All Episodes
Previous Next
July 23, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show
01:04:41
Tulsi Drops PROOF Obama Ordered COUP Against Trump, Obama FURIOUS
Participants
Main voices
t
thomas massie
20:45
t
tim pool
39:50
Appearances
Clips
s
stephen colbert
00:47
| Copy link to current segment

Speaker Time Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Tulsi Gabbard has dropped proof.
Obama ordered the intelligence agencies of the United States to target Donald Trump without proof, undermining his presidency.
And it's not so simple to just say definitively outright, Obama said coup against Trump.
If you look at the breadcrumbs, the trail of information that came out, it is clear that the Obama administration, their intelligence heads, the heads of these departments, got together and said, we don't have proof any of this is really happening, but we can use it to destroy the will of the American people.
Now, Tulsi Gabbard has called this a coup, a treasonous conspiracy, and based on the documents that have been released today by Tulsi Gabbard, with more to come, I can only assume.
I don't know how you conclude otherwise.
They knew the Russians were not trying to get Trump elected.
In fact, it seems the Russians may have wanted Hillary to get elected.
Yet they ran with this narrative, ultimately launching crossfire hurricane in an effort to undermine the presidency of Donald Trump.
Perhaps it's because he said he'd arrest Hillary Clinton over the destruction of evidence when she destroyed her private server.
But I believe right now, the information made public by Tosi Gabbard is, it's irrefutable.
I'm sure people are going to make arguments about intent and motivations and incompetence.
But I think we have enough evidence with the public information available already and these documents to conclude, at least I would say this of my own opinion, beyond a reasonable doubt, I say I'd convict.
When looking at this, depending on the charges, I would argue that following the Crossfire Hurricane Russia Gates scandal, the evidence we have now, what we've seen, what we have seen levied against Donald Trump, false criminal charges, 34 fake felonies where the government never proved any underlying crimes, false charges of civil fraud.
And don't get me wrong, that's state-level stuff.
It was in New York Democrat run.
It looks like they were trying to destroy Trump because they stepped in it and they kept stepping in it.
And they could not ultimately win.
And the question is, is Donald Trump serious?
Will he actually do something about this?
Well, right now, we are looking at tremendous legislative victories, but we do have big political scandals currently surrounding all of the news on Trump's legislative agenda.
We got the Doge cuts.
We got the border secure.
And now Trump's firing 25% of the IRS workforce.
All great.
But you have the Obama scandal and the Epstein scandal.
These things are not boots on the ground, legislative issues, kitchen table issues for the average person.
But I still think the average person, those that are paying attention, I should say the average politico, wants action on these cases.
I just think we shouldn't lose sight of the victories Trump does have if we don't get the victories in these other political scandals.
And my friends, if Trump does not win in this regard and oust the corruption, these people will take power again.
And I can only imagine what will happen after that.
Now, my friends, let's jump into the news.
Before we get started, we've got a great sponsor.
It is PBSDebt.com.
My friends, the system isn't broken.
It's rigged.
As most of you are aware.
And if you're buried in debt, that's exactly how they want it.
Big banks profit when you're desperate.
Creditors win when you lose.
But you don't have to play their game.
PBS debt helps you take back control.
They've helped hundreds of thousands break free from credit cards, loans, and high-interest traps.
It's your money.
It's your future.
Time to fight for both.
It's funny, I can remember who it was.
They said, you ever notice how banks charge you money when you're poor?
And when you're rich, they give you money for free.
PBS debt goes beyond the numbers to understand your unique financial situation and craft a personalized plan designed just for you.
No minimum credit score required.
They're here to help you save more, pay off your debt faster, and start putting money back where it belongs in your pocket.
PDS Debt is A-plus rated by the Better Business Bureau, boasts thousands of five-star reviews on Google, and holds a five-star rating on TrustPilot.
Why?
Because PDS has helped hundreds of thousands of people get out of debt.
You're 30 seconds away from being debt-free.
Get your assessment and find the best option for you right now at pdsdebt.com slash Tim.
That's pdsdebt.com slash Tim.
And don't forget, pick up some coffee.
Go to cashbrew.com.
We got a bunch of great flavors.
We got 1776 Signature Brew.
It's a creamy flavor, American cream, we call it.
We got the birthday blend.
And of course, never forget, we got a low acidity roast, graphene dream.
And we got Appalachian Knights.
Plus, we have K-Cups.
We do have Sleepy Joe Decaff.
I know he's not president anymore, but it's still funny.
But smash the like button, my friends.
Share the show with everyone.
You know, if you really do like the work that we're doing, please consider sharing the show.
Shout out to Steven Crowder and the Mug Club.
This is your Rumble Morning lineup moving into the afternoon.
I'm your host, Tim Poole.
Follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
But for now, let's jump into the story from the post-millennial.
Breaking DNI, Tulsi Gabber, declassifies his report declassifies report revealing CIA had, quote, no direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected in 2016.
Now, hold on there a minute.
If they had no information, if they had no information, why did they launch these investigations?
Why did they smear Donald Trump?
I'd like to know.
And I think the answer is obvious.
This whole play was an attempt to undermine the Trump presidency, to stop him.
I'm going to tell you my thoughts.
I think there was a criminal conspiracy in government.
My opinion, based on what I've read, though the media is going to lie about it, is that the Clinton Foundation, or I should just say this, let's keep it really light.
Hillary Clinton, her nonprofits, according to many reports, she was receiving hundreds of millions.
They said it was totally fine.
It's a nonprofit.
She's allowed to do it.
But she was Secretary of State.
She had a private server in her house.
When ordered to turn over some 35,000 emails, maybe more, she had her staff destroy that server and smash those phones with hammers.
I can only assume information got leaked.
WikiLeaks publishes it.
Trump uses it, threatens to arrest Hillary.
They go full panic mode and say, if Trump is threatening war against us, preemptive strike, it must be.
