Tim Pool Daily Show - Trump Seizes Control of DC Police, Deploys National Guard As Crime Skyrockets

All Episodes

Previous Next

Aug. 11, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:05:09

Trump Seizes Control of DC Police, Deploys National Guard As Crime Skyrockets

Participants

Main voices

josh hammer

16:37

tim pool

41:32

Appearances

donald j trump

02:29

Clips

bill maher

00:33

george will

00:49

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Donald Trump has done it.
		In an announcement earlier this morning, Trump has announced he will take control of the D.C. police and deploy the National Guard, invoking the Home Rule Act.
		This is what is being described as the federalization of D.C. Now, the important thing to understand is that D.C. is already the federal government.
		But they did this law, I think it was in the 70s, where they basically said, you live in D.C., you're going to have your own government, you're going to vote for a mayor, the police will be under civilian control in that context.
		I think this was a mistake.
		The federal jurisdiction of D.C. was meant to create a space where government workers would be free from state influence.
		Instead, it's turned into a microstate.
		And because of this large population, you now have demands for statehood, which defies the purpose of Washington, D.C. Trump says over the weekend, the homeless got to go, the criminals can stay because you will stay in jail, but enough is enough.
		Now, Democrats have responded to this by saying Trump is lying.
		Crime is at a 30-year low in D.C. Well, I got news for you.
		We live in the D.C. metro effectively.
		And the metropolitan area takes about an hour and a half to drive into D.C., depending on which part of D.C., I guess.
		If you want to cross the river, it might take a little longer, but sure.
		About an hour and a half away.
		So we're not the closest, but we go to D.C. frequently, and we were there over the past several weekends doing live shows.
		There are homeless tents everywhere, not just near construction sites, not under bridges, no, quite literally in the middle of the city.
		Not far from the venue we were doing our show at, D.C. Comedy Loft, shout out.
		It was awesome.
		There are tents just in the middle of the intersect.
		Like, there are intersections that have roundabouts, or I don't know, bridges, I guess one road goes under, one road goes over.
		So it's actually, it's interesting how they do it.
		There's just homeless tents lining the sidewalk in the middle of town.
		Other parts of the city, you see the exact same thing.
		Going to a coffee shop, homeless camps everywhere.
		This isn't just happening in D.C., it's happening all over the place.
		But Donald Trump says, enough.
		It's time to clean this city up.
		And you know what?
		I am here for it.
		So before I get started, my friends, I want to give a shout out to Stephen Crowder and the Mug Club.
		Welcome to your Rumble Morning lineup.
		Stephen, he's got a great show.
		Louder with Crowder, sending all of those great viewers from the Mug Club.
		I appreciate you guys coming and watching the noon hour on Rumble Live.
		Of course, I am Tim Poole, your host.
		You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
		We do have a great sponsor.
		It is American Financing, my friends.
		What if you could delay your next two mortgage payments?
		That's right.
		Imagine putting those two payments in your pocket and finally getting a little breathing room.
		It's possible when you call American Financing today.
		If you're feeling stretched by everyday expenses, groceries, gas bills piling up, you're not alone.
		Most Americans are putting these expenses on credit cards, and there doesn't seem to be a way out.
		American Financing can show you how to use your home's equity to pay off that debt.
		You need to call American Financing today before you get to a point where you can't make those payments.
		Their salary-based mortgage consultants are helping homeowners just like you restructure their loans and consolidate debt, all without upfront fees.
		And their customers are saving an average of $800 a month.
		It's like a $10,000 raise.
		It's fast, it's simple, and it could save your budget this summer.
		So call now before it's too late.
		That's 866-890-7811.
		Once again, that's 866-890-7811.
		Or visit AmericanFinancing.net/slash Tim.
		My friends, I also want to shout out the Timcast.com Discord server.
		The AI takeover is actually rather terrifying.
		I've been dealing with it myself, where you get an order, or I should say a restaurant gets your order wrong, or you've got some charge on your account that you didn't make, and there's no humans to resolve it.
		All just AI robots that can't navigate these systems.
		The answer to this, the counterrevolution, is community.
		We have to figure out how to make sure the bonds of human connection do not break as they try to automate everything and population declines.
		It's one of the reasons we have the TimCast Discord.
		You go to Timcast.com, you click join us.
		You get in the Discord right there, and there's tens of thousands of people hanging out, having parties, having meetups, running their own content, creating their own shows, and keeping those bonds connected despite the ever-evolution of the internet and the decentralization of media.
		They have live meetups.
	We went to one of the parties with the guys.
	Shout out to the crew from the Discord who are putting on these events.
	We want you to join and help.
	It helps make the show possible when you're a member, and we hope to foment a larger community of people who can keep those bonds connected, my friends.
	Let's jump to the news.
	Smash that like button.
	Share the show right now.
	Everybody watching, take the URL, post it across the board.
	Rumble number one.
	Let's go.
	Live updates.
	Trump to deploy National Guard and federalized D.C. police in crime fighting effort.
	Let me play the clip for you, my friends.
	Let's roll.
donald j trump ▲ ● ▼		And we're here for a very serious purpose, very serious purpose.
		Something's out of control, but we're going to put it in control very quickly like we did on the southern border.
		I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam, and squalor, and worse.
		This is Liberation Day in D.C., and we're going to take our capital back.
		We're taking it back.
		Under the authorities vested in me as the President of the United States, I'm officially invoking Section 740 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.
		You know what that is?
		And placing the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department under direct federal control, and you'll be meeting the people that will be directly involved with that.
		Very good people, but they're tough, and they know what's happening, and they've done it before.
		In addition, I'm deploying the National Guard to help reestablish law, order, and public safety in Washington, D.C., and they're going to be allowed to do their job properly.
		And you people are victims of it, too.
		You know, you're reporters, and I understand a lot of you tend to be on the liberal side, but you don't want to get you don't want to get mugged and raped and shot and killed.
		And you all know people and friends of yours that that happened.
		And so you can be anything you want, but you want to have safety in the streets.
		You want to be able to leave your apartment or your house where you live and feel safe and go into a store to buy a newspaper or buy something.
		And you don't have that now.
		The murder rate in Washington today is higher than that of Bogota, Colombia, Mexico City, some of the places that you hear about as being the worst places on earth.
		Much higher.
		This is much higher.
		The number of car thefts has doubled over the past five years, and the number of carjackings has more than tripled.
		Murders in 2023 reached the highest rate probably ever.
		They say 25 years, but they don't know what that means because it just goes back 25 years.
		Can't be worse.
		Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged out maniacs and homeless people.
		And we're not going to let it happen anymore.
		We're not going to take it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Bravo.
		I'm here for it.
		I agree with it.
