Michael Cohen ADMITS HE STOLE $30k From Trump, BOMBSHELL Testimony PROVES Trump Is INNOCENT
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
Michael Cohen ADMITS HE STOLE $30k From Trump, BOMBSHELL Testimony PROVES Trump Is INNOCENT
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
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.
In bombshell testimony during the Trump trial over the Stormy Daniels payment, Michael Cohen, the star witness for the prosecution, has admitted he stole $30,000 from the Trump organization, completely undermining the whole case, effectively proving Donald Trump is innocent.
Backing up the claims by Cohen's own lawyer who testified that Cohen had no evidence against Trump, admitted to it, had even contemplated taking his own life.
He has completely destroyed anything he said.
Cohen, with his admission that he stole $30,000.
This is insane.
Absolutely insane.
The argument, of course, from Cohen is that Costello's testimony was that he really did have evidence against Donald Trump back in 2018, and the only reason he didn't present it was because he was being loyal to Donald Trump when, in fact, he was stealing from Trump in the first place.
This is A break in the whole case.
The money that Donald Trump is paying out to Cohen, that Cohen is claiming, is for Stormy Daniels.
When we know that he was actually lying in his invoices and stealing money for Trump.
This means, when they claim Trump was actually reimbursing Cohen with these invoices, we know for a fact Michael Cohen was putting fake numbers in there and pocketing the rest.
That's amazing.
I can't believe it.
It's day one of the defense of their case for Donald Trump, and we know it is all a lie.
I'm going to break this down for you, but ladies and gentlemen, this is ripping to shreds the entire case.
Anybody paying attention knew from the beginning this was fake news.
Fareed Zakaria, CNN, saying outright, this is CNN!
This case would not be brought against someone whose name was not Donald Trump.
To clarify with the double negatives, they're only bringing this case because it is Donald Trump.
That is CNN saying that.
MSNBC legal analysts saying, we don't even understand the crime here.
A misdemeanor beyond the statute of limitations being brought against Trump for some federal elections violation, which the FEC and the DOJ says does not exist.
And now Cohen's like, yeah, actually the invoice I sent in, I was just stealing the money.
Are you kidding me?
I'm, I am beyond, this is amazing by the way, but I am livid.
I beg and I hope and I pray that we get an executive branch that will hold these people accountable.
They should criminally charge Michael Cohen immediately, now that we have uncovered he stole this money.
Now, to be fair, this may have been known to the Trump administration a while ago.
I don't know if it's been known to the prosecutors, but how Cohen did not go to jail for grand larceny is beyond me.
He faked an invoice to the Trump Organization to steal 30 grand.
We gotta break this one down.
We gotta- Because this, like, everything Cohen is saying is a lie.
Look at this.
CNBC, here we go, baby.
Michael Cohen admits he stole from the Trump Organization in testimony.
This is CNBC reporting.
Michael Cohen, the former fixer and personal lawyer for Donald Trump, admitted during cross-examination Monday that he stole from Trump's company by holding on, holding on, are you kidding me NBC?
To money given to him that should have gone to a tech contractor.
Quote, you did steal from the Trump Organization, correct?
Trump's lawyer Todd Blanche asked Cohen.
Yes, sir.
Cohen pocketed $30,000 of the $50,000 he received from the Trump Organization and then gave about $20,000 to the tech firm Red Finch, which previously worked for the Trump Organization.
He testified in Manhattan Supreme Court.
Cohen said that although Red Finch's owner would have preferred getting the full $50,000 he was owed, he was placated for the time being, the former fixer testified.
Ladies and gentlemen, this is the bombshell.
Share this story, be it my video or anyone, just let people know.
Share the links.
This is undermining the entire case.
There's no crime.
Trump did nothing wrong.
Cohen was lying on his invoices.
I'll give you the breakdown because we've got the testimony from Cohen's own lawyer, Robert Costello.
Michael Cohen thought that by paying Stormy Daniels off of his own volition by taking out a home equity loan, which he's confirmed, would earn him the good graces of Trump.
Now, why?
Would he need to do that?
Could it be that he stole 30 grand and they knew and he couldn't get away with it?
What did Cohen do that resulted in him being pushed out of Trump's inner circle?
Why was Trump's own lawyer not a part of his administration?
Paints an interesting picture.
How about this?
Michael Cohen, of his, stole money from Trump.
I don't know the time frame on this, but look at the character of the man.
He was stealing from Trump.
He decides, Stormy Daniels has got this accusation, I'm gonna take care of it.
For some reason, takes out a home equity loan, didn't want his wife to find out, and then bills the Trump Organization.
I tell you this, you know what this proves?
This proves, right now, That Trump paying legal invoices, he does not know that Michael Cohen was ripping him off!
Or at the very least, it shows why Cohen was desperate to get into Trump's good graces.
In the event the Trump Organization found out, and knew beforehand, that Cohen was lying on invoices and stealing money, it explains why Cohen was trying to earn Trump's good graces.
Because he was in the doghouse.
But I don't know that that makes sense, actually.
I think it makes perfect sense.
The Trump Organization had no idea Cohen was sending in false invoices, which kind of shows Trump had nothing to do with the reimbursement.
Cohen took out a home equity loan to pay off Stormy Daniels and then thought to himself, I'll just lie in the invoices.
I'll get all the money back and none's the wiser.
No one will know.
This is dirty, dirty stuff.
They say Cohen's a key witness.
Prosecutors have said Cohen will be their last witness in the trial.
Blanche is expected to wrap up his cross-examination on Monday.
It is not clear if they will call Trump to the witness stand.
Defense attorneys hedged last week when Judge Juan Marchand asked if they would call any defense witnesses to testify.
Trump told a reporter last month, I would testify, absolutely.
Marchand earlier Monday told prosecutors and the former president's attorneys, The closing arguments of the case will be held on May 28th, the day after Memorial Day.
It has become apparent that we are not going to sum up tomorrow, Mershan said as Trump looked on.
The judge last week had told both sides to be ready to give their summations Tuesday.
But Mershan on Monday said he wanted to avoid a multi-day lag between closing arguments and the start of deliberations.
We know the cases.
This is bomb drop moments, ladies and gentlemen.
This is TV drama.
day on Thursday due to a juror's scheduling conflict.
Before entering the courtroom Monday, Trump told reporters, it looks like we're going
to have a very big gap between days.
We know what the case is.
This is bomb drop moments, ladies and gentlemen.
This is TV drama.
We got this tweet from Charlie Kirk.
Shout out Charlie Kirk.
Michael Cohen has just admitted to stealing $30,000 from the Trump organization upon cross-examination
from Todd Blanche.
He admitted he was reimbursed $50,000 for IT services when he only paid $20,000, pocketing
When we're looking at him paying off Stormy Daniels, and they're trying to claim Trump was involved, but Cohen was sending in fake invoices to Trump, and I called this out two weeks ago!
What did I say, ladies and gentlemen?
I have worked for companies.
I have worked for companies.
Where contractors send in invoices well after their contract has expired, hoping the company just pays out, and this is what we are seeing.
It looks like this is exactly what just happened.
Cohen knew that they weren't going to analyze the hours and the nitty-gritty because it's a billion-dollar, multi-billion-dollar organization, and they don't got time.
This is how it works, and it's crazy.
Contractors will know, if they're dealing with massive companies with tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars, they'll say, You send an invoice for 10 grand?
They'll probably just pay it.
It's easier than dealing with whatever it's all about.
We got a lawyer.
Send us your legal bills.
We pay it.
Wild stuff!
Kirk says, for those keeping score, Cohen has said repeatedly he wants Trump in jail.
He sells merch with pictures of Trump behind bars.
He told his former legal advisor, Bob Costello, he'd do anything to stay out of jail.
Cohen also admitted to paying Stormy Daniels to win favor from Trump after he wasn't appointed COS or AG during the first Trump administration, Chief of Staff.
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.
Cohen is a lying, thieving rat, and the state of New York, along with Matthew Colangelo, Budden's former senior DOJ official, decided it was worth turning America into a banana republic based on this guy.
This is going to be one of those big moments they write about.
Cohen admitting he was sending false invoices to steal from the Trump Organization.
This case is insane.
