with a corporation and organizations, plural, as massive as the Trump companies, that he is in day-to-day regular communications with his lawyer telling him what to do in micromanaging.
		We have lawyers.
		We have business records, and we hire accountants, and they do filings, and then we hire lawyers, and they do the groundwork, and it's not particularly specific other than, yeah, let us know, you know, go through the records, do this, do that, hey, we're buying a property, please set it up for us.
		Let me explain.
		So Donald Trump has a lawyer.
		That lawyer says, I'm going to charge you legal expenses related to solving these problems.
		They're going to have to prove that Donald Trump instructed Cohen to pay off Stormy Daniels.
		That may be hard to prove.
		Especially if this is run, for those that are Trump detractors, if this is run like any organized crime, and that's why it's called organized, I'm not saying mafia, I'm saying organized crime, you can't prove anything.
		That's the point.
		The reason why Trump didn't write the check himself is so that you can't prove anything.
		That being said, I don't think the jury is going to give Trump a free pass on this one.
		They'll convict him no matter what.
		But here's the idea.
	There is the plausible deniability that Trump has.
	Trump hires Michael Cohen and says, just, you know, figure out what's going on with these claims or whatever and then, you know, let me know.
	And then he has no idea what Cohen does.
	Cohen, let's say this.
	Let's say Donald Trump goes to Michael Cohen and says, can you figure out what Stormy Daniels wants and just take care of it?
	And that's it.
	What does Trump mean?
	Well, take care of it.
	It's not a question of illegal behavior.
	He's saying just figure out what's going on.
	You're my lawyer.
	You deal with it.
	The lawyer then decides, Michael Cohen, who went to prison, instead of actually filling out paperwork and negotiating defamation or rights to stories or whatever, I'll just pay her off.
	Here's money.
	And then, you know, you know, and then I'll bill Trump.
	Trump might not even know!
	So they gotta prove that.
	It's possible in this court case.
	They do prove Donald Trump or someone associated with Trump creates the connection where Trump said, just give her the money and we'll write it off as an expense.
	He says that, he's gonna get in trouble.
	Granted, they're bootstrapping this as a felony.
	But I don't think... I don't... If Trump really wanted to just outright pay her off, he just would've done it.
	I think what we're likely going to find is that Cohen I believe he'll probably testify.
	Trump told me to do it.
	Trump will say, no I didn't.
	I hired a lawyer and said, take care of my reputational stuff.
	Cohen, instead of wanting to do the work, decided to just pay her off.
	And then billed Trump saying, these were my fees related to the work involving Stormy Daniels.
	And Trump was like, okay.
	Every company gets an invoice from their lawyers and it breaks down hours.
	You don't know exactly what they're doing.
	You know that you hire a lawyer and you say, I need you to draft a response to the court for this reason.
	And they go, okay.
	Or you say, hey, there's someone who's causing us problems.
	We need you to go negotiate with his attorney and figure out what's going on.
	They say, okay.
	Then the lawyer comes back to you and says, hey, we took care of it, and you're like, okay, let me know what I owe you.
	The assumption that Trump knew any of this is going to be, it's going to, that's a hard thing to prove.
	And I will add on top of this, again, for those that hate Trump, he may have known every little bit about it, and that will be very difficult to prove.
	Short of Trump handwriting a letter and signing it, it's going to be difficult to prove.
	I believe they're going to have, they, the only, the only witness here is going to be Cohen.
	I don't know what else they could do.
	Who are they going to bring in?
	They're going to say the DOJ in 2019 effectively concluded its investigation into Trump's payments.
	In 2021, the FEC, the agency dedicated to enforcing campaign finance laws, announced it had dropped a case looking into whether Trump had violated the laws for payments to Daniels.
	Former FEC member Hans von Spakovsky underscored to Fox News Digital in another interview that both the FEC and DOJ had declined to pursue the case.
	Yet a local DA is working to prove that Trump violated federal law.
	That's insane!
unidentified		What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The FEC looked at this and said this settlement was not a violation of federal law.
		The Justice Department also has a criminal enforcement authority over federal campaign finance laws and the DOJ has also not considered this a crime.
		And so you have this local DA claiming there's no violation of federal law.
		When the two federal agencies with enforcement authority of the law say, well, no, there was no violation of federal law.
		And look, I say that as a former commissioner on the FEC, my job as a commissioner was to enforce federal campaign finance law.
		And this is simply not a violation of federal law.
		Can Trump pardon himself if elected?
		In the Hushmoney case, Trump could not pardon himself if he wins election in November.
		The Constitution dictates that a president's pardoning powers grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, meaning the powers only apply to federal cases.
		The judge is Juan M. Merchan, 61% over the case.
		Merchan, originally from Colombia, has served on the New York Supreme Court since 2009.
		Overseeing felony criminal cases, he previously served as an assistant D.A.
		in the Manhattan's D.A.
		office in the 1990s and worked in the New York State Attorney General's office among other roles.
		Merchant has previously overseen high-profile cases, including Soccer Mom Madam.
		Anna Gristina was charged with running a high-end prostitution ring.
		Interesting.
		Trump has railed against Merchant on Truth Social, including last month, when he called on the judge to recuse himself and cited Merchant's daughter and her work as a political consultant for Democratic politicians.
		And here we are.