		Like I said, we go to D.C. almost fairly often, a couple times a week, probably, because it's the city.
		You know what I mean?
		There are smaller towns in the surrounding area.
		There's Bethesda, which is basically part of the metro.
		And there's Frederick.
		We go to the big city, we go to D.C. That's the big metro in our area.
		And yeah, there's crime.
		You can see it.
		What's fascinating is there's a place called National Harbor where they put up this MGM casino, which is one of the highest-grossing, if not the highest-grossing casino in the country.
		Let me tell you guys, I know, ignore the casino thing.
		This is supposed to be a nice area in Maryland, just south of D.C. And every other week, there's a stabbing and a robbery, some kind of theft.
		People are scared to park their cars there.
		And it's supposed to be a nice area.
		So what the heck is going on?
		I don't see why there's a problem with this.
		Some people are saying, police state, take it.
unidentified		What?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So you've got homeless camps everywhere.
		The National Guard are going to come out and they're going to make sure that there's no violent crime and rampant crime.
		They're not going to be shaking anybody down.
		The police already exist.
		Just because Trump is in command doesn't mean it's a police state takeover.
		This is literally Trump just saying, we will have command of the police.
		The police already exist.
		He's going to tell them to stop crime.
		Crime is happening.
		I see this as an overall win.
		We'll see how it plays out.
		We'll see what the end result is going to be.
		But I'm hoping that our capital gets cleaned up.
		Now, some have made the argument that we should actually cede back the territories taken from Maryland so that D.C. actually is only a couple blocks.
		I agree with that as well.
		The argument is the federal government should have jurisdiction over the buildings of the federal government and be free from state control.
		The reason D.C. was created was because at the founding of this nation, they were trying to figure out where to put the capital.
		The concern was any state that the capital would be in would be under undue pressure from that state to give preferential treatment to that state's whims.
		So they said, let's carve off a piece of Maryland and we'll make this special jurisdiction just for the federal government.
		You know what?
		Nobody was supposed to live there.
		It was not supposed to be a place that people lived and operated like a city.
		And now you've got people in D.C. arguing they should get senators or members of Congress.
		I say no.
		It's a federal jurisdiction that's not supposed to have residents.
		It's supposed to be an isolated district for government operation.
		But it's too big.
		It's too big.
		Now, the interesting thing is that Donald Trump has said crime is at its high.
		Crime's very high.
		It is.
		Democrats are lying.
		I want to show you the statement Trump made real quick before we get into the response from the liberals, because this was from just the other day.
		Trump tells homeless they're being booted from D.C. immediately as part of his crime crackdown.
		We want our capital back, indeed.
		He said, let's pull this one up.
		Here we go.
		Let's see if we can zoom in on this bad boy.
		We're having a news conference tomorrow in the White House.
		I'm going to make our capital safer and more beautiful than it ever was before.
		The homeless have to move out immediately.
		We will give you places to stay, but far from the capital.
		The criminals, you don't have to move out.
		We're going to put you in jail where you belong.
		It's all going to happen very fast, just like the border.
		We went from millions pouring in to zero in the last few months.
		This will be easier.
		Be prepared.
		There will be no Mr. Nice guy.
		We want our capital back.
		Thank you for your attention to this matter.
		Take a look at these images he's posted.
		This is not even the worst of it.
		I'm actually offended that Trump did not actually show the reality of what was going on on the ground.
		They're showing tents in the grass.
		Okay, that's a problem.
		And what they're not showing you is there are tents on the sidewalk next to businesses and buildings.
		You walk past them.
		It's insane.
		Now, we did this show the other day, the Culture War Live, and I said, I don't care what your solution is, be it liberal or conservative, whatever it might be, why isn't the D.C. government helping or removing these people?
		Pick one.
		Say, get them out.
		You can't sleep on the streets like this in tents.
		Or say, we're going to find a place for you to live.
	You shouldn't be sleeping on the street in tents.
	They do nothing.
	Well, this is not how our city should be.
	Shantytown tent cities.
	So Trump said it.
	We will give you places to stay just far away, not here.
	I respect it.
	That's a middle-of-the-road approach.
	Now, everyone's favorite failed politician, Hillary Clinton, has chimed in.
	She says, as you listen to an unhinged Trump try to justify deploying the National Guard of D.C., here's the reality: violent crime in D.C. is at a 30-year low.
	Really?
	Wow.
	Looks like Hillary's got your number, Donald Trump.
	You thought you could pull a fast one on us.
	That's right.
	The DOJ on January 3rd under President Joe Biden issued this statement.
	Total violent crime for 24 in the District of Columbia is down 35% from 2023, and it's the lowest it's been in over 30 years, according to data collected by the Metro Police Department, announced by the U.S. Attorney Matthew M. Graves.
	The breakdown of the data is available here.
	In addition to the overall violent crime reduction, homicides are down 32, robberies are down 39, armed carjackings are down 53, assaults with dangerous weapons down 27 compared to 2023.
	For the district reporting, the fewest assaults with dangerous weapons and burglaries over 30 years.
	Wow.
	Trump is cooked.
	Can you believe that Donald Trump would actually deploy the National Guard and federalize the police when crime is at a 30?
	Oh, wait.
	What's this?
	From NBC Washington.
	D.C. police commander suspended, accused of changing crime stats.
	Well, hold on.
	This is from three weeks ago?
	Wait a minute.
	When did Hillary Clinton tweet this?
	Hillary Clinton tweeted this today at 10.30 a.m.
	Retweeting this from January 3rd.
	Violent crime hitting a 30-year low.
	But hold on.
	Couldn't Hillary have known about this story from three weeks ago that a police commander in D.C. was flubbing the numbers and lowering the crime stats to make it look good?
	Hillary?
	Lying?
	I can't believe it.
	Okay, you get it.
	I'll drop the bit.
	Of course, Hillary was lying.
	Of course.
	We witnessed the crime.
	We see the news reports.
	We can see the tent cities.
	And you have the gall to tell me that it's down?
	You want to know what gets real scary?
	Cell phone phenomena that I've talked about quite a bit.
	Murders dropped dramatically after 2008.
	Indeed.
	How could that be, though?
	What changed?
	Some people said, we're a more evolved people.
	We're not murdering each other anymore.
	No, it's just that after the advent of the ubiquitous cell phone, if you got stabbed, you could call 911.
	That's it.
	In the mid-2000s, as cell phones started to become ubiquitous, murder started to drop.
	People were still attempting the murders.
	People were still committing violent assaults.
	But back in the day, let's say 1990, if you got stabbed in the middle of the street by some mugger who took your wallet, someone's going to run and find a phone.
	That was it.
	Someone say, stay right here.
	I'll try and find a phone.
	When I was 16, I was standing on the corner of 63rd and Narragansett in Chicago.
	And I watched an old lady flip on her back and start convulsing.
	And I admit, I froze.
	I looked around.
	I didn't know what to do.
	And then, after about five seconds, I ran into the bank and yelled, call 911.
	And it's kind of a wild experience.
	If I had a cell phone, I'd have just flipped it over and dialed 911 myself and says a lady having a seizure.
	She's an old lady.
	I hope she was all right.
	People rushed to her aid.
	But back then, all I could do was run into a building and say, get the phone.
	Murder has gone down because now when that happens, you can just call on the phone.
	Understanding that technology has reduced the crime rate as it pertains to murder.
