Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

May 2, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:25:41

ARRESTS & LESS LETHAL Rounds Fired At Pro Hamas UCLA Protest, House Says Criticizing Israel ILLEGAL

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 ARRESTS & LESS LETHAL Rounds Fired At Pro Hamas UCLA Protest, House Says Criticizing Israel ILLEGAL Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

01:20:19

Appearances

Clips

jake tapper

00:56

josh hammer

00:31

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Become a member at TimCast.com by clicking join us to support the work we're doing and to get access to the uncensored TimCast IRL call-in show Monday through Thursday at 10 p.m.
		You don't want to miss it.
		Now, let's get into the news.
		As I record this opening segment today, police in Los Angeles are clearing out UCLA pro-Hamas protests.
		We can see an image here of a man being arrested, and there are reports of police firing rubber bullets.
		We've got videos of the encampment being torn down, police throwing Palestinian flags.
		It seems like this is the end for the UCLA protests.
		So we'll cover this, and then of course we have last night's passing of the anti-Semitism bill.
		Matt Gaetz, wow this one's interesting, he defies this.
		He says it would basically make the Bible illegal.
		One of the things in this anti-semitism bill, it's using the IHRA, it's the Holocaust Remembrance Museum, I'm getting the name wrong, but it uses their definition of anti-semitism, one of which says you can't say Jews killed Jesus, you can't claim that Israeli governmental policy is akin to the Nazi policy, It outright, it's saying your opinion on the policies of Israel are anti-Semitic.
		And of course, Donald Trump supports this, and there are many Republicans who do.
		Matt Gaetz, of course, defies this, and he gets, the media is coming after him hard on this one.
		I'm not necessarily surprised, but we'll break this down.
		We'll start with what's going on at UCLA with the breaking news.
		But the first thing I want to say is, while it is being reported definitively by Sky News and many others that rubber bullets are being fired, I do not believe rubber bullets are being fired.
		Why?
		I have been personally fired upon with less lethal munitions by California Highway Patrol and LAPD more than once.
		And I know the weapons that they use.
		Now granted, this is 10 years ago.
		It's been a long time.
		But based on the videos that we're seeing, which I'll pull up for you, it appears they're using beanbag rounds, although they may actually be firing rubber bullets.
		The point I want to bring up is that the videos people are showing, it's these orange, less lethal shotguns that fire beanbags, typically, not rubber bullets.
		However, there is one video showing the police officers holding what I believe it's, uh, I always get the number wrong, but I think it's 44 millimeter expanding foam rounds, commonly referred to as rubber bullets.
		Which I will actually show you an image of because they shot him at me!
		And I picked one up and I took a picture of it.
		So here's the breaking news, this is Sky.
		Hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters at UCLA camped out with hard hats, goggles, and respirator masks.
		Police shown firing rubber bullets at protesters.
		I don't know that that's true.
		Arrests began with protesters held with zip ties on their wrists.
		Bear spray fired to deter police.
		It's the extremists firing on cops.
		Police attempting to re-enter the encampment in greater numbers after a temporary retreat.
		So they say, as of 9.04am, which is, you can tell what time I'm recording this, 16 minutes ago, UCLA protest encampment is over.
		As daylight dawns on LA, the UCLA encampment has ended.
		A mini-village of tents, gazebos, and signs protesting Israel's war in Gaza is now a pile of rubble and debris.
		Discarded tents and sleeping bags are strewn across the school's Royce Quad.
		Which had been the protesters' home for more than a week.
		A hardcore of protesters continued to hold out against police and could be heard chanting slogans, repeated calls for the college to divest from its financial interests in Israel.
		What?
		What are their interests?
		But many have been led away by police, their hands tied behind their backs with, they say, white cable ties.
		I believe they're talking about the zip ties.
		Uh, so here you can see the photos of the rubble.
		What's left of this disaster.
		Looks like a bomb went off.
		These people have no regard for the environment.
		There's just garbage strewn everywhere.
		I gotta tell you, man, as someone who's covered a lot of these protests, you come down to these places and you will see the absolute environmental devastation these scumbags bring.
		They destroy the grass.
		They leave human waste, trash, garbage, spoiled food.
		Animals come to eat it.
		They don't clean it up.
		It's shockingly offensive.
		Now, we have this.
		They say police shown firing rubber bullets at protesters.
		Footage is now emerging that appears to show police shooting rubber bullets at protesters.
		A series of videos have been posted online showing officers in riot gear opening fire on demonstrators after tearing down barricades.
		Fox 11 in LA is among the outlets to have captured the footage, with the reporter Gina Silva heard exclaiming, oh my goodness, as shots are being fired by police.
		They're shooting rubber bullets, she says.
		Wrong!
		They're extremely painful.
		If they hit your arm or leg, they could break your arm.
	They could kill you.
	Separate footage posted on X shows an armed officer telling people to move back for their own safety while the police open fire.
	So let's, uh, we'll, we'll, uh, pull this one up.
	Uh, okay.
	So here we go.
	It says police.
	This is 4 33 AM.
	So this is around 7 30 Eastern time.
	And you can see it looks like this, this officer does have rubber bullets.
	And so, uh, I, I, I, I don't see him actually opening fire with it.
	Alright, there we go.
	uh... let's pull will play You see the orange?
	That's less lethal.
	Typically firing beanbags.
	I'll show you the specific beanbags they fire.
	Now this right here.
	This guy's got, I believe it's 44mm.
	It's been a long time since I've covered the use of less lethal munitions.
	But he does not... I mean, did he just fire?
	He may have fired.
	It looks like he did.
	It's hard to tell.
	Let's try that one more time.
	I can't tell if he actually fired or not.
	Let's see that one more time.
	I don't think he fired.
	Looks like he's aiming, but he... yeah.
	So that looks like it actually is loaded with an expanding foam round.
	People call those rubber bullets.
	But I don't believe that he actually fired.
	And I know it's a distinction.
	The police have opened fire with less lethals on the protest here.
	Halal Flow tweeting this clip from Good Day Los Angeles.
	I'll play this one for you.
unidentified		There's a struggle going on over here now, but again, some...
		Wow.
		Oh my goodness.
		This is so dangerous.
		Again, they're shooting rubber bullets, but I can tell you from doing stories about rubber bullets, they are extremely painful if they hit.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They are likely not firing rubber bullets, and I think it's an important thing to understand.
		Give a shout out to Ryan Reilly for this classic from 10 years ago in Ferguson, when he posted a picture of earplugs on the ground, and he said, I believe these are rubber bullets.
		Can anyone confirm?
		Yes, he found earplugs on the ground.
		Ryan, I'm so sorry that you had no idea what you were doing when you entered a conflict zone and tried to cover it, and Twitter has certainly exposed the editorial failures of these organizations.
		Let me see if I have the photo pulled up.
		This is an image.
		That is my hand in this image.
		Let's open the image in a new tab.
		This is the Expanding Foam Round in Anaheim, California, which is CHP and Anaheim Police were using these.
		Now, these are what are ejected.
		They're these big canisters.
		And I thought I had the photo pulled up.
		It's really annoying, but apparently I don't.
		Or is it actually that I have a story about it?
		Oh, that's frustrating.
		I thought I had this pulled up.
		Let me pull up Bean Bag Round California, show you the bean bag rounds that they use.
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!
		Oh, you know what it was?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There it is.
		I do have it pulled up.
		It's at Washington Post Store.
		Here you go.
		This is from Washington Post, June 23rd.
		They say Fairfax Police swapped shotgun rounds for beanbags, part of national shift.
		Now, this is not about California.
		This is Fairfax County.
		Yeah, it's Virginia.
		You can see the orange shotgun with bean bags.
		I wonder if they have a better image.
		There you go.
		This is likely what they're firing at the protesters.
		They do hurt.
		They damage the skin.
		They don't break.
		Well, they could break the skin, depending on... And they can be lethal, depending on where you get shot with it.
		But for the most part, these are less lethal.
		They're called less lethal because they can kill you.
		This is what they are firing at the protesters.
		I think that is a particularly important distinction.
		It does appear they are armed with these.
		We call these rubber bullets.
		Some people call them expanding foam rounds.
		This may not be an expanding foam.
		I don't know.
		That's what the cops told us, actually.
		And so this is what they're firing at the protesters.
		I think that's an important distinction.
		And then, of course, we have photos here.
		Tenet Media, of course, showing police tear down a Palestinian flag and then throw it.
		Seems kind of dangerous, but, you know, they're tearing it down.
		We have this from Andy Ngo.
		Actually, it's from Tenet Media, reposted by Andy Ngo.
		Police tore down the border walls of the violent Gaza encampment at my alma mater and shut down the occupation after days of violence involving counter-protesters at the camps and the camp's fighting brigade.
		So here, the cops are tearing the protest apart.
		And then I think we have We have this from Anthony Cabasa.
		UCLA police, CHP riot police, broken through, breached the encampment, and people are now being arrested and detained.
		This is the end of the UCLA encampment.
		Of course, they're using less lethals, as we've covered.
		But now on to the bigger picture, I suppose.
		I don't necessarily care to keep covering, oh, there's protest camps, they're getting shut down again, but it is the breaking news that's happening right now.
