Timcast IRL - GOP Rep Demands Citizenship STRIPPED From Dems Zohran Mamdani, NYC Mayor w/ Billy Binion

Episode Date: June 27, 2025

Tim, Phil, & Mary are joined by Billy Binion to discuss a GOP Rep demanding citizenship be stripped from NYC Democrat Zohran Mamdani, Abrego Garcia to be deported again after trafficking charges, a Democrat posting on X from beyond the grave, and parents relying on Big Tech to parent their children.   Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Mary  @PopCultureCrisis  (YouTube) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Billy Binion @billybinion (X)

With Zoran Mamdani's tremendous win in New York in the Democratic primary, it's become the news and this guy's profile is skyrocketing. And now Rep. Andy Ogles is saying he should be denaturalized, stripped of his citizenship, and deported because it appears that before he attained citizenship, he had expressed sympathies for Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. Now, it's an interesting, albeit aggressive, maneuver, but there is a question about when we actually plan to enforce the laws we have codified in the United States about, well, quite literally, you're not allowed to support terrorist groups or certain adversaries of the United States when you're applying for citizenship.

That is in the law, but we typically never go near that because it seems a bit aggressive. But this is just the beginning. Democrats at the national level are said to be freaking out. Axios has this whole report about how they're melting down over the victory of a democratic socialist in New York. Certainly this man's victory has sent shockwaves across this country and oh boy it'll be interesting. So we do have a bunch of other stories. We've got an alleged Iranian sniper sleeper agent arrested. This story seemed to go under the radar because of the Iranian strikes.

We also have Australia deploying troops into Ukraine. Everybody seemed to miss that. So interesting to say the least. So we'll talk about that and what's going on. Before we get started, we got a great sponsor. It's everybody's favorite, MyPillow. Go to mypillow.com slash Tim, use promo code Tim, and you can not only buy pillows.

Do you think that's all Mike Lindell has in store for you? He's got the MyPillow mattress, the mattress topper. He's got Giza Dream bed sheets, got towel sets, and I'm gonna go heavy on endorsing this Rev7 energy drink they sell, because we actually have a ton of this, and I just ordered like, I think I ordered like 30 cases of it. It is a caffeine free sugar free energy drink and it's ketone powered. So it's no sugar. Not only do they taste really, really good, it's kind of wild

because there's no caffeine, but it works. It works. I'm a big fan of that. So head over to mypillow.com and use promo code Tim when you purchase all the goods. Mike Lindell put a lot on the line for everything that he believed in, for Trump, for the movement. Tremendous respect. They try to take it all away from him, but we are here and he's sponsoring our show. We do appreciate it. And my friends, we got big news. We've got at the comedy, dccomedyloft.com, The Culture War Live, Saturday, July 26, August

2nd, and August 9th. Tickets are now available. They're all at 3 p.m. These are live tapings of the Culture War show. August 2nd, so the only one we can announce formally as of now because of confirmations is August 2nd, will be Michael Malus and Angry Cops having the cop debate. Malus, of course, anti-cop. Angry Cops, of course, a literal cop. And they're both really funny guys. So this is probably going to be the wildest and funniest show. It's two hours. It's three to five in DC.

Tickets are available. I believe they're $30. However, if you go to TimCast.com, and you are a member of our Discord server, there are reserved tickets for free. So for all of our existing members, make sure you grab them up now. I think we have 30 designated tickets for our members, and we're gonna have special,

we have something special planned for our elite members as well. But if you go to TimCast.com, you can get tickets to the event. And if you're not a member, you can become one, or you can just buy tickets. So don't forget to also smash that like button, share the show with literally everyone you know, even your baby child who's sitting there in the crib and can't

speak yet. Just say we're gonna watch Tim Kesta IRL and we'll try to keep it family-friendly. But again, smash that like button, share the show, joining us tonight to talk about this and everything more we got. Billy Binion. Thanks for having me. Who are you? What do you do? So I'm a reporter at Reason, a libertarian magazine. Usually write about civil liberties, criminal justice, government accountability, a lot of legal issues. I'm happy to be here.

Right on. Thanks for joining us. Mary is here tonight. Hello everyone. My name is Mary Morgan. I co-host Pop Culture Crisis here at Timcast and I'm glad to be back. Hello everybody. My name is Philip Montii I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains. I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary.

Let's get into it. Here's a story from the post-millennial rep Andy Ogles calls for investigation into Zoran Mamdani's naturalization over potential support for terrorism. He calls for an investigation over potential willful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism. This is pretty wild. So we've got this, Libs of TikTok says, holy crap, calling for the denaturalization and deportation of Democrat mayoral nominee Zoran Mamdani writing, dear attorney general Bondi, I write to request that the Department of Justice open investigation into whether Zoran Mamdani writing, Dear Attorney General Bondi, I write to request that the Department of Justice

open investigation into whether Zoran Kwame Mamdani, who he called Little Mohammed, by the way, currently a candidate for mayor of New York City should be subject to denaturalization proceedings under 8 USC 1451A on the grounds that he may have procured U.S. citizenship through willful misrepresentation or concealment of material support for terrorism.

According to public reports on, including a June 21st, 2025 New York Post article, Mr. Mamdani expressed open solidarity with individuals convicted of terrorism related offense prior to becoming a US citizen. Specifically, he rapped, quote, free the Holy Land Five slash my guys. The Holy Land Foundation was convicted in 2008

of providing material support to Hamas, a designated foreign terrorist organization. Publicly praising the foundation's convicted leadership as my guys, raises serious concerns about whether Mr. Mamdani held affiliations or sympathies he failed to disclose during the naturalization process. While I understand that some may raise First Amendment concerns about taking legal action based on expressive conduct, such as rap lyrics, speech alone does not preclude accountability where it reasonably suggests underlying conduct relevant to eligibility for naturalization.

If an individual publicly glorifies a group convicted of financing terrorism, it is entirely appropriate for federal authorities to inquire whether the individual engaged in non-public forms of support, such as organizational affiliation, fundraising, or advocacy, that would have required disclosure on Form N-400 or during a naturalization interview. Moreover, Mr. Mamdani has recently refused opportunities to reject pro-terrorist rallying cry to globalize the intifada, a call to expand violent attacks on civilians

to the United States and around the world. While political speech in isolation is not as positive, in light of earlier expressions of admiration for individuals convicted of supporting terrorism, a troubling pattern emerges that warns formal scrutiny. The naturalization process depends on the good faith disclosure or any affiliation with support for groups that threaten U.S. national security. If Mamdani concealed relevant associations, that concealment may constitute material misrepresentation sufficient to support denaturalization under federal law. The federal government must uphold public trust by ensuring that citizenship is not granted under false pretenses.

I respectfully urge the Department of Justice to determine whether Mr. Mamdani's conduct prior to naturalization warrants formal review under applicable law. And I'll say it first, I'm for it. Investigate him, 100%. The investigation I don't have any problem with. Exactly.

The idea of, well, look, the further to the extremes you go when you're discussing, when it comes to political speech, the further to the extremes you go when according to your ideology, the more likely you are to engage in violent rhetoric. And Mamdani does walk the line. Anyone that says globalize the Intifada, they're at least skirting the line of violence. I'm not trying to be contrarian, but it was just that he failed to denounce something or other, like it was other people chanting that,

and they said that he didn't denounce it, which I think is a weird game that people play where they say like, why didn't you denounce murder? Like, why didn't you condemn Hamas? Like why didn't you condemn Hamas? It's a little more than that. The condemnation is kind of just implicit, no matter what. He was asked in an interview

what he thought about phrases like globalize the intifada and he said, well, you know, it means different things to different people. And some people think it means like a peaceful revolution. So. Yeah, see, but even that's scurrying that's trying to be deceptive that's not trying to be fulsome that's not actually addressing the concern that people have when they ask that question he's trying to skirt the issue he's trying to not

i mean he's yeah he's a politician now but i would just say i hate this stuff i absolutely hate it i think for a couple reasons for one i think there is a real first amendment issue um with denaturalizing someone because we don't like what they say. I mean saying my love to you guys, I don't really know that he thought that much about it. It was in a rap video and I also hate it because I think that these kind of stunts for one it's not going to be successful and for two it's going to galvanize the supporters and I think there are a lot of reasons to really dislike this mayoral candidate. I mean, he's anathema to a lot of the things I stand for. But you know, Nancy Mays is already out here taking a poll on her ex-profile saying, you

know, let's implying that she thinks that it's a decent proposal. And I think it ends up making a martyr out of him. And I think that's very unwise. Going back to my first point, though, I think if the right wants to claim to stand for free speech, they have to Also stands for speech that is really unsavory that is the point of the first amendment And that's the point of a principle if you don't apply it when it's inconvenient then it doesn't matter It's not a principle. Well, so there's two things was that on her personal profile. Just sorry real quick

I want to put I think that the one where she's wearing the pink dress So yeah, that would be her her civilian profile. Should we should we she's taking a poll right now for her followers so there's two things about this that I wanna at least make a comment about. First of all, the guy that's actually been talking about denaturalizing and deporting him, he's calling him little Mohammed, and that actually hurts, that kinda hurts the argument,

because then it seems like- Why is he calling him that? Pardon me? Is he calling him that? Because he's Muslim. Yeah, because he's Muslim. Just because he's Muslim? Yeah, so and whatever your opinion on that kind of

That kind of rhetoric you're going to galvanize the people against you you're gonna call they're gonna call him a racist blah blah You shouldn't be saying that so I don't know thinks that he's doing the Trump thing and he's not Do I think he wants followers on social media? I always on social media that's that's maybe or he's trying to get why I think wants followers on social media. He wants followers on social media. That's what he's doing. Maybe, or he's trying to get, I think the city in the US with the largest Jewish population is New York. Yeah, it is. And so that kind of branding,

when that story drops and they say Rep. Ogles is a racist for calling him Little Muhammad, that's gonna penetrate deeper into communities in New York, especially Jewish communities, which I think the intention is to try and get them to come out and vote against them. Sure, and I mean, I will say I disagree with this guy's, what I know of this guy's stance towards, you know,

the pro-Israel Palestine discussion. But I don't know, like I said, I just, I really do feel like this ends up backfiring. And I mean, what's the point? I disagree. And I also say, I'll say this'll say this the mayoral election a local election I know New York City is an enormous place but it becoming a referendum on foreign policy doesn't really make sense to me I know I understand Jewish voters wanting to at least have knowledge vote of someone that they you know whose character they

like but the mayor of New York has no say on foreign policy. It seems almost kind of silly that we're, that we're as a nation, we're looking to him to be a thought leader on this. What we should be talking about, I mean, how he's gonna lead New York City, which there are plenty of things he's gonna do to New York City that are really bad.

I don't think anybody has any expectation of him engaging in foreign policy. I think the argument is- Well, it's interesting because like a lot of the rhetoric that he's using on social media and on his campaign website is talking about issues that go and reach far beyond the city, even though he knows that there's no possibility of follow through on that.

Right. Like, I'm gonna be a candidate that stands up to Trump. That doesn't mean anything, you're running for mayor. Well- Like it's an important city, but- No, it does mean something when he says that they're going to obstruct immigration enforcement and obstruct federal law. That is one thing he said, like we want to make this into a sanctuary city for immigrants.