	It's an interesting thought.
	Humans are no less violent.
	We've just eliminated murder by saving more lives.
	It's great, right?
	Considering that, when you see that crime is actually up in D.C., it's actually worrying because the people there are becoming more violent.
	Take a look at this story from NBC Washington.
	A D.C. police commander is under investigation for allegedly making changes to crime stats in his district.
	The Metropolitan Police Department confirmed Michael Polyam was placed on paid administrative leave in mid-May.
	This happened just a week after Polyam filed an equal employment opportunity complaint against an assistant chief in the police union accused the department of deliberately falsifying crime data according to three law enforcement sources familiar with the complaint.
	The union claims police supervisors in the department manipulate crime data to make it appear violent crime has fallen considerably compared to last year.
	Whoa.
	Polyam, the former commander of the third district that patrols Adams and Morgan and Columbia Heights, was placed on leave with pay and told he was under investigation for questionable changes to crime data.
	Five law enforcement sources familiar told News 4.
	That came about a week after he filed a complaint against Executive Assistant Chief of Police Andre Wright, according to three law enforcement sources familiar with the complaint.
	News 4 reached out to Polyam for comment.
	He denied the allegations against him and referred us to the public information officer.
	Union officials said there is a larger trend of manipulating crime stats.
	And I don't know who did what.
	Who's accusing Hugh of who's accusing who of doing what?
	It sounds convoluted.
	A commander, the union, the union saying the commander, the high-ups are manipulating data to make it look like crime has fallen considerably compared to last year.
	Just like that statement.
	Hillary Clinton knows this, that there's an ongoing claim and investigation.
	This is weird, dirty politics.
	Who do you trust?
	Democrats are going to trust.
	They're going to say when Biden was in, crime was down.
	Trump is lying and claiming crime is up so we can justify federalization.
	I don't believe it.
	I can only tell you the stories, man.
	The things I've heard about what goes on in D.C. with the crime, with the homelessness.
	Trump does not need an excuse.
	Trump needs only look around.
	The Democrats do need an excuse.
	It's not just in D.C. Take a look at this from the New York Post.
	Starbucks shuts down another San Fran cafe, closing more than a dozen locations in the city over the past two years.
	Crime is going up everywhere.
	And they're telling us it's going down.
	I don't believe it.
	I saw this post.
	One of my lib friends posted it.
	They said, imagine thinking that all the journalists and all the politicians and all the police are lying to you, and it's Trump, the bankrupt con man, who's telling you the truth.
	And I'm like, I don't need to believe that Donald Trump is telling me the truth on everything.
	I honestly don't care.
	I can see it with my own eyes.
	It is strange to me that we watch Walgreens, Target, Starbucks shutting down their stores, CVS, and they're saying, Because of the crime.
	How many videos have you seen of a supermarket where everything's locked behind a wall?
	There was one video that went viral where the aisles in the store were just vinyl.
	It was a vinyl print, and the items were printed on a sheet.
	And you'd walk up to it, take a picture of it, go up and ask for the item.
	In Chicago, I think it's Walgreens.
	You walk in the store, there's no products anywhere.
	There's kiosks, and you type in the kiosk what you want.
	An employee, after you pay, will bring it to you because crime has gotten so incredibly bad.
	But these people believe every lie from every politician.
	It is insane.
	Now, it's somewhat unrelated, but I want to give this shout out.
	Harry Enton admits Trump has the best political instincts he's ever seen.
	And this had more to do with the Epstein files and stuff like this, but Trump targets these stories and these issues that regular people deeply care about.
	He knows what he is talking about.
	And now, Trump has also announced he wants to end no cash bail across the country.
	He says, we're going to change no cash bail.
	We're going to change the statute and get rid of some of the other things.
	I think they might have a clip here.
	Let's see if they have the clip on the article.
	I disagree with this.
	I think cash bail is unconstitutional.
	And I think Trump is wrong on the issue, but I understand why he's doing it.
	And that's why I pointed out his instincts are on point.
	But the reason why I think he's wrong is that you've got a system in place that was supposed to be a judge would determine whether you were a threat to your community, and you'd get a bond hearing, a bail hearing.
	The problem with cash bail now is it's impossible to have functional hearings because there's too much going through the system.
	The argument that we would defer to punishment is a problem.
	There are many people that will be accused of a crime and innocent of that crime.
	It happens.
	This is why we have a court system.
	They won't be able to go before a judge in a timely manner.
	So they might be three, four, five days in jail before they can even get a bond hearing.
	Then the judge will say $500 or $5,000.
	Depending on the state you're in, some do a 10% requirement where they say $5,000, you only got to pay $500,000.
	Some states have bail bondsmen.
	But you might be like, I can't afford it.
	I don't have the money.
	And you're innocent.
	You miss work.
	Your apartment starts falling apart.
	You can't pay your rent.
	This is bad for our civilization.
	Now, I'm not saying I'm going to go extreme on the issue of never having cash bail.
	I'm saying we need reform in the bond system to make sure we figure this out.
	Hey, if you've been arrested three times, even if you are found not guilty each time, yeah, you're not going to get your bond back.
	You keep getting arrested for some reason.
	But if it's a first offense or something like this, we need to figure this out better.
	I think it's probably better just to say, we'll put you on monitor, like we'll put you on, we'll give you an ankle monitor or something.
	And then if you violate it, you go to jail.
	Like you get a freebie or something.
	But the reason why Trump is pushing this is because people are sick of the violent crime.
	I'll tell you, though, you don't want to live in a system where the police defer to punishment and the process is the punishment.
	Now, we got this funny clip.
	Defiant L's pulled this from Bill Maher.
	George Will on Zohran Mamdani saying he wants him to win.
	Oh, yeah.
	Because then people will really learn their lesson.
	Check this out.
bill maher ▲ ● ▼		This must be horrible for a guy like you who you spent your whole life talking about how government tries to do too much, which it does and spends too much.
		And here you have Trump, who is the Republican, who is aggrandizing more power than anybody, as we just talked about.
		And on the other side, you have the guy running in New York, Mandami, right?
		Okay, who's like a straight-up communist?
		I mean, he is.
		He talks about, you know, the things that communists say.
		I mean, he wants free grocery stores.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		He doesn't want free grocery stores.
		I'm not trying to defend the guy.
		He wants government-run grocery stores at cost, meaning you're still expected to pay for things, but good luck having any kind of market system when everyone's competing with a system that has free money from you at gunpoint.
bill maher ▲ ● ▼		Free buses.
george will ▲ ● ▼		I want him to win.
bill maher ▲ ● ▼		You want him to win.
george will ▲ ● ▼		I think every 20 years or so.
		Wait, we need a 20 years or so, we need a conspicuous, confined experiment with socialism so we can crack it up again.
		Socialist slogan used to be: workers of the world, unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.
		The new socialist slogan is: trust us, this time it won't be a mess.
		So, when the post-war labor government in Britain was about to get started, one of their leading lights was a socialist named Hanurian Bevan.
		He said, what could go wrong?