		I'm more interested in talking about what's going on with the anti-Semitism bill.
		I want to highlight this real quick because there was a tweet that I had pulled up, aside from this one, where the protesters are all praying.
		But I want to point out, this is a person, they say, a post-millennial says pro-Palestinian protester prays in front of police at UCLA.
		Ah, no.
		I believe that's incorrect.
		Now, I'm not a Muslim.
		I know not very much.
		But my understanding, and so correct me if I'm wrong, is that they must pray in accordance with something called a Qibla or direction.
		I'm, again, not an expert, probably getting it wrong.
		But that is, I'm vaguely familiar with Muslims pray towards Kabbah, towards the mosque, and this is just a person going in front of police and pretending like they're praying.
		What the activists do is they hold fake prayer, where they will say, we're now going to have our Muslim brothers and sisters pray.
		Everyone link arms to protect them, as if they're under threat from something.
		It's performative.
		It's performative.
		As an aside, we have this story here.
		House passes anti-Semitism bill.
		It's Johnson highlights campus protests.
		And this is where things get crazy.
		Donald Trump went out on, I think I have this tweet here.
		We'll play the full clip in a second.
		Michael Tracey saying Trump phoned into Hannity's show last night to declare we have to stop the anti-Semitism that's just pervading our country right now.
		He says the US needs to get the courage to support Israel even more unreservedly.
	I think Biden is not on the side of Israel.
	You know, I'll say this, right?
	I think the anti-Semitism bill is bad.
	I think it's going to cause problems.
	And let me pull up the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism so we can go through this and I can break down for you what the problem Matt Gaetz and others have.
	I think the bill is bad because it makes it so you can't criticize Israel.
	Here's a story from CNN Politics.
	The House voted on Wednesday to pass the bipartisan Anti-Semitism Awareness Act, a vote that comes
	heightened concerns over anti-Semitism, with Israel at war with Hamas, and as pro-Palestinian
	protests have sprung up on college campuses across the country.
	Supporters of the legislation say it will help combat anti-Semitism on college, but
	opponents say it overreaches and threatens to chill free speech.
	The first thing I'll say is, I would say I probably, you know, when it comes to Israel,
	60-40.
	I look at the polls among, like, Republicans, and you can see the approval, disapproval, and I can see the independents, and I can see the Democrats overwhelmingly disapprove of Israel.
	My attitude is fairly pro-Israel, but I'm not big on foreign spending to support their military or otherwise, and why we're involved in this war.
	I am extremely disapproving of the U.S.
	invasion of Gaza, which is currently underway with our men and women in uniform, under fire, mortar fire already, with the Secretary of Defense saying they may return fire.
	It is likely, it is probable.
	That's insane.
	But, look.
	I think when you look at the politics of the region, you have war.
	Israel is a country.
	It exists.
	People don't like it because Israel's formation is in the past hundred years or whatever, and I'm like, don't care.
	Conquest, colonization, conquering, establishing of lands, all of these things exist, and I'm not interested in being involved.
	Ron Paul says you can't promise the children of one generation to another.
	You cannot say, in 20 years, our country will defend you.
	Because that's promising children who have not made the choice.
	And I agree.
	At the same time, I don't think you can blame the children of the past.
	So, we're here.
	We're here.
	Israel exists.
	I don't know why we are funding it.
	I mean, what I should say is, the U.S.
	military-industrial complex wants a massive intelligence and security foothold in the region, and is willing to defend the interests of a foreign nation to an extreme degree.
	But the idea that you can't criticize them.
	Take a look at this.
	Politico reports Gates under fire for defending anti-Semitism vote with anti-Semitic trope.
	Nah, I get offended by this.
	I'm not even a Christian.
	Ally of former Speaker Kevin McCarthy called Gaetz an anti-Semite and a pedophile.
	Look at this.
	Jeff Miller, a close ally of former Speaker McCarthy, called Gaetz an anti-semitic pedophile on X. They're going to say, in his post, Gaetz said anti-semitism is wrong, but he said the bill violates the Constitution and common sense with its definition of anti-semitic language.
	The bill says the definition of anti-semitism includes contemporary examples of anti-semitism.
	One of those is claims of Jews killing Jesus.
	The Bible is clear.
	There is no myth or controversy on this, therefore I will not support this bill.
	Politico says, definitively, claims that Jews are responsible for the execution of Jesus by Roman authorities have long been regarded as an anti-Semitic trope and rejected by historians and theologians.
	That is one of the most insane things I have ever seen, because this is quite literally the story of the Passion of the Christ.
	The Jewish leaders consider him a blasphemer, I believe it was Pontius Pilate, says, you can free one man, Barabbas the murderer or Jesus the blasphemer, and they said the murderer, and the story goes, and it's in the Bible, Matt Gaetz posted the passages, I don't, that's just it, Jesus was a Jew, and he was considered to be a blasphemer among Jewish leaders, and the Romans literally put him to death,
	But the argument is, in the Bible it says that the Jews killed the Son of God and all of this stuff.
	Matt Gaetz posted all of this.
	You know what?
	I want to make sure I have the passages.
	I'm going to pull this up just because... I didn't actually have it pulled up.
	I'm going to pull it up.
	I'll pull it up.
	Because it's insane that they're saying it is now against the law, a violation of Title IX, to actually say this.
	So here we go.
	I have the tweet here from Matt Gaetz.
	I'm not a Christian, okay?
	But if the Bible says it, how can you claim it's anti-semitic?
	So Christianity is anti-semitic?
	I guess.
	Here it says, Be it known to you all, this is Acts 4.10, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified.
	Okay.
	Maybe it's saying, to you all.
	Referring to everybody.
	Fine.
	It says, Thessalonians For you suffered the same things from your own countrymen as they did from the Jews who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets.
	It's just in the Bible you're not allowed to say that.
	Elise Stefanik voted to pass the Anti-Semitism Awareness Act and Donald Trump says we must deal with the anti-semitism.
	Alright.
	I'm gonna go through the working definition of anti-semitism and I'll tell you where I stand on this.
	Let's start.
	With the first example they give, calling for, aiding or justifying the killing or harming of Jews in the name of a radical ideology, or an extremist view of religion, completely agree that violates the Civil Rights Act.
	If our institution, an individual who speaks their mind is allowed, so if someone's on a soapbox, but public accommodations and government institutions should not be able to discriminate on the basis of religion, same as anybody else.
	Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such, or the power of Jews as a collective, such as especially but not exclusively the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy, or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government, or social institutions.
	I view that as much in line with the first one.
	It's remarkable how people are absolutely obsessed with this idea.
	I certainly think they're a group of powerful individuals who are Jewish, And then there are the Hasidic Jews who lived in, I lived in their neighborhood actually, in New York, who were complaining to me about the price of oranges they couldn't afford.
	And that's why I'm like, that was the argument I had with Kanye, an argument I have with a lot of people, when Kanye said, who is they though?
	And I'm just like, dude.
	Powerful, wealthy people who happen to be Jewish but are probably secular and not even practicing a religion.
	And then the actual religious Jews.
	In my neighborhood, I walked into a grocery store and there was a lady being like, the prices of oranges, I can't afford it.
	And I'm like, doesn't sound like all that powerful to me.
	accusing Jews of being people responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing
	committed by a single Jewish person or group.
	See, that's actually what I'm saying.
	Denying the fact, scope, and mechanisms, or intentionally, of the genocide of the Jewish people
	at the hands of National Socialist Germany and its supporters and accomplices during World War II.
	See, I think the Holocaust was an atrocity.
	One of the worst things we've seen in human history.
	I think the Holodomor as well.
	But I also think people who are questioning the acts of governments in history is very different from attacking the people who are Jewish.
	If you're talking about being racist, I say it's when you have positive or negative discrimination based on race.
	Antisemitic is just a specific word for positive or negative discrimination based on someone being Jewish, religious, or ethnically.
	And so if someone says, your claims about history are antisemitic, it's like, I mean, if you're making claims that there's a conspiracy or something among a certain group of people, fine.
	But if you're just saying, I don't believe the history books, this is where you get weird.
	But ultimately, I'm not super concerned about that, but it is kind of weird now that they're basically saying, at universities, with this new bill, denying the Holocaust is now effectively a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
	Did I say IX?
	Title VI.
	IX is the gender one.
	That's where we're getting into weird territory.
	Accusing Jews or Israel of inventing and exaggerating the Holocaust.
	Again, like, I don't know why the Israel thing is in there.
	Certainly, I think, accusing a group of people of orchestrating grand conspiracies and lying about history and stuff is, yeah, it's negative discrimination based on their religion.
	Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide in the interests of their own nations.
	Look, man, some people are.
	There are people who are Iranian and American and the countries don't recognize dual citizenship and they may be more or less aligned with one of the nations.
	There are people who are Canadian-American who like Canada or America better.
	It's not saying you hate Jews or you're attacking all Jewish people to criticize someone because you think they care more about Israel.
	There are dual citizens U.S.
	Israeli who grow up in Israel and serve in the IDF.
	I certainly think that shows they're more loyal to Israel.
	I don't think there's anything wrong with that.
	That's weird.
	Here we go.
	Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination by claiming the existence of the State of Israel is a racist endeavor.
	It's awfully specific, but I guess calling Israel racist is... I don't know.
