April 1, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:01:58
| 
| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
| They're calling it a judicial coup. | ||
| A statement's been out there for actually some time, but it explains exactly what we are seeing right now in the United States. | ||
| As Donald Trump, who has won the popular vote, and with it the popular mandate, is being obstructed every single time he tries to do something. | ||
| There are 677 district court judges in this country. | ||
| And based on the way Democrats are approaching the law, Trump would need the unanimous consent of every single one of them To do anything. | ||
| The latest news, of course, being that Trump has been blocked from ending deportation protection of Venezuelans, despite the fact that he has the authority to revoke this temporary protected status. | ||
| What they're referring to this as, they're calling this a judicial coup, in that the judges are all exercising what's called a universal injunction, which has no basis in law. | ||
| And to seek to use any authority to stop the president would be illegal. | ||
| Here's the problem. | ||
| They've been doing this for a long time and they've gotten away with it because no one really cared to challenge it. | ||
| It's just the way things were. | ||
| Now that Donald Trump is the president and is actually trying to use his powers, they have implemented somewhere around 30% of all universal injunctions against Donald Trump. | ||
| I believe somewhere around 10 to 12 percent of all universal injunctions ever issued have affected Trump in only the past two months. | ||
| And when you add his first term, it's around 30 percent from the entire history of this nation. | ||
| Now, there's an amazing breakdown of this in a hearing between Senator Kennedy and one of Trump's appointees to the DOJ, asking him about how is it possible that these judges are Issuing injunctions that affect the entire country instead of just those who have filed the illegal paperwork or the lawsuit. | ||
| He asks, shouldn't this be if they want to affect people outside of this case? | ||
| Shouldn't it be a class action? | ||
| Indeed, it should. | ||
| Now, this problem over what's called nationwide or universal injunction started to bubble up around the Obama administration, but really took root during Trump's first administration. | ||
| Why they allowed this, I honestly have no idea. | ||
| But this culminates in a very interesting story. | ||
| Donald Trump has deported a man, and according to the press, oopsie, it was a mistake. | ||
| The man was under protection of the courts. | ||
| The left is apoplectic. | ||
| Innocent man, they say, was just sent to a Supermax prison in El Salvador. | ||
| According to The Atlantic, Trump said, it was a mistake, sorry, oopsie, but too bad, he's gone and is now outside of our jurisdiction. | ||
| We can't get him back. | ||
| As it turns out, the man was actually an illegal immigrant who was ordered to be deported. | ||
| A criminal informant said to a judge that this guy is a member of MS-13 with name, rank, and affiliations. | ||
| The judge determined that to be the case and said, looks like this guy is a member of MS-13. | ||
| However, he was given a protected status not to be deported for some strange reason. | ||
| So when the Trump administration deported him because he is an illegal immigrant, and that's largely why, the left lost their mind saying he was never convicted of being MS-13. | ||
| Now, I don't believe for a second the Trump administration made a mistake in deporting a man That a judge said could not be deported. | ||
| This was an instance where it was a singular case of a judge affecting a singular individual. | ||
| I think, just my opinion, Donald Trump and his administration are saying, ignore the judges. | ||
| We already saw this in the first deportation of Trendé Aragua, where Donald Trump's administration said, we're going to invoke the secrecy clause. | ||
| We don't got to tell you what we're doing or why. | ||
| Executive privilege. | ||
| And this is where it goes. | ||
| Democrats are arguing that, of course, universal injunctions are normal. | ||
| Why wouldn't they be? | ||
| If a federal judge is in an injunction, it affects the entirety of the country. | ||
| That makes perfect sense. | ||
| Although it doesn't. | ||
| Because, again, it'd have to be a class action. | ||
| The idea that a judge could issue a ruling which creates law from the bench for the entire country instantly means we live in a dictatorship. | ||
| It means the judiciary is the most powerful branch in the country, and it means that Congress and the executive branch may as well not exist. | ||
| It is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, but it's the game they're playing. | ||
| And if that's the game they're going to play, my friends, it is getting particularly hot in this country. | ||
| Welcome to the Morning Show on the Rumble live lineup. | ||
| I'm your host of the Tim Pool Morning Show over at TimCast. | ||
| Tim Pool. | ||
| You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. | ||
| Shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club. | ||
| for promoting this show and promoting my work. | ||
| I really do appreciate the support. | ||
| It is thanks to the good folks over at Mug Club that they have helped make this morning show one of the biggest live streams in the country every single day. | ||
| We do it Monday through Thursday. | ||
| Not to mention, the Culture War podcast. | ||
| Also, shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club for helping boost. | ||
| And you guys joining us to watch really does mean a lot. | ||
| So make sure you smash that like button, share this video right now everywhere you can. | ||
| It really does help. | ||
| And before we get started, my friends, head over to castbrew.com and pick up some delicious Cast Brew coffee. | ||
| We got a special deal for you guys. | ||
| It's a Rumble exclusive. | ||
| Use promo code RUMBLE30 for 30% off everything, all the time, whenever, wherever. | ||
| We only mention this here. | ||
| Alright, 30% off all of our coffees. | ||
| So you can get Ian's Graphene Dream, 10 bucks, just about. | ||
| Or maybe you want to pop on over to Focus with Mr. Bocas or Misty Mountains. | ||
| Appalachian Nights, of course, is our long-standing popular brew. | ||
| So pick that up at castbrew.com. | ||
| Don't forget to become a member of the TimCast Discord server. | ||
| Hang out with 20,000 plus like-minded individuals. | ||
| Go to timcast.com, click join us, get in the Discord server. | ||
| There's a fitness channel in there if you want to help. | ||
| If you want to get fit, you want to lose weight, you want to find community, want to program video games, want to play video games, you want to debate and argue, you want to launch a podcast. | ||
| All of these people here are building community. | ||
| So that we can make sure to win. | ||
| And don't forget, big election day in Wisconsin, so we're counting on everybody to get out there and vote and do your civic duty. | ||
| But in the meantime, while we're here with the news, let's start with the first story. | ||
| An example of what is going on with a lower court judge ruling that they have more power than the president. | ||
| If this is to be allowed, and if this is true, our elections are completely meaningless. | ||
| As these judges hold more power than the president himself. | ||
| Here's a story from the Washington Post. | ||
| Judge blocks Trump from ending deportation protection for Venezuelans. | ||
| About 350,000 Venezuelans who sought refuge in the United States were set to lose their work permits and protection against deportation next week. | ||
| A federal judge delayed the action, which he said smacks of racism. | ||