Let's go back here.
Let me tell you about what's really going on.
Because we've got this story from the blaze.
Costello.
Costello.
This is it.
Cohen accused Costello and Rudy Giuliani of conspiring to obstruct justice by tampering with a witness, namely Michael Cohen.
The story, which they were flung at the time, was that we had dangled a pardon under Michael Cohen's nose in order to keep him quiet so he wouldn't testify against Donald Trump.
He explained that he met with two assistant U.S.
attorneys and two FBI agents detailed his entire history with Cohen.
I explained the many, many lies that Cohen told us.
Virtually every statement he made about me was another lie.
What he tries to do is he cherry picks certain emails or text messages and tries to make them look like something else.
Here's the clip.
On X. Listen to this.
unidentified
Through further cross-examination, Cohen told me that he knew there was money missing from the Trump inauguration.
And then on the next page, into that first paragraph, Cohen decided that while he didn't believe the allegation of the Stormy Daniels story, that he thought the story would be embarrassing for Trump and especially for Melania, so he decided he would take care of it himself.
Yeah, obviously, when we started to talk about the NDAs, and this is the very first meeting at the Regency Hotel, when, by the way, Rudy Giuliani was not involved in representing Donald Trump at that time.
Cohen testified that it was a conspiracy between Giuliani and Costello as of this date.
Totally false.
In any event, he also said that he didn't discuss the Stormy Daniels matter with us, and he certainly did.
I specifically asked him because he kept on going back saying, I can't believe they're trying to put me in jail for these NDAs.
So I said, Michael, tell me about the NDA.
Tell me about Stormy Daniels.
What did you do?
He said, I got a call from a lawyer representing Stormy Daniels who represented that she was going to testify that Donald Trump had sex with Stormy Daniels.
Michael Cohen said, I didn't believe the allegation, but I knew that such an allegation would be terribly embarrassing.
He said it would be embarrassing.
He focused on Melania Trump.
He said, I didn't want to embarrass Melania Trump.
He said, that's why I decided to take care of this on my own.
I went back to that several times.
You did this on your own?
On my own.
Did Donald Trump have anything to do with it?
No.
Did you get the money from Donald Trump?
No.
From any of his organizations?
No.
From anybody connected to Donald Trump?
No.
Where did you get the money?
I took out a HELOC loan against my property.
I said, why would you do that?
He said, I didn't want anybody to know where I got this money.
I didn't want Melania to know.
I didn't want my own wife to know, because she's in charge, he said, of the Cohen Family Finances.
He said, if she saw money coming out of my account, she'd ask me a hundred questions, and I didn't want to answer any of them.
It was clear after talking to him for several days after that, whenever we talked on the phone or in my office, that he kept on bringing up the subject that he felt he was betrayed by not being brought down to Washington, D.C.
This guy thought, he said to me, that he should have been Attorney General of the United States, or at least the Chief Assistant to the President.
Ludicrous, but that's what he thought.
And he was very angry about that.
He wanted to do something to put himself back into the inner circle of Donald Trump.
That's why he took care of this on his own.
There had to be a motivation.
Michael Cohen is always working for things that benefit himself.
And that's what he was doing here.
That's completely different to what he said that he told the grand jury.
That's completely different to what he's testifying to in New York.
A potential Trump defense witness uses off-data savage Michael Cohen.
They go on to say it's unclear how his testimony came together.
They may bring in Costello as a defense witness.
Costello told lawmakers that Cohen was absolutely manic when they met in April 2018, pacing back and forth like a tiger in a cage.
Costello said Cohen had told him that only two days earlier he had been on the roof of the Regency Hotel, seriously considering jumping off, committing suicide because he couldn't handle the pressure of the legal problems he saw coming his way.
Costello said he repeatedly asked Cohen whether he had any evidence that would incriminate Trump, and if that he were looking for an escape route from prosecution, providing that evidence to investigators would be his easiest path.
He said Cohen repeatedly denied having any evidence connecting Trump to criminal activity.
This is amazing.
He was thinking of ending himself.
Costello said he kept pressing this point.
Isn't it easier to cooperate against Donald Trump than We'll use some euphemism.
Take your own life.
But Cohen said he had none during Tuesday's testimony.
Prosecutors anticipated that the conversation between Cohen and Costello might come up.
Cohen testified that he never told Costello the extent of his knowledge about Trump because he was attempting to be loyal to his former boss.
Who in their right mind would believe this guy cared about loyalty at all?
No, this guy was in it for himself.
He wanted Trump.
He wanted to maintain the perception that he was a good guy doing good things.
He wanted Trump to keep him around.
Why?
Cohen was stealing from him.
Cohen didn't want to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.
He knew that so long as he's in with Donald Trump and working as his lawyer, he can send in these bunk invoices and steal money.
That's what he was doing.
They say also because he had doubts about Costello's motivations.
Cohen also said he never formally hired Costello as his lawyer for that reason as well.
But Costello told lawmakers that he was Cohen's attorney for two months in 2018, a claim echoed by congressional Republicans who amplified Costello's testimony.
Rep Dan Goldman, a former federal prosecutor from Manhattan, took Costello to task, they say.
I think you're in the wrong place.
You know that coming down here outside of that courtroom while the witnesses on the stand try and impeach his credibility in his testimony is jury tampering.
You know it is unethical.
You know better, and it is shameful.
Tampering?
He didn't go to the jury.
He's speaking as someone who's directly involved, and he should be speaking.
He should be pointing this stuff out, because it is clear now.
It is clear as day to anybody who's paying attention, the big picture.
Everybody who liked Trump was biased against this already.
Okay, you like Trump, you're a Trump supporter, you're gonna come on, you're gonna be like, this is a ridiculous case, what's going on?
But you look at the actual facts of it, and this is the big challenge, you know, for me and for many others.
I don't need to support Trump to know this is bunk.
And if you're a moderate, not even a Trump supporter, and you look at the facts of this case, once again, you find yourself in this box of, stop making me defend Trump.
You look at the Burisma case.
You look at the lies, the manipulations.
You remember when Trump was with Shinzo Abe of Japan, feeding the koi fish?
The camera zooms in, cropping it on Trump as he dumps the food into the pond and everyone insults him and makes fun of him and they lie about him.
In the full frame, that wasn't manipulated by these journalists.
Shinzo Abe dumped the food first and Trump followed suit.
And they acted like he was doing something wrong.
The very fine people hoax.
The injecting bleach hoax.
They lie every step of the way.
And now, they've bet it all on Michael Cohen, a man who has now admitted under oath to stealing $30,000 from Donald Trump.
What could you do with $30,000, right?
I've heard stories of assassins, right?
They have these videos where a guy will show up in a motel room talking to a woman and they're talking way less than this.
And then the cops bust in and they catch the guy and like, you're under arrest.
A woman, or like the hitman is actually a cop and the woman's like, I've got it out for my husband.
How much?
And they're like, 10 grand.
Ten grand.
$30,000.
30.
For a lot of people, that's like a yearly salary.
I think the median salary in this country is like $60-something thousand.
I don't think that's fair because you're basically counting in all the millionaires and billionaires and then finding a median.
And you're someone like Cohen living in a $5 million condo in a Trump building.
He still lives there apparently.
He didn't want to get the boot from the Trump inner circle because he was stealing from it.
They decided to bring a criminal case against Donald Trump that anybody now can see, that anybody honest would tell you is fake.
It's beyond the statute of limitations.
It is a misdemeanor.
They upgraded false, it's falsifying business records.
They upgraded to a felony under the pretense that Trump violated some campaign finance law by paying off Stormy Daniels.
And now we know Cohen was falsifying invoices.
No reasonable jury could convict Donald Trump.
But my friends, we are talking about New York City, and I fear that these people, many of them, are simply going to say, we want Donald Trump in prison.
Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating and affecting the 2024 presidential election.
We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
I think the prosecutors, they're gonna give their closing statement, which they say will come the Tuesday after Memorial Day.
And they're going to say, the prosecutors are gonna look at the jury and say, think about everything you know about Donald Trump.
From this trial.
Think about everything everyone has said about this man.
In this trial.
Think about everything you know should be done.
And of course, the implication is not in the trial.
