Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

July 15, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:06:49

Democrat Impeachment Leader Schiff ACCUSED OF FRAUD, Trump DOJ Targets Anti-Trump CONSPIRACY

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Donald Trump has told his followers to move on and not waste time on the Epstein files.
	They're not happy with it.
	But just the other day, Rep RoCanna has called for the release of any files pertaining to Epstein's prosecution and evidence to be published on the DOJ website.
	Republicans have blocked this effort, leading to a bit of controversy.
	Many people are now saying that Trump is dead to them.
	They can't believe he would cover this up.
	The Republicans in the House clearly are hiding this because they could have gotten these files out, but it is a bit contentious.
	In fact, the challenge, I suppose, is a blanket amendment saying release any evidence means the DOJ is going to be publishing child abuse material on the DOJ website.
	Well, my friends, we're kicking off this show a bit with the interview early as we were trying to make time to make sure we can get Rep Rokana in, and we do have him.
	I'll be bringing in the representative who introduced the amendment to get all of the Epstein files and evidence published right now.
	So we're going to fix the echo right now.
	We're getting echo.
	It happens.
	All right, let's see what we got to do.
	We figured out what was wrong with it.
	That was...
	Yeah, I can't see you, but I can hear you.
	We're getting it going.
	Sorry about that.
	We had some echo problem the other day that we had to work out.
	Can you see me now?
	I can.
	I can.
	All right.
	Let's bring you in.
	Representative, thanks for joining me today.
	You introduced an amendment to get the Epstein files and evidence published within 30 days, and it was struck down.
	The first thing I want to ask you is, do you think the Trump administration is covering up Epstein's crimes?
	I don't know, but like you, as you had tweeted out in February of this year, I believe that they should release the Epstein client list.
	They should release any of the evidence.
	They promised that.
	Trump promised that.
	The Attorney General promised that.
	Now, I just want to clarify, because you're always fair.
	I do not want any of the victim's identity released.
	I do not want any of the potential child pornography released.
	All of that under the amendment is covered because they, under DOJ policy, do not have to release any of that information.
	I made it clear I don't.
	And in a bill that I'm going to be introducing, a bipartisan bill soon, we're going to make that perfectly explicit that that should not be released.
	So for those that aren't familiar, the amendment was voted down.
	It was 7 to 5.
	Republicans, I believe the Democrats voted yes to have the files and evidence released within 30 days.
	the Republicans voted no.
	Ralph, you're correct.
	Apologies.
	Apologies.
	You are correct.
	I suppose on the surface, the easy out, if you're going to look at this negatively on Republicans as a cover-up, the easy out is, well, certainly the DOJ has its policies about not releasing the child abuse materials and certain evidence that could compromise a case.
	But your amendment did say that any would be released.
	It didn't have a carve-out explaining any kind of special actions they could take.
	The easy argument is, well, of course, you can't vote yes on that.
	It would compromise investigations and it would compromise the victims.
	Well, our understanding from the amendment from legal counsel is that it would not have in any way interfered with the DOJ's policies of protecting victims, and the DOJ has that right.
	But because of that issue that some have raised, we're going to make it absolutely explicit in this bipartisan bill that we're going to be putting forward.
	And the reality is that some people, not you, I believe you because you come from a sincere place, but some people are doing mental gymnastics to try to prevent this release.
	And I want to make it clear, victims should be protected.
	None of the pornographic stuff should be out there.
	But let me ask you, if that was the case, and we have a bill that makes that very clear, will you support the idea that the evidence on any client list, the evidence regarding Jeffrey Epsom, that that should become public?
	80%.
	Because the answer is simply yes, but the challenge is: well, I'll put it this way first.
	They've come out and they've said there's no information that would predicate an investigation of third parties.
	There's not evidence that would implicate them and bring criminal charges.
	If the argument from the DOJ is right now, case closed, then absolutely, let's release it.
	If they're going to say that there's no evidence Epstein third parties were involved in any of the crimes he was doing, so long as they're not releasing any images or information that's private to the victims, if they're going to say who he worked for and what he was doing, then so be it.
	Because the argument then is that there will be no innocent fallout.
	There's not going to be some individual who may have met him at a party who will be falsely accused because that won't be in any of the documents.
	No documents will implicate them in any way.
	100%.
	Now, I suppose the question then is, are they lying about there actually being evidence of wrongdoing that's being covered up?
	In which case, I suppose we have to force their hand because we can't accept that.
	But would the release of any information compromise any investigations in the future?
	I'm curious your thoughts based on, you know, my assessment.
	Look, I don't think it will compromise anything in the future.
	And if there was some case that they thought they were going to bring, they should bring it or give that explanation for why they're not releasing part of it because there's an investigation that's ongoing.
	Here's a legitimate concern.
	Look, the DOJ usually does not release interviews and evidence until they charge someone because you don't want a precedent that the government is investigating you and then they release all this information and they don't charge you and they destroy people's reputation.
	So I get that argument.
	But because you've had, in this case, the president of the United States campaign on releasing the information, because you've had Pam Bondi go on TV and say there is a file.
	I know she's now saying it's a file, not the client list, but she's made those representations.
	Because you have real concerns about foreign leaders being involved and potentially intelligence agencies being involved.
	I think the president should say, in this case, we're making an exception.
	We're releasing all the files to have total sunshine, recognize there may be people mentioned in these files who are not guilty.
	And the American people, we're going to trust their judgment to sort through that.
	And this is not a precedent for the DLJ doing this again, but it's in this case, we're going to do that.
	And that, I think, weighs the legitimate concerns that some people innocent will be caught up in the release.
	But I have confidence in the American people of being fair.
	I agree.
	I think this is great.
	You know, yesterday when we talked about the initial, you came out on the floor, you said you wanted to make this happen.
	On the surface, we get the idea.
	I think I and many people in a similar space completely agree and appreciate the actions you're taking to get this information released to the public.
	And then, of course, the big concern with the vote was clarifying any amendments on making sure they don't just dump everything they have.
	With that being agreed, and I appreciate you say that.
	So with that being said, I think this is fantastic.
	The question then becomes, why aren't they releasing it?
	Why this 180 from all of these people?
	I mean, Cash, Dan, Trump, Pam Bondi.
	She says, you know, they give these binders to people with phase one, Epstein release.
	And then the next thing we know, there is no phase two.
	There's nothing to see or it's all gone.
	Why do you think there's this 180 happening?
	You know, I really don't know other than to say that they're probably influential, powerful people who are donors to politicians, who played golf with politicians, who are caught up in it.
	And let's be clear, some of these people may not have actually visited an island or engaged in illegal conduct with an underage woman.
	Some of these people may just have solicited Jeffrey Epstein for a contribution or may have gone to a party or may have been on a plane.
	And my guess is that they are reluctant to release all of this because they know that a lot of influential, powerful people will be implicated.
	And they probably think, oh, you know, people aren't going to really care.
	The reason people care, though, is this is something deeper than just the Epstein file.
	It's like if a country is not willing to stand up for young girls and protecting her children and willing to provide impunity to rich and powerful men, then what kind of country are we?