		He said, we have a nation bedded on coal, surrounded by fish.
		It would take an organizational genius to have a shortage of either.
		In three years, they had a shortage of both.
		That's socialism.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So, let me tell you, my friends.
		He says he wants Zoran Mamdani to win.
		I know.
		Ignorant as I, naive as I. I said something similar in the past, but I've come around.
		Why?
		Well, not so much on this issue particularly.
		I was saying, like, maybe we need socialists to actually work, you know, win in New York so that they finally vote against it.
		And then I kind of realized they did it in Chicago and it failed.
		Oh.
		They did it in Portland.
		They did it in Seattle.
		Come on.
		It's not just those cities either.
		Socialists have been winning in many liberal jurisdictions in Minneapolis.
		And what you end up with is an epidemic of socialism.
		He says every 20 or so years, they should win so we can crack it up again.
		Zoran Mamdani is going to win, but nobody learned their lesson and nobody cracked it up.
		Despite the fact that Brandon Johnson in Chicago's approval rating is around like, what is it, between like, depending on the poll, could be high tens, no joke, to maybe 30%.
		The city is run like crap.
		Everyone's unhappy.
		Everyone blames the mayor.
		That's what you get.
		Did anybody learn their lesson?
		Did New York learn their lesson?
		Nope.
		Did the media learn their lesson?
		Nope.
		So who's going to crack it up again?
		Was Trump going to come and federalize the socialist cities?
		Maybe.
		You know, they need it.
		I mean, San Francisco, like I already pointed out, shut down a dozen Starbucks because crime is rampant and people are disgusting.
		But unfortunately now, the reality is this.
		Republicans, conservatives, libertarians, post-liberals, whatever, need to start recognizing winning matters.
		And to sit back and say, I'm going to let the bad guys win because then people are going to realize why they're bad.
		There was an argument made by, I mean, who was it?
		Was it Rumsfeld?
		I can't remember.
		Project for a New American Century.
		You guys remember this one?
		Peanac, they called it, put out a report, I think it was in 2000, might have been early 2001, arguing that Americans needed a new Pearl Harbor type event to rally the country together.
		I think that it wasn't Rumsfeld wrote that, but I think it was Rumsfeld who said this.
		I could be wrong.
		I can't remember.
		Who was it said this?
		That every so often, was it McCain?
		Every so often, he argued we needed, this was a speech he gave, terror attacks so the American people could truly understand what they were being protected from.
		And that's insane.
		There's a point to be made there.
		Good times make weak men.
		You know, the argument is that feminism, there's a man who built a fence around his home to protect his wife and children from wolves.
		One day the wolf whispers to the woman, your man is oppressing you and keeping you trapped in this cage.
		So she tears the fences down and the wolf eats her.
		That's the parable or whatever.
		It's a modern one.
		The argument is that she doesn't know the threats she faces anymore because she's been coddled and protected for so long.
		She no longer knows of the threat that exists beyond the fences.
		And that's what people are arguing now about socialism and what's happening to these cities.
		But my friends, we can already see it.
		In all of these cities, the wolves are eating us alive and no one is doing anything to stop it, say Trump.
		So the question then is, what do we do?
		Trump has taken command of D.C. where his authority lies.
		He can.
		But what about these other cities?
	Bet we don't know.
	I'm going to wrap it up there, my friends.
	We're going to be joined by, I think we've got Josh Hammer joining us.
	Let me make sure we've got everyone set.
	Okay, it looks like we are good to go.
	And I want to make sure I get his bio for everybody.
	This will be at 4 p.m. at rumble.com slash Tim Poole or youtube.com slash Timcast.
	He's a new editor-at-large for Newsweek and the Article 3 project.
	So we're going to talk to him not just about what's going on with the crime in D.C., but also Obergafell and the overturning of gay marriage that is coming.
	So again, 4 p.m.
	But those channels I already mentioned, smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know.
	Thanks for hanging out.
	Stay tuned, and we'll see you all in the next segment.
	For everybody else, we'll kick it off with this story, leading the narrative on this argument that Trump is deploying, or I should say this, leading the story.
	Let's start again.
	A DC police commander has been suspended and accused of changing crime stats.
	The union says leadership in D.C. are flubbing the numbers to make it look like crime is going down.
	Despite the fact we experienced this crime search all across the country in these major cities, they're all claiming crime is going down.
	Donald Trump has federalized D.C., or I should say the police, and deployed the National Guard.
	On top of this, as an aside, we'll be getting into the Obergefell issue.
	But the question is, why are we getting these reports that crime is down when it feels like crime is up?
	I will be joined by Josh Hammer of Newsweek and the Article 3 project.
	Let's bring him in and discuss all of this.
	All right, here we go.
	Loading it up.
	How's it going, Josh?
	Can you hear me?
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Hey, I got you, Tim.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Hey, how's it going?
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Going great.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How about you?
		I'm going, it's going pretty well over here.
		We've got big news today, a couple huge stories.
		The first that I want to really get into is Trump's announcement that he's sending in the National Guard.
		He's going to take federal control of the police.
		We've also heard that some federal law enforcement agencies have already begun to patrol DC over the crime.
		We've got this crazy story that a D.C. police commander was flubbing the numbers to make it look like crime was going down.
		First, I'll just, you know, your thoughts and opinions.
		Is this the right move?
		Other than that, what's going on in D.C.?
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, so look, a lot to unpack here.
		I happen to think that this is a brilliant move.
		I am a big, huge opponent, frankly, of this move.
		I lived in D.C. myself for a few years, like many in our circles have.
		And the crime is out of control.
		I mean, D.C. is really one of the only major cities in America.
		I mean, I'll put you this way.
		I mean, is there any reason why just a few blocks from the White House, there should be shots fired in broad daylight?
		I mean, these are kind of things that happen there in the nation's capital.
		I mean, I mean, when President Trump says that our beautiful capital with the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, I mean, this should be a place for tourists not only to flock from around the world, which they already do, but where they feel safe on a day-to-day basis.
		So it's good stuff on the policy.
		It's also a brilliant opportunity, I think, for the Trump administration and for the political right more generally to disprove all sorts of fallacies that have emerged from the past 20 to 30 years from the left when it comes to criminal justice policing.
		The left has been going on and on ever since the Rudy Giuliani era in New York City, Rudy Giuliani broken windows policing, largely continued to an extent at least by Mayor Bloomberg.
		Ever since then, certainly when I was in law school from 2013, 2016, starting around then and really escalating during the Obama years, the left has just done a total 180 against police, against criminal justice.
		They say that less police means more safety.
		This is just an amazing opportunity, I think, for just a real live experiment, a real-time experiment.
		Let's actually make sure that the feds are going to sick the D.C. police in these areas where they are typically reluctant and hesitant to patrol there.
		And it's a great opportunity for the right of thing to disprove two to three decades worth of left-wing fallacies and erroneous logic when it comes to proactive policing.