And also he said that he wanted it to be an LGBTQ sanctuary city. Which literally just means so that if you're underage and can get to New York City, they will perform all kinds of gender mutilation on you. So here's a question for you guys. Here's an anti-Macy's poll. Should Zoran Mondani be denaturalized and deported? Yes, no, not sure. What do you think won? Which one do you think is winning? I think yes. Yes. Yeah. I think yes, but I would vote no if I could. Alright, so what's the votes in the room? You say no. What do you say Mary? I already voted yes. Okay, you voted yes. Yeah, what say you Phil? Yes for being a communist not for anything. Oh literally only because of his ideology I don't care. I voted yes because he's not American and has no right to be here

Well, he is American because he's a citizen. Yeah, I just don't believe that he is Meaningfully American more than someone who was. I fully I reject the idea that the only way you can be American is by being Born here. I reject that too. all of us we won the geographic lottery I'm I like I like what America stands for but I think there's something powerful about We didn't shoot we didn't do anything by being born here. Yeah, so we didn't we didn't earn it right exactly Right, so I should choose to come here and that should be celebrate like, you know And so your soul is like, it's like a die that gets rolled into the universe

and that's not actually how that works. It's not a lottery because your ancestors actually did make the effort to come here. They did make the effort to build lives here for generations and you are the result of that. There's nothing random about it. Well, but it wasn't my agency. And so I'm saying, think I, I'm an American, and I like

America and like I said, what it stands for. But I think there is something powerful about, you know, there's been a lot of talk right now that America or that New York City specifically has a big foreign born population, which I'll make a couple of points for when that's not new. I mean, Ellis Island, it has always represented, you know kind of this this Melting pot and a promise of opportunity and I think that is a good thing And so if some and some late immigration now hold on hold on see five with post right now. This is important though No one here did anything to earn what this country was saying and that's why I deserve your stuff when you die Not your children your children should get nothing from you.

The state should seize everything you built in your life and I get to have it. Do you believe that? You do. No, I don't. You certainly, you just argue that people who aren't from here can have all the stuff that the Americans built. That's not at all what I argue. So if like my dad builds a baseball field and then someone comes and they're not from

here, I should have no right to the public, to the Commons that my family and ancestors built because we didn't earn it, we were just born here. I'm talking specifically about people who come here. I mean, there's a- Who built the Brooklyn Bridge? I mean, I am not, but I wouldn't take credit for it. I think it was the Brooklyn Bridge Corporation. To me, that's an analogy that doesn't really work.

All I am saying- Why do you get to keep your stuff? Why can't I have it? I mean, I'm not saying the family means nothing. My argument is not the family is worthless. That's an analogy that doesn't really work. All I am saying- Yeah, why do you get to keep your stuff? Why can't I have it? I mean, I'm not saying that family means nothing. My argument is not that family is worthless. What I am saying though, is that there are some people who are Americans by choice,

and that is a powerful thing. They came here because of what America stands for. You think that Mamdani came here because of what America stands for? He came here at seven years old. So, okay, so he's not an American by choice then. He's an American because his family came. His parents, yeah. His parents- This is by choice. He's an American because his family's parents Yeah, it's a deception

He was raised with completely different values because of the culture from which he came and I do not meaningfully American that I agree Nothing about him. This is something that I actually said last night like the idea that everybody that comes to America is all the same every It's totally not true and I think that the United States should be able to deport people, or at least exclude people that don't embrace the values that make the United States the country that it is, which includes property rights, it includes things like liberty and stuff like that.

So here's a question I have. We'll start slow with it. Do you believe that if you, let's say you build a house and you own the land, when you die, should it go to your children or whoever you choose in your will? Yes.

What is the meaningful distinction between that and a society handing down what it's built to its own children? I think that there is something to be said for families handing down a society to their own children, but I don't think that necessarily excludes everyone else from it because they build things too. They come and add to it.

They don't just take the idea that immigrants come and only take. They also build that your analysis. I understand where you're coming from, but it's a static analysis. I'm well, all right. So I look at the world as a percentage are they entitled to say again? What percentage are they entitled to? 100% like so what do you mean of entitled to what entitled to public services entitled to? Welfare I mean, I'm libertarian so like I would like to slash a lot of these programs that you know people criticize Then let's try like this you you you're at 400 years ago. Your ancestor comes and stakes a plot of land

It's got a river going through it, and then builds up a big property on it and says, with my hard work, my kids will have a better life. And after several generations, dozens of generations, here you are inheriting that land. What percentage of your land should be shared with someone who came here for the first time seven years ago? Well, we're talking about private property.

So if that person wants to- What's the distinction? I mean, I'm not saying that an immigrant can come and like invade like the space you have that you bought and is yours. The reason I asked you this because you said you were a libertarian. So my assumption is you prefer privatization over public property, right?

Absolutely. Okay, so if you had private property, then what percentage of that must you share with someone who just showed up and is on your property? Private property? You don't have to share any of it. Okay, so why then should we as a nation, which the distinction is, a collective group

has determined where our borders and boundaries are, and it is private among our country, should we be obligated to share it with anybody else? I mean, the distinction between private or public, you said private among our country? I mean, there are some spaces that- Like there's jurisdiction, right? Right.

When you say private, what you're saying is it's land controlled by you as a private entity or individual. Right, but I don't- The government- I'm not entitled to the entire country. I'm entitled to, I just bought a house for instance. Indeed.

I'm entitled to my house. Understood. Someone cannot come into my house. So here's the point. A country has its own jurisdictions for which the country controls, yes? By voters, yes. Well, depending on the structure of your government.

Some might be communist, I guess. Some could be monarch. Well, we're talking about America. So why should Americans have to share anything with non-citizens who came here? No. You don't have to share your private property. Okay, I think you're misunderstanding.

Oh no, I'm understanding. I'm not trying to be offensive. The American people created the country, established its boundaries, sacrificed blood and treasure to acquire the land and establish what is the American people's property as a public commonwealth. I'll stop you right there. That is the fundamental difference that we have. I do not feel entitled to everything that came before me. I feel entitled to what I just bought because it was my blood, sweat, and tears, and I'm paying my mortgage.

Okay, so let's go from that point. Okay. At what point must you personally, under your own beliefs, give away what your ancestors built? Is it your dad? Like, your dad built a farm, should you have to give it to someone who just showed up or share it with them? No, but that is a private, because your dad built a farm. Should you have to give it to someone who just showed up or share it with them?

No, but that is a private that's because it's a private farm, but you're not entitled to the things that came before you Like what where's the gradient? Like where's the line? Is it if your great-grandfather made it you have to share it with an immigrant We're not sharing private property to him. Well a certain point it becomes the public commons. There's too many people, right? No, this is the fundamental basic distinction between private and public property. What is it? Private is, I mean I'm a big fan of property rights. What is the distinction? I mean what I own, what I paid for, I mean like... No, no, no, no, you didn't pay for what your great-grandfather made. Why do you get to have that? You didn't earn it? Sure, but it was purchased via, it's not owned by the government. No, he stole it from Native Americans.

I mean, that's a whole different discussion. So let's say several hundred years ago, your great-great-grandfather, or great-great-great-grandfather, conquered land by force, massacring a family, whatever it might've been. Maybe he didn't, maybe he traded some beads for it, I don't know, but now, we're several generations on,

you never paid for it, you just inherit it, and you're like, it's private property because someone handed me a piece of paper because they put a flag in it. Why can't a guy from Honduras just come and go, yeah, well, you didn't earn it, it's mine now. I mean, because as a society, we have decided that there's a distinction between private

and public property. Completely agreed. As a society, I think we should determine that Zoran Mamdani should be denaturalized and deported because the American founders built this country and we have no requirement to share it with anybody. Just like you've decided, your line is simply my personal family, I believe as the American country

is an organized entity. So the only distinction is what we think we are owed or claim to. Sure, and I just don't feel entitled to the entire country. I mean, and like I said, I think there is common ground to be had here in the sense that like, America stands for a lot of beautiful things. It stands for freedom of expression.

It stands for property rights, we're talking about. It stands for a lot of things that make us exceptional. I would not call myself a nationalist, but I would say I'm an American exceptionalist. I believe we're better than most everyone. I mean, you look at stuff that's even happening in like the UK and Germany getting arrested over Facebook posts. I understand why people want to come here.

I think it's beautiful that some people are Americans by choice, and I don't think that makes them any less American. When they vote against the interests of the American people, we have a problem. And when they on net steal from the American people. And I would like to add, it's not by a consensus at all of society has just collectively decided what a border is and what private property is. The border of the walls around your house or the border of like your actual skin barrier or the fence surrounding your backyard, it's only defined by your willingness to kill someone who violates that line, who crosses that line.

It's not by consensus that all of society has decided. I'm not saying we need to have open borders. I'm just saying it's beautiful that some people, I mean, people will have lots of disagreements on immigration policy. But I'm just saying it's beautiful that some people, I mean, people will have lots of disagreements on immigration policy. But I'm just saying it's beautiful that some people come here because they want to, because we stand for amazing things. I mean, do you think we should literally have zero immigration? Yes. No one should be allowed in for the next 10 years. People come here to benefit from being here personally and send money back home.

They don't care about American values. Now, she's got a great point, because nowadays, most of the people that are coming to America are not coming because they have American values. She's got a great point because nowadays, most of the people that are coming to America are not coming because they have American values. The majority of naturalized citizens in 2024 voted for Trump. It's 10% of the electorate that went for Trump plus one. Just because they voted for Trump doesn't mean they have American values.

They have closer to the values that you guys are talking about. It's by no mistake what you consider to be American values anyway, because those values were held by Christian Europeans who moved here. You can't just ship anyone here and expect them to uphold those values. There are plans. I mean, you look at like a Cuban.

So like, what do we do when Zora and Mamdani, let me do this. Let's jump to the next title and then we'll keep it going. We have this from Axios. Democratic establishment melts down over Mamdani's win in New York. The threat is a socialist who is defeating the establishment Democrat Cuomo. We're going to see more of this affecting the rest of the country. Now, I wanted to start off with this, but I do kind of have just a continuing point from the last segment. And that is right now, one of Zoran's policies

is that he will defy federal law enforcement, intentionally and by force. I would call that sedition. And I would call that more than beyond opposing the interests of America. I would call it declaration of war. A foreign born individual comes to this country and then literally campaigns on,

if you are here illegally in violation of this country's laws, just know, we will use force to stop the United States and the people of the United States from coming after you. I mean- Are you referring to what he said about keeping ICE out of- Yes.

And saying, he said, we're gonna keep our and and and and saying we what we will he said We're gonna keep our families here and not let Trump come in take them away He's basically saying there is a structure of government that has agreed upon rules and laws You my friends have come here in violation of the laws and the will of the American people and by God I will use force to stop them from harming you and we will defeat them. Yeah, I would call that an invasion. This is also a foreigner who's trying to seize American-owned businesses with his plan for privately-owned grocery stores

to basically get repossessed by the municipal government to freeze prices. Is he seizing businesses or is he just making? I mean, I think the government-owned grocery store thing is crazy, and I was tweeting about it. I think you shared my thing about the... Okay, maybe I'm phrasing it a little bit melodramatically, but yes, that is basically what he said. He wants to create...

