Timcast IRL - GOP Declares Biden Pardons VOID Over Autopen, DOJ Announces Investigation w/ Dave Aronberg

Episode Date: October 29, 2025

Tim, Seamus, & Tate are joined by Dave Aronberg to discuss the GOP declaring Biden's AutoPen Presidential pardons are void, Tim Pool debating a lawyer on legal warfare against Trump, States suing the Trump admin over the looming food stamps cutoff, and SNAP recipients threatening to loot stores over the cut off of food stamps.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Seamus  @FreedomToons  | http://twistedplots.com/ Tate @RealTateBrown (everywhere) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Dave Aronberg @aronberg (X)

The Republican Party has released their investigation into the Autopenn scandal, and they are formally requesting the DOJ void, or at least investigate. They're declaring void, and they're asking for the DOJ to invalidate pardons and executive orders from Joe Biden. Pam Bondi has tweeted, actually, they're already investigating it, and this information is great for them. So we'll see if this actually manifests in anything because the response from many Republicans is, call me when you've actually indicted someone. I think it's fair to say that Latica James and others are currently facing indictment. So, Comey, I mean, it is happening. But I think a lot of people want to see a lot more action. So we'll talk about that.

And then, of course, my friends, Snapocalypse. That's right, food benefits set to expire in just three more days. And there's fears of food riots and what might happen. Now, states have filed suit against the federal government saying you need to release or do something with that benefits. But this makes literally no sense because who are you suing? If the political system doesn't allocate funding for SNAP, you can't sue the executive branch into doing anything if they don't have the power to do it. So it'll be strange. Now, the Trump administration says they will not poll emergency funds as videos go viral of people threatening to loot supermarkets and steal your groceries.

So it's going to get interesting. Now, we'll talk about that. But before we do, we got some great sponsors for you, my friends. We've got Beam Dream. Everybody knows. I love Beam Dream. It is a nighttime blend to support you as you are preparing to go to sleep. I drink this every single night.

No joke. It is absolutely incredible. It's got magnesium, al-thianine. It's got melatonin. And no groginess, zero sugar, only 15 calories. And they got a ton of amazing flavors. I need to try the peanut butter one. I love the pumpkin spice and the caramel.

I recently bought the pumpkin spice. My sleep score improved. I was in the mid to high 80s consistently. and I started drinking glass of this before bed every night. And I think it's a combination of things that's improved my sleep. It's one hydration, but I think the magnesium is really what I needed. And my sleep score is now in the mid to high 90s, almost every single night. I'm a big fan.

Go to shop, B-E-A-M dot com, slash Timcast, and pick up your Beam Dream today. And shout it to Beam Dream for sponsoring the show. Also, don't forget to go to castbrew.com and pick up some delicious cast-brew coffee. Pool water coming soon. We're working on it. We, of course, have Mary's Ghost Blend Smoors, castbrew.com, and everyone's favorite Appalachian nights, my favorite coffee ever. Easy for me to say, because I'm the one who personally blended this.

No joke. I grew up around coffee. My family had a coffee shop very briefly. I ordered a bunch of samples of various coffees that I knew I liked. We blended them in the right proportions, and this is what came out, and it's my favorite. But don't forget, there's also low acidity Ian's graphene dream. Check it out. But don't forget to also smash that light.

button. Share the show with everyone. You know, joining us tonight. Talk about this and so much more we have, Dave Aaronberg. Great to be here, Tim. I'm Dave Aaronberg. Former State Attorney for Palm Beach County, aka Florida lawman. I do legal analysis. And it's my first time here. Thanks for having me. Absolutely. It should be great, especially considering this to hear your insights. So we'll be fun. Tate is hanging out. What is up, guys? Tate Brown here holding it down. I am happy to be here. It's going to be a fun show. I'm Seamus Coglin. I'm the creator of Freedom Tunes. I've made over 600 animated videos and gotten millions of views with $0 spent on marketing. The left owns entertainment media in this country, which is why myself and my team are pushing

back. We're currently working on a full-length animated show. We've already got the 25-minute-long pilot made. We're crowdfunding it. We're three weeks in, and we've got three weeks left. We're over 50% funded. But I need you to help us get funded. If you want to help us to create the future of entertainment, if you want to entertainment media

made by people who don't hate your values and are going to, promote a positive message through good storytelling and jokes. Go over to twisted plots.com. Support us. You'll get access to the pilot and you'll be helping us build the future of entertainment. That's twisted plots.com. Right on. Well, let's get to the news.

We got the story from Fox Baltimore. I don't know why I chose Baltimore as the source, but interesting nonetheless. GOP asks DOJ to invalidate some pardons and executive orders signed with Biden autopen. The pardon of Hunter Biden by his father from where President Joe Biden has appeared to get under Trump's skins that happened. but that pardon is just one of hundreds at the center of an investigation by the GOP-led House Oversight Committee, which argues in a brand new report, the President Biden's so-called cognitive decline, combined with his use of autopen, warrants a second look by the DOJ, echoing sentiments from Trump. During July 14th speech to military generals at Quantico, Virginia, President Trump said,

quote, the autopen is maybe one of the greatest scandals that we've had in 50 to 100 years. Trump even released a presidential portrait of his predecessor depicting an auto pen instead of Biden's face. They just released a report entitled, The Biden Autopenn Presidency declined delusion and deception in the White House. In addition, the committee has made public more than a dozen interviews with top Biden officials,

as well as former White House physician Kevin O'Connor. In one video, O'Connor has asked, quote, were you ever told to lie about the president's health? In response, O'Connor pleads the fifth on the advice of counsel, I must respectfully, respectfully, declined to answer.

At the center of the investigation are questions about who is actually making key policy decisions, including executive orders, and pardons. Republican lawmakers a certain one report as President Biden declined, his staff abused the autopen and a lax chain of command policy to affect executive actions that lack any documentation of whether they were in fact authorized. Now, we have this post from Attorney General Pam Bondi. She says, my team has already initiated a review of the Biden administration's

reported use of the auto pen for pardons. James Comer's new information is extremely helpful, and his leadership on this issue is invaluable. We'll continue working with GOP oversight to deliver accountability for the American people. Suffice it to say, this is unprecedented, right? Totally unprecedented. Now, there's a problem here, though. First off, we don't know if he used the auto pen when he did the pardons. And secondly, if he did, there's no requirement that I know of that you have to sign a

pardon. And also, you have this part of the Constitutional Article 2, Section 2, which gives the president broad clemency powers. So when the pardon goes into effect, it only needs to be accepted. by the subject. Since the pardons were accepted by the subject, there is no mechanism to reverse them. So I know this gets a lot of people hot and bothered and I respect what's the investigation, but I don't think it's going to go anywhere. Interesting. Well, I mean, listen, he has the legal perspective here.

I don't know. I'm not an expert in law. I know that. Listen, as it, what's that? Just cartoons. Yeah, just cartoons. But in my expertise as a cartoonist, I just feel that there's at the very least, even if not a legal issue, though, again, I don't know the law well enough to argue with you about that. It seems like at the very least a moral gray area. Now that the president could, you know, that we could have all of these pardons signed, even though the president wasn't actually necessarily consenting to them. We have no paperwork documenting that he was and this was done again by the auto pen. That is, you know, I respect what you're saying, James about not having the expertise, the legal knowledge. Now, I also lack the legal knowledge

to argue, but I certainly have a ton of arrogance. So I will, I would argue, I'm half kidding. No, I guess the question is, what the GOP is basically asserting is that Biden actually didn't authorize this. The problem, I suppose, is that is a nebulous argument. I mean, Biden says he did. And so if they're arguing that he was in cognitive decline, I mean, that may be true. But someone in cognitive decline can still tell someone to do something. It seems to me that the only thing that's going to matter in this is the willingness to use power in a way to benefit your side. I mean, you make a good point. You don't need to be a lawyer to have the common sense to know that where's this going to go, right? I mean, how are you proving that this was a farce? Like, are you going to ask President Biden? Well, he said he was fine. You brought up the fifth, the guy taking the fifth. That doesn't tell you anything except it makes him look bad. It makes the administration look bad as well as Biden administration. But where does it go? How do you prove that someone did something illegal or unethical? There's no way to do it. This is the smoke that President Trump wants.

He wants. He wants us to be talking about it. It makes him look better. It makes Biden look bad. And it keeps us from talking about other things he doesn't want us to mention. Well, I mean, but in theory, couldn't you actually prove that there was some wrongdoing if an investigation got a warrant to search the text messages or communications between any of the people who might have done that? I mean, couldn't it potentially uncover that they stated an intention to do something even though the president never consented? You would have to get a smoking gun. You would have to get something that said Biden knows nothing about this. I am signing this. this pardon myself. But wasn't, but don't we actually, we don't have a smoking gun, but I think we certainly have probable cause. Wasn't there a statement from Zinz? We covered this a while ago, where he said something,

like he responded 15 minutes after someone made a statement saying, use the autopen and do it. There was some story like six months ago, where this was like the predicate for the investigation that the argument was Joe Biden could not have responded quickly enough and Zinz couldn't have sent the request fast enough before he instructed staffers to use the auto pen to issue some kind of order or pardon.

Let me see if I can find this. And while you're looking for that, part of the problem is that President Biden validated all of it. They asked him afterwards, and he said, yeah, I did all this. So how would you now show that he wasn't aware of it? Well, let me ask you a question then. If what Tim's saying is correct, or let's create a completely hypothetical scenario. Like they either find this smoking gun or maybe if it's not somebody who was like dumb enough to explicitly write their crime and text and send it to somebody, you had a circumstance where it literally wouldn't be possible for the person to have communicated with the former president quickly enough to get the approval.

Let's say you have that smoking gun and you are able to prove that this person acted without the president's consent, but the president later says, I'm fine with the fact that it happened. Where are we out there legally? I think it's over. If he validates it, even after the fact, then it's a done deal. You'd have to show that he was totally in the dark. It went against his will and that he hasn't endorsed it validated afterwards. So he can retroactively validate it, even if at the time he hadn't? He could say, I supported that.

That's all he is to say, and he has. But I guess my question is if they were able to prove that he couldn't have gotten the communication in time. It's really impossible because you'd have to show that I didn't know about it at the time. I don't approve of it. Maybe that would get you somewhere. But if he said, no, I did. that's all you need and he has said that he said yes I did this I approved it that's all let's see there's a couple different it'd be very very difficult to find any kind of smoking gun on

this yeah you'd have to prove that writing and then you have to show that he still says that no I didn't know anything about it what what's going on here so the core issue is uh white house he has said that before about a few things jeff jeff jeans authorized the auto pens used for documents particularly in the night of january 19th 2025 less than 14 hours before biden left office emails show a late evening process after a meet meeting with AIDS ending around 10 p.m. And eight summarized Biden's decision and sought approvals. Zinz replied at approximately 1031 stating, I approve the use of the auto pen for the execution of all of the following pardons, sometimes via his aide Rosa Poe, who had access to his email and

acted with his verbal permission. I think the ultimate question is, right, is it legal for the Biden to say after the fact, yeah, it was fine. Does that make it an executive action? Yeah. Yeah. It is. It is not improper for him to approve of something after the fact. If the chief of staff says, we're going to do this. And then are you okay with that, boss? Yeah, I'm fine with it. That's all you need.

So let me ask another question. If someone said, hey, go use the auto pen and pardon all these people. And then a day later said, hey, boss, by the way, I told them to go do this. Yeah, that was fine. That is, is it the same thing? I would think it'd be okay. Like, as far as overturning it, because there's no real process for overturning a pardon. It's so broad in the Constitution.

Plus, there's no requirement you need to sign anything for a pardon. The person just has to accept the pardon and it's done. That's why I think this is much to do about nothing. You may be right that he wasn't all there at the end of his presidency, but as far as undoing pardons, no, that's not going to happen. I think the bigger question is just who has the willpower to enact their willpower. Who has the willpower to enact their willpower? Yeah, it's a question of, as we've seen over the past several years, the way the political game is being played is, you can assert things without a factor basis, and as long as you're willing to tell men with guns to do it, it'll get done.

So this, I, you know, looking back at basically everything we've seen over the past eight years with the Russiagate scandal, with the arrest of Trump's lawyers, things that are unprecedented happen if people in power want them to. So we can make the argument that, right, arresting Jenna Ellis and charging under RICO is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and downright insane. They did it anyway. We could argue that charging Donald Trump with 34 felonies without any underlying crime proven by the government is unprecedented and insane. But so long as people with power say, look, we're going to do what we want. The question then falls to hear, can you make an argument justifying your actions to enough people to get it done? And I honestly think you don't even need the argument at this point. I think we're so far past that. Republicans are going to say, hey, team, we're doing it. And they're going to say, lock them up. The Democrats already did the exact same thing and tried to lock people up and did lock people up.

So the Republicans are going to respond in kind. That's why this looks like to me, the GOP oversight committee, I agree with you on the functionality of Biden said he did it. You know what are you proving that his brain didn't work? Well, you know, maybe, but what's the argument? The ultimate argument is going to be we've now decided and we will ask the courts to assert that is not acceptable. and then they'll use it to go after Fauci, Schiff, or whoever else had received pardons for the unprecedented amount of time covering a wide array of unknown crimes. Well, also, it's a little bit unprecedented as far as legal territory goes.