The implication is the closing argument's gonna be, please, this is our chance, lock him up!
Jury, you can do it now.
They're going to say this.
They're going to say Trump is a deeply corrupt man, and you've heard it here in this courtroom.
And you have a chance here today to hold him accountable for everything you've heard he's done in this trial.
I wonder.
Though they say it takes only one juror.
And in New York, just this past weekend, we saw this rally for Trump in the Bronx.
There may be some people on this jury who say, this man's not going to prison for this.
But we'll see.
I imagine it will only get worse for Cohen and the Democrats who are pushing this fraudulent trial.
Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I'll see you all then.
It has now been confirmed.
The president of Iran and the Iranian foreign minister are dead, reportedly in a helicopter crash.
Now, based on the images that we are seeing coming out of Iran, it looks like a weather-related incident, and there is little reason to believe anything else.
Israel is denying any involvement, but conspiracies and rumors are already flying.
And as always, my friends, Perhaps it does not matter what is true.
As I always say, the truth matters, of course.
We strive to understand the truth.
But with escalated tensions, particularly around the Iranian and Israeli exchange of missile fire just about one month ago.
I'm not sure it matters exactly how the Iranian President and Foreign Minister died, because anyone who hates Israel, particularly in Iran, is just going to say this is an act of war.
We have two mainstream news articles, Newsweek and The Intercept, saying, we're not waiting for World War III, we're in it.
The terrifying thing, The Intercept writing, Alright, alright, alright.
There's no real way to break this down.
A lot of people are going to say, nothing will happen.
You're just scaremongering.
World War III?
Who were so worried about it?
I don't know.
So many times throughout history there have been moments where we thought it would be the moment and then, you know, nothing really happens.
All grains of sand making a heap until that heap of kindling goes up in smoke.
What I can say is, Israel and Iran just exchanged rocket fire, missile fire, a barrage.
Israel actually got hit.
Now, Iran reportedly gets hit and then says, no, we didn't get hit, that's a misunderstanding, nothing happened.
The reason being, if the Iranian leadership came out and said, we did get hit by rockets from Israel, the people of Iran would demand military retaliation.
They'd say, it's time for war.
How does this begin?
It goes all the way back.
I mean, conflict in the Middle East didn't just start yesterday, so good luck figuring that one out.
You probably go back all the way to the times of biblical history.
But we can go back a little bit and see Israel.
Israel struck the Iranian embassy.
They say it's because the man who was there was the one leading Hamas or providing resources and strategy and munitions.
Iran claims that Israel attacked them, so they retaliated, so Israel retaliates back.
Now, what happened here?
There's a lot of conspiracies, and we'll never know.
Could this be that Israel killed the president and the foreign minister, somehow targeting that helicopter because of the missile strike?
Perhaps.
I don't know that I think so.
I don't know what is served by doing so.
If Israel wants to show its people that it's taking action, and it wants Iran to know it takes action, it would come right out and say they did.
Or Israelis, their government officials, would say they did.
Could it be, however, that in Iran, because the president was unwilling to retaliate for the attack coming from Israel, in fact, this is a coup moment?
Also, I don't think so.
I don't think you need it.
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran is the Ayatollah, not the President.
The President gets elected, sure, and he runs government, but there's still a Supreme Leader.
I gotta tell you, my friends, it's probably just a helicopter crash.
These things happen.
But today, especially of all days in modern history, no one, no one believes in coincidence.
So with a story like this, Assumptions, conspiracies, rumors are flying.
Again, based on the images we've seen from drones, as well as people on the ground, it was foggy.
A lot of people are saying, look, unless you think Kobe's death was also a conspiracy, it looks like it's hard to fly a helicopter in fog.
Now, I suppose the question then becomes, why?
Why fly a helicopter in the fog?
Kobe was trying to land at his house or something and it was foggy, and then they screwed up.
Perhaps that's what happened here?
Well, many are already saying it's World War III, with or without this incident.
And the reason why I often say the truth doesn't matter is because, while of course the truth matters in the grand scheme of things, morally, etc., we're talking about the question of war and expansion.
Does the truth matter in a situation like this?
It matters what the governments are willing to do.
If the Supreme Leader, or now the acting President of Iran, want to go to war, they will call this whatever they want to call it.
If they really want a World War III, and I don't think they do, at least not yet, if they did, they'd simply say, we have found evidence to suggest foreign interference in the death of our President.
In which case, good luck.
Let's read the news.
From Fox, Iran's President, Foreign Minister, other officials confirmed dead in helicopter crash.
There was no immediate cause for the crash, but the helicopter had to make a hard landing on Sunday, state media reported.
This is Iran's controversial President Ibrahim Raisi, Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdullahian,
and other officials were confirmed dead on Monday after their helicopter crashed in a
mountainous region of the country's northwest.
The death of Raisi, nicknamed the Butcher of Tehran, for his oversight of mass executions of political prisoners in 1988, forced Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to install interim leadership for Iran's executive branch.
An Israeli official denied to Reuters that the country had any involvement in the deadly crash, saying it bluntly, it wasn't us.
Iran, for years, has backed the terror group Hamas, currently engaged in its months-long war with Israel.
Iranian state TV earlier Monday said there was no sign of life at the crash site of the helicopter that was carrying
63 year old ricey 60 year old Abdali in
Dala he in I'm trying man I'm trying.
And other officials, after it made a hard landing on Sunday.
The crash site was across a steep valley, according to state media, which gave no immediate cause for the crash.
As the sun rose on Monday, rescuers saw the helicopter from a distance of roughly 1.25 miles, head of the Iranian Red Crescent Society, Pir Hossein Khalivan, told state media the officials had been missing for more than 12 hours when the helicopter was observed.
Raisi and Amir, Amir Abdalian, We're traveling in Iran's east Azerbaijan province when the helicopter made what state TV described as a hard landing near Jalfa, a city on the border with the nation of Azerbaijan, roughly 375 miles northwest of Tehran.
State TV later said it crashed further east near the village of Uzi.
Although details remain contradictory.
The government of the East Azerbaijan province and other officials and bodyguards were also on board according to the state-run IRNA news agency.
One local government official described what happened as a crash, while others called it a hard landing or incident.
Well, of course, as I already read, Israel is insisting they had no involvement.
They go on to mention what happened here, and this is the bulk of the story.
Okay.
Well, I give you this, because already, threads like this are popping up.
Now, this is the History and Quiz X account, and they're not the only ones who've posted this.
Certainly not the most prominent.
wasn't us.
Okay.
Well, I give you this, because already threads like this are popping up.
Now, this is the History and Quiz X account.
And they're not the only ones who've posted this, certainly not the most prominent, it's just an example.
The deaths of Iranian President Ibrahim Raisi
and Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria share some significant
similarities.
Here's a comparison thread.
I don't know exactly how deep in the thread he's gotten because he's just started posting this as I've been recording.
He goes on to say, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, his assassination on June 28, 1914 by Gavrilo Princip set off a chain reaction among the great powers in Europe.
Ibrahim Raisi is the president of Iran.
He was a central figure in Iranian politics and international relations, especially amidst ongoing tensions in the Middle East.
Look at this.
Heir to Austrian throne, assassinated.
Wife by his side, also shot to death.
Earlier attempts on their life failed.
The story about the assassination of Franz Ferdinand is actually really interesting, because apparently the guy who was trying to kill him missed him, like at the target location, and then only by chance saw him driving somewhere else.
Could have avoided World War I.
He says, Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination led Austria-Hungary to declare war on Serbia, activating a web of alliances and leading to a global conflict.
Ibram Raisi's death could exacerbate existing conflicts, potentially leading to significant instability or conflict.
I do think this is a little bit of a reach, but again, this is probably the most comprehensive view.
A lot of people are saying Franz Ferdinand, Franz Ferdinand, and I'm just like, helicopter crash?
I know, people don't want to believe in coincidences though.
World War I. The war caused massive economic, social, and human losses, reshaping global politics and societies.
Potential Middle Eastern conflict.
A significant conflict involving Iran could disrupt global oil supplies, lead to a massive refugee crisis, and trigger widespread economic instability.
And I don't need to wait for the rest of whatever thread he is posting.