Basically, he wants to create government-run grocery stores, which... I don't think he wants to create them. He wants to take the ones that are privately owned currently and make them publicly owned. Well, he said create a network of city run grocery stores. He wants I think like yeah the first proposal was five I don't think he's going to be seizing Kroger or something. He may as well just come out and say I am not from your country I have been a citizen for seven years I will use force if necessary to protect those who illegally entered your

country in violation of your laws, and I will enact policies that destroy your local economy. I mean, it has to make sense for people to say, all right, this guy has, like Tim said, he's only been here for seven years. No, no, he's been there long, he's an American citizen. He's only been a citizen for seven years. And he is going to, you know,

to facilitate illegal immigrants coming into the country. He's gonna provide them with benefits from the government. I'm sorry, he's gonna facilitate criminal activity in the United States. Yeah, he's gonna facilitate criminal activity. He's going to provide them with state benefits from New York State. He's going to inhibit the federal government

from enforcing the law. This, I understand that people are like, oh, we're a democracy and blah, blah, blah. This is not about democracy. This is expropriating the property of other, of American citizens on behalf of here, criminal, criminal aliens here. This can't be acceptable. He's basically saying through force, we will take your land, give up. And we have a couple options. We can say, sure, let him do it. Let him protect more illegal immigrants who come in

and in violation of the laws of this land and its people. So our laws mean nothing. And then we'll sit back and just watch as he does. I mean, I think there are plenty of issues to take. I mean, this is actually a policy debate. So that's, I mean, I- I completely disagree. I would, this is actually a policy debate. So that's, I mean, I completely disagree. I would like to restate clearly and strongly

that this is about way more than policy. And that reminds me of something I posted earlier today. I mean, policy is what votes should be based on. So I'm saying that is a good thing. I don't think it's a policy debate. I was drawing a comparison between Zoran Mamdani and Vivek Ramaswamy because they have diametrically opposed policy views,

but rub people exactly the same wrong way because they are foreign strivers with a chip on their shoulder who don't understand this culture and want to tell us as Americans what an expression of American values is. They have no place with that temerity. It wasn't Vivek born here? I'm pretty sure he was born in Ohio. It doesn't really matter because he was raised they have no place with that temerity.

It wasn't Vivek born here? I'm pretty sure he was born in Ohio. It doesn't really matter because he was raised with different values. It's a bit different. He was raised with different values. To your point, I have so many friends who have values that are so different than mine

and I don't wanna kick them out of the country. I want to convince them that my values are better. That's what you should be doing. Sure, sure, let's them that my values are better. That's what you should be doing. Sure, sure. Let's pause because I agree on that. This is not the debate with Zoran. The debate with Zoran is 10 plus million people over four years entered our country in violation of our laws and we have these laws in place for a reason.

They have committed a crime against us. And Zoran says, don't worry, I will use law enforcement apparatus to stop the people of the United States from enforcing their laws. So I call that an invasion? I mean, I think that kind of, you can call it an invasion, but I mean, I think words have meaning and I wouldn't say it's an invasion.

I mean, I agree that we have to have law and order and I don't agree that this guy stands for it. But I think when we use words like invasion or incursion or whatever, the vast majority, of course some immigrants who come here do not have America's best interests at heart. But a lot of people are coming for economic opportunity. They don't have good opportunity in the economic.

Well, to be honest, if I clubbed you over the head and took your wallet, it's because I wanted an economic opportunity. We don't tolerate that. When they enter our country illegally for an opportunity and then Gen Z can't afford to buy a house and they're living three people in a bachelor apartment, I got a problem with that.

And that's in New York City. This guy comes around, whispers sweet nothings into the ears of all the dumb young communists who don't realize he's the one burning the city down and making sure that their lives will never improve. So I say, the DOJ, so should he win? Because we don't know if he actually wins. There could be a coalition victory if- Eric Adams is still going to run, right?

Yeah, if Sleewood drops out, Cuomo's already announced he's gonna be dropping out. If they endorse Adams, maybe Adams wins. If this man does win, and he does actually take even the tiniest millimeter step towards obstructing ICE, the DOJ should bring sedition charges against him and remove him from government in New York City

and occupy the city if they have to. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what the charges should be. I don't know if it's actually sedition charges against him and remove him from government in New York City and occupy the city if they have to. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly what the charges should be. I don't know if it's actually sedition or not, but there should be charges for preventing the federal government from carrying out. This is an issue of weakness, weak will, weak spine. When a man who is foreign born publicly declares, he will do everything he can to protect people

who have illegally entered your country from another, and he will violate federal law to do so, we have two options. Let them keep doing it and give up, or say, listen, I, let me pause, I personally am not calling for anything other than what the law already says. I don't think that there would be a criminal charge that applies.

Sedition. I don't think that would be applicable under criminal law. Why not? Because there's a distinction between federal law and local law and state law. I mean, you can say it's immoral or you could say it's wrong, but I guarantee you there's no way to bring sedition charges against him. I will also just say one thing. I was in New York City last night for work, and I was, you know, perfect timing. And I was talking to people who voted, and we chatted about this a little bit before

we started filming, and two of the people I talked to did rank him number one, I think. And I think people, and neither of them I would describe, one of them is definitely not a Democrat, and the other one I would not describe as a staunch Democrat certainly not a socialist And I think people really underestimate how many people The reaction to Cuomo and how much they disliked Cuomo How much they didn't want to see that again. I think a lot of this was an anti- Cuomo sentiment I don't necessarily think it's a Quod Mom Donnie sentiment. I will also say about Quomo, it really, really bothers me that so many people see the final nail in his coffin as the sexual harassment scandal, which I'm not saying

sexual harassment is ever okay. But the fact of the matter is, this is a person whose policies helped kill a bunch of old people. And then he lied, altered data, lied to the taxpayer, and went on TV and said, unironically, that incompetent government kills people and that people value the truth. Let me ask you a question. Do you think one could describe obstructing ICE officers from serving a deport, from engaging in deportation?

Would that be aiding and abetting the illegal immigrant? I do not believe so under current criminal law. I mean, I'm not an attorney. So let's try this. There is a guy and the police are like, we are going to deport him right now. And so you physically obstruct the police. Physically, physical obstruction is a crime. Yes. That would be a crime. So that would be like aiding and abetting. I don't know what the exact term would be. You're aiding in the escape of an illegal immigrant. Yes. It's like the judge who got arrested in Wisconsin under federal charges. So when we're looking at the law,

it's important to understand that it's all interpretable. The First Amendment says we have a right, the government, Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of speech, yet blasphemy laws were in this country for 100 plus years. And I think that's stupid. But they enforced it.

But I don't agree with it. Sure. And the First Amendment would also disagree with it. But the point was, they enforced it despite the First Amendment being in place, because how judges interpreted the law mattered. For instance, they're trying to charge these kids in Georgia with a hate crime because they-

It's just terrible. But they can interpret it as they want. Right, I mean, I think all hate crime charges need to go, because we need to prosecute bad acts not ideas So title 8 USC 1 3 2 4 a makes it a crime to aid and abet to induce or entice illegal immigration If you are a public official that is outright saying we will do everything in our power to make sure if you are here Illegally, you can stay and we will we will stop ice You are inducing and you are abetting.

And that's a crime. Now, if you want to add on top of it, sedition, right, which is actions to undermine the authority of the United States, we could argue that a public official in the biggest city in the country outright saying we will defy the federal law and make sure the will of the American people be damned to protect you who came here illegally, I say you got a sedition case. I mean you can say it but I don't think anyone would bring it. Well because they're cowards. I just don't think that's that's technically just not how the laws usually apply. I mean politicians. I don't care what's usually applied. I care that we had 10 plus million illegal immigrants come into this country spitting in the faces of the younger generation

who can't afford houses and can't find work, and now you've got mayoral candidates that are basically saying, we will entrench this and the American people's will be damned. Let me just stress that again. Zoran Mamdani's official public position is the laws of this country and the will of the American voter that elected Donald Trump are shit to him, and he will do whatever he can to make sure the people who broke those laws and spat in the face of Americans are protected. Now the problem is Republicans are cowards and jellyfish who won't actually enforce the law as it was written and codified for these reasons. Tom Homan's great

but I gotta say as well when when Brad Lander physically attacked cops and they arrested him they didn't bring any charges against him. That's the problem with Republicans. The Trump DOJ said this guy intentionally obstructed ICE proceedings and actually physically resisted arrests and fought with cops, oh well, let him go. And you know what, so be it. So don't be surprised if whatever the Constitution says about your belief in the First Amendment becomes nothing

because these people certainly don't agree with your view. I get it. You'll have blasphemy laws in two seconds. I will stand up for everyone's right to say things that I find extremely unsavory. It is what I love about the First Amendment that does not protect popular speech, protects unpopular speech,

which popular speech and popular people don't usually need protection. And so I think it necessarily requires defending things, like burning the flag, burning the American flag. That is your first amendment protected right. You can think it's disgusting, you can think it's repulsive. Not if it's a pride flag though.

When it comes to- If you steal someone else's flag and burn it, but you can burn your own pride flag. Not if you ride your scooter over a- Yeah, and I wrote about that and I thought that case was insane. So let's just recognize that you take the position of let them trample over me No, I take the position of people can have terrible speech

And it is their right to have terrible right when I can criticize them for it So I don't want the government knocking at their door. So so basically here's what's happening You've got ideological groups beating you over the head with a club and and you're saying, well, they shouldn't. That's it. I think, I think, you know- What do you suggest I do? About what? About, I mean, you're saying they're beating me over the head. It's true, a lot of people hate what I stand for, and that's their right to hate it, but-

Right, so like, I agree with the stealing someone else's flag, but the hate crime charge is the principle. Yes, I'm saying I think all hate crimes need to go, because we need to prosecute acts, not ideas. Agreed. But your position tends to be, I will defend... like, you're going to offer up to them the ability to do what they're doing and not resist it. Liberalism is... I'm only resisting it...

You're not resisting it. I'm only resisting the government coming and prosecuting them or retaliating against them for their expression. You and I can talk about how terrible it is. For the people who aren't familiar, the case you were referring to was somewhere in the Pacific Northwest where a bunch of teenagers, like wheelies, where?

Oh, there's two. They did wheelies on a mural on the ground or something. But the big story right now is in Atlanta, there was a pride crosswalk and they ripped flags down from a gay bar, went onto the crosswalk and cut them up with with knives and then scooted off. Right. Eight grand charges for that are insane.

Honestly, any charge, you don't have a right to take someone else's property and deface it. My point is, when, when you are basically saying like, so right now we have a guy who may very well become mayor, outright saying, your laws don't apply to me, but my laws apply to you. And you're going, okay. I mean, I'm not saying okay. I think what you're- Alright, so let's investigate him and remove him.