Again, my understanding is a non-lawyer, to have somebody in office who's so clearly steeped in cognitive decline. This is something people talked about this a little bit with Reagan, where they said former staffers came forward after his administration and said that he seemed to be losing it a little bit. But with Joe Biden, not only was it so far advanced that people were able to tell when he was president. I mean, while he was still running, during the primaries, people

were talking about this, the fact that the man was clearly in some stage of... Well, except the media. Well, except for the media. Corporate media. But the media did what we knew what they would do, which is they said he's not in cognitive decline, and then as soon as he left office, they started publishing their books and doing their op-eds, and yeah, oh,

he actually wasn't cognitive decline, and here's the esoteric knowledge I had being in the administration the whole time. Well, there's another argument too, and it was that was it a Jack Smith, I think, who made Was it Jack Smith who said it wasn't going to prosecute? No, it wasn't Jack Smith. Who was it?

The reason they wouldn't prosecute Joe Biden is because he's a forgetful old man. It was, was it Robert Her? Robert Her. Sorry, sorry. Yeah, Jack Smith was in the Trump case. And many people pointed this out that it was, you know, hypocrisy within the DOJ. But how do you, how do you simultaneously say this man is effectively indecline and incapable of standing trial, while at the same time saying he's certainly capable of being president.

I understand the functional argument of, hey, look, the Constitution doesn't say if you're, you know, brain damaged in a coma or anything like that, you're not president anymore. I think the play Trump is going to make is the courts should rule that it is. Right, but I don't think it'll go anywhere. I mean, are you expecting, when you say the courts should rule, so who challenges it? Is it Comer who has standing to challenge someone's pardon, a president's pardon? No, it would be when the DOJ brings criminal charges against Anthony Fauci. For example. Oh, yeah, but I mean, okay, well, if they bring criminal charges against someone who's been pardoned, that's going to be a quick decision.

The pardon power is so broad, so absolute that it's not, that, I just think it'll be a waste of time. I don't think the DOJ does that. And they certainly won't bring criminal charges against President Biden for doing that because the Supreme Court has given pretty much blanket immunity to the president for any official action. So that's why I think, like, a lot of this stuff is spinning our wheels. And it's fair to talk about cognitive decline. I mean, Democrats would talk about that after the fact. It's fair to talk about Robert Her because Robert Herd did come out and say that. And it's a fair comment to say, well, how does he say that here and how does it not apply there?

But when Robert Hur said that, he did that as a reason why they were not going to prosecute Joe Biden. They said that if he went on the stand, no jury would convict him because of that mental decline. You have to show intent, and he didn't have the intent to withhold those documents from the government. So let me ask you about, you're familiar with the 34 felony accounts for Trump in the case? There was no proven secondary or I should say primary crime.

They, so they effectively have an aggravating crime of some sort. They have falsification of business records and furtherance of a crime, but the government never proved another crime. So this, I mean, this violates due process. Well, they didn't have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. You just have to show that

it led to another crime, which was the initial one was the falsification of business records. And the other crime, they gave like three options. And said, we don't need to prove it. That's right. Well, that's unprecedented. I mean, the government has to prove a crime against someone if they're going to accuse them of it, right? It was, didn't have to be proven beyond reasonable doubt, but they had to at least show the theory, and they did show the theory. And then the jury, the judge allowed it, and the jury found unanimously that he had. I mean, but is there,

is there in U.S. history a time where the government said, we're going to presume another crime did happen without proving it to then criminally charge someone with the crime that requires it. I don't know about in history. I don't know all that, but I... It's a big, it's a big ask. That's a big ask. I'd be historian for that, more than a legal guy. My understanding is most analyses of this has been, for the first time in U.S. history, a crime which requires a proven underlying crime, did not have one. And so, obviously, the falsification of business records is a misdemeanor, which was beyond its statute of limitations. However, they upgraded to a felony arguing that there was a falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime.

The implication being that's an add-on charge when you have an underlying crime. Like a mafioso is going to murder somebody and then falsifies records after the fact. They say, we're adding this on to that charge of that crime you did. You have felonies that couldn't have happened unless the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the first crime actually happened. So, my point with all of this is what may or may not be or what we want to happen or what usually happens clearly is out the window. Right. The intent to defraud here only required that there's an intent to commit another crime or to conceal another crime, right? So the issue is the government has to prove in all instances if they're accusing you of a crime. Right. You don't have to prove the commission of another crime just that it was intended. And that's the difference.

So they had to show that why did you conceal those documents, the business records? And the reason is to hide campaign finance violations or whatever they decided. They're going to have to prove that crime. You know, my view is largely if our justice system says we can create crimes and charge you with them that your penalty is upgraded because we implied without proof another crime happened, then our justice system is gone. This is unprecedented. The idea that the state is going to say, look, we're going to charge you with felonies. We can't unless we prove another crime,

but we don't have to prove the other crime. It's an absurdity. Well, again, it's only the intent that you tried to conceal something else, like a campaign finance violation. You don't have to prove that you actually committed a secondary crime. You just need to show the intent to conceal it. And that's what they did. So attempted robbery, attempted murder are also charged.

If they're accusing Trump of campaign finance violent, like, I'll put it this way. If someone attempts to evade taxes or attempts to commit campaign finance violations, are those crimes? Like would the DOJ go after you if you were trying to? If you attempted to commit election, excuse me, election violations? Yes. Yes. And, you know, when it came to the three possible crimes for Trump, one was that his intent in concealing the business records was to violate the federal election. Campaign Act. A second one was a violation of New York election law that concerns unlawful conspiracy to promote a candidacy by unlawful means. And the third one was violation of New York

tax law. So, so just, yeah, go ahead. Or I'm finished, finish. What, what you're saying is, you don't like the fact that they didn't have to prove that there was a violation of any of those three crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. And that should be unconstitutional. The courts- I would argue it is. It is unconstitutional. Because let me ask you this. Can the government impose a penalty on an individual at any point without proving they committed a crime? No, but here the statute says that you just have to conceal the records, which he was proven to do so. And that's just a misdemeanor. But to elevate it to a felony, you don't have to prove a second crime.

You just have to prove the intent. You're doing it for a reason, for a bad reason. And when you ask me, are there other examples in the law where that is, I can't name it. but the courts have found that that is allowed. So my understanding, and I'm not a lawyer, but I've just read the various legal analyses on this, both left and right, is that it is the first time in U.S. history,

an aggravated or add-on charge, did not have a proven underlying crime. Now, maybe first time in history is a bold claim. It's an absolute. But my argument would be then, if it is to be argued that the U.S. government or the states have the power to expand or increase your penalties or charge with a crime without actually

proving a component of what requires, then the Constitution is out the window. Then all gloves are off, no holds barred, razor Y in the boxing glove, doesn't matter anymore. The point is this. Faultification of business records is a misdemeanor. And if the government can prove you falsified your business records straight up, misdemeanor charge. If they know you did and don't pursue that charge, it goes beyond the statute of limitations. They can't bring those charge later on. If the government can say that falsification of business records in furtherance of another crime, the only, so let's put like this, let's segment this. Mistamineer, falsification of business records, let's argue it's a misdemeanor, so it's maximum one year probably.

On top of that, the felony charge after the fact, in furtherance of another crime, is an extra addition, right? So we've got the base level of misdemeanor, the upgraded felony expands the penalty. This would imply the government has the ability. to impose penalties on you without proving you committed a crime? Well, you're proving intent. So compare this to conspiracy. If you guys conspire to rob a bank and you actually don't rob the bank, but you had the intent to do so and you agreed and you did something like you know,

you bought some, you know, some rope or something to tie someone up, they can bust you for the conspiracy, even though they never proved that you robbed the bank, you completed it. And all this is is about intent. This goes in your mind. Fair point, but the conspiracy itself is the crime. That's correct. So the argument would be threatening to murder someone is a crime.

Murdering someone is a different crime. My point is the government has never proven there was another crime. Well, remember, we're showing the intent. You don't have to prove another crime. You just have to prove there was intent for another crime. I understand that. So my point would be the unprecedented case, where they upgraded a misdemeanor to a felony to use against Trump.

And just moving beyond this, we will also face the unprecedented nature of Trump's DOJ attempting to go after in any way possible. Maybe even it's just to jam up the people who receive these pardons, Fauci being the principal example. They will use, let's just, I don't know, circuitous legal means to go after them in some way. there are felony statutes on money laundering and fraud where if you have a crime of reporting violation transaction reporting violation a seemingly minor offense but if it's used to do money laundering or fraud then that too would raise the offense level just like in Trump's case so but there are other examples where but I see your problem is that you don't like this whole area where unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a second crime,

then they shouldn't be elevated. Well, it would be like saying the government charged someone with money laundering but never proved money laundering. They said he had a meeting where he talked about money laundering. We could never prove the money laundering happened, charged him and convicted him. Well, there are, when it comes to money laundering, if you're not reporting things properly, you can get hit with a lower level crime. But if the intent is to do some major drug dealing, and that's why you're concealing it, the intent there, without even proving the drug dealing, you can still get busted for a higher crime. I suppose the issue with this is

the upgraded charge requires the underlying crime, as opposed to conspiracy, which is the intent. The intent is all you need in the upgraded crime. You don't need to show they actually committed the election violation beyond a reason about doubt. You just have to show that the

object, the reason why he was concealing, cooking the books, was because he wanted to spend more for the election than he was allowed. I suppose we'll see because it's been floating a for over a year now, right? Like the judges have heard the case. They've not ruled on it. I think, and then we'll jump to the next story, Snappocalypse. My view of this whole thing, and the reason why I brought it up was because everything we're seeing is unprecedented. The Democrats going

after the political opponents is unprecedented. The arrest of Trump's lawyers is unprecedented. RICO charges for soliciting legal services unprecedented. I think Trump had, it might have been like three or four lawyers who were arrested. And like we've never seen anything. Look, I can't speak for the entire country for the entire history of the country. So it is it is a bit hyperbolic to say never. I would say in my lifetime, it is shocking and terrifying when the Democrat DOJ starts arresting the lawyers of their political opposition. What lawyers were arrested? Jenna Ellis, there was, I think it was two lawyers from the Georgia case and one in Wisconsin. Jenna Ellis was the most notable because she ultimately ended up pleading guilty to RICO charges. And the RICO charges stemmed from her drafting a letter

that Trump solicited her to draft a legal letter to pursue an election challenge. And they argued RICO because Trump's election challenge was a conspiracy to overturn an election. And because she participated, she was now had committed a crime. Well, General Ellis wasn't charged by the Fed. So it was by the state. It was state of Georgia. It was Fannie Willis's case. And that one was because they charged her with the trying to overturn the election by writing it,

letters and doing all that stuff. Lawyers writing letters is a crime now? Well, it could be. Yeah, lawyers who like consigiliaries for the mafia have been accused of crimes for many years. Is it illegal to challenge an election? It is not illegal to challenge an election through the proper channels, through courts. But what you can't do is, you know, you can't call the proud boys to come to the Capitol. John Alice didn't do that. Oh, well, I'm saying in general. So we can, you know, instead of our, I'm not here to argue January 6th. I'm arguing specifically the unparated. precedent action of arresting Trump's lawyers.

Well, if she committed a crime, just because you have a bar card doesn't give you a get out of jail free card. You know, you're charged with, she was charged with two felonies. Yeah. And she actually took a plea. That's right. Right? She pled guilty.

Indeed. Because pleading guilty always implies the guilty party is guilty, right? Well, I'm a former prosecutor, so. Of course not. There's the trial tax and Janowis's fear that there was no defense apparatus from a legal machine at the state and federal level willing to arrest lawyers. So she cowardly bent the knee and cried on TV and admitted to things when all she did was draft a letter. She wrote a letter for Trump. They charged her with RICO. And the bigger picture, I think, on all of this is,

show me the man, I'll show you the crime. And that's the ultimate point with the GOP oversight committee with the with the pardons. We're looking at Letitia James on mortgage fraud now, Adam Schiff on mortgage fraud. And the argument from the other side is Trump is going to after his political opponents. And I'm sitting here being like, and they went after him. What's the difference? But you're talking about Fannie Willis in Georgia. That's different than, right? That's not Joe Biden. That's not Merrick Garland. You're talking about Jenna Ellis, who the reason why she was prosecuted was because she was participating in lies that Rudy Giuliani made before Senate committees. And so if you lie, if you commit perjury, you know, you're going to get bit for it.

And that's why she wrote a letter. I forgot it was to a politician in Georgia requesting access or something or, you know, challenging the election in some capacity. And this one, this is the most egregious. They argued that, I mean, she was charged with specifically RICO, like a felony conspiracy involved in Trump's election schemes. But there was another lawyer in Wisconsin. It's ridiculous, right? So your political opponents, he's the frontrunner. Whatever the argument is, it is insane that they went after all of Trump's confidants, his staffers. And it extends, It does extend to J6, obviously not to anyone who was violent, but criminally charging people who weren't even there and giving them 20 years in prison, or even some of them that were for rioting,

as well as people who got hunted down from misdemeanors. Well, that's where the conspiracy comes in. We talked about that, seditious conspiracy. You didn't have to be there to be part of the conspiracy. I think you're talking about like Enrique Tario and people who weren't there on the scene, right, right. That's the law. And so I suppose the issue is we have a lot of laws on the books, and if the Democrats say, let's rip precedent and throw it out the window, then Trump's going to respond with.

