Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

June 25, 2024 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:12:29

Elon Musk Tells CNN To SHOVE IT After Network Claims It Will BLOCK Presidential Debate Commentary

BUY CAST BREW COFFEE TO FIGHT BACK - https://castbrew.com/ Become a Member For Uncensored Videos - https://timcast.com/join-us/ Hang Out With Tim Pool & Crew LIVE At - http://Youtube.com/TimcastIRL Elon Musk Tells CNN To SHOVE IT After Network Claims It Will BLOCK Presidential Debate Commentary Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Participants

Main voices

steven crowder

05:13

tim pool

01:03:37

Appearances

Clips

gerald morgan

00:36

josh hammer

00:31

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Become a member at Timcast dot 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.
		CNN is sending veiled threats To any channel that wants to provide commentary and fact-checking on the historic presidential debate this Thursday.
		Now, we broke the story last night on TimCast IRL, I guess because we're involved in it, and I didn't know what the details were outside of that.
		I didn't know if CNN had reached out to anybody else, or YouTube has reached out to anybody else.
		But I can tell you right now, Elon Musk is vowing not to have these streams taken down Last night, I tweeted, CNN is now threatening any social channels that provide commentary on the debate, stating they will not allow the use outside of CNN.
		Commentary on a presidential debate is the epitome of fair use, and we fully intend to provide insight and real-time fact-checking Thursday, live.
		I posited this to Elon.
		Question for Elon Musk.
		Will live commentary and fact-checking shows for the CNN debate be taken down if CNN files a DMCA, or will X default to fair use and have the matter handled externally?
		We plan to simulcast.
		Elon Musk's response?
		The public has a right to see presidential debates however they would like.
		DMCA rule... DMCA does not apply.
		Okay.
		First, it is likely that CNN will file takedowns on anybody, anywhere, and that means even if you're on X, the automated system may remove you.
		We intend to do our show and we will multi-stream onto X and Rumble.
		Our preliminary tests are looking fairly good for this.
		Now let me tell you a couple things.
		I have gotten confirmation from other personalities that this is in play.
		YouTube has been reaching out to people to let them know.
		CNN is You know, it's hard to say veiled threat necessarily, but they've put out streaming use rules much like Fox News did with their presidential debate, and Fox also filed takedowns on many people who provided commentary and fact-checking on these debates.
		What I can tell you is this.
		Apparently, I should say it's being reported, this is the first time in U.S.
		history a sitting president will debate his predecessor.
		That's amazing.
		Because we typically don't have these instances where a president loses after his first term and has a chance for a second term.
		I believe it only happened once before?
		I could be wrong.
		I believe once.
		The idea that CNN would gatekeep fact-checking in real time and try and stop anyone From criticizing, commenting on, and fact-checking, a historic presidential debate is laughably absurd.
		But I'll say a few other things.
		I mean, look, I understand the idea that CNN wants to have an exclusive show.
		I'm sorry.
		I don't accept that.
		This is a presidential debate.
		This is the sitting president, we all pay taxes for this, and I do not believe CNN or anybody would have the right to shut out the public from hearing a president debate when the election is only a few months away.
		Now you want to make an argument?
		The year is 2020.
		We're two years from an election.
		There's no big debate, and a network wants to have a president debate somebody for a private members-only stream or something like this.
		Well, there's an argument, perhaps.
		Perhaps.
		It's not election season, but I still feel that this overwhelmingly falls into the, if the president speaks, we have a right to know what he's saying.
		Now, some have made this argument, but Tim, If everybody can just stream the debate and provide commentary, criticism, and fact-checking, well, CNN needs to sell ad revenue.
		They need the ratings, right?
		How will they do a debate like this if they can't get the viewership because everyone's re-streaming?
		Well, first, I will say this.
		There is a major difference between re-streaming and commentary.
		I actually respect the idea, CNN, that if someone were to take the CNN livestream and just post it raw on YouTube, rebroadcast, yeah, take them down.
		However, TimCastIRL is a news commentary show.
		We work closely with the SCNR News Team, and many stories.
		Santa Clara Brimelow, of course, co-host, and also one of the writers for SCNR.
		So we have a news team, we do fact-checking, we comment on, and we report the news.
		The presidential debate falls entirely within those parameters of our live show, and we will be providing fact-checking and commentary on that debate.
		That is a big... that's not the same as just re-streaming something, okay?
		Additionally, our show will be live a full hour before CNN's, and so any... I feel...
		Any attempt at filing a takedown on our show for including any commentary on that debate, even though our first hour is our proprietary exclusive copyrighted content, would be... I don't know what the right word is.
		Bordering on the fraudulent to try and take our show down because we're providing commentary on a presidential debate.
		Now, as to the argument... Excuse me.
		They need to make money and all this.
unidentified		Look.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's the same argument I made for Twitter.
		Way back in the day.
		Twitter is a private company.
		They say, we can ban whoever we want.
		We're a private company.
		Yes.
		But you have the president.
		And now it's... Access to the public is a requirement.
		That's your choice.
		You don't have to do it.
		You want the president because you know having the president will force eyeballs onto your show.
		Right?
		And for what reason?
		Because people's lives are at stake.
		You do not, in my opinion, get to isolate the positions, the words of the President and the frontrunner from the American people to make money when we are forced to live under this.
		I'm not a staunch, big-eyed libertarian.
		I'm not going to play this private market, do what it wants.
		No.
		So long as Joe Biden is pushing us towards World War III.
		Not even that.
		So long as Joe Biden is the President, who can do what the President does, we have a right to hear what he has to say.
		Here's what I say about Twitter.
		They have the President on Twitter, back when it was Twitter.
		My argument was, if you ban someone from Twitter, what you've basically... And then he said, well, go to any other social media website.
		That's like saying, You've got a large, massive stadium.
		It's my stadium.
		The president is in there speaking about his plans.
		And you are not going to let certain people, based on your opinions, into that space.
		I believe that is wrong.
		And it could be for any reason.
		The company says, we don't want rabble-rousers, we don't want Antifa, we don't want the right.
		They're not allowed in here.
		Okay, well, I'm sorry.
		You've got the president speaking.
		Now, Some people have said, but Tim Trump has kicked people out of his rallies.
		Those are his rallies.
		And they are small.
		And you can watch them on camera and on TV.
		That's a bit different.
		My argument is this.
		CNN isolating this show to only their network with their rules and trying to restrict real-time commentary and criticism?
		I think it's a political maneuver.
		It's a political maneuver to control the narrative so they can help the Democrats.
		The establishment, which includes Republicans as well.
		Because the argument they're making is that you can use up to three minutes for your commentary after the fact.
		Impossible.
		Joe Biden is going to speak for longer than that and we're going to want to call out in a chain of events the things he does.
		And if Biden says something and they cut Trump's mic off and the moderator responds, we're going to need to watch that and then assess that.
		I do have news for you.
		I do have news for you.
		I have an update here.
		Post-Millennial.
		Post-Millennial has confirmed what was stated to me.
		So, again, YouTube reached out to me last week.
		They said, um, can we get on a call?
		I said yes.
		Didn't know what it was about.
		They talked to me yesterday and said CNN, you know, is basically saying they have certain parameters for live streaming.
		And I should reach out to them, and I said, sure, why not?
		And they said to me, no.
		Let me show you what Post Millennial got, because they're backing this up.
		CNN threatens YouTube channels that plan to provide Trump-Biden debate commentary.
		Monday night's episode of TimCast, host Tim Pool revealed that CNN, which is hosting the first presidential debate of the general election season on Thursday, has warned any YouTube channels that intend to livestream the debate while providing commentary for viewers that this would not be permitted under copyright.