I just thought it was interesting that someone started breaking this down while many people are saying this is Franz Ferdinand moment of the 21st century.
Well, look no further, my friends.
The sun.co.uk.
Evil dread.
Threat of World War III looms on, as Iran insists.
Chopper death of President Ricey will not deter regime amid nuclear tensions.
Well, okay.
The Times of India says, World War III doomsday scenario.
How Russia-NATO armies size up against each other.
This one I just thought was a little interesting.
I'm not familiar with the Times of India, but it appears to be a website.
You know, everybody's been clamoring.
This one from yesterday.
World War III.
Russia-NATO.
World War III.
Okay.
Here we go.
Let's take it to the Intercept.
April 20th.
It says Israel.
It should say Israeli.
Israel attack on Iran is what World War III looks like.
Really?
They say, like countless other hostilities, the stealthy Israeli missile and drone strike on Iran doesn't risk war.
It is war.
So let me get this straight, Intercept.
You're saying it's not risking war, it is war, and it's what World War III looks like?
They're essentially saying, this is World War III.
And if that is the case, and many have already said World War III is here, then there's no one who's going to believe the President of Iran died in an accident.
Iran fired rockets in retaliation against Israel.
And those rockets landed.
Some of them.
Many of them intercepted, but some of them did strike Israel.
Another president's dead a month later.
And you think everyone's just going to believe?
Completely unrelated?
I don't think so.
Newsweek.
We're not on the brink of World War III.
We are in it.
As the United States throws its weight behind Israel, while Iran arms Hamas and Hezbollah, some pundits are saying we're on the brink of global war.
But that war has already begun.
Washington may be in denial, but Russia, China, and Iran are openly at war with the United States.
This is not an all-out war, but a decentralized one with seemingly unconnected fronts that span across continents.
It is fought in a hybrid style, meaning both with tanks and planes, and with disinformation campaigns, political interference, and cyber warfare.
The strategy blurs the lines between war and peace and combatants and civilians.
It puts a lot of extra fog in the fog of war.
China, Russia, and Iran disagree on many things, but they all have the same goal, ridding their regions of U.S.
influence and creating a multipolar global governance system.
Tehran, Beijing, and Moscow know that the U.S.
political and military might is the only force preventing them from imposing their will on their neighbors.
Well, let's break it down this way.
China, cyber attacks on the U.S., fact.
Iran and Israel exchanging rocket fire, missile fire, fact.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine, fact.
The U.S.
funding of the Ukrainian, let's just be real, there's no Ukrainian front.
It's a NATO front, both figuratively and literally.
The Ukrainians fighting are a front for NATO, as well as a literal military front.
It's NATO versus Russia already.
The U.S.
and Australia have been gearing up for their defense in the South China Sea.
The threats against Australia, the threats against Southeast Asian countries, namely, the threat against the Republic of China.
I'm talking about Taiwan, of course, not mainland communist China.
We call that West Taiwan.
True government is that of Taiwan.
And the United States is seeking to defend it.
So let's once again start from the beginning.
With cyber warfare.
With economic warfare.
With political interference.
We've got the Houthi rebels, supported by Iran, trying to impede oil trade in the Red Sea.
Shutting down almost all, more than half of global trade.
If this does result in NATO forces in Ukraine, no one will deny it.
For now.
If tomorrow we were to wake up and there was no conflict and everybody was just chillin' out, no one's gonna say World War III happened.
And that would be great.
But I think right now what we're looking at will be considered World War III in the future, and that's the important distinction.
Bleeding Kansas.
The seven-year period before the Civil War.
Nobody says that was the Civil War, but it's basically the Civil War.
In the territories outside of the Union, they're part of the control by the United States, but they were territories, not states.
There were fights over whether or not those states would be slave states or free states.
And abolitionists were ambushing and killing slave owners, and slave owners were retaliating.
Or pro-slavery factions, I guess.
Which, to be honest, were rare.
Beleding, Kansas, seven years before the Civil War.
Fighting, murder, and blood.
And they say that's not part of the Civil War.
What could we see internationally that they would not even consider to be World War III?
I have no idea.
That's why I look at everything that's going on right now and I'm like, you know, if a bomb drops, they're gonna say, we've been in World War III for a while.
They've been saying it for like a year since Russia invaded Ukraine.
Newsweek goes on to say, each country is playing its part.
China has launched an unprecedented espionage campaign against the U.S.
Russia has spent billions of dollars on disseminating pro-Kremlin, anti-Western propaganda within and outside its borders.
Iran maintains a network of militant proxies that wreaks havoc in the Middle East and has openly attacked U.S.
troops.
Iran, Russia, and China have all carried out or poised themselves to carry out cyber attacks on U.S.
critical infrastructure.
These countries resort to various kinds of guerrilla warfare because they can't win in a direct conflict with the U.S.
Waging war in this way, in the sneakier way, helps them avoid accountability.
It is information warfare.
The strategy is not to create divisions, but to play off existing ones.
Both China and Russia have been forming relations with Western-based extremists on the left and the right, hoping to widen societal chasms and increase instability.
For example, in January, the Kremlin temporarily derailed Sweden's NATO bid by funding a far-right Danish national burning a Koran outside of the Turkish embassy.
The officials involved used language intended to appeal to extremists.
Despite his own imperialistic invasion of Ukraine, Putin declared himself the leader of the anti-colonial liberation movement.
He has used similar language in Africa to incite anti-French sentiment while simultaneously offering Russia as an alternate guarantor of security.
While the war of words continues, so do armed confrontations.
Russia invaded Ukraine.
Iranian proxies have continuously attacked the U.S.
and its allies in the region, including Hamas, which carried out the deadliest attack on Israeli soil in the country's history.
The Biden administration so far has been happy to let them off the hook.
Immediately after the October 7th massacre by Hamas, U.S.
officials rushed to claim there was no proof that Iran was involved in the attacks, despite the fact that Iranian proxies do not act independently in matters that affect Iranian geopolitical strategy.
Likely sensing weakness, Iranian allies have attacked U.S.
forces in the Middle East roughly 30 times in the past month.
In response, the U.S.
Air Force carried out two strikes on ammunition storage facilities, which the Biden administration calls self-defense.
The weakness of this statement was palpable and was followed almost immediately by more Iranian-backed attacks.
There's a question I have for President Trump.
He's Mr. President because we call the former presidents Mr. President, but he will be president again in all likelihood.
We'll see.
Maybe he'll lose, you know.
I'm not sure, but I do believe all signs point to a Trump election.
So did they in 2020?
Well, not even true.
I mean, Trump didn't have the polls in 2020.
We just thought the polls were going to be wrong.
And then, of course, there was a shadow campaign, so about that.
That's the question for Donald Trump, though.
With everything going on, and he says Biden is bringing us to World War III, With this level of conflict and violence, could Donald Trump actually avert World War III?
I don't know.
I don't.
I just know that, uh... Who are you gonna choose?
No, don't get me wrong.
I think a good Libertarian candidate would probably be the best bet.
The problem, however, is the Libertarian Party is full of psychos.
Yeah, the Mises Caucus seem to be sane, rational, very much in alignment with many of you and I and our views and everything, but I think for the most part, they don't have the sheer numbers nationally.
So let's just be realistic.
Donald Trump is our best bet in averting the destruction of this planet.
But with everything that Joe Biden has kicked off, I don't know that Trump could actually do anything about it.
I don't.
I don't know.
You know, when it was just the Ukrainian war a year ago, I said Trump would end this war overnight.
Moment he gets elected, Russia stops the fighting.
That may be true for Ukraine, but the problem is the conflict has expanded so rapidly and internationally, I'm not sure Russia could even oblige.
They might just say, look, with respect to Ukraine, fine.
But there's war coming.
Taiwan.
Iran.
There's nothing that can stop it.
And when that happens, the Ukrainian front will be just that.
It will reignite.
Considering everything Trump's done, you know, he was trying to end the wars, no new wars, I think the strongest possibility that we have for avoiding World War III would be Donald Trump getting elected.
But I don't know for sure.
I really don't.
I can tell you this.
It's a wild position to be in.
I think to myself quite often, you know, I've never been, my whole life, I've never been a strong supporter of any political candidate.