		The politics, I think, are also a total no-brainer.
		It's not just sound policy.
		The politics are also great there.
		Crime is across the board one of the issues where a plurality of Americans site is one of the most salient issues facing the Republic.
		It was one of the major issues in the 2024 election, frankly, along with immigration, the economy, inflation.
		Everyone cares about crime.
		You know, suburban moms there, we talk about them as a key swing demographic.
		Everyone cares about crime there.
		And, you know, just putting on my legal cap for a second, Tim, this is also directly in line with the constitutional vision.
		You know, D.C. didn't really get any kind of meaningful home rule until a 1973 law passed by Congress called the DC Home Rule Act, which really for the first time created the modern DC mayor's office, this council.
		To this day, it's kind of a mixed bag, actually.
		Congress actually selects the municipal judges there in Washington, D.C., but moves towards greater federalization of D.C. is actually directly in line with the federal envision.
		You know, the left has long pushed for D.C. statehood and for D.C. voting in Washington and so forth there.
		That's certainly not what the founders thought there.
		So, from both a legal perspective, a political perspective, and above all, just a quality of life public policy perspective, I think it's a win-win-win across the board, frankly.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think so.
		You know, do you live there now by chance?
		Or I don't know if you're not.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		I don't know.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		I live in Florida right now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Okay.
		So we're in West Virginia, of course, but a lot of people don't know this.
		The Eastern Panama, we're like an hour and a half from D.C. So all of our big city, like the shows we do, anytime we do an event, we're going to be in the DC Metro or in D.C. itself.
		It's insane.
		It is not an understatement.
		It's crazy to me to hear Democrats claiming crime is going down when literally everybody witnesses it.
		I was just in D.C. the past three weekends.
		We were doing live shows.
		And I happened about a conversation between two government, one guy who was a government contractor and one woman who actually worked for the DOD.
		And guess what?
		The first thing the guy, well, the first thing they ask is like, oh, so you're from around here, right?
		Okay.
		First question after that is, do you feel safe?
		And I started laughing because everyone knows what's true.
		There are shots fired near the White House, not to mention the riding and the chaos.
		But this story about this commander flubbing the numbers is crazy.
		So I'm curious your thoughts on this.
		This is really weird.
		It always turns out that there's some, I hate to do it, but Democrats involved in some kind of surreptitious or nefarious political play where they're manipulating the numbers, lying about the narrative, and trying to trick people.
		So the questions I have on this is: do you believe, like, so there are allegations right now, but the police union has said that the higher-ups are flubbing these numbers.
		Do you believe the numbers are being flubbed?
		And if they are, why are they actually doing it?
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		So, look, I have not done a personal deep dive.
		I have no personal sources within the D.C. police there that would give me kind of credence one way or the other.
		But what I can say is that it strikes me as entirely plausible.
		And what I can also say, Tim, is that I have heard anecdotally, I haven't spoken with this person, but through secondhand, I know of a source in Mayor Bowser's office.
		And Mayor Muriel Bowser, not exactly a right-winger, to put it mildly there, but apparently even she has at times expressed more of an openness to try to ramp up police enforcement.
		They're trying to crack down and carjackings.
		And what I've heard is that she gets pushback from a lot of black leaders, basically the Al Sharpton types there.
		The folks who are trying to, for XYZ reasons, trying to protect gangsters and carjackers and gangbangers there.
		And your mileage may vary as to why you think they would want to do such a thing there, but there are some political, self-serving, cynical interests there when it comes to trying to kind of get your turf and secure your political territory there.
		D.C. is a very corrupt city historically there.
		I mean, there's very little about that there.
		I mean, it kind of shares a lot of resemblance with Chicago and New Orleans in certain respects there.
		So I would not be the least bit surprised if there was outright flubbing on the numbers there.
		But a lot of this, I mean, let's just kind of zoom out a little bit and contextualize within this kind of post-2020, post-George Floyd, Black Lives Matter cultural milieu that we're currently living in.
		You know, these days, Tim, if you just recite basic statistics, you know, if you say that black people in America, I'm totally making up numbers, by the way, but if you say that they're responsible for, you know, 50% of homicides or whatever the actual number may be there, you know, you are immediately called a racist for simply citing statistics there.
		So I have no doubt about it that in a city like Washington, D.C., which is a very, very black city, that it's going to be very powerful, you know, black politicians who are going to try to do things like this, you know, along the lines of what you're suggesting.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's a good point.
		I actually like, I'll pull that.
		I want to get the raw number on that.
		Over the past decade, what we saw was there were several people who posted FBI crime stats and were banned on Twitter or Facebook or YouTube because it was racist to do so.
		When you see that happen in the private sector with these pressures, what do you think the hires of the police department are going to be doing as well?
		They don't want to be the one who comes out and issues a statement saying, oh, here, by the way, here's the racial breakdown of crime in my city.
		They're going to get called racist.
		The BLM is going to riot.
		They're going to say the police are lying and they're going to say it's all race-based.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		It's crazy, right?
		I mean, it really says a lot about where we're at as a society where like literally just saying statistics, you know, somehow gives you a presumption that you're coming from from a racially nefarious perspective there.
		It's absolutely nuts there.
		And no one wants to say it because of the fear of being called racist.
		I mean, this is one of the great fears in American society over the past really four to five decades.
		And I guess since the 1960s, right?
		I mean, ever since the civil rights era, Americans have just been utterly petrified of being called racist.
		But when that takes the form of being afraid to actually name statistics, of actually saying, you know what?
		No, actually a city like Washington, D.C. that has a larger minority population, we actually really do need proactive policing there.
		You know, going back to the Giuliani and Bloomberg era of New York City, you know, NYPD policing there to actually say, you know what?
		No, we actually need more NYPD squad patrol cars in certain areas in the Bronx and Queens and whatnot there that have a demographic makeup that is disproportionately prone to crime.
		We have to have these conversations.
		I mean, what is the point of even having a police in the first place there if you're not willing to have these conversations?
		Now, again, what I've heard kind of secondhand is that Mayor Bowser in D.C., who again is a lefty, but even she, I think, is getting sufficient pushback on the crime stuff that she's expressed a willingness there.
		And she herself has gotten pushback from various other folks.
		So it's a total mess there.
		And again, I think Donald Trump's doing totally, frankly, the right thing there.
		Policy, politically, and legally, it's a no-brainer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So I'll actually just pull the data.
		And anyone who gets offended can blame it on chat GPT because maybe it's wrong.