And the actions of the Obama administration to protect Hillary Clinton, who was his Secretary of State, I think they were basically saying, we can't let Trump do this to us because they were criminals.
That's at least what I think so far.
And they waged this Russia gate against Trump.
Let's take a look at Ukraine gate.
Donald Trump reached out to the president of Ukraine and he said, well, what is this Biden video?
Joe Biden says if you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting a billion dollars.
And Ukraine said, okay, we'll look into it.
That's an illegal quid pro quo from Joe Biden.
He admitted it.
We now know that Hunter Biden and his associates had contacted the State Department, at least it's been reported.
They contacted the State Department saying, we need, or they reached back out to the U.S. government.
Let's keep it light because I don't have all the files pulled up.
Said we need help on this issue.
You see, the prosecutor in Ukraine was going after the founder of Barisma, where Hunter Biden was on the board.
Within a few days, Joe flew to Ukraine and said, fire that prosecutor, or we're going to withhold illegally congressionally approved loan guarantees.
When Donald Trump sought to investigate that, they tried to impeach him.
I do believe that there is a criminal element in our government that had been seeking to enrich themselves through public influence.
And they said, that's the game, right?
And Trump came in and said no.
So what did they do?
They accused Trump that of which they were doing.
They said Trump was engaged in a quid pro quo.
Interesting.
Let's read the news.
DNI Tulsi Gabbard has declassified a 2020 report regarding the 2016 election that has revealed intelligence officials under President Barack Obama did not have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.
The report found that the Intelligence Community Assessment, ICA, titled Russian Influence Campaign Targeting 2016 U.S. election, had failed to acknowledge that key judgments on Putin's intentions were based on raw intelligence that did not meet tradecraft standards.
The report later added one scant, unclear, and unverifiable fragment of a sentence from a single human, human source intelligence report published under OCIA Brennan's December 2016 order constitutes the only classified information cited by the ACA for the judgment that Putin aspired to help Trump's chances of victory when possible.
The ICA did not cite any report where Putin directly indicated helping Trump win was the objective.
That judgment rests on a questionable interpretation of this one unclear fragment of a sentence.
The fragment reference stated, Putin has made this decision after he had come to believe that Democratic nominee had better odds of winning the U.S. presidential election and that candidate Trump, whose victory Putin was counting on, most likely would not be able to pull off a convincing victory.
One senior CIA operations officer said of the fragment, we don't know what was meant by that.
Five people read it five ways.
Another senior CIA operations officer said, along with another senior colleague, they had argued the director of the CIA that we don't have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected.
Absolutely insane.
The Mueller report, the Mueller investigation.
Mueller, she wrote a podcast tracking this.
All fake.
Media smears and media lies.
And how about this one?
Here's Stephen Colbert, who's canceled recently.
Watch this clip.
stephen colbert ▲ ● ▼
The President Trump was somewhere in this room.
We don't know where he sat.
Could have been on this bench down here.
Though I doubt it because that's in what's called the splash zone.
Are you going to want to wear a poncho?
Could have been on the couch over there.
But what would that look like?
Join us when my investigative journalism continues.
unidentified
Beep, beep, tape.
Beep, beep, tape.
stephen colbert ▲ ● ▼
You know when you've imagined something for so long and then when you finally see it, it just doesn't match what you pictured in your head.
That's not this feeling at all.
No, this is uh this is right on the money.
Holy cow.
That's the Kremlin.
They don't need to install cameras in here.
They could just give Putin some binoculars.
The President Trump.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
This video, Stephen Colbert ran it, claiming that Donald Trump was implicated, captured on tape by Moscow, where he had women of the night urinate on a bed or something like this.
It's all made up.
It's all fabricated.
Now they're claiming that Donald Trump wrote a birthday letter to Epstein, which they've not proven.
That's Wall Street Journal, by the way.
Why am I going to believe any of that?
Every single time they come out with one of these accusations, it turns out to be a lie.
Here's a statement from Tulsi Gabbard.
I'll try and go quick for you guys.
New evidence has emerged of the most egregious weaponization and politization of intelligence in American history.
Per President Donald Trump's directive, I have declassified a House Intel Oversight Majority Staff report that exposed how the Obama administration manufactured the January 2017 intelligence community assessment that they knew was false, promoting the lie that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped Trump win the 2016 election.
In doing so, they conspired to subvert the will of the American people, working with their partners in the media to promote the lie in order to undermine the legitimacy of President Trump, essentially enacting a years-long coup against him.
Here are the top Obama-Russia hoax lies, debunked by today's press release.
And we can see this really fancy, beautiful graphic.
And ain't the only one.
Lie number one.
Putin and the Russian government helped Trump win the election.
CIA analysts to Brennan.
We don't have direct information that Putin wanted Trump to get elected.
President Truth, President Obama, former CIA Director Brennan, and others fabricated the Russia hoax, suppressing evidence showing Putin was preparing for a Clinton victory.
There's more.
Lie.
The Steele dossier was not used as a source in the 2017 Obama intelligence community assessment, Truth.
Brennan stated, Brennan agreeing dossier fails to meet Intel standards, quote, yes, but doesn't it ring true?
Not only did Brennan, Comey, Clapper, and others include the dossier, they overruled senior Intel officials who warned them it was fabricated and should not be used.
Lie.
The Obama admin 2017 ICA was an independent IC product produced with a political analysis, truth.
Obama ordered the intelligence community assessment they knew was false.
I don't know what you call this, right?
Do we call this proof?
I'll show you.
Don't worry at the documents.
This is just an infographic.
Promoting a contrived narrative with the intent of undermining the legitimacy and power of a duly elected president of the United States, Donald Trump.
And then we have this together.
The ODNIGOV records released on Friday, the Justice Department's June 2018 report known as the Clinton Annex released earlier this week, and the House Intel Oversight Report we released today confirm what many Americans have known.
The Russia hoax was a lie that was knowingly created by the Obama administration to undermine the legitimacy and power of the duly elected president of the United States, excuse me, Donald Trump.