	And it speaks to people's fundamental sense that there's something rotten in Washington, that we've gotten to corrupt.
	And that's why ultimately I do think that Trump will be forced to release these things because the argument isn't just coming from people like me.
	It's coming from people like you and people who voted.
	I don't know who you voted for, but people who voted for.
	I voted for Trump.
	But this is the ultimate bipartisan issue.
	You know, going back even to 2000s, there had been information about Epstein.
	He got these sweetheart deals, even though he was accused of very serious crimes.
	And then even up to like, you know, 2019, the charges they levy against him were light compared to the evidence that was already in the public sphere.
	Notably, there was an individual, I think it was his butler who worked for him, who had been criminally charged for trying to sell off the information of the people he's working with.
	There are concerns, I guess, that I will add this.
	It's the ultimate bipartisan issue.
	But there are conspiracies.
	Everybody's got a theory.
	What if this implicates U.S. intelligence, the U.S. intelligence apparatus and its allies, perhaps MI6 or Mossad or maybe even anything else out of Europe?
	Some theorize the reason Trump doesn't want to release it is because it's going to compromise in some way national security, not to, you know, and again, I'm not saying don't release it.
	I'm saying release it.
	I get it.
	Well, isn't there more of a reason to release it?
	I mean, look, I don't think anyone would say that our CIA has been innocent in our history.
	There was the whole church commission, right, and the church investigation.
	Some of the intelligence agencies used to be involved in assassinations of overseas leaders.
	And then the American people said, no, we don't want that.
	And they were exposed, and that led to reform.
	So if, and I'm just saying, I have no idea if any intelligence agency was involved.
	I hope they weren't.
	But if they were involved, wouldn't you want to know that?
	I mean, the president could actually do such a public service.
	He could say, I'm releasing this.
	We're getting this information out there.
	And now we're calling for reform if there are intelligence agencies that are involved.
	But the very fact that people are asking these questions, the very fact that you got Tucker Carlton or others saying this about the intelligence agencies, don't you want to make sure that we know the truth?
	Otherwise, these theories are just going to take on a life of their own, and it's undermining the people's trust in government.
	I completely agree.
	The big conundrum that we've talked about the past week or two on Timcast IRL is perhaps the scenario is, and again, I'm not saying it because I really don't know, that when they begin to go through the documents, they realize that it potentially implicates powerful politicians in various countries, potentially in corporations.
	And the U.S. could expose these individuals, but it could cause massive collateral damage to alliances, peace negotiations, and generally the market.
	So this is one theory that Trump is basically saying, we don't want the collateral damage.
	And unfortunately, that means we just can't publish this stuff.
	So I ask you this.
	Let's say, and again, completely hypothetically, the release of the information would cause collateral damage between our alliances, trade partners, other countries, world leaders, and our corporations in the stock market.
	Do you think we should still release all that information?
	Yes, because I think we're a very resilient country.
	I don't think that we are reliant just on a few hundred or a few thousand people who may be implicated.
	Many of them, by the way, won't be charged.
	So it's a matter of personal shame and embarrassment more than anything else.
	And we're still the most consequential, indispensable nation in the world.
	It's not like other countries are not going to trade with us or other things.
	In fact, they'll respect the honesty.
	But if there was something truly serious, some aspect that the president couldn't release because he has access to information that you or I may not, then he should just level with the American people and say that, say exactly that.
	Here's what we're releasing.
	Here's information that we can't release because X, Y, and Z. But I think what people don't like right now is they feel like they're in the dark and they feel like people are being protected who did terrible things.
	Do you think there really is a possibility that they were overhyping something that wasn't there?
	And then when they say there is no client list, I don't, but do you think there's a possibility that they're just telling the truth?
	Look, I think there's a possibility that Jeffrey Epstein didn't sit there and write out a client list.
	I mean, it'd be like documenting your own crime.
	But do I think that there are probably memos and investigations that have information about people who were on his plane or gave him money or asked him for favors or were seen in the vicinity of an island where illegal things were going on?
	My guess is there's that evidence out there.
	And again, if it was a traditional case, you would say, if you're not charging someone, then don't release the evidence because you don't want the government destroying people in the press without charging.
	But this is no longer a traditional case.
	We're talking about intelligence agencies.
	We're talking about the word of the Attorney General.
	We're talking about the president of the United States campaigning on this.
	And at this point, I think the president has to say, in this matter, because of the public interest, national security, we're making it an exception.
	We're putting it out there.
	And he can caution, and the Attorney General can caution that the American people shouldn't judge just because someone's name is in some interview memo doesn't mean that they engaged in sex with underage women.
	I mean, the American people are smart.
	I think they will be fair.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	I feel like the answer to this is probably obvious.
	Why do you think it is there are many prominent Trump supporters coming out now and saying, you know what, nothing to see here, guys.
	Let's just let it go.
	Look, I think they like the policies that Donald Trump is doing.
	I don't agree with them, but they may think we agree with him on his tariffs.
	We agree with him on his deportations.
	I'm totally opposed to deportations without due process, but some people obviously support him on that.
	They like the tax breaks that he's instituted.
	I totally disagree with that.
	And they like that he won.
	And so they see that this is something that is splitting some of the MAGA base, and they don't want him to be ineffective as a president.
	But I think this goes to the core of Trump's brand and his persona, because what he said is, look, the system is corrupt.
	He even said, I'm part of this corrupt system.
	You know, let me tell you, I used to give all these politicians money myself.
	I used to hand it out and I want to change the system.
	And him now saying, look, no, I'm going to protect the system becomes undermining his very rationale.
	And for that reason, Trump's a very smart politician.
	I would be shocked if he does not rethink this and push for some of the release the more he hears.
	And if he does that, I would come back and I'd give him credit.
	I'd say, okay, he heard the people and now he's releasing it.
	They are floating the idea.
	I think Laura Trump said recently they're looking at more documents.
	According to documents obtained by Judicial Watch, I think there are still some Epstein files that may come out.
	But I suppose the question is, two questions.
	The first is, should your bill, which you mentioned will clarify to make sure that's not going to target victims or anything like that, should that actually make it to a floor vote?
	Do you think you will get enough votes to have it pass?
	Will your colleagues in the Democratic Party approve of it?
	And more importantly, will it ever be allowed to get out of committee and even go near the floor?
	I do.
	There's something called a discharge petition, which means if 218 House members sign it, it has to come to the floor.
	And I think there's going to be so much press interest in this that we will get enough people to sign on to that discharge petition and get a vote.
	So I am quite optimistic as long as it's bipartisan, as long as it clarifies this point very, very explicitly.
	I hope after this, if you can tweet out or make that clear, because you raise a very important point and you have a large following, and I want to make it clear to people that what we're going to push and in the bill, it'll be explicit, is going to protect victims and make sure none of the child pornography or any of that gets released.
	I think that's fantastic.
	I mean, again, that was the principal concern in that the initial A, B, and the amendment you had, the two paragraphs, it just said any evidence.
	And I get it.