	Weird?
	You're criticizing a government.
	I don't understand.
	Applying double standards by requiring of it a behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation.
	We're talking about a country here, not a people!
	That's crazy.
	Using the symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism.
	Claims of Jews killing Jesus.
	Yet Matt Gaetz laid out the biblical passages that say that.
	I'm not a Christian.
	I'm not saying I agree with those passages, but it basically says those Bible statements could not be read on a college campus.
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 Here we go.
		Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
		Yo, that's a government, not a religion.
		That is insane.
		on trial with Josh Hammer. Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcast.
		It's America on trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Here we go. Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
		That's a government, not a religion. That is insane. That is saying if your opinion of Israel
		is that they are like the Nazis, you're an anti-Semite.
		What does that have to do with Jews as an ethnicity or religion?
		It has everything to do with government policy.
		So if Netanyahu came out and took a dump on the floor, and you were like, the policy of, you know, if he says, it's here by our policy to dump on the floor, you'd be like, that's bad.
		They go, well, you're an anti-Semite.
		What?
		No, I'm criticizing one guy doing bad things.
		This is nuts.
		Holding Jews collectively responsible for the actions of the State of Israel?
		I agree.
		This is what I can't stand.
		There are people who are like, it's not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel.
		They say that.
		And I agree.
		It is not anti-Semitic to criticize Israel.
		That's insane.
		And then when I say something like, and this happens all the time, on Twitter, on YouTube, I'll say something like, You know, Israel has a right to defend itself.
		And then people start saying, Little Hat Tim, and he got the call, and Goy, and Shabos, and all of these things.
		And I'm like, gee, it's really interesting how I'm talking about the military campaign and policy of a nation, and you immediately jump to Jew.
		So I agree with that.
		I agree with, there are people who conflate these two things.
		The problem is, this HolocaustRemembrance.com is telling you, you can't criticize Israel, because they're anti-Semitic.
		And then you have these other people who call you pro-Jew, if you say something like, Israel is a country that can defend itself, when that has nothing to do with Jews.
		It's a government.
		So long as both sides want to conflate the two, the two were conflated.
		But I'll give a shout-out to the Daily Wire crew, because they've all called it out.
		Matt Walsh, Jeremy Boring, even Ben Shapiro have said, this bill is nuts.
		This is ridiculous.
		And I agree.
		But look how they come after Matt Gaetz on this one.
		Yo, that's absolutely nuts.
		It's apparently not going to make it to the Senate, and so it's mostly virtue signaling, but that Elise Stefanik supported this, it's just... have a backbone.
		She's not the only one.
		I'm not trying to single her out.
		It's just one I saw.
		But shout out to Matt Gaetz for standing up and saying free speech.
		I'll leave it there.
		Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
		on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out and I'll see you all then.
		It is a culture war debate!
		Why did Ben Shapiro and Candace Owens not debate the issue of Israel-Palestine anti-Semitism, etc.?
		Well, according to Glenn Greenwald, the Daily Wire had a prior restraint gag order against Owens, preventing her from actually having this debate.
		He argues in his Locals Post, That when Candace Owens said she wanted to debate Ben Shapiro, The Daily Wire went after her, saying that was disparaging our company and a violation of our non-disparagement agreement.
		Now, it appears in the article a comment from Jeremy Boring, co-CEO of The Daily Wire, denies this, saying it's inaccurate to the point of being false.
		And I'm going to tell you right off the bat, It doesn't seem correct, this narrative.
		And I know that Glenn Greenwald and there are many, I guess you call them disaffected liberals, that are very much in favor of the protests that we're seeing.
		Not to accuse Glenn of anything, but I think this comes off as a bias against the Daily Wire.
		There are a lot of people who don't like the Daily Wire because Ben Shapiro has overtly defended intervention when it pertains to Israel.
		And there are a lot of MAGA America First types who do not want the U.S.
		spending any money overseas.
		But let's do this.
		The bigger story here, we have this article From just earlier last month, Ben Shapiro, Candace Owens split reflects how Israel antisemitism divide the U.S.
		right and what the big picture is.
		So we'll talk about this news and then we'll get into where we currently are with this narrative that the antisemitism bill has banned the Bible!
		I'm exaggerating.
		The argument from people is that it made certain passages anti-semitic, which could get you fined.
		I don't think there's criminal charges for violations of the Civil Rights Act.
		I think it's civil.
		Or I think it's a fine.
		I think it is criminal, but I think it's a fine.
		Anyway, let's read the story from Glenn Greenwald, and we'll break this down and give my thoughts on it.
	Glenn Greenwald writes, on April 5th Candace Owens publicly invited her former Daily Wire colleague Ben Shapiro to a debate about Israel and the current definition of anti-Semitism.
	It was Owens' criticism of US financing of Israel and her criticisms of Israel's war in Gaza that caused her departure from the Daily Wire two weeks earlier.
	I don't think that's correct.
	It was Owen's criticisms of U.S.
	financing Israel that caused her departure.
	I don't think that's wholly correct.
	I'm sorry, Glenn's just asserting that.
	I think it played a role for sure, but as many people pointed out, she left the Daily Wire March, around the same time, three years later, around the same time That she had signed the contract three years earlier, sorry.
	So, a lot of people pointed out, like, oh, it looks like she had a three-year contract and it just expired.
	Certainly, they didn't get along, for sure.
	Bull's Shapiro and The Daily Wire's CEO, Jeremy Boring, responded by saying they would like to arrange the debate requested by Owens that night.
	Shapiro appeared to accept the offer, writing on X, sure, Candace, I texted you on February 29th offering this very thing.
	The Daily Wire co-founder added, let's do it on my show this Monday at 5 p.m.
	at our studios in Nashville, 90 minutes live-streamed.
	After Owens objected to the format and timing, she and Boring exchanged several tweets in which they appeared to be negotiating and then agreeing to the terms of the format of the debate.
	Owens had suggested the debate be moderated by Joe Rogan or Lex Fridman.
	Hey, now hold on there.
	I believe she also mentioned my name.
	And I was like, yes, we'll do it.
	But I do think Rogan would be good.
	I actually think Lex Fridman would be pretty good.
	I'm not a big fan of Fridman.
	I don't mean that to say I don't like him, I'm just saying I don't listen to his stuff, you know what I mean?
	It is weird when you say something like, I'm not a big fan, it sounds like you don't like them.
	No, I just don't listen to Alex Freeman.
	I think he would be really good for this, actually, as he is a rather calm and neutral party in this.
	Shapiro said he wanted no moderator.
	They ultimately agreed to the terms, with Boring offering a series of conditions, including a no-moderator debate, with Owens publicly accepting.
	Two weeks later, many readers of both Shapiro and Owens noticed and complained the debate had not yet happened.
	On April 24th, Owens addressed those inquiries by explaining the Daily Wire had yet to propose the dates, while reiterating her strong desire to ensure the debate happened.
	But the debate was never going to happen.
	That is because the Daily Wire, in secret and unbeknownst to its readers, sought a gag order to be placed on Owens after she had called for a debate.
	They did this under the cover of secrecy, before a private arbitrator, at exactly the same time when they were claiming, in public, that they wanted this debate and were even negotiating the terms with her.
	To this date, the Daily Wire has not informed its readers, seeking to understand why the much-anticipated debate had not yet happened, that they had sought and obtained a gag order against Owens.
	The first thing I'm going to say is, as someone who is involved in, and has been involved in, arbitration and lawsuits, it's not this simple.
	And also, knowing the Daily Wire crew, Jeremy and Candace, I don't think it's so simple as to say that Jeremy behind the scenes was like, we're never going to have this debate, mwahaha.
	There's probably things that are actually prohibiting them, and he actually denies it in this, but let's read more and then we'll break this down.
	When seeking a gag order to be imposed on Owens, the Daily Wire accused her of violating the non-disparagement clause of her agreement with the company.
	To substantiate this accusation, the company specifically cited Owens' initial tweet requesting a debate with Shapiro as proof of this disparagement.
	Along with concerns, she voiced that Shapiro appeared to be violating the confidentiality agreement between them publicly, maligning Owens' views to explain her departure from the company.
	Well, the company claimed before the arbitrator that it did not object in principle to a healthy debate.
	It urged the imposition of a gag order on Owens by claiming that the way she requested the debate constituted disparagement of Shapiro and the site.
	Now, hold on there a minute.
	Does that mean no debate will happen?
	It sounds like the argument so far, based on Glenn's reporting on this, assuming it's all true, is that they said, the way she's doing this is disparaging us.
	We could do a debate, but calm down.
	Perhaps?
	To justify the gag order it wanted, the company also cited various criticisms of the Daily Wire and Shapiro on X that Owens had liked this proceeding took place as part of an exchange of legal threats between the parties after the public agreement to debate about Israel was solidified.
	Those threats arose from the fact that various Daily Wire executives and hosts, in both public and private, were castigating Owens as an anti-Semite.
	On March 22nd, Daily Wire host Andrew Klavan published a one-hour video that hurled multiple accusations, including anti-Semitism, at Owens.
	The Daily Wire cited Owens' response to that video, her defense of herself from those multiple occasions, as further proof that she needed to be gagged.