		The debate will be hosted by Jake Tapper, quote.
	Confirming that we are offering digital platforms the ability to stream the debate only via CNN YouTube, said CNN's Spock Stapool in a message reviewed by the Post Millennial.
	We are not granting digital entities the right to stream the debate on their own YouTube channels.
	I hope that helps.
	Helps what?
	I love that I hope that helps.
	My response was, commentary on a presidential debate is the epitome of free speech, I'm sorry, of fair use.
	Hope that helps.
	It is.
	Fox News abandoned their claims against all these channels.
	Tons of channels provided commentary on the debate, and then Fox News abandoned the claims.
	They filed claims, they abandoned them.
unidentified		Why?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Because they ain't gonna win.
		And the damage would be massive.
		This is why Elon Musk responded by saying, The public has a right to see presidential debates however they would like.
		Public right?
		Let me pull up a fair use parameters.
		I don't know that it's officially enshrined, but I believe public right is actually considered in fair use.
		Let's see.
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.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		See you on the tour!
		Public right.
		Okay, the purpose and the character of use falls under that.
		So, let's see.
		Fair use factors.
		Let's just pull this up.
		We'll pull this up.
		Fair use factors to consider.
		One, the purpose and character of the use, including whether it's of a commercial nature or of a non-profit educational purpose, the nature of the copyrighted work, the amount used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and the effect of the use upon the potential market for the value of the copyrighted work.
		The purpose and character of use, they say.
		The first fair use factor refers to the way the copied material is being used.
		Since copyright law seeks to encourage scholarship, research, education, and commentary...
		Right there.
		there. A court is more likely to find fair use of the defendant's use as non-commercial,
		educational, scientific, or historical. For example, copying a photograph of a painting
		found in a history book for the purpose of scholarly commentary, etc. Not all educational,
		scientific uses, even not-for-profit, will qualify as fair use. When considering the
		purpose and character of the use, courts will look at whether the use is transformative.
		That is, whether the allegedly infringing use adds new expression, meaning, or message
		to the original work. Of course.
		What is the purpose of our show?
		It is not to just broadcast a debate.
		Not at all.
		It's that we expect Biden and Trump to get things wrong.
		We expect to agree with Biden on maybe 20% of things.
		We're not big Biden supporters.
		We expect to agree with Trump on maybe 80% of things.
		Who knows?
		But we're going to be providing that insight and clarifications because I can guarantee you this.
		Trump and Biden will say things that are false.
		So what's transformative?
		It's transformative that we are going to take their raw debate, where their moderators are garbage and biased, and we are going to provide clarifications, insight, and fact-checking to people to better understand what the President of the United States thinks.
		They say, They say a court will consider whether the copied work is informational or entertaining in nature.
		The judge is more likely to find that something is fair use if the material is copied from a factual work.
		We get it.
		The amount used.
		This one's interesting.
		How much of the original work did the defendant use?
		Actually, not that big a consideration based on the others.
		One sentence, five seconds.
		In finding fair use in the Google v. Oracle case, the court noted that the code Google copied was only 0.4% of the entire Java SE platform and wasn't substantial.
		In contrast, Harper and Row v. National Enterprises, which we cover below 300 words out of 200,000 word manuscript, were considered substantial because the 300 word excerpt was at the heart of the book.
		I will say this.
		You actually can, in certain circumstances, copy an entire movie as long as it's transformative and you are providing education or commentary and things like that.
		There's a very famous copyright case featuring Carl Benjamin.
		Where he uploaded a raw clip, this one's fascinating, from Akilah Hughes.
		She was at the, I believe it was the Democrat Conventions a long time ago.
		Carl Benjamin took the raw video.
		It wasn't the full raw video, he took two huge chunks of it.
		Uploaded it to YouTube.
		The video is just her video.
		That's it.
		Akilah filed a DMCA takedown on Carl, who countered, saying it was fair use.
		Tons of YouTubers and faux legal experts said Carl was wrong.
		He uploaded the raw video.
		It was edited down for two select portions of it, but there was no talking over it, there was no art, it was just the video.
		He's gonna lose.
		And Carl smiled and said, no, I'm not.
		Why?
		The title of the video itself was deemed fair use.
		That's right, ladies and gentlemen.
		The title was something like The Absolute State of the Liberal Mind or something like that.
		It's been a long time.
		Akilah Hughes not only lost, but she was ordered, I believe this is what happened, I believe she was ordered to pay Carl Benjamin's legal fees.
	That is how, resoundingly, he won.
	That he took several minutes, uploaded it, and just the title alone.
	There's a famous artist.
	And what he does is he takes photographs from Instagram, and then he puts gibberish underneath it.
	That's it.
	The art is literally copyright art.
	He takes other people's intellectual property, and then in one instance it said like, FJHFJHFJHFJH underneath the photo, and it looked like an Instagram photo with a comment, and it's fair use.
	It was transformative.
	And so he's hanging other people's photos, but he's like, I'm allowed to, it's fair use.
	The Post Millennial goes on to say, Poole also had a phone call with CNN, arranged by YouTube.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	I didn't have a phone call with CNN.
	I had a phone call with YouTube.
	He said that he received a message from YouTube last night, asking Hopp on a phone call to discuss the RNC.
	This was a YouTube spokesperson who said that CNN had reached out to them.
	Now, here's the important thing.
	This was confirmed by Post Millennial reporter Sarah Higdon, who will be attending the debate in Atlanta, and received an email from CNN prior to the debate concerning digital use, reading, Really?
	CNN's debates are exclusive to CNN and may not be streamed or streamed with verbal or
	digital commentary from any platform or social media site by another party, other than the
	embeddable YouTube player via the CNN YouTube channel.
	Really?
	Really?
	Well, that's an interesting one right there.
	Okay.
	Then, here's what I'll do.
	They may not be streamed or streamed with verbal or digital commentary on any platform or social media site other than the embeddable YouTube player via the CNN YouTube channel.
	Okay, we will broadcast the embeddable YouTube player on our show to provide commentary, and I hope that satisfies their rules.
	Not that the rules apply.
	Fair use stands.
	You will not stop us from calling out the two most powerful, potentially most powerful, the sitting president and the man who was and may become president again.
	Laughably absurd.
	Podcast use.
	Similar to broadcast rules, news organizations may use audio clips up to three minutes at a time on their shows after the debate conclude and must credit the CNN presidential debate verbally in introducing the clip.
	Well, considering they said, we are... This is really fascinating.
	They gotta hire better lawyers!
	Check this out.
	CNN's debates are exclusive to CNN and may not be streamed or streamed with verbal or digital commentary on any platform or social media site by any other party other than the embeddable YouTube player via the CNN YouTube channel.
	So it sounds like what they're saying is They don't want us to plug into their feed, but if we stream or stream with verbal commentary using their embeddable YouTube player via CNN's YouTube channel, we're good.
	Let me break this down for you.
	I don't know what their intention was specifically with this paragraph here.
	CNN's debates are exclusive to CNN, and here's the problem they're getting into.
	This is murky.
	This is murky language, which is meaningless.
	But I believe that CNN actually has publicly stated that they are giving the ability to stream.
	First, highlighting the statement they sent me, confirming that we are offering digital platforms the ability to stream the debate only via CNN YouTube, We are not granting digital entities the right to stream the debate on their own YouTube channels.
	Well, we're not going to be rebroadcasting it.
	We're going to be doing a commentary show.
	And we will be using the CNN YouTube for that commentary show.
	So I think we're good.
