Tim Pool Daily Show - Trump Declares Antifa TERRORISTS, The Ultimate Test For The U.S. And Threat Of Civil War

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 23, 2025 - Tim Pool Daily Show

01:06:55

Trump Declares Antifa TERRORISTS, The Ultimate Test For The U.S. And Threat Of Civil War

Participants

Main voices

tim pool

50:04

will chamberlain

13:08

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Show episode speakers

Speaker	Time	Text
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Donald Trump has formally declared that Antifa is a terrorist organization, a domestic terrorist organization.
		He signed the executive order last night.
		And the implications for this country, well, it may be the most impactful move we have seen in 150 years.
		Trump is challenging those in this country at the highest levels to call him out, to fall in line or otherwise.
		I believe this is a true test for the United States, and I believe that there is a very real threat of civil war.
		Now, of course, I'm the guy who talks about it quite a bit, but I will caveat this with: I'm bringing this up only because I have, I think, like seven articles that have been Written in the past week or so detailing the either ongoing or soon-to-be civil war with The Hill stating, Charlie Kirk's assassination may be our Fort Sumter.
		Bit of a bold statement, but there's a reason why I think this is the ultimate test for the United States.
		Many people are wondering why Donald Trump hasn't gone and arrested, say, Hillary Clinton.
		Because Trump only has the authority he has through confidence in his position.
		That is to say, if people fear that his move would be outside of the norms of society, they will defy him.
		And the moment they do that, the emperor has no clothes.
		In order for Trump to enact his agenda, there has to be a slow and gradual process by which people get arrested.
		Charges are brought.
		Once it's become expected and normalized, then Trump can order individuals to make his arrests.
		To put it simply, if the first thing Trump did when he got in office was tell an FBI agent, go arrest Hillary Clinton, the agent would likely say, no, I quit.
		Then there would be a public display.
		The news reporting, FBI agents defy Donald Trump, refuse to adhere, and the narrative would be, and the confidence would be gone.
		People would say, don't follow Trump.
		But what if Trump waits a year?
		What if there's an assassination?
		What if he declares Antifa a terrorist organization?
		They respond with terror.
		He makes several arrests and then it becomes normalized.
		Then once you have people going out and making the arrests of certain political figures, then he says, here's the DOJ indictment on Hillary Clinton.
		Then it is just one extra degree for the individual to say, okay, Mr. President, make that arrest.
		But I'll break this down.
		I'm going to go through all the details that we have because there's a big story here.
		And I'll explain in detail what I mean by confidence in a system.
		And seriously, like how money works even relates to this.
		Before we get started, though, my friends, we've got some great sponsors.
		We've got Tax Network USA.
		Let me pull this one up for you guys.
		If you're stressed about back taxes, maybe you missed the April deadline, or your books are a mess, don't wait.
		The IRS is cracking down.
		Penalties add up fast, 5% per month, up to 25% just for not filing.
		But there's help.
		Tax Network USA can take the burden off your shoulders and stop the spiral before it gets worse.
		They've helped thousands of Americans, whether you're an employee, a small business owner, or haven't filed in years.
		Messy books, no problem.
		They've seen it all and know exactly how to clean it up.
		With direct access to powerful IRS programs and expert negotiators on your side, Tax Network USA shows, knows how to win.
		You'll get a free consultation, and if you qualify, they may even be able to reduce or eliminate what you owe.
		More importantly, they'll help protect you from wage garnishment or bank levy.
		So don't wait for the next IRS letter.
		Check out tnusa.com/slash Tim to talk to a real expert or call 1-800-9581000.
		Take the pressure off.
		Let Tax Network USA help you.
		But we've got another great sponsor, my friends.
		It is Beam Dream.
		Go to shopbeam.com/slash Timcast.
		Use promo code Timcast.
		Get a 35% off Beam Dream delicious, healthy, hot cocoa right before bed helps you sleep.
		I've been drinking this nonstop for like the past two months.
		My sleep has never been better.
		I got proof.
		I showed you guys last night my sleep score was 100.
		It was 96 last night.
		Hey, you can't get a 100 every single time, but no joke.
		So I have like one of those fancy mattresses, tracks your sleep, deep sleep.
		Your deep sleep in your REM is when your body is producing HGH and the hormones you need.
		For guys, that's testosterone.
		So you want to get good sleep.
		Now, Beam Dream's got melatonin, magnesium, alphenine.
		That's why I'm drinking it every single, every single night before bed.
	I didn't even realize my sleep could improve.
	I was doing like the high 80s, low 90s.
	Now I'm getting to like 96 to 100 all the time.
	It's amazing.
	Now, here's the thing.
	I used to wake up in the middle of the night and I would get merciless cramps.
	It was brutal, especially if I was working out the day.
	I didn't know why.
	Totally gone.
	And I think it was the magnesium.
	So this stuff is absolutely incredible.
	I have been, as I mentioned, drinking it every single night.
	I recommend you guys try it out if you need help sleeping.
	I didn't even know I could sleep better.
	Go to shopbeam.com/slash Timcast.
	I don't even need to read their script, Beam.
	You guys are awesome.
	Cinnamon cocoa flavor.
	I like the brownie batter.
	Cinnamon cocoa is my favorite, but I drank it all.
	So now I'm doing the brownie batter, but I put cinnamon in it.
	Anyway, check out Shop BAM.
	Let's get to the news here.
	We've got this from Politico.
	Trump issues promised terrorist organization designation for Antifa.
	The move paves the way for investigations into the radical left, which Trump blames for Charlie Kirk's death.
	They say the new order would require his administration to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle individuals and groups associating themselves with the anti-fascist ideology, Antifa, including against those who fund such operations.
	Now, here is the Donald J. Trump fact sheet.
	We can break this down.
	Designating Antifa as a domestic terrorist organization.
	Today, President Trump signed an order to designate Antifa as a domestic terror organization.
	The order notes that Antifa is a militarist anarchist enterprise that calls for the overthrow of the U.S. government, law enforcement authorities, and our system of law using illegal means, including violence and terrorism, to accomplish these goals.
	The order directs the federal government to investigate, disrupt, and dismantle all illegal operations conducted by Antifa or any person claiming to act on behalf of Antifa.
	It also calls for investigating, disrupting, and dismantling the funding sources behind such operations.
	Antifa engages in coordinated efforts to obstruct enforcement of federal laws with the goal of achieving policy objectives by coercion and intimidation.
	He states, Antifa has engaged in armed standoffs with law enforcement, organized riots, violently assaulted ICE and other law enforcement officers, and engages in routine doxing of political figures and activists threatening public safety.
	ICE officers are now facing a 1,000% increase in assaults against them.
	An Antifa affiliated group in Portland doxxed ICE officers, published their names, pictures, and personal addresses online.
	A journalist was violently assaulted by Antifa protesters while reporting on a protest in Portland.
	That's Andy No.
	Using pepper spray, baseball bats, and tasers.
	Antifa members violently attacked Trump supporters during a Patriot march in Pacific Beach, California.