		Judge Juan Merchan, who is suffering from an acute case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, whose daughter represents crooked Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Adam Shifty Schiff, and other radical liberals, has just posted a picture of me behind bars, her obvious goal, and makes it completely impossible for me to get a fair trial, has now issued another illegal, un-American, unconstitutional order, as he continues to try and take away my rights.
		Now, okay.
		The daughter posting behind Barr's image is disputed, with many on the right saying this is the listed social media account for his daughter.
		The profile picture, of course, shows Trump behind Barr's.
		However, liberals argue that his daughter, while she did have the account, changed the account.
		Someone else got the name and made that photo and it wasn't his daughter.
		Now of all the people to come out and defend Donald Trump, no one expected Michael Avenatti.
		You remember him?
		I mean, man, several years ago, people thought this guy could actually run the Democratic ticket.
		Now he's in prison.
		He says the fix is in.
		Never before has there been a high-profile criminal case in America where a prosecutor, Bragg, permitted and likely encouraged two critical witnesses, Cohen and Daniels, to use the media in the days leading up to a trial to trash a gagged defendant and violate his right to a fair trial.
		He goes on to say, To my friends on the left who insist they want to preserve democracy and justice, you should be equally outraged by this.
		Constitutional protections either exist for all, including Trump, or they don't exist for any.
		What is happening in the Hush Money case is a travesty.
		Well, here we are.
		Democrat clients of daughter of New York judge in Trump Hush Money trial raised $93 million off the case.
		I don't care about a picture of Trump behind bars.
		I do not care.
		But, my friends, I don't care if you like or hate Trump.
		Your system doesn't exist.
		You're not preserving democracy.
		There isn't any.
		There is no democracy.
		There is no justice.
		Because if you really believed Trump did wrong, and you could prove it, you'd simply say, judge, recuse yourself.
		Every Democrat in the world would be saying, we don't care who the judge is!
		Just get a judge!
		This judge's daughter, her clients made 93 million dollars fundraising off this?
		You have tainted democracy.
		It is not a big deal to get a different judge.
		In no way is that a big deal.
		None.
		What does it change?
		Judge assignment can be random for all you care.
		If you believe Trump did this and you can prove it, the judge doesn't matter.
		And how about this?
		You get a judge who comes out and goes, Trump 20-24, then you get him to recuse himself as well.
		Instead, they're working with this man.
		Take a look at this story.
		Two major Democratic clients, the daughter of the judge overseeing Donald Trump's hush money trial, have raised at least $93 million in campaign donations and used the case in their solicitation emails, raising renewed concerns the jurist has a major conflict of interest.
		Trump's attorneys are considering filing another motion demanding Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchant recuse himself from the trial set to begin April 15th.
		So this, of course, is from March 30th.
		We now know the judge has not recused himself.
		Authentic campaigns, and thus the judge's daughter, is actively making money from this sham attack against President Trump, rendering Judge Merchant conflicted out.
	Trump spokesman Stephen Chung told the Post, adding that evidence of bias is even clearer now that it was in August when Merchant rejected Trump's first recusal motion.
	The judge should do the right thing and immediately recuse himself in order to show the American people that the Democrats have not destroyed our justice system completely.
	Him continuing to be involved in this crooked Joe Biden-directed witch hunt is a complete violation of applicable rules, regulations, and ethics.
	Schiff's campaign for U.S.
	Senate scored an eye-popping $20 million in aid since he began soliciting donations off the presumptive GOP's president's unprecedented 34-count indictment in April, according to the FEC.
	Trump has pleaded not guilty to felony counts of falsifying business records related to alleged hush money payments made to porn star Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal.
	He has denied having affairs with both women.
	If convicted, he faces up to four years in prison.
	There's no way to win these things.
	That's the reality.
	They'll ask you to come in and testify.
	And it is remarkable to me how stupid some of these people are.
	When they say come and testify, they are not seeking honest answers.
	They're laying a trap.
	No matter what you say, they'll accuse you of lying, and then bring about charges and say, do you want to be dragged through a two million dollar trial?
	Good luck, we have unlimited funds.
	The best thing you can do, in any circumstances, sure I'll testify, and I plead the fifth.
	I plead the fifth, I plead the fifth, to every single question.
	There is no reality in which these people who are trying to destroy you are going to take an honest answer.
	Oh, wait, wait, really?
	That's not what it... Oh, we're so sorry we brought you here.
	What'll happen is, like, you know, Trump's CFO or whatever, they'll just say, oh, yeah, you lied.
	So we're locking you up.
	It's amazing.
	Let me tell you some stories, right?
	And I love these conservatives who are just like, we'll back the blue no matter who, and they never talk to cops.
	Never.
	I know it's tough, because never is impossible.
	It really is.
	Like, we've called the police.
	I have to talk to them.
	You keep it limited, though.
	No disrespect.
	I've talked to a lot of cops, unrelated to anything, uh, crime.
	You know, I've met cops in the street.
	You know, and one guy, local, local deputy.
	We talk a bit, no problem.
	But let me tell you the reality of talking to cops.
	There was a great Supreme Court Justice a long time ago, I forgot his name, but he was like, you never talk to the police pertaining to criminal matters because it doesn't benefit you in any way.
	All it does is hurt you.
	I'll give you an example.
	Let's say that there's a crime committed, and the cops say, can we ask you some questions?
	And, you know, cops need witness testimony sometimes to bring the bad guys in.
	But then you take a look at Kamala Harris, and so the issue becomes this.
	You have prosecutors in this country who will burn you to the ground for no reason.