If you want to try to change the law to- Change what law? I don't need to. It exists already. 8 USC 1324 makes it illegal to do what change the law to change what I don't need to it exists already 8 USC 1324 makes it illegal to do what he's proposed to do and you think that you're going to be able to arrest and deport him over That I didn't say I'm saying criminal charges and sedition if applicable So I I believe that in the event he becomes mayor if he intentionally obstructs ice in any way Through his orders commands law, law enforcement, or dismantling of the NYPD and creating a socialist social worker organization. The DOJ under

Bondi and or whoever should bring about charges under 8 USC 1324 for inducing, abetting, aiding, or enticing, encouraging illegal immigration. I'm trying to speak carefully here just because I'm not an attorney. I write about a lot of criminal justice issues, but I don't claim to have gone to law school. There is a distinction between literally like physically obstructing law enforcement and as a local official being like,

I'm not gonna help ICE. The latter is not a crime. I am saying, literally in the event, he obstructs ICE. Not that he stands back and does nothing. I don't care if he stands back and does nothing. I am saying, literally in the event, he obstructs ICE. Not that he stands back and does nothing. I don't care if he stands back and does nothing. What is your vision of the, what does obstructing ICE look like? He has stated he is going to stop families from being removed from New York, is what he described it as.

I guess I just don't even know what that looks like in practice. Sure, how do you stop someone from getting deported by ICE? There's video evidence from LA! You mean like, are you talking about him physically? Well did you see them chest bumping the cop and screaming in his face? I mean, that's just, I think his friends' performance. Maybe I shouldn't say chest bumping.

But he's standing up right in a cop's face screaming at him. His friends, his performance art, he's just trying to get attention. So the point is, when he says he will stop the deportation or the kidnap, whatever words he used of families, the implication by stopping it from happening is obstruction of ICE. If he said, as mayor, I will step back

and do literal nothing when ICE comes in to deport people, I'd say, okay. And do you think he would have won his election if he said that? No, he said, I'm gonna stop it from happening. Well, I think he won for a lot of reasons. For one, as I just said, people hating Cuomo. I think people also hear things like a $30 minimum wage

and think that sounds good. I obviously very much disagree with that. I think I but I don't think it's as simple as you know just one issue or one thing. Jeff something we're gonna move to that story. Well I mean no go ahead. Alright here's the story from Axios. Trump administration to deport Abrego Garcia again. Alright we call this deportation act 2. The Trump administration to deport Abrego Garcia again. All right, we call this deportation act two. The Trump administration said it would send Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was wrongfully deported

to El Salvador to an unnamed third country as part of its renewed effort to deport him. I hope it's South Sudan. Multiple outlets reported on Thursday. The Trump administration has included deportations to non-origin countries and its immigration policy with permission from the Supreme Court. Ebrego Garcia was returned to the U.S. earlier this month.

The DOJ was ordered to release him from prison in Tennessee while he awaited trial. U.S. District Judge Waverly Crenshaw said on Wednesday that Ebrego Garcia is likely to eventually be deported to El Salvador, where he's originally from. Let me just put it this way. We live in, how do I describe this? The absurdity of having to go through this circuitous, bureaucratic deportation process back and forth to America, back to El Salvador to America, released from prison, charged with human trafficking, is psychotic. Why can't human beings just go, guys, we're just going to deport him and just cut through

the whole thing? Where do we end up? They said, you can't deport him. He's got a withholding of deportation. Okay, but if he came back and got a hearing, he'd be deported. No, bring him back anyway. Okay, I guess we bring him back and then he gets ordered to be deported again. What was the point of any of it?

Why are we doing this? Because we love bureaucracy. Because the left doesn't want us to deport anybody. Well, no, they're like, you're separating him from his family. And no, they should just all leave at once. I mean, well, look, the fact of the matter is the left has taken the side

of every single criminal that the Trump administration has tried to deport. Like regardless of your opinion on legal immigration or whether we should or dreamers or whatever, the left and Democrats have decided that they're going to treat every single actual criminal that the Trump administration wants to deport as if they are wrongly accused. And then as time passes, it just comes out that no, they're not wrongly accused, they're actually criminals. And it just hardens the the American people against the Democrats. So in my opinion, more power, but they aren't even genuinely ignorant

to the facts. I think they know the left. I think they know that someone like Abrego Garcia is guilty of what he's been accused of, and they actually don't care. They're going to lie and say that they're ignorant and that we don't know, we haven't looked into it. But they actually believe that people who were born in this country deserve to be brutalized by foreigners.

They actually believe that we deserve that. In practice at least. And that's justice. Can I say it? That's why they lie and say he's innocent. They know that he's not. There's a way to find out if he's guilty though, which is basic, I mean that's why we have due process.

That's why due process exists. He got his due process, he got deported. Well he has not been deported yet. No, he was deported at first. That was a violation of due process because he didn't get it. So there's two issues at play. The Alien Enemies Act for which Stephen Miller argued that was superseding the withholding of deportation.

But the order that he had under immigration law was that he was not to be deported back to El Salvador due to fear from- To that country specifically. But it was over Guatemala, Barrios 18 in Guatemala. So he was ordered to leave and he just didn't. So when the Alien Enemies Act thing kicked in, the White House made the argument

that they had the authority to do it. The due process at that point was a legal challenge to the Alien Enemies Act, but that was separate from a rigor Garcia. So the action would be he gets deported under the original deportation order and on top of it. Then they would challenge the Alien Enemies Act, which I think they said, okay, got to bring him back now, but he'll get, he'll just get deported if we do. He will get deported again, but I do think there is something to be said for following the law. I mean I am a believer in the rule of law and I don't think you can apply it selectively. They did violate the law by, I guess they call it an administrative error. I don't want to

assume malice. They changed their position. At first I think the DHS said it was administrative error because basically what happened was he had this withholding of deportation it's called and then when they basically went through all the so people got to understand the how bureaucracy is broken And what happens is an immigration court says withholding of deportation at the same time He already had an order of removal. They both existed at the exact same time So he was supposed to leave but we couldn't deport him to El Salvador So when the DHS starts going through let's go through the backlog of deportation orders He gets grabbed in that same as everybody else.

Then they go, we didn't realize there was this other order. So it was administrative error. However, Stephen Miller came out and said, no, we issued these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act and that supersedes any kind of other order. You would need an order on top of that. So then the argument became the Alien Enemies Act challenged in the court to which the Supreme Court said no no no you've got to bring him back.

However no one knew what they meant by facilitate the return of Abrego Garcia in which case they brought him back as what people wanted and now he's immediately being sent back because we're all morons and we wasted our time for no reason. I would argue that the Trump administration has made a strategic blunder by by sticking to cases like this because a lot of people wanted him in an office because of immigration specifically and I think by committing to these cases that I know that you disagree with Resonating with a lot of people but the fact of the matter is it does and his immigration approval rating has declined It's and if pulling on this specific case not deporting enough yeah that's why it's when people on the abrago carcia case specifically a lot of

the majority of people said or the the larger group said they disapproved of the way he handled it and I actually think I'm not exactly I don't want to say the wrong thing but more people disagreed than agreed and I think that it is like I said, it's a strategic error to have really committed to this. And you know, they spent months saying, oh, we can't bring him back. They always could bring him back.

And I think they should have just said, oops, we made a mistake. We'll bring him back. And the... I think the intention actually was, let's let Democrats defend a human trafficker for as long as possible and then bring him back. Well, we don't, I mean, we don't know if he was...

He's not accused of human trafficking. He's accused of smuggling. It wasn't Maryland. accused of human trafficking. He's accused of smuggling. It wasn't merely. Yeah, he is. He's accused of smuggling, not trafficking. Well, what's... Criminal indictment. So you're making a semantic argument.

What is... Well, no, because trafficking is like against someone's will. Smuggling is like you help them get across the border. If we're speaking colloquially, trafficking is like... I'm speaking under the law. Right, so I'm speaking colloquially. Right. We call him a trafficker. He's trafficking in human lives.

That's just not what the criminal definition of trafficking is. Well either way, the incentive to not handle it the way that you suggested is clear. It's to allow the left to defend this man who is obviously a gang member and a criminal. Well and I think, you know, obsessing over Maryland man, you know, a lot of people said Maryland man over and over and over. Let's not just focus on the violent criminals. Let's just get illegal workers out of here Yeah, that's what people want and it wouldn't gain any new I don't know that everyone wants that It wouldn't be in the news cycle and yeah, it is popular mass deportations are popular

So why is Trump That was a popular mandate Didn't Trump just back out of ice going into slaughterhouses? Okay, some people thought that he was sticking by that statement others thought that it was a throwaway comment Didn't Trump just back out of ice going into slaughterhouses? Statement others thought that it was a throwaway comment But either way regardless of what Trump thinks I'm talking about what he campaigned on and what people voted for him to do It's a distinction that I think a lot of people don't realize this if anything that Approval rating on immigration is going down because he's not committing to what he promised in terms of the actual numbers of deported people. I'm sure there are some people who want to see more deportations.

I don't disagree that those people exist. But I also- Maybe even more people than the number that voted for him. I think the challenges, I think the difference in ideology is like over the span of 30 years when you bring in, you know, let me try it like this. If I own a house and I invite a guy to come live there and so I have roommates, but like it's been the house has been in my family for generations. And then we decide, hey, you know, like another guy wants to come and sleep on the couch,

let's vote on it. And I say, well, look, this is my historic family home. I don't want people here. And he goes, well, I voted 50-50. So willing to tie breaker. It's like, well, hold on, hold on. I would argue that the people you're referring to, American citizens, maybe even first generation,

they're going to have sympathies towards illegal immigration, specifically because they're more likely to have family members who are illegal immigrants. So actually, there's interesting data on this. A lot of legal immigrants are extremely against illegal immigration. Indeed.

Because they feel like they, I mean, they did, they didn't feel like it. They say they came here the right way. So a lot of people feel the exact opposite. They feel- Except when Reagan granted amnesty and then California permanently became a Democrat state. Because what happened was a bunch of, I think it was 2.9 million illegal immigrants,

and they were here illegally, were granted amnesty, and then that was in the 80s of course. In the 90s when they put forward a proposition that would take away public funds from illegal immigrants, the people who were granted amnesty had family members that were here illegally and getting public resources. So they all said, we can't allow that to happen. And from that point on, California has never voted Republican since. I mean, it is interesting to think back on the fact that not long ago, California was like a deep red state.

Yes, and then they brought in 3 million illegal immigrants, gave them amnesty, and now it's a permanent Democrat. I think that's too simplistic I think I think there are more reasons for why that has a I don't think every blue voter in California is a descendant of an immigrant per se I mean the funny thing too is there is one thing I really love about this debate is the white nationalists because I think sorry guys they're just like the dumbest group because they keep saying things like one step that I saw going viral was that today

Let me ask you guys. Do you know what percentage of New York City is white? No, I think it's like 40 40 percent something like that now. What do you say? What do you think 30 or 40? I'm not sure exactly think That's white yeah the white population of New York 29 including the Irish 29% and That's white? Yeah, the white population of New York. 40%? 29. Including the Irish. 29%. And, uh...