I got a nuclear bomb waiting for you when I win the election. I think what Merrick Garland, who's criticized by the left for being too timidant and too weak, I think what he did was very different than what you're saying now, where President Trump ordered Pam Bondi to prosecute his enemies, and then Bondi wavered on that. She didn't move forward on that because she's an experienced prosecutor. But then they, so Trump said, all right, I'm going to fire Eric C. the acting U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, because I don't like what he told me. He says there's not enough evidence. So then he appointed Lindsey Halligan for the sole purpose of prosecuting

his enemies, excuse not Jen Alice, James Comey and Letitia James. And so now you have the prospect of these cases being thrown out because of vindictive prosecution. And that's where the president needs to be careful because when you directly order your prosecutors to prosecute your enemies, you're going to get a vindictive prosecution game. But when did that happen? So we've got the E. Gene Carroll case where they created a law specifically to allow just her to file a civil action. But that's the state of New York. That's not feds. Indeed. Well, the argument is the Democratic Party is not just a federal organization or a state organization. They're in fact both. And their leadership operates across the board state and federal and city and local and otherwise. But also you had the feds rated Trump's home. You you had a warrant for that. Sure. And then you've got the prosecution prosecution of Trump for documents where the. they actually staged photos and put cover sheets on documents they pulled from boxes. And then Joe Biden, who actually explicitly was found to have retained national security information for the purpose of making

money, was not charged because they said, well, you know, we couldn't convict him anyway. The American people aren't going to tolerate it. Whatever your argument's going to be for the legal reasons, the American people see a story of Joe Biden withholding documents at multiple locations and them saying, we can't charge him. And Donald Trump, them rating his home and saying, but him we can. The distinction in the maneuvering, of like the granular legalese as to why it makes sense or doesn't, doesn't matter in a partisan environment like we have right now. You can't do it. And that's why historically, we've not seen a political party or political actors go after their top level rivals, like raiding

the frontrunner's home in any way is it's nuts, even if they did do something wrong. Well, I'd have to... Bolton, too. Bolton, too. Well, Bolden is a different matter. Bowden. I actually do think they have legitimate facts there. That's going to be tainted by the political prosecutions, Letitia James and James Comey, though, it feeds into that, even though Bolton looks like that may be a legitimate case. As far as rating is home, I have to push back on the term rating because when they went in, first they got a search warrant signed by a federal magistrate showing there's probable cause that evidence of a crime existed in Mar-a-Lago. And then they didn't

rate it. They went in there, unarmed. They gave Secret Service the call in advance. They went in there with plain clothes, and they searched the place, and they recovered the documents that Trump and his lawyers said they didn't have. And so that was done the proper way. And then it went down, James, uh, excuse me, Jack Smith could have filed that case in Washington, D.C. That would have been so much better for him politically because you have the liberal Washington DC jury pool. You have the judges who are a lot more favorable, but instead he filed it in South Florida where he knew that Aileen Cannon, the Trump appointed judge would be there and would possibly get the case. And that was the beginning of the end for him. It seems like there's all

some unfortunate legal reason why they're not going to go after the Democrats on these on these issues. How so? Well, like the Biden being the most, the easiest example. We can look at the general unprecedented nature of like I mentioned, the E. Jean Carroll case, where you're familiar, they created a law, they passed a law saying, we're going to allow people to resurrect claims beyond the statute of limitations. It was used just for Trump, highly dubious story. or also the civil fraud case where with Trump, they claim he defrauded because he had, you know, documents misstated the size of his penthouse from 10,000 to 30,000, even though the financial paperwork submitted had the disclaimer, you must do your due diligence. The numbers may be inaccurate,

as all financial paperwork does. And Doge Bank even said we weren't defrauded. So they launch all of these things. And then we're told there's actually no legal mechanism by which we can find accountability for these unjust actions. I want to give you credit for the New York case. I want to say that that one is something that I think a lot of people are now saying that was unduly politicized. That was the Alvin Bragg case. The civil fraud. The New York, the, there's 34 felonies, civil fraud, and E.G. Carroll. The 34 felonies. They were all New York. Yeah, that one, I mean, first off, Alvin Bragg and Leicistia James both came. campaigned on going after Donald Trump.

They both said, you should never have done that. So I grant you that. And I think that in retrospect that the New York case seemed to be a case where the DA was trying to find something there and they resurrected this 34-count case. And I think that looked bad. And that was the first case against Donald Trump. That was not the Biden Justice Department, but that was Alvin Bragg, the prosecutor, making that decision.

And I've got to say, it's been my experience that when you're an independently elected district attorney, you're not getting calls from the White House to do things because if you had, if that happened, I would have gotten calls because I had Marlago in my jurisdiction. I never got a call from them and never even got invited to a Hanukkah party. But as far as the E. Jean Carroll case, that law that was passed in New York was not for Trump. That was done for sexual assault survivors. It was used against Harvey Weinstein. It was used against a lot of rich, powerful men. Trump did get caught up in it, and that statute was used against him. And you know, it was interesting about that. That's how I first found out about you, Tim, in this podcast, because

the jury selection, you remember when the jury... That's right. They said they watched my show. That was unbelievable. Well, yeah. Well, to be fair, he said he's seen an episode of it or something like that. And then they tried claiming that he was a fan, but he just saw an episode one time or something. The lawyers for Eugene Carroll said, you must remove this person from the jury because he watches Tim Poole podcast, and Tim Poole had talked about how bogus these cases were. And so the judge said, no, we're going to keep him on the jury. And then he ruled away with the rest of the... Because he wasn't really a viewer of the show, right? When you looked at what he had actually said, it's like I had something to the effect of

like he had seen episodes of my podcast, but it wasn't like he was a regular viewer or anything. I thought actually it was a sign of America's strength that you have people who watch your show and then decide as a member of the jury, they're just going to file the evidence on the law in front of them and then ruled the way they did. I think it's fake. I think a highly partisan jurisdiction with an 80 plus percent Democrat base is going to find a jury to convict their chief political opponent, bringing up highly dubious cases like the 34 felony account, which is nuts. The fraud case, which as anybody's ever done real estate knows, is an absolute absurdity to claim that because the square footage was misrepresented, that he had defrauded his lenders, who's straight

upset he didn't defraud them. And the E. Jean Carroll case, where her story made no sense, and she claimed she was wearing a dress that didn't exist at the time, according to various reports. Not to mention, Trump owned the hotel across the street. No one witnessed it. She got the years mixed up, apparently. She had no key to access the room. Somehow Trump got in anyway. The story is 30 years old and makes no sense. Yet the jury still said, sounds good to me. That sounds completely insane. And when you look at again the arrest of Trump's lawyers, it seems to me like, man, Democrats hate Trump. They viscerally hate him. And I mean, generally speaking, the aligned Democrat voter base and the politicians. So they are willing to bring cases that should not be brought,

and they can easily find juries that will convict or find liability. Well, I would maintain that the federal cases brought against Trump were very legitimate. I think that the January 6th sought with your own eyes. I think the documents, they gave him time and time again to return the documents. He refused to. They gave him a subpoena. He ignored it. Then they had to search the place. And then they charged him in South Florida, a red state, a red community where they could have done it in D.C. But they didn't. Well, so the challenge for me is that the Trump circle, his employees, they refute those claims. They argue they didn't try to withhold documents. They offered them up. This makes no sense. That they invited these people in previously, shut them around. And the Biden

DOJ was fabricating a justification for why they went in the way they did. Considering they wouldn't charge Biden for a similar crime, I'm less inclined to believe their accusations against Trump. Well, the difference is that it's not that you possess the documents. It's the refusal to give them back. Right. That's a lie. Right. And my point is. Well, how is that a lie? Well, Trump's refuted it. Trump, his team, his lawyers have said, no, we told them straight up what we had. We told them where they were. We put him in a room. They're fabricating the refusal. And my point is, we've got no evidence he refused. We do. His lawyer wrote letters saying that and handed over documents to the authorities and those documents were only a small portion of what was there.

And then he found all the documents at Mar-a-Lago. But didn't Trump's team refute that they refuse any documents? I don't- The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The fact that a lawyer says, I'm going to turn over documents doesn't prove he intentionally withheld anything. The lawyers said that they turned over all the documents that they believed were responsive to the subpoena. Right. But the lawyers weren't told everything. They were kept in the dark by their client. They gave everything. How do we know that? Trump's denied that. I mean, you're asserting his fact without proof. Well, no, the proof is that they found all those documents of Mar-a-Lah. It doesn't prove that Trump knew they were there and doesn't prove the lawyers intentionally without them or Trump did either.

So when you have a staff of people, this- Trump said they're his documents. Remember, Trump's defense was that I have the ability in the right under the Presidential Records Act to keep these. That's after the fact of the claim of refusal to turn them over, which is the point I'm bringing up. So I use this example pretty often for the people who believe the moon landing was fake. They say, how did we lose the technology to pass the van-I-in-radiation belt? And I said, because it was in an office in 1970, the administration changed, and people moved boxes around and don't know where they went. The idea that Trump kept track of literally every single document all the time is silly. So when the DOJ goes, or the Biden-Edman says, we want these documents. And his lawyers say, here's what we have.

and then Trump's like, I don't know, whatever. Trump's not monitoring that day-to-day operation. Like, I got a company here with 40 employees, and if every, you know, everybody, every time someone comes to me and says, hey, how do I turn the plumbing off because we're going to fix something? You think I know? But so it's silly to argue that Trump was cognizant of literally every document he had and used it as justification to go in his house and accuse him of a crime.

When Joe Biden explicitly stated, he kept documents that he did not have the authority to keep because he wanted to write a book and make money off of. Right off the bat, I'm going to say, by all means, maybe Trump did intentionally withhold these things. Biden did intentionally withhold them, and we know it's a fact. It was reported across the board, and they wouldn't prosecute him. But when Biden was asked to turn the documents over, he did. He never kept documents after he was asked to return. That's the difference here, because Trump... And that's what we don't have proof of. Well, we know that Trump kept the documents, and he admitted he said, I didn't return them because they're my documents.

After the fact. So my point is this. They said, hey, turn over documents. Trump said, sure, whatever, I guess. The lawyer does it. They then raid his home, find a bunch of documents, lay him on the ground, put cover sheets on him, take a picture and say, look what you found. And Trump says, well, I'm the president. I can keep him, can I? Well, also you had Walt Nata, his guy moving documents around so that the investigators wouldn't see them when they came over. Again, I think the, the principal issue here. And here's what I, what I see when I, here's, here's my perception of you. The DOJ said it so it's true. Trump's DOJ says it. It can't be true. No, actually, you know, I ran against Pambonty and then she beat me and then she hired me as her drugs are.

So actually, I'm not here to bash individuals at the DOJ. I'm not saying you're bashing. What I'm saying is it seems like if the Democrat DOJ asserted as fact, you just say, okay. But what is the false fact? What is the lie that the Biden DOJ said? Well, Trump's team has refuted they intentionally withheld from the DOJ. They said they showed him where everything was. let them come in. And if the argument is, after the fact, well, you can't hold these documents,

you're taking what someone would, like, crafting a legal defense. Well, even if I did have these documents, as president, I have plenty of legal classification powers anyway. And you're using that to imply he intentionally withheld from the government. Oh, I wish that they could have argued that in court. I wish that this could have been tried in court where both sides could have made their arguments so we can decide who to believe. But unfortunately, Aileen Cannon, judge appointed by President Trump dismissed this case based on an unprecedented legal theory that the special counsel statute was unconstitutional. And then when Trump won, he then dismissed the cases permanently. I would argue that if they're not going to go after Joe Biden for a comparable case,

both it's moot. And so, like, we had, it was Joe Biden's ghostwriter who, actually, I believe, didn't he destroy evidence as well, was the reporting, that he had a recording of, with Joe Biden, where they were going over the story and over the book he wanted to write, where Joe Biden said he kept these national security documents because he wanted to write a book. He wanted to make money. He didn't say he could supposedly make money, but he wanted to write a book. So we know he had the intent to do it. And I believe the reporting was that the ghostwriter quickly destroyed the evidence of Biden having admitted to this crime. And so when I see that story, they're not going to go after him. Everything else is a lie. It's like, you know, why would I believe someone at that point?

But we should talk about an apococulus, but I do want to add one more thing to this. You will never convince me of the credibility of Merrick Garland or the Biden administration because Merrick Garland did something truly unprecedented held a press conference where he announced the indictment of two Russians no one ever heard of or had seen before to impugn personally my honor because we have a show on Friday mornings where we talk about theology and aliens and Bigfoot and things like that. He claimed that Dave Rubin was part of a Russian influence operation without any evidence because Dave Rubin commented on funny viral videos. That's the Merrick Garland DOJ. Now, the questions I have is he never presented any evidence. It's conjecture and an indictment.