	They're offering digital platforms the ability to stream the debate only via the CNN YouTube.
	Makes sense.
	So we will stream the debate on our show using their YouTube.
	Should be good!
	And then they go on to say this.
	Now this is where it's really important.
	They say that You may not stream or stream with verbal or digital commentary on any platform other than the embeddable YouTube player via the CNN YouTube channel.
	I think what they're saying is they don't want us to live stream from TV, which we would not do.
	I gotta be honest, like, actually, that may actually be it.
	And this all may be a big overreaction, I suppose.
	Misinterpretation?
	Perhaps I misinterpreted.
	And what they were really saying was, don't stream from the cable network because the cable networks have rights, but you can stream from the CNN YouTube channel.
	The reason I believe that this language here will allow us to actually do it, and they're not going to take us down or anything, is because they said with verbal or digital commentary.
	Well, how would you stream with commentary using the embeddable YouTube player on CNN unless you rebroadcast from their embeddable player with commentary?
	So I think we're good.
	I think we're going to be okay.
	But we are going to be on every major platform.
	I want to give a shout-out to Elon Musk for saying DMCA doesn't apply to presidential debates.
	And I want to give a shout-out to Rumble as well.
	Many people are saying, why don't you ask Chris Pavlovsky of Rumble?
	And I'm like, well, I already know his answer.
	Of course he's going to respect fair use in this regard.
	I don't think there's any question there.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Hey guys, Josh Hammer here, the host of America on Trial with Josh Hammer, a podcast for the First Podcast Network.
		Look, there are a lot of shows out there that are explaining the political news cycle, what's happening on the Hill, the this, the that.
		There are no other shows that are cutting straight to the point when it comes to the unprecedented lawfare debilitating And affecting the 2024 presidential election.
		We do all of that every single day right here on America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
		Subscribe and download your episodes wherever you get your podcasts.
		America on Trial with Josh Hammer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I will say this.
		In all seriousness, it very much does seem CNN is threatening to take anybody down.
		That being said, the language they've provided is actually confusing, and maybe I'm incorrect.
		But I've also heard from other people something similar, considering the language they've publicly stated.
		And I will stress this again.
		Hope CNN hears it.
		Let's remove the first portion because these are separate clauses.
		CNN debates may not be streamed with verbal or digital commentary other than the embeddable YouTube player via the CNN YouTube channel.
		How would I provide verbal or digital commentary unless I were to take their embeddable player and then broadcast TimCast IRL with our commentary over it?
		So maybe we were wrong.
		Looks like we're good.
		Thanks for the clarification, CNN.
		Next segment's coming up at 1 p.m.
		on this channel.
		Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all then.
		The big news this morning and last night is around CNN trying to restrict others from commenting on the debate, the presidential debate, live.
		And the reason is they want to control narrative.
		I was recently on Steven Crowder's show, Letter with Crowder.
		I said if this was really about money for CNN, they would have offered licenses using their brand and name recognition because their viewership certainly ain't there.
		They would have, and this is not sustainable viewership for them.
		They don't get to do presidential debates all the time.
		They would have said to third party channels, give us X amount of dollars and you will have a license.
		That would have been the easiest thing for everybody.
		No.
		It's about narrative control.
		And with this story, I'm going to explain why.
		We got this reporting last month from the Daily Caller.
		FBI brought props to stage infamous Trump crime scene photo.
		Ladies and gentlemen, We now have admission, admission from the FBI, they have framed Donald Trump.
		I'm gonna stress it again.
		We now have admission from the FBI that they framed Donald Trump in the documents case in Florida.
		I am going to show you the document.
		I am going to show you the story.
		And I'm going to explain exactly what they're doing and how it works.
		First, we have this from the Daily Caller.
		Back in May, May 7th, FBI brought props to stage the infamous photo.
		As you can see right here where it says, secret, S-C-I, contain sensitive, compartmented information.
		We now know, based on a statement from the FBI, this was not in Trump's possession.
		That's right.
		Those secret confidential papers that appeared in those photos that went viral were put there by the FBI.
		Now, I don't want to waste time.
		There's going to be a bunch of liberals screaming, yeah, but that's because the documents there were already classified and they were just highlighting it.
		First, that doesn't change the fact that they staged a photograph they did not need.
		They tampered with evidence in a way that is unheard of.
		Show the evidence for what it is.
		Are there documents there?
		Are they classified?
		Show them.
		Imagine if a person was found murdered.
		And the FBI showed up, pulled out a driver's license for some guy they thought did it, and put it on top of the body.
		And then posted that photo on the internet.
		What's the assumption?
		The guy must have left his ID there or something like that.
		No, this was faked.
		They admitted it.
		Now, why this matters more than just they staged a photograph, what are they doing?
		Affecting public perception.
		They want this photo to go viral.
		You see this right here?
		All of these cover sheets in the image, FAKE!
		2022 from Business Insider.
		A photo shared by the DOJ of materials recovered at Mar-a-Lago clearly showed documents
		labeled top secret with distinctive cover sheets that are hard to miss.
		The only problem is fake.
	All of these cover sheets in the image, fake.
	Here you go.
	Julie Kelly, holy ish.
	Special counsel Jack Smith just admitted the FBI added cover sheets to alleged classified documents
	found at Mar-a-Lago and took photos for evidence.
	This confirms my report from last month that the FBI doctored evidence to produce stunt photos of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago.
	They write, As part of the processing of seized documents marked
	classified, ERT photographed the documents with appropriate cover sheets added by FBI personnel next
	to the box in which they were located. Photographs attached to exhibit eight are examples.
	Ladies and gentlemen, they staged this. They put these fake cover sheets on top
	of these documents and they did it to frame Donald Trump. Let's let's let's
	let's talk about what this is.
	First, the Daily Caller had this report from May 7th.
	It was more speculative.
	The FBI brought props to its raid of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago for classified documents that were pictured in an infamous photo taken at the alleged crime scene, according to court documents.
	Jay Bratt, the lead DOJ prosecutor now assigned to Special Counsel Jack Smith's team, admitted in a recent filing that the FBI agents brought cover sheets reading, top secret, The classified documents, however, now appear to be out of order.
	Following their seizure, both Trump's defense attorney and special counsel have admitted, according to court documents, First reported by Declassified with Julie Kelly.
	The crime scene photo of classified documents allegedly found at Mar-a-Lago, complete with the bright red classification cover sheets, went viral in the weeks after the raid.
	Corporate media outlets breathlessly reported on the photo and the cover sheets as proof that Trump had been storing classified documents at his Florida property.
	If the investigative team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated it, and replaced it with a placeholder sheet.
	The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose.
	Meaning, even these photos, where you see secret listed, these documents, they're claiming these were placeholders.
	This is a fake photograph, a fake photo that the FBI produced.
	If the investigative team found a document with classification markings, it removed the document, segregated, and replaced it with a placeholder sheet.
	The whole thing was fake.
	The investigative team used classified cover sheets for that purpose.
	In a May filing, defense attorney for Trump Uh, co-defendant, Walty Nauta, wrote that the placeholders which the FBI brought to the scene to mark classified documents and stacks were out of place.
	Following Defense Counsel's review of the physical boxes in the documents produced in the classified discovery, Defense Counsel has learned the cross-reference provided by the Special Counsel's Office does not contain accurate information.