		But it says that white people commit around 60% of violent crime as per the FBI and black people about 38%, Asians about one to two, American Indians about one to two, and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander is between zero and one.
		The argument, of course, that people make is that 38% of crime coming from a smaller portion of the population, around 13%, is disproportionate.
		Now, some people want to, that is the data, okay?
		I'm not saying that people are good, bad, or otherwise based on their race.
		Not saying that at all.
		But if you even brought these issues up, you were getting banned.
		So again, D.C. police, Chicago police, all of these Democrat-run cities are trying to claim that crime isn't as bad as it is.
		Hillary Clinton even tweeted this out.
		Crime is at a 30-year low in D.C. Trump's unhinged and lying.
		And then Trump says the opposite.
		But now we've got the story of the police union saying they're actually flubbing the numbers.
		I think it makes sense.
		If you're in this politically appointed position, you know that if you're going to go to the mayor and say, we're getting disproportionate crime from the black community, she's going to get pushback from the people you mentioned, like Sharpton and these other BLM activists.
		So she's going to say, give me better numbers.
		It's all political.
		So the one thing's really obvious.
		I mean, Trump sending in law enforcement and taking command of law enforcement, I think is a good idea.
		But do you have any concerns?
		Remember when they erected those fences around the Capitol building and it was considered dystopian because it's supposed to be public?
		There are some that are expressing concerns that, yes, there may be violent crime, but Trump sending in the National Guard, federal law enforcement, taking over the police is pushing us towards a police state.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		I personally do not share those concerns.
		I'm sure that some more libertarian-minded folks have some legitimate concerns on those grounds there.
		I am more of a law and order kind of guy, Tim.
		I mean, that's just kind of been my MO really ever since I first started in law school when I was clerking for a federal judge on the Fifth Circuit.
		I mean, I'm a law and order guy.
		From my vantage point, if you don't actually have public safety, if you don't have people who actually feel safe walking the sidewalks, I mean, what is the point of having these beautiful memorials?
		What is the point of having the Smithsonian, the Washington monuments, if you're going to be scared to actually go there with your family, with your young children in the first place?
		There, again, this is the nation's capital.
		I mean, I remember the first time that I went to Washington as a kid.
		I grew up in the New York area originally there, and I was so excited.
		I had read all about this in elementary school and middle school.
		And just to go there and see the sites, you know, I was eyes wide open there.
		I was just so, so happy to see it there.
		And the notion, now that I'm a new father, we had our first child last December, the notion that I could one day take our daughter to see all this there after I do my best as a father to try and instill in her a love for America and civics and government.
		The notion that I would be scared or reluctant to do so because, God forbid, there could be a gangbanger, a carjacker, or shots fired on a random street there.
		I mean, that's utterly terrifying.
		So, to me, it kind of, you know, there's somewhat of an inversion here of the order of operations that we have to have law and order first in order to appreciate these monuments in the first place there.
		And I think that what Donald Trump is saying, probably correctly, is that we don't currently have that there.
		Let's establish that.
		And now it's kind of bringing everyone to enjoy all that Washington, D.C. has to offer.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You know, the crazy thing is, I do a lot of events in D.C. because we live here.
		And the first thing we're doing when we're doing logistics is who's what, how much security do I have to bring with me?
		That when I, where I live in West Virginia, I don't have to worry about it.
		Crime is below average here.
		Everybody's strapped.
		And I go about my business and no issues.
		I go to D.C. and immediately it's like, okay, we're going to have two guards waiting for you when you arrive.
		When you get out of your car, they'll be there.
		And it's crazy to think that's how we live.
		And it shouldn't be that way.
		But I do want to jump to the next subject for the big news of the day, and that is the challenge to Obergefell, which I don't know if you saw, but Kim Davis, she's the clerk, I believe from Kentucky, who was actually jailed for refusing to issue gay marriage licenses after the ruling on Obergefell.
		Now, I'll give you my thoughts right away.
		So Kim Davis, through her lawyer, she's filed a writ of cert to the Supreme Court.
		There's a possibility of a ruling next year in 2026 that could overturn gay marriage.
		At the time, the ruling was five to four, upholding this argument under the 14th Amendment that states must recognize gay marriage licenses.
		I think based on the current makeup of the Supreme Court, there is no way that they will uphold Obergefell.
		I believe one year's time it will be overturned, but I'm curious what you think.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Well, Tim, you know, look, cards on the table.
		So I was in law school when Obergefell came down.
		I am a longtime opponent of same-sex marriage as a matter of public policy.
		I think that it is the incorrect definition of marriage.
		And as far as a legal constitutional matter is concerned as well, I genuinely think that Anthony Kenny's majority opinion in Obergefell is probably the single most ludicrous majority opinion in my entire lifetime.
		That thing is not law.
		It is middle school poetry at best.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Can you say anything specifically?
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		So, I mean, he writes his opinion.
		It's 20 to 25 pages, maybe 30th most give or take there.
		He doesn't actually even make a straightforward legal argument.
		He makes a vague reference to the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
		He makes a vague reference to the due process clause.
		And then he basically says that if you kind of do a little of this, a little of that there, you know, kind of, you know, it makes sense that marriage has evolved and the understanding of human beings such that this thing is no longer constitutional there.
		But that's just not really how constitutional, how constitutional law works.
		I mean, when the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, I mean, obviously same-sex marriage was not even a figment of anyone's imagination, but actually, you know, private homosexual acts themselves, sodomy, was prescribed virtually everywhere.
		So, you know, the notion that they could have possibly envisioned this, I think, is totally preposterous.
		You know, so for all those reasons, I would love nothing more than to agree with you that this case actually will be overturned.
		Having said that, I don't think it's going to happen.
		In fact, I don't think it's going to get anywhere close to happening, actually, to be honest, to be honest with you.
unidentified		Yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, isn't they said that about Roe v.
		Wade, though?
		And that was stronger in my opinion.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Well, here's the thing.
		So there's a lot to unpack here.
		So you need four votes, four of the nine, in order to grant a writ of sursuari and actually hear a case straight on there.
		So if I'm just looking at the justices and trying to count votes, I think you can easily count to four justices who agree as a first principles matter that Obergefell is wrong.
		But most of the justices have a somewhat convoluted process for what they call star decisis, which is how much to rely on legal precedent and when to consider trying to overturn a precedent that even they might concede is flawed.
		It's really only Clarence Thomas, to an extent to Neil Gorsuch, but Neil Gorsuch lets her call had that Bostock case in 2020, which is a transgender case.