	Now, I will say, I saw this and I think Klavan was absolutely wrong, misinterpreted a post about Candace Owens, believing it to be true.
	Candace Owens responded.
	The initial tweet from Owens not only requested a debate, but also included a video from the popular comedian Andrew Schultz, who had mocked the Daily Wire for firing Owens over disagreements regarding Israel, and specifically mocked Shapiro for his willingness to debate only undergraduate students.
	The tweet underneath Owen's original debate request included a summary of Schultz's mockery
	of Shapiro, which stated, Schultz now realizes Ben Shapiro is only good at debating college
	liberals and can't win debates against serious competition.
	That sounds like that's what they're arguing, that that's disparaging. I, I, I, I, I.
	I gotta be honest, like, if there's any truth to a legal filing from the Daily Wire that they're like, we don't want Candace Owens disparaging us, I, you know, look, I gotta be honest.
	I'd be more of the mind of like, Candace, say whatever you want.
	You know what I mean?
	Say it, we'll say stuff back.
	I don't think they're served properly by this course of action.
	But I do believe, and Jeremy, boring in this, he actually denies it.
	I do believe there's more to this story we probably don't understand.
	It's not so simple.
	After the prior restraint hearing sought by the Daily Wire and Shapiro, the arbitrator sided with them against Owens.
	The arbitrator agreed with the Daily Wire that Owens' call to debate Shapiro in a follow-up negotiation of the debate constituted disparagement Of the company and Shapiro.
	Is it the Schultz post where they insulted him saying he only debates college liberals?
	Because that's just not even true.
	Ben Shapiro, I don't even know when was the last time he had a yelling, you know, I shouldn't say yelling, but you know, calling out college liberals at universities.
	Ben Shapiro has debated lots of people.
	The company argued that any further attempt by Owens to debate, as well as her suggesting that the debate would expose The Daily Wire's real priorities, constituted criticisms of the site and of Shapiro.
	Criticisms that the arbitrator concluded Owens was barred from expressing under her contract with the company.
	The Arbitrator thus imposed a gag order of prior restraint on Owens.
	Among other things, the order banned Owens from saying or doing anything in the future which could tarnish or harm the reputation of the Daily Wire and or Ben Shapiro.
	Given that the Daily Wire had argued and the Arbitrator agreed that Owens' offers to debate Shapiro about Israel and Semitism were themselves disparaging, The Daily Wire has ensured that the debate with Owens that they publicly claimed to want could not, in fact, take place.
	Any such debate would be in conflict with the gag order they obtained on Owens from expressing any criticisms of the site or of Shapiro.
	I'm going to pause and just say, what I don't—the reason why I'm skeptical of this, and I think that there may be more to the story, is that the arbitrator agreed with The Daily Wire.
	It sounds like we're not getting the full picture on this one.
	When asked for comment to be included in the story, Owens replied, I wish I could comment on this, but I can't, can neither confirm nor deny.
	Jeremy Boring said, your story is inaccurate to the point of being false.
	Though he did not specify a single inaccuracy, nor did he deny that the Daily Wire had sought or obtained a gag order on Owens.
	You see, this is where I'm just like, Glenn, come on, man.
	You're a lawyer.
	You get it.
	Jeremy Boring and Candace Owens both neither can come out and disparage the other.
	That's the point of arbitration.
	So, Here's what we could say.
	How about I write this?
	When asked for comment to be included in the story, Owen said, I wish I could comment, but I can't, adding, she can neither confirm nor deny, refusing to actually deny allegations that she had been disparaging Ben Shapiro and this organization, and would not even tell us why.
	Like, you get my point.
	If you want to say that Boring said it was inaccurate to the point of being false, but he did not specify a single inaccuracy, nor did he deny Neither did Candace.
	It's because it's arbitration.
	So, you can see the bias in the story.
	The confirmation we obtained of all these facts is indisputable.
	Boring edit, I'm sure you can appreciate how fraught a high-profile breakup like this is.
	For that reason, we are trying to resolve our issues with Candace privately.
	It certainly seems true that Daily Wire is attempting to achieve all of this privately, nonetheless.
	Ben Shapiro has constructed his very lucrative media brand and persona based on his supposed superiority in debating.
	Reputation cultivated largely as a result of numerous appearances in undergraduate schools around the country.
	Where he intrepidly engages with students who are often in their teens or early twenties.
	You see the game they're playing?
	Come on, guys.
	Ben Shapiro's debated people.
	You don't have to like Ben Shapiro.
	By all means, please criticize the guy.
	Some people have criticized his stance on intervention.
	I disagree with him on intervention.
	He's been in favor of the U.S.
	supporting and funding the Israeli military.
	He's concerned that it'll escalate into greater conflict.
	I'm concerned that funding Israel will lead to greater conflict.
	He's concerned not funding it.
	I think he's wrong.
	He's allowed to be wrong, in my opinion.
	And I'll disagree with him.
	I think overwhelmingly, Candace, The Daily Wire, I, Crowder, SticksXenamor, Viva Frye, I name these people all the time.
	We overwhelmingly agree on so much.
	Stories like this are very silly.
	I much prefer to be like, hey guys, you should handle this privately, and the debates should happen, and they should happen how they can happen, and the debates are great, and then we should all agree on the 90 plus percent things we agree on.
	And so, I know there's going to be a lot of people in the comments being like, no Tim, Ben Shapiro's this, or Candace Owen's that.
	I'm a big fan of Candace Owen's, she's brilliant.
	I'm a big fan of Ben Shapiro, also brilliant.
	They disagree on this issue.
	I disagree with both of them on many different issues.
	Here I am, the milquetoast fence-sitter on the issue, you get the point.
	My attitude is not so much to be a milquetoast fence-sitter, and to clarify what that is, that's not an insult to me.
	A lot of people think that it was like, people are insulting you when they say it.
	Some may be intending to.
	It comes from me trying to de-escalate conflict and be like, we should be agreeing on things we agree on and focusing on what we can
	accomplish together.
	That includes the left and the right. There's a viral video right now. It's awesome.
	Where the right is chanting FJB and then the camera pans over and the left is chanting FJB,
	you know, F Joe Biden. And I'm just like, I keep bringing everybody together. Can we agree on the
	things we agree on and solve the problem? Like, how about all the MAGA people and all of the,
	you know, anti-Israel people, be it left or right, we just go, hey, guys, instead of having a moral
	debate over the issue of Israel, how about we just agree non-intervention and we cut the foreign
	funding?
	And then we're good!
	Like, you guys can have your moral debate all day and night.
	Here's something we can accomplish.
	Of course, The Daily Wire, mostly Ben Shapiro, is more in favor of that intervention.
	I disagree.
	I like The Daily Wire.
	I think they're doing tremendously good work.
	I think Bent Key, children's programming, Is incredible.
	And so there's a lot of people who are mad.
	Like, here's what I want to say.
	Like, the purpose of all of this is, don't throw the baby out of the bathwater.
	If you're mad at Ben, if you're mad at Daily Wire, if you're mad at Boring, if you don't trust them, if you agree with Glenn and all that stuff, please criticize the Daily Wire.
	There you go.
	But please accept, the stuff they're doing with BentKey, making children's programming to combat the woke insanity, is a massive net positive that we need.
	Right?
	So by all means, be like, oh, Ben is completely wrong, I can't believe they're doing this, but thank you guys for the hard work you are doing with making children's content, for the shows that you've created and the impact you've had.
	Matt Walsh, What Is A Woman?
	Amazing work, historic.
	Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles are absolutely fantastic.
	I'll be honest, like, I don't listen to a lot of Ben Shapiro.
	I do actually listen periodically to Matt Walsh and Michael Knowles.
	I don't know why.
	I don't know.
	It's just on Twitter and then I watch it.
	I don't really see that much Ben Shapiro stuff.
	I don't watch much Candace Owens for that matter as well.
	He goes on to say, It was the imperatives of this media branding that
	presumably led The Daily Wire and Shapiro to publicly agree to debate with Owens over Israel and anti-Semitism in the
	first place.
	Indeed, when it became apparent early, at the start of Israel's war in Gaza, that Owens had major differences with
	Shapiro, Boring responded to calls from Israel supporters for Owens
	to be fired by proclaiming in November, Even if we could, we would not fire Candace because of
	another thing we have in common.
	A desire not to regulate the speech of our hosts, even when we disagree with them.
	Candace is paid to give her opinion, not mine or Ben's.
	Unless his opinions run afoul of the law or she violates the terms of her contract in some way, her job is secure and she is welcome at the Daily Wire.
	I do not believe that is correct.
	I think that's Glenn's bias as to Israel.
	being one of the company's most popular hosts was out. The company had concluded that her
	increasingly vocal criticisms of Israel, opposition to U.S.
	financing of it, and her views of anti-Semitism were incompatible with the daily wire's
	policies. I do not believe that is correct.
	I think that's Glenn's bias as to Israel. Look, man, I think Glenn and many of these
	other disaffected liberals have long been biased against Israel. I don't care.
	I care as much about Israel as I do as Myanmar.
	And that's why I often make that point.
	It's like, I get it.
	The U.S.
	funds it.
	We also fund Sudan.
	And we've been funding Iraq and Afghanistan.
	And we're funding Ukraine.
	We fund Ukraine more than Israel.