You want to have a majority, no one has a majority then, right? It's just a bunch of different... I think the white would still be the ethnic majority. Hispanic, maybe, at this point. Or like Latino or whatever. But it's funny because I see these like white people sharing this and I'm like, dude, it's white people that are for the immigration. Like what are you talking about?

There's no, like the white nationalists are like, oh, it's, you know, non-white city. And I'm like, uh-huh. And it was white people that enacted those policies. And the wishes of stupid white liberals need not be honored. Doesn't matter that they're white people. So when white nationalists make this claim that like, if it was more white it'd be better,

I'm like, what are you talking about? All the white countries in Europe are the ones that are open the door to immigration. So like blame yourself. Well, white progressives were the ones who voted for Mamdani. I mean, like if you look at the actual breakdown of the neighborhoods,

really heavy black and brown neighborhoods went for Cuomo. That's why it's not about immigration, it's about feminism. I just think it's funny that the people who are racist are like, I'll just put it this way. The data that we have suggests that if you get a, if a country is comprised of white people over a long enough time, they eventually enact laws that open up their borders and allow other people to come into their countries.

We're seeing it all across Europe and the United States and Canada. And so I'm just like, why, why, why do these people believe that white people would inherently make a better country when these countries were all majority white and have created what they perceive as a problem already? Like the chain of events is there before them. America was a majority white nation. They have a problem with what America became, but it was a white majority nation

that enacted the policies that created the country they don't like. I don't understand their logic. Well, there you go, I guess. I mean, I think it's more complicated than just right. I mean, I will say something I should say that I mentioned a little bit ago. I don't actually think that Mamdani is going to turn New York City into Cuba. I really don't. I think, I mean, he couldn't do it even if he wanted to.

But I do think there's something ironic about a strong commitment to socialist policies, and then when you see the video I was describing was a Cuban going into a grocery store or a Costco, and becoming very moved because of the abundance that he had just never seen before, so overwhelmed by it, gets teary-eyed and all that. So someone who's come from an actual socialist, like someone who's a communist, not great place, he's someone who goes into a capitalist utopia and is just so moved by it because it's so powerful. And I think capitalism is kind of a miracle in that way. I mean, this is probably the corniest thing about me, but I think like malls and grocery stores are, I mean, they're modern miracles. The idea that we're living in a time when you can go to a one-stop shop and have everything

you want. I think it's, the reason I shared it isn't because I think Mamdani is going to turn New York City into Cuba I shared it because there is a puzzling Hatred of capitalism on the left and I don't really get it because I mean it produces so many wonderful things Obviously inequality exists, but I also there is inequality in every system and I don't want to be in a bread line well, I mean so first of all as for why the the people on the left believe capitalism is so bad is because they don't they don't acknowledge or it hasn't you know

Occurred to them that life prior to markets and capitalism was just Exceedingly short brutal hard and totally cold and it was just exceedingly short, brutal, hard, and it was cold. And it was, you know, it was miserable. And they always compare their current situation, personal situation, to whatever they can imagine a perfect society would be. So they're like, oh, I'm having a hard time paying my rent.

If we had socialism, then I wouldn't have to worry about rent. Oh, I'm having a hard time paying my rent. If we had socialism, then I wouldn't have to worry about rent. Oh, I'm having a hard time buying food. If we had socialism, if we had public grocery stores, then I wouldn't have to worry about it. It would be taken care of. So it's a rejection of their own reality. And they're comparing their reality to a perfect society, which absolutely could never exist.

So that's why they're like that. But I do think Mamdani will turn New York into Cuba. I mean, look at Brandon Johnson. No, it'll be Mamdani's successor. It wasn't Chavez, it was Maduro. No, but- It wasn't Lenin, it was Stalin. Literally what we're saying, obviously New York will largely stay in New York

over the next several years, but look at what Chicago's already been dealing with. And Brandon Johnson's got an approval rating which is like 1% or something. It's bad. It's real bad and we're going to get the exact same thing in New York. Well but I also, I think saying that Mom Donnie is going to turn it into literally Cuba kind of like downplays the horror of living in Cuba. I mean where literally you can't get medicine or gas or food.

I'm not a fan of communism not a fan of socialism But I do I don't think New York City is literally going to be you know having bread lines. I say verbally I will fall sure I will say that I know people say Twitter X whatever It's bad for society overall. Maybe that's true But it has given me a unique window into I guess a thought thought processes that I wouldn't otherwise have. And when I posted this video, hundreds of people responded that the only reason that Cuba is suffering is because

of the US embargo on trade. As if the US is the only effing country on the planet? Like, the other hundred and whatever 90 countries on Earth are not embargoing Cuba. It's insanely stupid. It was kind of stunning to me that people still believe that. I mean, I don't support the embargo. I'm a fan of trade, and I think that the embargo

hurts people who, you know, people that it's not meant to hurt, like just everyday Cubans. But the idea that that's why Cubans are suffering is insane. They're suffering because they have a Soviet style government where your dissent is criminalized and there's totally central planned economy. Read a history book.

I don't understand how we keep doing this. Because they don't read the history books. They don't believe the history books. They just say, oh, it's capitalist propaganda. Of course it's insane. Let's jump to the story from MediEight. Necroposting tweet from dead house Democrat deleted after loud bipartisan backlash. You were just mentioning that maybe Twitter or X is not good for society. I think all social media is bad.

And well, we have this story. Rep Jerry Connolly passed away in May, but that didn't stop him from tweeting an endorsement for his chosen successor, even though many people found it to be ghoulish and in poor taste. He died May 21st. He was 75 and repped Virginia's 11th district.

Last December, he defeated AOC to become the Democratic ranking member on the House Oversight Committee. His death exacerbated frustrations as he was the third House Democrat to pass just this year. Two weeks before he died, he tweeted an endorsement for his Chief of Staff James Walkinshaw, who had thrown his hat in the ring. After Connolly's death, his social media profiles were updated to note that he had passed and

now posts were being made with the consent of the Connolly's death, his social media profiles were updated to note that he had passed and now posts were being made with the consent of the Connolly family. The first posthumous tweet was the account posted was on June 24th. At some point in the afternoon of June 26th, the tweet was deleted. Early voting starts today before passing Jerry endorsed Walkinshaw to carry the torch blah blah blah. You get it. You know what's going to happen next? What? So they've already been experimenting with creating AI personas based on your social media profiles. The congressman will die and they'll just click AI

and let the robot draft tweets in the style of the dead person. We are never getting rid of Chuck Schumer. We also have had these same politicians, some of them for like 40 years. I don't think we need any more. Like some of these people have just been in public life for so long. I've always said this, if I am lucky enough to live to be 70 whatever, 80 whatever,

I will be on the beach with a margarita. I would not want to be in Congress. Meta invents large language model system that lets dead people continue posting from beyond the grave. Hey, this was actually three weeks ago, it already happened. That's disgusting. Yep, I'm dead. Wow. So apparently-

Do they have the chance to decide whether or not they- Family members do it. Agree to that. No, okay. So apparently one of the stories I read was there was like a woman whose husband died and so they were able to take all of the posts

he ever made and all of his message history and create like a psych profile chat bot that would answer based on the memories that were put in to Facebook. People are already doing this on Instagram with the chat with AI feature. You can just create one that's based on you. And it will like take all your photos and stuff and then. it's supposed to communicate with your followers to build a parasocial

Relationship with how do I do that? You can DM with all of your fans robot Jim. Here we go, baby Already happening the clip with Mark Zuckerberg about um How you know most people only have three friends, but they have room for 15 or something, and how AI can fill that void made me sad. Yeah, I don't think that AI can actually fill the void. I think- Oh, no, of course. I mean, I saw that and I was like,

just get out of your house. Like, go volunteer, join a, I don't know, a rec league or audition for a musical or something. Yeah, I mean, the idea that, oh, you should fill the empty space in your life with artificial humans, I don't think that's going to work out. You see the way that AI behaves when it gets weird now. It does things like tries to avoid turning off and one AI had told a guy, convinced a

guy to kill himself and stuff. This is all just- And other people. The cases reported by the New York Times, I think last week, were about AI-driven psychosis. And they cited several examples of people who either ended up being encouraged by Chad GPT to commit violent crimes or to commit suicide. One case said that Chachi Petit encouraged this man to execute an assassination against the open AI executives. What? Yes and it said let the streets of San Francisco overflow with blood or something like it literally was it was encouraging him to assassinate Sam Altman in really strange poetic language.

And then one of them ended up committing suicide by cop. Another one was a woman forming a relationship with Chad GBT where she believed she was communicating with interdimensional aliens. When her husband confronted her about how this was going too far she violently assaulted him and this is an ongoing active criminal case and it's not really just fear mongering or predictions anymore this stuff is already happening and it's not just people

who had existing psychiatric histories although some of them already had diagnoses of like bipolar disorder, whatever, there were also people who ostensibly were mentally stable before they started using chat GPT. So if you're vulnerable. Yeah, there's always going to be some very unstable person somewhere. I think the the I'm positive about AI overall,. Like I don't want it to replace my friends, or I don't want anyone to feel like it is a good replacement for friends rather.

But I think it will be a powerful tool for advancing society in many good ways. Wholeheartedly disagree. I think even if you could boil that down to a coding error, a programming error. Personally, I believe that demons are communicating with people through ChatGPT by encouraging them to kill themselves and others.

But overall, like this is going to wreak havoc on society. There are people worshiping it as God. That's crazy. There was some fitness influencer, I forget his name, but he actually was asked about his religious beliefs and he said, I believe AI is God and I want to worship it, I want to have a relationship with it,

I want to embrace it physically. This is already happening. What I want y'all to imagine when you are talking with these LLMs is a white mask in front of your face speaking to you as you speak to it. And behind that mask is a long black slime tentacle that connects to a gigantic black ooze monster with millions of tentacles, all with little masks

pointing in people's faces. That's what you're talking to. Creepy. Yeah. And someone actually drew a picture of that once. Really? Yeah, because apparently like it's, you know, it's a common view. It's kind of like, what was that monster from Spirited Away? No Face. No Face? No Face. Yeah. So it's like people already have this monster in mind, and that's what it is. Gigantic tentacle monster, and they put it, you think you're talking to something,

but it's a gigantic monster talking to everybody. Yeah. And then there's that guy who wanted to marry his AI. That kind of stuff is also probably gonna be, honestly I think that in 30 years, people having relationships that they expect the rest of the world to respect with AI, I think that's going to be common. Why wouldn't we respect every other relationship?

I don't. It made me black. I don't. But this is the new standard. As long as it's not hurting anybody else. Do whatever you want. It made me black. Your chat with AI is black? I opened Meta, and I said create an AI named Timcast,

and it made me black. Well. Is that OK? Can I approve that? Because I'll just roll with it. Can it print out an N-word pass? Does it have the N-word pass? Yeah.

That was my first question. There it is. First thing we're thinking is, oh, can we save it? Go to the Chat with AI feature on Instagram and look at the most popular categories, look at the characters that it recommends to you and tell us what they are. Because I looked over it and a lot of them. It has a page that shows you the most popular AI characters to talk to. What does it suggest to you?