He used it to smear me, Benny Johnson, Dave Rubin, and others. The case was dropped informally in December because the election was over and my lawyers couldn't get them to move on it or publish a statement. These people, I'll make every polite argument I can logically, but my, my personal experience having been maligned by evil men using the power of government to destroy their political opponents? I faced it personally. And when they, when I get a call from journalists saying, explain to me why you're named as an individual in this Russia investigation. The Biden DOJ did a press conference where Merrick Garland comes out, makes a bunch of claims never proven and with zero evidence, but they wrote it in an indictment. And then I've got sponsors calling me up. I've got

threats, death threats or otherwise, because we licensed a show to another company based in Tennessee called The Culture War, where Friday mornings we would debate various issues, which include flat earth, theology, interdimensional beings, a plethora of nonsense and cultural topics, which does include dating like our next show we're still doing is going to be dating on November 8th, and routine interviews. Now, Dave Rubin is the most egregious example of of how this was a fraudulent DOJ case to prosecute their political enemies in that Dave Rubin's contract with Tenet was specifically to look at viral videos of like cats and laugh. And Merrick Garland publicly and personally came out and said, this was spreading Russian

propaganda. So forgive me, but I don't think a video of a cat falling into a tub was Russian propaganda, nor my argument with a geocentrist on why the earth is the center of the universe. That was a lie. And worse still, I had to hire two legal teams because of this. And in December, my lawyer called me and said, the Biden DOJ has dropped the case informally, and they will no longer be in communicating with us. And I said, no fucking way. They cannot go on TV and spit in my face like that and then drop it all.

It was political. The only reason they did it. So in December of last year, and they have never come out and done anything about it. Now, I'm not about to call the DOJ and say, guys, can we finally wrap this up? However, Lauren Chen issued a statement saying that in April, under Trump, the DOJ formally closed the investigation with no evidence or proof, yet still it is weaponized by the corporate press against me. And that was the Biden DOJ that did it. So these people are unrepentant evil. They are liars. And they did this to destroy their political enemies in media. And now we've got another story. Mike Ben's reporting that the Atlantic Council specifically targeted me because in 2020, when the election fraud narrative was going around about Dominion and the right was claiming that fake ballots and all the stuff, I said that's ridiculous the whole time. And then I said the strategy used by Democrats in 2020 to win was ballot harvesting, which is legal. And that was the key to them collecting these votes. And according to Mike Ben's, the Atlantic

Council traced back the emergence of the ballot harvesting narrative, which ultimately resulted in 10,000 mules and a bunch of other legal actions and said, Tim Poole is the progenitor of this theory. We need to shut him down. And what happened? YouTube that came down on us with the hammer, banned a bunch of episodes and suppressed my accounts and channels. The Biden DOJ personally went to various outlets and threatened to suspend and censor people. So we can we can have a debate on the merits of various legal cases. And that's me being nice because I think when you get to the bottom of it, Biden's DOJ were crooked as crooked could possibly be. And that's not saying anything about the Trump administration. It's just that I had to live through what those people did.

The stress and the death threats I received still to this day because Merrick Garland is an evil, evil man. Well, Bruce off. Rant over, sorry. Yeah, no, I hear you. And I'm aware of what you went through, Tim. And when I looked at the indictment, it did not allege any wrongdoing by the influencers like you who created content for that company. Fake.

Never did. Right. Another lie. It described you as an unwitting victim of it. In fact, I looked up the press conference itself. And in the press conference, Merrick Garland did say this. The company never disclosed to the influencers or to their millions of followers its ties to our audience. and the Russian government. So the only thing I'd say is that I know...

They never released any evidence. They dropped the case two months later. The play here was simple. They did a press conference. For what reason? For what reason to a press conference and then drop the case a month later, a month and a half later? I think the press conference was to call out the Russian actors for infiltrating in trying to influence the election, but they used unwitting influencers. And I think that I understand why you're so pissed off at it. Well, let me ask you a question in response to that. Yeah. What about a debate on modern dating in the United States is Russian propaganda?

Doesn't sound like propaganda to me. Certainly doesn't. So why is Merrick Garland claiming that? I was unwittingly sharing Russian propaganda because he's lying. Well, and it's ridiculous that, listen, the challenge we have in this country largely is that there's a group of people that just believe these evil people. But for me to have to experience it, and I'm sitting here going, guys, we had a guy on, who was a geocentrist, and we had another guy on who was a flat earther debating.

I don't understand how this is Russian propaganda. Why did the AG go on TV and claim that I was doing that? Unwittingly or otherwise. And you've had people on here who talk about Ukraine, on the Ukrainian side against Russia. Timcast, IRL never had a license agreement with tenant media. Yeah, Timcast is different. Culture wars where they talk about it. It's a totally separate, an entirely separate company.

Right, but I'm just saying that I get why you're upset about it. I understand. But I'm just trying to get in Merrick Garland's brain that Merrick Garland is someone who, remember, he appointed a special prosecutor who prosecuted Joe Biden's son. I mean, that's something, right? No, because he pardoned him. He took, well, but not Merrick Garland didn't, but he actually prosecuted Joe Biden's son. That's a meaningless. Well, also, Matt Gates, who was investigated under the Bill Barr, Department of Justice, Merrick Garland took that investigation over and then dropped the investigation. He also allowed- Because it was bunk. Well, so the issue here is this. I'll say the same thing. Just like that Merrick Garland dropped the Russian influence investigation into tenant. He does a press conference, says, look at this bad thing that happened. And two months later says, we don't care about that. Should it, would it have been prudent of him to come out and say, we have no evidence? We were wrong. And so we're stopping the investigation. Well, when they announced the indictments, they came out and said, here's why we're doing the indictments. And they made clear that the influencers themselves, like you, were not involved in this. That's not the point. The point is he claimed that I'm an idiot who was sharing Russian propaganda through a Russian propaganda through a show that is largely apolitical. And then when he decided there was no evidence and they weren't going to pursue it, he said, let him stew and rot like whatever. I'm going to avoid swearing.

Maybe it would have been professional for a man who did a press conference asserting that several high profile conservative leaning individuals or politically on the right, you want to malign them and impugn their honor. and then you find out you're wrong. Maybe you then hold another press conference and say, I'd like to formally apologize to these individuals who work to this company. We will not be pursuing this case. We don't have the evidence to do it. Thank you, goodbye. Well, first off, prosecutors never do that.

Is it common for the AG to do a press conference, maligning individuals like that? The only time that they speak is at the four corners of the indictment. They announce the indictment, and then the stuff goes away. And that is something that in the prosecutorial profession, when people are investigated, they often don't even tell them that the investigation is over. So as far as what happened at the end of the investigation, I think he didn't feel the need to apologize to you because he came out and said, you were not involved in this. And so for him, he's thinking, that's all I need to do. But that's why I don't want to. What was the crime? The crime was the

use of dollars to infiltrate the, to metal essentially by the Russians. The Russians had this influence operation, and it was undisclosed, and it was through RT. Why publicly announce it? Because it was an indictment that you announced at the time of the indictment. It's unethical to talk about it during the investigation. You have to do it at the time. Every indictment has a press conference? No, just the major ones. Right.

And so why drop a major investigation? Why do a press conference on a major investigation? Why do a press conference for what you would ultimately had no evidence for and would drop? Is that common? Maybe it is. I don't know. They say, we have a major investigation into this Russian thing. And then a month later, like, no, we don't care about that.

No, they do. When they have an indictment, not investigated, they weren't announcing an investigation. they were announcing an indictment. Yep, yep. And the funny thing is... It would be unethical if they announced an investigation like James Comey did right before the 2016 election. So, you know, it's funny because I end up with two legal teams

and we... I'm begging them. Like, guys, we need to understand what happened here. Because I want a full breakdown of this. I want... We'll provide the DOJ with whatever they need. And then we can issue these statements and show these documents and prove what was going on. And then we'll prove the...

In this... in this pursuit, we'll show the culture where which we license is a relatively a political show. We've done feminism and politics, modern dating. We've done geocentrism, interdimensional theory, time. We had one guy in talking about MH370. Usually, like last Friday, we had a political debate, but it's, you know, 80, 20, if that. And instead, I get a call saying the DOJ has no interest in pursuing this case at all. And so you have nothing to worry about.

And I said, I'm not worried about them not pursuing it. I said, I'm not worried about them pursuing it. I'm worrying about them dropping it after accusing me of spreading Russian propaganda. And they said, you know what the assessment is? The real intent of Merrick Garland's press conference was in October surprise. It was launched at the end of September to malign Donald Trump and conservatives to imply that the moral worldview we shared was actually a manipulation by a foreign government. And as soon as he lost, they dropped it, walked away and said, eh, we're done. But there's currently still charges against the two employees of the Russian state media.

outlet RT, so it's not totally dropped. There's, there's, so here's informally, they dropped it because it's, I guess you'd argue that's a cold case now that they have no interest in pursuing it. Why, why would they do that? Why would they, why would they launch a press? Look, I talked to my lawyers about it. You know, they said it makes no sense for the AG to launch a, to have a press conference on an unprosecutable case.

Right, but it hasn't been dropped. I mean, it's there. Now maybe it's been dormant because you have a new DOJ, you have new people. No, they dropped it in December. They told my lawyers it was over and go away. But not against those two individuals, right? No, no, no. Yes, that's what I'm talking about.

I contracted two different legal firms because their case pursuing these two individuals in Europe needed our assistance to prove the communications, money laundering, or otherwise. But there isn't any and there never was. And so my lawyers told me, Tim, you need to understand. there is no reason that an AG would launch a criminal indictment against two people they cannot prosecute. These men are not in the United States. They don't know where they are. They don't know what they look like and they will never be found. The only reason you have a press conference about two people you can't even begin to prosecute is for political reasons. And you will likely get nothing from this. And then sure enough in December, they said, your final invoices in. We've been instructed. It's done.

And I said, are they closing it? No, but they're done. I said, what does that mean? It means there is no case. They were never going to prosecute these guys. They can't prosecute them, and they won't be pursuing it further. But they've done this before. So the reason why they prosecute these RT employees is because of election influence operations.

But also in 2022, you know, they also, the DOJ also charged Russians for infrastructure, energy grid meddling, trying to target them. This is some of the GRU people. And yet they know they can't hold. The predicate of their case against these two individuals is that I, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin spread Russian propaganda. But no, no, he's not claiming we did something wrong. If Tim Poole, Benny Johnson, and Dave Rubin did not spread Russian propaganda, then there is no influence operation. I think that Merrick Garland wanted to make sure that you were not being targeted by it as far as that you were cleared.

The three of us were the only ones targeted. Right. But no, he wanted to be. No one's going to go try and send death threats to two random Russians. That's the problem. He wanted to make sure that you were not brought into this. You were not intentionally trying to do anything. And I know what you're saying, but you didn't do it anyways. How could there be a Russian influence operation if the individuals in question who are unwitting never actually shared Russian propaganda? As far as Russian propaganda, I don't know what was

shared or what was not. But Dave Rubin was accused of a lot of this stuff. And whether or not... The show that was licensed and produced through... tenant for Dave Rubin was funny viral videos. That's it. How this is the absurdity. And look, again, you are blindly just believing that the DOJ did something right for no reason. I don't live in that world. I live in a world where we didn't spread Russian propaganda. I've never accepted money from a foreign government. We don't even have investors. We licensed a show that we owned wholly, that we produced internally to a third party company out of Tennessee for live streaming rights. and then he claimed that we were being paid to spread Russian propaganda because he's a sick,

twisted, evil man. That's why. There was no Russian propaganda. No one ever told me what to say. Still to this day, no one tells me what to say. I can say screw Israel. I can say screw Russia. I can say Putin should be removed from power all day and all night. I can say Slava Ukraine. So why is he claiming there was Russian influence and propaganda being spread by me, Benny and Dave, when it never happened? But I don't need to keep saying it over and again, Because I think you understand, we should talk about an apocalypse. But I'll give you the final word on that if you did want to have it. No, you went through hell and I'm back.

And I'm sorry you got death threats and to expend all this money on something where, you know, that's why I'm trying to say that the one difference you and I have is this, is that it is not unusual for DOJ to help press conferences where they announced indictments. And that's what they did here. Also, Merrick Garland, I just don't think he came out of it, came into this with a nefarious motive. I think he came into this saying that we have identified $9.7 million of money that was funneled here to try to influence an election, and we're going to call these RT guys out for it. You got cut up in it. Right before they announced the indictment, the tenant YouTube gained 200,000 subscribers just seemingly over a day. So how does that happen?

I don't know. Right before the initiate of the indictment. Well, nobody knows for sure, but it certainly sounds like a sci-op. a channel with 80,000 subscribers that gets no views that has a variety of random shows about this, that or otherwise, some on the ground interviews, cultural issues, viral funny videos. And then all of a sudden, overnight, it jumps to 300,000. And the staff go, whoa, whoa, whoa, what's going on right now? And then as soon as it hits 300, he comes on and says, look at this major influence operation.

It's clearly, to those of us affected, how about this? I told my lawyers, guys, will they issue a statement? No. Can we ask them to issue? No, they won't do it. Why would they do this right before an election? It is the utmost naivete to assume this was anything other than a political move to help Biden win an election and malign opposition media. Well, Joe Biden didn't like Merrick Garland. So if Merrick Garland was using his story to help Joe Biden, that would be news to Joe Biden. I mean, Merrick Garland didn't try to help Biden. Merrick Garland tried to help Joe Biden or Kamala Harris won an election by appointing a special prosecutor who then embarrassed Joe Biden, Robert Her, by saying they,

he didn't have the mental faculties. By the way, that didn't have to be put out there. Merrick Garland made the decision to allow that report to be public, and that was very damaging to Joe Biden. That's why I don't think that Merrick Garland came into this, thinking that he's going to help a Democrat get elected. Merrick Garland takes great pains to try to be apolitical. He is disliked by the left because of that. These are all like personal, non-fact-based statements. I can't. There's no debate on how you feel about what Merri-Garland does. I can only talk about what he did. Yeah, but he prosecuted the president's son. who got pardoned, though. So I mean, like, for the fact they prosecuted it, you wouldn't see this DOJ prosecute Donald Trump's kid.