	The go to mention restoring law and order, Trump statements, and otherwise.
	Now, the question is, what is Antifa?
	Let me just give you the simple version.
	Antifa does not simply mean anti-fascist.
	That is the manipulation and the lie.
	You'll notice this is why people like Hassan Piker and other liberals are not saying they swear to Antifa.
	Hassan Piker has a video where he says, I am an anti-fascist.
	Antifascist is a generic term that just means you oppose fascism to some degree.
	It does typically mean you align in a certain way with some groups.
	We get that, but it's generic.
	Antifa is a proper noun referencing the World War II era communist anti-fascist action, or Antifa for short, that fought physically against the Nazis.
	Now, by all means, we don't like Nazis, but Antifa was the militant wing of the Communist Party.
	So they get no special considerations either.
	In the United States, Antifa is a symbol and a decentralized group that does have leaders.
	The strategy of the left largely is to obfuscate who those leaders are so that it becomes difficult for law enforcement.
	Antifa individuals will wear all black and masks, making it difficult for law enforcement to prosecute.
	In the event an Antifa associate engages in a criminal behavior and is arrested, the goal is during the criminal trial, the prosecutor will say, this man did it.
	The officer will say, that man did it.
	And the defense will say to the officer, what was he wearing?
	He was wearing all black.
	Indeed, how many others were wearing all black?
	I don't know.
	Several hundred.
	And the defense can then look to the jury and say, so do you not find reasonable doubt?
	How could the officer know he grabbed the right guy if everyone looks the exact same?
	And the jury goes, that's reasonable doubt.
	And they'll say, my client didn't do it.
	Now they're lying because they're evil.
	But that's the game they play.
	They exploit our laws and find loopholes to destroy our system.
	Why?
	They exist outside of it.
	The system we have in this country exists for those who believe in it and are willing to play fair.
	These people are not.
	The ADL, the Anti-Defamation League, how do they define what Antifa is?
	A decentralized leaderless movement composed of loose collections of groups, networks, and individuals.
	False.
	There are leaders.
	I have been at these meetings.
	I was at Occupy Wall Street.
	I was at the subsequent far-left black block Antifa protests from probably 2011 until maybe 2018, 2019 maybe?
	2018 or so.
	I think Berkeley and Portland were some of the last ones I went to.
	I have seen their meetings.
	I know their strategies and I know how they plan these things.
	They have something called the diversity of tactics.
	They ask normal liberals to come join the rally and respect the diversity of tactics.
	That means if people are violent, don't interfere.
	The people in the far left wear all black intentionally.
	It's called the black block tactic.
	They do this so that, as I already mentioned, it's difficult to prosecute.
	They also do it so that individuals can de-arrest, attack cops, and it's hard to figure out who did it.
	But they have leaders.
	At all of these meetings, someone is in charge.
	They're lying when they say it's leaderless.
	The reason they want to convey that idea is they want to make it difficult for a law enforcement to figure out who's organizing and setting these things up.
	But of course, somebody chose a date.
	Somebody made the flyer.
	Someone told people where to be.
	Now, often they'll say it's a collection of individuals who have volunteered up those services, and sometimes that is true.
	But when you go into these direct action meetings, they call them, there are people standing up and there are people sitting down.
	And the people standing up are the leaders who are in charge.
	We call them the tourists.
	That's what we called them back in the day.
	Because you'd see the exact same people at every single different event.
	Why, you'd be in Portland at an Antifa cell with a unique name, but there was the same guy that you saw in New York or Texas or Long Beach or Chicago.
	Weird how that works.
	They explained this to us explicitly.
	During Occupy Wall Street, these people, the facilitators, they called themselves, explained, if you have a visible leader, the federal government will frame them, character assassinate, or arrest.
	Therefore, they make sure they appear leaderless.
	But of course, leaderless is an impossibility.
	There has to be someone buying tools, building shields, handing out weapons, telling people where to go.
	Not all of it.
	Sometimes it's a cult.
	They just know what to do and how to do it.
	That is, they show up without any explicit leadership telling them to show up, but someone made the flyers.
	Someone planned the dates.
	Someone told them how to behave.
	What's really happening is the leaders are limiting communication to obfuscate leadership and bypass law enforcement.
	Now, here's where I say comes the ultimate test.
	First, Google's guidelines on violent criminal organizations.
	The president has now stated that Antifa, which has a logo, some of these organizations, some of these cells sell merch.
	They're terrorists.
	YouTube says they'll ban you.
	You can't praise it.
	You can't post it.
	You can't memorialize.
	You can't even produce it if you are a far-left Antifa guy.
	The question now.
	Will YouTube start banning and removing this content?
	Let me continue.
	Here's X. There's no place on X for violent or hateful entities, including, but unlimited to, terrorist organization, violent extremist groups.
	I'm pretty sure Elon Musk has asserted something to this effect as it pertains to Antifa.
	Let me just double check, actually.
	I didn't look this up.
	Let's see what he said about Antifa.
	Let's see.
	Elon Musk.
	Oh, interesting.
	There's a couple of them, actually.
	Let's pull these up.
	Let's see what I find.
	Elon Musk reposted at Data Republican, Alliance for Global Justice is basically one giant Rico-like structure for Antifa.
	If anyone is in the administration that's listening, start there.
	Elon Musk reposted Charlie Kirk killer active in Antifa.
	I haven't looked through all of Elon Musk's X posts, but I'm sure he said something to that effect.
	The question is, will X start taking down these Antifa-aligned profiles and posts?
	Meta.
	Meta says the same thing.
	They don't allow terrorist organizations, so they also ban them.
	TikTok, the same thing.
	Violent extremist entities are not allowed on the platform.
unidentified		Now, to the question.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Will these big tech platforms see what Donald Trump has ordered and apply it to their existing rules structure?
		The move that Donald Trump made in designating Antifa a terror organization formally is one of the most dangerous things he can do right now.
		And it is Trump's gambit that they will treat it seriously.
		And if they don't, he's going to lose bigly.
		But I'll explain why.
		In the opening to this portion of the show, I pointed out, everything is built on confidence.
		Many people want Trump to go and arrest Hillary Clinton or Schiff and these other Democrats.
		He hasn't.
		Pam hasn't.
		Here's why.
		If the first thing Donald Trump did was instruct the arrest or criminal investigation of someone like Hillary Clinton, they would defy him.
		And when they did, the message would be clear and the narrative set.
		Trump is not in control.
		What would likely happen is that that is too far beyond the norms of what one expects with an administration or a U.S. government.
		So you likely would get some law enforcement people being like, look, I don't want to be involved in this.
		And whether it was a resignation or outright defiance, the media would report the FBI is refusing to carry out Trump's orders.
		They've done things like this in the past.
		Don't get me wrong.
		Trump wants to make sure when he makes these moves, they are made with the confidence of the people around him.
		Money, for instance, what is it?
		It's confidence.
		Government is simply confidence.
		We all agree the government has the power.
		But what happens when people don't agree the government has the power?
		Then they don't.