But Donald Trump?
No question.
And I think to myself, are there people who are browsing the web, who are thinking, you know, that's Tim Pool's bias, he's just a Trump supporter.
You know what's crazy to me is, There is no mathematical equation.
We can talk about uniparty corruption.
We can talk about the deep state.
We can talk about the establishment uniparty.
We can talk about Trump backroom deals with uniparty figures.
We can talk about World War III.
There's no chess move.
I'm looking at the board.
There's one move we can make.
And we hope, when we make this move, the chain reaction that comes afterwards is a positive one.
That one move is Donald Trump.
It doesn't mean he's the greatest guy in the world.
It doesn't mean he's a good person.
It doesn't mean that he's the greatest president.
It doesn't mean that he's the most effective leader.
It doesn't mean that he's a nice guy.
It just means there's no move to be made, whether you like him or don't.
The economy is terrible right now, and we're on the brink of international war, the likes of which is hitherto undreamt of.
I probably said that wrong.
I don't know.
Whatever.
It's not fun.
I think Donald Trump is the greatest president of my lifetime.
No new wars.
That's all that matters to me.
I mean, the economy was good.
That matters to everybody.
But no new wars?
That was shocking to me.
Growing up at a time of anti-war protests.
Met a guy this weekend who said, I don't understand.
I used to be a Democrat, but they're pro-war now!
And I was laughing.
I was like, right?
How weird.
I'd rather be libertarian.
I'd rather say I don't care for the two-party system.
But that's a lie.
Any sane, rational person who has broken down the issues goes, you have to vote for Trump.
Doesn't matter if you like him, if you think he's gross.
There's no other move you can make.
I hope and I pray we avoid the worst of this.
Next segment's coming up at 1pm on this channel.
Thanks for hanging out, and I will see you all then.
Last Friday morning, the Culture War podcast hosted Lauren Chen and Pearl Davis, and the debate was, I thought it was rather fantastic actually.
We also had Isabella Moody and Rachel Wilson, and there was a great conversation, but there were some heated moments between Lauren Chen and Pearl Davis, and these have continued on X with some big cultural questions for conservatives that I think deserve exploration.
And while I certainly opined quite a bit on that Culture War episode, as I do, there's a lot of conversations that I just mostly stayed out of.
Let them have their debate and only asked a few questions where I thought clarification was necessary.
Now, Pearl Davis has ignited debate over conservative women telling other men how to live their lives, how to lead their households.
In one tweet, she says, Why do so many conservative women think it's their place to tell their husband when he is and is not following God?
Blows my mind conservative women are so out of order.
And, uh, this expands upon the other idea that Pearl has been tweeting about, where she says that many of these conservative women are feminists, telling other men in other households how to lead their families.
There's a lot to break down here, and there's actually a very personal component to this, where Pearl is calling women ugly and old, and women are calling her refrigerator body, and, oh man, you gotta love the internet.
But I do think, considering this is a big cultural issue right now pertaining to the fertility rate, whether or not people are at replacement levels, meaning if you are a couple, you have two kids, and without getting too much into personal details, fully acknowledging that I am 38, unmarried, have no kids.
I am currently in a relationship, working on family stuff, and that's none of your business.
But I do think it's really funny how internet drama begins to erupt over these issues, considering the importance of this, quite literally the survival of humanity, I think we should actually dive into this.
Now the one thing I do need to tell everybody, for our more inexperienced audience members, I mean this with no disrespect, There are a lot of people that are commenting, that tend to comment on when I'm talking to a guest.
This really blows my mind, the media literacy of this era.
So, for instance, Pearl Davis says something like, you know, homes without fathers tend to be worse than homes without mothers, and then I will respond with, Do you actually think X, Y, and Z, or is it Y?
The purpose of a question, when I follow up with someone like Pearl, is not to not understand.
For those that are not familiar with shows like this, it's because many people watching may need a little bit more information to truly understand the point.
Follow-up questions, like, and you'll actually hear me say to Pearl, like, hey, what about X, Y, and Z?
And then she'll say A, B, and C, and I'll go, I actually agree.
Okay, you know, just wondering.
People don't seem to understand that questions are not designed, are not because I don't understand, it's because I'm trying to help an audience understand who Pearl is.
I've seen her stuff, I know a lot about her.
But let's talk about this issue right now, because I think this one is really important.
And then, oh boy, I hope you're ready for some e-drama, catfight girl bickering, or whatever you want to call it.
And I do have some personal opinions about Pearl.
She's very smart.
But I do think, and I'm going to say this right away, and a lot of people have expressed this, she seems hurt.
I don't mean this as an emotional dig.
I think Pearl Davis is jaded.
I think that she's got a chip on her shoulder of sorts.
And when you say something like that about someone, they usually take it as an insult.
It's a dig at somebody.
I don't know how else to say it.
I think Pearl Davis's opinions are partially informed by a bias against women.
That may be rooted in jealousy.
I mean that sincerely.
I think Pearl Davis is very smart.
I think she's right about a lot of the things she's bringing up.
I think she's wrong about a lot.
You know, she said something like, women's jobs tend to be useless, and I called that hyperbolic.
Come on, that's not literally true.
And, you know, she goes on to mention a bunch of jobs That women tend to work, and I'm like, these are social jobs.
I mean, nursing tends to be dominated by women, and nursing is arguably as or more important than the doctors themselves.
I'll tell you why.
Now, a lot of people are going to come out and be like, are you kidding?
The doctors are the ones who know and do the... The nurses are the ones who perform the majority of the procedures and taking care of the average patient.
Doctors prescribe, also extremely important.
My point is only, When you go to the hospital and you're getting a medicine administered, or you're getting an IV, you're getting taken care of, the nurses are doing the work.
It is predominantly female.
And so I think that's tremendously important.
Now, I don't like institutionalized learning facilities, so you're not going to see me defend teachers.
Sorry.
Have a nice day.
But I do think some of these things are informed by a bias.
Pearl Davis says she thought that lawsuits were initiated more by women.
And I said, actually, I think I got you on this one.
You're going to agree.
And she did.
I said that This was on Timcast IRL after the show, actually.
I think it was on IRL.
Men work riskier jobs and are more likely to get hurt and thus more likely to initiate lawsuits.
And she then said, yes, you're right.
Because I do think she is smart.
I do think she understands the data and the facts.
But let's talk about where we're at currently.
This is ridiculous Twitter threads.
So, Pearl Davis tweets, Conservative women are feminists.
Here's what she says, The Lauren Chen admits here she thinks
she should be able to tell another man how to talk to his wife in his home.
That is out of order.
Traditional women use religion to control men.
Lauren Chen responded, It is not a feminist stance to believe
I agree with Lauren Chen more than you could probably agree.
This is extremely important.
their families. What a ridiculous notion, but sadly predictable when you remove
God and responsibility from your worldview. This is an extremely
important take. I agree with Lauren Chen more than you could probably agree. This
is extremely important. The idea that there would be no social pressure from
outside groups on other families is how you get the degeneracy we begin to see
emerge today.
Quite literally, women and men in the community should be telling other people in their community how to live.
Yep!
Doesn't mean you have to listen, but it means that social pressure should exist.
This means if there is a man who is not going to church, who is not part of your community, and you're a Christian, you should be saying, asking the question, is something wrong?
Can we do something to get you to attend church?
If there is another person who seems to be deviating, you do intervene in some social capacity.
Wives talk to each other.
It's what they do.
The idea That conservative Christian women, and I gotta be honest, take the religion out of it.
Neighbors should be asking about their neighbors.
Let me put it this way.
Remove the religion from it.
If there is a guy who is acting poorly in the neighborhood, do you just ignore him?
Let's say a guy is flinging dog crap into the street.
You're gonna be like, hey, you can't do this.
Now let's say he's doing something that's kind of annoying, but not really as bad.
Like if you're flinging dog crap in the street, you're gonna be like, we got a health hazard.
But let's say he's, like, leaving things in his front lawn.
Yeah, you say, hey, you know, I know it's your lawn, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but we were wondering if it would be okay if you put some of this stuff away, you know, just leaving this stuff out here.
Kids could trip on it and it could cause problems.