	13 boxes or containers contain documents with classification markings.
	And in all, over 100 unique documents with classification markings were seized.
	Certain of the documents had colored cover sheets indicating their classification status.
	They're going to say, see the photo they wrote in a 2022 filing.
	Kelly writes that Bratt's original filing did not explain where those classified document sheets had come from, though later he admitted that they were in fact brought by the FBI.
	In other words, in their zeal to stage a phony photo using official classified cover sheets, FBI agents might have failed to accurately match the placeholder sheet with the appropriate document.
	This is a potentially case-blowing mistake.
	Mistake?
	Wow.
	Placeholder sheet!
	that. Particularly, if the document in question is one of the 34 records that represents the
	basis of espionage charges against Trump. In response to Nauta's filing, Brett admitted
	that the placeholders had been rearranged and that not all of them had been properly
	matched to the right placeholder sheet. Placeholder sheet!
	Amazing. In many, but not all, instances, the FBI was able to determine which document with
	classification markings corresponded into a particular placeholder sheet.
	While Trump is being charged for mishandling classified documents, President Joe Biden had a special counsel of his own investigate him for his handling of similarly classified documents.
	Despite the FBI seizing documents from Biden's Delaware home, the photo of the raid showed the President's document in boxes rather than sprawled out with the top-secret placeholders.
	Fascinating.
	So why are they doing it?
	Why did they make this fake photograph?
	Look at this.
	There's even a ruler of some sort next to a fake document that they put there on the ground.
	Here's the reality.
	It would seem that yes, Trump did have classified documents.
	I can fully accept that.
	Now the question is, should he be criminally charged for them?
	The reality is, in a bunch of boxes kept by Trump were magazine covers, newspaper clippings, etc.
	Letters, and I think they mentioned this even in the Business Insider article, I could be wrong.
	Look at this.
	Top secret.
	This is fascinating.
	They show this top secret document and the FBI put that there.
	It's fake.
unidentified		It's fake.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Trump had a bunch of boxes.
		Trump's defense is arguing.
		They don't know when those documents were put in or why.
		So here's what happens.
		While working at the White House as president, Donald Trump has documents from all over added to various boxes full of magazine clippings and otherwise.
		He likely does not know exactly what these documents are for.
		Most people probably weren't even paying attention to them.
		Trump brought the boxes with him when he left.
		Considering these documents were out of order and placed seemingly randomly in the boxes, it would seem Trump did not really have a plan for what any of these things were.
		Now, here's why it matters.
		Biden won't be charged in classified documents case, special counsel cites instances of poor memory.
		It's all about framing.
		The FBI is trying to frame a story with staged photos to frame Donald Trump.
		The narrative?
		Joe Biden, you know, he's just, he's got a poor memory.
		He didn't know what he was doing, so we can't charge him.
		In the Joe Biden case, investigators found that not only did Joe Biden intentionally take classified documents, he did so to make money!
unidentified		That's right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Biden had the classified documents because he wanted to use them in a book he was planning on writing that he would sell.
		Donald Trump, it would seem, didn't know he had the classified documents.
		They were randomly strewn about in different boxes of knickknacks and whozits.
		So here's what they have to do.
		When they interview Joe Biden, they say, look, he's got a poor memory.
		They're not going to be able to prosecute him successfully.
		So they just, they just won't.
		For Donald Trump, they break into his home.
		Litter about a bunch of different documents that they put props on top of.
		Take a picture and send that picture out to the press.
		Here's what happens.
		You.
		Maybe someone shared this video with you.
		Maybe you're a liberal.
		You decided to watch the video.
		You could swear that Trump had these classified documents.
		How do you feel now, knowing that those cover sheets were all fake, and the documents were placeholders, and that these were all actually just in random boxes?
		Perhaps you say, well, he shouldn't have had them in the first place.
		Okay.
		I can respect that.
		You should not have the classified documents.
		Trump should have done a better job of figuring out why they were there.
		Perhaps he's just an old man with a poor memory.
		Now I ask you in the same breath.
		Why isn't Biden being charged for the exact same thing?
		Now, you want to argue that Trump was trying to profit off it?
		By all means, go ahead and do so.
		We don't see that in the reporting.
		I'll argue Joe Biden, we know, said he wanted to write a book about it.
		In fact, his ghost writer deleted evidence concerned about it.
		The FBI framed Trump, and now you believe it.
		You saw the photos.
		You saw these photos, didn't you?
unidentified		Oh no, they're not real.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's a fake photograph for the press.
		Despite all of this, a lot of people are predicting that Donald Trump is going to win.
		But here's the article from CNN based on this filing.
		Do you think they mentioned the staging of the photographs?
		Nope.
		Special counsel defends investigators' handling of Mar-a-Lago documents kept in haphazard manner by Trump.
		Or how about the reality is that a bunch of random boxes of papers that were left lying around and he didn't even know it was in them.
		That's the amazing thing.
		They say Trump personally chose to keep documents containing some of the nation's most highly guarded secrets in cardboard boxes, along with a collection of other personally chosen keepsakes of various sizes and shapes from his presidency.
		Newspapers, thank you notes, Christmas ornaments, magazines, clothing, and photographs of himself and others.
		Is it perhaps possible that Trump is an old man with a bad memory and didn't realize these documents were there?
		I mean, Joe Biden's got documents in numerous locations.
		He's not being criminally charged, and why not?
		The latest bid to toss the case came after prosecutors acknowledged that some of the documents fell out of order.
		within their individual boxes after they were seized.
		Trump's attorneys have previously argued that because the order of contents in the boxes was
		changed, it impacts their ability to build a defense around when certain classified material
		was placed in each box, given where it was inside Mar-a-Lago and what documents, including news
		articles, articles were beside it. That is to say, Donald Trump may not even have known there
		were classified documents in any of these boxes. Here's another game they play.
		Many of you may be saying, but I heard that audio they leaked of Donald Trump saying, I could have declassified this, but I didn't.
		And he's holding up the papers in front of the people.
unidentified		Did you watch a video of it?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		When that happened, the prediction I had was this.
		For all we know, Donald Trump had a Politico printout, and he says, I could have declassified that, referring to the story itself, not a classified document.
		Well, it turns out that's what it was.
		Donald Trump, his legal team, said he was holding up newspaper clippings talking about classified information, and Trump said he should have declassified it.
		He wasn't talking about a document that was classified.
		He was holding up in front of random people.
		They make that stuff up.
		Trump's no saint, but this is shocking stuff.
		I can't believe it.
		Now right now, a lot of liberals and democrats are upset because it seems like Trump's going to win this one too.
		Quote, I don't appreciate your tone.
		Judge in Trump documents case reprimands prosecutor.
		The judge presiding over Donald Trump's classified documents case reprimanded a prosecutor from special counsel Jack Smith's office at a hearing Monday in a proposed gag order for the former president.
		Judge Eileen Cannon said, I don't appreciate your tone when attorney David Harbaugh appeared to get exasperated as she questioned the need to modify Trump's conditions of release.
		Smith's office has challenged those conditions over Trump's false claims that FBI agents were prepared to kill him while they were executing a 2022 search warrant at his Mar-a-Lago estate.
		They were.
		They were authorized to use lethal force.
		The response from the corporate press was that FBI agents are always authorized to use lethal force.
		Okay, so you agree that they were authorized to use lethal force?
		Yeah, but it's normal.