	Clearly, I understand what your intent was.
	We were actually saying this is a great move from you.
	When it comes to the vote, I'm like, the Republicans are clearly going to say no to that, and they're going to cite the victims.
	So I welcome and encourage you that it's going to be great to get this bill forward.
	But I guess ultimately, you know, there's a couple of thoughts people are going to have.
	I see these Trump supporters, the diehards saying, you know, Trump says, let's not, we're going to move on from this.
	And I think the mentality of a lot of these guys, it's going to be something like, why do Democrats all of a sudden care about this when they could have brought this up during the Biden administration?
	Now it seems like it may just be a political tool against Trump because it's splitting his base.
	Look, we could have brought it up in the first Trump administration, right?
	No one brought it up when William Barr said that there's not much to see.
	And then it's fair that people didn't bring it up during the Biden administration.
	But the stakes were raised when the Attorney General is out there saying that there's a client list on her desk, when the President of the United States is campaigning and the Vice President of the United States is campaigning explicitly on the release of these files.
	And then they win the election.
	So now there's a public outcry and it's about trust.
	And everything I'm trying to do is in a bipartisan basis.
	Even this bill, I'm not going to introduce unless I get Republicans, because I don't want this to be seen as just going after Trump.
	I want this to be seen as answering the outcry of the American public.
	And if they look, the Democrats lost the last election, probably because we didn't listen to people.
	Now we're listening to people.
	So you can't have it both ways.
	You can't say, okay, Democrats were out of touch and now listen to people.
	Now we're listening to people and say, well, now you're being political.
	No, yeah, Trump won.
	We're listening.
	There's an outcry.
	Now we're saying, let's on a bipartisan basis, get these files released.
	I love it.
	I think they should be carefully done, of course.
	We're going to make sure we clarify all that.
	But it's not something that's in the mainstream psyche.
	So one of the issues that came up is Trump's immigration efforts, the immigration raids, ICE have been expanding.
	We recently had the marijuana farms in California that were raided.
	There was the riot.
	Things are getting crazy.
	We've had a couple ambushes on CBP and ICE.
	There was a man apparently firing a gun.
	Things have been getting really bad.
	And in this, across the board, we have seen a slight downward trend for Trump on the issue of immigration, which is his strongest issue.
	I think Gallup had him at minus 27.
	Maybe an outlier, but in aggregate, he's down about three points where he was in the positive for some time.
	This issue, I absolutely agree, and I commend you for bringing it forward to get these files released, but it is very esoteric.
	It's not something the average public pays attention to.
	And the concern then is that if the focus in the political sphere is on this very esoteric issue, does it not distract the public from issues on immigration?
	Is it maybe something the Trump administration wants to happen?
	Well, I think it goes to the broader sense in this country that people think the rich and powerful have their thumb on the scale, that they control government.
	People are having too much in their rent.
	They're struggling to have high-paying jobs.
	They're struggling to support their families.
	And they think the system is kind of rigged against them and politicians aren't working on their behalf.
	And if you look at it in that context, as opposed to just an obsession about Jeffrey Epstein and who was on his island, then you understand the anger.
	And I think that calling for the transparency, calling for accountability is saying, let's give government back to people.
	Now, that doesn't mean that we don't focus on healthcare and the economy and immigration.
	But you know what?
	One of the statistics that saddens me is when one of my favorite presidents was John F. Kennedy.
	And when he was president and people keep saying, oh, he's got us to go to the moon and he had these big things.
	The approval rating of government was 60%.
	Now people don't trust government.
	It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat, Republican, they don't trust us.
	And so I think this is needed to rebuild trust so we can then solve immigration, healthcare, the economy.
	Last question.
	Do you fear for your safety pursuing the release of these files?
	I don't because I think that this is fundamentally a decent country, a fair country.
	I mean, obviously, look, I'm an Indian American.
	I grew up in Bucks County, Pennsylvania.
	I was born there, and I have found this country to be open and decent and fair.
	And, you know, I still believe that.
	Obviously, anytime you put yourself out there and you take on powerful interests, there's some risk to it.
	But what's the point of being in public service if you're not willing to take the risks?
	And certainly it's not a risk compared to the people who scaled the cliffs of Normandy in World War II or who fought Jim Crow or who fought for this country's freedoms in the Cold War.
	So I think politicians need to show a modicum of guts.
	That's the least thing we can do in terms of our job.
	Right on.
	I do appreciate your efforts.
	I think this is great.
	I appreciate that there's some bipartisan effort at the very least to get to the bottom of this, this story that's been so massive for so long and affects us deeply and politically.
	Is there anything else you want to add before we wrap up?
	No, I appreciate your voice and I appreciate the dialogue because I think your tweets, your reasonable concerns helped us tighten up the language in this bill we're going to introduce.
	And, you know, that's what democracy is supposed to be, to have this kind of conversation.
	So I always enjoy coming on and look forward to doing it again.
	Right on.
	Where can people find you?
	At Rokana is the best way across almost all the platforms.
	Right on.
	I do appreciate it, Representative.
	Thanks for joining us and explaining this, and we'll see you next time.
	Sounds great, Tim.
	Thank you.
	Take care.
	Well, all right.
	That was the representative Rokana.
	And, man, I'm for it.
	I'm for it.
	And, you know, I'm sitting here thinking about it as I listen to the representative explain that, of course, they don't want to have victims be victimized and all that.
	And I do largely, I trust the integrity.
	I trust Roe Khanna.
	We've talked about this quite a bit.
	As it comes to Democrats, he's like the only good one.
	There may be a couple others that are like decent, but Roe, he's on the issues related to freedom and what is right.
	He tends to be.
	That being said, his policy on immigration, his policies as it pertains to align with the Democratic Party largely, I disagree with.
	And, you know, we had a great conversation when he came on Tim Cast IRL discussing immigration, the interests of the American people, and why our views are different.
	Of course, he was born in Pennsylvania.
	His parents are immigrants.
	So he views this country much more from that tradition.
	Whereas I view the risk of unfettered immigration and illegal immigration as something that's destructive to the culture of this country.
	Is that being said?
	I'm sitting there listening to him and being like, okay, when I woke up this morning and I'm looking at these news stories and they're saying that Republicans are voting to block this, I take a look at his amendment and I'm like, come on.
	The amendment outright says any evidence.
	Who can vote yes on the release of that?
	Because that's a poison pill.
	That being said, he immediately clarifies, we don't want that.
	We don't want that.
	And I believe my tweet stands when I said that Democrats actually voted for the release, the publishing of child abuse materials on the DOJ website, because while I respect Rocana's intent, the rest of them, I think, knew Republicans were going to vote no and they were going to be able to vote yes, which effectively meant they wanted the DOJ to publish all the evidence.
	Now, he said our understanding legally is that DOJ would still be able to protect victims and things like that.
	Maybe there's some like legals thing I don't understand, but I don't see that, especially when it says you've got to publish any evidence.
	But again, I clarify.
	I'm hearing him.
	I want him to put forward a bill that says we will protect the victims.
	We will not compromise any investigations.