	Look at the, uh, McMichaels in the Ahmaud Arbery case.
	The guy who was filming went to prison, likely for the rest of his life.
	Maybe he'll get out on good behavior, whatever.
	All he did was film!
	Nah, he's an accomplice to murder.
	Lock him up.
	The Proud Boys in New York.
	Antifa was harassing attendees to an event.
	I would call this, uh... Antifa provoked, but the Proud Boys chose to engage.
	That's true.
	The Proud Boys talked to the cops.
	We'll tell you everything you want to know.
unidentified		Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The cops arrested him and put him in prison.
		Yeah.
		For four years.
		Here's the best case scenario for you.
		He talked to the cops.
		Something happens, let's say the DA calls you in, let's say law enforcement, and you say, I'm going to clear my name and explain to them what happened.
		All they're doing is looking for ways they can claim you lied.
		So you say something like, yeah, when I filled out that form back in, what was it, 2023, I think?
		I said X, Y, and Z, and they go, oh, okay.
		Then you leave, and they go, he filmed out that form in 2022.
		He lied.
		Or, you accidentally misspoke, said the wrong form, and they come back and say, in 2023, you said A, B, and C, not X, Y, and Z. And then you'll be like, ah, I meant 2022.
		Nice try.
		You lied to us.
		You're under arrest.
		Perjury charge!
		And we're gonna bury you with unlimited government funds.
		Destroy your life.
		And you'll probably win.
		But, uh, you'll spend the next four months.
		Let me tell you a story.
		When I was a teenager...
		My brother and I got jumped by mall security guards because they'd mistaken us for someone else or something.
		I don't know what happened.
		I think I can tell you what happened.
		We had left a store.
		The alarm went off.
		We don't know why it went off.
		We were like, I was wearing skintight skater clothes.
		And the lady was like, stop, stop.
		And we were like, what?
		The alarm went off and we walked in and walked out.
		I don't know what you're talking about, lady.
		And so apparently something happened, like the security guards decided that they were going to beat the crap out of us instead of just asking us what happened.
		And that's what they did.
		Crazy thing happened.
		My brother was on the phone at the time.
		It went to voicemail.
		It recorded everything that happened.
		Everything that was said.
		And what you had was, uh, the security guards beating us up, laughing about how they didn't search us, they didn't care who we were, they didn't care if we did anything wrong, they could do whatever they wanted, and literally just beating the crap out of my brother, pinning me to the ground and, you know, shoving my face to the ground.
		I called 911 when we got attacked, they took the phone, they turned it off.
		Turned it off.
		Said, I don't care.
		And I was like, that's the police calling back, so what?
		We can do whatever we want.
		That's what they said.
		Something to that effect.
		Well, the crazy thing happened is that we end up getting arrested.
		The cops don't care.
		We told the cops they attacked us.
		Please look at the cameras.
		And they said, I don't care.
		We're not going to do that.
		We went to jail, paid bail, got out.
		They claimed that we were attacking people.
		My brother swung a thumb.
		I was screaming and swearing.
		None of it was true.
		And then our friend called us back and said, are you guys dead?
		Like, I got this voicemail of you guys screaming.
		And we were able to get that recording.
		We were able to get that recording.
		And so our lawyer went to the prosecutor and said, I got a recording of your guys saying they're not following the rules, they can do whatever they want, they're attacking my clients.
	And the prosecutor went, really?
	Here's what we're going to do.
	I am going to criminally charge your clients with felonies for eavesdropping under Illinois statute, You'll probably win, but I'm going to make sure they spend the next six months in prison, in lockup, with no bail.
	And so, they might win, or I'll tell you what, we'll pretend that recording doesn't exist.
	Our lawyer comes back to us and says, It is, uh, look, you're screaming and yelling too on this.
	It does make the guards look bad.
	They do admit to attacking you outright, but you'll probably win, you know?
	But he will have you charged with felonies.
	He will file.
	And he's like, obviously the argument is there was no intentional recording made.
	It was a phone that was on that recorded it.
	So you'll win, but you will go to prison.
	You will be transported to a prison because this is a serious felony charge in Illinois and likely will not be released.
	He's giving us the opportunity to just forget this exists.
	That's the reality of how prosecution works in this country.
	You think you're going to go and meet with someone Only thing he'd say is plead the fifth.
	That's it.
	It's a dirty game that's being played.
	And they're wrapping up Trump in it.
	We'll see how this one plays out.
	A lot of developments to come today.
	The trial's currently underway, so jury selection I don't believe has begun by the time of recording this, but we'll see.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	Well, everybody seems to be fixated on World War III.
	There is a potential crisis, or I should say there is a crisis that we're facing.
	Of course, it's no secret that there has been population decline and mass death over the past several years, and now it seems to be getting pretty bad.
	Elon Musk has chimed in.
	But this report is actually interesting because it makes some pretty outrageous claims.
	That Greece is facing a population collapse, which it is, but it's facing this because of excess mortality related to blood clots and strokes.
	Interesting.
	I've been unable to verify this outside of a few reports.
	I'm not familiar with the source, that is NDTV, but I can tell you this.
	It is a fact.
	Greece will collapse.
	And I suppose this is indicative of what many countries may be facing due to the exact same reasons.
	Now, whether or not it is blood clot and stroke, I don't know.
	Stroke is listed previously in the past few years as a main cause of death, the second behind cardiovascular disease.
	But I don't know what that means.