| Indeed, my friends, racism. | ||
| Now, as we get into this story, there are several more all around the same idea that Donald Trump can't deport people. | ||
| He can't revoke temporary protected status. | ||
| Yesterday, I had a conversation with Winston Marshall, and it was pretty good. | ||
| We had two, actually. | ||
| One of those conversations, he interviewed me, asked me several questions. | ||
| You can find that at rumble.com slash TimCastIRL for premium members only. | ||
| Second conversation was on TimCastIRL. | ||
| And in both conversations, something came up. | ||
| If Joe Biden says it is legal for these people to enter the country, certainly they're not illegal immigrants. | ||
| The question arose because there is a Venezuelan gay barber who they say is a legal asylee in this country. | ||
| However, he was accused of being, I believe it was MS-13 or Trende Aragua, because he had two crowns tattooed to his wrists. | ||
| One, I think, was for his mom and the other, I'm not sure what it was. | ||
| They said those tattoos are associated with that gang. | ||
| So he's being sent to El Salvador and Supermax. | ||
| He's out. | ||
| Now, the question is, was this guy here legally? | ||
| As Winston had said, he said, I read that he was an asylum seeker. | ||
| He was here legally. | ||
| And I said, you mean he crossed the border illegally and then claimed asylum? | ||
| And Joe Biden simply allowed that to happen. | ||
| And he said, well, that's the asylum process. | ||
| He asked again on Timcast IRL, if Joe Biden says this is legal and he's going to allow it, these people didn't do anything wrong. | ||
| Indeed, that's the argument. | ||
|
unidentified
|
He's out. | |
| But I give you one simple rebuttal. | ||
| Dr. Phil exposed on The View that there were children being sold into sex slavery. | ||
| It's not an exaggeration at all. | ||
| He said he spoke with the head of the CBP union and asked them, is it possible these children that are coming through the border with numbers on their hands and wrists are going into prostitution? | ||
| And the CBP union head said, it's not possible. | ||
| It's absolute. | ||
| It is happening. | ||
| Now, I have a question for you. | ||
| Would you apply that standard, simply because the Biden administration said, we will not prosecute this crime, it must be legal? | ||
| Because, certainly, if that asylum seeker was here legally, despite crossing the border illegally, simply because Biden said he wouldn't enforce the law, what would that imply about the child sex traffickers? | ||
| Now, certainly, you can make the argument, yeah, but we don't mean the sex traffickers. | ||
| We're just saying, this guy's crime wasn't that bad. | ||
| Says who? | ||
| And then it becomes an opinion, a moral statement from the left. | ||
| Now, to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if I found out that the left actually were in favor of those children being sold into sex slavery. | ||
| But that's the point. | ||
| Just because Joe Biden said, go ahead and do it, we won't enforce it, doesn't mean these people did not break the law. | ||
| And here we are at the Washington Post. | ||
| Donald Trump says, I'm going to deport you. | ||
| And a judge says, you can't, because I have more power than you. | ||
| An absurdity. | ||
| The Washington Post reports, A federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from ending humanitarian protections for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans who have sought refuge in the U.S., days before they were set to lose their work permits and shields against deportations. | ||
| Now we have this post from Bill Malugan, where he breaks it down. | ||
| He says that Judge Chen writes, The Secretary's action threatens to inflict irreparable harm on hundreds of thousands of persons whose lives, families, and livelihoods will be severely disrupted, cost the United States billions in economic activity, and injure public health and safety in communities throughout the United States. | ||
| At the same time, the government has failed to identify any real countervailing harm in continuing TPS for Venezuelan beneficiaries. | ||
| Malugan notes, notably, U.S. law says this is not subject to judicial review, and the Ninth Circuit Upheld that in Trump's first term. | ||
| Quote, there is no judicial review of any determination of the DHS secretary with respect to the designation or termination or extension of a designation of foreign state under this subsection. | ||
| Here is the prior Ninth Circuit decision siding with the Trump admin when he sought to terminate TPS for Haiti, Sudan, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, and a district judge tried to block it. | ||
| This has already been adjudicated. | ||
| Trump has the authority to deport these individuals. | ||
| But here we are, my friends. | ||
| In the midst... | ||
| of what we are hearing to be a judicial coup. | ||
| That is, the judiciary is seeking to assert authority over the executive branch and the duly elected government of this country, which includes a Republican-majority Congress and a presidency. | ||
| The judiciary, unelected, is arguing that the Republican majority and the president himself have no authority whatsoever and they can shut him down if they want. | ||
| Trump's only hope is the Supreme Court, which is conservative dominated, though still a little squishy, would side with him in the end. | ||
| Or he can simply defy the courts as their orders are illegal. | ||
| So let me stress why I started with this story. | ||
| As we know, there is no judicial review required for this action. | ||
| As we know, it was already upheld in the first Trump term. | ||
| And as we know now, a judge has simply said, no, shut it down because I said so. | ||
| But let's not forget Judge Boesberg, who who claimed in the most. | ||
| Arrogant and psychotic way imaginable that he had equal powers to the president. | ||
| An absurdity that knows no bounds. | ||
| My friends, I have a six minute video which you need to watch of Senator Kennedy talking with one of Trump's appointees about the issue that is universal injunctions. | ||
| I will play this in a second, but before I do, I want to highlight This article, which we'll read in full after this video, nationwide injunctions from January 20th, 2025 through March 27th, where they point out that around 86 of 200 or so injunctions have been placed on the Trump administration. | ||
| Around one third of all nationwide injunctions ever issued in this country hit Donald Trump. | ||
| Take a listen. | ||
| This is a massive, massive scandal. | ||
| Universal injunction? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator, a universal injunction is what we call an order from a court enjoining the government in a way that goes beyond the parties to the case but applies nationwide or in some cases universally to enjoin the government. | |
| Is it sometimes referred to as a nationwide injunction? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, it is, Senator. | |
| What's the statutory basis for a federal judge I'm not aware of a statutory basis, Senator. | ||
|
unidentified
|
No, Senator. | |
| What's the United States Supreme Court opinion, which interprets the Constitution in a way that allows a federal district court judge to do this? | ||
| Can you name me that case? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm not aware of one, Senator. | |
| I'm not aware of one, Senator. | ||
| Now, explain to me how this works. | ||
| You have a plaintiff and you have a defendant. | ||
| And the plaintiff files a lawsuit and goes in front of a federal judge. | ||
| The federal judge has certain jurisdiction in personam and subject matter over the parties, the people, the plaintiff and the defendant. | ||
| They're the only two people in court. | ||