Here you go, my friends.
I have for you the documents that they've released.
Now, there's 46 pages for which we're not going to go through all of them, but I will show you a couple.
In this one, and you can see this is from, let me go to the top so you can see what this is.
September 18th, 2020, Oversight Investigation and Referral, the ICA, Russia's Influence Campaign Targeting the 2016 Election.
We'll scroll down here to page number three and we'll read some for you.
All right, it says, key classified reports by the ICA in support of judgments that Putin developed, quote, a clear preference for candidate Trump and aspired to help his chances of victory contained flaws in terms of clarity or reliability.
The ICA omitted or obscured such information from context statements that the CIA's Directorate of Operations had properly added to raw human source intelligence reports, thus failing to warn the reader of significant flaws in the quality or credibility of foundational sources.
They say DCIA, or is it OCIA, Director of CIA, ordered the, I can't read this, publication of three reports which failed to meet CIA criteria for reliability or clarity that subsequently became key ICA citations on Putin's intentions.
In response to direction from the president to make all information available, CIA officers said the DCIA ordered the publication in early December 2016 of 15 new or revised CIA human intelligence source reports containing information on Russian activities collected prior to the election that CIA professionals had decided not to publish for various reasons having to do with tradecraft standards.
Most of the 15 were unremarkable, but three contained flawed information, and these three became foundational sources the ICA cited to claim Putin aspired to help Trump win.
Senior CIA officers said some of the information in these reports had been judged to have not met various long-standing IC standards for publication.
And that is why they had not been published when first acquired.
Two sensitive reports were not published on DCIA's orders.
The three reports were published after the election on DCIA orders, despite veteran CIA officer judgments, CIA officer judgments, that they contained substandard information that was unclear, of uncertain origin, potentially biased, implausible, or in the words of senior operations officers, odd.
Now, why was that released?
For those that just want to give the quick context, basically, they said none of this is credible and we don't actually have any strong information.
Now, let's read here.
To reduce the prospect for politicization, negatively affecting controversial assessments, the committee recommends that outgoing political appointees should recuse themselves from managing controversial assessments during the transition period between administrations.
Political appointees should consider removing themselves from all aspects of management, production timelines, ordering, dissemination of substandard reports, product reviews, and briefings of analytic findings.
Rushing a significant assessment to completion on the orders of a political appointee nearing the end of his or her service could undermine confidence in the objectivity of the assessment.
This is particularly important for products based on highly compartmented reporting, which are not subjected to normal coordination processes and are seen by fewer analysts and managers.
Recommendation number three, mandate a special context statement for publishing and citing substandard raw intelligence reports.
To discourage misleading citations of substandard raw intelligence reports, IC collectors might consider developing more stringent context statements.
Policies for cases where a policymaker, intelligence agency director, or senior analytic manager wants to publish raw intelligence information that fails to meet normal publication standards.
Citation of such reports in any finished analytic product should require the same page footnote quoting the abbreviated context statements, ensuring readers, particularly busy policymakers who may lack the time to read the original raw reporting, are made aware of the factors affecting confidence of raw intelligence.
What they're saying in this page is that the people who released this information, who published this, gave it to lawmakers, omitting information that the lawmakers needed to understand that this was not legit.
Basically, they're saying, you know, whoopsie-daisies, we should have actually warned the politicians we gave this to that it was based on a fragment of a sentence we could not understand.
And then finally, my favorite part.
Acting on President Obama's orders, DCIA Brennan directed a full review and publication of raw human intelligence source information that had been collected before the election.
CIA officers said that some of this information had been held on the orders of DCIA, while other reporting had been judged by experienced CIA officers to have not met long-standing publication standards.
Some of the latter was unclear or from unknown sub-sources, but would nonetheless be published after the election over the objections of veteran officers on orders of DCIA and cited in the ICA to support claims that Putin aspired to help Trump win.
Can I read that opening for you again?
Acting on President Obama's orders.
Full stop.
Brennan, according to this report and everything he did, his full review, his publication of source material that was dubious and questionable and was challenged, he was ordered by Obama.
Now, okay.
One might perhaps make the argument, did Obama really know?
They're going to try and cite presidential immunity, I guarantee you.
They're going to say this was the official duties of the president.
Okay.
Let's play ball.
After Obama is arrested and charged and negotiates his surrender and then goes through court over two years, perhaps we can then make an assessment in appellate court that in fact it was official duties and he's immune.
They claimed that Donald Trump was trying to steal an election.
So what did they do?
They arrested him.
They charged him.
Eventually, the Supreme Court ruled that Trump's got presidential immunity.
Now, I would argue this.
It is the duty of the executive branch to investigate potential criminal activities.
That's what law enforcement does.
Donald Trump's challenging of the election is sound.
I don't care if every Democrat in the world challenges every election.
That's the process by which we seek a ragus of grievances.
If we can't file lawsuits over the results of elections and try to get them expedited, then anyone can just steal the election whenever they want by claiming they want and no one can do anything about it.
There must be a legal remedy.
Otherwise, the only remedy would be violence.
That's not really a remedy.
It's just you're saying the system breaks.
But they wanted to arrest Trump for it.
Turns out, the whole time they were accusing Donald Trump of doing what they themselves were doing.
And that's the story, right?
And here it is.
Donald Trump won in 2016.
And according to the latest documents published, Obama ordered Brennan to publish unremarkable and highly questionable sentence fragment intel to accuse Trump of effectively colluding with Vladimir Putin.
Now, they'll try and claim, but the Senate agreed, you sure?
Were they all basing it off flawed intelligence that was published intentionally to target Donald Trump?
When Donald Trump lost in 2020, challenged the election, Democrats argued that he was trying to steal an election.
In fact, that is what they did in 2016 to try and help Hillary Clinton win.
And she didn't.
Hillary Clinton destroyed public servers that she was keeping secretly.