		I've made this point before about what happens when people find law enforcement to be illegitimate.
		Let's just, I tell people to imagine it like this.
		This is what I said a couple years ago under Biden, the things he was doing.
		He was really putting this to the test.
		Let's say that a man knocks on your door in a clown costume.
		And you say, who is it?
		And he goes, clown enforcement.
		You'd say, okay, I don't know.
		You leave.
		And they say, I have a warrant to search your property.
		You'd say, I'm not opening the door for a guy in a clown costume.
		You're not a cop.
		Well, why not?
		He's showing you a warrant.
		He says he's clown law enforcement.
		Now, I use clown as an example because it's easy.
		You get it.
		There's no clown law enforcement.
		What happens when a federal law enforcement guy shows up to your house and the same way you felt about the clown, you feel about him?
		He knocks on the door and says, open up, I've got a warrant.
		Say, who are you?
		And he goes, federal law enforcement.
		Say, I don't care.
		I don't recognize your authority.
		You may as well be a clown.
		That is what happens to a country when there is no confidence in that law enforcement endeavor.
		People will say, you can't do this.
		You have no right.
		Trump's move on Antifa has just opened the door in that regard.
		Are they terrorists?
		That means a lot.
		That means these social media platforms must immediately begin to remove people who memorialize, advocate for, defend, support, or claim to be a part of Antifa.
		What if they don't?
		If the collective social media infrastructure of this country tells Trump your order does not mean anything, that's big.
		Now, what happens there, I don't know, but it basically says that big tech infrastructure has no fear of government reprisal for defying Trump's orders.
		They don't take his order seriously, and they will not apply Trump's actions to their policies.
		They would be telling the federal government they will allow terrorists to organize and propagandize and recruit on their platforms.
		That is a bold undertaking.
		I'm not convinced.
	These social media platforms will actually start removing Antifa.
	It's a powerful test for Trump's authority.
	Now, Trump may begin targeting these groups and arresting them, and then big tech may fall in line.
	But one big story we've seen already is that Google is now admitting, this just broke earlier, the Biden admin forced them to censor conservatives.
	Are they going to have similar fears of Donald Trump?
	If Donald Trump says it's a terror organization and YouTube, for instance, says, don't know, don't care, we're going to allow it, think about what that means as to how they perceive the authority of the Biden administration and the authority of the Trump administration.
	They outright said Biden forced us to censor people.
	If Trump says this and they say no, they're basically saying Trump's trying, but we do not fear the Trump administration at all.
	There will be no enforcement.
	So, what do you guys think?
	Comment, I genuinely mean it.
	Do you believe that law enforcement, local, federal, state, and infrastructure will begin to actually treat Antifa like terrorists?
	Let's put it like this.
	What would happen if a group of men with guns in an open carry state, I'm not doing anything illegal, were flying the ISIS flag and running through the streets with masks on and black hoods, camo, guns, flying the ISIS flag?
	What do you think would happen?
	Yeah, they're going to get arrested.
	They're going to get stopped.
	There's going to be panic.
	Will this country react the same way to Antifa?
	I don't think so.
	I don't think so.
	So we'll see how this plays out.
	But the question then remains: civil war.
	If the infrastructure in this country tells Donald Trump his authority is nil, what does that mean for the confidence in the existence of this system?
	Who do you follow and who do you adhere to?
	If the National Guard defies Trump's orders and sides with Gavin Newsom, I don't know that we're there yet, but the fight is actually happening in the courts.
	If local law enforcement says we are not going to charge people with terrorists for being far leftists, if in any way our infrastructure continues to bifurcate, now we don't know that it has at this level just yet, then you're going to have leftists saying, Trump is illegitimate.
	I'm safe where I live.
	You have the hallmarks of civil war.
	The Hill writes, Charlie Kirk's murder could become another Fort Sumter.
	They say, the column raises and answers three questions crucial to America's political future.
	First, what are the consequences intended and otherwise of the blatant murder of Charlie Kirk?
	Second, is the far right or far left more responsible for political violence and murder in the U.S.?
	Third, suppose Kirk were a Democrat with similar influence as he had with the GOP, how might Republicans have reacted to his murder?
	If a right-wing guy shot and killed Hassan Piker at a university, the right would condemn it in two seconds.
	There would be mass riots.
	But the right would be saying it was wrong.
	How do I know this?
	When George Floyd died, even Ben Shapiro said it was wrong.
	Ben Shapiro being, of course, one of the most prominent conservative personalities.
	They want to say the repercussions of the slaying of Turning Point CEO and rising MAGA star Charlie Kirk will fester for a while.
	On the one hand, over time, they could dissipate.
	On the other, this could be a 21st century equivalent of the firing on Fort Sumter.
	In that case, it occurs.
	In that case, if it occurs, it will not be two armies marching to battle.
	It'll be far more complicated politically, socially, and culturally.
	Already, Trump is using Kirk's killing a bludgeon with which to strike at the left and Democrats holding both responsible for his death.
	Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has gone so far as to call the Democratic Party extremist, implying it was a terrorist organization.
	Trump has also declared Antifa a domestic terrorist organization, something that the law does not allow him to do, and that he has nothing, and he has no standing to do.
	They're going to mention, for example, Timothy McVeigh, who killed hundreds in the Oklahoma City bombing, was convicted of murder, not domestic terrorism, which is not an actual basis for a criminal charge.
	That is false.
	There are many terroristic charges that have existed since then, especially after 9-11.
	Take a look at Illinois.
	How this plays out remains to be seen.
	They want to say regarding right and left-wing extremists using political violence over the last 50 years, excluding September 11th, a Cato Institute study shows the right-wing was responsible for 391 inspired murders, the left 65.
	Despite the stats, Trump continues to assert the left-wing extremism is responsible not only for Kirk's murder, but for most of the politically inspired violence in this country.
	Now let's pause and break this down.
	The Cato Institute used prison violence.
	Stupid.
	It incorporates overt white supremacists into the conservative movement.
	Literally makes no sense.
	But more importantly, murder isn't the only factor.
	As it pertains to all political violence, Antifa goes around beating people.
	Andy No didn't die.
	They don't count that as a political murder.
	More importantly, as Stephen Crowder pointed out, shout out to the Mug Club, the assassination, well, I just should say the murder of Aaron Danielson was not considered leftist extremism, despite the man being an overt communist who said, we got a Trump supporter over here and then shot him twice in the chest.
unidentified		So that study is BS.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		They go to say denying that right-wing extremism is more dangerous than left-wing extremism, as is the essence, as this in essence is a critique of MAGABASE, is to dismiss the truth to attack the so-called enemy.
		This argument makes literally no sense and does not apply.
		It doesn't matter to me or to the function of this who is more responsible.
		All that matters is there are two factions who believe the other side is evil.
		The insertion into this article about Fort Sumter is meaningless.
		What about Kirk's alleged murderer, Tylen Robinson?
		They go on to then blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.
		The real question is whether Kirk's death will have a lasting impact like George Floyd led to violent incidents that occurred over the ensuing weeks.