		They're always... When dealing with a former president and the current frontrunner for the presidency, I don't believe you need to authorize lethal force in any way.
		In fact, that sounds really, really stupid.
		The Secret Service does not typically allow, it's my understanding, other parties to have guns in their presence.
		If the Secret Service is going to be at a location, say the FBI is going to raid it, the Secret Service doesn't allow the FBI to carry weapons in there.
		Or, typically, they would not allow third parties.
		Why?
		Because if gunshots ring out, they don't know who's shooting.
		They want to make sure that in a private, secured space, the only ones who will be shooting will be them.
		Or at least, they'd like it to be... Well, they wouldn't want it to be the case, but in the event of a shooting, they want to make sure they know the person shooting is one of their guys.
		The tense exchange at a federal courthouse in Fort Pierce came as attorney Harbaugh was arguing that Cannon should bar Trump from making more inflammatory statements about FBI agents who worked on the investigation.
		Cannon had noted that the agents' names were redacted in court filings, while Harbaugh was pointing out the agents were docs shortly after the search.
		Cannon told Harbaugh that his behavior was unprofessional And warned she would require someone else to make his arguments if he did not correct his behavior.
		Harbaugh later apologized.
		I didn't mean to be unprofessional.
		Defense attorney Todd Blanche urged Kennedy to deny the prosecution's request, arguing that Trump's comments cited by government attorneys were directed at President Joe Biden and not the FBI.
		If you look at the actual posts, there's no threats to FBI agents.
		The attacks are against Joe Biden.
		One of Trump's Truth Social posts last month falsely claimed that Crooked Joe Biden's DOJ, in their illegal and unconstitutional raid of Mar-a-Lago, authorized the FBI to use deadly force.
		That's true.
		Trump's statements last month were based on a standard policy statement limiting the use of deadly force that is commonly included in search warrants, according to the FBI.
		So, Trump didn't... This is amazing.
		Falsely claimed, but then in the second paragraph they confirm it's true.
		Isn't that amazing?
		Trump was not in Florida during the raid.
		The FBI coordinated the search of Mar-a-Lago when it knew he would be out of state.
		And the issue is, they had a contingency plan for should he arrive, and they were authorized to use lethal force.
		NBC acknowledges that it's a standard policy statement.
		We all agree on that.
		But call it false.
		How is it false?
		It's true!
		Take your pick.
		NBC News lives in Wally World.
		Blanche told the judge Monday that if she agreed to modify the terms of Trump's release to bar him from making similar statements in the future, Trump could be arrested if he violated the order during Thursday's presidential debate.
		Blanche also contended that proposed restrictions are so vague that they are incredibly chilling.
		Harbaugh urged Kennan to act now and not wait for tragedy to strike.
		Kennan suggested that she was skeptical of Harbaugh's argument, that Trump's comments can be followed by violence from his supporters, saying some actual connection between A and B was still needed.
		Trump has pleaded not guilty to charges relating to his handling of classified material.
		No trial date has been set.
		the 90-minute long hearing. Instead she said both sides have until Wednesday to
		file additional evidence for her to consider. Trump has pleaded not guilty to
		charges relating to his handling of classified material. No trial date has
		been set and it likely won't. We large people largely believe this will not
		happen until this case will not happen until after the election in which I
	think Trump's gonna win.
	Some big news, which we'll have a segment for you on in a little bit.
	Julian Assange's release.
	We talked about it last night.
	I believe the reason the Joe Biden administration has released Julian Assange is that they expect to lose in November.
	And they do not want Trump to have federal control or leverage over Julian Assange who can provide incriminating information on Democrat and Republican establishment politicians.
	So they cut him loose.
	They send him on his way.
	Because they have no reason to do this.
	A plea agreement for time served and he gets to go home?
	That's strange.
	It was Donald Trump who was going after Julian Assange for the most part.
	And it's likely because Trump knows Julian Assange has information that will implicate uniparty establishment individuals.
	I've spoken with many people who believe that's the case, who work in and around the Beltway.
	I want to be vague here for people's privacy and security.
	But now, it looks like Trump's going to win.
	And they're hedging their bets for it.
	They've tried everything.
	They're even trying to put him in prison.
	And it's not going to work.
	Now we know that the FBI framed Donald Trump.
	Because what's the real story?
	Bumbling, dottered Trump, Biden, Obama, Clinton, they all had classified documents.
	All of them.
	Not to mention that Donald Trump is the president who has plenary declassification powers and could just say it's not classified anymore because it's my discretion.
	And they've denied him that right.
	Well, here we are.
	The game is rigged, man.
	Take a look at this.
	Next segment's coming up at 4 p.m.
	on the channel.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	We'll see you all then.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Mr. Poole, how are you, sir?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm good, how are you?
unidentified		I'm doing well.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		I didn't know if you, because you hadn't Skyped in before, or Zoomed, I don't know what we use, if you could do it from your studio, but looks like you got it, looks like you got it all worked out.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I hope so.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I was hoping it wasn't going to double up your audio, but it's sounding good?
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it sounds good.
		And you look refreshed.
		Are you a morning guy, or are you a night owl?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Both.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I go to bed at like 12.30 and I wake up at 7.30.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		That's not that bad.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		That's not that bad.
unidentified		12.30, 7.30?
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Eh, you're getting seven hours of sleep.
		Good for you.
		I'm a 4.30 riser, which is, you know, not ideal.
		Oh, Tim, Mr. Poole, tell us what this conversation was like, because I don't know if you were following earlier, but Gerald did receive an email from the contact at YouTube saying, hey, can we talk about the election later this week?
		We haven't actually spoken with them yet.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think this might have to do with the call I had last night.
		I had two calls, actually.
		So, about a week and a half or so ago, I got an email from a YouTube rep asking if I would schedule a call to discuss the RNC.
		That was it.
		And we did.
		So, yesterday, around 4.30, I had a phone call with a YouTube rep, and they brought up a couple things.
		Uh, pretending the RNC, not really that big of a deal, but they mentioned that CNN is going to be allowing, and this is interesting, they said CNN's going to be allowing other networks to obviously rebroadcast this, and I said, right, Fox is doing a simulcast.
		And it's only yes, but there's some restrictions, like they're not going to allow anchors on at certain times or something, we're not sure.
		So CNN, I guess, reached out to YouTube and said, have the YouTubers, the bigger channels, contact us.
		And so YouTube says, here's their emails.
		Sure.
		And I said to YouTube, I was like, this is fair use.
		I don't need to ask them anything.
		Right.
		You can't lock down the former president and the current president debating the future of this country.
		And there's a lot to break down there.
		And so they said, we're going to send you the email.
		You can reach out to them.
		And as for the RNC, this is also a bit interesting, too.
		They told me, while you will be allowed to say the 2020 election was stolen and fraudulent or whatever, advertiser guidelines may be different.
		And I'm trying to be careful because I'm paraphrasing, not quoting, but something about if you deny the de-election, you may still be demonetized or you may have your ad revenue taken from you or something like that.
		So I thought that was interesting.
		Yeah, following that call, I sent an email to CNN saying, Google reached out asked me to contact you guys.
		I said, we're a live show.
		We're eight to 10.
		We're going to be providing commentary on the debate.
		Let me know if there's anything you want you're considering or you know what you need.