Criminals and ne'er-duels often go through circuitous means to cover up their crimes. It's politics. You want to win points. You say, no one's above the law, Hunter, and then Joe's like, look, we'll do this, just pardon them later. And then Joe said he wouldn't, and he did. We all knew it was going to happen. Nobody was blind to this. Look, we live in a world where everybody but seemingly people in the,

the corporate press and Democrats knew Joe Biden's brain was cooked. The first time he said bad a calf care, true to not shop at a pressure. Most of us were just like, okay, this guy ain't all with it. Yet they kept going on TV being like, no, no, everything's fine. So at a certain point. Sharp as attack. Indeed. At a certain point, I'm just going to be like, these people are lying and there's no reason to

give them the benefit of the doubt. But we should talk about snapocalypse. And I'm sure it'll be just as fun. So we've got this from CNBC. States sue Trump administration to keep SNAP benefits during government shutdown. A group of states sued the Trump admin in an effort to maintain funding. The U.S. Agricultural Department has suspended SNAP benefits as of November 4th. The lawsuit noted.

The suit was filed four days after the Trump admin said it would not use $6 billion in Congressionally appropriated emergency funding to maintain benefits during the shutdown for SNAP, which provides food stamps to more than 40 million people. We have that from NPR. Oh, okay. This is why I hate the corporate press. So this article earlier today was titled, Trump says emergency funds will not be used for SNAP benefits, but because the corporate press has no journalistic ethics, they do what's called stealth editing, where I refreshed the article and they rewrote it. So bravo NPR on being unethical in journalism. But there we go. So the question I suppose is, what authority would any court have to make the Trump administration release money for SNAP? Is that a question? possible? They do have standing. The states have the standing to sue. Now, whether the courts will go

along with it, I don't know. Is the remedy possible? Yeah, yeah. States have sued the federal government for SNAP before. It's just, this is different because this is during a shutdown and this is a choice by the federal government to say, all right, while we're shut down, we're not giving you the money. And aside from the political and popularity of it, I think the states can sue. I just don't know which way the courts are going to go on it. I recognize standing. makes a lot of sense, right? Do the states have a right to sue over this, it seems? The answer is, yes. The question is, would a judge have the authority to make a political move like that? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. But why not? I mean, the courts do have oversight over it. I mean, you're talking

about technical rules of funding and states' rights and federalism and all these things that come into play. But that's why it's tough because I'm not aware of this happening ever before in a shutdown where the administration says that we're not going to release the fund. for food, you would think, if anything, is emergency funding, it would be this. But again, with that said, there's no guarantee which way it would go. I mean, the Supreme Court has given a lot of deference to executive power. So I can see the Supreme Court siding with the president on this. Is it, how long would, do you think, I don't know if you would know, but how long do you think a court case would take for something like this, right? Because the reality is we have

three days. What we've found is generally the lower courts, the district courts, will be more favorable to the plaintiffs against the White House. But then as you get high higher up towards the Supreme Court, they have a greater sense of deference towards executive authority. We saw this with the National Guard in the streets, that even the once liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California has been ruling for the president in deferring to his authority. So I think initially you'll see a court perhaps saying, no, you've got to release it, and then it'll get stayed on appeal by the appellate court and eventually get up to the U.S. Supreme Court. And by the end, this shutdown should be over and then this thing will be

moot. So I guess my question is. It's just, it looks like they're going to file. There may be an emergency injunctioner of some sort. Trump's going to file for appeal. And in the meantime, he's not going to move these funds. And there's no way it's happening in three days. Agreed. Yeah.

I mean, yeah, you and I are in agreement on this. Question is, where does this play politically? Is this cause people to start getting the pitchforks out and saying, hey, let's fix this problem? I mean, both sides are getting what they want out of the shutdown. Yeah. And I just think, I would hope that government is not. as dysfunctional as it appears to be that they can actually open the doors and turn on the lights again? I think that the political divisions in this country are so pronounced that it's just, it doesn't

matter what either side wants from either side. Go ahead, go ahead. I've been talking too much. No, I just think that what we can all agree on is we have the liberty to drink Coca-Cola. Not paid to say this whatsoever, but these brave Democrat states are standing up for our rights to drink Coca-Cola. As long as it's been like on SNAP benefits? Yeah, yeah, because I mean, I've been under, you know, good authority that it's a huge limit on our liberty if they cut off our access to Coca-Cola with government money.

Man, I think they should. But I saw a clip earlier of Mike Johnson, and I'm paraphrasing because I don't remember exactly what he said, but it was something to the effect of we don't want anything. We, there's nothing that we want from Democrats. We've proposed this to them. They can vote yes. So there's no reason to negotiate. And that right away, I'm like, well, there is.

Democrats want something. Mike Johnson's effectively saying, we're happy with the government shut down. So why would we bother doing any deals? Like it's a win-win for them. Yeah. And he doesn't have to seat the member of Congress from Arizona. Indeed. And then vote to release the Epstein fight.

Yeah, I mean, that's how government shutdowns have always worked, is the party demanding something is always really blamed for it. I mean, going back to the previous shutdown, I mean, the contestant. is over border wall funding, et cetera, and people blame their public. But this is what's so fascinating is this is unprecedented where the media is still siding with the Democrats, even in spite of the fact that they're the ones demanding something in this instance. Yeah, why do you think that is that the public seems to be supporting for the first time

the party out of power when it comes to a shutdown? Is it because of the health care issue that that's an issue that resonates? I don't know if that's true, though. As far as the polling? Yeah, I mean, it's, it's, it's, I, I, it's, I, I, it's, I, I, it's, I, I, I, I, I, it's, I, polling is impossible right now. Right? I mean, it's wild swings. You know, I'm looking at Real Clear Politics average.

I try to use aggregates because individual polls are going to have their bias or whatever there. But it's nuts. I mean, one polls like Trump plus eight and then a day later, another polls, Trump minus eight. So I don't know which one's right and which one's wrong. You go to like Real Clear Politics and they show all the different polls and they're all over the place. There's like a 20 point spread between the polling. It's like how I can't determine it. I can't parse the information.

And they have the ratings of certain polls, like the letter grades for the certain polls. why even give the F polls? So the bad polls. Why show them? Like RMG two weeks ago had trumpet up four. And then for the same time period, relatively the same time period, he was minus 14 with Knipeak.

Well, this is... 16 to 20 and 15 to 22. That's his approval rating. What about who's winning the shutdown? Like who's... Right. My point was like, this is the easiest way to look at an aggregate

because they poll so often that polls are effectively meaningless for the most part. I used to do segments all the time on my morning show where I'm like, look at the poll's current trend. And here's what people are thinking. But now I've stopped because it's nuts. Minus 14, minus four in the same time period is meaningless. So when I look at one poll from say it's like Gallup or something or quit being a better example for more current polling, I can't believe if it's like, yeah, Democrats are winning this one?

I'm like, are they? Well, I also think like it's really difficult to poll on who's the blame for the shutdown. Because this story is, like, I think a lot of people don't even realize the government's shut down. I mean, there's, the news cycle's been so insane that I don't even think the press has much appetite to, like, cover this in depth. I mean, like when, when NPR reports on their daily podcast, they're just like, yeah, okay, we have to talk about this, I guess, because it seems important. But like, I think the American people are just, so, the news cycle's been so cooked that there's just not even really that much interest in the drama over the shutdown. So it's really hard to determine polling. It's really determined to, you know, gauge interest.

Here's Quinnipiac from a week ago. Who is more responsible for the government shutdown? Voters blame Republicans slightly more than Democrats. They say 45% of registered voters think Republicans in Congress are more responsible for the government shutdown, while 39% think Democrats in Congress are more responsible and 11% volunteer. They think both parties are equally responsible. However, at the same time, Quinnipiac had Trump at minus 14 for a similar time period. I don't believe Trump is at minus 14 in the polls.

I don't necessarily believe that he's at plus four either. I certainly know a lot of people don't like Trump, but minus 14 is very heavy. In aggregate, he's at 44.9 approval to 51.5.5.5.5 disapproval. Minus 7 seems relatively plausible, but Quinnipiac seems to be heavily by. So this is why it's hard to track. I've read a handful of polls showing that Democrats are largely winning this. But I don't, the reason why I find it hard to believe is that Republicans would not keep up a fight that risked their success in the midterms.

So there's a few ways to look at it. They don't think this will matter in the midterms because a year is an eternity in politics. They don't care about political blowback because the rewards they're getting from it are massive and they'd rather the political victories, which I don't think so because I think the blowback from loss of snap is going to hurt them politically.

They must genuinely believe they're winning politically. Yeah. That the perception is beneficial to them. And Democrats must agree. So what I think is the polls are so divergent Republicans are probably going, guys, we're winning. And Democrats are going, guys, we're winning. Yeah. Well, yeah, I think like both parties are galvanizing their bases right now as well. And that's primarily what's driving, like, both sides not really interested in negotiating here.

I think that's right. I think the Republicans are taking the long game thinking they can just wait out the Democrats that people will start to really feel the pain and start to blame the Democrats. So we'll see. But also, if the Republicans thought they were looking good going to the midterms, they wouldn't be trying so hard to gerrymandering some of these districts. I do think they see the trends as far as history, the historical trends that the party out of power generally picks up seats in the House, and they want to stem that. But we'll see. We're an uncharted territory here, and I hope they can open it up. But the longer this goes, will the trends change? Will their Democrats start getting blamed for it? I don't know. People are worried that their health care

premiums are going to double if this bill, a clean bill goes through. I kind of just think we're well beyond the political argument phase of what's going on in this country politically. Well, I mean, you look at the celebrations for Charlie Kirk's assassination. Obviously, we can say, you know, like the Clinton's, Obama, high-level Democrats and liberals said this is wrong and this is bad and a heart goes out. And you can see that trend actually in the polls on political violence where the older generations are averse and say, no, we can't do this. The younger generations are like ready and waiting, locked and loaded. So when you see these younger liberals and leftists coming out on social media, dancing, celebrating, mocking,

I mean, even 40-year-old liberals, like that woman who was like pointing in her neck. Yeah. There's one young guy, Gen Z with got his Halloween costume was a dead Charlie Kirk. Yeah. That's where I'm just like, I hear you on the premiums and medical and all those things and SNAP benefits. But I really don't think that if you're 45 and under, you care about this in the majority. Or what I'd say? The majority cares about it.

So I would estimate that there's many people who are in their 40s. Younger 40s, older millennials, who are concerned about the cost of medical because they have kids. However, millennials largely didn't have kids. So they don't care. The issue of medical costs are largely for the older generation. And as you get to the younger generation, you're less and less likely to find someone as a family or even believes they'll get medical care in the first place. Well, and on top of that, right, part of what Obamacare does is because it limits the amount that you can increase premiums based on age

it redistributes money away from those younger people to older people. So they actually benefit financially from those measures being withdrawn. Young people are ready for this whole thing to go belly up. Yeah. Right? Telling young people to pay taxes to boomers for Social Security. And they're going to be like, Revolution when? Like they literally are.

Yeah. Well, and yeah, the fact that like social media now drives information, the polemics are driven by young people and most young people have given up on institutions across the board. And so it's like really tough to really, you know, drive up a lot of interest in a government shutdown and a lot of people have just tapped out anyway or they just don't think that this is an institution they can put faith or trust in whatsoever. Let's jump to the story from the New York Post. Fuming SNAP recipients threatened to loot if food stamps are cut November 1st.

Stay the F out of my way. Quote, I'm going to tell y'all straight up like this. I just got that text that the link is definitely cut the F off for November. Y'all better stay the F out of my way in the store because I'm walking out with carts and I'm not paying for ish. Another added, you know what? Since they want to take food stamps away, I'm going to go to effing Walmart, grab anything I damn want. Put that ish right in the basket and walk right up out that B. I'm not paying for a damn thing, said another.

42 million people, and you don't need 42 million people for instability. So they're saying straight up, I don't know, man. I mean, is this what's going to, like, come November 1st, there's literally no benefits for anybody? And so they're just... It's time to deputize. the Walmart greeters. I think it's the way out of this. I think it's stickers and then firearms. Imagine this. Imagine if the Republicans, let me first say, I have no idea the political play here for Democrats or for Republicans. Democrats could certainly come out and vote yes in the Senate. Seven votes.

They turn it. They turn it. They speak it back on. Actually, I think they need my, yeah, right. I think one Democrat defected, one Republican defected. Seven votes and snap is back. But Democrats must believe that whatever they're doing, is going to benefit them. Republicans must believe the same thing. So I'd have to assume the Republican play is, let's piss off as many recipients as possible and blame the Democrats for why they didn't get their food stamps. Yeah.

Yeah, I mean, that's a very important voting block for the Democrats. Historically, people have always seen this as the Democratic Party being the party that's going to promise benefits the people that's going to essentially allow them to buy gifts from the Treasury with their vote. And so this has always been something people have been aware of. And Democrats cannot afford to, upset that particular demographic in the same way that Republicans can. Though that's probably changing.