I think that's totally reasonable.
He could then say, my property, bye-bye.
Okay, well, if you don't want to be a participant in community, then you can get offended by things.
It doesn't mean you go to someone's house and scream at them and be like, what is this mess?
You insult them or anything like that.
Now, as it pertains to Christianity, I'm not a Christian, so far be it for me to tell Christians how they're supposed to live.
But as an outside perspective, I'd imagine Christian communities have a deep investment in the other families maintaining good traditional Christian values, and women absolutely could be saying things like, I think your husband is not behaving like a Christian.
Now, let's jump into this.
Pearl Davis elaborates in a somewhat different way.
Why do so many conservative women think it is their place to tell their husband when
he is and is not following God?
Blows my mind.
Conservative women are so out of order.
Now, again, when it comes to divorce rates, when it comes to modern feminism, Pearl Davis
nails it a ton of the time, right?
She's correct.
Divorce courts favor women.
There's a lot of problems.
It disincentivizes marriage and causes problems for marriage.
And then you've got young men who don't even understand how they can get married with what's going on.
I met a guy the other day who said he had been with a woman for nine years!
They decided to tie the knot.
As soon as they did, everything changed!
All of a sudden, she no longer cared about anything he cared about.
She didn't want to have a family.
She wanted to have a career.
And they got divorced almost right away.
And he was like, I have no idea what happened.
Like, how did this happen after nine years?
She just changed.
I think Pearl Davis is correct about many of those things.
However, What I find particularly interesting with Pearl is that she tends to take these attacks as though she is a conservative woman, but she certainly is not a conservative woman.
In which case, for conservative women, I don't know who Pearl is actually talking to.
I don't know that Lauren Chen identifies herself as conservative or what her position is.
I think, probably.
But if you're a conservative woman, why would you take advice from a 26-year-old unmarried spinster?
Right?
I'm saying that somewhat with... I would call that faux derision, right?
I actually have no problem whatsoever with Pearl doing whatever she wants to do, and spinster is not a word I normally use, but my point is if you're a conservative Christian woman seeking to have a family, and you look to Pearl Davis, that's how you would see her.
And you'd say, her opinion's completely meaningless to me.
So then who actually is Pearl Davis talking to?
She's criticizing conservatives to non-conservatives.
Who is that?
I suppose men who are, uh...
I don't want to say just necessarily like the red pill men, like red pill dating, but it's a collection of men who are, it's typically male, they're going to be jaded with the current state of the system in courts, and probably relatively anti-woke, anti-feminist, but not conservative.
And there are many men who are former liberals, disaffected liberals, who are hearing this, and they're saying, I agree with Pearl.
Pearl is not conservative.
I mean, she can say she's a conservative.
I don't think she does.
She said on the show in the Culture War, I'm not telling people to live like me.
Well, yeah.
Pearl's 26.
She's running a business.
I would say that Pearl is a feminist.
And I'm not saying that as a gotcha or disrespect.
Pearl is an adult human female.
In her prime years, deciding to start a business and run a company and hire employees instead of starting a family.
And that is certainly the antithesis of conservative women.
That is the feminist archetype, isn't it?
Girlboss?
I do think it was funny that a lot of people were commenting on the show being like, four girlbosses complaining about girlbosses?
Come on.
And, sure, whatever, not really.
Now, take a look at this thread.
Pearl Davis asks, why do so many conservative women think it's their place to tell their husband when he is and is not following God?
And again, I want to stress this.
I'm not trying to say anything that's intentionally disrespectful to Pearl.
I'm not trying to start a beef.
But I do want to give my thoughts and opinions on her motivations.
Frank Pellegrino says, my wife and I have conversations about helping each other live our best lives with and through God.
I hope and pray that you will have that someday.
Finding a partner who has your back and wants to join you in heaven someday.
Kind of a nice thing to say.
Okay, well Pearl says, Your wife is a overweight 40-year-old who chose you after 15 plus years of doing God knows what.
No one wants what you have.
If you ever leave her good graces, her army of friends will treat you the same way they treat me.
Frank says, How did you get so triggered when I literally said I would pray that you find a partner in life?
Incredible, really.
Maybe show a bit of humility for once and people won't keep making fun of you.
Pearl says, not triggered at all, actually.
You said, live how my wife and I live.
No one wants what you have.
He actually didn't.
He said, here's what my wife and I do.
I hope you find a partner who has your back and wants to join you.
He didn't say that, you know, if Pearl hooked up with another red pill guy who shared similar, I shouldn't say another, but a red pill kind of guy who was critical of women and they got along, Frank didn't say that he wants them to pray together to live their lives through God.
One guy responded, no one wants what you have either, Pearl.
Pearl says, I do not preach what I have is how people should live.
Don't use yourself as an example if I can't comment on it.
I see this quite a bit, and Pearl was saying it on the Culture War show.
Saying, well I don't tell you to live like me.
I don't know that that's actually a defense.
Other people are doing things that are wrong and bad, and I'm not giving an example of how they should live anyway.
I'm just going to come out and say it.
And again, I'm not saying this because I want to start a beef or say anything intentionally, emotionally triggering to Pearl, but I think it's plainly obvious, man.
When you say, you know, you post a tweet that says, how can, you know, why do so many conservatives think they can tell their, conservative women think they can tell their husband?
And a guy just says, well, we pray together.
I hope you find someone who cares about you.
And then the response is to insult the wife of the man I'm sorry, there's only one thing I see.
Insecurity and jealousy.
This is not an academic argument.
It's not a witty argument.
It's not an argument at all.
It is pain.
It's not even a good dig.
Your wife is an overweight 40 year old who chose you after 15 plus years of doing God knows what.
No one wants what you have.
That's clearly wrong.
Many people beg and hope and pray for that.
Pearl Davis saying no one wants what you have?
Again, I'm trying to avoid what may come off as emotional digs, but this reeks of Pearl wishing she had marriage.
I've got to be honest, it's probably not even a great revelation.
Everybody wants this love.
Everybody wants to find their life partner who has their back so that when they're in their darkest, when they're most worried, they know that someone will be there for them.
One of the scariest things ever is being in the hospital with no one to call.
Just strangers all around you.
Nobody wants that.
You can be the strongest man in the world, able to lift up a bag of baby puppies and your wife and carry them out of a burning building with two babies strapped to, you know, in carriers on your chest and you put them all down and then you flex your glistening sweaty muscles and say, I just saved the day.
And you still beg that there is a woman there, and you fear the loneliness.
One day you wake up in the hospital and there's no one there around you.
Nobody likes it.
That's why there are so many guys who don't like divorce, and that's what guys are scared about.
So this idea that no one wants what you have?
Seriously?
People who are aging, who are not married, are certainly thinking about, heavens help me, what am I gonna do?
And of course there's liberal cope.
I formed a polycule, and we're gonna live together forever, oh please.
Y'all are going to be sitting on your deathbed in the hospital room, wondering where it all went wrong.
With no family.
That's a terrifying prospect.
If you ever leave the Good Graces, her army of friends will treat you the same way they treat me.
She's correct about that.
Yeah, if you break up and have a divorce, then your friends are not going to be friends anymore.
Not surprising.
Alright, well, here we go.
Chrissy Mayer responds.
I could, because I believe that's the wife, I could roast you, but I'd rather say that even though you might not think so, you are worthy of love, Pearly Things.
The fact that you got this triggered over someone praying you find a husband tells me you don't feel worthy of it, but you are, everyone is.
Let's all pray for Pearl tonight, that she finds the love of her life this year, a guy who will love all seven feet of her chilly refrigerator body and melt her prickly disposition.
To which Pearl responds, And you are worthy of taking this L, Miss Buzzer Beater
pregnancy.
Pray for your kid when his classmates ask if you're his mom or his grandma at graduation.
If you make it that long.
Your show looks like a casting call for a woke all-female The Hobbit remake.
Well, we certainly solved a lot of problems with those tweets now, didn't we?
Alright, well, I'm gonna break down, you know, It almost seems pointless to even be talking about this, to
be completely honest.
Women insulting each other on the internet is not really of most relevance to guys who are trying to be men of action and solve worldly problems, but in fact, my friends, this is a large component of our worldly problems.