		And the response I got back was confirming that we will not allow or it was like confirming we're only allowing certain digital publications to use the CNN YouTube feed and not allowing YouTubers to rebroadcast.
		And so I immediately contacted YouTube again to let them know, hey, they're basically saying, no, it's not about restrictions, we are not going to let you.
		And I pointed this out to YouTube, I said, when we streamed with commentary and fact-checking, the Republican debate, Fox News, had done a similar thing where they threatened to take down various shows, and they did, but only after the live stream.
		We challenged their claim and they dropped it.
		There were many other liberals who challenged the claim and Fox dropped it because they're not going to win that.
		And so I asked YouTube, and this is a second call I'm on with them now.
		However, considering CNN appears to be very proactive on this, if they file a copyright claim against us while we are live, And fair use.
		YouTube will take down our live show, and it's different from, we did the show and we challenge this, because YouTube defaults to, okay, it's a civil dispute, take it outside of YouTube.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But if we're live and you shut us down, you know, there is no go back.
		No.
		And this is interesting.
		YouTube said they may actually, they said, let us, we're going to check on this.
		You're right.
		We may actually defer and allow the streams to continue until after they're done.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Well, that's good.
		That's good news.
		That's a surprise.
		Yeah.
		It's always kind of will they, won't they with YouTube.
		You know, for example, they're like, yeah, yeah, you can.
		And then they found a way to suspend us for old content right before the midterms last go round.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Did you hear what happened to us?
		They went back three years and took down our two biggest shows abruptly, without notice, and for fake reasons.
		Just three years later.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		What were the reasons?
gerald morgan ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, t-shirts made for all the people getting demonetized too.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We did a show, and it was the most ridiculous show ever.
		Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Michael Malice, Drew Hernandez, Blair White.
		I mean, just the list goes on.
		Lugar-Kowski.
		And it was on YouTube.
		It was our biggest show.
		It's not the biggest show we've done, but it had like 2.4 million on YouTube.
		They claimed that at the beginning of the show, someone supported QAnon.
		And I'm just, I'm like, that's not true at all.
		Like, none of the people on that show would have done that, unless it was a sarcastic joke, like mocking QAnon.
		And they said, well, you know, whatever.
		And then the next one they took down was another Alex Jones episode, where they claimed that it had medical misinformation in it, which is also bummed.
		Three years later, I was like, get out of here with that.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, of course.
		And by the way, who cares if someone supported QAnon on a panel show?
		I'm willing to bet that if someone actually did, I don't think they did, someone else like Alex Jones would say, well, that's crazy.
		You're making the rest of us look bad.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Exactly.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		It's like when Alex Jones had Kanye on, he's like, I don't think you're saying you're a Nazi.
		He's like, I am a Nazi though.
		He's like, let's stop.
		Like he felt exactly how everyone else feels when Alex Jones is on their show.
		And it was hilarious.
		But he's not a QAnon guy.
		And that's a big thing, too.
		You know, you look at Alex Jones.
		They want to tell you what he did with Sandy Hook.
		They don't want him to tell you.
		They want to tell you that he didn't apologize.
		That's what they want to do with this.
		They want to tell you what the debate was like.
		And they have the luxury of very few people tuning in, CNN.
		So afterwards, they can reframe it and say, Donald Trump lied, of course, as we expected.
		They don't want that live broadcast.
		That's the danger zone for legacy media.
		They just can't compete.
		So the fact that, to me, what's so disconcerting is, you know, we've had to struggle with this too.
		I think a lot of people don't know this.
		There's the law.
		You have to know the law, and I do, as far as single-party consent states, right?
		And we have to know this with the undercover journalists, where, for people who don't know, that means you don't need someone to give you permission to film them.
		That's how you get undercover journalism.
		Well, that's the law.
		You're protected.
		But YouTube can remove it anyway, if they feel like it.
		We've had people who sat down for A Change My Mind, who signed a release form, then later didn't like the way the video turned out, even though it was unedited, and YouTube said, well, that's our policy.
		So they don't even follow the law, and that allows them to, like a scalpel, selectively apply rules however they want.
		And this is, I think, what we can expect the entire election season.
		How does it affect you guys, too, going into the election season?
		Because this is busy.
		There's a lot of live streams.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Oh, this is, you know, same thing for you guys.
		This is like the Olympics.
		Like, every four years is a major, it's a big event.
		You build up your membership base.
		It allows you to survive the weaker periods doing the news.
		You need these big moments.
		Of course, this time around, this debate that we're about to see on Thursday is history.
		My understanding is, never before has a president debated his predecessor for the next term.
		And it's not being done through the Commission on Presidential Debates.
		Everything is weird, and more than ever, you are going to need fact-checking, commentary, criticism, etc.
		They are trying—CNN—let me tell you this.
		Let me ask you a question.
		Do you know what CNN's key demographic viewership was last Friday?
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		I mean, as far as the age group?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, 25 to 54, how many viewers do you think they're getting in primetime, CNN?
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		In primetime, 48,000.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yes, you are correct.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		9pm, I believe, was 49,000 viewers.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		I swear to you, I didn't read the story.
		Fox News' median viewer was 74 years ago, so I can only imagine it's older now.
		And a lot of people think that Cena would be younger because it's hip, but it's not.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, to be fair, in their 65 plus, they're getting around 400k, I think.
		So that does better for voters, it does, but you can tell.
		CNN knows in 15 years they won't exist.
		And I mean, no disrespect to older people, but when they move on and they pass down to the next generation to take the reins, CNN ain't getting a single piece of that.
		I don't think what we're seeing now is necessarily CNN worried about money, because if it was, the email I got would have said, a $10,000 fee would be appropriate for the rights, or something like that.
		The fact that they're saying, we're not going to allow anyone to do this?
		Is we want to be able to control the narrative.
		If it was about money, CNN would use their brand and their position and their access to sell licenses to as many networks as possible.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		And Gerald has a question, but one thing, to me this is unprecedented.
		Have you experienced this before where YouTube has told you to go communicate directly with a network?
		I've never had that.
unidentified		Never.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, when they told me they wanted to talk about the RNC, that made sense.
		Because they're going to have a booth or something, you know, they're going to be involved.
		They've done this before.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But the first thing that gets brought up, the RNC was ancillary.
		The first thing that gets brought up is CNN is, and I'm trying to be careful because I don't record the conversation or anything like that, but my general understanding was CNN contacted YouTube and basically, you know what I think this may have been is CNN did this to YouTube as kind of a legal pit trap.
		Calling YouTube and saying, we know there's going to be a bunch of streamers, big channels, news shows, podcasts, who are going to rebroadcast with commentary.
		Just have them contact us.
		And they're doing that so they can try and set, when it comes to any legal challenge, they were warned in advance to create willful infringement arguments, which I still reject.
		It's fair use.
		And that was actually something that came up as soon as I got a phone with YouTube.