I think the last two elections have shown us that higher income people are starting to vote Democrat more often and lower income people are starting to vote Republican more often. But I think the stereotype generally still exists and I still think there is some truth to it. So the Republicans know this is going to hurt the Democrats way more than it's going to hurt us. Yeah. And kind of like what you're saying where we are really an uncharted territory. I think that's what's driving a lot of this is a lot of these. A lot of these consulting groups, a lot of these policy institutes, they don't really know what to do.

They don't know what's – so the only message they can really signal to the parties is just like, I don't know, just dig your heels in. Hopefully the country just blames the other side because they don't know what to do. These are the class of people that usually are calling shots here, and they say, okay, it's very clear if you do this, you're going to get this outcome. I think people are scrambling in these consultants and groups and policy institutes. They don't know what to do. Oh man It's a dystopian What are those movies that you see

I'm a Robocop Is my dating myself with Robocops I had pretty much The same type of thing When was Robocop? Like Robocop late 80s? 80s I think yeah Yeah I am dating myself

Wow I used to be the youngest person Every room Now I'm the oldest That happens I mean hey hey I mean look They're all younger than me Exactly

You guys are in futures now Ever seen Robocococ I'm gonna fire everyone Everyone younger than me And hire only old people Thank you well good I think consider me I hear the cost of living is low here in West Virginia oh dude it's not anymore it's getting nuts it's funny because I had someone I can't remember I was doing an interview or something

and they were like how do you think the economy is doing it was like it's bad and they're like oh you like you like Trump I thought you'd say it was a good and I'm like are you nuts bro the cost of houses is skyrocketing out here it's insane there was a property out here three years ago that was like 200 and it's like 550 now yeah and it's a bungalow and I was like how the what is go it's It's crazy. Not to mention gold and silver through the roof. Yeah. That's not because good things are happening.

Yeah, exactly. No, it's true. Now what people need to understand about SNAP, and again, I'll say this, I'm for just cutting it off. It's not the preferable system. And I wouldn't even argue that I'm largely for it. It's like a 50.1% let it happen, I guess. But this is going to impact not just the recipients, but all of the stores.

There's going to be areas of cities. People need to understand this. It's going to be geographic. There are areas in cities that have high-density welfare recipients, and the stores there probably can't exist without these food benefits going into the area. So the government basically says, we're going to distribute these resources in this way to these people. However, it's done, whether it's legit or otherwise, whether people are fraudulent or otherwise they do. And then there are impoverished neighborhoods that get a large, a lion's share of these benefits. Well, the areas don't.

The stores there disproportionately rely on people with EBT cards buying goods. So when this cuts off, you're going to see a bunch of bodegas vanish overnight. They're going to be like, we're cooked. We can't sell products. We can't. And then what's going to happen is going to be a ripple effect where these small stores, if they shut, you're going to see a variety of things. Supermarkets in general will see a margin drop, which will result in every distributor

that supplies them seeing a margin drop. It's going to result in a ripple effect. I mean, it is a freight train slamming into a brick wall, stopping at once. And you know what it's like? You guys ever see that movie Hancock? Yeah. Will Smith? Remember when he stops the train?

Can't believe it didn't get the Oscar that year. That one was really amazing. Superhero, a train's coming to save the person. He just stands there and he's like Superman. The train hits him and the whole thing just flips over because the energy's got to go somewhere. So bodegas shut down, corner stores shut down, for those who don't know what a bodega is. And all of a sudden, the local distributors are like the money that we were receiving was largely coming from, you know, 15, 20 percent was EBT. So now we just lost 12 of the stores we supply.

What people need to understand about margin collapse from something like this, supermarkets operate on a 3% margin typically, which means if they lose 3%, they go to business. When they're negative, I mean, they've probably got emergency coffers. They'll probably stay afloat for a little while. But we saw this during COVID when they shut down restaurants. The restaurants like, we've got $20,000 worth of perishable goods. When they shut us down, even for a week, we lose 20 grand. never get back. Well, yeah, the other thing to consider, too, is my understanding is, yes, grocery stores have around a 3% profit margin, but it's even lower in low-income areas where more

people are likely to lose SNAP, which means, I mean, you could be talking closer to like a 1 to 2% profit margin, which really exacerbates the problem. So, snapocalypse. That's why I'm looking at this like there's no way they actually let this happen, but I, at this point, we're three days out, is it, I suppose the, only remedy at this point would be for Trump to release the $6 billion? Because I don't think they could reopen it and pass this fast enough, could they? Not this Congress. Right. Indeed. You know, it used to be, and James, you said this, that this was a Democratic constituency. But we saw things turn on its head in this last election where generally lower income voters

have flocked towards Republicans. And so I think maybe this is something the Democrats say, all right, you're going to take food out of the hands of the poorest. Well, it's going to affect your voters as much or more than ours and let's see who they blame. So that's the question. Who will they blame? I was, I was thinking this that, look, Stephen Miller is a very smart man. You have to like him or agree with him. But underestimate him at your own peril. And I have to imagine he's sitting there in room with Trump and he's like, let's snap expire. Because what's going to happen is the people, the principal recipients of this are not Republican Trump voters. And so, And so it is not going to be your base that is hurt by it largely. The Democrats will see a backlash

because people don't know or care why the system doesn't work. They blame the politicians. So what happens? In Democrat areas, there is outrage over the failures of their member of Congress. It will disproportionately impact Democrat congressional districts going into a midterm election. And that's all they need. That's a big question. Whether that's true or not, we don't know. Well, I'm put like this. EBT benefits are disproportionately, 40% go to white. The rest are non-white.

25.6, I think go to black. Their attitude is like, look, if it's even 2% detriment to the Democrats, it's worth doing. So I think the general common sense approach is going to be, yet it's urban areas with high densities of EBT recipients. less likely to be in rural areas, more likely to be minorities, meaning when you look at the math, Democrats, it's not about who's right or wrong. It's about how many angry people per district? And so the Republicans are going to say, we are going to increase the amount of angry people in every Republican district by 7%. Democrats will increase the amount of angry people by 13. That's good for us. It destabilizes their elections. But that's why they're suing. They sue. Now they take the initiative saying, see, we're trying.

want the speaker to be turned back on, blame the Republicans. But it doesn't matter. Because the voters don't know or care. They only want, they only know results. You go to the average person and ask them about the granular policy implications, actions, otherwise. They're just like, huh? All I know is my card's turned off. But they know who's in power. And who's in power is their member of Congress and their senators. I don't know if most people even know who they're member of Congress is. Trump's not up for election. Trump's not up for election. And that's the point. When they go to vote next year, Trump's on the ballot. So in Democrat districts, you're going to have more anger than a Republican districts, and it's going to be bad for Democrats running for

election, particularly in swing areas. The Democrats are counting that Trump will be on the ballot, not his name, but his presence. He sucks all the auction out of every room. And they're going to think that this is a referendum on Trump. And so that's why the party in power often loses seats in an off-term election. It's true, but let's let me pull this. this one up. I love this, let's see, which one is it? Which party will win the U.S. House? Colchie's prediction market has it near toss-up territory. So shout out to Colchie for sponsoring the show. Hey a second. Is that a toss-up? It looks 58% to 42. Uh-huh. Prediction market, not polls, have the Democrats at 58% likelihood to win control of the House.

Republicans of the 42. Now, considering the historical trend of opposition parties winning, This was actually in May 82.5 to 17.5. No one thought it possible Democrats would lose. And then a variety of things happened. And now it's, as I say, near toss-up territory. I mean, 58 to 42. It was briefly 55 to 45. This is, what, a week ago.

So Democrats improved a little bit, dipped down a little bit. It should not be anywhere this close. So I'm making the bet the Republicans' attitude is, listen, When SNAP benefits go up, a lot of rural working class poor people are going to be celebrating. The Republican message is going to be those people that are mad were stealing from you. And I think a lot of conservative people are going to be like, yep. And then a lot of people in the urban environments are going to be like, I don't know what happened. All I know is you're supposed to have fixed this.

And so even if, I'll put it this way, in New York, in a D plus 3rd. is Trump really worried about losing voters, but it's going to hurt Democrats? In a swing district, maybe, but Trump may be betting. In a swing district where a Democrat is currently in office for Congress, people are going to say, I'm voting for the other guy, regardless of which party it is.

I'm voting for the other guy because what's happening is bad. And I think that bump for the Republicans there, I believe that's because of the SCOTUS, looking like they're going to take on the Voting Rights Act. The initial decline appears to be, like you can see over the past several months, generally related to the public sentiment, the working class, et cetera.

And then this bump that happened right here is when news broke that SCOTUS was likely going to overturn the Voting, was it the Voter Rights Act? Voting Rights Act? Voting rights act? Yeah. They were going to overturn that one. And that's allegedly going to give Republicans

20 more districts. I'll put it like this. When you're at the point in politics, where in order to win, you're just blatantly redistricting. We are well past the point of arguments. I'm looking at it like the Republican's attitude right now. Like even with going back to the DOJ stuff with the pardons and voiding them, they're going to do it. Like maybe I'm wrong, but I think Trump's attitude is all that matters is you win.

As we had on Arne McIntyre last week and he said, I forgot who's quote this is, the sovereign is he who makes the exceptions. or the exemptions, whichever. And so right now, I'm assuming that the Republican Party's attitude is, who cares? You can just do things. That's it. Probably, yeah. Nobody, like, there was a period maybe 30 years ago where the conversation was, let's figure out where we meet, compromise, and then work together. We're way past that.

Yeah. Yeah. There's no. It is accused Trump of being a Russian spy. you know, impeach, whatever, by any means necessary. Get them out and launch investigations. And then with Trump, you get, the election is fake. You get January 6 riots.

Nobody, this is why I said this in 2020 that people are going to, I said people are going to storm the White House. Not exactly correct, but close. Because the arguments, every year, the argument, you know what it is, it's actually really simple. Let me say it like this. The argument only matters to the older crowd. The older you are, the more you're concerned about winning an argument.

The younger you are, the more you're just like crush them. And we see that with the celebration of Charlie Kirk's death. You see it with, I mean, Nick Fuentes getting more and more popular among younger generation, going viral on social media among these younger Gen Z guys, Gen Z skewing right. I don't see a remedy to the track we're on. I think it goes in one direction. You all know that. Well, you have the ability.

You have millions of listeners and followers. And you have the ability to help shape the debate. That's why I'm here. is because you'll have someone like me on it, Tim. And that's something where you're not on the extreme where you're generating hatred, and there are people who you know who they are, who that's how they make their money in doing that.

But that's not who you are. And that's why I think maybe there's some hope if we can have this type of debate, this type of dialogue. I agree with you. And I think it's been great. I'm really glad that you can, and I hope you come back. It was fun, even though I just got really heated and started yelling.

But I would go back to that. what got me so he did, and then say to the millions of people who follow me, who trust me, what do you think they think? How do you think they feel about what Merrick Garland did to me? I think they hate it. And that's why I understand your indignation about it. I understand why you're upset about it, because you had a higher lawyer. You've had death threats. You still have death threats, I'm sure. But because it was fake. It's a lie. The difference that we have on this is not that I think you shouldn't be upset about it. I think the difference is that I don't think Merrick Garland went in there thinking,

I'm going to screw over these right-wing influencers and I'm going to help the Democrat win the election. Just Merrick Garland is not like that he's got his faults. And the people on the left, they are really down on him because they think he dragged his feet after January 6th, didn't want to get involved in going after Trump, didn't even put a special prosecutor into place until it was too late. He went out of his way to make sure Biden's son got prosecuted. Biden was embarrassed by Robert Hur. dropped the case against Matt Gates. This is Merrick Garland in the Democrats' mind. So where I'm coming from is I don't think he came in there thinking, I'm going to screw over Tim Poole and the Republicans.

He may have made mistakes, but I don't think it's because he intentionally tried to hurt you or the Republicans. Why didn't he then reconcile the mistake he made? As far as the case, remember, you said that you heard from your lawyers that they dropped the case in December. Informally. informally, right? But I haven't seen that. Like, it's not reporting. No, no, no, but it's informal. And that's the point. The case or against, the case against the RT people. That's what, so here's the timeline. Press conference. This thing happened. Tim Poole, Benny, Dave, did nothing wrong. Immediately, we were attacked by every political actor imaginable, threatening our sponsors, trying to get us banned, death threats. There's no way Merrick Grasman was unaware that would be the case. The argument made by Merrick. Garland was that we disseminated Russian propaganda. That's factually incorrect. The shows that were licensed were not in any meaningful way Russian propaganda. People tried claiming that because of comments I made about a German indictment of a Ukrainian cut out of context, that was Russian propaganda. Germany indicted a Ukrainian guy for bombing Nord Stream 2. I said, if a Ukrainian bombed Nord Stream 2,

they are an enemy of this country, Ukraine, sanctioning this would make them an enemy of our country trying to drag us in a war. So then they say, aha. So a totally different company, a different show. And then they try to make some circuitous argument. But the point is, Merrick Garland had no evidence, issued an indictment against two individuals that could never be prosecuted, falsely claiming that the prominent key players were unwitting Russian propaganda, which is false, never apologized for his error. And then in December, the feds, the DOJ instructed my lawyers that they would be informally closing the case. That is, it will remain open. We will not tell anybody, but we will no longer pursue it. and we no longer need your correspondence. And I rejected that and said, absolutely not.

What do I have to do? And that's when I was instructed, Tim, this was for the election. There's nothing you can do. The DOJ never had any intention to prosecute two men from a faraway land they can't prosecute. Well, they've done that before, though. Sure. There's several. And they did it right before the election.