	We will release the evidence on what Epstein was doing.
	And I think there's no reason to say no, because we can go through everything that we just laid out, but I'll give the bull points quite simply.
	If there are people who associated with Epstein but didn't do anything wrong, who cares?
	You're not going to be implicated in a crime.
	You're not going to be accused of wrongdoing.
	It may be bad for your reputation, but so what?
	So what?
	Okay.
	You know, Eric Weinstein was talking about this, saying that, you know, people have said things about him because Epstein was involved in the, it was in the Harvard math program for some reason.
	He doesn't know why.
	There were individuals who say that Epstein was giving grants to their family members and people they knew, and people have accused them of wrongdoing, but they're like, he was just some guy who put money places.
	I will not play this game.
	That simply because someone flew on his plane, they committed a crime.
	RFK Jr., Trump, they flew on his plane, and I don't think either of them did anything untoward.
	Well, I should say, I don't think any of them are involved in what we believe Epstein was involved in.
	That being said, we want to know what he was doing with this blackmail and where it went.
	It could be as simple as the files come out and they're like, Epstein did blackmail a handful of people.
	Those people being blackmailed were victims of a blackmail scheme and operation.
	And we're going to hold their names because we're going to be investigating the crimes they committed.
	One of the challenges is I think there's a couple of possibilities here.
	I think there's a possibility that some, so the theory as to what Epstein was doing was that he would say, hey, powerful, prominent, wealthy guy, come on my jet.
	We're going to go fly across the country and do some fun things.
	Maybe not necessarily go to the island.
	They'd be on the plane and there'd be like young models.
	And he'd be like, yes, these young ladies are models with Insert Agency or whatever, and they're accompanying us and they can give you massages or do whatever.
	Don't worry, they're all 18.
	And then when the prominent individual would engage in those behaviors, they'd like, you know, hook up with the girls.
	He'd then spin around in the chair and be like, they're underage and we filmed the whole thing and now I own you.
	And so the Trump administration is basically saying, how do you deal with something like that?
	Where you've got people who did engage in activities, these underage girls, who should be punished.
	And then he's arguing, do we want the black male to have worked?
	I think what actually is happening is Trump is saying these people, he's going to protect these people because they're, and again, I'm saying this is in his mind is a possibility that he's saying, well, it's not like they were actually going out and buying young girls.
	I ultimately don't care.
	I really don't.
	Okay.
	If you're an adult man and you want to play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
	And there should be no excuse for someone who's being wealthy and powerful to have engaged those young girls, even if tricked, to walk away scot-free without any kind of scrutiny for the things that they were doing, which were wrong.
	I'm not saying lock the guy up in prison for the rest of his life, but we get to know about it and there should be charges.
	There's a challenge here in that we don't know.
	That's all hypothetical.
	I have no idea if that's actually what happened.
	For all we know, Trump actually knows they were trafficking and laughing and cheering, you know, smashing wine glasses and bragging about the girls they were abusing.
	And Trump's like, we're going to cover it up because we want to use the blackmail.
	There's the possibility Trump is even involved, named in the list, like Elon Musk said.
	I don't know if I believe it because I think the Democratic establishment would have used that against him, unless they're so scared of compromising their own apparatus, they're going to let Trump get away with it.
	I doubt it.
	They tried putting Trump in prison on a bunch of different cases.
	So, man, I really don't know.
	So it's hard to speculate.
	It is.
	And everyone's going to equivocate.
	All I can say is this.
	Who disagrees with Rocana?
	Like, I think he laid it out perfectly right there.
	Okay.
	You guys comment.
	Let me know if you agree or disagree.
	He said, we're not, we're going to make sure victims are protected.
	Information is going to be released.
	Okay.
	This is so important for public disclosure, in my opinion, that even if some people are negatively impacted by the association, cry more.
	If you're somebody who is being blackmailed, well, Too effing bad.
	You were hooking, like you were engaging in adult activities with minors.
	So, like, you're not getting away with it.
	And I'm clarifying too.
	I'm not saying that there are individuals who are like hooking up with under, like, with prebubescent kids.
	Like, should that be the case, and there may be evidence that is the case, those people should have the full force of the law levied against them.
	And there's no reason in any way that anyone should try and cover up for those people.
	In the event there's somebody that hooked up with a 17-year-old and they thought they were lied to and tricked, yeah, well, I got bad news for you.
	That's coming out too.
	I know that there's a lot of guys out there that talk about that there was one case where a 19, I think it was, I think it was a 19-year-old.
	No, no, I think it was a, I think it was like a, yeah, I think it was like a 19-year-old hooked up with a 16-year-old.
	And the 16-year-old had a fake ID, and he got arrested and charged for statutory rape.
	And everyone saw it as a travesty and an injustice.
	Yeah, in that capacity, it's still a 19-year-old, 16-year-old.
	That's why some states have what they call Romeo and Juliet laws, that even if the person's a minor, like 16, if they're within a certain age of the person who's of the age of majority, we get a 19 and 16 year old.
	They're both in high school, or I'm sorry, like they may have met in high school or whatever.
	There's only a three-year age difference.
	What if you've got someone who's 40 who's trying to hug with an 18-year-old and it turns out to be a 17-year-old?
	Like, I'm sorry, dude.
	That should be exposed.
	And it's not because I'm saying like, what I'm saying is what you did was wrong.
	You're going to face the penalties for doing it.
	It's the same as some of the more extreme and serious crimes, but it is a crime.
	And you will face those penalties for it.
	And nobody should be defending it.
	And you don't get to walk away scot-free just because you're like, oh, no, I didn't know.
	I didn't know.
	And like, sorry.
	Don't be an adult man of, you know, I don't know.
	People can argue if like 21, 23 is too high or whatever.
	I don't know.
	I'm just saying when you're an adult man, you have responsibilities.
	You should not be getting on planes and being like, hoo-hoo, hot 18-year-olds.
	Like, because this is a possibility.
	You know, it's going to happen.
	I understand the argument.
	They're like, we don't want Epstein to have been effective in his blackmail and have it work.
	There was one story a while ago about a guy who worked for, I think it was Condé Nast, and he was set up by a blackmailer who was trying to hook up with him.
	And they wanted to expose him as being gay.
	And they used the blackmail.
	And when he refused to pay up, they gave the blackmail to, I think it was like Gawker, who then published it, outing the guy, effectively legitimizing the blackmailer.
	And a lot of people were mad about it.
	So let me just put it this way.
	It is the fault of the establishment machine.
	It is the fault of the Trump administration right now that we do not have a good answer on the Epstein case, and it's got to this point.
	I said it before, I'll say it again.
	If Bongino Cash or whoever else just came out very quietly, very simply and said, we're working on it.
	This is a tough one.
	It's a tough egg to crack.
	We got to keep this one close to the vest, close to the chest, but trust us on this one.
	If that's all they said, we wouldn't even be here right now.
	Instead, what did they do?
	They came out and they said, nothing to see here, boys.
	They gave us phase one.
	Phase one was nothing.
	Then they said, there's no phase two.