	Certainly the implication is that something has caused a massive uptick in strokes.
	Interesting.
	But we have seen the mortality rate in Greece skyrocket over the past decade.
	Now again, Many of you may think, who cares about Greece?
	I don't live there.
	I suppose if you're Greek, you care.
	But for everybody else, I think this is a very serious issue that the rest of us are going to have to contend with, and what that will mean economically, globally, and what happens when your native population is no longer having kids and is dying at an excess rate.
	That is to say, in Greece at least, the death rate is double, nearly double, that of the birth rate.
	Where does this country go in 20 years?
	And what does that mean for the rest of Europe?
	Now, Elon Musk has, of course, chimed in.
	And in another statement, Bezos and Musk have both said, we need more people!
	And we do.
	Here's a story from NDTV.
	Greece facing population collapse as unexpected deaths soar.
	Elon Musk reacts.
	Data by Greece's national statistical agency, ELSTAT, showed Greece's population will fall by over a million Well, I've got the data for you my friends, but let's read.
	According to this article from NDTV, the population decline in Greece has reached alarming levels.
	And it could become the world's first country to suffer population collapse.
	A new report has said.
	This started a debate on social media with billionaire Elon Musk joining in and expressing concern.
	The report paints a scary picture, claiming that heart failure, stroke, and blood clots, and cancer, among otherwise healthy young people, have caused the mortality rates to skyrocket in Greece.
	Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis called the prospect of population collapse a ticking time bomb and national threat.
	Reacting to the report, Mr. Musk said in a post on XGreece is one of dozens of countries experiencing population collapse due to low birth rates.
	Oh yeah.
	Oh yeah.
	That's an understatement.
	Population collapse, also known as depopulation, refers to the phenomenon of a sudden and irreversible decline in the number of living people in a society.
	This is one of the most serious problems we face, not only in Greece, but in the EU as a whole.
	Finance Minister Kotis Hatzidakis told news agency Reuters last week, referring to the rapidly declining population in this country, it is our priority, whatever it takes.
	Greece's birth rate fell by 30% from 2011 and 2021 to under 84,000 per year, slipping below the death rate, according to the country's National Hellenic Statistical Service, known as ELSTAT.
	Al Jazeera said in a report that this represented a loss of nearly 2 billion euros a year in state revenue over the long term, considering each Greek paid an average 5,758 euros in taxes and social security contributions.
	The data further showed that Greece's population will fall by over a million by 2050.
	All right.
	Now, of course, I know.
	When they're claiming that it's stroke, heart attack, etc., a lot of people have a lot of questions.
	I'll leave those questions up to you.
	What I can tell you is that, according to the World Bank, at least... Actually, no, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
	This is the World Health Organization.
	I should pull it up because they've got two different stats.
	So let's pull up the World Health Organization, Greece deaths.
	I believe it's World Health Organization.
	I can show you that, right.
	It is in fact true.
	So here's what we have.
	These are the previous, this is 2019.
	Top cause of death for males is ischemic heart disease stroke, lung cancers, And lower respiratory infections, followed by chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
	Very interesting.
	In 2019.
	Now, mind you, this is all pre-COVID.
	I think it's very important to point out.
	But it is true that it's heart disease, stroke, and other issues.
	Greek Prime Minister declares national danger over birth decline.
	I think we need to paint a picture here, right?
	Greece, according to CIA.gov, 12 deaths for every 1,000 in the population as of 2023.
	Well, okay.
	How about their birth rate according to Macrotrends.net?
	Current rates, 6.8 births per 1,000 population.
	It is nearly double.
	The death rate is nearly double that of the birth rate.
	That's getting crazy for Greece.
	And I think it's important we talk about where this goes.
	Here's the death rate, crude, per 1,000 people in Greece.
	As of 2020, it hit 14.
	And it actually dropped down to 12.
	But look at this incline.
	This is pre-COVID.
	The incline, it's getting bigger and bigger.
	Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk say, population not nearly big enough.
	If we had a trillion humans, we would have at any time, any given time, a thousand Mozart's.
	Perhaps, gentlemen, perhaps.
	Look at their big faces on the screen.
	Let me tell you where we're going.
	Greece is just one of the first states.
	The rest is going to be true for everybody else because ain't nobody having kids.
	And I'll tell you what this means.
	I took a visit over to Michigan a while ago.
	Many of you may be aware of what's happening in Michigan.
	Michigan faced a mass exodus and a population decline.
	Their water became tainted in Flint and in the surrounding areas, and Detroit ended up with the most expensive water in the country.
	How could this happen?
	It's actually quite simple.
	You see, in order to have luxuries and live like kings as we do, you need more and more and more people.
	Why?
	Well, many hands makes light work.
	So here's what happens.
	I'll give you a rudimentary breakdown of cost per person with a place like Detroit.
	Let's say you have 1 million people.
	And, uh, everybody spends $1 per month to maintain the million dollar water system.
	A $1 ain't no problem, right?
	You can pay a dollar.
	So you budget out of your check every, every, every, every week, just a quarter.
	All right.
	Then half the population leaves.
	Well, now the water system is still $1 million.
	But you only have half the population.
	So the cost is double for everybody.
	Now in reality, it was never a dollar.
	Right?
	So with a million people in this metropolitan area, because they're all connected.
	Flint was on Detroit water, I believe.
	It's been a long time since I covered this.