And so my point is this, not to rehash that whole argument. My point is, to the millions of people who do watch this show, who know, that I've disparaged Russia, but I've also disparaged Ukraine and don't rightly care about either because they're not America. They know Merrick Garland lied. They know that it caused us damage. They know that it put us at tremendous risk politically, financially, and safety. And the view is Merrick Garland is a portent of what's to come. This is what you get from the boomer class trying to destroy you. He didn't mean to try and destroy my family's life and put us at risk and have every political actor and faction trying to disrepich to shreds. He didn't mean for the death and he just did it an accident.

So the response is, okay, these people are either so brazenly inept, they're dangerous or they're malicious. And now the presumption is wholly it's malicious, considering Jenna Ellis being prosecuted. I mean, whatever your argument over what you think Jenna Ellis did, it is bold to criminally charge a person's lawyer. Local prosecutor do that. But it doesn't matter. The Democratic Party is not a separate entity. The Democrats work at the state and federal level all the same, and the prosecutors are once again aligned with these political parties, federal or otherwise.

The fact that she pled guilty to a much lower charge. Means that they threatened her life, and she begged them to leave her alone. But also, I was getting there where the initial charge of RICO seems to be an overcharge. When you charge someone with such a serious crime as Rico and then a few weeks later, they plead guilty to almost nothing. That, to me, is a problem. Then it does seem like an overcharge. But, you know, you talk about Merrick Garland who comes out before an election and has his press conference. But don't you think that James Comey deserves the same thing when he violated FBI policy to announce that he was reopening the Hillary Clinton email investigation just days before the election?

and that, then he closed it right before with very little fanfare, right? It was obviously political. And I think Hillary Clinton should have been criminally charged for the destruction of public records. But the Comey part, right? Indeed, yes, yes, absolutely. We have an overtly political DOJN always have. Who is whose side was he on then? He was hurting Hillary Clinton.

Indeed. Yeah, indeed. I can't speak to the motivations of James Comey. I don't like the guy nor do I trust him. And there's a million and one reasons we can assume, but I can say, I don't care if it's Comey or Garland or anybody. An October surprise is an obvious October surprise. You're playing games. We get it. Now, the issue with Hillary Clinton is that she should have been charged over the emails thing a long time ago.

But if the precedent is we're not going to do that, we're not going to play that game. They shouldn't have gone after Trump. They shouldn't have gone after Trump for documents at Mar-a-Lago. Those are, I mean, apples and oranges. The documents, I think that was legit because, again, well, we already talked about that. Right. So to the Comey issue, the apples is that it is dangerous for parties to swap targeting each other when they switch power. So for Trump to be targeted by Obama and Yates and Comey and whoever else, Biden with being a Russian spy as he entered office is terrifying. Right. As Trump has campaigning, the accusment being a traitor, he enters office with this weight over him. And then for a variety of reasons, I which, I which I believe are largely Trump's fault, not so much that he did it to himself, but that he didn't know what he was getting into. He ends up with the Mueller investigation and all this ridiculous

nonsense. Then you end up with these individuals, these holdovers in the FBI, the DOJ, putting pressure on social media organizations to censor people, which is a fact. And let me just succinctly wrap this up. I accurately reported long time ago that social media companies were censoring conservative voices and pro-Trump voices. And every Wahoo in the corporate press said I was lying. I'm a conspiracy that's admitted up. Gizmodo was the organization that initially reported this. I cited them and then I get accused of lying.

We now know all that was true. We now know that Biden's DOJ was sending letters, had illicit access to big tech platforms through backdoors, through threats against these companies. Zuckerberg came out and said, we resisted, but they forced us to do it. I mean, what Biden did is evil. Maybe Trump did evil stuff too.

But to the main point, before we go to our superchats, is that nobody should want conflict or crisis. Nobody should want war. It will be the worst thing you ever see come to pass. And these young people, largely these urban lefty Antifa types that are celebrating violence and revolution, they are going to be the first to weep. If it ever actually happens. Because they're going to be like, why can't I eat food anymore? I think conservatives are largely going to be like, we mostly live in the middle of nowhere and we have chickens in her backyard. So it will predominantly impact urban individuals who lose access to these resources, but everybody will be lesser because of it.

Unfortunately, neither side will back down. There are two distinct moral worldviews that have been described as the multicultural democracy of America, the Democrats, the Liberals, the Left, and the Constitutional Republic of America, the right, the conservatives, etc. Neither of them will accept the proposition of the other. That is, Democrats have proposed abortion under nine months. States like Colorado. It happens. on Richard Dene. Yeah, but does that really happen?

Yes, it does. It does. It literally happen. When does a nine-month abortion happen unless there's a threat to the health of the mother? It does happen. Well, no, no, no, but this is actually, to call that an abortion,

here's why this is complicated, because when the woman is nine months pregnant, and there is a medical reason why the baby needs to come out, you just induce labor and she gives birth early. To perform an abortion on top of that is never a medical necessity. But let's put the aside, because that actually doesn't, that argument is not to the point I'm making. And if, you know,

by all means, Seamus can argue with you and show you the facts on this and we can disagree. My point is neither will accept the proposition of the other. So in Colorado, when they said, we would like to legalize abortion unrestricted up to nine months. Conservatives and moderate liberals even said, why? And they said, well, it doesn't happen anyway. I don't care what you think happens or doesn't happen. Don't legalize it. They've also proposed. child sex changes. Put these people on TV. There is no reality where a conservative accepts that proposition. The conservative argument is drag shows for children are felonious and should be shut down immediately. And Democrats say we should have drag shows for children. What's the problem?

Both sides saying that is an existential threat to my moral worldview. There's no reality where the Democrats, Republicans come to compromise on when children can get sex changes. It's an absolute, there's no middle ground. It's either you all. the louder you don't. So I don't see a reality where moving forward, either side will negotiate a middle ground between the two. It's just not going to happen. I do worry that we're so dug in, and people are not talking to each other. Now we have different social media sites. I mean, you have Blue Sky and Twitter are separate, and you have podcasts, and people have all this confirmation bias. That's why I come on shows like yours, and I've been on Megan Kelly and other shows,

because I just think you're one of the few who does allow for that dialogue. You think Nick Fuentes does? That's not. No, he tries. Yeah, but he does. He would love to go on liberal shows. Oh, my gosh. But here's a thing.

So I respect it. I appreciate it. We're glad to have you. Liberals don't do these shows. That's a problem. And charge money. Don Lemon said, $50,000. Wow.

And he's worth every penny. I know, Don's a good guy. That's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, that's, surprising because shows do not pay. That's the thing. I know. Shows don't pay. So it's not like it's just you. No shows pay. Every, I shouldn't say every, but 80% of the liberals we ask come back with a fee. Well, you know, Bill Maher, who I like, he says the same thing you do. He says that I invite the Clint's and liberals on the show. They don't come. Only the Republicans seem to come. Bill Maher's right wing. Well, he's considered right wing by the far left, but he's actually

considers himself old school liberal. But Bill Maher and I largely agree. on a lot of things. And I had a great time. I grew up watching a show when I was a kid. And the problem is what largely divides Bill Maher and I, and I told him this, and with all due respect, is that he doesn't know what's going on. Were you on a show? Yes. Oh, well, on Club Random. Oh, that's cool. I'm not going to real time. So you got a drink with him on a show? Yeah, yeah. And I don't really drink, so I had some tequila, because I'm not like an alcohol bad. I just don't do it for health reasons because I just try to eat healthy, right? I got a good BPM, all that good stuff. I try to get caffeine, like a caffeinated beverage here.

You don't even have that. I'm impressed. We do. We have verba. We have tons of yearba. No, I didn't see it. Yeah, it's downstairs. Oh, man, no, I didn't get it. I'm here without any caffeine.

So here's the example of Bill Maher, because Bill Maher is right wing. Several years ago, he had on Dennis Prager. And Prager mentioned that in bathrooms, they were putting tampons in the boys' bathroom because they're claiming that men can menstruate. and everyone on real time laughed at him. And Bill said, no, they're not. They put them in there for their girlfriends. However, the interesting thing, the story cited by Dennis Prager, and this is, I think 2018,

was actually a three-year-old story. So various college publications and blogs had already written about, yes, men can menstruate. And yes, colleges are putting tampons in men's room. Three years after that story breaks, and we are all discussing it, Prager on real time says it is a lie to claim men can menstruate and Bill Maher laughed and said, Dennis, like, what are you talking about? This is crazy. I've never heard this. So I believe that Bill Maher, you know, it was almost 70. And I'm a fan. He gets his news probably from corporate cable TV. So he's not going to be apprised to everything that those of us who are

reading the news all day, every day are. So what happens is he's three or four years late to the conversation. And if you were able to sit down with Bill and show him a piece of media, for instance, I won't play because I do all the time, but the video from I Am Jazz, are you familiar with the show? I don't think so. Jazz Jennings was seven, socially transitioned at 11, got surgeries and puberty blockers or whatever. Not surgery, prebutter blockers, has a show, and I think it's TLC. And there's a viral clip where Jazz Jennings' mother says that Jazz, a biological male who is trans doesn't use the dialator so she will wake jazz up in the middle of the night take the dialator lubricate and say you stick this in your vagina or if you don't i will and that if

jazz leaves and doesn't do this i will ring her neck you show that to a conservative and they're going to scream bloody murder out abuse yeah you show that to bill maher like one of the most horrific instance well i mean think about you took a pre-bubescent child surgically removed his genitals dude i can't even hear about and then when when the child is an adult and says i don't want to do this anymore. You say, if you don't do this, I'll ring your neck. You show it to Bill Maher and he's going to go, this is abhorrent and shouldn't be allowed. And the question that is, why are you voting for the party that is making it possible and putting it on TV? And he's, he's not, I don't know, because Trump is bad, because Trump's lewd and lascivious and self-interested and enriching his family.

And I'm like, dude, make every political argument in the world that you want, fine. if you come to me and say you can have the mafioso who's going to get rich off crypto schemes and build golf courses and golden ballrooms or you can have the guy

who's going to surgically amputate a child's testicles and then put on TV a woman threatening to jam a foreign object up inside of him if he refuses and I'm going to be like

ah give me the mafia guy and that's where we're at we got to go to chats we got to go to chats so smash the like button share the show with everyone you know

you can follow let me on next to Instagram at Tim Gass. We got a great sponsor, because we got to read a sponsor post. Guys, Tax Network USA, TNUSA.com slash Tim. Check it out. Do you owe back taxes? Our tax returns still unfiled. Did you forget to file for an extension? Time's running out. Even gathered all your documents or made any estimated payments. You can too be targeted by the IRS and they can garnish your wages, freeze your bank accounts, or even seize your property. And rest assured, my friends, even though the government is currently shut down, all of those IRS agents are sitting there rubbing their hands, looking through the files. In the moment they come back,

they're jumping on those backlogs. So there is help available Tax Network USA. A nationwide tax firm has helped taxpayers save over $1 billion in tax debt. They filed hundreds of thousands of tax returns and assisted thousands in reducing their tax burdens and they can help you too. Don't wait, visit tnusa.com slash tim or call 1,800-958-1,000 for a 100% free consultation. In one short call, the experts at Tax Network USA will guide you through some simple questions to determine how much you can save. Take action now before it's too late. Visit tnusa.com slash tim. And now we're going to read your chats, which should just make it more, I don't know, more of a debate.

Kid Funky says if Trump says after the fact that he did unclassified documents, were they unclassified. That was his argument. If Biden says after the fact that they were pardoned, does it make them pardoned? Yeah, I mean, it means that he didn't do any wrong. Are both plenary powers of the president? No, no, there's two different things. If Biden afterwards affirms the pardons, said, yeah, I pardon them.

That's what happened. I approve this. Then there's no problem here. If Trump, after the fact, says, oh, these, now I unclassify them, well, no deeds already done. What's the process by which a president unclassified something? That's actually a good question because member Kashtel was saying, yes, I was there when Trump said, I declassify. It's like Michael Scott in the office.

Can I use that reference when he says, I declare bankruptcy. It doesn't work like that. There's a process. Exactly. Especially for nuclear secrets. There's a process. So I appreciate the argument. That person who wrote in would be a good lawyer, but there are apples and oranges, as we said.

But if executive privilege exists for the president, isn't that a red tape argument? At that point, you're not actually talking about him doing something nefarious. You're just saying he didn't go through the proper procedure. Right. But there is a statutory procedure, especially for nuclear secrets. You just can't say, I declassify. Trump was actually saying, in my mind, I declassify it, which is not a thing. Signage says, respectfully, I'd rather have Chet GPT be my lawyer than this guy. But I read that because I want to push back. Are you nuts? This guy's doing great. He's arguing his positions very well. Thank you, the best chat I saw. That's why it took 40 minutes to get through the first segment because you do a good job articulating. And I must say I would like CHAPGBT to be my lawyer too. I mean, that, right?

You can't get better than artificial intelligence. Not even, well, what's happening is they're degrading. They're degrading. Yeah, because they're consuming their own refuse. So what's happening is the way they learn is they read the internet. But the internet is now half AI generated content. So they're reabsorbing it and going insane. JetGPT has gotten particularly bad, like really bad.