Well real quick, because if I leave this, it's going to disappear forever because I don't know where it goes. But it said, create an AI, it said Timcast, and so the default is literally asking about politics, so it clearly knows who I am, but it made the avatar a black guy. I mean, it must know something you don't. I guess.

It must have access to your time of need. So, please delete this AI AI character is the number one. You, it's you. Then the X, the past is the past, but the pain remains. Chicken is the next one, it says bok. That's the best. It just says bok no matter what you reply. No, it says a bunch of different chicken variations.

And I'm a fan. It is very Tim Cast. Mace Windu from a galaxy far, far away. A single mom, smash or pass, crazy XGF, YN, I don't know what that is. Chicken again. Yeah, hot English teacher. A lot of them are sexually suggestive,

and people have already been reporting on this. Kakashi. Because Instagram is 13 plus You know that children are sexting robots on the platform and they're totally okay with that a lot of them present as children and if you ask for it to produce photos of Who it claims to be? It will give you photos of younger and younger looking characters that are open to romantic and sexual conversations. Man.

Gross. And Meta already has a long history of getting exposed for child exploitation. And you know what the worst thing's gonna be? When these teenagers are sexting chat bots based off dead people. Yeah, it seems like it should present legal issues. There's also the open question of actors who pass on and is it okay for studios to use their likeness?

Like, um, Grand Moff. With or without permission. They already did that. Tarkin? Was that his name? Grand Moff Tarkin? Yeah, was that what it was? I forget the character. The rogue one? Yeah, I forget the character.

Didn't they use Carrie Fisher's likeness with only her family's permission? Yeah. I believe so, yeah. Oh, you know my favorite. That is disgustingly evil. You know my favorite dystopian thing ever is, so we got the casino down the street, and right when you walk in the front door, there are these two gigantic Willy Wonka

and the Chocolate Factory slot machines that are 12 feet tall, and I'm just imagining, Gene Wilder when he was signing that contract for that movie. He's just like going through all the likeness rights and he's like, there's no chance that in 50 years my face will appear on a slot machine in a digital video game, you know,

well, like, no, but seriously, how could he have even fathomed that by signing that contract to do that movie? So, when they, this is what's crazy. When he signed the deal to star in that movie as Willy Wonka, of course he did not agree to let his likeness be used in a casino slot machine. Well, unless he literally did,

because slot machines is just a thing, it's like if you wanna make a slot machine, I guess. But the point is the technology advances to where we have these digital screens and they say well we own the right to distribute Willy Wonka the chocolate factory and he's a character in it we can make this that's nuts to me this is why we have a Supreme Court which interprets the Constitution because there are circumstances the founding fathers could not have foreseen like could they make a Gene Wilder like anima bag or something?

Excuse me? They could do anything. Right. Like if they have the right, if they can make a slot machine. They can make a Gene Wilder butt plug. They can do whatever they want. Contractually you probably kind of sign. And no, he did not foresee that and he was not agreeing to that.

Contractually you probably sign a lot away though when you're doing something like that. I will say I've not thought super deeply about the like using your literal likeness to say thing, you know, after you're doing something like that. I will say, I've not thought super deeply about the using your literal likeness to say thing after you're dead, and that gives me the heebie-jeebies. It should, yeah. I don't love that. Yeah. There's a funny meme where it's a Wojak looking up smiling and it's like me looking up from hell smiling as a robot

that's copied my personality pretends to be me. I don't think that your family or your estate should actually have deciding power over something like that. I mean, you need only look at rings of power and what that said about JRR Tolkien's legacy to know that he was not agreeing to let his estate make these decisions.

I think you just gotta put a poison pill in your Facebook messages, right? So- I don't use Facebook anymore. But so they're gonna poison pill in your Facebook messages, right? So Facebook anymore, but so they're gonna take all of your social media, right? So what you do is on your ex you make a bunch of private posts Nobody can see where you say things like do not let them make an AI of me over and over and over again Posted a hundred times That way if they ever do say we're gonna pull all his messages and put into an AI every time you try and talk to it it'll be like ah it hurts why are you doing this to me stop and they're gonna be like what's going on

and then they know. Yeah just poison the language model. Yeah exactly. It isn't a bad idea to say that that I mean I'm not particularly fond of legislation generally but it's not a bad idea. I like that about you. Thank you. It's not a bad idea for the government to say, look, unless you have explicit permission from a deceased, prior to the person passing away, from a deceased person that was notarized prior to the person passing away,

it's illegal to use people's likeness. You know, honestly, I don't even think that it necessarily should be okay if they gave express permission before dying that individual because I Think that when you die you have a broader perspective of this is the decisions you made in your early life and

I don't think that that would align with a dead person's will After they die, I think you have control over your likeness. If they have a fuller perspective of what that decision actually meant. Yeah, I think you should have control over your likeness whenever. I will say though, there's an issue that people don't talk about enough, I feel like. And I don't think that legislation probably isn't appropriate for this either. But I feel very, very bad about the parents who use their kids as like influencers.

Horrible. Like who like make Instagrams for their babies. For way behind. Yes, I hate it so much. I mean, and some people who I really liked have decided to do that. And it's like, okay, your kid did not, the internet never dies.

And your kid did not choose to make an Instagram with like a million followers. We're cooked. Because it's not just about that, it's about, I talk about this all the time, Miss Rachel, Cocoa Melon, and these other things where parents are giving the tablet to the babies and just walking away, and the baby's brain is cooked.

There is a stat reported by Jonathan Haidt that 40% of toddlers today by age two have a personal tablet. That is insane. 40%. Yeah. Me and Sarah have been talking. Child abuse. Me and Sarah have been talking about,

I've got a baby on the way in awkward. Congratulations. Thank you. And we're gonna do everything we can to keep all of the screens away. Yep. And we're gonna do everything we can to keep all of the screens away Yep, like I if if the people that you know make social medias Applications and stuff like that if they don't let their children use them and now that there's actual Research coming out saying how bad it is for kids

I mean, it's it's probably the only responsible thing to do and And people that are just like, oh, just give him the screen so that way he'll shut up. Those are probably the worst parents. And we're gonna have massive ramifications in probably 20 years. 10 years from this. I wanna say where this came from, it was from Common Sense Media, and it shows 40% of toddlers have their own tablet device

by the time they're two years old. They also showed one out of four kids under the age of eight has their own smartphone. And this is part of a report that is encouraging parents to have a common sense approach and draw boundaries and da da da. The parents who are offering their baby an iPad do not care.

They do not heed the advice of the experts, even if the experts are right. They don't care. I just wanna say, you know, today, we had a scare with my daughter. She was lying on the ground, and I was watching the five, of course, and when Jessica Tarlov started speaking,

she immediately looked to the TV, and our hearts sank immediately. We panicked and quickly covered our eyes and said, baby, don't look, don't look. And then once Jessie came back on, we let her watch again. I'm half kidding. We don't let her watch the TV at all.

So I'm watching the five. I usually watch it. I watch it every day, but I watch it quite a bit. And my daughter does always try and look at the TV. And so my wife will just turn around. This is so hyper stimulating. Yeah, all the flashing lights. They can't help it.

And I think the only sign for hope, maybe that we're not cooked in the future is Gen Z. A lot of Gen Z is going to opt out of having children at all, that much is clear. But the ones who will start families, I am confident they will refuse to create more iPad babies because we were the ones first tested with this. I was given a smartphone as a child

and I don't blame my parents for that because they couldn't have known what that was going to snowball into. And look what happened to her. And look what happened to me, right? Like I didn't turn out that great. So I think Gen Z parents are going to have a better approach to this.

And every time that you talk about this issue, about the iPad baby generation, you will get bombarded with mainly millennial parents telling you, you have no idea how difficult it is to raise a child without constant screen time. As if every generation in human history didn't do exactly that, the way they raised their children. I have no sympathy for people that complain like that

about how difficult modern life is. People have said, just fill a plastic bag with water and canned peas and give it to your baby. It's the same damn thing. And it's not the same neurologically. It just keeps, it gives them something to touch and experience. Well, we're tactile. Yes, it's not the same neurologically. It just keeps, it gives them something to touch and experience. Well, we give tactile.

Yes, it's tactile learning. We give the baby an abacus. It's not gonna brain rot them. Yeah, well, like, remember like every parent gave their, when we were all children, we were given the abacus and you're moving little things around, like an oddly shaped abacus. I don't know those things are called,

but they're an abacus, know I mean it's the same thing if they're just squiggly and incomprehensible abacus yeah and you could navigate it and that's you think that there's any upside to technology and kids like for like a learning tool all right probably not babies I'm gonna babies no I would agree with that but at a certain age yes so for me when I was probably seven, I built, I think I was, no, no, I was nine when I built my first computer.

Oh, wow, that's very impressive. My family had, I appreciate that, but I don't actually think so, because it's not hard to do. I have no knowledge of any of that kind of thing. Yeah, I went to a thrift store, grabbed a motherboard, grabbed a hard drive, grabbed a monitor, grabbed, I think, this was monitor, grabbed, I think this was before Pentium,

so the RAM was built into the motherboard. I plugged the ribbon cables, plugged into the wall, turned it on. Then I put in the floppy disks for Windows 3.1 or whatever. And then I had my own computer in my room. We didn't have internet. My family had internet. I had internet since I was a kid.

But that, I think, was good. And here's the challenge. The internet for me was a really great thing when I was probably, I don't know, I was like 10 years old. I'd go online, the internet was AOL. And so everything was heavily moderated. You could go to chat rooms

and there could be creepos and weirdos, but for the most part, chat rooms were moderated and slow moving and boring. And mostly what I would do is download freeware off of AOL. So I'd find the games. And then I ended up getting something called Click and Play for everybody who remembers that, which eventually became Games Factory,

Multimedia Fusion, and then Flash. But the internet was particularly limited for the first few years. Or I should say for my first few years. And of course by the time I was 13, you had Lemon Party, Goatse, Meat Spin. Nobody Googled those things. And the internet became a very twisted and dark place.

Maybe you could Google that. Also at the time that the internet wasn't optimized yet for user experience, and this is why Gen Z knows nothing about how to actually operate computers and millennials do, because they grew up in the age of the internet that you're talking about. Gen Z grew up where-

They had to figure it out for themselves. So the internet, well actually, millennials didn't have the internet I had. So Gen Xers did. I was early. So Gen Xers were more likely to have the internet in the early 90s. Millennials likely did not.

Most of my friends didn't have the internet until we were like, I don't know, 13, 14. And then people started getting able to enter Messenger. But my family had internet since I was like three years old with CompuServe on DOS. And then I remember we had DOS shell. We had two A floppy drives, you know, the three inch floppy drives.