	You end up with like a million plus people, and everyone's spending like $30 or $40 for their water.
	When the population starts to leave, the total cost is fixed.
	It stays the same.
	To operate this massive water machine requires the same amount of people.
	So what ends up happening is, you get your water bill next month, it's ten bucks more, and you're like, what?
	Because of the increased cost, some people are like, guys, water is just too expensive to pay here.
	I'm gonna move somewhere else.
	So they do.
	As the population leaves, as there's no jobs, and services become more and more expensive, this makes the services more and more expensive.
	How are you going to pay for a fire department or a police department?
	You're going to have to start laying off firefighters.
	You're going to have to switch to volunteer fire service.
	The water became more and more expensive.
	Eventually, I think it was something like over $100 per household or something.
	Nobody could afford it.
	The most expensive in the nation.
	It's not just that.
	It's all services.
	Trains.
	You see, when you have a million people using the train every day, and the train costs a million bucks a month, you got a profit.
	And that's great.
	So you can now invest in new infrastructure and can expand it.
	But then the population begins to decline.
	Now nobody's using the train anymore.
	The trains start to fall apart.
	It requires large groups of people to maintain systems like this at an economic level.
	And people don't realize this.
	The managerial power required to run the system we have.
	How do you get airplanes?
	It requires a certain population size, period.
	Imagine you wanted to take the train from downtown to the south side of Chicago.
	We use, uh, you got a couple.
	You gotta, the red line goes straight south, you wanna go southwest, you go to, uh, you go to Midway Airport, you've got the orange line.
	That was my train.
	Imagine, Chicago only had 100,000 people.
	The train would probably come once every two hours, if that.
	Because that's what they can afford to maintain.
	Why?
	Not everybody uses the train at the exact same time.
	The more people you have, the more we can afford more trains, and it becomes extremely convenient for you when a train shows up every five minutes.
	That's crazy.
	As the population begins to shrink, you will see the dissolution of core services, and then you will have to start picking up the slack and doing these things on your own.
	Certain things can't even exist.
	I think Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk missed the big point when they say if we had a trillion humans, we'd have at any given time a thousand Mozarts.
	You could do the math and break it down.
	How do you sustain clean water to an entire population at negligible prices?
	To where it's almost like people say, water's free!
	You go to, in some states, in some cities, it is a legal requirement.
	I believe New York and Arizona.
	It's a legal requirement to give someone water.
	Arizona makes sense.
	I don't know if it's true though, but this is what I was told when I was in Phoenix.
	If someone walks into a business and says, I need water, you have to give it to them.
	Well, water's not hard to come by.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Because we have these massive systems that we built.
		What happens when we end up like Michigan, and our water system ends up costing us, you know, 10%, 20% of our income?
		This is where things start to break down.
		Because now you walk into a store and say, I'll have a cup of water, and they'll say, that'll be $2, please.
		And they'll be like, I have nothing.
		I'm dying of dehydration.
		And they'll say, well, too bad.
		Now someone may say, don't worry, I'll take care of you.
		I don't want you to die, for sure.
		But this is something I've pointed out quite a while ago, that when the cost of water exceeds the cost of labor, your society will collapse.
		Period.
		When the cost of water exceeds the cost of labor.
		So what this means is, if it ever gets to the point, and perhaps it can't for obvious reasons, perhaps the system breaks down before this could happen, if it gets to the point where, let's just be real, if water ever reached probably 20% of a person's income, your society will collapse.
		That's it.
		Food's one thing.
		You can find food in places you don't like to find food.
		You can eat the bugs if you have to.
		You can actually eat certain leaves off trees, but I'm not telling you to do that.
		You go look up, uh, talk to a nutritionist to figure out which leaves you can eat.
		Yeah, there's many leaves we like to eat.
		Spinach leaves, you know, lettuce, things like that.
		But, uh, I was reading about this, because I watched the deer eating the leaves all over the area, and I'm like, can we eat those too?
		And sure enough, I looked up, the answer is yes.
		You have to eat a lot of them non-stop, and it's probably not enough, and you probably will die, but, you know, you'll get some nutrition out of it.
		And so, the point here is this.
		With lots of people, things become cheap, because it's distributed load.
		And then you end up with water.
		Lots and lots of water.
		In certain areas, you have wells.
		And that means, you dig deep enough, and you're good.
		You live by a river, you're good.
		You may have to filter the water, there could be waste runoff and things like that, that's bad.
		But for a lot of places, if it ever got to the point where water was more expensive, reached a certain threshold, and I bet it's 20 or 30 percent, where you're working just to get a drink of water, people will leave.
		They'll leave.
		You can't survive that way.
		For humans, with small populations, we would live near a water source, and you could just get a bucket of water and there's nothing to worry about, because there was a lot of it.
		But now we're in big cities where there's no streams.
		You get water from the faucet.
		Where does the water come from?
		Well, there's a water source, and it goes to a reclamation plant or a processing center of some sort.
		But when that machine becomes expensive, what are people going to do?
		New York doesn't have good water.
		They don't.
		It's a big concrete block.
		And the water, I believe, comes from up north.
		It flows downward.
		And then New York pumps it through the city so that people have something to drink.
		That system is massively expensive to maintain.
		And what happens when there aren't people to maintain it anymore?
		The water stops.
		And when the water stops, the people flee.
		This is the point about the story of Greece.
		The population collapses enough, then there will be no one to maintain basic city services.
		Walking into the center of town, there will be no water.