		My fear is that Kirk's killing could lead to the kind of violence that took place during the BLM protest, but on steroids, I hope I'm wrong.
		It won't be the right.
		It'll be the left.
		Already, you know, it was like right after George Floyd died, this happened.
		Nothing's happened.
		The right's not rioting.
		They held a vigil.
		Erica Kirk said she forgave the killer.
		From Compact Mag, Charlie Kirk and the New Civil War.
		From U.S. Kerry.
		This is five days before Charlie Kirk's assassination.
		Will there be another civil war in America?
		From the Center for Strategic International Studies, is the U.S. headed towards a civil war?
		From KPBS 65, San Diego political expert details steps that could lead U.S. to civil war.
		And then this.
		Anti-Trump shooter targeted Kash Patel and Pam Bondi.
		DOJ says they're next.
		I'm sorry, DOJ says, quote, they're next.
		DOJ wasn't threatening them.
		They were pointing out that the shooter had this message.
		He was an anti-Trumper.
		There's so much more.
		Let me see if I can pull this one up.
		Scott Jennings forwards Keith Oberman threat to FBI after former MSNBC host warns he's next.
		That's right.
		Keith Olberman outright said, you're next, mother effer, but keep mugging to the camera.
		He deleted these posts and then reposted something saying your career is next.
		We know what Keith Hoberman meant.
		We're not playing these games.
		After the death of Charlie Kirk, all of these accounts across social media were posting your next Tim Poole, as well as many other prominent conservatives I will leave unnamed because I don't want to draw more attention to those who are already receiving death threats.
		Keith Oberman was simply tweeting what liberals have been tweeting at me and many others.
		So there is no reality where your next mother effer implies, I meant you'd lose your job.
		Why?
		Did a prominent conservative lose their job?
		How would he be next if there's not a first?
		Unless he's talking about the murder of Charlie Kirk.
		And that's what he was talking about.
		I think it's an absurdity to assume otherwise.
		So therein lies that question.
		Could there be a civil war in this country?
		Yes.
		It's a really interesting AI photo they have of guys with red hats and guns and people in Antifa gear with guns pointing away from each other.
		I don't know that it will happen.
		I don't know that we will actually see a civil war or anything like that, but let me just stress right now, Nexstar has announced that they are joining Sinclair and they will refuse to air Jimmy Kimmel tonight.
		Jimmy Kimmel has done nothing to justify being returned.
		The affiliates are still saying no.
		Advertisers haven't said a peep.
		So why did they bring Jimmy Kimmel back if the affiliates are still saying no?
		Did Jimmy Kimmel offer to do the show for free?
		Maybe, but there's no evidence suggesting that.
		Or could it be the terror attacks, the terror attack and the terror threats?
		One of the purported reasons, according to the Wall Street Journal, that they pulled this show was threats the studio received.
		And then a man, a leftist, anti-Trump, shot up an ABC affiliate, and several other affiliates received terroristic threats.
		It was so bad Sinclair had to pull the Charlie Kirk memorial.
		Interesting.
		But Sinclair and Nexstar say they still will not air Jimmy Kimmel's show.
	We're in an impasse.
	I think the reality is that they're bringing back Jimmy Kimmel's show because of the terror threats.
	Trump has designated Antifa a terrorist organization.
	This means these people that Andy No has reported on who are threatening right now to kill him.
	In this video, an Antifa-aligned individual shoots photos of Andy No and Charlie Kirk.
	This individual should be investigated.
	And I believe that Andy has already compiled more than enough evidence indicating he is a terrorist.
	He has engaged in crimes and should be arrested.
	The ultimate question in all of this, the test for the United States.
	Will the infrastructure of this country, the businesses, fall in line behind Trump the same way they did behind Democrats?
	I'm not so convinced.
	Look at ABC.
	They are more terrified of leftist terror threats than the Trump administration.
	Trump didn't even threaten anything.
	But during the Biden admin, we already know this.
	Google admitted it.
	The Biden admin made them censor people.
	They were terrified.
	Okay.
	Will Google now start banning leftist accounts that are pro-Antifa?
	I bet you they won't.
	Because what they really fear is clear.
	Terrorism from the far left is a greater threat than Trump's law enforcement.
	And so long as that remains the case, they will defy Trump.
	The far-left extremists will use that infrastructure to their benefit to organize.
	Trump must crush this.
	Legal law enforcement.
	I'm going to wrap it up there.
	Stay tuned.
	Smash the like button.
	Share the show with everyone you know.
	We have an interview coming up discussing the legal implications of this story as well as what happens in this country next.
	That'll be at 4 p.m. at rumble.com slash theculture war or youtube.com slash Timcast.
	Thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you all in the next segment.
	And now on to the interview portion.
	I'll be joined by Will Chamberlain.
	I believe we have Will lined up just a moment to talk about the legal implications.
	But first, we'll get started here.
	From the post-millennial, Google admits Biden admin pressured them to censor YouTubers and will reinstate banned accounts.
	This is shocking.
	Jim Jordan said that's not all.
	He says, YouTube admits the Biden admin censorship pressure was unacceptable and wrong.
	Confirms the Biden admin wanted Americans censored for speech that did not violate their policies.
	They detail when YouTube began rolling back its censorship policies on political speech after the judiciary begins investigation.
	States that public debates should never come at the expense of relying on authorities.
	Promises to never use third-party fact checkers.
	Warns that Europe censorship laws target American companies and threaten American speech.
	Now, I have questions, serious questions about where this goes.
	Will these companies adhere to Trump's authority?
	Well, right now they're terrified of Jim Jordan and the House Judiciary Committee.
	So it seems like they will.
	But Trump just declared Antifa a terrorist organization.
	And the question is, will they fall in line?
	I'm curious about the legal matters.
	So we brought in a lawyer.
	We'll be joined by Will Chamberlain.
unidentified		Let's bring him in now.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And let's see if we get this working.
		It looks like it may be working.
		Audio seems good.
		Let's just start it up, make sure everything is, usually we have some audio issues.
		Will, can you hear me?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I can hear you just fine.
unidentified		All right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, how's it going, brother?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I'm good, man.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		How you been?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		All things considered, as good as I can be.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		So we decided to bring in a lawyer because I got a bunch of questions, not just on the legal ramifications of Trump's Antifa terrorist designation or what we just discovered about what Google was doing in censorship, but also the cultural elements of what happens to a country when confidence is broken.
		But we'll just start at the beginning.
		Trump has designated Antifa a domestic terror organization through an executive order.
		Now, there's a report out from the Hill claiming he has no legal authority to do so and it's meaningless.
		Is that true?
		What is this?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I mean, meaningless is a little bit strong, but there isn't a statute that sets out a category of domestic terrorist organization.
		As far as I know, that means that the designation would have some profound legal implication.
		However, the rest of the executive order does immediately direct the Department of Justice and all related agencies to start going after Antifa then and prosecuting them under existing law.
		So I think the idea that saying the entire executive order is toothless is wrong, but the idea that saying that there is actually some current legal import to identifying them as a domestic terrorist organization, I think that's correct.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I think actually then that would imply the executive order is actually quite toothful.
