All Episodes
Previous Next
July 14, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:03:54
Biden Pardons ARE FAKE, NYT Reports HE DID NOT Authorize Them, Democrats DENY
Participants
Main voices
k
kyle seraphin
17:39
t
tim pool
39:40
Appearances
Clips
k
karoline leavitt
00:38
p
peter doocy
00:28
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It's a massive story from the New York Times.
Biden says he made the clemency decisions that were recorded by Autopen.
That's the headline, at least.
What's the actual story?
When you actually read it, they say Biden did not individually authorize.
unidentified
Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So the headline is different from what's actually happening because what the New York Times is doing is opining.
They're offering up their opinion on what something means.
Well, I too, my friends, would engage simply.
That is, despite the headline saying Biden didn't make the decisions, the story is that Joe Biden basically had criteria for pardons that his staff were familiar with, and then his staff went and ultimately made the decisions to pardon.
With one scenario where people are claiming that Fauci ran in the last minute being like, pardon me, don't miss me.
Yo.
The Trump admin has maintained these pardons are void.
Rand Paul is now saying, I am reissuing my criminal referral for Dr. Fauci.
Because as we all knew, Joe Biden had nothing to do with these pardons.
Now here's what I think happened.
Quick little opinion.
I think that Biden's staffers used the auto pen.
It's a robot.
You stick a pen into a little arm and then it signs the name to issue pardons for themselves, their friends, obviously his family.
And I don't think Joe was aware at all.
Then when the Republicans began investigating, Joe Biden simply states retroactively, no, I said it was fine.
But here's a question.
If Joe Biden did not explicitly order these pardons, are they legitimate?
I would make the argument, in fact, no.
I think these pardons are voided, and they are testing the bounds of what is legal.
Now, this is a massive story from the New York Times where they're basically trying to argue that Biden did authorize these.
That's the headline.
But the reality is they say in the story, it was a generality and other people did it.
So here's a question for the law.
Can a president give vibes?
Maybe I'm being a little too facetious.
Can he give a general criteria for a broad and wide range of actions that other people then take out?
That is, if Joe Biden says, you know, they say, Mr. President, we have a list of people to kill him.
He goes, well, you know, we're looking to kill whoever, so kill whoever you want.
Who is ultimately responsible for this?
That's the question.
I will put it like this.
The extra judicial assassination of Abdurrahman Al-Alaki carried out by the Obama administration for which Joe Biden was VP.
The argument they made is that Obama just signed off on the intel he received and they accidentally targeted this place.
You can't blame Obama for it.
He didn't mean to do it.
Okay.
Well, then I don't hold the same legal authority for Joe Biden's blanket pardon whoever you want strategy.
If the president isn't signing off on it, his aides don't have that authority.
So this is why.
Now, before we get into that story, my friends, we've got a great sponsor.
It is AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim.
My friends, what if you could delay your next two mortgage payments?
That's right.
Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room.
It's possible when you call American Financing today.
If you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, groceries, gas bills piling up, you're not alone.
Most Americans are putting these expenses on credit cards, and there doesn't Seem to be a way out.
American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off that debt.
You need to call American Financing today before you get to a point where you can't make those payments.
Their salary-based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners, just like you restructure their loans and consolidate debt, all without upfront fees.
And their customers are saving an average of $800 per month.
That's like a $10,000 raise.
It's fast, it's simple, and it could save your budget this summer.
Call now before it's too late, 866-890-7811.
That's 866-890-7811.
Or visit AmericanFinancing.net slash Tim.
And my friends, we've got a big announcement.
Take a look at this lineup for July 26th.
There may still be, I said it before for our live events at the DC Comedy Loft.
Get your tickets.
Link in the description.
I said, we're working on some big names.
We are still currently in talks with a final person to join us, which if we do, I think it'll be just absolutely not.
For the time being, we said, let's roll.
We got Matan.
You guys know this dude?
He's funny.
A lot of people are saying he's going to ruin everything.
I think he'll make it great.
And Gavin McInnes will be joining us to discuss, is Trump still winning?
The idea with the Epstein files, with Trump's staff reportedly, we've got two-thirds of Trump's legal apparatus apparently quitting.
These are the lawyers that they use to defend Trump's policies.
There's a question around how much good is being done and will it be sustained.
But where's that liberal personality, you say?
We got our fingers crossed.
So check out DCComedyloft.com, July 26th.
Link is in the description below.
Additionally, Michael Malice, Angry Cops, August 2nd, and our August 9th event to be determined.
Again, we got a bunch of big names.
A lot of people are interested in jumping up on stage and having these conversations.
So don't forget to also smash that like button, share the show.
Let's dive into this story from the New York Times, which is, by the way, massive, but let's analyze and break this down.
They reported it.
They reported it, right?
The New York Times says, Biden says he made the clemency decisions that were recorded with Autopen.
Trump and his allies have begun investigations to support their claims that Joseph Biden was incapacitated and his staff conspired to take presidential actions in his name.
You know what?
I will concede all of it, walk away, and just say, thanks for this, New York Times.
You've basically pointed out that, in fact, Joe Biden did not authorize the individual pardons.
Former President Biden is escalating his battle against Republican claims that he might not have been in control of his high-profile clemency decisions issued under his name at the end of his term, and more generally, that his cognitive state impaired his functioning in office.
In an interview with the New York Times, Mr. Biden said that he had orally granted all the pardons and commutations issued at the end of his term, calling President Trump and other Republicans liars for claiming his aides had used an auto pen to do so without his authorization.
Oh, man, you're just going to love it when you get to the bottom of the story.
This is what they do.
They front load the lies and then admit it in the back so you can't sue them.
I made every decision, Mr. Biden said in a phone interview on Thursday, asserting that he had his staff use an auto pen replicating his signature on the clemency once because we're talking about a whole lot of people.
What, your family?
It was like, what, five or six people?
Insane.
The interview was Mr. Biden's first about the parallel investigation.
The parallel investigation has begun by the Trump White House, the DOJ in Congress into a series of clemency decisions by Mr. Biden in his final weeks in office and his mental acuity during his term.
Republicans in Congress have demanded sworn interviews with former Biden aides, prompting them to hire their own lawyers.
Some lawyers are said to have warned their clients not to talk publicly about the dangers of testifying because the Justice Department under Mr. Trump might be eager to bring perjury charges over any inconsistency, no matter how minor.
Mr. Biden's former White House doctor, who has said his medical evaluations showed he was fit to serve, invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid answering questions.
I'm going to pause right now and I'm going to tell you exactly what the New York Times is doing.