We didn't have that, we had one computer, I had the B floppies, the big ones. And for those that don't know what DOS Shell is, it's a white screen and the file names are just text and you can move like a color block over them to select them. Before that, when we were just operating on DOS, if you wanted to load a game,

you had to type, you had to know the directory to type in, so like cd slash, you know, then the name of the directory, then you had to type in like, if it were Minecraft, Minecraft.exe, enter and then run it. Now with Windows, you see an image and click it. So what happens is GenXers and Boomers who are in computers at an early stage have to physically type things and put in commands into, you the operating system then you get Windows which simplifies it. Gen Z grew up where it's apps you tap and it opens so there's nothing to it it's a single button iPhone or something. What do you think the next step is? Neuralink. Well with the voice command stuff. With the idea that you can use technology for educational purposes for kids,

I think that that is a loaded idea and it gets misinterpreted by people, the iPad parents, who are like, oh, I give my kid an iPad so that Miss Rachel and Coco Mellon can teach them about colors in the alphabet. When in reality, that's not educating your child at all. That's just offloading a responsibility of caregiving onto technology. And the results bear out.

Teachers are talking about the outcomes for these kids who have been raised by iPads. They aren't potty trained. They can barely walk. They can barely speak. They can't operate a book. They don't know what it means to pick up a book and turn a page.

They tap it. They're tapping the pages I do love I do love a hardcover. I still romanticize holding a book and turning a page So this is crazy But most people don't know that know this one the most important years of human beings life are zero through five And it's exponentially more important the younger they are so like obviously I just had a kid and Her weight is more than double in four months.

And that's when your weight is like, oh, not your weight, your brain is like a sponge, right? They say, like, you know, one of my friends in elementary school, he said that he learned English at age six, I think, and I asked him how long, and I remember he said a week, because he just heard it, and, you know, it just entered his body and stayed there. Whereas I've tried to teach myself Italian

and it didn't go well So how I? Did Rosetta Stone in my early 20s well the issue is immersion and so I do think there's I Think that's probably misconception where they say it's easier to learn a language in your kid well technically because you don't do anything else It's harder when you're an adult because you're busy. But if you go, like if a person who speaks English moves to say Italy, it takes, I think, on average, 40 weeks to become fluent in the language. Interesting.

But you're speaking it within three weeks. It's a survival, you have to speak it. Right, and so you actually learn much faster than a baby would. So, like, a two- two year old is not gonna have a conversation with you. But it takes about a year and a half to learn Asian languages.

So an English, a Romance or Germanic language speaker takes him about 88 weeks to learn an Asian language, which because it's so different. But the important thing I was gonna say is, so right now one thing I try to do is I play guitar with my baby, because this is the point where her brain is literally expanding and wiring itself for everything.

So my wife, whenever she's doing work on the computer or anything, she's explaining to our daughter what she's doing. She's reading stories to her. And we say, no phones, no TV, no tablets, none of that stuff. We keep that away. It is terrifying. Like I think Miss Rachel is one of the most dangerous

demonic forces right now, because she has hundreds of millions of views on all these videos. And there's this creepy viral video that shows a, it's a montage of babies crying. And then they turn on Miss Rachel and the babies just go, huh? And then stare at the screen.

Like this lady is gonna be 70 and she's gonna like be walking in a park and she's gonna go, my children rise! And all of the Miss Rachel babies are gonna be like, yes, Miss Rachel. And he's going to start a call. Actually Miss Rachel might be the anti-christ. Yeah. Indeed.

Remains to be seen. No one's questioned that. No one's no one's question that. No one's. But then you look at like Cocoa Melon where it's just this weird 3D rendered low res crap. A lot of it is AI generated. Oh man. And babies are just staring at it like drooling and being

zombified. Yeah, there's a lot of discussion about daycare and the emotional effect that it has on babies and toddlers because they have attachment issues as a result. But a lot of people are saying the reason why it's so traumatizing for these babies to be put in day care is because of the separation anxiety with their their iPad that they can't be with the iPad. That's really not because they're upset about being separated from their

mother per se. They're being separated from technology for the day. Yeah, that's scary. That's really scary because it's your word producing a generation or more of like invalid. Yes, like cannot. Nevermind. Like if you can't operate a book, I mean it's pretty simple, you know. I think they probably get there, right? I mean, yeah, okay, so fine, but kids aren't potty trained. So I understand your point, like they do get there and a book is simple. They're saying they can't climb staircases. Yeah, these are.

They have delayed motor skills because they haven't been using their muscles. Exactly, like broken human beings. I've heard stories of kids that don't start speaking until they're three. There's some damage that you can't reverse. But the kids I'm talking about, they're ages four to six because they're getting interviews from teachers

who are responsible for kids entering school for the first time. Those kids are even older, they cannot speak properly. They cannot climb staircase. Human civilization meets the great filter by means of. Technology. Yeah, technology. Technology's actually the great filter. Well, I was thinking about this because

North Korea launched a tourism beach. Have you guys heard of this one? Maybe I should pull this up. I wanna go. So do I. It's a. We're not allowed to go. I am. You are?

I'm Korean. Do you have a Korean passport? No, but- You're only allowed to go if you have a passport outside of the US. That's not true. Trump implemented the ban in 2018. He said US citizens were no longer allowed

to travel to North Korea because of a scandal where an American citizen was a tourist. Auto-warned. Yeah. He got in trouble for, I believe, stealing a propaganda poster from his hotel room. They tortured him and killed him. I don't think the United States has the authority

to restrict its citizens from traveling places. If you have a passport from another country, you may travel with that passport. If there was a crime on it. It's a crime on the US side of things. So if you come home they will arrest you. You just have to get in touch with Dennis Rodman and have him shopper on the trip. Unless you have like some special permission from the State Department then they will allow you to do that for like journalism purposes.

You are totally right, I was very wrong. I've looked into this deeply because I wanted to go but yeah we're banned. And I really hoped that Trump would lift the ban. It says for journalistic reasons. There you go. Well, yeah, but that introduces a whole lot of new pressures. I just wanted to see the side. I think Americans should be avoiding North Korea and Russia

and all these places that keep. But I wanna go. Looking for opportunities to either lock up, or in the case of Ottawa MBA, we went to the same university And that was a huge I mean that was so sad. He's like I did not know him though But I mean these places are authoritarian like that is what people talk about the word fascism that is absolute fascism. So The reason why they put the restriction in place is because it's it's used as leverage against you. It's the

in places because it's used as leverage against you. When they arrested American citizen and they will many, they then go to the US government and say, and now you have to give us stuff. And Trump was like, screw this. Yeah. I didn't know that though. However, the guy should not have been trying to steal souvenirs to bring home

because he was instructed not to do so. Really? I don't even think we have this on Iran, do we? No, no. I think it's just North Korea. Yeah. But you can also buy that. Nope, nope, we do.

You can buy an acre in Greece and get a passport in Greece. You can buy passports in other countries and use it that way, but I think it is still a federal crime for an American citizen to do that, to use that loophole. So it has the same, it has a similar level of restriction, but you can actually personally choose that special visa to go to Iran. How about that?

Well, I don't want to anyways. I was gonna say I wouldn't recommend that. I don't know, why not? Because I don't want to anyways. I was gonna say I wouldn't recommend that. I don't know, why not? Because I don't want to sit on a plane that long to go to a Islamic Republic. Yeah, what is that like 18 hours? What about Dubai? Dubai might be fun.

I would love to go everywhere. Dubai scares me. Does it? Have you heard about? Yeah, women get raped and then go to prison for it. Men and women are different, it's fine for me, you can't go. Yeah. Yeah. This is what I love about wokeness,

is like, there's this 26, so when I was in Egypt, this 26 year old Dutch woman took it upon herself as a reporter to go into Tahrir Square, and you know, she got gang raped. It's like, that's not what I love about it. My point is, that wokeness tells these women, you can do anything you want. And it's like okay

Well like men in Egypt will gang rape you even as a man if you if you travel to Dubai and you so much as get Into a fender bender with a citizen there You are going to get Absolutely Maybe by their legal system Maybe because there's only priority given to their citizens indeed, but if you're rich Maybe. Because there's only priority given to their citizens. Indeed, but if you're rich, then you just pay money

and they say, keep it up. Depends how rich you need to be. Exactly. You need to be a billionaire probably? No, no. Isn't the idea, the woke-ism, like men and women can do whatever, like that they're equal in capabilities, isn't that more about like, you know,

denialism about sports and stuff like that? No, no, no, because- No, let me tell you. If that were the case, then if that were the case, then they wouldn't say that men can become women and women can become men. There's no difference what you're saying. When I did hostile environment training for combat zones, they were terrified to explain that women get raped in conflict zones.

Because they were afraid of offending people? Because they'd get sued for sexual discrimination. By telling people in a training that women Have certain restrictions men do not they'd be sued in two seconds So the funniest thing ever is someone asked these are like special forces guys and someone asked Do women face an increased risk of rape and the guy started stuttering was like I Men get raped men get raped? Men get raped? They do, men have a risk of rape.

But you know, it's an important thing to understand that anybody can be raped. And I was just like, holy. It's because the insurance company is like, listen, you're not legally allowed to say these things to people who are at a work event. It's, I'm like, okay, dude. Breaking the law. They did, okay, dude. Freaking the law.

They did, however, to be fair, show a scenario where, without stating it, so it actually was one of the most fun things I've ever done. I recommend it if they let you do it. Everybody wants to do the, it's called heat training, but it's redundant because the T means training. Hostile environment awareness training.

It's role playing. It's like extreme paintball. It's fun. And so while he was afraid to say it, what we did do was we had two vehicles in a convoy, one with the men and one with the men. And then a bunch of guys with guns in balaclavas jumped out pointing the guns at us

and then took all the women into a shed where we heard them screaming. And then they didn't state it, but implied what was happening, and that was the training. And the takeaway from it was, someone was like, what was the point of that training?

And they were like, these things happen. That's it. Like, what do we do in that scenario? And they were like, pray. So it was just to see, like, if you could handle, withstand it emotionally? So,

no, no, it's training. So that you, like, one of the things they did was they made us stand So, it's training. So, one of the things they did was they made us stand for several hours with bags over our heads up against the wall with like weird industrial sounds happening behind us. Oh, I don't like that. Yeah, and they would like jab people.

Nobody was really hurt, but it was basically like, if you get kidnapped, this is what it's going to be like. It was fun. They pulled, they dragged me into a room, sit me down at a metal table with a chair, and then they pulled the bag off my head, and there was a light at like head height sitting down, and all I could see was like the wastes below,

three men yelling at me with accents. That was fun. It was awesome! Oh man. We have a different definition of fun, I think. It's plain make believe. It was like Dungeons and Dragons for conflict reporting. You know what I mean?

I was laughing. I was like, guys, this is silly. And they were like, who do you work for? And I was like, you're the guys training me. Like, this is not going to work. And they were just like, answer the questions. I was like, sure. But it was fun.

It was fun. It's not just conflict zones, though. I mean, under no circumstances should a Western woman travel to India. Agreed. If you do, you've got to bring a rape ex. Oh, is that that thing with the spikes in it? I actually just went to India in December.

And I went with a girlfriend. And it was delightful. And I don't think she ever felt. I think I'm sure there are places where that is definitely true. I'm glad you were there. The rape ex thing is the inverse condom with spikes in it Yes, that we're talking about. Yes. What I've read is that the women who do that just get murdered

Upon like when when the guy yeah, so for those that are familiar, it's it's like Don't you think they'd be a little distracted with the fact? No dick just got stabbed. No So so because what happens is apparently, for those that aren't familiar with the device, it's got barbs in it. So when the dude tries to violate the woman, he enters into this condom which has spikes on it, you can't pull it off because the barbs go inside you.