		If there's no legal distinction, then it is only what Trump asserts it to be.
		A terrorist organization.
unidentified		Right.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		And I mean, Trump can just say somebody's a domestic terrorist organization.
		He can demand that executive branch officials refer to it as a domestic terrorist organization, treat it with the seriousness of any other terrorist organization.
		Remember, he's the guy whose responsibility is to take care that the laws are faithfully executed.
		He is in charge of the Department of Justice.
		He's in charge of the Department of Homeland Security.
		So when an executive order comes out, essentially it's not the fact that they were semantically defined as a domestic terrorist organization.
		It's the fact that President Trump is saying you need to prioritize these people and stop their criminality.
		And that's a high priority number one.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But there are serious cultural elements here.
		So I was just talking about the big tech platforms all have rules banning terrorist organizations.
		The obvious question is who defines what a terrorist organization is?
		Because they're not saying foreign.
		This would apply to American organizations as well.
		So this is the question that I've been asking.
		First, I'll ask you your opinion.
		Do you think the big tech platforms are actually going to treat these Antifa accounts like terrorists and ban them?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I think Elon Musk's ex probably will.
		I wouldn't bet on anybody else doing it.
		I assume that there's this sort of lingering meme among the left that Antifa isn't really an organization because it's so decentralized, which is very cute, but false.
		A loose organization and they're trying to have this very cramped definition of what constitutes an organization to be somebody with like a supreme leader who runs the organization like a CEO and has authority over all its subordinates.
		Organizations can be much more loose and decentralized than that and still be organizations.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I can speak from experience.
		I know Andy knows probably the expert on this one, but there are leaders.
		It's actually quite simple.
		Who prints the flyers?
		Who picks the time?
		Who tells people where to stand?
		And I've personally met these people at these meetings.
		They exist.
		They lie.
		And these NGOs, these nonprofits lie as well, claiming it's leaderless because they want to make it difficult for law enforcement to track down who's actually responsible for funding and organizing all this stuff.
		But I'm curious, where does this go?
		I mean, I don't know that Trump actually needed to designate them terrorist organizations for any law enforcement function.
		He could have just told Pam Bon to start going after these groups.
		Does this grant him any kind of special RICO powers or preempt anything?
		Like, what's the point of doing it?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I mean, I think it's to I think there's a symbolic nature of the executive order to say that, you know, he's, this is formally recognized by the executive branch as a terrorist organization.
		I think there's value independent of everything else to that.
		But it is still symbolic.
		It doesn't create some new statutory right or statute.
		It doesn't create some statutory right for the government to go after people that it didn't already have.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But we do have laws on the books specifically targeting acts of terror.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, we do.
		We also have acts of, we have laws in the books about foreign terrorist organizations too.
		I think that the real interesting next move is whether President Trump's going to be able to designate Antifa as a foreign terrorist organization.
		I know they're looking into it.
		Wow.
		And that actually does have meaningful legal import because there are federal crimes against material support for a foreign terrorist organization, for example.
		And then there are travel bans.
		And there are a number of ramifications and consequences that can result when an organization is designated as an FTO.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, there's prominently Antifa Germany.
		The Netherlands is considering also naming Antifa as a terrorist organization.
		What would stop them from saying this is a foreign terrorist organization?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		It's not clear.
		I mean, again, this is one of those situations where you have a whole bunch of left-leaning journalists saying, oh, of course, this couldn't be done.
		It's impossible because Antifa is some decentralized grouping of ragtag bums down the street or something, as opposed to an actual organization of people that cause riot and mayhem all over the world.
		We just saw it actually in Italy, a huge Antifa riots against the fact because the Italian government didn't recognize the state of Palestine.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		And Paris as well.
		Just the other day, Nick Shirley posted this crazy video of people saying they were Antifa.
		They are aligning under a singular banner.
		You know what?
		My guess would be is that the Trump administration probably knows they could issue a declaration as an FTO right away.
		I bet they want to get some financial ties first so that when some lib or tries to make the argument that just because they use the same symbols and then the Trump admin can say, actually look at this exchange of finances and communications or something like that.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah.
		And I think they probably want to make the findings as robust as possible to insulate them from court challenge, right?
		If the state department does it on its own, then you have a question of whether there's an opportunity, 30 days to challenge the designation and say, you know, it's not a foreign organization.
		It's not an organization at all and potentially get it removed from the list.
		So I think they're, you know, whereas Trump making this symbolic declaration now is just, he's just saying it, actually, you know, getting the foreign terrorist organization designation done and making it stick, they probably want to have as solid a legal footing for that as possible.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I actually think this is one of the riskiest things that Trump has done.
		I was talking about this on IRL last night that you had explained to me back in 2021 with Texas v. Pennsylvania.
		You had said, you can elaborate this because I don't want to put words in your mouth and it was your idea.
		But the reason why I asked why the Supreme Court would not take up this lawsuit between Texas and Pennsylvania, only Thomas and Alita would.
		And you said a simple version, Supreme Court doesn't want people to realize it has no enforcement power.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yes.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Just basically explain that better than I can.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I forget the facts of the Texas v. Pennsylvania case, so it's hard for me to remember exactly what was going on, what I said that in reference to.
		But I can't explain the concept is that, you know, the federal rules papers explain that the judiciary was created as the weakest branch of government and it totally relies on its legitimacy and its judgment and it relies on the other branches of government to enforce its rulings.
		And if it's seen as illegitimate or if it's made to be responsible for continuous supervision of somebody, then it doesn't want to do those things.
		I guess in the Antifa context, I mean, you could see them try.
		I mean, I don't think that necessarily comes into play too much.
		It will come into play on the foreign terrorist organization designation if that came, but I don't see them, you know, there's no cause of action.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The constant.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		You're mad.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The reason I bring up the concept, it's not so much that I'm saying the Supreme Court will have to issue a ruling, but I'm bringing up the issue of confidence.
		The Supreme Court fears that if people realize they can't enforce certain actions, people will start to disregard many of their rulings because what are you going to do about it?
		And so the idea is that the Supreme Court tries to issue rulings that they know people will socially agree to without being so egregious it requires physical enforcement.
		That's the general understanding, I believe, right?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Kind of.
		I think it's that they don't want to go too far outside the bounds of the Overton window with any of their rulings to the point that it threatens their legitimacy.
		I think that's true.
		And they certainly don't want to do things that require kind of continuous oversight.
		You're seeing a major retreat from things like consent decrees where a local jurisdiction and maybe the Department of Justice will sign some settlement requiring the DOJ or not the DOJ rather, but requiring judicial oversight of the local policies of that police department.
		This was really common in the past.
		But the Supreme Court doesn't really like these.
		And the reason being is it kind of it puts the judge in a position where they're doing this almost executive function of continuing to continuing to monitor whether somebody is complying with a law.
		That's a classic executive branch function and not a judicial function.