		I'm thinking, do I call my lawyer now?
		Because the issue is, if we reach out to CNN, they're going to try and make a claim of, we explicitly said no, they did it anyway, now we want to sue for more.
		And then here's the bigger challenge.
		I've been involved in a handful of lawsuits already, and you know this, and as we move into the election, They're only going to ramp up.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Of course.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And they are intentionally choosing districts where they're going to win on politics, not on the merits.
		Yep.
		CNN, I'd be willing to bet, is setting this up so that if it comes to a fair use challenge, they're going to pull some New York District Court for the lawsuit, claiming that's where they operate out of.
		Or, you know, they're in Atlanta, but they'll try.
		And they try.
		They probably will.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Get some Democrat judge who's going to bang the gavel and say, don't know, don't care, CNN wins.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Yep.
		No, you're absolutely right.
		We have seen the ramp up.
		I mean, look, our second highest line item beyond employee payroll is a retainer for lawyers, and it has ramped up.
		And the goal is, without a doubt, it's been very clear, to shut us down before the election.
		They go, OK, we're going to demonetize you.
		We take it on the chin.
		All right.
		Then they say, we're going to actually remove you for the next election stream.
		Oh, wait, you have a platform that allows you to broadcast to a bigger audience on YouTube with Rumble.
		Now we're going to remove your ability to make a living at all.
		And the lawsuits come, and the lawsuits come, because they do not...
		To give you an idea, here's the contrast.
		CNN, their budget is being spent on lights, and the bulk of their budget is being spent
		on advertisements.
		The bulk of our budget here, as far as humans, human resources, I've used that word because
		I know HR, but actual human resources, research and being ready to get the information on
		That's the bulk of what we invest in, is that.
		Not just running ads for reverse mortgages, even though if it was a scam, of course, Tom Selleck wouldn't be there.
		You had a question, Gerald?
gerald morgan ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, absolutely.
		So Tim, you know, I was actually surprised to hear that YouTube may allow this stream to go on, but you know who else I think probably got this email?
		Rumble.
		And you know what they probably sent back?
		I'm not kidding.
		Chris probably went to the copier machine and put his middle finger down on it and sent back a copy of his middle finger.
		Are you actively trying to get your audience now off of YouTube onto Rumble?
		We've been doing it for years.
		I know they're coming after you where it hurts financially.
		Do you have a backup plan so that if YouTube does decide to just randomly go three years back and take you down, you've got somewhere for people to find you?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So Thursday, our plan is to multi-stream on XRumble and YouTube, and I hope YouTube realizes what that means, because that means if they're deciding to side with CNN, they just are going to start losing out on... They know how big the viewership's going to be and the demand for this.
		I'll tell you the challenge with Rumble, and we do put all of our videos on Rumble.
		We have, I believe, about half a million on TimCastIRealm, 300-some-odd-thousand on my other channels.
		We... Full disclosure, and I'm trying not to be... I guess it might sound a little dickish, but...
		We lost a lot of money when we started putting up our videos on Rumble at the same time, because the ad revenue was a lot lower, and we've rarely run into the problems that you guys have, but they have been putting the pressure on us, they have been screwing with us, taking down our two biggest episodes.
		So that's basically why we decided we're going to upload every clip we do from the show On to Rumble, and any show that is too spicy gets re-uploaded.
		Our biggest show ever was Darren Beattie.
		We were live on YouTube.
		He said some naughty words that YouTube doesn't like, so we uploaded it to Rumble, and we got three or four times the largest viewership we ever got.
		I think we got like 7 million by putting it on Rumble.
		That hasn't been replicated, but we do put everything on Rumble.
		And we intend to keep doing that.
		I think we may, depending on what happens on Thursday.
		Depending on the results, the show may have formally switched to no longer being sole YouTube and now just being multicast on all platforms.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, the main reason that we just kept it on YouTube was because a large portion of our viewership are watching on the YouTube app on their televisions.
gerald morgan ▲ ● ▼		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They're not watching on their browsers or their phones or anything.
		And when we had discussed in the past like maps and stuff, a lot of people, when we've switched to like backup streams or whatever, We get slammed with member emails and things saying we watch on TV, we don't know where to find it.
		Yeah, we're trying not to make it as complicated as possible, but considering what's happening now, it doesn't matter what we want to do, it matters what we have to do.
gerald morgan ▲ ● ▼		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So probably multi-streaming as of Thursday.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's where we all are.
		And I agree with you.
		Look, it's tough to compete with the biggest media website that has ever existed on earth, YouTube.
		But I do think between now and election, we can expect some of those fixes coming in through Rumble, and we've been working behind the scenes, certainly to make it more feasible with Mug Club.
		And you know what?
		I get it, what you do too.
		All of this is really a love letter to your members, right?
		That's what this is about.
		It's about the people who choose content and you are serving.
		We aren't performers in the sense that, well we are, but really we're servants.
		And certainly going through the, this is something that is a requirement.
		They need to be served something honest, something accurate, because there's, when there's so much information out there, there might as well be no information.
		And that's what they're hoping happens.
		People are bombarded with so much information, and they can select which information gets through to people.
		So I guess if you stream this on Thursday, we will too, and we'll figure out if we get struck and taken down.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we're gonna be everywhere, so if they take us down on YouTube, we'll be on Axe & Rumble.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Alright, okay.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		And where's the best place for people to, because you have so many different URLs, where's the best place for me to send people?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		YouTube.com slash TimCastIRL or TimCast.com.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		And it's gone.
		Channel's gone.
		Sorry about that, Tim.
		Didn't mean to get you in trouble.
		Thank you, brother.
		We appreciate you taking the time.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right on, man.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Thanks for having me.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		Alright, be well.
steven crowder ▲ ● ▼		well.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's been Tim Pool, everybody.
		But actually, no, I got to say Trump probably wouldn't.
		Trump suggests Biden take a drug test as allies continue attacks before debate.
		Joe Biden, in my opinion, will be hepped up on goofballs.
		If you're not familiar with that phrase, it's from The Simpsons.
		There are numerous instances where they made that reference.
		Donald Trump suggesting this, that being the case, he's not going to be doing any drugs, any uppers or anything.
		Probably some caffeine, right?
		Probably have some coffee or energy drink or something.
		Joe Biden is going to be on what has been referred to as the Manhattan Project of Psychoactive Stimulants.
		I can't imagine this debate goes well.
unidentified		I know we talk about it a lot.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Joe Biden is going to mutter and mumble.
		And my advice to Donald Trump, it's real simple.
		When they ask, uh, Mr. President, immigration has become a great concern for the American people.
		What do you plan to do to help restore security at the border?
		And when Joe Biden invariably goes, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, Donald Trump's response should be, Jake, I have no idea what he just said.
		Can you repeat what he said?
		I'm confused.
		How do I respond to that?
		It was gibberish.
		That's the play.
		Here's what I love, though.
		As talk of a drug test erupts, even the Huffington Post could not resist writing about it.