		He's a little wobbly on these issues.
		So it's really only Clarence Thomas who takes a truly, truly, truly principled stance on star decisis, where he basically says, if it's wrong, it's wrong, period, full stop, end of story.
		And sure enough, in Thomas's concurrence, in the Dobbs case, which overturned Roe versus Wade, he actually did call for the overturning of Obergefell.
		But he's the only justice on record who has actually directly done that.
		So I think probably at most of them, if I'm just being honest here, you probably have two of the nine justices at most, Thomas and Sam Alito, who are the two most conservative, who I think would agree to hear this in the first place.
		I think Neil Gorsuch would probably just prefer to duck this issue.
		Look, Amy Coney Barrett, I have no doubt that she thinks that Obergefell was wrongly decided, but I don't think she wants to get anywhere near this whatsoever.
		John Roberts, who actually, you know, Roberts was the main dissenter in Obergefell, the Chief Justice.
		Very powerful dissent, actually.
		Really, really, really strong stuff from the Chief Justice a decade ago in Obergefell.
		The thing about Roberts, he takes a very, very rigid view of starry decisis there.
		He basically says, if it was decided recently, there, I don't want to touch it again.
		That's kind of his MO.
		So I'm just not seeing the votes, to be honest with you.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You're saying they'll deny cert.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It won't even go to the Supreme Court.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		That is my guess.
		Now, if they grant cert, I think it would be limited to a very narrow First Amendment religious freedom question for Kim Davis as to whether she has some sort of dispensation or opt-out.
		I don't think they're going to actually touch the 14th Amendment ruling whatsoever there.
		But if I'm being very honest with you, my somewhat pessimistic guess is they probably don't grant certain any capacity.
		But if they do, I think it would be very limited to the Kim Davis dispensation question.
		Again, I hope I'm wrong.
		A cars and table here, I used to be of counsel at First Liberty.
		That's a religious liberty law firm there.
		I'm really kind of all in on this issue.
		I genuinely disagree with same-sex marriage, both as a policy and a constitutional matter.
		So I would love nothing more than to be wrong.
		I just don't see it happening.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I want to be a bit more optimistic, but I defer to you.
		I mean, you know more than I do on the patterns and the law and all these things.
		I'm hoping, I know I'm probably wrong to even hope because I think the Supreme Court, as it's made up right now, time and time again has shown us there are only two justices, justices of real courage and reason, and that's Alito and Thomas.
		And the rest of them, you know, I think if it, I feel like if it comes to the arguments on Obergefell, it wins.
		If they're actually going to go through the idea of marriage licenses, same-sex marriage, how the law should operate, I don't see how this stands.
		I feel like six to three makes the most sense.
		Maybe Amy Coney Barrett, she's squishy and scared inside's a liberal sometimes, but it really does feel like on the logic of the law.
		You know, my view largely is this.
		Liberals like to claim whenever you bring up the Supreme Court shouldn't be doing these universal changes to culture and law.
		Like Obergefell, they say, what about the Civil Rights Act?
		What about when they desegregate and did all these things?
		There was a law.
		Congress passes a law and the Supreme Court can then weigh its constitutionality.
		In this regard, there was no law passed.
		Most states today still have bans on same-sex marriage, but only due to that precedent are allowing it to occur.
		So I hear this and you're making me a little pessimistic.
		I am worried because maybe they just dodge the issue like cowards.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		So look, I think you're right that if the question were presented to the justice and they basically said, you know, ignore the fact that this case was decided 10 years ago, ignore what lawyers call reliance interests, ignore all that.
		Just actually rule on the literal 14th Amendment question.
		I think you're totally right.
		I think that there are six votes then to just put in a simple statement: O'Bergefell was wrongly decided as a matter of law.
		I have no doubt about that.
		My point is only that that's just not necessarily, unfortunately, in my view, that's not necessarily how these decisions are made.
		Yeah, a lot of the justices, you know, Amy Coney Barrett's a very good example.
		So, Barrett clerked for Justice Scalia.
		She's very much a Scalia acolyte.
		Scalia in his jurisprudence had this well-established multi-part bouncing test for star disis, basically when you go in there and when you overturn a flawed precedent.
		And a lot of these lawyers who put a very, you know, a firm emphasis on precedent and star disis put a high reliance on reliance interests, which basically means if there are people in the here and now that are relying on this ruling there, we are going to be very reluctant to overturn it.
		And I think the number of people here who have same-sex marriage licenses in America in the year 2025, I don't know the exact number, but I think it's maybe like around a million, two million, something like that.
		There, I mean, that's that is a non-negligible reliance interest.
		Now, in my view of star disis, that doesn't matter because if it's if it's matter, if it's wrong as a matter of law, it's wrong overturn it, period.
		Full stop end of story.
		To me, that's the only principled approach to take, frankly.
		But, you know, even for a lot of these right-of-center justices, that's just not necessarily the approach they take.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, it's a problem, though, in this country that the legislative branch is supposed to be handling these issues.
		And it's come down to a win the presidency and take the Supreme Court and build the structure you want.
		That seems to be what's happening.
		It's funny.
		The Supreme Court overturning Roe v.
		Wade was sound and principled, albeit some may disagree on certain issues.
		Fine.
		The issue with Obergefell is the Democrats and the liberals in this country could not get the legal power to create same-sex marriage as an institution.
		So they utilized brute force.
		If we do not have a Supreme Court body or a political apparatus on the right that is willing to say you can't do that and they will allow the use of brute force politics, we lose.
		And this country is, I mean, I'll put it this way.
		Many people describe it as Republicans don't fight back.
		Republicans don't use power.
		Conservatives don't use power.
		If every time the left, liberals, and Democrats use brute force, Republicans just say, well, it's wrong.
		So we won't, the left will win in the end.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		You're speaking my language.
		I've been preaching this for, you know, for 10, 15 years now.
		I mean, I mean, how many times have we seen Republicans, conservatives fight with one hand tied behind their back?
		I mean, maybe even two hands tied behind their back.
		I mean, this happens time and time and time again.
		One of my pet projects for the past 10, 15 years have been trying to overturn this when it comes specifically to the realm of courts and jurisprudence.
		I have my whole own theory actually on constitutional interpretation.
		I call it common good originalism, trying to kind of give a little more heft to conservative judges to feel a little more emboldened to rule in line with principles of natural law and biblical truth and things like that there.
		So I've really kind of thought this through and done the best that I can in my own capacity there.
		But unfortunately, you know, institutional realities kind of just, they kind of just are what they are, unfortunately, there.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Now, you know, I'll finish your thoughts.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I want to interrupt you.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		No, all I was going to say was the crazy thing is, and you're totally right on this because they did do it with Dobbs.