I'm a Gemini guy personally. I, you know, I didn't like Grock for a while, even though Elon's raving about it and I'm like, yeah, yeah, yeah. I try it. As of right now, I give Grock the lead. Grock watched my podcasts. Like, I was, I opened Grock and I was like, give me the timestamp for this in the podcast. And it just like, it knew instantly on a two-hour podcast, what I was looking for. Very great.

Jet GPT couldn't function because I had a typo in a sentence. That's great. You see, Grock is doing a competitor to Wikipedia? They did, Groghapedia. I think that's great. Oh, yeah, Wikipedia is just totally defunct. Totally. And full of Jew, Israel haters, all of Wikipedia.

So Wikipedia says of me that it insinuates, I pretend to be a liberal to feign authenticity. And I'm like, that's an opinion statement. Why is that in an encyclopedia? It's not, it's Wikipedia is just crazy. And to be fair, my Wikipedia entry is not that bad, but for, like, RFCK Jr., It says an anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist. And it's like, those are just insults. Yeah.

You know, like, why is that in there? You don't have to agree with the guy. Every prominent conservative commentators just pejorative, pejorative, pejorative. And then, like, then they give his resume. It's like, what are we doing here? I still think he would make a good lord, chat GBT. Well, actually, there's been a bunch of cases where chat GPD has cited false precedents. It manufactures precedence.

That's true. And then they get caught. Yeah, good point. Spork, which says they didn't even have to agree on the alleged crime. What crime was covered up? Why do we think something was covered up? If you can't agree on the alleged other crime, you've got nothing. It was bunk. So another person pointed out that they never actually brought up the underlying crime until jury deliberations. So there was actually no burden of proof on intent either. The writer is right that they don't have to agree. The jury could choose any of the three secondary crimes and they don't even have to agree on it. It just has to be any.

of the three. They did mention those three during the trial. So that is just a circuitous way of saying the government can punish you without proving a crime. No, they proved the underlying crime, which is the misdemeanor crime. No, no, they didn't prove the underlying crime. The underlying crime was the three, the three

choose your own adventure. No, the underlying crime was the falsification of business records. No, no, no. Falsification of business records and furtherance of another crime implies as an underlying crime for which they were intending to commit. It was semantics. Okay, maybe it's semantics, but. So the argument is,

falsification of business records in furtherance of a crime. Furtherance of a crime implies there's an underlying crime. Right. And so the government never proved it. So the argument is if the government can imprison you based on the presumption of an underlying crime, but they've never proven what that underlying crime was, they have imprisoned you in violation of your due process. But that's not what the courts say. The court say it's okay. Right. So this is the fascinating thing about, this is a good lesson for people, and it's about

the exertion of power. You can just do whatever you want. No, it's just not an element of the crime. So that means we can make a law where we say you're being criminally charged for gloating over a crime you committed, and it's the gloating for which we are charging you because, or it's like attaching to any crime, like, I guess my point is jaywalking and furtherance of another crime, 25 years in prison. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, jaywalking's not a, not a felony charge, but you were jaywalking because you were intending to do something bad. Prove it. I don't have to. I don't. I can just make up a charge and claim you were doing something evil that I don't have to prove

or that you wanted to do evil. I mean, this is pre-crime. It's literal pre-crime. Jaywalking in furtherance of a crime. He's going to go to prison now for 34 felonies because he jaywalked back and forth 34 times. But hold on, jaywalking is a petty crime. It's a petty offense. You get a ticket for it. Not went in furtherance of another crime. What crime was that? Doesn't matter, does it? if that's the country we're going to live in, then I am ready. Because I say Trump should just start locking everybody up. He doesn't like because he can just do whatever he wants. We don't got to prove it anymore.

Campaigning in furtherance of a crime. Campaign is not illegal. Oh, but in furtherance of a crime, it is. You're going to prison. But what's the underlying crime I committed? Nothing, but you were campaigning in furtherance of one. Prove it. I don't have to.

I don't have to prove there was anything other than at some point you wanted to do wrong. You don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Indeed. That's right. Right. But you have to show that there was intent. You have to prove there was intent, not beyond a reasonable doubt. But no one in the jury agreed on what the intent was. As long as they agreed there was another crime.

They don't have to agree on the same one. So that means I can say, in the process of campaigning, Seamus Coglin approached a street. He didn't look both ways. He raised up a foot and we arrested him. I do not recall. furtherance of a crime, jaywalking.

Jaywalking is a crime. And I can prove to a jury, right, that he intended to jaywalk. Or at least the intent was there to jaywalk. He said, I'm going to jaywalk. So we arrested him and charged him with falsifying documents and furtherance of another crime.

And it's a felony now? This is the craziest thing. Like, if we're going to live in that world, I also want to give a shut up to Kanye West because he criticized the 13th Amendment specifically because it legalized. It codified slavery. people who don't, and this is, it's funny because the poor man, you know, for all of his faults,

criticize him, but for the poor man, this all started when he said, we need to repeal the 13th Amendment. And the left and the corporate press not actually reading it said, holy crap, Yeh wants to bring back slavery. Yay got pissed because he was like, what? The 13th Amendment says if you commit any crime, you can be made a slave, any crime. We can't have that. And he's correct. Literally, according to the Constitution, you could jaywalk and then they enslave you. It doesn't say slavery is banned. It says only upon conviction of a crime. So that's what our country does. Now, however, we being saying rational people are like, no, we're not going to enslave people, right? But if the argument is, we can put someone in prison for a thing that is not a

crime so long as, it's just so wild to claim. It's just, I'm ready. If that's the game we're playing, just as long as everybody knows, okay, jaywalking and furtherance of a felony. Can you prove they committed a felony? I don't have to. I don't. I'm just going to say the guy had a knife on him. Seems like he wanted to stab somebody, right? Who carries a knife around? Well, we agree. Okay, your jaywalking charge is now a 20-year felony. That's just nuts. Remember, you still have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you had the intent to conceal the violation of a secondary crime. That's it. So you do have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt. What is that secondary crime? It's up to the jury. Right. But you can prove concealment of an unknown crime very easily.

I saw Seamus shove a book under his coat and run off. It's got to be a crime. I don't recall. Which crime? Well, they gave him three options. And so I can be like, oh, Seamus, listen, like, bro, come on, are you hearing yourself? Let's try this argument. I see Seamus in a trench coat, grab a book and shove it under his jacket and then run away.

You know me, you know I would never do that. He's now concealed a book, right? In this book are financial transactions. I then say, I can prove beyond a real. reasonable doubt that he concealed this book of financial transactions. Here's a video of him doing it. So he concealed these records and furtherance of another crime. What was the crime? Well, honestly, I can't prove he committed the crime, but it's possible that those documents were him laundering money. And so it was either money laundering, he was defrauding an old lady, or he was stealing

lottery numbers. You pick. But you saw him conceal it, and he was looking pretty suspicious as he exited the building, hiding that booklet. So I can prove he was up to something. I would never do that. He was up to something. You know me. You know I would never do something like that. You know me.

I think to me and to everybody else, the statement here is just literally, you can just do things. Well, I'll give you this. It is a matter of debate. You're not the first to bring this up. And this is a New York thing that allows them to do this.

Well, it's never been done before. Well, the courts upheld it. Well, actually, it's a Supreme Court could overturn it if it wasn't. But the appellate court has not issued their ruling. They've held it for a year. But as far as the ability to have a statute like this, where all you have to do is prove intent. No, no, no, no, no. I could be wrong because I don't think I know everything.

I'm not a genius. But my understanding is this is the first time it has ever happened. This is unprecedented. I would disagree, but I don't have that precedent on me. But this is not the first time that statute has been used. No, but used without underlying crime. So the statute's been used. as an addition to other crimes, saying the guy laundered money and he falsified business records.

This is the first time there's been nothing else other than he falsified business records and furtherance under the crime that we've not proven. That's why it's controversial. Yeah, I think that this has been used as a felony statute in the past, and that's why... With other crimes. Right. Well, yeah, but this is the first time it doesn't have another crime. No, there are other charges. There are three possible other crimes. He's never been convicted of.

So this is the first time. Okay. This has been used as a standalone charge. We'll have to look that up because I thought it has been used like that, but we can look that up. And by all means, I'm open to being wrong about this. Has there ever been a case in Illinois where I'm typing this in? It's hard to type in. It's going to be hard to get a quick answer on that one.

You said you wanted AI as a lawyer. Now you've got your wish, buddy. Fair enough. I'm asking Grog. So Grock has the ability to these really long answers, which are really impressive. So I'll let it cook and I'll grab some of your super chats. But we're having fun. All right, let's go.

Brian Dayton says, this guy's gerrymander comment just proves he's a political hack. Like do Democrats have consistently only gerrymandered for decades after panic firing excuses for Garland in the face of personal experience? Well, he's allowed to disagree, but I would more politely assert the point being made. Blue states are insanely gerrymandered. Illinois is a joke how badly gerrymandered it is. No debate there. And thank you to the fan, my new fan. I'm going to, I'll put him down as undecided as far as I'm concerned. Swing voter. Swing voter. Here's the difference. Depends on how you redistrict him.

Has there ever been a time when the party in power has intentionally redrawn the lines in the middle of the decades solely to gain a political advantage. I don't know. To the point where do both sides gerrymender, of course, but has ever been done like this? I don't recall that. I think this is a first. I agree. I think that's true. And I think what we are seeing is both sides just saying I'm going to win. I don't care. Yeah. I haven't read this. Grock just sped it out. Quote, yes, the conviction is widely viewed as unprecedented in this regard. In this, my question. Is it unprecedented that Trump was convicted without proving an underlying crime. Yes, the conviction is widely viewed as unprecedented in this regard by legal critics and by Trump's

legal team as the prosecution elevated the charges to felonies under New York penal law 175.10 without proving a specific underlying crime, such as a federal campaign, finance, violation, or tax fraud. As a standalone offense beyond a reason about that, instead, they relied on proving Trump's intent to conceal another crime, framed as a violation of New York election law, though through a scheme involving the payment with multiple possible unlawful means. means, uh, blah, presented to the jury without requiring anonymity on any one theory. Jury instructions allowed conviction if jurors agreed on the false occasion and the broader

intent to violate election law, but not on the exact secondary violation, which defense appeals argued dilutes proof requirements and introduces legal error. Well, 17510 has been, has been applied in hundreds of prior cases. Those typically feature clearer directly evidence underlying offensive. None match this novel bootstrapping of the state falsification charges. onto uncharged federal election issues in a presidential context, leading to appeals, leading appeals to challenge it as an overreach without concrete proof of the elevating crime. The May 2024 verdict stands pending appeal, but the lack of an explicit underlying

conviction has fueled claims of a zombie case revived unconventionally. So that was my point. I believe I'm correct. They have never before used this aggravating charge without any other crime. You read that there was one sentence in there that I think they make the distinction that never before when it comes to a federal election offense. Is that what they said? None matched this novel bootstrapping of state falsification charges onto uncharged federal election issues in a presidential context. Right, right. That, see, that's limited.

Comma, leading appeals to challenge it as an overreach without concrete proof of the elevating crime. Right. But what they're saying is they've never seen a state law that's been elevated to a felony based on a federal election violation. Right. But what about if they decided that the state election violation law was violated, excuse me, that the state law was violated. And if they did, by the way, that would mean two misdemeanors equal one felony, which is weird, but it happens. Right. Or theoretically, if the underlying crime, I think under this charge, you could have the felony falsification of records attached to a misdemeanor. So if you committed a misdemeanor

and falsified records, you'd have a felony. Which is weird, because if the underlying offense is also a misdemeanor, since when does just two misdemeanors equal one felony, but in New York, they allow that? Uh, uh, they, I'm incorrect. Uh, charges in New York, falsifying business records in the first, okay, no, no, no, okay, this is incorrect. No. Um, I knew that, I knew that what it wrote didn't apply. Uh, we're going to have to go to the uncensored portion of the show, so I can write this again. Um, I thought, I, I think I may be incorrect. I'm not entirely sure, but I'm going to ask Grock again because it's talking about the underlying misdemeanor. And it says misdemeanor. I'm talking about the felony, so I have to ask it again. My friend, smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. Stay tuned. The uncensored portion of the show is coming up at rumble.com slash Timcast. I don't want to miss it.

It's always fun, not so family friendly. Did I say you can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast? Sure. Dave, you want to shout anything out? Yeah, thanks. I'm on Substack now. For all my fans out there, or I should say fan, you can find me at Dave Aaronberg, D-E-A-R-O-N-B-E-R-G.

Please, I'd love to hear from you, even if you disagree with me. I'm also on X at Aaronberg. And you can find me also in LegalAF on YouTube. Thanks for having me. Follow me on X and Instagram at Real Tate Brown. Deputize the Walmart greeters. We're ready. I'm Seamus Coglin.

I'm the creator of Freedom Tunes. The left has dominated entertainment in this country for decades. They've slowly chipped away at your culture through propaganda. Myself and my team are fighting back because you cannot win a culture war without making culture. We're working on producing a full-linked. animated show. We already have the 25-minute pilot done. You can watch it by going to twisted plots.com and supporting our cause. I've got the team, I've got the experience, and I've got the track record. Give me your support, and I will be unstoppable. Help us to create the

future of entertainment. Twisted plots.com. We need your help. Oh, Grock, you're giving me the business. It keeps giving me, well, what can you blame my eye? How can you not blame AI for being dumb? What am I trying to say? Guys, we'll see you over at rumble.com slash Timcast, IRL. In about 30 seconds, thanks for hanging out.