	I want accountability and justice, and I don't want to be a party to a system that has powerful, wealthy, corporate, and political pedos that are getting away with it.
	And I think anybody who knows the story is going to agree.
	I do think there's a possibility that Trump knows this is a high, high-level esoteric story, and even bad press on the issue isn't apocalyptic for his agenda.
	So I guess we'll have to see.
	But I will just add very quickly, the representative had time constraints because of votes in Congress.
	So we did the interview first, and I was very excited to get him on.
	And I will say, I don't necessarily want to apologize, but I want to have a little bit of acknowledgement that my morning segment was presumptive and heavy against what he had proposed because I knew, like my assumption was they knew they didn't have to frame it that way and they created a poison pill.
	But I appreciate his acknowledgement that wasn't their intent.
	Perhaps I should have given him a little bit more of the benefit of the doubt, though we did praise him last night.
	This morning, I saw the amendment.
	I'm like, you can't vote for that.
	What are you trying to do here?
	So if they actually bring forth a bipartisan bill that clearly outlines the methods by which they can expose the information and which that information is, like who Epstein worked for, who he was providing services to, who could be implicated or not, or whatever, just in his periphery, then I agree.
	And I say, let's roll, baby.
	So we'll wrap up that portion of the show.
	We've got a lot more to talk about.
	And we're going to jump into the standard kickoff of the TimCast segment, which is smash the like button, share the show with everyone.
	You know, stay tuned.
	We've got more to come.
	Thanks for watching this interview.
	But for now, we'll get into the principal story, the mortgage fraud.
	Ladies and gentlemen, Donald Trump has accused Adam Schiff of mortgage fraud, falsely listing a Maryland home as his primary residence to get beneficial interest rates, which is quite literally, that's mortgage fraud.
	It's very similar to what we've seen of Letitia James, sparking questions about whether or not Donald Trump is actually going to go after the J-6 committee and these other politicians in a manner by which you would target them for corrupt activities.
	Or is it going to be Trump playing a very similar lawfare game that Democrats played where you show me the man and I'll show you the crime?
	Now, to be fair, if Adam Schiff actually did this, if Letitia James actually did this, then they did commit crimes.
	And by all means, you get charged for it.
	As it pertains to Donald Trump, I saw this viral post today where a young woman was trying to explain the 34 felony charges.
	Only problem, they're all fake.
	And they're not, I feel like this is the challenge for us.
	Explaining these things is challenging and is difficult.
	A lot of people just see beyond the statute of limitations, all he did was pay off, you know, Stormy Daniels.
	The story is this.
	If you want to accuse Trump of a crime, by all means.
	If you want to accuse him of falsifying business records, by all means.
	But where the issue arises is that they elevated the misdemeanors to felonies, citing an underlying crime for which the government has never proven.
	The U.S. government, the state governments do not have the authority to declare a crime happened unless they prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
	So, for the upgrading of misdemeanors to felonies, they never had the predicate convictions to actually claim, nor did they propose it in the trial itself.
	If they had said Trump committed X crime and then falsified records in furtherance of that crime and then asked the jury to convict on those grounds, I'd say, okay, well, you got a felony charge there.
	Even knowing that the jurors were going to convict Trump no matter what, they didn't even do that.
	So it seems now with Trump making these accusations of mortgage fraud, the direction that we're going, my friends, is perhaps lawfare.
	And you know what's funny is it's Pulte, it's Bill Pulte who's actually delivering Trump the crimes of these individuals, which I find kind of funny.
	Like they're finding these mortgage fraud cases.
	Now, my friends, before we get into this, we got a great sponsor for you.
	It is Bear Skin.
	Check out B-A-E-R dot skin slash Tim and check out they got these great jackets.
	I usually have them on.
	It's over there right now.
	I usually have them on.
	I don't have it on right now, but you've got these amazing three-in-one.
	You've got this, what do they call it?
	2.5 layer design, hiking grade waterproof outer shell, zips into the fleece, which is warm and very comfortable.
	Not to mention it looks cool and you see me wearing it and actually quite a bit of my thumbnails and usually wear it on the show.
	We keep the studio cold and cool and crisp because we have these cameras all running 4K and they overheat.
	It's funny because people are like, Tim runs the studio too cold.
	It's like, well, we let the studio get warm once.
	And you guys, if you were watching the show, you saw the camera shut off.
	And then I had to go get a fan and put on the camera.
	And I told the crew, like, just keep the studio cold and I will wear this amazing bear skin at Tactical Hoodie.
	So I want to give a shout out.
	They sent us a bunch of these.
	They're really awesome.
	You can text Tim to 36912 or go to B-A-E-R.skin slash Tim and get this.
	Right now, you'll get 60% off.
	And when you text that number, they'll send you a link so that you can, you know, if you're driving your car right now or you're listening and you don't have time, they're going to send you that link and you can click it at any point, go back and buy it.
	Brilliant move.
	Check this out.
	They've got stash pockets can fold right into itself.
	Very cool.
	It takes up barely any space.
	100% fully waterproof.
	Taped seams, silicon-based sealed zips, adjustable cuffs, face shielding hood.
	Five waterproof pockets.
	Keeps your gear bone dry.
	It zips right into the hoodie, this outer shell, and you get free U.S. shipping.
	So once again, text Tim to 36912 or go to baer.skin slash Tim.
	Pick it up.
	Shout out.
	We really do appreciate you guys, Bearskin.
	Also, my friends, we've got this, the Culture War Podcast Live.
	Here we go, baby.
	Gavin McInnes, Matan, Alex Stein, Tim Poole on stage having that discussion.
	Is Trump still winning?
	His approval rating is slipping.
	But people are pretty happy about what he's doing with immigration, despite his approval rating now being underwater.
	However, you got the Epstein case.
	So there's questions about where we're currently going.
	We have an unnamed high-profile liberal personality we're hoping will confirm with us.
	We can't say it until we do, but I believe the moment he says he's coming, if he does come, fingers crossed, I think this show sells out instantly.
	So go to DCComedyLoft.com and the events July 26th.
	And I don't know if we have the link in the description below right now, but it will be there.
	So if it's there, click it and check it out.
	In the meantime, let's jump to the story here from The Independent.
	Trump accused impeachment leader Schiff of mortgage fraud over Maryland home he keeps while repping California.
	You can't do this.
	President Donald Trump on Tuesday suggested that California Senator Adam Schiff can be prosecuted for what he described as mortgage fraud, as he claimed his longtime political foe has broken the law by previously claiming a home in suburban Maryland as a primary residence.
	Writing on Truth Social, the president claimed he'd been given information from the federally backed mortgage lender Fannie Mae indicating that Schiff, who led the investigation leading to his first impeachment trial while chairing the House Intelligence Committee, quote, has engaged in a sustained pattern of possible mortgage fraud.
	He accused the first-term senator of having falsely claimed a Potomac, Maryland house he has owned for decades as a primary residence while representing California in Congress, thereby gaining a more favorable interest rate than he otherwise would have been entitled to.