It was public information.
It was the private server, right?
But it had public records on it, destroying her phones as well.
When Donald Trump was investigating what Biden had been doing with Ukraine with his quid pro quo, they accused Trump.
Every time Trump was close to uncovering what they were doing, they accused him of doing the same.
And that's the name of the game.
So here we are now, Knowing with these documents being published by the government, Obama ordered this.
So, what do we get next?
I'm not convinced there will be criminal charges, but let me tell you: as much as a lot of people are saying you're a fool to believe they'll ever charge Obama, no one thought Trump would ever be charged.
I sat in this chair on hundreds of episodes of Tim Cast IRL.
We have like 1,300-something episodes, hundreds of them, where we had discussed the possibility that Trump would be arrested because they were threatening him with criminal charges.
And every step of the way, people said no.
Man, I remember it, man.
It's crazy.
I remember talking to Phil.
I remember talking to just guests.
You'd think they'd actually get a Trump mugshot?
No, they're not going to do it.
And then you'd get the response, why?
Why wouldn't they?
I remember this conversation, man.
We were talking about whether or not they would put Trump, they would arrest him and put him and get him and make a mugshot.
And the answer was, they've gone this far.
Why wouldn't they stop?
And turns out we were correct.
They did.
It was hard to believe, right?
That they actually arrested the frontrunner and a former president, raiding his home, armed with authorization to use lethal force.
That happened.
Trump gets arrested.
Nobody believed it would go any further, and they arrested him again and again.
Did y'all know that right now, Donald Trump's criminal charges are still pending appeal?
Or actually, is this, it might be the civil charges.
One of the cases against Trump, I think, I think, no, no, I'm sorry, it's the criminal trial.
I believe it's the 34 felonies.
Trump appealed, and the appellate court was supposed to rule, and they did not.
Well, I don't know what's going to happen.
But the idea that Obama can't be arrested because it's unprecedented is out the window.
In these past 10 years, we have seen nothing but unprecedented actions.
With evidence being released and where we sit now, there is only one question.
Does Trump have the willpower?
Maybe.
He's also pretty old.
You could also argue that because he's old, he's got nothing to lose.
Maybe he'd be concerned about his family and what they would do if he loses.
Unfortunately for them, I think Trump is already concerned about what happens if he loses and doesn't at least fight back.
Right now, if Donald Trump loses this fight and allows this criminal element to continue what they've done and potentially regain power later, his family faces the biggest threat imaginable, retribution and corruption.
His only option right now is to win.
I don't know that he will.
Clint Russell says, today, a sitting president said a former president committed treason, a crime punishable by death.
And no one cares.
Trump and the Republicans are not taken seriously because they aren't serious.
Call me a panican or whatever dumb phrase you want, you know I'm right.
Interesting.
Perhaps.
I think Tulsi Gabbard's taking it seriously.
Glenn Beck says, Tulsi Gabbard just released a document that reveals that Russians did have dirt in a 2016 campaign, but it wasn't Trump, it was Hillary.
I wonder if this is what the FBI was looking for when they raided Mar-a-Lago.
According to the document, Russia knew the DNC was concerned about Clinton's health.
She allegedly had intensified psycho-emotional problems, was on heavy tranquilizers, and was obsessed with power.
Remember when Hillary Clinton flopped down and passed out, had to be dragged into a vehicle?
Terrifying.
Remember when she was drinking water and she gagged up some weird phlegm into the glass in front of everybody?
Glenn says, if Putin really wanted Trump to win, why wouldn't he put this out?
Russia probably thought Clinton was going to win, which would be good for them because they had all this dirt on her.
But instead of being truthful with us, Obama ordered the IC to make it look like Trump's a Russian puppet.
This was a planned and coordinated coup.
Jack Pisobic.
Tosi Gabbard declassified intel that two senior CIA officers warned Brennan that we don't have direct information that Putin wanted to get Trump elected, but Obama ordered them to report it anyway.
Dark days indeed, my friend.
My friends, I always say friend, right?
So we will see.
I don't know where this goes, and I don't know if Trump is serious, but I want to see some action.
Now, in just a moment, we'll be joined by rep Thomas Massey to discuss the ongoing action in the House over Epstein.
But more importantly, I'm curious his thoughts on what's going on with the release of this information, and he can shed some light into what's happening with Congress going on recess.
So we'll get into all that 4 p.m. at rumble.com slash TimPool or youtube.com slash Timcast.
Smash the like button.
Share the show with everyone.
You know, if you really do like the show, it really means a lot if you'd post it, share it, and subscribe to this channel.
Thank you all so much for hanging out.
And we will see you all in the next segment.
As for everybody else, let's roll.
We have this report from Axios.
MAGA demands arrests after Trump accuses Obama of treason, but it's not so simple.
Tulsi Gabbard has put out information that shows Obama ordered the release of fragmented, highly dubious intel that proved nothing in order to claim Putin was trying to get Trump elected.
This was the basis for a years-long witch hunt in which the Mueller investigation bogged down Donald Trump.
His appointees were jammed up.
His presidency was completely undermined.
Many have called this a coup.
Tulsi Gabbard has called this a treasonous conspiracy.
Now, right now, we have a couple big political scandals.
Before we get another, I want to stress Trump has major legislative victories right now.
IRS staff being curtailed.
This reported yesterday, 26,000 individuals.
The border secure.
Tariffs, no hyperinflation, new trade deals benefiting America.
But while Donald Trump is engaging in policy agenda items, as he is doing this and succeeding, the Obama scandal and the Epstein scandal are weighing him down.
Now, right now, Thomas Massey and Rokan have a bill that would force the release of the Epstein files, and he wants those to be put up.
But the House says we're going on recess, it's been scheduled, and we're not going to have any more votes.
So we're going to be bringing in Rep Thomas Massey to discuss with us.
First, I would like to ask about what's going on with the Obama files, with the treason, and all of this stuff, but we'll get into the Epstein latest developments as well.