		So they want to be in the business of judging.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The reason I bring this up is that my view on this is that under the Biden administration, we're now learning, like we knew this, but we're now learning this with Jim Jordan just putting out this post.
		The Biden administration, Democrats, pressured Google to censor people who broke no rules.
		And the political climate was such that Google was scared of the executive branch and complied and began censoring people.
		My view now is with all of these platforms having these rules against terrorism and supporting terrorism and memorializing or in any way, like Google's actually pretty explicit about even saying nice things about him as bannable, is removable.
		With Trump formally declaring as an executive order that they're terrorists, this is a public confidence challenge.
		If YouTube, X, Meta, TikTok, et cetera, do not now act as though Trump's word matters, there are going to be people who say Trump is illegitimate and big tech platforms don't even follow the executive branch's designation of terrorism.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Okay, so the argument, therefore, is that Trump shouldn't have done this because it makes him potentially reckless.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Is that the argument?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I'm saying it's a risky move by Trump.
		And if YouTube, for instance, declares the Biden administration yelled at us, so we banned innocent people.
		The Trump administration made a formal declaration of a criminal extremist terrorist group.
		We don't care what he thinks.
		We are not banning these people.
		It shows a clear distinction in what they fear and what they don't.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Sure.
		But then I guess I wouldn't say that it's risky on the part of the Trump administration.
		If anything, then it's just revealing, right?
		It's revealing the extent to which these platforms are essentially in the pocket of the left.
		And they, you know, regardless of whether the president of the United States says some organization that's clearly rioting all over the country, launching violence everywhere, though they're not a terrorist organization, but we were going to take the word of the Biden administration about every scientist who was saying anything about COVID.
		Well, it's clear who you're in the pocket of.
		So I don't think it's risky for Trump so much as it's revealing of what these tech companies will do.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I believe the risk is that it shows these companies don't fear Trump's enforcement capabilities.
		They don't take it seriously and there's no real threat.
		And then from that, you have a fracturing of confidence in who actually has legitimate power in the United States.
		If Trump's executive branch cannot treat terrorist organizations as terrorist organizations and he's told it's illegitimate, it starts to fracture the view of who has actual authority in this country.
		I think Trump needs to be able to say terrorists are terrorists and he'll be treated as terrorists.
		But the big tech companies, it's the majority of how we consume information and how our society builds confidence in who they actually fear.
		The way to describe it is, if Trump says he's going to arrest somebody, but no one actually thinks he'll ever win in court, they'd ignore it.
		Take a look at California.
		When Trump says we're going to start rounding up illegal immigrants, the government of California doesn't enforce the law and allows the far left to engage in violence against Trump.
		There is a fracturing of confidence in, I'll put it this way.
		The way it needs to be is that there's a monopoly on violence from the superior authority of this country.
		If Antifa feels that they can firebomb a federal police, a federal law enforcement facility and the state of California will safely provide a safe harbor, they will keep doing it.
		And then people in that state will recognize, I don't have to listen to Trump or I shouldn't listen to Trump because the true monopoly on violence comes from the state of California.
		And that's when you start getting these civil war distinctions.
		But I don't know, maybe I'm crazy, right?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I mean, I think what you're saying is, and what you're right about is this, this will end up in a test of the will of the Trump administration, whether they have the will to enforce the law and to put down these sort of quiet, low-key, quote-unquote, rebellions.
		That, you know, essentially the, I mean, California is already starting to do stuff like this.
		You know, they passed a law purporting to regulate whether or not federal agents could wear face masks in their states, which they don't have authority to do.
		It's completely frivolous.
		They have no authority to tell federal agents how to do their jobs.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But the cracks are...
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Go ahead, go ahead.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		So, yeah, I mean, the only point being that if the Trump administration has the will to enforce the law to push forward with this, I mean, the Supreme Court's going with Trump and the Trump administration on basically everything, right?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		They're on a record-winning streak at the Supreme Court.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		But these are the cracks forming, right?
		You made a really good point with Newsome.
		He had that press conference the other day where he says federal agents can't wear masks.
		And again, he has no authority over this federal law enforcement, but he's trying to assert it.
		There's currently an ongoing battle as to who has the authority over the National Guard in California.
		I think right now the latest was a stay so that Trump does retain control, but it's gone back and forth so many times.
		I don't actually know where we're at right now.
		And think about it this way.
		Trump has said formally by executive order, they are terrorists.
		If YouTube allows them on the platform, they will be making money.
		This is massive.
		I mean, if you have Antifa-aligned group flying the flag of Antifa, asserting they are Antifa in California and using money earned from social media platforms that refuse to remove them, and that money then goes towards their terrorist activities as viewed by the Trump administration, I think we're in a very dangerous situation.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think this will end up, this is where I really need that foreign terrorist organization designation because that will prohibit this, right?
		For example, I mean, if you place them under sanctions, it's the same reason that members of the Russian government can't have blue checks on X because X is a United States company.
		There are sanctions on Russia, so there can't be any financial relationship between the United States and entities associated with the Russian government.
		Same thing will start applying here.
		If we get that designation, every blue check will have to go away.
		And it's not clear that X will be allowed to even host their accounts if they're a foreign terrorist organization in particular.
		So I think that I really want the administration to go further here.
		They should be designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
		The organization was founded in Europe.
		It is not an American organization as such.
		It's a global organization and we should cite it as such.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I mean, there's videos of them right now in foreign countries.
		And these people do communicate.
		I traveled all over the world.
		And my other journalists, and I would call these people the tourists, a group of activists that somehow ended up all over the country and even in China and Turkey and France and Germany.
		The same people, the same organizing meetings, because these are people, some might call them globalist, or they believe in border, no borders, one world, whatever you want to call it.
		They're communist.
		They want total domination.
		These are leaders.
		They're active.
		I suppose what I'm seeing now then, what we can look at, Trump's designation is not a legal distinction.
		It is just him saying it.
		The FTO would be that legal distinction.
		So it sounds like Trump may be poking at the confidence of this country to see, will these other companies, not just big tech, but will companies actually fall in line with what he declares?
		Or are they going to say, we won't move unless we have to?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think that's actually an interesting way of looking at what Trump is doing.
		It's sort of testing the waters and seeing the extent to how far does his power reach?
		What are these companies willing to do in the face of the president of the United States saying that's a terrorist organization?
		We're dedicating federal resources to fight them.
		And I'm not sure how the, I'm not sure how the tech companies respond, will respond, but I think you're, I think you're right that it's, and Trump does this sort of stuff.
		He loves throwing out tests and rhetorical traps for people.
		Like, just he throws stuff out there to see what comes back.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Like the Pam Bondi thing, right?
		Where he posted on truth saying, Pam, go and arrest these people.
		Why are we waiting?
		Then deletes it.
		I think it's a trial.
		He wants to see what the reaction is going to be.
		The point I was making at the beginning of this show earlier was that if the first thing Trump did when he got into office was instruct FBI agents to go arrest Hillary, I bet they'd say no.
		They'd say, I'm not, this is crazy, because Trump is trying to jump out of the Overton window.
		The expectation of this is too great.