	Quote, Adam Schiff said his primary residence was in Maryland to get a cheaper mortgage and rip off America when he must live in California because he was a congressman from California.
	I always knew Adam Schiff was a crook.
	The president added that he alleged that the alleged fraud ran from a 2009 refinancing of Schiff's Maryland house until he designated it as a second home in 2020.
	Schiff has rep California in Washington since 2001 and for almost all of that time has kept a home in Maryland where he has lived with his wife and where his children have attended public schools in Montgomery County, Maryland School District.
	He also keeps a condominium in Burbank, California, which is part of his former Los Angeles area house district.
	The only reason this man listed Maryland as a second home was because he wanted to be a senator.
	He ran for the Senate and he won.
	And that is the game they're playing.
	I think it goes beyond just mortgage fraud.
	He was living in Maryland.
	His kids were going to school in Maryland.
	I think that Adam Schiff was lying when he was claiming to represent California.
	And I think that that needs to be brought up in some capacity, that the mortgage fraud is secondary.
	It's secondary.
	They say it was once common for House Senate members to bring their families to Washington before the practice was turned into fodder for campaign attacks by Republicans during the 94 midterm elections.
	In recent years, most members have kept their families back home for fear of political fallout, with some going so far as to sleep in their offices to avoid establishing any roots in the nation's capital.
	I don't know that you should be living in the capitol.
	Many people have pointed out that being in Congress is a full-time job.
	And I can respect that it is.
	You get paid $174,000 a year, and you need to be able to rent a place to live in D.C., good luck, and afford your home, afford your house back in the district you're representing.
	That's tough, especially with a couple of kids.
	$174,000 a year sounds like a lot.
	Not if you have to maintain two residences.
	Then it actually becomes quite a bit challenging.
	I'd make the argument that members of Congress perhaps should have to make the median.
	I like this argument.
	I don't know if it actually works, but the argument is congressional salaries should be tied to the middle-class median or the median salary in this country.
	So if the average person's getting 65, I think it might be around, then that's you get in Congress, take it or leave it.
	The problem is many people say, yeah, but then you only get millionaires in Congress because they don't need the salary.
	Fair point.
	Is the argument then that we should give members of Congress large salaries?
	Nobody wants to do that either.
	They go to mention Schiff's ownership of the Maryland property was reported on during a Senate campaign by CNN, which at the time reported that then House member wasn't likely to face any legal repercussions because the law at issue is ambiguous when it comes to the definition of a primary residence.
	His office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Independent.
	But Marisol Samayo, Schiff's spokesperson during the campaign and his current press secretary, told CNN last year that he has claimed both his properties as primary residence for mortgage purposes because they are both occupied throughout the year and to distinguish them from a vacation property.
	I ain't playing that game.
	I ain't playing that game.
	Do we have the Letitia James story?
	We have the Democrats who have been arrested.
	I'm pretty sure I have the, here we go.
	Is this it?
	DOJ opens criminal investigation into New York Attorney General Letitia James over mortgage fraud claims.
	I do not believe it is fair that you can claim two primary residences, get preferred mortgage rates, despite the fact you're supposed to be living in California where you represent a district and you're the senator because you're going to argue work has me go other places.
	Nah.
	Nah, look, I don't play this game.
	Now, I certainly think this is not going to go far because the argument from Schiff is I claimed it as a primary residence because I was working in D.C. half the year.
	And so what was I supposed to say?
	It was a second home?
	That would be a lie, too.
	I say, no, no, it is a second home.
	It should be listed as a second home.
	Don't list it as a vacation property.
	I think that's a game he's playing because your primary residence is where you actually live.
	Okay.
	And that must be, in my opinion, where you're representing.
	If you're in Congress, your district, if you're a senator, in your state.
	Moving your entire family to Maryland, having them go to school there clearly shows you have no ties to the community you're supposed to represent.
	You don't actually live there.
	And I think the family thing really hits the nail on the head with the hammer.
	He wanted better mortgage rates.
	So I myself, believe it or not, I have multiple properties.
	I do.
	And when I, I think I only have, like, I think I have two mortgages.
	They asked me, do you live?
	Is this your primary residence?
	Okay, well, one of these properties we do use.
	Don't live there.
	So we said, no, it's not.
	It's not a primary residence.
	I said, okay, then what is it?
	It's a second home, you know, second property.
	We will occupy.
	And like we've talked to the mortgage bonds, we intend to occupy this property.
	We don't know how often they'll be there.
	And they said, okay, that's not a primary residence for the purpose of mortgages.
	We're not going to list it as like a commercial mortgage or whatever, but we're not going to get favorable interest rates.
	And I said, whatever and all.
	It is what it is.
	So they're playing these games.
	They want to get away with this stuff.
	But let me add the cherry on top.
	By all means, make the argument, this is lawfare.
	Trump is simply going after them because it's show me the man and I'll show you the crime.
	And I'm going to respond with, wow.
	You know, I don't like that at all.
	But is that not the standard by which Democrats have decided this will be?
	Letitia James, she's the one who opened the door on the lawfare.
	What do you expect?
	Okay, you reap what you have sown.
	Letitia James, Adam Schiff, you want to play these lawfare games, falsely accuse him of crimes?
	This is what you get.
	Okay, I get it.
	What am I supposed to say about it?
	Am I supposed to be upset that Democrats are now tasting the medicine for which they have delivered?
	Yeah, I'm not playing that.
	The question, I suppose, is, how far is Trump going to actually go in dealing with the corruption?
	Now, we got this from NBC News.
	Rogue Trump impeachment efforts divide House Democrats.
	Democratic leaders have tried to squash impeachment pushes from rank and file lawmakers as progressives urge the party to fight harder against Trump.
	Yeah, Democrats are wild.
	They're still trying to impeach Trump.
	And I got to tell you right now, there's no leadership.
	I will say probably the best Democrats, RoConna, hands down.
	He came on Timcast IRL.
	He's been very kind to me.
	He said that I'm sincere and that I'm fair.
	And I'm like, wow.
	Actually, I appreciate it.
	Maybe he's trying to butter me up, but I'll take it.
	He's trying, right?
	He's trying to speak to me saying there's something we can accomplish.
	The Democrats have no leadership.
	Bekeem Jeffries is no good.
	They're defending illegal immigrants.
	They bolstered their electoral vote count and congressional count with illegal immigrants.
	I am playing that game, okay?
	Right?
	We have found some common ground the Epstein stuff, but I am playing that game where, you know, the Democrats deserve to just get away with everything they had done.
	Moving forward, I wonder who will take the mantle for the Democratic Party?
	Newsom is not the guy.
	I suppose we'll see.
	In the meantime, it goes beyond just mortgage fraud.
	FBI reportedly probing deep state anti-Trump conspiracy stretching back to Russia gate.
	Now, I'll tell you what I like.
	I like Cash Patel, Dan Bongino.
	I like Pam Bondi.
	I see, you know, Laura Loomer coming out heavy against Pam Bondi, saying she's doing a real bad job.
	And I don't know, I guess forgive me.
	I'm the milk toast fence at her.