They know that what they've uncovered actually corroborates Republican arguments.
They are now front-loading the story, as I just described, but this is another example.
We don't need to know about this.
What we need to know about is as we scroll way down, and we'll come back, we'll come back, scroll way down, scroll way down, blah, blah, blah.
Mr. Biden said in Thursday's interview that he had his staff use an auto pen for the warrants because he had granted clemency to so many people.
The auto pen was used in all on 25 pardon and commutation warrants from last December to January.
Some of the individual warrants included large batches of names because they all fell into the same broad policy category, like reducing the sentences of nonviolent drug offenders who met standards Mr. Biden established.
Mr. Trump and his congressional allies are focused in particular on trying to delegitimize Mr. Biden's final batch of clemency actions.
That set extended preemptive pardons to many people.
Mr. Trump perceived his enemies, including Mark Milley, Anthony Fauci, and members and staff of the House committee that investigated the Capitol riot.
Mr. Trump had claimed on social media that the J-6 committee pardons are invalid asserting without offering evidence.
You see how they're doing this?
This is what evil looks like.
The phrase without offering evidence is a nonsense statement.
We are not in a criminal trial.
We are quite literally hearing the opinion of Mr. Trump, President Trump, as it were.
That Mr. Biden did not know anything about them.
Now, we'll keep scrolling.
We'll keep scrolling.
We'll keep scrolling.
In the interview, Mr. Biden explained that he decided against community sentences of three death row inmates, et cetera, et cetera.
Okay.
Now, this is just a lot of wordy, convoluted nonsense.
And look how far down we have to go.
Quote, Mr. Biden did not individually approve each name for the categorical pardons that applied to large numbers of people.
He and AIDS confirmed.
Full stop.
Thank you.
Have a nice day.
I'll close it now.
They could have led with this story.
Mr. Biden did not individually approve commutations and pardons confirmed.
Instead, they say that he did.
Even after Mr. Biden made the decision, one former aide, so let me finish that paragraph.
Rather, after extensive discussion of different possible criteria, he signed off on the standards he wanted to be used to determine which convicts would qualify for a reduction in sentence.
This is, of course, referring to the large amount of pardons he made.
That basically, it was autopenn.
It was carried out by his aides who determined based on criteria.
And Mr. Biden himself didn't individually approve of these things.
In fact, it would appear, I think, not that one.
Let me see if I can grab this video right here.
That the only pardon he actually did was his son.
peter doocy ▲ ● ▼
Looks different.
It looks authentic.
In fact, if you look at the last name, it almost looks like the president was having a hard time spelling his last name there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Makes sense.
peter doocy ▲ ● ▼
Is this White House of the opinion that the only pardon that would count is one that the president signed himself?
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼
Very interesting.
Very interesting props.
If you want to bring them to my office later so I can take a closer look, I would like to do that.
The president is making a good point when he discusses the usage of the auto pen.
Who was running the country for the past four years?
Perhaps those documents were signed with the AutoPen, something that I believe the Department of Justice is looking into.
As you saw, Ed Martin made an announcement at the Department of Justice this morning to launch an investigation because the American people deserve answers.
peter doocy ▲ ● ▼
Is there any concern that this president won the election on a promise to fix the economy and close the border?
Focusing and scrutinizing these Biden pardons is looking into the past instead of looking forward.
karoline leavitt ▲ ● ▼
I think in comparison to the amount of time this president has spent on securing the border, on fixing our economy, I just read out for you an entire story.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So we're good there, but I do believe this is from a while ago.
I don't think this is from, I think this is looking back about a month ago.
Yeah, this is from June 3rd.
So Ed Martin did announce they'd be investigating this, but I think it's absolutely fascinating.
Let's go back now and read because there's a lot to this story which is damning that they're not explaining.
Mr. Biden said in Thursday's interview we are at this part, that said extended preemptive pardons to many people like Trump.
We get that in a 10-minute interview, which the Times requested as part of its reporting.
Mr. Biden said he shielded those people along with members of his family so they would not have to run up large legal bills from politically motivated investigations by the Trump Justice Department.
Everybody knows how vindictive he is.
So we knew that they'd do what they're doing now.
I consciously made all those decisions.
So let us just break this down and I'll try and be as clear as I can.
It appears based on an investigation so far both publicly and in Congress, in the Republican Congress, that Biden used Autopen on all but his son's pardon.
Biden has admitted that he's had a broad criteria for pardons and that they used Autopen because there were so many.
He says he made the decision himself, particularly on these key individuals.
There is a possibility, as it pertains to, say, Fauci or others, he may have explicitly stated their names.
But from what I can gather from this story, they've not explicitly stated that.
And it looks like they're jumbling up the reporting so that they make you draw conclusions without giving you the clear details.
That is to say, they show that the use of AutoPen was managed by Mr. Biden's White House staff, Secretary Ms. Feldman.
She wanted to receive written accounts confirming Biden's oral instructions in the meetings before having it used to produce the warrants recording the clemency actions the emails show.
The aides refer to those written accounts of meetings at which Mr. Biden delivered oral decisions as blurbs.
The accounts were drafted by aides, senior advisors who had participated in the key meetings.
The assistants who drafted the blurbs were not themselves in the room with Mr. Biden, according to the list of those meeting participants.
The emails imply that Mr. Sisko and Mr. Zentz relayed what Mr. Biden had said to the assistants who then documented.
So once again, the New York Times is covering this story up.
Let me lay it out for you.
A handful of guys who claim to have been in a meeting with Mr. Biden, the president, told aides that he issued these orders, and the aides said, I have an email from him claiming the president said a thing.
That is the criteria by which they're claiming they used a robot to sign pardons for everybody.
So we can look at it a couple different ways.
It appears what they're saying as to the pardons issued.
Joe Biden didn't actually issue the broad swath of these.
He just said, pardon people like this.
As it pertains to the key individuals, that is, say, Fauci and his family, not including his son, which it appears he did actually pardon his son.
It may have been that a handful of people claimed he said it, and we don't know if he did.
And it's only retroactively he's claiming, oh yeah, sure, I did.
So what do you do?
What do you do?
So they go on to say, the January 19th summary also showed that Mr. Biden made a late decision to pardon Ernest W. Cromarty, the second, a former councilman in Columbia SC, who had pleaded guilty to tax evasion.
Biden started the day in South Carolina attending a church service with a close political ally, Rep.
James Clyburn, whose former aides say lobbied him afterwards to help Mr. Cromarty.
In the interview, Mr. Biden acknowledged that that's what happened.