Let's load this up.
All right.
Pulling it in, getting it going.
Rep Massey, how's it going?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
It's going all right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Thank you for joining me.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Are we live?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
We are live, sir, indeed.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
All right, then I'll quit Fidwin.
unidentified
All right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Well, so there's a lot to talk about.
Obviously, yourself, RoCanna, you have this bill to force the release of the Epstein files without exposing any victims, their information, as well as protecting the ongoing investigations.
I do want to ask you about that a little bit, but first, I wanted to ask you your thoughts on the latest release from Tulsi Gabbard.
I'm not sure if you've seen the files, but it shows that Obama ordered the release of information that the intelligence committee knew was likely not correct, was based on a sentence fragment, and this was the basis of a years-long campaign against Donald Trump to accuse him of colluding with the Russians.
Tulsi Gabbard said it was a treasonous conspiracy.
Others have called it a coup.
I'm curious your thoughts.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, you know, when all that was coming out back in the day, I parsed it as carefully as I could.
And we got classified briefings here in Congress where they tried to convince us that Russians were at play in the elections.
But when I asked the questions and dug into it in these briefings, they never did actually say that the machines had been tampered with, that they were changing vote totals.
If you listened intently and you followed up with questions, they would always admit that they were alluding to some kind of social media influence program.
In the file that I read that the DNI put out, it alludes to people leaking information to the press.
I'd like to know who those individuals are.
Can we go subpoena people and find out who were the leakers?
If that was an illegal and false leak, then who were they?
They weren't whistleblowers.
They were subverting our government.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Do you think, you know, a lot of people like Tulsi Gabbard herself said this was a treasonous conspiracy?
First question is, on the part of government, do you agree with that assessment that the Obama administration was conspiring to undermine the authority, first the campaign, then the authority of Donald Trump?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
If you're asking me to tell you if I'm surprised that this was going on, the answer would be absolutely not.
Like my default position, Tim, is that this whole mess up here is a treasonous conspiracy.
That pretty much everybody, it's NDC that is part of a treasonous conspiracy.
So, you know.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So to clarify, just to clarify, you're saying yes, but kind of, come on, they're all doing it and worse?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Come on.
We already knew this was happening.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Fair point.
Fair point.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
But to be specific, when I read those documents, it alludes to somebody leaked some information to mislead the press into thinking that they were changing vote totals and not just doing some social media policy, some social media bots or something.
unidentified
Okay, if that's the case, who did it?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
I mean, I would like for this administration to dig deeper and investigate that and find out who was the leak, because that sounds like an illegal activity to me.
You know, the fact that Obama was trying to direct people to misrepresent the facts, look, that went on during the Biden administration with COVID on the vaccines and everything.
And I've done investigations there and proven it and nobody cares.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Why not?
Why don't they care?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
I don't know.
I guess they've already moved on, but you had the thing that I'm alluding to is I did like five-hour depositions of top FDA officials who admitted that they were pressured by the Biden administration to basically skip steps in the approval process to get the full approval of the vaccine so that they could be mandated.
They were told so that the government can mandate these.
We need you guys to skip steps and get these things on the approval list.
Why is nothing happening?
I mean, thankfully, Peter Marks, the guy who was, his finger, hands were dirty and all of that.
Fortunately, Bobby Kennedy got rid of that miscreant.
By the way, I deposed Peter Marks, too.
It's just like when you find actual evidence, nobody does anything.
But at least in this case, Bobby Kennedy got rid of Peter Marks.
My question is, are there people still in this administration?
There probably are.
Who participated in that or went along or didn't blow the whistle?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Well, Laura Loomer has been consistently scouring the records of the current administration, the holdovers and calling them out.
Many are getting fired.
But kind of to bring this all together, because you make an interesting point too.
One, the leaks that were coming from these holdovers intending to undermine the presidency.
It's interesting, we are focused on Obama as this, he ordered Brennan, according to this document, to publish this full review despite the intelligence community saying a sentence fragment is not usable intelligence.
So based on everything we've seen, it looks like they were outright just saying undermine Trump in any way.
Now, moving on to the COVID stuff you're talking about, obviously.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Very quickly, I did hear you say the leaks.
I want to be clear.
A lot of times when somebody leaks something, they're A whistleblower, and I'm all for that.
If there's some kind of malfeasance, in this case, the leaks were false and meant to mislead the American public.
unidentified
Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
We've seen selective leaks where only one page of like a 10-page report gets out, so that it screws the context.
But so, what I was getting at is you went on to mention COVID, right?
There are many people who believe that the lockdowns implemented at the state level were intended to help Democrats steal the election by implementing mass motor, I'm sorry, mass mail-in voting and things like this.
So you mentioned the FDA individuals saying that they were pressured to give these approvals.
Do you think that was political or do you think that they were doing this?
I'm not trying to directly conflate those two, that theory with this, but just to start here, do you think they were pressured for political purposes, for some kind of policy advantage, or do you think it was Big Pharma trying to make money?
Or is there something else?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, I think it was both.
I mean, look, Big Pharma gives donations, lots of donations to Biden.
And then you had Biden through Janet Woodcock, who was the temporary director or whatever at the time, who went to Peter Marx.
Usually it's like some high mid-level person who does the dirty deed.
And then they're instructed through a personal conversation that you can't find written down anywhere.
But in this case, we got the closest thing you can get to showing that this was political pressure.
But the political pressure was probably motivated by money as well.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I think when you look at everything going on in Congress, you mentioned, you know, D.C. is one big criminal conspiracy, but I want to pull that to reality.
It seems like, especially with Congress, everything's a backroom deal.
Everything's back channel.
There's, you know, when I remember talking to Marjorie Taylor Greene about how they never actually even have floor votes on these bills, and it's like just a handful of people grunting.
And it was, you know, you, her, as well as several others forcing Congress to do their jobs.
Now y'all are taking a month off.