		What will you do?
		Who's going to want to live there?
		Having to constantly ship in, people will bring in big things.
		No way!
		That's too much.
		The only reason we're able to maintain these big cities where we have water sources miles and miles away is because of these water systems.
		And if humans don't maintain these water systems, then people will have to go directly to the source for their water.
		Which means these big cities will not exist if population gets too small.
		And I'm using water only as one example.
		Everything else means the exact same.
	When people can't maintain public transit, it's going to completely isolate who can work in certain places.
	Some people like to live in New York and then they work, you know, they live in South Manhattan, the financial district, but they work up in Upper West Side or something like that.
	They need transport.
	Maybe they ride their bike.
	What will happen is that people are going to start isolating back around water sources because the cost is too great to maintain these systems.
	It'll change everything.
	There's not gonna be space travel.
	There's not going to be the luxuries you know.
	You're not gonna be able to walk into a grocery store and pick up a thing of beer.
	It's gonna get harder and harder and harder to maintain.
	That's the crisis we're facing.
	Now, let's think about what we can do with a larger population.
	With a larger population, we can go to the stars.
	Who knows what we can build when we have more and more specialties and specialists?
	It's kind of crazy to think about.
	There was a point in time where it was possible to know everything humans knew.
	Isn't that crazy to think about?
	For real, if you go back, what, like a couple hundred thousand years to the dawn of humanity, and everything humans knew, you could know.
	There's trees over there, and there's water over there, and that thing seems to taste good, and there was just very limited knowledge.
	One day a human was like, you know, if I take this here stick and I sharpen it, I can stick things with it.
	And then I can eat them.
	And humans are quite good at taking the next step.
	It's kind of amazing, really, to watch that innovation is actually a bit more innocuous and rudimentary than people would expect.
	So, for instance, the first ever drone live stream.
	Sounds like a big feat.
	A live broadcast via aerial drone.
	Well, I did that with some friends 12, uh, 13 years ago.
	Uh, this would be 12 years ago.
	All we did was take the existing technology and change its code a little bit and then fly it and capture the video signal and broadcast it, combining existing technologies into a new thing.
	And some people say, that's not invention, that's innovation.
	But no, you are wrong.
	Invention is almost always innovation.
	You know, it rarely is it that you have some kind of massive scientific breakthrough by a scientist that results in the creation of a new product.
	A scientist may say, whoa, look at this thing we found, look what it does.
	But it is typically engineers who invent the new thing with it.
	Don't get me wrong, scientists do invent things quite a bit.
	The space race got us a bunch of really awesome stuff.
	I think plastics, paper towels, the ballpoint pen, things like that.
	And, uh, I don't know.
	I could be wrong about the pen, but I think the pen is right.
	So science does these wonderful things, for sure.
	But it's a lot of engineers.
	It's people who take existing ideas and products.
	I mean, take a look at the combustion engine.
	Is it like the combustion engine was invented?
	Or was it that somebody looked at the steam engine and said, is there an alternate fuel source, a denser fuel source, another way to make this thing work?
	And the combustion engine is really just... Take a look at the old school trains shoveling coal to boil the water.
	The steam engine, which would then, you know, drive the wheels of the train.
	And the combustion engine was just the next step.
	Can we just cut the water out of it somehow?
	The steam engine was someone discovering steam pressure.
	And then we take steam pressure and we spin a wheel to generate electricity with large rotating magnets.
	All of it is, is standing on the shoulders of giants.
	The people who came before us put one piece in front of the other and then we added our one piece in front of that.
	It's actually not that difficult.
	Not that difficult.
	Take a look at like the ring camera for instance.
	Was the ring camera invented?
	Or was it an application of methodology?
	I love this video where the ring camera guy goes to Shark Tank and they're like, your idea is stupid.
	Then he came back like eight years later as a shark and a billionaire.
	Cause the ring idea was a great idea.
	The ring camera was a great idea.
	What's the ring camera?
	It's a, uh, basically a cell phone camera.
	Yeah.
	That's, that's what it is.
	You stick it to the front of your door, connects to your wifi, and when someone presses the button, it just sends a beep to your phone.
	That doesn't sound like he invented anything.
	Sounds like he made an app.
	You can stick a smartphone to your door.
	Well, he applied it.
	He specialized, he took what existed with camera tech and Wi-Fi, and he said, let's stick this to your door, and then have it, uh, send you a message.
	The batteries last a really long time, it's fairly impressive.
	But it's a brilliant invention, it is.
	This is all possible thanks to the specialties of individuals.
	If the chip manufacturer didn't exist, if the battery manufacturer didn't exist, if the camera manufacturer didn't exist, Ring Camera would be nothing.
	Now, of course, when you look at companies like McDonald's, they make their own stuff.
	They make their own mayonnaise and their own forks or whatever, their spoons.
	For sure.
	But for the most part, what we're looking at is innovation, adding one piece to the next piece.
	That's all it is.
	There are some things that are great advances, but they're all just one grain of sand added to the heat by other humans.
	This is why I agree with Bezos and Elon Musk.
	But I would take it one step further, my friends.
	If we had a trillion humans, we'd be a galactic species.
	One trillion humans, all working towards, if networked and communicating, we would be able to build wonders beyond imagination.
	Imagine telling people a hundred years ago A hundred years ago, about jumbo jets and satellites.
	And it is because of population expansion and hyper-specialization we're able to do this.