I agree with Jim and I pardoned him.
Expanding investigations.
The emails show that an aide to Mr. Siskel sent a draft summary to Mr. Biden's decision, a draft summary of his decision at the meeting to assist assistant, Mr. Zentz, copying Siskel at 10.03 p.m.
The assistant forwarded it to Mr. Reed and Mr. Zentz asking for their approval and sent their final version to Ms. Feldman copying many meeting participants and aides at 10.28.
Three minutes later, Mr. Zentz hit reply all and wrote, I approve the use of the auto pen for the execution of all the following pardons.
Who's Mr. Zentz?
Is he the president?
I guess so.
This spring Ed Martin, a Trump loyalist who was then the interim U.S. attorney for D.C., sent letters to Mr. Biden's former aides asking for more information about Biden's role in the pardon decisions.
Mr. Martin's nomination for that role later collapsed in the Senate, and he has since become the DOJ's pardon attorney.
Funny, huh?
The Trump admin's scrutiny of the use of Autopen intensified last month when Trump signed an order on June 4th directing his White House counsel and attorney general to investigate Mr. Biden's mental acuity and whether Mr. Biden's aides had illegally used the device.
I will argue, I do not believe that Joe Biden retroactively claiming that he approves of these makes it legally done.
And it appears by all of the evidence that Joe Biden was not aware of who was being pardoned and that these people were getting orders from people who weren't the president.
Notably, the assistants who drafted these and used the auto pen received the orders from Mr. Zentz simply because he said, oh yeah, sure, Biden says so.
I think the order has to come from the president and I believe the president should have to sign it.
So I'll put it like this.
If it is true that because a random aide told other staffers to issue pardons, they did, and that's the strength of the pardon machine in this country, we have no executive branch.
If this stands legally, they are saying in all future instances, anyone who just turns the robot on can pardon whoever they want, quite literally saying any random person who happens to be in that building at the time, working there, can issue pardons to whoever they want, and they stand.
Yeah, nah, I ain't buying that.
I certainly ain't buying that.
They say the executive branch investigation that led to the Trump administration requests for all emails and clemency issues from the Biden White House near the end of his term.
Under national archive procedures, Mr. Biden could have raised objections, but did not.
At the same time, Rep James Comer, Republican from Kentucky, and chairman of the House, Senator Ron Johnson, have begun their own investigations into whether Biden and his aides concealed mental deficiencies that made him unable to perform presidential duties.
To assist with those inquiries, the Trump White House preemptively issued a waiver saying Mr. Biden could not invoke executive privileges to shield his White House internal information from Congress.
I love this because the argument was always that executive privilege was of the administration.
The Biden admin argued against this after Trump's first term saying, nope, all records of the executive branch are under the control of the current administration regardless of who it is.
Meaning, Trump can now say no one from the Biden administration gets executive privilege, which they basically did.
The double-edged sword the Democrats tried to wield, and now here it is.
Many of Mr. Biden's aides and allies dismiss the investigation as baseless, as they see them as part of Mr. Trump's wide-ranging retribution campaign against people and institutions he does not like.
But the investigations have entangled a sprawling group of former Biden admin officials, and they have enlisted a flight of white shoe lawyers from around Washington, the firms, some of which are performing the work at no cost.
Why is that?
Include Latham and Watkins, Covington and Berlin, Cooley and Steptoe, according to people familiar with the matter.
These lawyers, out of the goodness of their own heart, are just seeking to defend what the Democratic administration was doing, I'm sure.
I got to mention the first sets of fire was Neera Tandon, we're skipping a lot, by the way, talking about subpoenas, who served as staff secretary for part of Mr. Biden's presidency and as domestic policy advisor at the end of his administration.
She sat for an interview last month.
Ashley Williams, an aide to the president, participated in an interview on Friday, and the interviews are scheduled to continue into September.
In the Senate, Mr. Johnson's committee has requested interviews with the cabinet officials, and Tom Vilsack, the former agricultural secretary, has already appeared for an interview.
Mr. Biden himself, drum roll please, has hired a new personal lawyer, Amy Jeffress of Hecker Fink.
He had been without one since he and his former personal lawyer, Bob Bauer, quietly parted ways months earlier, according to people familiar with the matter.
Ms. Jeffress and Mr. Bauer declined to comment.
Mr. Bauer's relationship with Mr. Biden significantly cooled over the last years of his presidency, in part because of an extended clash with Mr. Biden's son, Hunter, and his defense team over the political risks to the president created by aggressive public relations tactics they used in defending against congressional inquiries.
Mr. Biden granted Hunter Biden a full pardon in December of 24.
It was the only clemency warrant in that period that Mr. Biden signed with his own hand.
And I would argue the last sentence of the article should be the headline.
Only one pardon was signed by Biden.
Hunter, period.
Case closed.
Thank you and have a nice day.
And then when you add all the rest, it should have opened with this statement.
That should be the opening sentence.
The only clemency warranted in the period that was signed by hand by Joe Biden was Hunter Biden.
The next paragraph should be, Biden's aides received instruction from other individuals, notably this Mr. Zients, that Biden had made a claim about issuing pardons to other people.
That should have been the story.
Corroborating.
Let me see if I can find, I don't know if it's going to do Jan 6.
Looks like it's going to do Jan 6.
Preemptive pardons.
The January 6th Committee pardons.
Here's what I think.
I think prominent Democrat individuals were directing AIDS, and all they had to do was say, yeah, Biden says so.
And the AIDS were like, we ain't questioning that.
But as we can see here, the Biden admin and Biden himself have admitted, have admitted that the majority of the pardons, and I think, I don't believe they're saying the principal ones like Fauci, were based on criteria.
I think it's also fair to argue one could interpret it as such.
I don't believe Joe Biden came down and said, oh, so we want my wife, my brother.
Let's do Mark Milley.
Let's do Fauci.
Who else on the J6 committee?
Let's do everybody in the J6 committee.
I don't think Biden did that.
I think Biden probably said, hey, look, just issue pardons.
I'm sorry.
I'm sorry.
In the event it's true that Biden did give these orders, Biden probably said, just give out pardons to people you think Trump might go after.
If that is the case and that is the argument they're making, then the pardons are void.
They're void.
He didn't issue them.
He didn't issue them.
He said, just pardon certain people of certain criteria.
Okay, now here's the next step in the legal challenge.
Joe Biden must produce the criteria by which he made these claims.
Is it legal criteria for a president to say, pardon someone who may face criminal charges later?
It may be.
It may be.