	I like these guys.
	I don't know what they can accomplish.
	And I'm not going to sit here and throw the baby out with the bathwater and say the Epstein case is a deal breaker.
	It's bad, and it's very, very bad.
	And it means I'm likely skeptical, and I don't know how much I can trust these people.
	But I want wins.
	So I'm not going to be obstructive if they're going after this corruption that targeted Donald Trump.
	I would love nothing more than to see normalcy return to this country, to see the debates once again.
	I want to see Democrats getting up there with real leadership and making legitimate arguments for sound policy, not advocating sterilizing kids.
	Okay?
	Right?
	I want to see sound debates on tax policy and how we solve the problems of this country and why we shouldn't be funding certain wars.
	And by all means, the people who think we should be, let's debate it.
	Instead, Democrats tried to imprison Trump.
	They arrested him several times.
	They arrested his lawyers.
	And that is apocalyptic.
	So they say that I'm hyper-partisan to the right or whatever.
	And it's like, listen, these things literally happened.
	I don't know what, and I have opinions on politics I wouldn't call hyper-partisan right.
	This is the craziest thing.
	That's why, you know, forgive me, Rokana is clever to butter me up and say you've been sincere and fair.
	I don't see my positions, and I think you all agree, this position we're taking, that Cash Patel should go after those who engage in conspiracy.
	It's not right or left.
	It is not conservative or liberal.
	It is.
	They engaged in lawfare against Trump.
	They should be held accountable.
	That's why I'm not the biggest fan of targeting Letitia James or a shift mortgage fraud because it feels like lawfare.
	But I'm going to tell you this.
	You expect me to cry about it?
	If the system has devolved to the state, what can I really say?
	But I guess this is the way things are now.
	And it certainly wasn't the Republicans who started that.
	And it makes no sense for Republicans to sit back and just get beaten over the head by Democrats saying to put them in prison.
	So congratulations, Democrats.
	You've created this system.
	They say the Trump badminton's reported probe spans from the FBI's weaponization of false claims of Russian collusion.
	Just the News reported Sunday, citing, they say that 2016, classified documents, Just the News reported.
	Special Counsel Jack Smith delivered remarks on a recently unsealed indictment, including four felony counts against former President Trump at the DOJ on August 1st, 23 in D.C. The Trump admin launched the inquiry several weeks ago under FBI Director Cash Patel, Just The News reported.
	The FBI did not respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation's request for comment.
	Two troves of classified evidence could be key to jump-starting the probe if Trump declassifies them.
	According to Just the News' sources, the Trump administration possesses potentially relevant evidence in classified records that may show the FBI ignored wrongdoing in its probe of former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for improperly using a private email server as Secretary of State to share sensitive government information.
	Federal officials under former President Obama began investigating claims that Trump colluded with Russia to win the presidency on faulty intelligence funded by Clinton's campaign and the DNC.
	The probe involved multiple attempts to surveil Trump and his 2016 campaign, and former special counsel John Durham later found such efforts to be factually baseless in a lengthy 2023 report.
	I'm sorry, guys.
	I'm not going to be the one to wear the one ring.
	We stand on the cliffs of Mount Doom, and you've got the Epstein files, lawfare, et cetera.
	And the argument is for many Trump supporters, you know, Charlie Kirk's getting a lot of flack for this, and I respect Charlie greatly.
	I do.
	He said, I trust my friends in governments to handle this and do the right thing, and so I'm going to leave it at that.
	That's the call from the Trump admin.
	Do you trust the Trump administration?
	There are a lot of people who immediately just said no.
	There are a lot of people saying, trust the plan.
	I'm not going to, you know, the argument is with the Epstein stuff.
	It's Trump standing at Mount Doom and he's saying, you know, he's got half his base saying cast it in the fire.
	And he says, no.
	And he won't.
	Because it's to give up a lot of power.
	And we don't know what's behind that.
	I'm never going to advocate for the use of that power, nor am I going to advocate overtly for lawfare against Adam Schiff.
	I want Adam Schiff brought to justice for crimes he committed, right?
	I want him to be held accountable for the fraud against the American people in whatever way that takes shape.
	I don't want him to be charged with mortgage fraud and just have this silly game.
	Again, I'm not going to defend the guy.
	I ain't going to come out and say, Trump, don't stop.
	I'm going to be like, well, you know, play with fire, I guess.
	I'm done defending evil people who do evil things.
	What I am going to say is that what I believe should be done and what we should be doing is legitimately investigating Comey, Russia Gate, Azkash, and Dan are doing.
	And bring those people to justice and prove to the American people where that happened.
	And maybe somehow we can claw back some cultural unity in this country.
	I don't know.
	But that's what I hope for.
	My friends, we're going to wrap it up there.
	Smash the like button.
	Share the show with everyone.
	But we're going to grab your comments and rumble rants.
	The show was out of order today.
	So it is what it is.
	But I do appreciate you guys for everything you do.
	Join us at the DC Comedy Loft.
	You will not regret it.
	August 2nd, we got Michael Mouse.
	Here's our plans.
	The 26th, we got Gavin McInnis Matan and potentially a big, a liberal who's yet to be named because we're telling them like, come on, bro.
	And he's a, it's, people are going to laugh.
	They're going to be like, this is going to be nuts.
	I think it'll be great.
	And we want him to do it.
	We're telling these liberals, listen, it's going to be contentious.
	People are going to act a fool, but we want it to be funny.
	Like, we know we disagree.
	But when we did the pilot show, we had this liberal Pisco guy.
	And he's a fervent, raging liberal, but we laughed.
	And even though one dude was screaming at him, he gave me a fist bump when I mocked him and we joked and we laughed.
	We want to disagree, but we want the disagreements to be communal.
	We want to be neighbors.
	We want to disagree, but we don't want to be trying to beat each other's throats.
	So we're telling these liberal guys, you're going to come.
	We want to laugh with you.
	We want to disagree with you.
	We want to tell you you're wrong.
	We want you to tell us we're wrong.
	We want to prove that we're right.
	Of course, you want to prove you're right, but we want to be laughing and we want to encourage this conversation.
	So that's the 26 DC Comedy Loft.
	Then we've got Angry Cops and Michael Malice.
	That's just going to be a laugh riot.
	I mean, Malis is support, he supports Trump and Angry Cops supports Trump, but they disagree on the issue of police and they're both really funny.
	So I think we've mostly sold, we're close to selling out of that August 2nd show.
	Let me pull this up again.
	DC Comedy Loft, August 2nd, I think is close to selling out.
	Okay.
	Preferred seating is sold out.
	General admission, $29.50 still available.
	Two-item minimum, but it could be any combination of food items.
	I'm stoked because DC Comedy Loft has got chicken wings.
	August 9th.
	I was talking with Myron Gaines the other day about this.
	And I think we are lining up a Feminism is Destroying the West live debate.
	So I think that's going to be the August 9th event, which is a month and a half away.
	And then so we did one pilot.
	We're gearing up to do three more episodes live at DC Comedy Law.
	These are 200 seat venues.