| How can a judge, a federal judge, issue an order that affects everybody else other than those in front of him or her? | ||
| How is that possible? | ||
|
unidentified
|
It shouldn't be possible, Senator, but district courts do it all the time. | |
| I think on the theory that The courts need to enjoin a federal policy from going into effect, and they often will enjoin it as nationwide, so all non-parties are protected by that injunction. | ||
| I thought that if you wanted to affect parties who aren't in court, you had to file a class action. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's correct, Senator. | |
| So, why don't the federal judges, instead of issuing a universal injunction with no So for one example, | ||
| as I'll pause quickly here, They can continue to serve, should they be fit. | ||
| A court didn't just side with the plaintiffs saying these individuals can continue to serve. | ||
| The court said literally anyone can serve. | ||
| One of the most insane rulings ever issued by a judge in this country. | ||
| Quite literally. | ||
| The judge's ruling stated that schizophrenic paraplegics could enlist and go through basic training. | ||
| Well, certainly there's an absurdity there. | ||
| You could You could have too much debt and not be allowed to join the military. | ||
| I mean, there's a whole bunch of weird criteria that will stop someone from being able to serve in the military. | ||
| Yet this judge said, because of a handful of plaintiffs, that the Trump administration must allow all because, quote, all means all. | ||
| How is it possible? | ||
| It's not. | ||
| It is just a judge saying it is so. | ||
| And it is Democrats saying we agree with it. | ||
| So what does that really mean? | ||
| Donald Trump at some point is going to have to say, I have heard the decision of the courts. | ||
| Now have them enforce their decision. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator, the Department of Justice makes that argument all the time in our briefs. | |
| I think in many cases, class actions would be inappropriate. | ||
| The plaintiffs couldn't satisfy Rule 23 to establish a class. | ||
| So they couldn't? | ||
| Correct. So they prefer to ask for a universal injunction? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes. Okay. | |
| Does this encourage forum shopping? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, Senator. | |
| Not only does it encourage forum shopping, but also district shopping and filing multiple strategic lawsuits to find one judge that will enjoin a single policy nationwide where, you know, if you have five lawsuits, only one of those five cases needs to be successful. | ||
| And both sides, all sides, And now this is true for any and all lawsuits. | ||
| So, right now with the legal issues that we deal with, the one thing our lawyers always ask us is, which venue? | ||
| Which jurisdiction? | ||
| And then we have to actually make the choice, because if you think this country is built To be fair, and non-partisan, boy do I have a bridge to sell you. | ||
| In fact, I got a whole bunch right here. | ||
| The reality is, whenever someone files a lawsuit, be it towards the government, Trump, a policy, a corporation, they're going to try and find a favorable venue where the political leanings of those people are going to benefit them. | ||
| Isn't that insanity? | ||
| And in this increasingly digital world, where it's very easy to file electronically, It's easy to file literally anywhere. | ||
| So you could, theoretically in the past, not have dealt with this problem. | ||
| I'd say largely you wouldn't, because you'd go to the court nearest to you, and you'd say, here's the issue. | ||
| These days, we have planes, trains, and automobiles, and the internet. | ||
| And so you will get someone in New York literally saying, if we want to sue on these grounds, California is our best bet. | ||
| So let's find a justification to use a California court for this matter. | ||
| In fact, the federal government has prosecuted individuals in states where they felt they would get a favorable jury even when there was no reason for this to occur. | ||
| Sometimes the defendants who are moved to these locations win, citing a venue as a criteria for appeal. | ||
| Let's continue. | ||
| We've established that there's no basis in statute and no basis in Supreme Court precedent for universal injunction. | ||
| How about a common law? | ||
| Universal injunction is basically an equitable remedy. | ||
| Did this exist in common law courts in England on which I was based? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't believe so, Senator. | |
| I think we've, the government has cited cases from the Supreme Court that says, you know, courts are really bound by the scope of relief that a court in equity would have granted back in England before the founding, and the courts at that time would grant relief to the parties in the case, not far beyond. | ||
| A universal injunction as a remedy is unknown in English common law, is it not? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I haven't done the research that far back, but I'm not aware. | |
| I have. | ||
| It's unknown. | ||
| wasn't part of equity. | ||
| Only about 28, I'm sorry, only about 27 universal injunctions were issued in the 20th century. | ||
| Does that sound about right? | ||
|
unidentified
|
That sounds about right, Senator. | |
| Uh, but 86 of them were issued against President Trump in his first term. | ||
| Is that correct? | ||
|
unidentified
|
I don't know the specific number, but they were a high number. | |
| I'll just pause real quick and say, those numbers don't make sense, sort of. | ||
| In the 20th century, only—I think I see what he's trying to say. | ||
| In the 20th century, 1900 to 2000, or 1999, 27 injunctions were issued. | ||
| That's how few. | ||
| And in Donald Trump's presidency, what'd he say, 86? | ||
| And so far, in President Trump's second term, 30 universal injunctions have been issued against him. | ||
| Have they not? | ||
| 30 in two months! | ||
|
unidentified
|
Senator, I don't have a specific number, but that sounds about right. | |
| The universal injunction has become a weapon against the Trump administration, has it not? | ||
| Yes. And tell me again, in my last 10 seconds, tell me the basis for a universal injunction in Article 3. I read Article 3. Um, which defines judicial power. | ||
| Where does it mention universal injunction? | ||
|
unidentified
|
It does not, Senator. | |
| It says courts are to decide the case or controversy before them, which is based on the parties to the case. | ||
| So the Congress could act and say, look, federal judges, you render a decision to a plaintiff or a defendant. | ||
| But you can't impact people outside of your courtroom other than through a class action. | ||
| That's why God created class actions, isn't it? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, Senator. | |
| Thank you, Mr. Chairman. | ||
| An amazing, amazing breakdown of the nationwide injunction problem. | ||
| Now, let's be real. | ||
| The reason why this has never come up before, some may ask, if this has been going on for a long time and district courts have been doing this, how come it was never an issue? | ||
| Well, truth be told, both sides used this to their advantage, but, it appears, it was used sparingly. | ||
| That is, in a conversation I had with Will Chamberlain, a lawyer, I asked him, this is years ago, but he's been on the show frequently on Tim Guest IRO, why is it the Supreme Court doesn't issue these rulings? | ||
| Notably, in Texas v. | ||
| Pennsylvania in 2020, When Texas said Pennsylvania acted outside the confines of the Constitution, where the Constitution says the state legislatures will determine the time and place and how their elections are held. | ||