The question is, if Joe Biden says the criteria is people who had nonviolent offenses, right, for the broad swath, prove that was the order, and then we'll have to review to make sure everybody is in that.
You know why?
If the argument is Joe Biden made an order to staff, and those staffers, because it went down the chain, decided to put people in there who don't qualify.
You see, that's the problem with issuing pardons to people by AutoPen, and the president hasn't named them.
Let me say it again.
If Joe Biden says, pardon anybody whose first name starts with letter B, right?
Just like, just a hypothetical.
Because he can apparently do that, I guess.
We have to go through and make sure that every pardon aligns with the criteria ordered.
We don't have to blindly trust that some staffer aide using an auto pen got it right.
If Joe Biden wrote it himself, this man is pardoned, signed, boom, like he did with his son, then it's clear Joe Biden signed the pardon for his son and his order was carried out.
But if Joe Biden gave a blanket assertion to this Zeinst guy, the Zeins guy then just told some other staffers, hey, Biden said something like this, we now have two degrees of separation in which the order may have been confused.
So we're going to need that official statement from Joe Biden because that right there is it.
So as for Fauci and his other individuals, we've got this from Rand Paul.
Today I will reissue my criminal referral of Anthony Fauci to the Trump DOJ.
Well, how do we know that Fauci was actually part of any of that criteria?
Is it possible that staffers just added those names?
They say, and this is from the article too.
Again, because they buried everything.
Check this out.
At the January 19th meeting, which took place in the yellow over him of the White House, Mr. Biden kept his aides until nearly 10 p.m. to talk through such decisions, according to people familiar with the matter.
The emails show that an aide to Mr. Siskel sent a draft summary of Mr. Biden's decisions at that meeting to an assistant to Mr. Zeintz, copying Mr. Siskel.
At 10.03, the assistant forwarded to Mr. Reed and Mr. Zeins asking for their approval, and then sent a final version to Ms. Feldman, copying many meeting participants and aides.
Three minutes later, Mr. Zeins reply all saying, I approve.
Who is this guy to approve anything?
If this is true, okay, and we are talking about the pardons of Fauci, then Biden never in these emails and in this story said, I approve of the use of AutoPen.
It was some random guy.
In which case, the pardons are void.
But here's a challenge for Trump.
This is a big story from the other day.
Two-thirds of the DOJ unit defending Trump policies in court have quit.
So we're doing this event, DC Comedy Loft, in less than two weeks.
Not this weekend, but the next.
Do you want to come and sit on stage and debate or just participate?
DCComedyloft.com, link in the description below.
This is basically what we'll be discussing.
It's not just the Epstein files.
It's also stories like this.
Obstruction.
We've got sentiment.
You've got public approval.
Is Trump still winning?
I'd make the argument, yes, he is.
Setbacks don't mean you're losing.
But that's the conversation we'll ultimately have.
Now, we do have a big name, a big liberal, that we're hoping comes, but it's always tough.
It's always tough to book the big liberals.
But if we can get the liberal on and we can have this debate, it will be tremendous.
So we're going to have those conversations, my friends.
We're going to be joined in just a moment.
I'll make sure we got everything set up and everything's good to go by Kyle Serafin, former FBI.
I got a question about this Epstein case and maybe he has some insights for us, but also his opinions and thoughts on the current state of the Trump administration and where we're going, especially with these pardons.
So smash that like button.
Share the show with everyone you know at 4 p.m.
For those watching this pre-recorded segment, rumble.com slash TimPoool and youtube.com slash Timcast.
We will have that internet, I'm sorry, that interview up for all of you.
For everyone else, follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
Stay tuned.
Thanks for hanging out.
And we will see you all in the next segment or at 8 p.m. tonight on Timcast IRL.
For everybody else, let's keep the story going.
From CNN.com, Epstein Fallout poses a loyalty test.
Trump or MAGA?
CNN writes, in the days since the Trump admin released a memo about Epstein directly at odds with conspiracy theories pushed by the president and some of his top lieutenants, Trump's movement and most ardent supporters are in revolt.
The Justice Department and the FBI released a memo last week concluding there was no evidence that Epstein had a list of powerful men who participated in his alleged underworld of sex trafficking and pedophilia.
It is also said the disgraced former financier died by suicide and was not murdered in his New York jail cell.
Yet after years of big promises to the president's base, the memo failed to produce a smoking gun, undercutting Trump and his team's own words.
And MAGA world isn't happy, pitting the president's closest allies against one another.
With Trump defending the findings, situation has set up an unprecedented loyalty test between the president and the movement he created.
Now, I want to pause with these conspiracy theories.
You can see already CNN front-loading the story, poisoning the well.
It is not a conspiracy theory that Epstein was engaged in these behaviors because, well, Pam Bondi said he was.
Gheelain Maxwell was charged for it, and so was Epstein.
We know that Virginia Jufre was a witness and made claims about Prince Andrew, who was Also accused.
None of that is a conspiracy theory.
That is a pattern of behavior factually reported in the press far and wide.
The question is: to what extent?
Recently, I should say in recent history, Cash Patel, before entering as FBI director, stated that the FBI has Epstein's black book.
Definitively, he stated it.
Bangino wasn't as definitive, though.
People try to drag him.
He said, you're not being told the truth about the Epstein store.
We got to keep pressure up.
Now there seems to be tumult.
Who actually has the black book?
What's really going on?
According to an unsigned, undated memo, which everybody saw in the past week or so, Epstein kept no client list, and the trafficking only went to him.
It's possible, but you see, there was a butler that had been criminally charged with trying to sell the information on Epstein's clients.
There's a photo of Gheelane Maxwell, a 17-year-old girl, and Prince Andrew.
Is the client list just one guy?
I find that hard to believe.
So what is really going on?
Would the FBI have this information?
And I don't know, my friends.
Are you going to trust the plan, as it were?
We're going to be joined by someone who actually worked in the FBI.
He knows how this stuff works right now.
And the interesting thing is, I trust Cash Patel.
I do.
But he's inside right now, and there's some questions.
So we're going to pull in Kyle Seraphin, who is, we've had some feedback right there.
Looks like getting an error.
Let's see if I can refresh.
I didn't get it booted back up.
It's trying.
It's not loading.
Looks like we've got some technical difficulties real quick.
We'll try and reload.
These things happen.
Hey, Kyle, can you hear me?
unidentified
Hear me.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I can hear you.
My voice is feeding back through your camera.
I don't know.
Yeah.
Yeah.
We're getting better feedback.
Yep.
unidentified
Yep.
I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
We're not going to be able to do it with the weird feedback loop going on.