		So he needs to build the pressure and slowly move in that direction.
		That's why I think we're seeing like Letitia James facing prosecution over the mortgage thing.
		It's rather light.
		Once it becomes more accepted and commonplace that these people will be charged and arrested, and they have been, it won't be a great leap for a rank and file FBI guy to be like, okay, I'll go arrest Hillary.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I could see that.
		I think, you know, he's also trying to find one of the things, the DOJ is conscious of this.
		They're trying to select cases that they're going to win on to bring to the Supreme Court.
		There's been a lot more injunctions against the DOJ than cases they've actually brought to the Supreme Court's attention.
		And so they're being very strategic about it in the same way.
		There was a lot of worry, especially in the aftermath of the Alien Enemies Act case, that the Trump administration was going to defy court orders.
		They've made really clear they're not going to do that.
		They're going to obey the court.
		And the consequence of that has been a slew of victories at the Supreme Court, I think.
		I mean, also the fact that they're on the right side of the law, but that's also a big part of it.
		So you could then take that sort of analogy from how DOJ is treating the Supreme Court and say, okay, now this is how President Trump is sort of, you know, creating the environment where people are used to the idea of, okay, we're actually going to go after Antifa in a serious way.
		We're going to start by saying they're a domestic terrorist organization.
		Then maybe the leap to a foreign terrorist organization doesn't seem so large.
		And then all of a sudden, a whole bunch of authorities open up.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		There's no way they don't know.
		I know, you know, Stephen Miller knows, right?
		He knows what Antifa is.
		He knows what they've done.
		He's got all the stories lined up.
		He's watched them happen.
		That guy is very, very smart.
		So I have to imagine that the domestic terror designation, which is not, it's not a legal distinction.
		It's a Trump declaration, is intentional.
		For what reason, we can speculate, but they know how and when they're going to pull the foreign terrorist organization trigger.
		I think they've planned this out.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, I think that's right.
		And Stephen Miller is no fool.
		He's very, very legally sophisticated.
		I don't know if he has a lot of greed, but if he doesn't, he might as well.
		He's extremely legally sophisticated.
		So, you know, there's no question that the administration knows what it's doing on this front, that it's not, you know, it's not making things up.
		They put out this executive order knowing that it didn't have legal ramifications in the same way that a foreign terrorist organization designation would.
		So they're not fools.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		It's a tribal.
		It's the cultural play.
		If Trump came out and tried the FTO thing up front, the backlash would be nuts.
		And it's already pretty bad.
		But I think because there's no real legal distinction, and I was even mentioning this before because people have long said he should do it.
		And I'm like, but you can't.
		Like, there's no legal distinction for this.
		You look at, who was it?
		I can't remember who it was.
		That stupid meet the press guy, Chuck Todd, I think.
		Maybe it's not him.
		But he was, oh, no, now Trump's making it, you're a terrorist if you oppose him.
		We knew that was going to be the way they went.
		But with this very light approach, there's no real direct ramification to you being Antifa.
		You've got Krasenstein, you got all these liberals coming out saying I'm Antifa.
		We know nothing's going to happen to him because the distinction has no real teeth.
		But I guess the question is this for you.
		Everybody knows my answer.
		When Trump makes these moves, do you think the left will just let him do it?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		To a degree, I mean, this one, I think they don't have a choice because it's again, there's no legal import to the designation.
		Will the left just let him do anything?
		Not really.
		They've made it clear they want to resist at every turn.
		I mean, you just saw what happened in Illinois where you have candidates for Congress standing in front of ICE vehicles trying to stop it.
		So they're going to try and resist.
		It really is just a test of the will of the Trump administration at the end of the day.
		The federal government is the most powerful entity in the history of the world, most powerful entity in the history of humanity.
		It just takes the will to use its power and essentially stop those who would resist it.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The ultimate question is: when does the left give in and accept the authority of Trump?
		With Newsom trying to assert authority of the National Guard, trying to assert now authority over federal law enforcement, which he doesn't have, and whether big tech is going to fall in line behind Trump's designation of a terrorist organization.
		The question is, when do these companies finally just say, okay, Trump, you're in control?
		Or not just Trump, but the federal government.
		A great example is ABC right now.
		Jimmy Kimball gets taken off the air because, according to the Wall Street Journal and the Howard Reporter, he wouldn't apologize.
		Advertisers and affiliates were angry.
		And Bob Iger and Dana Walden said, Jimmy, the first they were on his side, then said, you're going to make it worse.
		And Jimmy was like, I don't care.
		I'm not going to apologize.
		I'm going to do this.
		So they pull his show.
		Five days later, Nexstar and Sinclair are still saying they will not air his show.
		So the affiliates are still pissed.
		There's no indication advertisers have changed their mind.
		What changed that made Disney say, okay, Jimmy, you can come back.
		There was only one other reported issue at play.
		And according to the Wall Street Journal, Dana Walden and Bob Iger feared for the safety of their staff due to threats they had been receiving.
		Since then, a leftist anti-Trump guy opened fire on an ABC station, and several other affiliates owned by Sinclair received terroristic death threats.
		So they pulled Charlie Kirk's memorial.
		It stands to reason.
		The most probable case is leftist terror forced Disney's hand.
		If Trump cannot assert more authority than random psychotic leftist terrorists, no one will listen to what he has to say.
		The right will be culturally toothless.
		And this goes to a dark place where I have to imagine the end result is going to be Trump kicking doors down with an expanded federal law enforcement, insurrection act or otherwise, to stop the terror threats, or the left just increases the violence.
		They don't let Trump do it.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		There needs to be a stop put to it.
		And this connects to something I was having arguments a few days ago because, you know, obviously there was this whole move where you had kind of moderate liberal types saying, oh, right-wing cancel culture is in because of the overwhelming force that right-wing people were just boycotting or trying to get people fired and shows canceled.
		And they were saying, oh, this is right-wing cancel culture.
		And I'm like, cancel culture, this is not cancel culture.
		This is necessary for the health of the Republic because in a world where assassination becomes normalized, you need to just game that out a little bit.
		You just need to think about the consequences of a world where if anybody random crazy person or any lonely person knows that they can go out and assassinate a right-wing leader and they will be cheered and absolved of that crime, there means a lot more assassinations.
		And at a certain point, any political movement, if their own people are getting assassinated, it's effectively civil war.
		This is Algeria, right?
		That's what the Algerian rebels were doing.
		What's up?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You said it, not me.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, that's Algeria, where they were just shooting law enforcement.
		And the native uprising was just essentially, we are in full out rebellion against the operation of the state.
		But I don't want to live in that world.
		It's a really, really bad world for everybody.
unidentified		Right.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		I want to go get Taco Bell and watch World Poker Tour and just put my feet up and relax and not have to worry about the explosions outside.
		And that's where I feel we're heading.
		But you just made the point that I was alluding to.
		The point at which the left feels that Trump's authority is toothless is when they decide to engage in escalation of violence.
		And the Jimmy Kimmel precedent is terrifying.