| In Pennsylvania, when the judges and the governor decided they would change those rules, Texas said you were in violation of the Constitution and the legislature should have final say. | ||
| The Supreme Court refused to hear the case, despite the fact you had around 48 states actively involved and demanding an answer. | ||
| I said, why would the court issue a ruling on this? | ||
| It's clear cut. | ||
| We'll point it out. | ||
| They have no means of enforcement, so they're reluctant to make moves which could expose them as having no real means of enforcement. | ||
| That is, the Supreme Court and courts in general tend to issue rulings where they feel People will begrudgingly go along with the decree of the judge. | ||
| Maybe file an appeal. | ||
| Ultimately, they win or lose. | ||
| And then everyone says, okay, we agree. | ||
| Those are the rules. | ||
| But these are not those times, my friends. | ||
| This is very different. | ||
| So at this point, with Donald Trump's presidency, they're pulling out every single stop. | ||
| Now, come on. | ||
| You think that a judge isn't going to just bang the gavel and say, I can do whatever I want? | ||
| When you have other far leftists, literally, Engaged in overt terror attacks on, say, the GOP headquarters in Albuquerque or these Tesla dealerships, like in Colorado and Vegas, where they were shooting up in mass public shootings, which they're supposedly against guns. | ||
| I don't see a single Democrat coming out right now demanding gun control because far leftists are unloading their guns on dealerships. | ||
| And I think we've had two or three of those instances already. | ||
| Fortunately, there were no victims. | ||
| But the Democrats don't see me coming out saying this is an atrocity. | ||
| How are these terrorists getting access to firearms and shooting up car dealerships? | ||
| They don't care. | ||
| On the ground level, they are physically attacking people. | ||
| They are terrorizing individuals who own vehicles, which they purchased well before Elon was involved in politics. | ||
| At the mid-level, the political influencers are being swatted in their homes with guns pointed at them. | ||
| And at the highest level, they are engaged in administrative or bureaucratic civil war. | ||
| As Eric Weinstein referred to it. | ||
| What makes you think they would not go to any and every length? | ||
| Now, the answer here is simple. | ||
| As laid out by Senator Kennedy, as is now known, they have beaten the universal injunction issue to death and Trump need not listen. | ||
| He can simply say there is no constitutional basis for a nationwide or universal injunction. | ||
| Therefore, we will not abide by it. | ||
| If the judge seeks to wish if the judge seeks to issue A specific ruling as to the plaintiffs themselves? | ||
| We're all ears. | ||
| But in the meantime, universal injunctions mean nothing. | ||
| We have this from Wikipedia, which is, of course, a garbage source. | ||
| But here's what they say. | ||
| In United States law, a nationwide injunction is an injunctive relief which a court binds the federal government even in its relations with non-parties. | ||
| In their prototypical form, nationwide injunctions are used to restrict the federal government from enforcing a statute or regulation. | ||
| Nationwide injunctions have come into prominent use and controversy during the Obama and Trump administrations when they have been used by federal judges to enjoin the enforcement of significant policies, including the implementation of deferred action for parents of Americans policy and the rescission of the deferred action for childhood arrivals policy. | ||
| Professor Samuel Brey has said common law equity practices include nothing remotely like a national injunction. | ||
| Well, the group of prominent legal historians more narrowly concluded that no modern-style, nationwide injunctions issued at common law. | ||
| Courts did have equitable powers to enjoin defendants with regard to the plaintiff, but typically not the world at large. | ||
| So, my friends, I give you Article 3 of the Constitution, which I'm going to read for you, because let's talk about what is constitutional. | ||
| Article 3 states, The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. | ||
| The judges, both of the Supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior and shall, at stated times, receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office. | ||
| The judicial power shall extend to all cases in law inequity arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States and the treaties made, or which shall be made under their authority to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers, councils to all cases at admiralty and maritime jurisdiction to controversies to which the United States shall be party. | ||
| to controversies between two or one You get the point. | ||
| Nowhere in this does it state that they can affect anyone outside of their courts. | ||
| The trial of all crimes except in cases of impeachment shall be by jury, and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes have been committed. | ||
| But when not committed within the state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed." There's nothing in here. | ||
| It says that they can affect the court. | ||
| They can deal with those that are party to those cases. | ||
| Now, section 3, dealing with treason, specifically. | ||
| Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies. | ||
| Of which I don't think we have too much to worry about in terms of that right now, although it is brought up as Article 3 is interesting, to say the least. | ||
| Now, my friends, we are going to be getting into exactly where all of this goes, not just the fact that this is the universal injunctive coup, a judicial coup, but the actions taken by the Trump administration. | ||
| Of course, Judge Boasberg faces removal under a new GOP proposal, but Interestingly enough, a specific case involving a man who a court deemed, determined, was MS-13. | ||
| The Democrats are upset he did not get a jury by trial of his peers in this country. | ||
| Well, he's not a citizen, so there are no peers for him. | ||
| But they demanded a jury trial for an illegal immigrant. | ||
| Well, Trump just said, well, he's an illegal immigrant, he gets deported. | ||
| A judge even said, This guy's MS-13. | ||
| And Democrats are arguing a judge declaring it doesn't make it true. | ||
| Certainly, you're correct. | ||
| But he's an illegal immigrant. | ||
| So what does it matter? | ||
| He received his due process. | ||
| They said, you're an illegal immigrant, we think you're MS-13, we deport you. | ||
| Here's a story from Newsweek. | ||
| They report, Would have to vote to fire Judge James Boasberg. | ||
| Were it to succeed, it would spark a major constitutional crisis and set a precedent for congressional firing of judges seen as political opponents. | ||
| Boasberg warned DOJ officials on March 15th that a group of Venezuelan men should not be deported to El Salvador until they had considered the full facts of the case. | ||
| The men were deported the same day and Boasberg had spent two weeks trying to find out if the Trump administration had violated his court order. | ||
| He also suggested that the Trump administration may be in contempt of court and expressed his frustration at the DOJ for its refusal to answer his questions. | ||
| Trump wrote that he should be impeached. | ||
| However, that would require a resolution by the House and approval by two-thirds of the Senate. | ||
| Republicans have nowhere near the numbers for impeachment to succeed. | ||
| On March 31st, Biggs introduced a resolution to fire Boasberg that would require only a simple majority of the House and Senate. | ||