Let me see if for those that are watching, are you seeing your feedback back?
Yep.
Yep.
I think what's happening is what I'm saying to you is feeding back through your mic into us.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
It shouldn't be.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Let me grab something so they can try and pull something else real quick.
Fix it.
unidentified
Thank you.
Too high.
Too high.
That's a – I can't even – I can't do the delays.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It's almost like when they use the L-Rat on you.
unidentified
Yeah.
you Thank you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Welcome to the echo chamber.
Are your speakers on or yours on headphones?
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
No, I'm on speaker.
I'm on headphones.
Yeah, and I've got independent audio and video coming in separately.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, I don't know.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
If you guys don't have it, I can't mix mine out, so that's what I'm saying.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Well, it's not on our end.
unidentified
What?
What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
You should put your phone to it.
Okay.
Here's what I think is happening.
Kyle, I think our audio, you are hearing it, and your machine is playing it, which is ingesting on our end and feeding back out.
unidentified
Out.
Thank you.
Thank you.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
I don't know if that's possible.
There's nothing on my board that's registering.
unidentified
I don't know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, the delay would imply it's hitting you and hitting us back.
unidentified
He's wearing earbuds.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, I don't know.
We're getting a bad echo.
I don't know that we can.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, I'm trying.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
We turned the volume down on our end, but I can't hear either way.
unidentified
We turned the volume down on our end, but I can't hear either way.
Okay.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Well, I'll just try and talk as little as possible and let you take the show, Kyle.
Then there's no echo.
So let's just start here.
Let's get it pulled out.
There we go.
All right, let's start here.
There's a video where Cash says that the black book for Epstein is in possession, that the FBI's got it.
What do you think changed?
And does the FBI have this Epstein information?
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
Okay, so it's a complicated question.
But at the end of the day, I think people are looking at it in kind of a simple way, and they've been kind of doing this Fox News boomer routine where they've been kind of talking about truckloads of files, which is absurd.
The files would be on a computer just like everybody would expect a file to be done.
They were talking about it being at the Southern District of New York.
The FBI holds on to its own evidence.
It would bring it to trial, but it's not hanging out at like some United States attorney's office.
That's not reasonable.
So these things all seemed kind of nonsensical.
To talk about the black book, everybody has this idea.
The black book is all the contacts that he would have and all the nefarious actors.
And that would be the list of clients and the people he was doing shady stuff with.
And that may exist.
There may be some book.
Like, I don't know that Jeffrey Epstein was a guy who ran around with a black book, but that is something that people used to have.
The same thing as saying, you know, who's in your Rolodex.
However, the list of clients would not be something that like Jeffrey Epstein had on a file that was like client list.
That's not what you would do.
What you would have is an investigator saying these are the people that are implicated in either conspiracy or implicated in child sex trafficking or implicated in the child sexual abuse scandal that was the concern.
Now, none of that could be real.
That could be, it could be absolutely realistic that there is none of that there and this was all hype.
But the real scandal, and I think the reason that there's fallout for MAGA people, I think the reason that there's fallout for people that feel like they are betrayed is that it was an issue in the campaign.
Donald Trump brought it up himself.
He was on Lex Friedman.
He brought it up.
Donald Trump Jr. brought it up in front of large crowds talking about how they went after his father, but they didn't go after people that were on the Epstein list, whatever that is.
J.D. Vance brought it up on Theo Vaughan.
Dan Bongino did whole podcasts about it.
Cash Patel did multiple appearances, whether it be on Glenn Beck or with you or others.
He went out there and talked about it regularly, repeatedly, and didn't ever explain.
The difference is we have a cognitive dissonance of people said one thing and they didn't do anything that showed us that what they said previously was wrong.
This morning, I mentioned on my own program that like one of my proudest moments in the FBI was actually being able to show exculpatory information based on a false allegation that was brought to me that we investigated in all good conscience.
And it looked really damning up front.
And it was specifically about a guy who supposedly was a child sex offender or was a sex offender and was hanging out with kids and in a way that was against the law.
He was using a fake name.
He was traveling illicitly.
He was leaving down to Mexico and he was hanging out with a bunch of poor kids in the colonias outside of Juarez and bringing them bicycles by the hundreds, which seems super scandalous if you have a guy that is supposedly on the sex offender registry, which he was.
But then you find out the details of it.
You find out that his conviction was actually really sketchy.
And if it was done today, it probably wouldn't have happened.
And it was about 15 different items of child sexual material that was in a huge folder that he downloaded from Napster and he may have never even seen.
There's no implication that he was actually targeting that, that he wasn't interested in children.
It just happened to be on something he downloaded back in the day when file sharing was a thing and people used to take him down by the megabytes because we didn't have gigabytes back then.
Nobody had that kind of bandwidth.
So that was the thing.
And I was able to show through unsealed court records that this guy probably wasn't the guy that we thought he was, but all of the smoke looked like there would be fire and the fire was actually not there.
This could be the same thing.
It could be that they've been talking about this, that he's been kind of a right-wing boogeyman and we were all wrong about it.
I wasn't on the case.
I don't know.
But I know all the things that look intense.
We saw that there was a United States attorney that said that he was Intel's property, that he was working with intelligence agencies, that he was an asset.
We know from 2008 filings that the FBI actually did go out and lean on him when he was convicted and they were able to go get information from him of what value, we don't know because that's not declassified.
But we do know that he had contact with the FBI and so probably got signed up as a CHS.
So there's a lot of smoke.
The only way that you clear that smoke is a full, transparent, maya culpa.
We said a bunch of stuff and we were wrong.
And what you saw instead was, and this is why there's all this turmoil, you saw a leaked memo to Axios on a Sunday evening, in my opinion, hiding behind the tragedies that happened down the street from me in Texas.
I live in central Texas in the Hill Country.
So we just had people washed away with floods.
We had torrential rains yesterday, more flooding again.
And it looked like they tried to sneak this thing out.
And when I was talking to Alex Jones, he called it trying to drop a fart in church.
Sometimes you get a silent but dead one.
It gets out there.
Sometimes it squeaks and everybody looks at you.
This was a squeak.
Everyone looked and went, wait a minute, what?
You just going to drop this memo on us that says that there are no co-conspirators.
He killed himself.
No one else is going to be indicted.
And by the way, there's no evidence that he was doing anything wrong.
He killed himself for no reason.
You're going to have to explain it a little bit better than a two-page unsigned memo, which the deputy attorney general came out and said, Dan Bongino signed on to it.
Cash Patel signed on to it.
And he, Todd Blanch, signed out on it.