	My attitude is fairly simple.
	I want to fix our roads and secure our border.
	I care about my neighbors, not some faraway land.
	But then you get people who are hyper-focused on the core moral issue of Israel, and they view everything through that lens.
	All of those issues would likely have been the subject of the public debate that Owens sought, and that the Daily Wire claimed to want.
	Instead, the Daily Wire has succeeded in obtaining a gag order that, on its face, prevents Owens in advance from questioning or criticizing both the Daily Wire or Shapiro in some way.
	It may be that Glenn Greenwald is completely correct and has the evidence, and I'm not here to doubt that Well, I'm not here to tell you what to believe and what not to believe.
	That's a better way to put it.
	Personally, I think there's more to this picture than meets the eye, and having been involved in arbitration as well, you know, I think you can really just see it when he brings up the Jeremy Boring and Owens statement.
	He says, when asked for a comment to be included in the story, Owens replied, I wish I could comment on this, but I can't.
	I can neither confirm nor deny.
	Where's the criticism of her for refusing to engage?
	It says, Boring said it's inaccurate to the point of being false, but he didn't specify single and accurate.
	Yes, because in arbitration, they're telling both parties, don't start the fight.
	I've been there.
	They say, yes, we are telling this party they cannot do these things.
	But that applies to you.
	If you go out and open the door publicly by saying these things, you allow them to respond.
	And this is what they apparently are trying to resolve.
	It could be that the issue is actually simple.
	The debate may devolve into criticisms of the company instead of the issue, but I don't know.
	I think that there is a legal issue behind this that is not just one-sided, and it results in something like this happening.
	Now, where we're currently at—I think this is fascinating—is the Times of Israel writing that you see the divide of anti-Semitism On the U.S.
	right.
	This is why I want to talk about the Candace Owens, Ben Shapiro thing.
	You know, it's a bit drama-y, but I do think it's important to answer this question as it pertains to... You know, I don't like the word the right.
	It's so silly.
	Because Glenn Greenwald is right-wing, right?
	I mean, he's not, but they call him far-right.
	Ridiculous.
	So, like, the right doesn't even mean anything.
	But there's a question of what is anti-Semitism, and that's why I think the debate would be good.
	Um, the question right now that everyone's talking about, Charlie Kirk says this, Did the House of Representatives just make parts of the Bible illegal?
	Jake Shields responding, Are you still going to pretend they don't control our government?
	Donnie Darkin says, The awakening is happening, folks.
	Look at the trajectory of the world.
	This all must occur to prepare for the fulfillment of biblical prophecy.
	Oh boy!
	We got a hat trick here!
	Okay.
	Parts of the Bible, not so much illegal, but violations in certain contexts.
	So, if you were to be teaching the Bible in a university, one could argue it violates Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that it is anti-Semitic under the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism adopted by Congress and an executive order by Donald Trump in 2019.
	Trump, of course, is very much on board with the definition of anti-Semitism.
	The idea that Israel controls the government, I think, is substantially, substantially over the top.
	We've had congressional staffers in here, and they talk about how people grossly overestimate the power of AIPAC, though powerful it is.
	And it is not registered as a foreign lobby.
	But I think people greatly overestimate, over-overestimate, that they're controlling the government.
	No, the problem is money controls the government.
	And big corporations.
	It is the will of the overwhelmingly wealthy.
	We've seen these in studies.
	This means you are going to get a lot of influence from Israel.
	My view?
	The U.S.
	mostly has a secular view of Israel.
	It is a territory aligned with the United States, going all the way back to its creation and everything, and Western powers have a hub in the Middle East, which they very much would like to conquer for a lot of different reasons.
	Principally, the U.S.
	military uses Israel for military development, technology, research, resources, military bases, intelligence, and staging operations in the Middle East.
	It's very important because Iraq and Afghanistan are unstable.
	The U.S.
	tried to maintain positions there, they struggled.
	Syria, they struggled.
	But the U.S.' 's operations in Syria, and they have total control of the Israel territory.
	And then these people who are, like, deeply obsessed with Israel are like, you think that the U.S.
	controls Israel?
	Israel controls the U.S.!
	And I'm like, this tiny nation does not control the United States, dude.
	The United States is basically NATO.
	The military-industrial complex.
	It is a component of the United States.
	It's like, I don't get this mentality.
	Anyway, long story short, that's the majority of the U.S.
	interest in Israel.
	And when protesters, I love this, it was a great post, When protesters were complaining about defunding the police and Black Lives Matter, that's nebulous and has no effect on American policy.
	But when they started criticizing Israel, clearly that's an affront to the military-industrial complex and our goals, and so then, crackdown.
	Of course, many people believe it's because Israel is secretly in control of the United States, and I just think that's silly.
	Is Ukraine in control of the United States?
	Zelensky has come here personally, and we've spent more money on Ukraine.
	No, we don't even say that.
	It's the weirdest thing ever.
	We're like, Ukraine is a puppet state of the United States, but not Israel.
	I think those people have lost it, okay?
	But here we go.
	Here's the debate.
	Tucker Carlson responded to Charlie Kirk saying, yes, the New Testament.
	Ed Krasenstein says to Tucker Carlson, stop pretending like this is some horrific thing.
	The Bible isn't illegal under this bill, but plenty of it is illegal under other U.S.
	laws, rightfully so.
	Now, Charlie Crook said parts of the Bible, and we have this.
	This is the IHRA definition of antisemitism.
	It says, "...using symbols and images associated with classic anti-Semitism, e.g.,
	claims of Jews killing Jesus, to characterize Israel or Israelis." All
	right, we'll come to that in a second. Claims of Jews killing Jesus is used as
	an example of classic anti-Semitism.
	The provision as a whole says to characterize Israel or Israelis, but it says symbols associated with classic antisemitism.
	Claims of Jews killing Jesus is considered antisemitism as per this definition outside of this provision.
	That would mean that in the Bible, where it says numerous times that Jews killed Jesus, that would be deemed anti-semitic.
	I responded to Ed, and I am not a Christian!
	I am not saying that it is right or wrong or whatever.
	Matthew 27, 24.
	When Pilate saw that he was getting nowhere, but that instead an uproar was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd.
	I am innocent of this man's blood, he said.
	It is your responsibility.
	All the people answered, his blood is on us and on our children.
	That's Matthew.
	That's the Bible.
	Okay?
	I'm not saying it's correct.
	I'm saying that's in the Bible.
	And if you teach that, that could be deemed anti-semitic under these rules because claiming Jews killed Jesus is a classic anti-semitism as per that provision.
	Ed responds, what's your point?
	Mercy me.
	Mercy me.
	It's like the guy doesn't actually read.
	The law says claiming Jews killed Jesus is anti-semitic, and there are numerous patches in the Bible saying Jews killed Jesus.
	Now, Dave Rehboy, who's also been on the show, says that it is incorrect.
	R. McIntyre says, GOP went from lol triggered by free speech libs to maybe the Bible is illegal in six months.
	He says, you guys keep lying about this and it's starting to be pretty obvious why.
	What do you mean pretty obvious?
	What does that mean?
	What, what, what, what is it?
	What?
	I don't get it.
	He says they see the plain language right there.
	It's the second half of the sentence.
	Unless I'm mistaken, Jews killed Jesus, so I hate the modern state of Israel isn't in the Bible.
	But they know that.
	What they're trying to do is to convince people that hatred of Jews doesn't exist as a bad thing, but it's actually biblical and praiseworthy.
	I think hating Jews is a bad thing.
	I think hating Muslims.
	I think hating Christians.
	I think hating Buddhists.
	I think hating ideology is allowed.
	I think hate is an important part of the human emotional spectrum.
	I think blindly and blanketly being like, there's a person, I just hate them, is wrong.
	I think talking to a Christian, Jew, or Muslim and being like, hey look man, I gotta be with you, but you do realize that in this teachings they say this, and if you engage in that practice, that's something I despise and hate.
	It's like, okay, that's like a, I get that, I get that.
	Now here's what Dave gets wrong.
	It is not the argument that saying, Jews killed Jesus so I hate Israel, is in the Bible.
	It's that this says, classic antisemitism, an example, claims of Jews killing Jesus.
	See, here's the thing.
	An example of antisemitism, in their provision, is using symbols associated with antisemitism to characterize Israel.
	But it defines classic antisemitism as claims of Jews killing Jesus, outside of the criticism of Israel.
	That would mean that the Quran, the Hadith, and the Bible contain passages which are deemed violations of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act as per this new law.
	This is ultimately the debate that I think should be happening between Candace and Ben, but for whatever reason, is not.
	I'm not going to prattle on too much.
	It's already been 25 minutes in going over a subject that, you know, I do think needs to be broken down and debated, and kind of why I wanted to address the whole issue with Candace and Ben.
	But ultimately, my takeaway from all of this is, if we agree on 90% of things, let's keep that up and stop derailing into, you know, whatever all of this is.
	I suppose the issue then becomes, if we believe in free speech, we're going to have criticisms here, and if people are defending the anti-Semitism bill, well, then they're in violation of the First Amendment.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on the channel.
	Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
	You know, in a way, it kind of breaks my heart that it really does keep falling down on racial lines.
	Wealthy white Louisiana residents win right to split from Baton Rouge and form their own city.