		And I'll tell you why.
		It's a slow news day!
		I mean, you've got Julian Assange being freed.
		He's going to court right now.
		This is very interesting.
		We'll see what happens.
		And you've got some news around the CNN debate with how they're trying to restrict everybody.
		But the Huffington Post writing this up shows that they're like, we need something, anything.
		But I'm really interested to see how they frame this.
		Because how do you, what do you do?
		Donald Trump says, uh, Biden should take a drug test, and I'll do it too.
		Well, how do you criticize that?
		No!
		Every, you should be allowed to do drugs!
		Right?
unidentified		Hmm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Alright, HuffPo.
		What have you got?
		Former President Trump suggested on Monday that President Joe Biden should submit to a drug test before this week's debate, building on his unfounded claims that his rival in November would be all jacked up on illicit substances when they meet in Atlanta.
		I see, I see.
		I see the game they're playing.
		Trump wants to know if Biden is going to be using some kind of prescription upper.
		I don't think Trump is implying that Joe Biden is going to go into a back alley to score some meth.
		You see the point?
		That's what they're trying.
		This is how they're trying to twist it.
		Drug test for crooked Joe Biden.
		I would also immediately agree to one.
unidentified		Rep.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Ronny Jackson, who served as White House physician under Trump, re-upped calls for Biden to take a series of drug tests this week, saying he had no choice but to ask about it.
		The congressman has claimed, without evidence, that Biden would be dosed with unnamed drugs to improve his performance, while he is preparing at Camp David this week for the debate with Trump on Thursday.
		I'm going to be demanding on behalf of many millions of concerned Americans right now that he submit to a drug test before and after this debate.
		Specifically, looking for performance-enhancing drugs, Jackson said on Sunday on Fox News.
		Because we see, we have seen recently, in the State of the Union address, that there was a Joe Biden that came out that was not similar at all to what we see on a day-to-day basis for the last 3.5 years.
		Well, more importantly, during the State of the Union, if you watch, In the beginning, he's high, and he starts getting low.
		Like, he starts off with a, well, I don't want to say bang, because Joe Biden is not necessarily as energized as he could have been.
		Obama, way more energized.
		But as the night went on, Biden absolutely started crumbling.
		There is no evidence that Biden has used any performance-enhancing drugs, but Trump, who had for months challenged the president to debate him, has appeared more apprehensive about their matchup in recent weeks, and both he and his surrogates have tamped down prior boasts of a runaway performance.
		Right now, Crooked Joe has gone to a log cabin to study.
		No.
		He's sleeping now because they want to get him good and strong, so a little before debate time, he gets a shot in the ass.
		Who said that?
		Trump said that.
		On Monday, Trump hailed Jackson, Jackson's work for him, but lamented that nothing would likely be done before the CNN-hosted debate in Atlanta.
		Ronny Jackson was a brilliant doctor, admiral, and now a great congressman.
		He happens to be totally right, but unfortunately nothing will be done about it.
		Now we've got another issue here.
		What is the reason for this debate?
		Could it be straightforward?
		To give Biden and Trump an opportunity to lash out?
		To challenge each other's ideas?
		I don't think so.
		I don't think so.
		It seems weird.
		It really does.
		I mean, maybe.
		But Biden just hid in the basement last time.
		He barely gave Trump any of the debates.
		We got a couple.
		Trump took the bait.
		He shouldn't.
		Trump's got to talk about the American people, the economy, his accomplishments.
		SCNR.com reports, no way in hell.
		That's true.
		Democrats swat away notion Biden will be replaced.
		I absolutely love this, because no matter how many times they say it, no matter how many times they deny it, the narrative that Biden will be replaced will not die, even right now.
		If you go to predictit.org, where people make bets on political outcomes, among other things, It is only, Biden only has 84% confidence, right?
		So the way it works is there's 100 cents to go around, and if you buy Gavin Newsom at 10 cents per share, if Gavin Newsom becomes the nominee, you get awarded a dollar for every share.
		Everyone else, they lose everything.
		That's how it works.
		Joe Biden is at 84 cents, meaning 16% of people don't think that he's actually going to make it.
		Interestingly, who will win the vice presidential nomination?
		Vivek Ramaswamy in third place, despite not even being on Trump's shortlist.
		Doug Burgum is in first place, and I think it likely would be Burgum.
		I think Vivek would, at this point, but with all of them, I'm surprised Rubio has dropped down as far as he did.
		I want to see Vivek Ramaswamy.
		It's not going to happen, but Vivek is the guy.
		I don't know that he has the political pull that would be needed, unfortunately.
		I think Vivek has proven masterfully that he is a capable speaker.
		He was able to rally a massive following, but his performance in I.O.
		was lackluster, and their polls were wrong.
		He underperformed where they thought he would.
		You know, we were there and we were talking to his team and everything.
		They really didn't think they were going to do better.
		Vivek is the best speaker, so he probably would make a better press secretary.
		Unfortunately, that's not befitting of someone as talented as Vivek Ramaswamy.
		But VP is really about the balancing force, so J.D.
		Vance probably makes the most sense.
		But anyway, anyway, I don't want to get in here and get into all the presidential debate stuff.
		I'm sorry, the vice presidential nomination.
		I want to know about the debate.
		And the question is, with the rules in place, some are speculating the goal is to intentionally
	sink Joe Biden. As you know, our says reports of Democrats entering freak out mode over poor
	polling, polling and calls for the president to step aside from the twenty twenty four election
	have generated conjecture that Biden will be replaced. Yes, they've been saying this for years,
	mind you. Setting concern over his age earlier this month, Business Insider unveiled a list
	of the top seven Democrats who could take his place. But when the Hill recently asked a Democrat
	senator about Biden being swapped out before the Democratic National Convention in August,
	the lawmaker feigned putting a make believe pistol to their temple. There is no way in
	hell that's true. Not a chance in hell. That's true. I.
	I don't know what to say.
	The latest national poll has him at 50% Senator added.
	I think that's real.
	Yeah?
	Alright.
	Let's do this.
	538 polls.
	Let's grab the latest from 538.
	And let's see what we got.
	The latest polls over at 538.
	Who's ahead in the presidential polls?
	Let's do this.
	Currently, Biden 0.2.
	So it's neck and neck within the margin of error.
	Latest poll from Morning Consult, they're even.
	YouGov has Trump up.
	ActiveVote, Trump is up.
	Second ActiveVote poll, Trump is up.
	Morning Consult, Trump is up.
	I mean, come on, what is this?
	How are they showing Biden being—this is ridiculous.
	Biden's up 0.2, but you look at this.
	Biden's got four polls.
	Trump's got a bunch of polls.
	I get it, they're doing the math.
	But where's Rasmussen?
	Because you pull up RCP, Real Clear Politics, and they use Rasmussen, and you've got Trump up one solid point.
	So there you go.
	What's it going to be?
	I don't know.
	I guess here's the interesting thing about it.
	A lot of people believe that if Democrats offered up a real candidate, Trump would actually lose.
	Or maybe the idea is this.
	They knew they couldn't stop Trump.
	Biden ran as a, I don't know, what's the right way to put it?
	A scapegoat?
	They put Biden in office.
	Biden can enact a bunch of unpopular policies.
	They know they can't beat Trump.
	So it's this.
	Whatever happened in 2020, Democrats thought we can get one guy in right now, but he's not going to win again because the policies we enact to reverse the Trump years are going to be damaging and you can't win an election after that.
	So what do you do?
	Biden is perfect.
	He can win because they know there was panic over COVID.
	They know they can play the ballot harvesting game.
	Biden then goes in and enacts a bunch of policies that are destructive.
	No Democrat could win after enacting the policies the deep state wanted.
	Trump will win after this, and they're trying to save a potential future backbench.
	That's why they don't want to swap out Joe Biden.
	So maybe the reality is this.
	Joe Biden will not be on drugs.
	He will flounder, he will fizzle out, and he will fail because they expect him to lose anyway.
	We'll see.
	Next segment's coming up tonight at 8 p.m.
	over at youtube.com slash timcast IRL.
	Thanks for hanging out.

▲