| However, it would likely face an immediate legal challenge My friends, it's likely not going to succeed. | ||
| But the question before us right now is not who is right and who is wrong. | ||
| The question has simply become, at the administrative level, who is willing to push and exert more force and authority than the other side? | ||
| That's it. | ||
| This judge is in the wrong. | ||
| Donald Trump has the authority to deport. | ||
| The due process for illegal immigrants is actually quite simple. | ||
| Due process does not mean every single person, everywhere, all the time, gets the same court proceedings. | ||
| There's due process for American citizens, which are guaranteed a trial by a jury of their peers. | ||
| Illegal immigrants, who are subject to deportation and immigration law, do not have the same benefits. | ||
| But they do receive their due process, which is, when they're stopped by ICE and investigated, Asked if they are non-citizens, and they can't provide proof of citizenship, they get deported. | ||
| Now, I do have some fears here, but there's always going to be cracks in the system. | ||
| There's nothing you can do about it. | ||
| This is going to require due diligence and, let's just say, strong work ethic, the part of the Trump administration, to make sure they don't accidentally deport American citizens, because that would be nightmarish. | ||
| But there is a possibility. | ||
| And one of the arguments that Democrats make for why they want full due process in court hearings, trials, For individuals to be deported is the fear, they say, that you may actually get an American citizen who, for some reason, can't prove it. | ||
| Well, it's a strange circumstance. | ||
| But no system will ever be perfect. | ||
| And we can't allow an exploitation of a crack that appears sometimes in the systems to be that we shut the entire thing down. | ||
| We are not dealing with death. | ||
| We are dealing with deportation. | ||
| In the matters of life and death, certainly I can understand those arguments to a certain degree. | ||
| But that is to say, we know that police often arrest the wrong people. | ||
| We don't abolish the police. | ||
| We don't dismantle the entire system, though Democrats tried. | ||
| Sometimes, illegal immigrants may have legal status and there may be an error, an administrative error or otherwise. | ||
| Mistakes happen. | ||
| It doesn't mean you shut down the entire system for these mistakes. | ||
| Which brings us to where we're going next. | ||
| Don't forget right now, before we get into the rest of this, smash that like button, my friends. | ||
| Share the show with everyone you know. | ||
| It really does help. | ||
| We've consistently been hitting one of the largest live audiences for a morning. | ||
| Well, I guess it's a noon show. | ||
| It's not afternoon. | ||
| It's a literally noon Show and it's thanks to you guys and and Steven Crowder and the Mug Club It really does I want to say this sincerely really does mean a lot that Crowder has been shouting out my show and supporting my work It is it is tremendous and I'm eternally grateful to all the Mug Club members who watch you guys rock And I really do appreciate your support as we break down the news, but again smash that like button You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. | ||
| Let's carry on with the back half of this show. | ||
| From the Washington Post, GOP lawmakers take aim at anti-Trump rulings and nationwide injunctions. | ||
| With courts temporarily blocking many of Trump's actions, his allies are seeking to change nationwide injunctions and the judicial system. | ||
| I'm going to pause right there. | ||
| They're seeking to have this system, which has no legal basis, to be stopped. | ||
| Now to be fair, I want to stress, As it pertains to Judge Boasberg's ruling on these individuals not to be deported, that is not a nationwide injunction. | ||
| That was specifically on some certain individuals. | ||
| That's interesting as well. | ||
| However, again, it was still outside the jurisdiction of this judge to claim. | ||
| I mean, he claimed that equal powers to the president. | ||
| The judicial branch has powers, but not pertaining to foreign treaties and the INA, which gives Trump the powers to make the moves that he's made, particularly with people like Mahmoud Khalil. | ||
| Where it says that if an individual here, on a visa, is a threat to our national security, they can be deported. | ||
| A threat to our foreign policy. | ||
| I actually asked this of a liberal lawyer who came on the Culture War podcast. | ||
| Is it within U.S. foreign policy interests to defend and support Israel? | ||
| He said, yes. | ||
| You think it's wrong, of course, but it is. | ||
| It is the U.S. foreign policy. | ||
| It is the government's decision to do these things, indeed. | ||
| Do you believe that protests against Israel in support of Palestine undermine that foreign policy? | ||
| He said, yes. | ||
| Well, there we go. | ||
| The INA makes it clear Trump can deport these individuals. | ||
| But they have judges trying to stop it all across the board. | ||
| A bill to stop nationwide injunctions, says Chuck Grassley for the Wall Street Journal. | ||
| And I believe we have one more in this regard. | ||
| As of today, Jim Jordan asks, House appropriators to curb nationwide rulings. | ||
| Very interesting. | ||
| But let's get granular. | ||
| And we'll jump into this specific story, which, oh boy, is a doozy. | ||
| Welcome to the frame, my friends. | ||
| We are in what I would say is... | ||
| I'm going to preface this, guys, because I got to be honest, sometimes I don't want to talk about this stuff. | ||
| And maybe I'm wrong. | ||
| Maybe I'm completely wrong. | ||
| The period of bleeding Kansas. | ||
| American Civil War. | ||
| Aha! Here we go. | ||
| Tim Pool's bringing it up again. | ||
| I've had a couple of conversations about this over the past couple of weeks. | ||
| It was a battle. | ||
| In Kansas, specifically, as they fought over whether the state would be a slave state or a free state. | ||
| It was a territory. | ||
| Seven years this fighting went on. | ||
| But at the time, there was an administrative civil war going on in this country. | ||
| That is, I mean, first of all, in Congress, a guy caned another guy and beat the crap out of him and gave him a traumatic brain injury, but that's besides the point. | ||
| You had legal battles everywhere in the country, fighting over whether states would be slave states or free states. | ||
| This was the administrative civil war. | ||
| We are in that period now, as judges and lawyers and political actors are seeking to stop You know, | ||
| the argument I made two years ago, a year ago, was that a potential scenario we will get is that Donald Trump's actions in deporting all of these people will be likened to World War II and the Holocaust. | ||
| That will be used to fan the flames which bubbles up into civil conflict, which will fundamentally alter the structure of the United States and its borders, ultimately resulting in the dissolution or the fracturing and destruction of this nation. | ||
| That is. | ||
| Before the United States Civil War, this is an amazing fact, and my source, of course, is National Treasure, starring Nicolas Cage. | ||
| I'm kidding. | ||
| He does make this point, but it is true. | ||
| People used to say the United States are. | ||
| Because while there was a federal government and a singular nation, for the most part, the states were more like countries. | ||
| They were sovereign states. | ||
| After the American Civil War, people began to say, the United States is. | ||
| After the Civil War, slavery was abolished. | ||
| Rightly so, if you were to ask me. | ||
| And the country became unified as a singular entity. | ||