	That's right, St.
	George has been born.
	Wealthy white residents were upset over violence and they said, we want to form our own school district, basically leading to the creation of their own new city, which is 70% white.
	And I don't know that the people who petitioned this were thinking that they wanted a white racial enclave, but it seems like this is just how things will keep breaking down.
	The left, their answers to these problems are to make them worse.
	And so it is really sad.
	But I can't blame the people who voted for this.
	I can't blame the people who are wondering why all this violence is breaking out and demanding action, not getting it, and then deciding we'll make our own.
	What are they accused of?
	Racism, of course.
unidentified		You take a look over at our good friend Chicago.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That is where, from where I originate.
		And it is, it's racially segregated.
		Like, extremely racially segregated.
		Everybody knows this.
		Where I grew up in the Garfield Ridge area, or Midway.
		They're slightly separate, but we call it Midway because that's where the airport is.
		I was two blocks from Midway Airport in Chicago.
		Look it up on the map.
		If you traveled two blocks north of my location on 49th Street to 47th Street, 47th was where, if you crossed it, everyone was black, and south of it, mostly white, probably like 70%, a lot of Polish immigrants, but there was some Hispanic, some Hispanic and black as well, some Asian, but mostly white.
		But crossing 47th Street, everybody knew, that put you in a squarely 99% black neighborhood.
		If you traveled eastward towards Cicero Avenue, when you crossed Cicero, you were in the Hispanic neighborhood where all the advertisements turned Spanish.
		It is that racially segregated.
		Cicero Avenue, I think it's like, what is it?
		It might be like six lanes.
		It's a big road where I grew up.
		Archer and Cicero.
		And you cross it and all of a sudden, Everyone speaks Spanish.
		It's mostly Hispanic.
		You take a look at the voting patterns, and you can see that by neighborhood, it's really fascinating.
		You look at the neighborhoods and who they voted for in the mayoral election.
		The black candidate, the white candidate, or the Latino candidate.
		And then you take a look at the racial demographics of those neighborhoods, and they voted based on race.
		There you go.
		There are deep ties between race and culture.
		It's not absolute, but they exist.
		Like, the Latino candidate speaks Spanish, the white neighborhoods mostly don't, so of course speaking Spanish is going to give you a cultural tie that other peoples don't have.
		This is how it breaks down.
		I suppose the goal is, you know, how do we overcome this and have a unified culture, but I think people are first-layer thinkers, overwhelmingly, and that results in People wanting to be near people who look like them, I guess.
		Let's read this story, and I'll tell you about the secession.
		And I think we're going to see more of this, actually.
		How Baton Rouge School, plagued by racial tensions and violence, drove military veteran to spearhead successful campaign for wealthy white residents to form the new city of St.
		George.
		On May 3rd, 2013, violence erupted in the hallways of Woodlawn High School.
		As many as six separate fights between unruly students broke out that day, part of an annus horribilis that saw 61 arrests made at the racially diverse school in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
		Looking on in despair was Norman Browning, who had recently spent 15 years volunteering as a sports coach in Woodlawn.
		It was to be a pivotal day in the history of the school, the city, and ultimately America, as it helped drive a seismic split in the community led by Browning that sparked fears over the re-segregation of nation's schools.
		The Louisiana Supreme Court last week ruled that the new city of St.
		George could move forward with incorporation, splitting wealthy white residents from the poor black residents of East Baton Rouge.
		Now ultimately, I don't think these people are motivated by race.
		I don't think this guy here, Browning, He was sitting there complaining about white and non-white people.
		I think he was talking about violent crime.
		He was talking about wealth and... I don't even think he was probably talking about wealth.
		He was probably just saying, like, look, we've got families here who want to have their own school system and don't want to have their kids surrounded by this violence.
		And then it all breaks down into racial lines.
		The poorer areas split from the wealthier areas.
		It has been hailed by supporters as a final victory in a 10-year campaign to take back control of the area's failing education system.
		But opponents have slammed it as racist secession, arguing it will create a white enclave and leave struggling black communities behind.
		Now hold on there a minute.
		That's a bold thing to say.
		To make the claim that a suburb forming and starting their own school district will harm black people as if to imply that black people can't run their own schools?
		No, no, no, hold on.
		What does their new school have to do with the old school system?
		How will they be left behind being left to their own devices in their own city?
		That's racist.
		The implication being, they need the wealthy white people in order to help them advance?
		How dare they say such a thing?
		I mean, seriously.
		I'm half-kidding, but like, come on, really?
		The Daily Mail can reveal how the split was sparked by Browning's time at Woodlawn High, a school that became a lightning rod for a community driven by racial tensions.
		The military veteran and father of three is born and bred at Baton Rouge, educated at Baton Rouge High School, which lies within East Baton Rouge.
		Outside of the new city of St.
		George, he graduated from Southeastern Louisiana University.
		After leaving the military, he worked predominantly in pharmaceutical sales outside the state.
		In the late 90s, he accepted the offer to pursue his passion of sports coaching.
	as a volunteer at Woodlawn High.
	The school was founded in 1949, seven years before desegregation.
	In those days, it was all white.
	By the time Browning joined, more than half the students were black.
	This was a point of pride for many within the school who celebrated its diversity, including its mixed football team and orchestras.
	But over the past few decades, Baton Rouge public schools have started to struggle, plagued by ill-discipline and falling grades.
	Woodlawn High, which is around 1,400 students, currently has a C-letter grade.
	But most disturbing is the extensive record of violent incidents, many of which have been filmed by pupils and uploaded to YouTube.
	Just last year, local news site WBRZ aired disturbing footage of a series of fights.
	One shows a pupil dragging another to the playground before punching him repeatedly in the face.
	Another around a half dozen students hurling haymakers at each other in the hallway.
	Some of the brawls appeared to be fought along racial lines.
	Responding to the incidents, Corhonda Corley, a parental advocate for the NAACP, cited escalating racial tensions.
	She highlighted anger among some black parents that discipline was being targeted at their children while others were getting away scot-free.
	The school, for its part, said it had thoroughly investigated the incidents and had taken the actions recommended by its handbook.
	So, I'm going to pause here.
unidentified		Alright?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Isn't that a good thing?
		If you were a black parent seeing white kids getting away with starting fights, don't you want them taken out of your school system?
		The idea then that there would be people claiming it's racist and will leave black families behind is insane.
		How?
		You're claiming the white kids are starting fights and getting away with it.
		Fine.
		They can be pulled off into their own school, as they should be.
		If a kid is at school who keeps starting fights, you take that kid out of the school.
		I don't see where the problem is, or why it's racist, that these people are leaving.
		I also do think it's funny.
		Here you have this image from the Daily Mail, and they're like, St.
		George on the right, and it's like a Google Maps picture of a suburb, and then on the left, they intentionally take a picture of a pothole.
		Oh, come on!
		Are you kidding me?
		Poor Triple S Food Mart.
		Why are you singling them out?
		I'm sure Baton Rouge has nice stuff in their city.
		Geez.
		In 2020, a white teacher was placed on leave after sharing several allegedly racist posts, including one that claimed Kamala Harris had only been picked because of the color of her skin.
		I'm gonna pause right now and say, what?
		Racist?
		showed him leading a student down the hall before slamming him to the ground and choking him. Jeez.
		In 2020, a white teacher was placed on leave after sharing several allegedly racist posts,
		including one that claimed Kamala Harris had only been picked because of the color of her skin.
		I'm going to pause right now and say, what? Racist? Joe Biden said he was going to do that.
		That he said he was.
		How is that racist?
		These people are nuts.
		Parents are losing faith.
		Nothing is being resolved by the school system, Corley said.
		This was a conclusion shared by many white middle class parents.
		But while their diagnosis was the same, the solution would drive a wedge between the community.
		In 2012, they proposed creating a new southeast community school district, but couldn't marshal a two-thirds majority.
		So the following summer, they came back with a different approach, create their own city.
		The move sparked national media coverage.
		Yeah, yeah.
		See these children here, he said, pointing to the smattering of views within the hall.
		That's why we're here.
		East Baton Rouge has failed our children for 30 plus years.
		Browning's thirst for military discipline is immediately clear.
		My involvement with this campaign really stems from what I saw on the inside of Woodlawn.
		The lack of control in the classrooms, the lack of control in the halls.
		A local 225 magazine feature from the same year described him as a man who tends to stand or pace when he's explaining something with bullet point sentences propelled with a pointed finger and one arched eyebrow.
		Huh.
		Browning told the magazine that students are running the schools in Baton Rouge, explaining how pupils can get literally nose-to-nose with the teacher to curse them out without the threat of disciplinary action.
		He told PBS that the order instilled in schools during the time as a pupil had fallen apart, adding that years of busing following the Brown ruling had destroyed the sense of community.
		but he denied accusation that his desire for a breakaway city was racially motivated.
		Yes, I've been called a racist in no uncertain terms. I'm not a racist.
		I can't, you know, I'm not going to try to attempt to defend it.
		What I do is on my actions speak and how I conduct myself and how I treat people to speak.
		Look, is it racist—here's the question—is it racist for Hispanic people to keep choosing to live by Hispanic people in Chicago?
		Is it racist for Black people in Chicago to keep trying to move into homes near Black people?