	In the future, with a trillion people, there might be one guy who's like, oh yeah, I'm a circuit reconfiguration specialist.
	My job is quite literally just this one tiny thing.
	How many people does it take to make a pizza?
	Is the idea.
	Someone to make the cheese, someone to make the sauce, someone to make the bread.
	And of course, there is one chef who can do it all.
	There is.
	But these days, that's not how it operates.
	Papa John's sources their wheat, they source their tomato sauce, already, you know, mushed and mixed and all that.
	And they do good stuff.
	They get some of the best ingredients.
	And they don't make the cheese.
	They bring it all together.
	The funny thing is, a lot of the food that we eat?
	Impossible.
	Impossible without massive population.
	I love how some of these dishes require spices from the Far East and grains from the Far West.
	Animals that are not native to this region all mash together and we eat like kings.
	Thanks to massive transportation and hyper-specialization.
	So, why should you be concerned about population collapse?
	Because in the end, you will live in the pod and you will eat the bugs.
	And they say you'll be happy.
	I'll leave it there.
	Next segment's coming up at 6 p.m.
	on this channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
	I want to give a shout-out to our good friend Bill Maher for being honest when he said that abortion is a kind of murder that he's okay with because there's too many people on the planet.
	Well, if you listened to my previous segment, you would know that there's not too many people on the planet.
	There's actually too few.
	It's really just relative, and population collapse is bad.
	But this is actually fascinating.
	This was a big story of the weekend from Friday when Bill Maher said that abortion was murder.
	I'm sure the left will not be too happy with that.
	But Bill Maher's right.
	He's right.
	His opinions are, I believe, morally repugnant.
	But I know that there's a bunch of pro-lifers who will say, so are mine.
	But at least I've always admitted abortion is killing a baby.
	Hands down.
	Period.
	I don't want to get into it.
	Well, we'll get into the moral arguments, I suppose, in a second.
	But here's the story from Real Clear Politics.
	Bill Maher addressed abortion in this week's edition of Real Time.
	Quote, that's why I don't understand the 15, you know what, let's just play the clip.
bill maher ▲ ● ▼		None of you believe it's murder.
		You know, that's why I don't understand the 15-week thing.
		Or the Trump's plan is, let's leave it to the states.
		You mean, so killing babies is okay in some states?
		Like, I can respect the absolutist position.
		I really can.
		I scold the left when they say, oh, you know what?
		They just hate women.
		People who aren't pro-life, pro-choice.
		They just, they don't hate women.
		They just made that up.
		They think it's murder, and it kind of is.
		I'm just okay with that.
		I am.
		I mean, there's 8 billion people in the world.
		I'm sorry, we won't miss you.
		That's my position on that.
unidentified		Wow.
		That's quite harsh, Bill.
		Yeah, exactly.
bill maher ▲ ● ▼		Is that not your position if you're pro-choice?
unidentified		Isn't that mainly because you don't like children?
unidentified		I mean... No, no.
bill maher ▲ ● ▼		I mean... But if you are... You said you're pro-choice.
bill maher ▲ ● ▼		That's your position, too.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Wow.
		That's amazing.
		Certainly it is not my position.
		And he says, that's why I don't understand the 15 week thing or Trump's plan to leave to the States.
		Killing a baby is okay in some states.
		I got to agree.
		I absolutely agree with Bill Maher on that point.
		I don't think killing the baby is okay.
		However, I just think we have an impossible moral standard.
		So I'll give you my thoughts and please comment below and explain why I'm wrong.
		But I've had this conversation numerous times, and the challenge always comes down to the limits of government, and I've heard all of the arguments, but there's not really a good answer.
		There's no real good answer.
		Of course, good friend of the show, Seamus Coghlan, Pro-Life says abortion in any circumstances should be abolished and banned nationwide.
		My issue is, while we are dealing with a strong moral issue, there is a limitation of government in demanding that someone provide their body to another person.
		I've never been given an argument against this.
		The best argument is mitigation.
		Seamus, for instance, and many other pro-lifers say, it is but nine months the woman has to endure sharing her body, and it is death for the other person.
		I do not agree.
		That's a very utilitarian response.
		I don't believe the government should be allowed to take immoral actions against an individual.
		Of course, the response to that is, then allowing a doctor to kill a baby is an immoral action against an individual.
		But this still misses the general idea of the point.
		First, we'll criticize Bill Maher when he says, he's okay with that.
		That is insane.
		I'm not okay with abortion.
		I think abortion is wrong.
		But I think the challenge is this.
		We have questions that have not been answered at the Supreme Court level, which must be, and that is of the 14th Amendment, which I bring up quite a bit and I will bring up again now to make sure everyone understands there is a legal consideration here that has not been answered.
		The 14th Amendment says in Section 1, the second half of the clause, they say, Uh, no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.
		Pause.
		Unborn babies are not citizens.
		It says all persons born or naturalized in the U.S.
		and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens.
		Okay, well, the unborn are not citizens, however.
		It says nor shall any state deprive any person Case in point.
		Supreme Court needs to answer the question, are babies persons?
		That's it.
		I don't understand why at eight months gestation, when the baby can survive on its own outside the mother, it still has no citizenship or personhood, despite the fact that you could just choose to remove it.
		So the question of citizenship at birth is wrong, and I don't believe it should be the standard.
		But right now, this question must be answered.
		This could solve a lot of the problems, probably make them worse in a lot of ways, but still get us closer to where our morality stands.