You know, it really does feel like the true machinations of D.C. are like House of Cards.
Somebody's going to get paid.
Somebody wants money and power.
And it's not typically a legitimate process by which we can govern this country.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
The difference between Washington, D.C. in real life and house of cards is in house of cards, there was somebody who had a plan.
Like at least Frank Underwood, like he had a plan.
What's really going up here on up here is it's most of there's conspiracy theories, right?
But it's mostly just uninformed self-interests at work and a bunch of clowns that are trying to have no plan and they're trying to figure out how to get to the next week.
And the next episode is going to be another clown car.
And the difference here is the whole cast is taking five weeks off and there won't be a clown show for a while.
You'll have to see it back in your districts.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Why, why?
Man, I envy your guys' job.
You get five weeks off right now for what reason?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, I don't know if this is the right time to transition back into the Epstein legislation that I introduced, but some of my colleagues here are thanking me for introducing the legislation because it takes seven days to ripen and the speaker is sending us on recess on the sixth day to make sure that I don't force this thing to a vote before you get it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
You get an extra day off.
Is that it?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, it just ensures we don't have an extra day tacked on.
It makes sure that everything's happening on time.
Now, when I say on time, what's not happening is there aren't 12 bills coming to the floor.
Honestly, the Appropriations Committee, you could send Congress home.
A lot of people here aren't doing much of anything, but the Appropriations Committee is responsible for 12 bills, 12 separate bills that should fund the government.
And it's pretty clear they're going to punt, but they should be changing their desks here in Washington, D.C. until they get those 12 separate bills.
So at least when the rest of everybody else comes back from August recess, by the way, I'm supposed to call it the August district work period.
That's the euphemism.
So when we all get from the August district work period, let me try it and see if I can do it with this straight face.
It didn't work.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
That's why Congress approval rating is so low.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
So when we get back, that's when we could be voting on the things.
But the reality is the appropriations committees won't be done.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
So why is there a month off?
Is this like a normal thing for Congress?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
I think it dates back 200 years.
They didn't have air conditioning.
And so this, the swamp, it literally was a swamp.
And you could, you know, bubonic plague and larger and whatever.
I don't know what you get, the swamp, malaria.
It was to send people home during August was just sort of a humanitarian thing to do.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
There you go.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
But now we have air conditioning and we have tunnels that, you know, this building behind me, I'm connected to that building through a tunnel that's air conditioned.
I can get over to the Capitol from my office here without ever, you know, seeing, being exposed to sun and in a 70 degree, 30% humidity environment.
So there's really no reason anymore to go home during August, especially if the work's not done.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I got the perfect question to transition these two stories.
Do you think that Trump and Tulsi Gabbard, his administration are being serious about the Obama accusations and that they're actually going to take action in some form criminal prosecutions?
Or is it just a distraction with perfect timing because of the Epstein story?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, here in the Howe, I don't know what their intent is.
I can tell you I know Tulsi Gabbard, and her intentions are as pure as wind-driven snow based on my interactions with her Privately after she left Congress and also when she was in Congress.
I don't doubt her for a second.
I think she's working within a swamp over there, and it's going to be hard to get actual results.
Like I said, they should be tracking down who the fake leakers were and they should be prosecuting them.
Because if the middlemen who always carry out these dirty deeds never get prosecuted or held to task, then they're just going to keep doing it with impunity, regardless of who won the election and who's up at the top and who the DNI is.
But now here in the House, oh, it's a welcome distraction.
The leadership here in the House, they do not want to talk about Epstein and they love having this other thing to talk about right now, even though they themselves have no intention of doing anything about either of them.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
What's going on?
This is the weirdest thing to me.
It seems like the Trump administration is simultaneously making the Epstein story the biggest news while also calling for it to be obstructed.
I can't make heads or tails of it.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, let me give you what I think is a 30,000-foot view here.
A lot of us, myself included, were excited to elect Trump and have a bull in the China shop.
Many people were apathetic that there's an elite ruling class and rich people who are beyond the judicial system, who basically run everything in Washington, D.C. and even globally, and that Trump would come up here and expose these people and disrupt that.
And the Epstein case isn't the be-all and end-all, but it's the perfect snapshot, the perfect prototype of what we're talking about here.
And so it's completely off-brand and out of character for this administration, having run on this issue, at least all the people around him, to want to sweep it under the rug now.
And here's the danger of that politically.
It's bad policy.
I mean, Americans deserve transparency and the victims deserve justice, but it's bad politics because it's going to be a bloodbath in the midterms because all those people who Trump cured their apathy, they're going to go back to being apathetic if we don't follow through on this.
So, you know, I'm going to talk to Mike Johnson later today.
And this is what I'm going to tell him.
Look, the best thing you could do is show people we were serious when they gave us the Trump presidency, a majority in the House and a majority in the Senate.
We were serious about holding people accountable, even if they're part of an elite, rich, and powerful group that's normally beyond the law.
And so we should just have the vote.
He shouldn't make me force the vote if Mike Johnson would bring this thing to a vote.
I know it creates a little bit of daylight between him and Trump, which he doesn't want to have any daylight between the two of them, but it's necessary for us to keep the majority in the midterm.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
But why would Trump oppose the release of these files, especially if they're arguing there's nothing there?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, there is stuff there.
Look, and my legislation, some of the things that I want to release are absolutely there.
There's plea bargains, right?
There's special payoffs.
There's legal deals that were made.
I want to open that up, find out who paid people not to have, not to get prosecuted, okay, or not to bring charges against them.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
But you know some of the names of the individuals, or is this assumptive based on the story as reported with the flight logs and stuff?
Are you assuming that there would have been people who were charged or took plea bargains, or is there actual intelligence that they did prosecute people associated with Epstein?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
I don't have anything in my possession that you can't also get from the news.
But Epstein made a lot of money.
Where did all this money come from?
For instance, okay, there's bank records.
This stuff doesn't go away.