How we run our households.
Do we have kids?
Like, all of those things are deeply important.
Chrissy Mayer attacking Pearl, and I think it's fairly obvious she's attacking Pearl where she thinks the weaknesses are.
Calling her a seven foot tall refrigerator body with a prickly disposition.
I'm going to give you my honest assessment.
Some people may think I'm being mean.
I'm not trying to be mean.
I want to say that again.
Uh, the first thing I can say is, like, yeah, you know, I guess, is that, uh, I'm assuming that Chrissy Mayer is married to Frank.
I don't know for sure.
I don't know anything really about their family history.
But, um...
Pearl is very tall.
She's six foot something.
And tall women are insecure.
Because women tend to want men who are taller than they are.
And men tend to want women that are shorter than they are.
It is very difficult for taller women.
You see it a lot all over the internet.
Tall women trying to find very tall men.
Maybe it won't happen.
And a lot of guys don't want to be with a tall woman.
Women don't want to be with a short guy.
So short guys feel this experience as well.
Refrigerator body, and people are posting this image of Pearl.
I don't know if the image is here.
I don't know if I should even show it.
There's a guy holding a refrigerator, but people are posting this image of Pearl.
Excuse me, making her look, you know, overweight and frumpy or whatever.
My honest assessment, I think Pearl is insecure.
I think that she's jealous of many women.
I think that she's capable and she's intelligent.
She's running a successful business and she's very wealthy and, you know, all that true.
But when you look at her responses, like this one right here where the guy says, I pray that you find a wife, she says, no one wants what you have.
I'm like, I gotta be honest, man, that kind of reeks of jealousy.
I could be wrong, sure.
And again, I stress this for the 80th time.
I'm not saying it's an emotional dig.
I'm saying that's what I read.
Dude just said, we pray together.
I hope you find that someday.
And she's like, your wife's overweight and no one wants what you have.
Here's a video going viral, 20 million views.
20.2 million views of a woman begging for love.
Begging.
In near tears, saying like, why?
When is it going to be my turn?
Are you kidding?
Everyone wants love.
Everyone wants to find something.
And they will take whatever they can get.
That's why attractive, unskilled, and stupid people get married.
Because everybody wants to find that partnership.
We are humans.
We are social beings.
We have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years.
Technically billions.
But for the existence of mammals, we have developed tribal, social relationships as a survival mechanism.
It's what we do.
Everyone wants what they have.
Everyone wants this.
There are people right now who are single, desperately begging.
Not to mention, you know, having success, a career, and starting a family, whether late or otherwise.
No one wants what you have.
That's not true.
And I'll put it this way.
When she says, no one wants what you have.
See, this is why I say that Pearl's acting out of what I would assume to be hurt.
If you take Pearl's own logic, you can see that this does not quite make sense.
Pearl entertains the idea that young men are upset over divorce and all of these things, and thus they're not getting married.
Women aren't virgins on their wedding night anymore, and she called out conservative women for this.
All of these things.
One of the principal ideas behind Pearl's work is that young men, and men in general, are upset over how the system is operating, and that the laws need to be changed.
Why would the laws need to be changed?
If no one wants to get married at that point, certainly the laws would not need to be changed.
No one wants what you have.
Now, I suppose it's fair to say the argument is, if the laws were changed, then everyone truly wants to be married young to their high school suite and all that stuff.
My point is, Right now, talking to a guy who is, you know, 40 or whatever, and got married, and she's saying, your wife is an overweight 40-year-old who chose you for 15 years, no one wants what you have.
Right now, the illogic to that is, if the system, as Pearl keeps saying, this is just the way it is.
When I asked her, like, what about this, she goes, that's just the way it is?
That's how it is going now?
So, I'm not gonna tell you why or how, that's what's going on right now.
It's like, okay, fine.
Based on everything you've described, Pearl, is going on now, then what we have is people who are nearing 40 who are desperate, DESPERATE wanting what Frank has.
Right.
Based on you describing the situation as it is today, this is how you end up with these relationships.
Because everybody wants them.
I agree, the system is broken.
I agree, people would probably be happier and better off if they got married younger to their high school sweethearts and all that stuff.
And that's the problem.
You know, going to this video of this woman here, where she's like, when is it going to be my turn?
I got bad news.
She says, I want to be with someone to build a life with, ma'am.
How old are you?
You've built your life already.
See, this is what people don't understand.
You want that fairytale romance?
That starts as, like, teenagers in high school.
That's really it.
And you walked away from it.
And you didn't know any better.
I think that the previous generations led us astray.
You want to build your life with someone?
Yeah, you have to be with them for a very long time.
Go back a hundred years.
Two hundred years.
You, as a man or woman, grew up in a community where all the kids knew each other, and then... This is what's really fascinating.
You're dating in high school.
And then you're about to get married.
And then it's like, wow, did you see that Jimmy married Sarah?
Oh!
You know who Jimmy and Sarah are, and they got married, and you're like, wow.
These days, it's like, so who are you dating?
It's this guy Bob.
He's from Arkansas.
He moved up here.
You never met him before, and wow, congratulations.
How are you going to build a life with somebody who's already built their life?
You can build part of your life together.
But that's the issue.
These women are going to college.
They're getting out at 22, 24, 26, depending on how far, how long they go.
Then they date and they party.
They don't want to settle down.
They want to travel.
I'm not saying they're not allowed to.
I'm saying for everyone who's done that, men or women, you've already built your life.
Here's what's really wild.
And the big problem that I think many of these women are going to face.
You really want to start considering family and kids in your early 20s.
That's when you want to start considering it.
Not easy to do.
In fact, in this economy, man, it feels nigh impossible.
You can't just go stake a claim on some land somewhere and then hunt a deer and try and find some meat and raise some cows.
Not as easy as it used to be.
So it's tough.
People are trying to figure out ways to make money to sustain themselves before they enter into having a family and being destitute.
I actually think it's an inverse correlation, however.
The economy would adapt to people who were having kids and needed to make money.
The more kids you had, the more services would emerge, the more opportunity there would be for family services.
But as more and more people think, I'd rather have excess cash before having a family, then the more these family services break apart, and the less society will be catered towards having family.
So anyway, look, I don't want to prattle a million years on this one.
Ultimately, like, my thoughts on all of this are, um... You know, the reason why I wanted to talk about it is seeing this fighting between Pearl and them on this issue of telling other people how to live.
Ultimately, what it came down to was... I'll put it simply as I wrap this up.
It is imperative that we all have social pressures on us and our neighbors in how they live.
That we know who our neighbors are, and I mean literally, your next door neighbors.
And meet them and talk to them and share your values.
We should not live in a world where everyone just minds their own business locked away because then values become internet-based.
That's a bad thing.
But in the end, Pearl certainly gets a lot of things right in calling out conservative women and I respect it.
But I also think it's strange that she's not a conservative and she's not talking to conservatives because she's living a traditional feminist life.
She's not telling anybody to live the way she's living.
I agree, that's fine.
But Pearl is, like, a second wave feminist.
She's a girl boss.
She started a company, she built a big following.
It's just, it's the weirdest thing.
This is my final thought on this.
The weirdest thing to me is, all of these women, who are over-represented in media, Saying live or don't live a certain way.
Hold on.
There's a reason why you don't hear from moms and trad wives on the internet.
Real ones.
Because they're not girl bosses on the internet.
They're raising a family, working with their husbands, and living traditional lives.
It's fascinating to me that all of this commentary on how to be conservative and be a traditional wife is coming from people who are not.
C'est la vie, I guess.
It's a modern world.
You can do whatever you want.
I'm not talking about how to live.
I'm just saying it's funny, right?
Anyway, I kind of feel like it was a waste of time.
Thanks for hanging out!
And next segment will be up at 6 p.m.
on this channel, and we'll see you all then.
The story's actually kind of old.
Almost two months.
But I just saw it and it is shocking.
Get this.
Illegal immigrants are hiring people to stage robberies so they can get something called a U-Visa when you're the victim of a crime.
You're allowed to stay in the country to deal with that crime.
So they are faking crimes to get fake visas.
Well, uh-oh.