	It's going to be, we want it to be real fun and funny.
	And we think it's going to be a riot.
	We're doing members-only after shows where you will get two free drinks.
	And we've got a venue, I think we've planned out and ready to go.
	And so the idea is each of these shows has 30 guaranteed seats free for members.
	So if you're a member of Timcast.com's Discord community, first come, first serve, preferred seating.
	You click it, boom, you're right there up front.
	We have the back seating and tickets because we're trying to make it so that we can actually do shows that sustain themselves.
	We're losing money on all the shows, mind you.
	But it's because it's a pre-taping for the show that we then put up live, but we want liberals to come too.
	After the show, however, if you want to attend the members-only hangout, all you got to do is join, become a member.
	And that $10 you spend to become a member, you get two free drinks as it is.
	So heck, why not?
	And we want you to join.
	So we're really excited for this.
	We're going to try out these three.
	And then if that works, we are potentially going to be doing this every single week.
	I will say I'm inspired by Jubilee.
	I'm inspired by Kill Tony.
	Kill Tony is one of the best shows out there.
	It is absolutely hilarious, but it's comedy and it's a comedy stand-up format.
	And I'm like, that's really cool.
	I could never do anything like that.
	I'm not a stand-up comedian.
	But then you got Jubilee bringing in the audience, regular people to debate prominent individuals.
	The only problem is no one actually gets a chance to debate.
	So I said, can we combine this?
	So here's a game plan.
	26, is Trump still winning?
	Liberal, conservative, or otherwise?
	You guys come in as audience members.
	We're actually going to let you come up and sit down on stage with us and debate, be involved with all these individuals, be on the show.
	Maybe it'll be your big break.
	This will be the moment you come out and people say, this guy's smart.
	The second, policing.
	Once again, if you're in the audience, I'm hoping we get more liberals to show up.
	We want them to show up and debate cops.
	We need these ideas out there.
	And then, of course, August 9th, I believe we're leaning towards feminism is destroying the West as the debate topic.
	We've got a great liberal personality, a woman feminist.
	It'll be fun.
	Myron, I believe, is potentially, I think he is on board for this.
	It's going to be fun.
	And I think we're looking at one more, but then also you as members of the audience coming up and joining and being on that debate.
	See, the thing about Jubilee, which is good, is bringing people into the debate.
	The bad thing is everyone just waves the flag and then you're kicked off before you actually get to finish your thoughts.
	So we want to give you more of an opportunity.
	So let me, so I said I was going to grab comments.
	I didn't.
	We'll grab a couple before we go.
	J.G. Sturdivant says, I think it's highly likely whoever was behind Epstein had a plan B, and it's so much worse.
	It could even go as far as terror attacks.
	Foreign intelligence could have snuck bombs into metro areas.
	Pinochet says, nobody asked for victims' evidence.
	There's not enough private security or federal law enforcement in the world to protect Epstein's associates.
	It's not the government's damn job.
	Real Rat Dog says, never trust the government.
	Here we are.
	The bifurcation is conservatarian, conservative Trump supporter.
	Charlie Kirk's a great example.
	Amen.
	I understand where Charlie's coming from.
	I do.
	I do.
	When it's your friends in government, you trust them and you say, please just make sure you protect America and have right by us.
	The conservatarians who voted for Trump because they want the establishment to be gutted are saying, no excuses, gut the machine.
	I'm kind of in the middle on that one.
	I lean towards release it, do it, no excuses.
	But I get it.
	Some people are going to say, don't bend the knee, don't let them get away with it.
	I agree with that sentiment.
	I'm also trying to be as effective as possible.
	I understand Charlie is making that same decision.
	You can sacrifice the power you have, or you can try and work to the best of your ability to get as many victories as possible.
	I'm always going to tell you this, my friends.
	I'm a reformer, not a revolutionary.
	If the files were in my hand, I would publish them.
	I admit there may be some circumstances where I wouldn't like, in the rare circumstance, publishing it triggers a bunch of nuclear detonations that wipes out all of mankind.
	Okay, sure, but that's not reality.
	It's not going to happen.
	If it's political backlash, fallout, and international crises, I'm publishing it.
	That's my thing.
	That's why they're not going to let me anywhere near the seats of power.
	You know what I mean?
	That being said, I'm not going to come out and say things I don't know.
	I will do my best to work with the administration to get as many victories as we can for the American people, protect this country.
	And that will mean I will continue to advocate for the release of these files and for the criminals to be prosecuted.
	And I'm not going to tolerate these excuses.
	What more can I do beyond that?
	So I'll do it.
	I'll do it.
	And I'll ask them.
	And I look forward to having Cash Dan or anybody else come on the show and defend their position.
	And I'm not the kind of guy who's going to grill them for the sake of grilling.
	To my own detriment, I suppose.
	I had a viral video where I was yelling at a liberal on J6, 20, 30, 40 million views.
	Everyone's cheering me out.
	I'm seeing people dreaming like, bro, that clip was amazing.
	And I'm like, I know, because I was yelling at a liberal.
	That's not really me for the most part.
	So, you know, if that's the firebrand people are looking for, it's what you're going to get, not from me.
	But I'm going to do my best.
	You know my position on this.
	Anyway, I'm going to wrap it up there.
	Let's get that raid over To our friend Russell Brand, who should be live now.
	Let's pull up his channel, and he is currently live.
	Guys, I really do appreciate all your support.
	Thank you so much for hanging out and supporting the work that we do here.
	Follow me on XEND Instagram at Timcast.
	Subscribe to this channel.
	Click the like button.
	Share it with everybody.
	It really, really does help.
	Word of mouth is powerful, but algorithms, man, they're hard to beat.
	Let's get that.
	You guys on your way to the next show in the Rumble Morning lineup with our friend Russell Brand.
	He's got the Autopen scandal story going now, and that raid is gearing up.
	Everybody's tuning in right now, all of a sudden, as the show begins to wrap up.
	But shout out to Rep RoCanna.
	I really do appreciate him coming on and explaining his position.
	And I am accepting and a little bit remorseful, a little bit remorseful.
	I don't want to apologize because I feel like when I saw his amendment as he asked it, I was justified.
	But I can respect him coming out saying, I did not mean that.
	Okay.
	I appreciate it.
	And I want those files released.
	So I'm glad it's coming out somewhere.
	That being said, I'm going to say this.
	I don't think Democrats are going to vote for it.
	So my friends, join our Discord server.
	Come to the live events.
	Come and debate us.
	We're filming it all.
	Bring your debate.
	Say whatever you want.
	Obviously, if people say crazy stuff, you're going to get some pushback or whatever.
	This is a public venue with people walking around, right?
	We don't want to start a riot in a comedy club, but we want to have fun.
	So I'm going to leave it there, my friends.
	Smash that like button.
	Share the show.
	Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
	I'm sitting here watching the View Count Skyrocket.
	I'm trying to wrap the show up.
	Guys, go watch Russell Brand.
	Thank you so much, and we'll see you all tonight at 8 p.m.
	Timcast IRL.

▲