Now, maybe they had a fire pit in the West Wing and burned everything they could find, but it's still out there digitally.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Or maybe there was a private server that they used BleachBit to wipe and smashed phones with hammers.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, so just go to the NSA and get the copies, right?
So here's, you know, and you said something.
I do want to respond to this because I think there was a question in there about, does this implicate Trump?
Why do I think he's reluctant to release it?
I don't think it implicates President Trump.
You know, his laundry's been aired.
I remember sitting through the Stormy Daniels hearings in the oversight committee, and I took up for him, and we had his weasel lawyer there who admitted to lying for Trump, even though Trump didn't ask him to lie.
And anyways, that's all been aired.
I think Trump is somewhat immune from those sort of scandals at this point.
He's got the antibodies.
Okay.
He earned them.
And now what we're talking about, though, is there probably are some people who are friends of Donald Trump, elite and powerful people that he's had dinners with, who could be embarrassed.
Maybe there was nothing criminal.
And so I think that is one motivation.
And I think the other motivation is, and this is, I'm not just pulling this out of thin air.
There are court records back when they gave Epstein his first deal down in Florida that say he was connected to intelligence.
And I think we need to know what that connection was.
Because if he's gone and they're still, the same people who were collecting intelligence using Epstein probably have somebody else right now doing the same stuff.
unidentified
Wow.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I mean, there's a lot of creepy rumors and theories, images.
There's an image of a guy on Epstein Island after he reportedly died who people say looks like Epstein.
Who knows?
But Here's one of the challenges for me, I think, for a lot of the people who support Trump is they ignore Democrats and the media ignore this story.
They call everybody, I mean, over the past several years, you were a conspiracy theorist if you believed the Epstein claims and stories.
He was just a loan trafficker.
He took his own life.
Now, the entirety of the Democratic Party is going on TV and going on podcasts and saying, oh, now we have to do it.
CNN is publishing photos from 93 of Trump and Epstein.
There's a picture of Epstein in the background of some image.
Now, I trust you on these matters.
I think you're genuine.
I trust Rokana as well.
I may disagree with both of you on certain political issues, but I think that it is a genuine attempt at getting this stuff published for the public good.
But the rest of the Democratic Party, I don't trust.
Now, to be honest, the Republicans have me questioning why they're holding back on this, but what is the motivation of the Democratic Party when their guiding principle for the past decade has just been, we hate Trump?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Yeah, and thank you for excluding Roe Conna.
I want to exclude him as well from the indictment I'm going to deliver of the Democrats.
Look, they're at the foot of the cross now, right?
I don't think they're believers, but they're at the foot of the cross.
And I don't care how they got to the foot of the cross.
They're here.
And it creates an opportunity to get these files out.
If Joe Biden were president, I do think that Rocana would be among them who would want this released.
But I think 90% of the Democrats would want to have nothing to do with this.
So people have asked me, but Massey, why didn't you do anything before?
Well, you can go back at my Twitter feeds and you can probably watch my interviews.
This isn't the first time I've mentioned it.
I was one of those conspiracy theorists, okay?
I was with the group.
You can find my tweets that show in 2022, I was talking about this in 2024 when Biden was president.
But it's true, I did not introduce legislation when Biden was president or during the first six months of Trump's presidency.
And here's the reason I'm introducing it now.
There's 435 members up here.
I just kind of assumed somebody else was working on this and that these things would get released.
And what I realized two things here recently.
Number one, the people who were allegedly working on releasing this stuff had no intention of releasing it.
Or they've stubbed their toe, they've been taken into a back room and something's been whispered in their ear and they've immediately lost interest in releasing it.
Okay.
So they were insincere or not able or they have changed their mind all of a sudden.
That's one thing.
Number two, politics is the art of the possible.
Okay.
If you introduced legislation when Joe Biden was president, it's true the Democrats would not be sincerely involved.
They're not sincerely involved now, but they are interested.
Some of them are sincere, but the majority of them are doing this because Trump is president.
I mean, let's be honest.
But I've also got some sincere Republicans who you have to be really sincere at this point to have President Trump, whose favorability is 90% among Republicans in just about any state.
If you're a Republican member of Congress and you've co-sponsored my legislation, which a dozen people have, man, you deserve some kind of at least a certificate suitable for framing because that kind of courage doesn't exist up here most of the time.
And we need basically every Dem to sign my discharge petition and five or six Republicans.
And we've got twice that many Republicans as co-sponsors this legislation now.
So I think we can get there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
I got to be honest, if I was going to make a bet, I'd say that the only reason Democrats are agreeing to sign on is under the assumption that the bill will lose.
And I'm pretty sure, I mean, I could be wrong.
You would know better than me.
But I kind of feel like if this actually went to a vote, a lot of Democrats would be voting against it, despite the image they're trying to portray right now, because there are elites who are terrified of being exposed.
There are people who get super PAC contributions that fund their campaigns.
And someone's going to come and give them a wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
This can't happen.
We'll pull your funds.
And then they're going to vote no.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Well, I think if there is an off-ramp somewhere between passing my resolution and getting this done, there will be Republicans looking for that off-ramp, and there will be Democrats looking for that off-ramp.
In other words, even if I do get this passed, and I'm going to disagree with you a little bit, if I can get this to the floor, and by the way, I think I got the signatures to get this to the floor.
And Mike Johnson can try to derail it with some parliamentary procedure, but then the vote on that parliamentary issue becomes the litmus test of whether you want to expose the Epstein files or not.
And everybody needs to understand when they try to do the shell game there at the end and use a procedural vote to take my vote out, then that becomes the vote we all need to watch.
But let's assume Mike Johnson operates in good faith and follows the rules of the House of Representatives that were put in place at the beginning of the Congress.
Literally, we vote on the rules and then we vote on the speaker.
And those two things happen the same day.
Okay, let's assume he operates in good faith and brings this to the floor.
I think there's a chance you get unanimous passage.