Like, there's no daylight between them.
That was his official statement on X from his official account representing the government's position with both of their seals on it.
So then we started seeing the other chaos.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Let me try some of that.
So what?
I think we have monitors on our website.
Anyway, this is really hard to do with the echo.
I'm fighting through it.
But let's do this.
Where was it?
Do you think that there is something big behind Epstein?
I hear what you're saying that they basically hyped it up.
They made this really, really big story.
And it may be a big story, but they're not finding the evidence that they thought they were going to have.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
That's exactly.
Yeah.
That's what I think is the possibility.
Now, there's also a possibility that it's a problem.
And, you know, the problem is we're not in a position to actually assess that evidence.
And for me, the scandal is actually not Epstein specifically, although the idea of letting child sex traffickers get away with it is abhorrent to me.
I'm a father.
And so that makes me want to puke.
It's something that I think Americans on the left and the right are going to get on.
I think the folks that are in the left-wing media that are taking this up are seeing an opportunity to drive a wedge between folks.
So that's awful.
But listen, for me, this is the same sort of unforced error that the Biden administration withdraw from Afghanistan was.
Like no one made you do it.
No one made you come out and message it poorly.
There was a way to do it right.
They got either bad information or it was being, you know, some subterfuge was happening.
We're talking about a group of people from the FBI that are in mid-level management that are giving the worst advice possible and want to see Cash Patel and Dan Bogino fail.
That is their mission set.
They want to continue the status quo.
That's what a quote unquote deep state does.
That's what an administrative state will do.
Everything we hear about is that Dan Bogino is miserable there because these people keep telling him that if he doesn't do everything that they want and sign off on all the programs and stay in the office late hours, that New York is going to explode or California is going to have a bio attack or some other crazy thing, cyber attack will take down the grid.
So he's the man standing there in the gap.
In reality, at some point, he'll realize that they're just hammering him with the same stuff they do to agents at Quantico.
It's this tactic of just getting cortisol overload and stressing you out to the point where you make bad decisions.
But it doesn't take away from the fact that there was a right decision, which was either coming out in full transparency.
They could have just not talked about it for a while and said, we're still working on it.
We haven't heard anything about the JSIX pipe bomber.
We haven't heard anything about the cocaine case, the Dobbs leaker, all the other things they said we were going to get transparency on haven't materialized either.
So they didn't have to drop it this way.
That's probably not their best move.
But the big real problem is that Pam Bondi went out and said there is this material.
It does exist, that there is evidence of something horrific.
We had Alina Haba say the same thing.
And again, these guys Who were not in the government at the time said it.
What you also will for evidence, those two ladies on the DOJ side have been hyping this up.
What you've actually seen is an undersell from Cash Patel and Dan Bongino over the last, let's say, three months.
They've gone out on Fox, looked like they were sitting on kind of like thumbtacks, like really uncomfortably, trying to kind of let this thing out slowly, saying, Hey, listen, by the way, like he didn't kill himself.
And everyone went like, wait, wait, what?
That may be the case.
It may be 100% accurate.
But then you've got this other undermining thing where the video came out the other day and it was edited in Adobe Premiere and it was spliced together from multiple takes.
And, you know, there's possibility of a timeline sync and some things like that.
And you go like, this is not how you look transparent and genuine and honest.
It's not the way that you do a rollout where you go out and you show all your cards, which is what needed to happen for people to feel like if you're going to change it 100%, if you're going to do a 360 from what you said last year, you have to actually say, I was wrong and I'm totally comfortable with knowing that I did it wrong.
Like I said, when I was in the bureau and I did that, it was a really relieving moment because nobody wants to go after somebody who's innocent.
Nobody wants to go out and make a claim and then have to retract it, but it's better to retract it than to lie about it and try to cover it up.
And I think they tried to get away with the best of both worlds, which was that maybe if we say it quietly, nobody will hear us.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Why not just lie better?
The lies have been poor.
It's a jumbled mess.
They could have come out.
Dan Vangino could have winked on camera and done nothing else.
unidentified
And this story would not be happening again.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, all true.
No, this is like the worst possible outcome.
Mike Howell, who's over at the Oversight Project, they're a spin-off from Heritage Foundation.
He said, if you were going to teach a class on the worst possible way to do a government rollout of information, this would be one of the top lessons on not how to do it.
You did it with nobody signing it.
So nobody put their name to it.
So you've got no sort of credibility behind the original memo.
Then it turns out that memo is legit.
Because if you remember, the Sunday question was all the MAGA influencer types were out there going like, well, it's coming from Axios.
We don't trust Axios.
And rightly so.
Axios is a mouthpiece for a couple of things.
One, people on the political left and sort of the, you know, the murky, swampy administrative state, but it's also a mouthpiece for the intelligence community, which means they are favorable to doing a leak and they will take that access and they're happy to be the exclusive provider of this.
And something that people are not going to know because if you don't, well, they weren't party to this conversation, but I had a private conversation with Cash Patel before he was sworn in.
One of his big concerns was media leaks, which is something that plagued Ray's administration.
You know, was an issue for the last DOJ and the last FBI, mostly because they were doing things that were nefarious and unseemly.
And a longtime retired FBI agent and a whistleblower attorney brought the following information to Cash's awareness, which I guess he wasn't aware of.
It makes sense.
He said leaks to the media are a tool of the FBI director.
They've been going back at long as probably, you know, since before 9-11, but definitely in the post-9-11 world, Mueller used them effectively.
Comey used them effectively.
McCabe did as well when he was in the interim role.
And of course, Chris Ray did as well.
So they could go out and you can share and turn the narrative.
Not only do you choose the information you're going to share and when you're going to share it and how you're going to share it, but you also choose the outlet that you're going to go to.
And if you go to a newsweek, it's going to hit differently than if you go to a Fox News or if you go to an independent media source.
And if you go to Axios, it has a certain hit.
And so he got, I think they made a strategic move.
I just think it was the worst possible one.
So whoever is advising them, and that fits with my theory that the folks that are inside the Bureau that want to see bad outcomes, they're cheering right now because you're never going to hear the advisors who briefed Cash or Dan.
You're never going to hear those people's names.
They're not going to be someone that you're aware of.
Maybe I might hear about them from people inside the Bureau that reach out and say, hey, by the way, this is the person that was the last one to touch this.
But other than that, it's not going to be transparent.
The people who are going to be left with egg on their face, the two guys that are at the top of the agency, and used to be only one person would get it.
It used to be just Chris Ray.
Like most people don't know who Paula Bate was.
And they don't know who David Bowdich was, the previous deputy directors.