		I don't think so.
		I don't think that the individual actions themselves are racist, but it is a trend, and the avalanche doesn't blame itself for the... I'm sorry, the snowflake doesn't blame itself for the avalanche.
		So what do you do?
		How do you solve for something like that?
		I don't think you do.
		I think the reality is, in Chicago, there is a black community, and many people talk about black culture.
		Well, for those reasons, people are going to want to live near each other.
		They want to share in culture.
		Me?
		I'd like to live near people who play music and skateboard because then we can play music and skateboard together.
		It has nothing to do with their race.
		But however, there are...
	Communities centered largely around their racial traditions.
	I shouldn't say racial traditions, but tied to where they were in the world, what they've built, and who is around them.
	So people who speak Spanish are going to want to be around people who speak Spanish.
	That means you're going to get a lot of Latinos.
	White people are going to go want to play golf.
	They're going to live near, next to people, live near people who play golf.
	Is that racist?
	So now the issue is, if the people of St.
	George who have seceded and formed their own city want their own school, why is that racist?
	They're not saying, no black people allowed.
	They're saying, we wanted a new school district where we can fix the rules and fix the schools.
	And they say, that's going to hurt black families?
	That is the weirdest argument I've ever heard, but I would say that is racist.
	Denying this city its right for its residents to have a school in their area with rules they want, that's called democracy.
	And they say, yeah, but it's mostly white.
	So what?
	70% white.
	Now what I do find interesting is that you can see there's like a pocket here and there's portions that don't appear to be Baton Rouge or St.
unidentified		George.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I don't know what that is necessarily.
		But interestingly, as per the ruling, apparently any business I don't know how they broke it down, but properties that were on the border of the annexation were allowed to choose St.
		George or Baton Rouge, and many chose Baton Rouge, and the St.
		George residents tried to stop that from happening, but saying it wasn't done legally, and, well, people want to be in Baton Rouge, they can be in Baton Rouge.
		They want to be in St.
		George, they can be in St.
		George.
		This city appears to have effectively split in half.
		Now, they were saying that East Baton Rouge was basically unincorporated anyway, and it was just a part of Baton Rouge, or I don't know how that breaks down.
		But now it's basically just its own suburb.
		I wonder if that is basically taking away a large tax base from Baton Rouge.
		They say it's going to harm black families.
		No, it's going to harm poor families, I guess.
		But you don't have a right to subjugate people and make them your slaves.
		The way I see it, with Eastern Oregon, Mostly Trump support and conservative.
		But Portland is subjugating them.
		I say if they want to vote and leave, they have every right to do so.
		Here's the problem.
		Portland is not going to allow—Portland, Eugene, etc.—they're not going to allow what is effectively tax slaves to leave the state.
		These are people who have no say in government.
		They have a say, sure, but no one listens, and they don't have the political power to push back and defend themselves, and their taxes are taken from them.
		So, of course, Portland is never going to let them go, a political minority that can't do anything to protect themselves.
		Hence why I'm a big fan of the Electoral College, mind you.
		I will say this is fascinating and indicative of where we're at, and this is just the beginning.
		You have a county in northern Colorado wanting to break off and join Wyoming.
		You have northern California wanting to form its own state or join with the state of Jefferson or greater Idaho.
		Eastern Oregon wants to break off and join Idaho and make greater Idaho.
		There's an argument that there could be one new state called the state of Jefferson, which would take parts of Oregon, Washington and Northern California.
		I think we have to do it.
		I think you have to.
		I think this is the only way to solve these problems is allow large groups of people who want to want to self-govern to self-govern.
		If you force people to to be under a political rule where they can't change anything, but there's a large faction of them, you get conflict.
		Here we can see, the people of St.
		George were under Baton Rouge control, so they said, we're going to break away.
		And they succeeded.
		Now they can make the rules as they see fit, and you can choose which city you want to live in.
		See, the issue is for Baton Rouge, they're thinking, we're in control.
		We get all the money.
		If that section breaks off, we lose that money.
		That's too bad.
		It's not your labor.
		You don't get to just own it.
		So I wonder if this will spread and what it means for many other jurisdictions, especially if this gets appealed to a higher court or how it ultimately breaks down.
		I think it's fair to say there are many places that would want to do something just like this and probably will start to do so.
		I mean, look, you know, growing up in Chicago and seeing the pure racial segregation and the cultural differences, yeah, I wouldn't be surprised.
		The interesting thing is this is very reminiscent of St.
		Louis County.
		How people who lived—it was mainly white people who lived in St.
		Louis—started moving out because they—and this was very much motivated by race.
		Crime and poverty played a big factor, but different times back then.
		White people started leaving and forming their own cities and saying, we just don't want to be, you know, we don't want people moving in that are going to cause us problems.
		You call it white flight and you call it racist, and my response?
		Honestly, I don't care.
		If people want to form a community to live somewhere where they feel safe and successful, they have every right to do so.
		I think it is sad.
		It's unfortunate that it really breaks down by race in many circumstances.
		I wish it wasn't that way.
		But you recently had, I think this was even in Louisiana, I'm not sure, it might have been Alabama.
		Probably neither, I don't know.
		There was the Black Lives Matter activists who raised money and wanted to create their own black city.
		And where were the complaints of racism and segregation and all that?
		Unfortunately, I think there's a reality in this country, and it's that people choose to live near the race that they are.
		What do you do?
		You call them racist, but I don't believe people like this are consciously saying they don't want to live near insert person of certain race.
	I think ultimately it breaks down on racial lines due to differences in cultures, cultural clashes, and conflict arising out of these things, as well as poverty.
	And for a lot of people, yeah, racism for sure.
	But what comes next?
	How many more cities will do this?
	How many more states?
	Perhaps that is the answer to the conflict that we are facing.
	Or perhaps it just makes things worse, right?
	You had many people flee New York.
	They left Manhattan Island.
	I think it was a quarter of a million people left Manhattan Island.
	Maybe more.
	I think it was like 500,000 when COVID happened and they went to other states.
	Many said, good, it's a good thing because people can live where they want to live and where they feel comfortable.
	Yes, but that just means you now have two different areas that are diametrically opposed to each other.
	When you have two areas where there's a mix of politics, and they work to get along.
	If all of the Republicans from one area move to a suburb, now you have deep red and deep blue, and they're going to feud with each other, and that could create escalating problems.
	It could create, effectively, gang violence.
	So there is a challenge with this kind of thing happening.
	In that it could lead to such stark cultural differences, there is conflict and crisis.
	I'll tell you what I see happening now.
	Wealthy neighborhood?
	I don't think it has anything to do with it being a new city.
	They're going to face an increase in crime.
	In Illinois, there's an area east of the city that, Oakbrook and Oakbrook Terrace, and they have massively high crime, despite being relatively small, wealthy suburbs.
	And the reason they have high crime?
	People from other parts of the city and suburbs come to their shopping districts to rob people knowing they have money.
	And so, high crime.
	They gotta have a lot of police, but fortunately the people who live there like the police, and, you know, either way, the crime is still high.
	I don't know if it's still high, but it was high, you know, 20 years ago.
	This was a big problem in the area.
	So even when you break off and form your own city, You're going to need more than that.
	East St.
	Louis, or I'm sorry, East St.
	George.
	They're going to have to make a police force and a fire department.
	They're going to have to do building inspections and a whole lot of things.
	But first and foremost, they need security.
	I think now what you'll end up just seeing is, I don't know, another Ahmaud Arbery incident.
	Someone's going to come from Baton Rouge to rob the wealthy people.
	A city that is predominantly black, of course you will have criminals who are going to be black.
	You're going to have wealthy people in a predominantly white area who are going to be victims, and that's the narrative they're going to push, and then they're going to claim the city is racist.
	Then it's going to get worse.
	But hey man, things just keep trucking along I suppose, right?
	This is just one more move in an effort by many people to define the barriers of the cities they live in.
	And I don't think it's racist to do so.
	But people always just want to see everything through a racial lens, especially the left.
	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.
	Once again, in the Donald Trump trial, he is facing contempt charges that he violated his gag order.
	He was already held in contempt.
	It doesn't mean he was put in jail.
	It means the judge held him in contempt, fined him $9,000, and said, we'll put you in jail if you keep doing this.
	And what they're claiming is immediately after imposing this fine, Trump goes out and violates the gag order again.
	Okay, but Michael Cohen, a witness in the case, won't stop ragging on Trump publicly, building up his followers on TikTok or whatever.
	Donald Trump is responding.
	Jake Tapper!
	He gets the lead here.
	I apologize for this update.
	Jake Tapper reports on von Schitzenpants.
	That's one word, by the way.
	I said nothing wrong.
	There was no expletive there.
	Tweets during Trump's gag order hearing.
	Okay, well, they may be trying to put Trump in jail.
	I want to play this clip.
	I grabbed it from CNN, and I want you to hear it.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		Generally speaking, if Mr. Trump were not running for President of the United States, this would be pretty open and shut.
		Who cares?
		You just have to take it.
		But there is an argument here that Donald Trump's running for President and his First Amendment rights when it comes to responding to attacks need to be respected.
unidentified		Absolutely, and this is partly why they are hammering these Michael Cohen points so aggressively.