		Now my position on abortion is, it is killing a baby.
		It is wrong.
		But the state cannot mandate a person give their body to another person.
		That being said, if a woman chooses to engage in behavior in which she allows another person to inhabit her body, you cannot evict said person.
		I'll put it this way.
		You offer to provide blood transfusion to another person.
		Halfway through, you say, no!
		You know what?
		I've changed my mind.
		I don't want to do this.
		Cut him off.
unidentified		Whoa, whoa, whoa.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		At this point, that will kill the other person.
		You can't do that.
		You consented to this.
		The question of consent then comes up.
		I don't know how incest plays a role in this and why conservatives are defending incest in this position.
		I certainly understand incest results in defects and can be problems, but if two individuals consent, why kill the baby?
		In the instance of rape, you end up with a woman who did not consent to share her body with anyone, and the state, I do not believe, has the right to mandate she do.
		Many people then say, but the baby is innocent, and it's the adult father who should get the death penalty, not the baby, and that has nothing to do with my argument.
		My argument is, the state cannot mandate you give your body to someone else for any amount of time.
		Period.
		Only in a circumstance where you consent.
		Of course, many then say, yeah, well that means that women will just claim they were raped.
		Yep, so be it.
		Just because someone might do something bad after the fact doesn't mean we allow the government to take immoral actions against other people.
		And there is no argument anyone can give me where you would get me to believe the state can enforce a person, without their consent, provide their body to another person.
		I will not ever accept a circumstance in which the government goes to someone and say, your body is now property of this person for a set amount of time.
		Never gonna happen.
		I will never support that.
		I would never stand by it.
		That is shockingly evil and outrageous.
		I think killing babies is wrong.
		I think abortion is bad.
		But the idea that we would sanction the government to mandate one person's body to another, Ron Paul had it right.
		Abortion should not be illegal.
		It should be unthinkable.
		And so what should happen is, we need culture, not government.
		We want a world.
		Where the woman says, my deeply held moral beliefs are that the baby shall not die or suffer, and the government need not intervene.
		But the govern- like, solving the problem of morality through government mandate by force, to me is insane.
		That being said, Bill Maher is also insane, I'm just okay with it.
		I'm not okay with any of it.
		But, you know, look, I think about how I would feel if, without my consent, someone else forced someone into my body, and then the government said, too bad, you don't get a say.
		I'd say, oh yeah, you're damn wrong.
		I do get a say.
		And there's nothing you can do about it.
		Again, many people say, but it's the rapist who should get the penalty, not the baby.
		Well, then why would you penalize the mother in any way as well?
		Look, if someone came to you, knocked you unconscious, and when you woke up, your blood was strapped to another person, you're surrounded by cops, and they're like, look, this evil man connected you guys by blood, and if we cut the blood off this person, we'll die.
		The state hereby declares you must share your body with this person from now on.
		No, never gonna happen.
		I won't accept that.
		I'd say no.
		Sorry for that guy, but it's not my fault.
		Yeah, but if you... Now, if you consent to the procedure, then... No!
unidentified		You agreed!
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Man, Bill Maher's argument is absolutely nuts.
		It's crazy that we live in this world.
		It really, really is.
		But I'm glad he's admitting it.
		One of the big issues with the question of abortion is that the left doesn't want to admit they're for killing babies.
		I am not for killing babies.
		The problem is, I am not for the government mandating one person give their body to another person.
		I am not for the idea that a person without their consent for any amount of time would have to provide their body to another person without their consent.
		This is not happening.
		The state?
		No way.
		So it's a rock and a hard place.
		And then there's an eviction of... You know?
		I get it.
		The baby will die.
		There's a lot of problems around it, but that's just it.
		You know?
		I don't blame the baby.
		But still.
		It's not my problem.
		It was a crime committed against me, and I'm not responsible for this.
		We need a culture that doesn't allow it.
		Not laws.
		You want to solve this problem, you need culture.
		This is a step in the right direction, though.
		The liberals like to say, ah, it's not a baby, it's a fetus, it's not alive.
		Vosch said something, like I said, when he was on the show, this was years ago, when is a baby alive?
		And he goes, I don't know, sometime after birth?
		That's ridiculous!
		Sometime after birth?
		Babies, two babies are identical, gestated, both at eight months.
		One is removed by C-section, alive, healthy, and fine.
		The other is still in the womb.
		One's a human and one's not?
		That's an absurdity.
		Getting liberals to admit they think it's murder is step one.
		And now they're going to have to contend with the fact that they're pro-murder?
		We're talking about circumstances in which they can electively choose, after consenting, to terminate the life.
		I think that's wrong.
		I don't have good answers for you, however.
		I really don't.
		Perhaps, according to the 14th Amendment, the simple answer is abortion with due process.
		Meaning, if a woman wants to get an abortion, she has to go to court and say, I did not consent to this.
		And then prove it.
		That may be harsh, and I'm not sure that's the best circumstance.
		I'm saying, I don't know what the best answer is, but the Supreme Court is going to have to answer that question.
		Because Bill Maher is right about one thing.
		The idea that you would recognize this as baby murder, but then think that a state can decide when a baby should be allowed to be murdered makes literally no sense.
		None.
		But I'll leave it there.
		Not like I'm gonna have any good answers for you.
		Next segment's coming up at 8 p.m.
		over at youtube.com slash TomCastIRL.

▲