| No longer were states considered sovereign. | ||
| Though, there was a wave of states declaring sovereignty, I think, 20 years ago. | ||
| About 18 years ago. | ||
| They all started saying, we're sovereign, we just want to make sure everybody knows that. | ||
| We can enforce our own laws. | ||
| I gotta say, the two amendments that are probably beaten to a pulp more than any other amendments, the 9th and the 10th, the rights of the people and the states. | ||
| Yeah, right. | ||
| Now, my fear is this. | ||
| With these stories and the administrative civil war that we see, should there be a civil war, I liken it back to what we saw in the American Civil War and the fundamental changes to the nation that would occur in the event the left would win. | ||
| Perhaps the right would win. | ||
| I'm not sure. | ||
| The Republicans won last time. | ||
| Maybe they'll win this time. | ||
| The idea would be that Donald Trump begins to mass deport individuals. | ||
| Judges attempt to stop him. | ||
| You have individuals engaging in street-level violence across the board. | ||
| Right now, it's not nearly as bad as bleeding Kansas. | ||
| I mean, you had John Brown walk up to a guy and shoot him in the face! | ||
| There was a slave owner in his field, and John Brown just walked up. | ||
| Bang! There's many stories like that. | ||
| So, we're not there yet. | ||
| We do have the Tesla violence, which seems weird, but sure. | ||
| So let's say, Donald Trump's mass deportations come to a head, where you actually get Trump raiding California, state forces saying, We're not going to abide or support this. | ||
| On the ground, individual activists, let's just call it sovereignty and citizen abolitionists, although it seems weird, something to abolish, but they want to, they begin fighting. | ||
| We enter into a bleeding Kansas period where people are fighting, trying to protect illegal immigrants in this country. | ||
| Let's say it results in a civil war breaking out. | ||
| Donald Trump loses that conflict. | ||
| The right loses that conflict. | ||
| And the nature of the United States fundamentally shifts, just like it did after the first civil war or the civil war. | ||
| And after this, new amendments are proposed. | ||
| Republican elements are barred from running for office, holding office or any kind of political power. | ||
| Democrat forces occupy Republican areas like Reconstruction. | ||
| And you end up with anyone at any time can cross our borders for any reason. | ||
| you can work here for any reason And the framing that the left would produce for this in the future is that the Republicans of this country wanted to keep undocumented peoples as second-class or underclass citizens. | ||
| And these people would not be given rights despite living here, would not be able to vote despite living here, and they'll argue, if you live in a community, you get a say into what that community does. | ||
| I don't know if that actually happens. | ||
| Just an idea. | ||
| Because you can certainly argue the inverse. | ||
| Donald Trump abolishes illegal immigration, mass deports non-citizens, and ends the Democrat second-class citizen program. | ||
| The narrative then becomes that Democrats were seeking to import second-class citizens to use as indentured servants and reignite some type of slavery, and once again, the Democrats were defeated. | ||
| Maybe. Here's a story from the Atlantic. | ||
| The Trump administration acknowledged in a court filing Monday that it had grabbed a Maryland father with protected legal status and mistakenly deported him to El Salvador, but said the U.S. courts lacked jurisdiction to order his return from the mega prison where he's now locked up. | ||
| The case appears to be the first time the Trump administration has admitted to errors when it sent three plane loads of Salvadoran and Venezuelan deportees to El Salvador's grim terrorism confinement center on March 15th. | ||
| In Monday's court filing, attorneys for the government admitted the Salvadoran man, Quilmar Abrego-Garcia, Had been deported accidentally. | ||
| Although ICE was aware of his protection from removal to El Salvador, Abrego Garcia was removed to El Salvador because of administrative error, the government told the court. | ||
| Trump's lawyers said the court has no ability to bring Abrego Garcia back now that he is in Salvador in custody. | ||
| Simon Sandoval Moschenberg, Obrego Garcia's attorney, said he's never seen a case in which the government knowingly deported someone who had already received protected legal status from an immigration judge. | ||
| He is asking the court to order the Trump admin to ask for Obrego Garcia's return and if necessary to withhold payments to the Salvadoran government, which says it's charging the U.S. | ||
| I'm going to give you my opinion on this one. | ||
| I do not believe this was an administrative error or an accident. | ||
| I believe the Trump administration intentionally ignored the protected status of this individual because he is determined by a judge to be an MS-13 gang member and he is here illegally. | ||
| But was granted protected status. | ||
| I give you the breakdown. | ||
| Oh boy. | ||
| We got a couple of things here. | ||
| Kyle Chaney on X. He is senior legal affairs reporter for Politico. | ||
| He said, Vance here mocking Jon Favs for not reading the court filing says the deported man was a convicted gang member. | ||
| The court filing does not say that. | ||
| It says he was denied bond in 2019 over informant's claim he was MS-13. | ||
| That's not a conviction. | ||
| Oh boy. | ||
| John Favreau says, any comment on this, Marco Rubio? | ||
| How about you, JD Vance? | ||
| You just admitted to accidentally sending an innocent father from Maryland to a torture dungeon. | ||
| Innocent father from Maryland. | ||
| No, the man's from El Salvador. | ||
| And he's here illegally. | ||
| And he was deported. | ||
| J.D. Vance says, My comment is that according to the court document you apparently didn't read, he was a convicted MS-13 gang member with no legal right to be here. | ||
| My further comment is that it's gross to get fired up about gang members getting deported while ignoring citizens they victimize. | ||
| Here is one page of the statement of facts I will read to you before I show you J.D. Vance's rebuttal. | ||
| Plaintiff Abrego Garcia is a citizen and native of El Salvador, and his complaintiffs Co-plaintiffs, sorry, are his U.S. citizen wife and five-year-old child who reside in Maryland. | ||
| They say both Obrego-Garcia and his wife work full-time to support their family. | ||
| Pause. Notice how John Favreau said that he was from Maryland. | ||
| He's lying. | ||
| This is what they do. | ||
| In March 2019, Obrego-Garcia was served with a notice to appear in removal proceedings, charging him as inadmissible as an alien present in the United States without being admitted or paroled or who arrives in the U.S. at any time or other place other than designated by the Attorney General. | ||
| During a Bond hearing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement stated that a confidential informant had advised that Abrego-Garcia was an active member of the criminal gang MS-13. | ||
| Bond was denied. | ||
| Finding that Abrego-Garcia was a danger to the community. | ||
| A judge found that. | ||
| BIA opinion in for XP blah blah blah. | ||
| Adopting and affirming IJ order, specifically finding no clear error in its dangerousness finding. | ||
| Abrego Garcia then filed an I-589 application for asylum, withholding of removal and protection under the UN Convention Against Torture. | ||
| Although Abrego Garcia was found removable, the immigration judge granted him withholding Indeed. Now in response to Kyle Cheney, J.D. Vance says, Kyle Cheney, a legal affairs reporter, is apparently unable or unwilling to look at the facts here. | ||