		Because of the fact that these are probably, of the four arguments, the strongest ones that the Trump team has.
		It's someone who is, in some measure, going back and forth with the former president.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		Okay, I apologize for this update ahead of time.
		Uh, but, uh, Blanche... Todd Blanche, the Trump attorney, is specifically reading a post that Michael Cohen made on Twitter on April 22nd, in which he refers to Donald Trump as Von Schitzenpants.
		Uh, that is just a factual record that I am bringing before you.
		Uh, this is in the court transcript.
		Uh, Von Schitzenpants.
		Uh, Blanche also said there are repeated attacks on Trump and his candidacy on Cohen's podcast and TikTok account.
		Dana Bash, I know you want to weigh in on Von Schitzenpants.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They just want to keep saying it.
unidentified		did it on behalf of all of us.
unidentified		You've taken care of it for all of us.
jake tapper ▲ ● ▼		I have been calling it Von Poops and Pants for weeks now, but now it's a part of the official transcript.
unidentified		I do think that when it comes to just the raw politics of this,
		the argument that Donald Trump is making out in the world, not just when he comes into court
		and when he leaves court, but when he's on social media, when he's at his rallies about, I'm gagged, I can't speak.
		When you look at this, which we should say, he can speak about the judge.
		He can speak broadly about a lot of things.
		It's very narrow what the gag order is about, but it does include Michael Cohen
		because Michael Cohen will be a witness.
		And when Michael Cohen makes very clearly political statements against Donald Trump,
		it gives Donald Trump a much more credible political argument saying,
		this is ridiculous that I can't speak.
		Blanche just showed articles quoting Cohen, quote, talking extensively about Trump's presidential campaign.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I gotta hand it to CNN on that one.
		Michael Cohen is coming out and calling Donald Trump Von Schitzenpants.
		And they're saying Trump can't say anything about that?
		That's insane.
		Even Dana Bash is like, it gives Trump a credible argument that Cohen is attacking his campaign on this.
		Jake Tapper, I love this because he's like, I've been calling it Von Poops and Pants, but now it's part of official court record.
		And you know, he said it three times in like 10 seconds.
		So, while CNN contributor Elliott Williams explained Thursday's second gag order hearing in Trump's hush money trial, specifically whether the gag order violates Trump's right to defend himself against insults from Cohen, they have updates from inside the courtroom right now.
		So, the actual update here is, prosecutors are saying they want to fine Trump again.
		Yeah, I gotta be honest, $9,000?
		Trump, that's a rounding error for him.
		I mean it.
		Donald Trump is a billionaire.
		He just got awarded, or something happened where like, DJT performance, the Truth Social performance was so good, he gets another $1.8 billion in stock.
		The DJT stock has rebounded to near $50, hitting its average once again.
		All of the far leftists are whinging, no, why are people buying DJT stock?
		Man, if you bought that dip, you just doubled up.
		I'm not telling you to do it.
		I bought like a dozen or so DJT shares because they're like souvenirs.
		I don't really care about the company all that much.
		I was just like, I'd like to hold some shares of this.
		And maybe they'll be worth a lot of money because of the investment in Trump.
		Again, not telling you what to do.
		But of course they're losing their mind over it.
		Right now, they're trying to find him again.
		A dude who's worth billions of dollars, who has like three private jets that he owns.
		He has his own, is it a 57 or a 37?
		He's got Trump Force One.
		He has a jumbo jet that he flies around in.
		Okay, $9,000?
		Donald Trump's golden toilet paper probably cost that much.
		I'm joking, I don't know that he actually has golden toilet paper.
		My point is, he's a very wealthy man.
		So they're saying to fine him again.
		What's the point?
		The only move they're going to be able to make is to put him in jail.
		And then what?
		Maybe that's what Trump actually wants.
		In this tweet from Simon Atiba, he says, Developing in New York, fine or jail Trump.
		In case you're not paying attention, Judge Juan Marchand is now hearing arguments that after he fined Trump $9,000 for violating his gag order nine times, he reportedly violated again four times and should be fined or jailed.
		It's unclear whether the judge will dare throw Trump in jail for 30 days or fine him again, given his status as a presidential candidate for the Republican Party.
		The prosecutors certainly don't want to put him in there.
		I don't know that the judge does.
		But what are you going to do?
		This is actually a power move by Donald Trump.
		I'm actually impressed.
		Look, I'll break it down.
		I was saying before, Trump should defy the court because it's illegitimate.
		There's no statutory law broken here.
		The people on social media that are on the left are saying things like, Trump conspired with the media to suppress negative information and put out false stories that influence the election, stealing the election, and it's like, uh...
		Is that a joke?
		That's called PR and marketing.
		We have things like the speech and debate clause in Congress, where they can make stuff up and you can't sue them.
		We have Times v. Sullivan, where someone could lie about you publicly, but if you're a public figure, you have to prove they were knowingly lying.
		And we have anti-SLAPP, meaning...
		If someone comes out and accuses you of doing something wrong, like egregiously wrong, and you say, I'm suing you this defamation, they'll say, first, prove that you knew I was lying.
		And you'll say, okay, I filed discovery against you.
		Then they go, anti-slap motion, dismissed.
		You don't even get to discovery.
		Here's the best part.
		If you actually get to discovery, and you're like, look, there's a message from their internal corporate communications where the journalist goes, I'm going to lie about Donald Trump.
		The judge then says, okay, and what are your damages?
		And you go, my reputation was harmed by this.
		And they say, what are your actual monetary damages?
	Prove it.
	And you're like, I don't know.
	I may have not gotten a contract.
	What contract?
	So I'll put it this way.
	If someone accuses you of doing wrong, like they say, you kicked a dog, right?
	It's like shockingly offensive.
	And you're like, I never kicked a dog!
	And then you sue him, you make it through, motion to dismiss, anti-SLAPP, depending on the state, not every state is anti-SLAPP.
	Anti-SLAPP means Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation.
	And so, you actually sue, and then finally after everything, the journalist says, with either reckless disregard for the truth, or malicious, outright knowing they're lying, you've proven they made it up and they knew, or had disregard for the truth.
	Now it's entirely possible.
	That there is an advertiser who was in negotiations with you and then they stopped calling.
	And you say to the judge, we were in negotiations with this sponge manufacturer to run ads for them on our show.
	And after this disparaging remark, they stopped responding.
	And the council's going to argue, how do you know they stopped responding because of disparagement?
	Well, it's because everything was going great until the story broke and all of a sudden people stopped answering our phone calls.
	Can you prove, have a statement proving they canceled this deal which would have made money for you?
	Well, no.
	Okay.
	It's nigh impossible.
	Impossible.
	These are the standards that we currently have in this law.
	Right now, Donald Trump is making this master move, in my opinion.
	That's what I was saying.
	I was saying that he should have defied the court.
	There's no statutory law here.
	All these people are wrong.
	I said Trump should have gone to the Supreme Court oral arguments.
	Well, as I did state as well, I recognize there's a legal strategy here I don't know.
	I don't think Trump's lawyers are stupid.
	They're probably very well paid.
	And so while on the surface I can say these things, I recognize there's probably a strategy.
	It turns out Trump's strategy for not going to SCOTUS was that they were concerned it would turn the argument from the presidential immunity into Trump's immunity.
	And the question Trump wants answered is the president, not him personally.
	By going to the court case, it may have made it more about him.
	He didn't want that to happen.
	Okay.
	Now, with Trump violating the gag order for, I don't know what, four more times or whatever they're claiming, Trump's making a power move.
	Is the court impotent?
	Yikes.
	If Donald Trump gets fined nothing but $9,000 and then he comes out and says, oh, it's ridiculous, but it doesn't faze him, it doesn't hurt him.
	He then does it again.
	They have no choice.
	If they don't put him in jail, he proves to the world the court can do nothing and that Judge Mershawn is impotent in his chair.
	But maybe Donald Trump wants to get jailed.
	It's 30 days.
	But could you imagine the press storm?
	It would be one of the biggest moments in U.S.
	history.
	I think Trump knows and wants that.
	I don't know to what degree.
	I'm not saying it's definitive or I know for sure.
	I'm just saying there's a chance.
	That's a strategy.
	Democrats are actually the ones who suggested it.
	That Trump may be intentionally trying to get jailed.
	That's why he's going to the court.
	That's why he's playing along with this.
	That's why he's now tweeting, posting on Truth, even after the gag orders.
	Trump deleted the post on Truth Social.
	The argument goes among, again, it's Democrat pundits who are positing this.
	Trump wants it to seem like he did nothing wrong.
	So when the judge says, delete these posts, he goes, okay, I'll delete them.
	I'm trying to, uh, I'm trying to adhere to this gag order.
	Then he violates the gag order again and says, what do you mean?
	Like I was just responding and defending myself.
	I did not violate the gag order.
	That way, when they do jail him, he says, there's no situation.
	I can't even campaign.
	The judge said that my campaign comments defending the campaign for presidency were violations, and now they're putting me in jail.
	He makes them target him.
	Or, to put it simply, Trump doesn't understand 3D chess, let alone 4D chess, and he's just bumbling about.
	Honestly, I have no idea.
	But it does seem like things are getting interesting.
	I'm gonna wrap it up there.
	Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
	over at youtube.com slash TimCastIRL.

▲