		They did do it in overturning Roe versus Wade 49 years after Roe versus Wade there.
		And, you know, going back to Roe versus Wade, you even had a lot of very famously pro-abortion people, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, actually, back when she was an ACLU lawyer.
		She famously said that Roe versus Wade went too far.
		They didn't allow the Democratic process to play out.
		You know, when O'Bergefell was decided in 2015, it was around 35 states that had some sort of ban on same-sex marriage in their states.
		So very similar.
		It's very similar to Roe versus Wade.
		The court dramatically oversteps there.
		It's a very similar type thing.
		But, you know, the whole LGBT cause has just achieved such cultural relevance and salience in modern American society and modern American culture there that I think a lot of people have been kind of cowed into obese and submission.
		They're just so afraid to challenge it from either a policy or a legal perspective.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Maybe.
		I mean, one point I've been making quite a bit, South Park comes back with a bang, mocking Donald Trump.
		And liberals came after me because I was upset with how they mocked Trump.
		Now, were they, was I upset that Trump was insulted?
		No.
		The issue is they didn't make fun of Trump right.
		They should have went harder on him over Epstein.
		They could have challenged the issue of tariffs.
		What did they do?
		They said he was gay.
		They said Donald Trump is a homosexual.
		That's why you should laugh at him.
		And I said, well, you know, okay, I guess.
		If the left is now cheering on South Park, I'm going to refrain from saying the word just for the purpose of, you know, reach, I guess.
		But the slur for homosexuals was used in that show several times as they mocked Trump for being a homosexual and liberals cheered for it.
		So my attitude was if the play that the Democrat and liberal side is making now, because I'm not saying Matt and Trey did this with South Park, but it's that, haha, Trump's gay, make fun of him for it.
		That is one of the biggest cultural victories the right has gotten in decades.
		If now South Park is telling liberals to say slurs for gay people and that being gay is funny and to be made fun of, culturally, we may be shifting on this one.
		And because the left in the liberal media apparatus has only existed to say whatever the right does is wrong, make fun of it.
		It created the perfect opportunity now.
		When Matt and Trey come out and call Trump gay, the left cheers it on.
		Okay, well, now the culture has shifted.
		Young kids are going to start dropping F-bombs again.
		And I mean the slur for gay people.
		And when O'Bergefeld does get overturned, it's going to be like, what did you expect?
		Liberals abandoned this because, so I actually, to what you were saying, I think you were right over the past 10 years, the pride stuff.
		I think it's rapidly collapsing, rapidly.
		Bud Light effect, man.
		Bud Light and Target took such a beating over this.
		I think we may see a big shift.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		No, and there's some polling that strongly supports what you're saying, actually.
		So I saw some polls either Galliber Pew or some major pollster that showed the Republican support for same-sex marriage was 55% in 2021, around the time that Biden started.
		In the year 2025, it's now down to 41%.
		So it's gone down quite a bit.
		You know, if you look at Gen Z church attendance, one of the most church attending religious generations over the past 100 years, American history.
		So there definitely are some serious signs here.
		And look, I think that O'Brien could be decided at some point.
		I'm just looking at the current six right of center injustices.
		I see Sam Alito, who has tremendous courage, tremendous conviction.
		I see Clarence Thomas, who has tremendous courage, tremendous conviction.
		I see John Roberts, who actually nailed this issue properly in 2015, but takes such a rigid view of Sardis Isis that I see pretty much no chance.
		And then I see Gorsage, Barrett, and Kavanaugh, who my best guess would be they'd rather just not touch this thing with a 20-foot pole.
		So that's kind of just how I see the breakdown.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		We need people who aren't cowards.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		That's why, you know, my argument is I know that Thomas and Alito probably need to retire very soon because we want to make sure that the replacements are going to be of the same caliber.
		I would say let's just Christians ignore this one time when we start cloning people, but we'll clone Clarence Thomas eight or nine times.
		He can stay on the bench with his eight clones or just have nine fresh clones take over the whole thing.
		He's the best.
		I think he's been absolutely fantastic.
		But we're at a time.
		So Josh, where can people find you?
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I appreciate it, Tim.
		So I'm on X, Josh underscore Hammer, Instagram's Josh B. Hammer, my show, The Josh Hammer Show.
		And then my book that came out in March is called Israel and Civilization, The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right on, man.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		We'll see you next time.
josh hammer ▲ ● ▼		See you next time.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Take care.
		That, of course, is Josh Hammer of the Article 3 Project and editor-at-large for Newsweek.
		Oh, man, he's bumming me out.
		He's bumming me out.
		I'm so excited that, okay, listen, I'm a liberal guy.
		And you know what?
		The one thing I want to add before we were going to send you on your way to go hang out with Russell, I don't care that much for gay.
		I don't care for or against gay marriage, right?
		It's like if you're gay and you want to get gay married or civil union or whatever, okay, fine, whatever.
		It's whatever you do in your home.
		Don't bring it in the schools.
		The argument the left made was: oh, but what if someone's gay married?
		They need to explain it to their students.
		No, you don't.
		You say, that's a private personal thing.
		It's not in the schools.
		Don't do it.
		But my issue with this is they passed law without the legislative branch.
		It is a violation of the democratic order they claim exists in this country and they purport to want.
		When you say, instead of passing laws and winning votes, we will mandate.
		I say that is authoritarianism.
		It is evil and must be reversed.
		I wish we had a strong SCOTUS that would do it.
		My friends, smash that like button.
		Share the show with everyone you know.
		I believe we've got Russell Brand getting ready to go live.
		He's not.
		Hey, they don't.
		Who do we have coming up?
		Let me see who we got in the old roster here.
		If they don't send me who's live, I don't know who we're supposed to do this raid for.
		I guess nobody.
		Is anybody there?
		What about V?
		I guess nobody.
		I don't know.
unidentified		I don't know who's live.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Nope.
		No idea.
		All right.
		Smash the like button.
		I guess we'll wrap it up there.
		You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
		We are going to be back tonight at 8 p.m. with Vince Dow at Timcast IRL.
		You don't want to miss it.
		And guys, join our Discord server.
		Community is everything.
		Our cafe is in the works.
		It is currently being built.
		It's just been, it's so hard to get these things done.
		It's crazy.
		I mean, it's bureaucracy.
		It's regulation.
		We want to make it so that you guys can come together.
		And as automation starts breaking things apart and people start trying to exist in this digital space, we have to be the counterrevolutionaries to the AI trend.
		By all means, AI is coming.
		Automation is coming.
		But we will preserve the bonds and create a culture that keeps humans together.
		All I can say right now is the Discord server exists.
		There are friends.
		People have gotten married.
		They have meetups.
		And that's what we want to create for you guys.
		So check us out at Timcast.com.
		Sign up.
		Thanks for hanging out.

▲