These are not people that are in their sphere because the deputy director is kind of a low-key role that runs the bureau, executes the policy, and the director is the one that's kind of the PR face.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
There was another story, and that's the Biden Auto Pen pardons.
So he didn't sign off on these.
He had a general meeting.
Someone claims he offered these pardons.
You know, there's a question of how would the FBI handle something if someone is pardoned?
Can you guys go after them?
And then I'm just curious your general thoughts on the pardons themselves, if they're legit and what should be done.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
So this is a novel problem, right?
So you're using an executive power that probably cannot be delegated, although I guess there's some question on whether or not you can delegate that under Article 2.
Can you delegate it to a subordinate in the same way, you know, law enforcement authorities are delegated to the Attorney General?
The ability to either investigate and or prosecute are all delegated to the FBI and so on and so forth.
So the way that it would play out is an FBI director would decide, you know, it would obviously probably be the deputy and then somebody who's actually running, let's say, criminal investigation, counterterrorism investigations.
It would be below that.
They would decide, we are going to do an investigation to fill in the blank person for the following allegations.
They have to be, you know, for criminal aspects, it has to be a allegation that some federal crime took place and that this person is the alleged perpetrator of it.
And they would investigate it.
You can investigate anybody for anything as long as you have that authorized purpose.
There are different levels of FBI investigations.
They go from preliminary to full.
They have a thing called an assessment, which is another animal.
But at the end of the day, allegation or information that a federal crime took place is good enough for you to open that investigation and sign off and you get the resources to go along with it.
So the investigation is easy, no problem.
You can investigate anybody, even if they've been pardoned.
Then comes the questions whether or not you can indict them.
That's going to be a question of political will more than anything else.
You bring it over to DOJ and somebody, either United States attorney or a subordinate there, what's called an assistant United States attorney, a line prosecutor, will accept it and say, yeah, I am willing to prosecute this case.
They're going to have a whole bunch of different questions.
There's a process of vetting out the person that is called the subject through what's called the sim, the sensitive investigative manner.
So they've got all these policies that'll come into play.
But at the end of the day, if they want to do it, yes, they could totally do that.
Then they could bring that information in front of a grand jury and get the indictment.
The grand jury is going to say, yes, we believe that it's, there's probable cause to believe that this person committed this federal crime.
And so we're going to Indict them, and they're either going to surrender themselves or there's going to be an arrest warrant issued.
Take your pick, and then they go forward.
And then comes the question on whether or not that indictment can stand, and whether or not that prosecution can continue.
And that would happen from the defense end.
They would raise motions saying, Hey, by the way, this person was already pardoned.
And then you probably have not a question of whether or not the law was broken.
You'd have a question of the procedures that would go, as far as I understand it, would go to the appeals courts.
And they would actually question whether or not the law was followed.
And that's where you start having these constitutional issues.
Maybe even the Supreme Court probably would have to weigh in on, can you delegate the power of pardon to a subordinate?
And if the president's not aware of it, and can you prove that he was aware of it or that he wasn't or that he was cognizant or not?
That might come into play then.
So they could march it forward and they could push that moment to a crisis where you would find out whether or not they could ever get away with this thing again.
That might be a good move.
Find a really good example of someone who's absolutely committed a crime and then push forward against them against an auto-pen pardon and really put it to the test.
And then you're going to basically create precedent that's going to invalidate or substantiate the validity of that pardon.
I think it's a great option.
I think it's going to, we'll see.
We'll see.
Stephen Miller seems aggressive on that kind of stuff.
It seems like he would advise that that's the way to go done, get it done.
And I think the MAGA base in general is going to want to see that because we can't have unnamed bureaucrats who no one's ever going to hold accountable and didn't get voted in.
We can't have those people deciding whether or not American citizens or criminal actors are able to go free in this country.
That seems completely absurd.
It's totally anti-American.
You'd think the left would want that as well because it could be abused on either side.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
It looks like from the New York Times, some staffer told some aides, Biden approved this.
Use the automobile.
It's not even that it's delegated.
We don't even know Biden ordered it.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
Right.
Again, and so then the question is, because now you're coming into an area of executive privilege, too.
So you've got some other concerns in there.
I could see why this would be dicey, only because you can't pull certain records.
The judiciary doesn't have the ability to order it.
But we're now talking about a new administration that might want to undermine the previous administration and they theoretically could actually offer it out.
In fact, it kind of goes along with what Biden was doing where they were going after Trump, right?
And he was the former chief executive.
Is it great for America?
I think at the end of the day, it starts getting kind of banana republicly when you start having one executive, you know, supplant the other and then going after them.
But they've already started down this path.
I don't think we can avoid the fact that some wrongs were done.
They probably should be righted.
I don't think regular people, including now the left-wing media, they're selling books on it.
Jake Tapper's done a whole book tour.
They all kind of realize that the guy that was occupying the White House for the last four years wasn't sentient.
My buddy Steve Friend calls him the human Roomba.
And once you see him on stage towards the end of that four years where he's just kind of like doing 30 degree turns and looking for the dock station, it kind of lines up with what he looks like and how he operated.
So was that guy really making any decisions at all?
And can we adjudicate it?
Like I said, I think if the executive is on board, the current one, I think he can.
And I think we probably need to because we can't have it happen again.
Not if America wants to continue and have legitimacy.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Maybe ban auto-pumption.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
What was that?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Banned auto-pumped.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
I hate it.
Yeah, I don't like that at all.
Like, really?
Is that something that is totally necessary?
Also, I didn't realize, and who knows what we pay for these stupid things.
Look, DocuSign is feasible.
Can we not really just print things off and have a president actually sign them?
Can we not do some version of a docu sign?
When you're in the law enforcement realm, where I was at the FBI, if you want to sign off on and certify a document, so you'd certify your time card, you'd certify statements you made.
They're evidentiary, they are testimonial, and they hold the full weight of you actually doing it.
What you would do is you would insert a card, which has your name and it's called a cat card.
I think when you're in the DOD, we had a different name for it, but it's a very similar type of thing.
SACS badge is what it was called.
You'd push it into a card reader that would authenticate that it was you.
And then you would have like a code that you would authenticate who you were.
And it would automatically sign things digitally the same way that you've signed real estate documents and everybody else has signed contracts or you signed with advertisers.
Americans have gone digital.
We accept that that's a thing.
Why we have a machine that has a mechanized arm that duplicates your signature with a physical wet signature is beyond me.
It doesn't happen for all kinds of other things, subpoenas and legal process.