I think, do you want to be one of the 12 people in Congress that doesn't vote for this?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
That's a good point.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
It's literally implicating at least your friends and your social circles, if not yourself.
Or maybe you just think there are some secrets too important for the American people to know and they can't handle the truth.
But either way, you don't want to be in that category.
Here's the off-ramp they may take, Tim, because I do, I agree with you.
There may be some of them that want to vote for this and then don't want it to happen.
There's two ways to structure the Epstein Legislation in the House.
By the way, people complain: oh, Massey, it took you four and a half years to come up with this legislation.
Guess what?
It took Speaker Johnson four and a half years and a week to copy my legislation and introduce a fake version of it.
Wow.
Which is, it's not fake, but it's a resolution, not a bill.
So there's two ways to do this in the House.
You can either do a resolution in the House, which doesn't pass the Senate and isn't presented to the president.
We call it presentment because it doesn't need his signature.
You can override with two-thirds vote.
You could override the president.
So you could either do this as a House resolution, which won't be binding.
And that's what Mike Johnson has encouraged.
And they've already passed that in the Rules Committee, but they won't even bring that to the floor.
They're afraid to even vote on the non-binding version.
If it came to the floor, I would vote for it, but I would say, listen, folks, this isn't binding, but at least it's something.
The way that I have done it, I've introduced it as a law.
Okay, that means if there's some other law that's on the books that would keep these files from coming out, mine's the newest law.
Mine supersedes that law.
And so everybody who's saying, well, you can't do this with grand jury stuff, you can't do that with that.
No, this is a law.
We write the laws.
If there's a problem with the law, this law fixes it.
So, but in order to be a law, has to pass the House and the Senate.
Do you think the off-road they might try is to deep six this in the Senate?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Could you, that's, yeah.
But I can only imagine the midterm campaign ads where it says, candidate voted to protect Epstein.
And that's something most people don't want running in their districts, I'd imagine.
So maybe you're right.
I mean, you know, you know better than me.
So there's no possibility of this happening before you guys recess for August, though, right?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
No, because they're going to adjourn tonight here in Congress.
So there's no possibility.
And they're hoping that the urgency, they're hoping the American people will move on, that there'll be some hurricane or some earthquake or something that if not if not a tragedy, then some weapon of mass destraction.
But I don't think any weapon of mass distraction can take the American people's eye off this ball because it's the consummate case for why we put Republicans in charge and Trump in the White House is so the elite and powerful, the veil could be pierced by the bull in the China shop.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Yeah.
I mean, there are a lot of people that are trying to back away and say we want to get the agenda through and this isn't the highest priority.
For me, I wouldn't say the Epstein is my highest priority.
I think the on-the-ground kitchen table issues take precedent all the time because we're talking about whether someone's going to get food.
But I don't think anybody should be ignoring or walking away from this story for political reasons.
So I look forward to seeing what happens in September.
Rep Massey, thanks for joining.
Where can people find you?
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
They can find me at rep Thomas Massey.
Look for the hashtag SassyWithMassey.
And although they don't like hashtag, Elon doesn't like hashtags anymore on Twitter, I might still use it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Well, Ron, I appreciate you coming on, and I guess we'll see you next time.
thomas massie ▲ ● ▼
Thank you, Tim.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼
Take care.
And that is a wrap with Representative Thomas Massey, who is personally my favorite member of Congress.
Use me, Matt Gates.
You know, I told Rep Massey this.
I said Rep Gates was my favorite, challenging the system with strength and with capability.
But always a big fan of Thomas Massey, and I disagree with him all the time.
There are several times in a year where I'm saying, like, Massey is wrong on this, but he's honest.
He's an honest guy.
Same thing with Rokana.
I disagree with Rokana on almost everything.
But, you know, I've had him on the show.
He's come on the show.
He's talked.
He's explained his positions.
And he was genuine.
He wasn't lying.
He believes what he believes.
And I think his policies are bad ideas for this country.
But when it comes to the issue of Epstein, I think he made a mistake.
As Rhett Massey pointed out, I think it's called, what is it?
The Lex Prior, what is it called?
Posterior or something?
I'm not a lawyer.
Basically, any new law supersedes the old.
If he were to pass this law saying you've got to publish everything, it would have published victim information, and we don't want that.
And so he teamed up with Massey.
They fixed it.
And I believe that was genuine and sincere, and I'm excited to see it happen.
I don't know why Trump opposes it so much, but if it implicates Trump, then so be it.
I don't think it does.
But again, I don't care.
Protection's for nobody.
Criminals, we exposed.
The reason why I don't think it actually goes after Trump, they would have exposed it a long time ago if they had anything to, and everybody knows this point.
You don't need to hear it again.
Massey made a good point.
Maybe some of Trump's friends will be embarrassed, so he's trying to wash it away.
But I will say this.
What if the attempt at distraction results in Trump saying, quick arrest Obama?
And so what they're doing now is they're going to go after Crossfire Hurricane and actually arrest some of the corruption and the Democratic side because Trump's worried about the Epstein thing.
That'll distract people.
Anyway, my friends, we're going to get that raid going for you guys right now.
Russell Brand is gearing up to go live.
What is up with that thumbnail?
Tim Poole's a weird guy.
Let's grab Russell's channel.
I believe he is live now.
We'll send you on your way, my friends.
Smash that like button.
Subscribe to this channel.
Share the show with everyone.
You know, it really does help.
It seriously does.
You know, on this Rumble live stream, my friends, we have done tremendous with you guys watching the show, watching the lineup as if it's a network.
The Rumble lineup has become some of the largest viewed live streams in the country on a regular basis, consistently cracking the top 10.
Rumble has held more than half of it consistently in the news category, upwards of 70, 80%, because you guys share and you watch.
And that means a lot.
If we're going to win a culture war, that means we're going to be paying attention and we're going to focus on what makes this country a better place and sharing with our friends.
Smash that like button once again, my friends, on the way out.
▲
Export Selection