| In 2019, an immigration judge under the first Trump administration determined that the deported man was in fact a member of MS-13 gang. | ||
| He also apparently had multiple traffic violations for which he failed to appear in court. | ||
| A real winner. | ||
| It is telling that the entire American media is going to run a propaganda operation today, making you think an innocent father of three was apprehended by a gulag. | ||
| Here are the relevant facts. | ||
| The man is an illegal immigrant with no right to be in our country. | ||
| An immigration judge determined he was a member of MS-13. | ||
| Because he is not a citizen, he does not get a full jury trial by peers. | ||
| In other words, whatever due process he was entitled to, he received. | ||
| In a court document filed March 31st, 2025, page 3, it says, The Respondent contends the Form I-213 in his case erroneously states that he was detained in connection to a murder investigation. | ||
| He also claims the I-213 is internally contradicts itself as to whether the Respondent fears returning to El Salvador. | ||
| The reason for the Respondent's arrest given on his Form I-213 does appear at odds with the Gang Field interview sheet, which states that the Respondent was approached because he and others were loitering outside of a Home Depot. | ||
| Regardless, the determination that the respondent is a gang member appears to be trustworthy and is supported by other evidence in the record, namely, information contained in the gang field interview sheet. | ||
| Although the court is reluctant to give evidentiary weight to the respondent's clothing as an indication of gang affiliation, the fact that a, quote, past, proven, and reliable source of information verified the respondent's gang membership, rank, and gang name It's sufficient to support the respondent is a gang member, and the respondent has failed to present evidence to rebut that assertion. | ||
| Now, it's hard to prove a negative. | ||
| The point is, an illegal immigrant was accused by a trusted criminal informant of being an MS-13 gang member, for which he has been deported. | ||
| But all I will say is, I'm gonna stop right there. | ||
| Fact. Everyone agrees. | ||
| Illegal immigrant. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Next question. | ||
| Now, I'm not a fan of the El Salvadoran Supermax. | ||
| Not at all. | ||
| Look, if you want to send someone to a supermax foreign prison, I think you're gonna need more than just, he's an illegal immigrant. | ||
| If the man is just an illegal immigrant, you send them home. | ||
| The fear then is they return. | ||
| Understood? But if they are known and active with... | ||
| Look, I'll put it this way. | ||
| There's never going to be a jury trial. | ||
| Determining how and when to deport someone to a prison is difficult. | ||
| And the reason why they go to a prison? | ||
| These individuals are criminal, violent offenders, and they will return. | ||
| They will seek retaliation. | ||
| They are very dangerous. | ||
| But I believe there's got to be evidence presented to the public proving that. | ||
| Now, it's a challenge, right? | ||
| Welcome to the fray, as I say. | ||
| There's not going to be a jury of their peers because these people are not citizens. | ||
| They have no peers here. | ||
| We're not going to import a bunch of Venezuelans or El Salvadorans to come and hold a trial for this guy to determine whether he's in the gang or not. | ||
| They are not legally allowed to be here and they get no special privileges or access. | ||
| They get deported. | ||
| That being said, I believe we should be requiring El Salvador to hold hearings for these individuals post-haste and to provide strong evidence and to the public Internationally, these individuals are a danger to themselves or others. | ||
| Hard for me to give hard determinations on this one, my friends. | ||
| You've got dangerous cartels, we know. | ||
| The things MS-13 has done are terrifying. | ||
| These are not people who have a legal right to be in this country. | ||
| They're illegal immigrants. | ||
| They can be deported. | ||
| Where they get deported to is the question. | ||
| Is there any legal basis for deporting them to a foreign prison? | ||
| Honestly, I have no idea. | ||
| I don't know if there's any restrictions on that. | ||
| These are not American citizens. | ||
| They have no constitutional protections in the same way that we do. | ||
| They have certain ones, some, but it's limited. | ||
| So this presents us with a very difficult problem. | ||
| That being said, it is agreed by everyone this man is an illegal immigrant. | ||
| So what is the argument? | ||
| I believe the Trump administration deported this man intentionally. | ||
| I don't believe it was an administrative error. | ||
| I believe the Trump administration wants to send a message. | ||
| If you come to this country illegally, you're going to Supermax in El Salvador. | ||
| Border crossings have dropped some 94%. | ||
| I think that was his intention. | ||
| Now, you may argue it's wrong, but I had an interesting conversation yesterday with Winston Marshall that I recommend you watch the Green Room podcast or when his video comes out for his show. | ||
| And it was a question of whether or not Trump was legally allowed to do the things that he's doing. | ||
| And I brought up Abraham Lincoln. | ||
| You guys have heard me say this ad nauseum at this point, but it's a great point. | ||
| Abraham Lincoln had arrested elements of the Maryland legislature for being sympathetic to the Confederacy. | ||
| That's it. | ||
| They didn't break any laws. | ||
| They committed no crimes. | ||
| Are the American people going to condemn Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant? | ||
| No. Because they're going to argue what he did was necessary to secure and save the Union. | ||
| After all, this country is worth saving. | ||
| Slavery is bad, right? | ||
| So therefore, the actions taken were justified. | ||
| But hold on. | ||
| At the time when he did this, nobody knew what he was going to do. | ||
| Nobody knew what this country would endure, or how it would end up, and what would have happened. | ||
| Should the Confederacy have won, and crushed the Union, and shattered what it was, Abraham Lincoln would be called a failure, and a tyrant, and a dictator. | ||
| But he won. | ||
| And so, he's the hero of the Civil War. | ||
| It's crazy, isn't it? | ||
| He suspended people's rights, arrested people without charge or trial, held them indefinitely. | ||
| One guy was held for years in prison for no reason. | ||
| Just for years. | ||
| Committed no crime. | ||
| Wasn't a confederate, was some random guy. | ||
| They picked him up and said, who are you? | ||
| He says, go screw yourself. | ||
| They said, well, they're locking up forever. | ||
| He's like, screw off. | ||
| There you go. | ||
| He was locked up for years until the Civil War ended. | ||
| So Donald Trump right now is deporting illegal immigrants. | ||
| I don't know how it's going to end up. | ||
| I know that if Trump ends up winning this administrative civil war, whatever you want to call it, whatever it turns into, they're going to say he did everything right. | ||
| Welcome to Nature of Humanity, my friends. | ||
| You know, I asked Chet GPT the other day, I said, if you could stop Hitler from rising to power and it required you to firebomb a Volkswagen, a Volkswagen dealership, would you do it? | ||
| And Chet GPT said, yes, it would, because one firebombing of a car dealership was worth it to stop World War II and the Holocaust. | ||
| And then I asked it, considering that Trump is Hitler, does it make sense? | ||
| You know, would you firebomb a Tesla? | ||
| And it said, no, that's wrong. | ||
| You can't compare Trump to Hitler. | ||