You can swear out on a Zoom call to a judge now and have somebody have their freedom taken.
Why we need a mechanical arm signing the president's signature is it's really bizarre.
It seems like a throwback.
And when you see the machine, it looks like they made them probably in the 60s or 70s.
So why are we still doing that?
Probably because they cost a lot of money and somebody gets a maintenance contract.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Indeed.
unidentified
Well, I apologize for the academic, but where can people find more from you?
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
People can find me on Rumble right now.
It's rumble.com slash Kyle Seraphin, or they can find me on X if you want to mix it up and say things that are nice or mean.
I'll do it too.
It's at Kyle Seraphin.
It's always my name.
Easy to find me there.
Same thing on YouTube.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Right on.
Thanks for hanging out, man.
We'll see you next time.
kyle seraphin ▲ ● ▼
Thanks, Tim.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
We'll get this one for the next two.
All right.
So we had an echo problem, and now the echo problem is gone.
I don't exactly know what the echo problem was.
And I think what may have been happening, as I was saying at the very beginning, our audio, so this actually, hey, let's do some studio production 101.
So I've been on a bunch of shows before, and what happens is our computer here ingests both the audio from my microphone and the computer's audio itself.
That's how we'll play a video from X. So there's several different audio sources.
Each individual microphone feeds into a mixer board, which actually divides the, I think there's eight, and it splits them into two different channels.
And so we have to actually program each channel into the mixer to ingest because they can ingest separately, meaning we could turn off half the mics in the middle of the show and the other half stay on.
Technically, we have the ability to mute individual mics on the producer board too.
But we also, we have a third source, which is the computer internal audio.
What ends up happening is if, I don't know if this was Kyle's computer doing this or not, nothing he did, but if his computer was monitoring back what I was saying, then on his end, his Computer was sending back to us not just what he was saying, but what I was saying as well.
And that's why there was a delay of about a quarter to a half of a second every time I would talk, and there's nothing I can do about it.
So, normally, what you do is, we don't, I don't have the controls for something like this, but we'll consider in the future: I would just mute that channel while I talk and then unmute it when he talked, but it meant there's actually not going to be any overlap in the conversation.
So, well, when we put that one up at 4 p.m., we're going to edit that all down and try and cut out as much of that as possible from the dead air to the technical difficulties.
But hey, you guys rock.
I appreciate you guys bearing with us.
These things happen.
You know, we had Laura Logan on last week, and I think she was using a noise reduction filter.
And so what happens is when you talk, every so often some words drop out, and it sounds like you're like, and it sounds like you're going to make a great point about Donald Trump, but then every word is, I was doing that intentionally, but when you have a noise filter, it's constantly trying to stop background hum.
So it's as a threshold on decibels, and only after that is hit will it actually capture the audio or it filters out anything below.
So you get things like that.
Welcome to the world of running a studio and doing shows on Zoom and on the internet with people of all different systems.
It used to be that when you were on TV, everybody had a largely unified system.
Not completely, but you knew which system they were using.
And a lot of big studios do something called TriCaster.
We've got a standard mixer board with Black Magic Ingestion, all built from the ground up.
But I'll grab some of your guys' rumble rants while we're here.
And, you know, looks like we only got a couple.
We only got a couple.
Copium Poppy says, Tim should start singing with the echo on.
So here's the thing.
The echo delay at the right modulation is actually a weapon.
So they do this.
They have the capability with protests and what's called an LRAD.
This is the brief thing I mentioned at the beginning.
The long-range acoustic device.
One of the tactics they've used, it's not very common, but it's possible.
They will capture the sound of the protests and then delay it by a half second and repeat it.
And it creates, it makes it very difficult for you to talk.
When you talk, you're hearing yourself in your own head.
When we have monitors, so like right now when I'm talking, my headphones are playing back my own voice to me, real time with no delay.
So I can hear myself.
It's also how singers do it.
They wear the earpiece when they're singing, they can hear their own voice because otherwise it's too loud.
By creating a delay, your brain is hearing back itself, causing you to stutter, and it becomes very difficult to speak.
And you've got to focus really hard on what you're saying while ignoring yourself saying something out of sync with what you're saying.
So it's actually a mentally disruptive thing, but you guys know that you've probably experienced before with like monitors and feedback.
All right.
Nazi Revival says DOJ Bondi blocked HHS RFK Jr. from taking fluoride out of the water nationally.
I had seen something like that.
I haven't confirmed it yet, but that's crazy.
Amtru says, doesn't matter if the pardons are null because the DOJ won't prosecute anyone.
unidentified
Watch.
Yup.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Dude, I don't even know anymore.
With the Epstein stuff, there's a lot I wanted to say to Kyle and actually ask him to follow up on, but because of the echo, we weren't able to get there.
I think he actually makes a lot of really great points.
It's not, it's a middle ground, and we're not getting that middle ground.
And that middle ground is the Epstein stuff is really bad.
It's not as bad as everyone assumed it was going to be.
That is, yeah, he was trafficking.
There's probably some people involved.
It's probably not going to be this massive list of hundreds of world leaders, but he was a diddler and they were bringing in underage girls.
And there are some people who are probably implicated.
That is, they hyped up this thing so much that when they get in, I do think they're covering up for people.
And I'm not saying this theory is correct.
I'm saying it's plausible.
That the reality is if they did drop the client list, it's going to be a dozen people, maybe like Prince Andrew.
And then they're going to be like, no one's going to be satisfied by this.
They're going to call it a cover-up no matter what we do.
It still sounds to me that if that were the case, Trump's using the blackmail.
So we will see.
But I'm going to wrap it up there, my friends.
We're going to get you ready for a raid on our good friend Russell Brand, who is gearing up.
He is actually, I believe it might be live now.
So we'll send that raid on its way.
My friends, make sure you go Timcast.com, join Timcast.com's Discord.
You'll get access to these live events we do.
We have 30 designated tickets for our members, plus a members-only after-show.
It's going to be a lot of fun.
Now, as for the event itself, we actually are going to have, if you show up on the spot and tickets are available, you can come in because we're trying to figure out how we can get more liberals to come up and join these debates.
And so we did last time and it was really, really great.
We're going to encourage that this time around as well.
So it will be silly, but the point of the event is, although politics can be contentious, we're wanting it to be laugh, like a laugh, right?
You know, like have fun, joke.
Everybody disagrees, but we leave laughing though we disagree.
That's the hope.
I hope we get there.
Follow me on next and Instagram at Timcast, my friends.
Stay tuned.
We got more coming up 8 p.m. tonight at Timcast IRL.
▲
Export Selection