The robbery for hire business went bad when a dude witnessing what he thought was a robbery killed one of the dudes staging these robberies.
Check this story out from Fox 26.
Fiance of man killed in staged robbery for Uvisa speaks out, once charged with murder.
They say in January, Fox 26 reported on what police thought was a robbery turned homicide when a bystander shot the robber.
But an investigation now shows the robbery was fake.
22-year-old Rashad Scott was staging a robbery that two victims were in on when Jesus Vargas, a bystander, shot and killed him.
Court records say that Scott was working with William X. Winfrey, who instructed Scott to stage the robbery in exchange for money.
The documents say the two victims were in on the robbery so they could file for U visas, according to the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security.
A U visa is granted to victims of certain crimes to aid law enforcement in solving cases.
It grants the victim temporary immigration status, including work authorization, temporary immigration status for qualifying family members of the victim, and the possibility of lawful permanent resident status.
I didn't even know... I did not know such a thing existed.
Perverse incentive.
This is disgusting and it is insane.
In what world did we decide as a nation how... Hey!
If you're the victim of a crime, you get to stay here forever!
What?
So this is exactly what you get?
The famous story is the British colonizing India, I guess, and there was a cobra problem or some kind of snake problem and they said, bring us the tails of the snakes and we will pay you for them.
So what happened?
People started breeding snakes.
That's right.
Snake problem got worse.
There's another funny story where apparently there was like a, um, U.S.
military base or like the military was like hey we got too many pigs so we're gonna start paying people to kill these pigs like you you hunt these pigs you bring in pigtails and then we'll we'll pay you for them what happened was this one wasn't even Matt like a serious perverse incentive you know with the the Cobra story they were breeding the Cobras intentionally to sell the tails to the government With the pigs, this one's funny.
They started leaving out high-quality bait to trap the pigs, but they were only shooting the males, for whatever reason, because they were hunters.
And the high-quality food that was put out resulted in a population boom of the pigs, because they were only killing males.
If you're being paid to hunt, you're going to be like, why would we want to get rid of the population?
Hey, look, we want sustainability here, don't we?
Perverse incentive.
You tell illegal immigrants, if you're the victim of a crime, you can get a visa?
But, I mean, even outside of staging crimes, they're gonna be like, I'm gonna go hang out in the worst possible neighborhood imaginable.
What's the highest crime rate in the country?
That's my free pass, isn't it?
Ridiculous!
They say court records say Scott was willingly working.
The documents say the two victims were in on the robberies.
They could file for U visas.
They say you get lawful status.
Court documents say police found telegram messages between Scott and Winfrey coordinating the staged robbery.
Documents stating that the two had staged at least two robberies with the same method before, saying they did one the night before Scott was killed on January 26th on 4400 Lockwood Drive at the Swift gas station.
In that case, both victims submitted for U visas and one of them received one.
Another documented case is from February 27th, 2023 at 6601 Gessner Road.
The documents say all three people who claim to be victims applied for and were granted U visas.
Man.
Winfrey is now charged with murder in the killing.
Sade Beverly, Scott's fiance, says she's now left to raise their two children alone.
I'm not defending him, of course, but he didn't deserve to die.
I don't know what deserve means.
What does deserve mean?
Honest question.
Let me check out the Oxford Dictionary.
Do something or have or show qualities worthy of reward or punishment.
I suppose that means the dude did deserve it.
Right?
I hate to say it, because he didn't deserve to die.
But the problem is, this is the foregone conclusion.
That's why I ask, what does deserve mean?
Usually, when you say the word deserve, you're saying that someone should have something happen to them.
Well, let me clarify this.
People shouldn't die, man.
I don't want anybody to die.
I don't want anybody to get hurt.
But what do you think is going to happen?
If we're using the word deserve in the sense of doing something that results in something else happening, then this is the foregone conclusion.
There's a viral video of a guy who was staging a robbery, doing a prank YouTube channel, and his buddy is buying a bus pass or something, and then he runs up and grabs the guy and starts fighting with him, bystanders run up, and just sock the dude right in the face.
Or the dude, and this is crazy, Because this happened not too far away from us.
At the mall in Leesburg, a prankster was getting in the face of some, a DoorDash delivery driver, holding a phone up to his head, and the guy's like, get away from me, dude, what are you doing?
And then the driver pulled his gun and shot him.
You're allowed to have a gun.
YouTube pranksters still doing this stuff.
What do you think's gonna happen, man?
We can't, I'm sick of it.
I'm absolutely sick of this.
You stage a robbery, For an illegal, fraudulent attempt at a visa, and a bystander's trying to save people from death, opens fire on you.
What did you think was going to happen?
And now this guy's fiance is saying, he's the one behind the trigger, he's the one who made that decision.
Well, apparently the dude who shot was on probation and not legally allowed to have a gun, they say.
The decision to charge Vargas has been sent to a grand jury.
No records indicate he has been sent back, uh, he has been sent back at this point.
There are no records indicating whether people who allegedly posed as victims, uh, have been charged.
Nobody's talking about the real issue.
That's gun laws.
They need to change, she said.
I don't see how people are able to say it's okay to take somebody's life.
It's never okay.
In the defense of others.
Now, if this guy should not have had a gun, then you got an issue because through due process, your rights can be curtailed.
But we gotta do something about this.
We gotta take this seriously.
The dudes who staged the robbery should both... One guy died.
The other guy should get... He should get murder.
He should get first degree murder.
He should be responsible for that first degree.
He planned and premeditated this.
And the outcome is exactly what you'd expect.
I was watching this poker video.
It's somewhat unrelated, but it's still very interesting for those that are familiar.
It was Negrano, great poker player, playing against Botez, a newer poker player, but she's like a chess champion.
And I know it's seemingly unrelated, but bear with me.
There's this thing that...
Negreanu was talking about with poker tournaments and the World Series and the big events, and it's like people wear sunglasses and masks and hoodies, and then they like, you know, sit down, and he's like unquestionably wearing sunglasses and a mask, it's an advantage.
And it shouldn't be allowed.
Because some people just don't do it.
They should.
He said, imagine what poker would look like if everybody just covered their faces in every possible way for a maximum advantage, and didn't talk, and you're watching the most boring thing in the world.
He was like, it shouldn't be allowed.
The reason why I thought that was interesting was, no one really cares that someone wears sunglasses at a poker table.
It's stupid wearing sunglasses at night, but we know why you're doing it, because it's an advantage.
And, the important, the reason I bring that up is, you allow this YouTube prankster to harass people in a mall, he gets shot, and then you allow it again.
I blame YouTube.
I blame you, YouTube.
These pranksters who are getting in people's faces, there's one guy who hired a bodyguard, he goes around live streaming, they're called harassment streamers, and they harass people.
And we allow it?
We should not.
The moment there was one guy got bit by a dog, everyone's laughing at him.
But he loves it!
It's good for views!
Now he's more famous.
These people are harassment.
Why are we allowing any of this?
YouTube should ban all the prank channels.
You want to do staged pranks and gags for fun.
There's one where it's like a girl, there's four buckets of change, and she asks for help, and the guy walks over and he can't lift them because they're super heavy, and then someone like waves to him, he turns around, they spin the whole thing around on a pedestal, and then she looks at him like, what's wrong?
And then she grabs two super light ones, or no, I think it's something like that.
She has, like, two really light buckets that she puts on a table, and then they can spin it around and switch them for heavy ones.
Like, those pranks are totally fine.
But this idea that you're gonna go around harassing people, we allow this, you're gonna get people killed.
That's why I brought up, like, the poker thing.
You look at what's going on here.
These guys need to go to jail.
They are responsible for the murder, the ones who staged this.
The migrants, the illegal immigrants who hired them, should be deported immediately.
I'd say they should go to prison and be charged with first-degree murder as well, but they're not citizens here, so no.
They should be sent back home.
Actually, no, take it back.
Maybe we do need to take the people who hired them to do it and charge them with first-degree murder.
And make sure all of the other illegal immigrants know, yeah, we're gonna put you in maximum security.
And, you know, whatever that entails.
You orchestrated and premeditated a murder.
You paid the price for that one.
However, my friends, either way, One thing needs to change.
We should not grant visas because you're a victim of a crime.