| My point, obviously, is not to compare Trump to Hitler. | ||
| It's to show that while the Democrats are arguing that Donald Trump is Hitler, the logic that Chet GPT gives about World War II Len's credence to the justification Democrats have that they truly believe Donald Trump is going to do all of these things. | ||
| They're insane, by the way. | ||
| Barack Obama and Democrats were the ones who set up these illegal immigrant detention centers, but they're mad at Trump about it. | ||
| So if the logic is you are allowed to do it to Hitler and Democrats think Trump is Hitler, why would the logic be any different? | ||
| And that's the point. | ||
| ChatGPT says, we don't know what Trump is going to do, so you can't do these things. | ||
| I asked it. | ||
| Well, during World War II, how would they have known what Hitler was going to do? | ||
| And there's no good answers, because it's a ridiculously stupid machine. | ||
| Maybe one day it'll be a bit smarter. | ||
| As an aside, I'll just mention, I tried to criticize, not heavily criticize Israel, but I tried making a comic. | ||
| I tweeted about this. | ||
| You should check out my tweet about it. | ||
| Actually, I'll pull it up real briefly before we sign off here. | ||
| And we've got some Rumble Rants I do want to read, but I want to show you this comic and give you the quick version of what I tried getting Chet GPT to do as an aside. | ||
| Totally as an aside in the last few minutes. | ||
| So I made this comic, and it's Democrats saying, no justice, no tanks, no peace, more billions for freedom. | ||
| And a member of Congress saying, wait, you want us to fund the military-industrial complex now? | ||
| And a man yells, yes! | ||
| And then he's handing a bag of money, he says, okay, I guess, to a soldier with a Ukrainian flag on his arm, and it says, preferred defense partner. | ||
| The original comic I wanted was him saying, okay, I guess, and handing a bag of money to Benjamin Netanyahu. | ||
| It wouldn't let me do it. | ||
| No matter what I did, it wouldn't let anything get close to Israel. | ||
| That's funny. | ||
| And stupid. | ||
| Chat GPT is stupid. | ||
| Well, my friends, we're gonna be rounding this out, sending you over to join Russell Brand in just a moment, but I'll grab some of your Rumble Rants before we get it going. | ||
| And just pulling up here the old Russell Brand show in just a moment. | ||
| Here we go. | ||
| We'll have that up in just a minute. | ||
| In the meantime, we've got some hefty Rumble Rants, some big ones. | ||
| Big, big, big Rumble Rant. | ||
| Let me grab this one. | ||
| We got Big D. Hey Tim, long time fan. | ||
| I'm trying to make a video game about PTSD awareness. | ||
| A dark, gritty horror with a powerful meaning. | ||
| He says, give send go dot com slash shadows. | ||
| What does that say? | ||
| Shadows of isolation. | ||
|
unidentified
|
There you go. | |
| Sorry, it was broken up. | ||
| If anyone is interested, very cool. | ||
| And, uh, shout out to Steven Crowder once again for the raid. | ||
| Big D then says, with a massive rumble rant, part two, making games are freaking expensive. | ||
| Well, I... | ||
| Did you really mean to send a Rumble Rant that big, my friend? | ||
| Because that was a hefty one. | ||
| Really do appreciate it. | ||
| Big D says, no, that $500 was a mistake. | ||
| OMFG. Bro. | ||
| We'll see if we can make sure you get a refund on that one. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That was a big one, bro. | |
| I'll tell you what. | ||
| I'm gonna get you a... | ||
| I'll donate to your Give Send Go right here. | ||
| Let me pull that up. | ||
| And I'll send some loot your way, so... | ||
| You should be good. | ||
| You should be good. | ||
| All right, what else we got? | ||
| Rage LB every day with the Rumble rant. | ||
| Yoten, thanks for shouting me out. | ||
| I've grown and retained everyone that was from your chat. | ||
| I'm brute-forcing myself into gaming. | ||
| Remember, Rage LB on Rumble and Rage LB 3 on YouTube. | ||
| Maha! Very cool. | ||
| Joe Srew says, my daughter's school is planning a week-long field trip to DC in April of 2026. | ||
| She'll be in 9th grade. | ||
| My wife or myself would also go with everything going on. | ||
| Do you think it's a good idea? | ||
| No idea. | ||
| Just don't drive a Tesla, I guess. | ||
| Can't predict what's gonna happen in the next year. | ||
| All right. | ||
| Arsonist says, Tim, remember when we used to hope for peace? | ||
| When are you going to put out an official release of that song? | ||
| It's a fave. | ||
| Ah, yes. | ||
| That song, it's called Words in a Book. | ||
| And, uh, I don't know. | ||
| We've tried to record it, but I don't think it works as a full production. | ||
| I think it only works as like an acoustic folk song where I play it how I play it. | ||
| Because, I don't know, the time signature is weird and... | ||
| I don't know. | ||
| Maybe I just need to get warmed up, practice a little bit, and then get a good solid recording of that on an acoustic guitar, and then just have that be the release. | ||
| Arsonist says, Fun fact, Prohibition was started by women. | ||
| The Anti-Saloon League was created to push prohibition and proposed to supplement liquor exports with income taxes so women cause taxes! | ||
| The more you know. | ||
| Interesting. Very interesting. | ||
| Big D says, it glitched. | ||
| I'm literally crying. | ||
| It was my disability check. | ||
| Bro, I will take care of you. | ||
| Don't you stress one little bit about it. | ||
| We'll get you back on your give, send, go. | ||
| We'll take care of your buddy. | ||
| We'll take care of you. | ||
| We'll get you on that Give Send Go. | ||
| So, homie over here, Big D accidentally rumble-ranted $500. | ||
| Yikes. I thought that was a mistake because I think that's the max. | ||
| I'm assuming he wanted to send $5. | ||
| But I will just say this. | ||
| GiveSendGo.com slash Shadows of Isolation if you guys want to support PTSD veteran awareness video game. | ||
| By Derek Jones and help this guy out and I'm gonna I'm gonna help you out so you can get back that that rumble rant brother cuz I get it and We're gonna be raiding Russell Brand Just in a second. | ||
| We're waiting for him to pop up. | ||
| Is he alive? | ||
| He certainly is so ladies and gentlemen as we get ready to go Let me fire away this raid on old Russell Brand and have you guys continue out that morning lineup really do appreciate everybody watching The full link will be in the chat right here. | ||
| You can directly click it if you'd like. | ||
| The raid is about to begin. | ||
| We will pin that message. | ||
| My friends, smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. | ||
| Join us on the TimCast Discord server. | ||
| Make sure you go to givesendgo.com slash shadowsofisolation. | ||
| Search for it if you can't find it. | ||
| And support our homeboy who accidentally sent his entire disability check on accident. | ||
| And I'm sure there's a way to get a refund on that, bro. | ||
| But don't worry, we'll take care of you. | ||
| We'll take care of you right now. | ||
| Once I wrap this show, you'll see it pop up. | ||
| And I hope everybody else wants to contribute to this guy's project, and maybe that terrifying accident which is freaking you out may turn out to be a blessing in disguise, because we're all here, and we take care of each other. | ||
| My friends, again, follow me on Instagram, smash that like button, share the show, all that good stuff. | ||
| We're back tonight at 8 p.m. with TimCast IRL. | ||
| Don't miss it. | ||
| We've got a superhero who will be joining us. | ||
| Special guest. | ||
| What day is it? | ||
| It's gonna be fun. | ||
| Thanks for hanging out, everybody, and we will see you all next time. |
Export Selection