		The only discernible reason they brought him back is because of the terror attacks.
		He's not apologizing.
		That's the report from the New York Post.
		Advertisers and affiliates are still angry.
		The affiliates are still pulling his show, but ABC caved.
		Why?
		Someone put a bunch of bullets in an ABC station and they've been getting death threats, terroristic threats.
		What they are saying publicly when ABC does this is, we are more afraid of the left than we are of the right because why?
		Charlie Kirk was assassinated.
		What did the right do?
		They got together, they prayed.
		When George Floyd, a random guy no one knew, died, they burned down every city they could.
		I mean that figuratively, billions in damage.
		Bob Iger knows who the threat is.
		Trump ain't going to come arrest him.
		The right is not going to smash windows.
		The joke I used to make is, do you really believe Twitter fears that Dave Rubin will march down the street with a crowbar and a bunch of classical liberals to smash their windows out?
		No.
		Dave will do nothing.
		And I use him as an example because he's such like a, you're like, and I don't mean this in a disrespectful way.
		He's like a run-of-the-mill, like kind of lukewarm political commentator.
		Not extreme in the least bit.
		These Antifa guys have told you they will kill you.
		So where does that bring us?
		Exactly what you said with assassinations.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, and I mean, it's civilization versus barbarism all the way down.
		That's the fundamental divide in our politics.
		And we're on the side of civilization.
		And as a result of being on the side of civilization on the right, you know, we're not going to be the party that's out there wanting riots, wanting disorder, wanting random decentralized violence.
		But what we will demand is the assertion of legitimate and lawful public authority against the enemies of public order and peace.
		That is what we want.
		That is what we should fight for.
		And that ultimately means an enormous amount of responsibility is on President Trump and P.M. Bondi and the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security because we are the peaceful movement.
		It is on them to ensure that justice reigns and that these terrorists are not allowed to get away with this nonsense.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		The last thing I'll say is I made this point quite a bit.
		People keep advocating on the right for the freedom of speech of these liberals who are smearing Charlie, advocating for more death.
		Maybe it's a little rough.
		They're basically saying, hey, we shouldn't cancel people because they're insulting Charlie Kirk and dancing out of his grave or whatever it may be.
		And my response is, I'm not going to advocate they be fired for their opinions, but I'm not going to defend them either.
		I think it's time that we recognize we are not a singular nation of differing opinion arguing over the limits.
		We are a constitutional republic being attacked by forces that do not agree with and will not adhere to our form of governance.
		When they go out and engage in terror like Antifa does, when they suppress, silence, and threaten, that is not the American people debating.
		That is an external threat that is inside this country now, trying to destroy our rule of law and our way of life.
		I'm not going to stand up for them when they get censored or silenced or otherwise.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, you're nicer than I am.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I'm actively going to insist that they be censored.
unidentified		There you go.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I'm sorry.
		Not necessarily by the state, but certainly this is exactly the kind of thing that private pressure and societal pressure is appropriate for.
		Yes, celebrating the assassination of Charlie Kirk is not a crime.
		Congratulations.
		We're not going to jail you, but it's appalling and abhorrent and completely destructive to the social fabric of this country and deserves social sanction.
unidentified		You know what?
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		You've changed my mind.
		I agree with you now.
		The people who would celebrate or otherwise defend the assassination, I think you've made a really great point.
		They need to be censored and silenced.
		And the reason is a culture, this is your point.
		It's a great point.
		A culture that tolerates in any way political assassinations is a culture opening the door to civil war.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Correct.
		That is the core of my argument.
		It is a necessary, in order to prevent civil war, you must have a hard red line in terms of social sanction on the celebration and encouragement of assassination.
		It must render you persona non grada in polite society.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Yeah, yeah.
		You know what?
		I agree.
		I agree.
		Will, this has been great.
		Thanks for hanging out.
		Where can people find you?
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		I'm at Will Chamberlain on X, and you can also follow the work of the Article 3 project.
		We were also trying to actually get Ilhan Omar stripped from her committees.
		That was a big project of mine over the past week.
		We can go into why that didn't work and we lost by a single vote, maybe another time.
		But follow what the Article 3 project does.
		We're constantly trying to agitate and move the ball forward on conservative politics, and especially when it comes to the law and the judiciary.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Right on, man.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Well, thanks for hanging out, and we'll see you next time.
will chamberlain ▲ ● ▼		Next time.
tim pool ▲ ● ▼		Take care.
		That was, of course, Will Chamberlain, lawyer, Article 3 Project, working to get Ilhan Omar stripped of her committees, as she should be for what she has said about Charlie Kirk.
		But you know what?
		He's changed my mind.
		He really did.
		You see, I hear thoughts and ideas.
		They make their point.
		And this is a conundrum for us.
		You do have a right to free speech, in your opinion.
		However, Will makes a very, very, very important point.
		The line at which we say we are no longer engaged in the expressing of ideas.
		If our society allows people to venerate assassins at grand scale, I think scale matters.
		We're done for.
		I think, you know, when I talk, I think it plays into the idea that I was saying before, like the Nuremberg trials, we defended, we had lawyers defend Nazis, but it's because we didn't face the threat.
		If on a normal day, 30 years ago, someone cheered for an assassin, we'd be like, well, you're crazy.
		Because our society isn't threatened by that at a low scale.
		But we are dealing with high-scale issues now.
		Do we allow millions to go online and celebrate assassins?
		We have been.
		And look what happened.
		Luigi Mangioni, the alleged assassin in the insurance assassination of the CEO, he's been venerated.
		He's been celebrated.
		And then not even a year later, Charlie Kirk is killed.
		Why?
		Because the leftists know they will be celebrated and absolved of all wrongdoing.
		Statues and candles we made in their honor.
		We cannot allow a society to function that way.
		I think it's actually a fine thing to say.
		Hey, don't celebrate murder.
		Don't go online and glorify a high-profile political assassination.
		That's not that big a deal.
		And if you're gonna, there should be social consequences.
		Will's changed my mind on that one.
		We should ban these people.
		We cannot tolerate this.
		We can't.
		And if the argument is that we will for the sake of freedom, congratulations, there will be more assassinations.
		The door is open.
		I say we close it.
		We may fail.
		We may try and pull the door closed and the door breaks off.
		But the door to civil war is before us, and we have to try everything we can to prevent an escalation.
		Smash the like button.
		Share the show with everyone you know.
		Coming up next, we've got our good friend Russell Brand.
		He is live now on the Rumble Morning lineup.
		Shout out to the Mug Club, Stephen Crowder, and crew.
		You guys do great work.
		I really do appreciate it.
		Let me send you on your way.
		Don't forget, we're back tonight at 8 p.m. for Timcast IRL.
		And we do have some segments coming up today as well.
		You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.
		Make sure you do it and check out the new channel, rumble.com/slash Tim Pool.
		We changed the URLs around a new channel.
		I've got a video coming up at 2 about the Charlie Kirk assassination and the conspiracy theories.
		It's also available at youtube.com/slash at Tim Poole.
		Make sure to check that one out.

▲