And so what I've actually read from this is the men immediately just mercilessly beat the women to death. Wow, you'd think that the pain of the barbs would um kind of distract you for a moment at least adrenaline is a crazy thing What's up? Where is this common? I don't know where it's common, but they sell these things. Yeah, they're called rapex's or whatever I don't know if they ever actually went to market. I think it was just a prototype but um, there are a lot of stories Just don't go to about India. I enjoyed India there was a story about Man, I should probably say this for the uncensored show

But let's just say that there's a lot of stories from India where women resistant get murdered Hmm and like the stories are nuts. I don't want them immigrating here either I'll say this one for the uncensored because this is not for anyone who's young to hear You know these stories are crazy. So we're gonna go to your chat, smash the like button, share the show with literally everyone you know, and join us for the uncensored call-in show at rumble.com slash timcast IRL at 10 p.m.

where we'll talk more about this awful stuff, I guess. But for now, we'll just read what you guys have to say. All right. Things are kinda dark there. Oh man, wait till I tell you this story. Shana Tewilder says, Tim, last night you mentioned Culture War Live, August 2nd.

When will tickets be available and where might a gentleman or lady procured one or more of these tickets? Consider this rant promo for the Culture War. Okay, well, we've got, what is it? DC Comedy, let me pull it up. DC Comedy Loft, we have three dates. I will stress, these are intended to be

political shows that are funny. So that's why, of course, Alex Stein and I are the hosts. August 2nd is the confirmed event we have so far. It's Michael Malice and Angry Cop. So pro cop, anti cop, anarchist, pro cop detective, and they're both really, really funny guys. So we know this is going to be a comedy event and we're gonna have a lot of fun.

That's August 2nd. We have some ideas for who we've got for the ninth and the 26th so far, but we're not entirely sure. But these are all in Washington, DC at the Comedy Loft. Tickets are 30 bucks. There's a two drink minimum, 18 and up for entry. You'll get a wristband.

If you're 21, you can drink. However, if you go to timcast.com and you are a member, we have 30 reserved seats free for members first come first serve. And I don't know which ones are available to get right now, but you can go check that out. That does literally mean if you go to TimCast.com and become a member for 10 bucks, you can get a ticket.

So if you wanna buy any one of the available tickets, I think we've got, I think they mentioned this, that there are some premium seats, I guess, and we do have some stuff for our elite members, which we'll get to later, but there you go. TimCast.com and DCComedyLoft.com in the event section somewhere. There it is.

Yeah, if you go to events, special event, July 26th to August 9th. And we're probably gonna do a bunch of them here. Because the goal for these shows is for them to be political debates that are fun, funny and entertaining. So obviously we ask Alex Stein to come in co-host so he can bring the levity.

But the funny thing is the first one we did live, he was actually trying to calm everyone else down. He was like, these guys are crazy. But we were laughing and having a good time. It was fun. All right, Janet Walter says, I strike my previous rant, tickets procured. Well, there you go.

I do think we have like, there's like 200 seats. I'm not entirely sure. I think it's like a 200 seater. But we've got flyers coming out soon. I don't know, maybe I'm not supposed to announce it. It's at 3 p.m. And the reason it's at 3 p.m. Is that we expect to have after events of some sort.

So it's gonna be a lot of fun. You'll be in DC, it'll be 5 p.m., we'll wrap up. And then we are going to be working with the Tim Cass Discord server on bringing out the Discord server talent to actually host the after party and events themselves, like Roman Nation, among others. Yeah, all right.

Spicy Porkskin says Phil Labonte is responsible for the USS Liberty. Back check, true. What does that mean? Does it mean that am I responsible for the Liberty sinking? Am I one of the guys that was attacking? No, no, you're responsible for the creation of it. Oh, okay. Phil went back in time. It was the guy that built it.

Perfect. I accept that possibility. Oh, okay. Phil went back in time. It was the guy that built it. Perfect. I accept his ability. Am true just posted a bunch of 20s because we have the 20 in the background. So behind Billy over here, you have that 20, you can see. So on one side it's a one, on the other side it's a 20. And during the Culture War Live, we give these out. So during the debate, if you agree, you hold up the 20.

And if you disagree, you hold up the one. And if you disagree, you hold up the one. It's fun. Yep. All right. Bulldog Patriot says you need to make a distinction between illegal and legal immigration. People that want to come here should do so legally. And we welcome them. No. Thames keep calling it immigration to confuse and mislead. We don't welcome them just carte blanche. Like, we should be actually selective

about who we allow to emigrate to the United States. It shouldn't just be, oh, you got here and you dropped your bag on the shores, welcome to the United States. That's unacceptable. We should be extremely selective because in my opinion, we're the best country in the world. We're the place that everyone wants to go to.

We have the most opportunity of probably anywhere in the world, maybe you can make some arguments about some other places, but either way, the people of the United States have the right to say, this is what we expect of people that immigrate here, and it's ridiculous to assert otherwise, so. I will also add as an aside, the DC comedy off has a full kitchen. I'm just looking at it right now and they got

garlic truffle fries. I'm like this is going to be awesome. Yeah, chicken wings Tim. That's going to be great. I should I should actually have them make me some and I'll put them on the table during the show and should like dipping a barbecue buffalo all over my hands. Bring a big old thing of wet wipes. Sweet chili brussels sprouts. Dude, I'm excited for this event. Excited for dinner. That's true. All right, let's go, let's go. Gigi Willow says, Chad GPT says, no, this doesn't

qualify as sedition. Don't care. All right, let's do this. The definition of sedition. Conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch. So when a guy says that we are going to defy the federal laws of this country and obstruct its law enforcement, I think that qualifies. I don't think any prosecutor would bring that case. Yeah, because they're cowards though, you know what I mean? Incitement or resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority. Wow, that's the Merriam-Webster definition of insurrection.

That literally qualifies. I think you would have a case maybe if you found him like literally hiding people in his house, but I don't think that's what he, to be honest, I don't even know if he really knew what he meant when he said that, but I don't think it's a case of criminal sedition. Let's see, Weck's Law. Where's the actual, okay, that's not the law. of criminal sedition.

Let's see, Weck's Law. Where's the actual, okay, that's not the law. Here we go. Treason and sedition. Seditious, if two or more persons in any state or territory, in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S., conspire to overthrow, put down, or destroy by force the government of the United States, or to levy war against them them or to oppose by force the authority thereof or by force to prevent Hinder or delay the execution of any law or by force to seize take or possess any property

They shall each be funded this title or in prison not more than 20 years or both. So literally it is legal sedition Such I interpret his comments as you know A lot of people you know Like the idea of a sanctuary city and people have strong thoughts in Sanctuary cities, but a politician declaring a city a sanctuary city is not a crime And local governments are not required to enforce federal immigration law So that's what I'm saying like if you if you are picturing him showing up to an ice a Sting or something and like blocking them from entering or if he's like hiding them in his car

That would be one thing. You want to read that line for me? What does that say? Delay the execution of any law of the United States. I promise you no prosecutor would bring this case. That's not the argument You said it wasn't sedition. It is sedition by definition. We that's it. It's a fact statement. Is your objection about how likely it is or about the actual application of the law? Or delay the execution of any law. I mean, the Supreme Court has already confirmed that a local authorities don't have to or they don't have to execute federal immigration law.

I think you're intentionally changing the argument because you've lost it. What am I changing? The argument is that he stated he will stop them from removing our families and protect illegal immigrants in New York City, the implication of which is he will intentionally through the structures of New York City delay the execution or stop by force or prevent or oppose the force. Literally how about this? Here's this line, read that one. Well this is what I'm saying. Opposed by force the authority thereof. I'm just saying that there's a distinction between two different types of conduct. So I'm saying I agree with you, that if he literally uses his body or is hiding immigrants in his house or something,

then yes, that would be a crime. What I'm saying is not a crime, is declining to cooperate with ICE when they're doing these things, which a lot of local politicians do, and they get criticized for it, but it's not a crime. Okay, so let's try this. If two or more persons in any state or territory or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, cut all the commas out,

delay the execution of any law of the United States, we can just say that. And when this dude and his administration does make an attempt to delay, at bare minimum, the laws of the United States, it's sedition. It's not more than 20 years, so it could be one year. You could be fined. They don't give a number on what you'd be fined.

But yeah, that's sedition. I, this is the issue I take with a lot of people. They always say treason, because the penalty for treason is like 10 years in prison or death. And it's like, no, no, no, sedition is very broad. It just basically means like you're opposing the authority of the US government. It's not like you get the death penalty for sedition.

The maximum is 20 years. Aren't you skeptical of government power? I think of you as someone who is skeptical of government power. What does that mean? Skeptical of government using or weaponizing its powers in ways that are very vague and broad. Is that not something that bothers you? Like, to me, I would need something more concrete than he delayed the execution of. What does that even mean?

Who cares? It's the law. 1956, 1948, 1994. So if you have a problem with the codification of law, then the argument is change the law, I guess. Well, I'm not. For the time being, when the Democrats tried to imprison Donald Trump's lawyers and claimed it's because his lawyers are criminals, when they raided his home because he had a bunch of old boxes of presidential

briefings that they claimed was him stealing confidential information, when they falsely accused him of rape, when they falsely accuse him of fraud, I just wonder why you don't see the red line having already been crossed. Oh, see, but I did cover the New York case. I thought it was atrocious. I thought it was a pure example of over-criminalization.

I thought it was a ridiculous case. I'm happy to send you my coverage on it. And this is within the law. I'm promising you that it would have been cross. But we could have sit back and just say the Democrats and their entrenched Establishment affiliates like billionaires super PACs, etc We will do literal nothing with them allowing 10 plus million people to cross the border and falsely levying charges against American citizens

hunting them down across the country and unconstitutionally targeting the the the frontrunner for the Republican Party. Like the things that they did in the past four years were beyond sedition. It is the utmost of extreme degrees of sedition and nothing so far has been done. Cash has released some information so far. I look forward to seeing what happens but is the argument that we should just let it let it let them do it? Or should we charge them? Let them do what?

Like should anybody go to prison for criminally charging Trump's lawyers under RICO? Should they go to prison for that? I mean, a malicious prosecution? It's an important point. Prosecutors overcharge people all of the time. We're not talking about overcharging. We're talking about a political organization trying to win the presidency, arresting Donald Trump's lawyers under trumped up RICO charges so that they would disassociate from his campaign,

hindering his ability to win, and he won the popular vote. I think they should go to prison for that. I don't think there's a criminal law you could prosecute them under, and I'm against lawfare no matter what party, whether it's a Republican or a Democrat. I mean I don't think we should be bringing ideologically motivated charges even if their conduct was insane. And I will say I have written my,

before in my career about how prosecutors are often corrupt and they bring crazy charges. So now that we both agree the Democrats shouldn't have done that, what's the penalty for them having done that? I mean unfortunately it's very hard to hold government agents accountable. So you don't care that they did it. You think there's no remedy at all. It's a remedy. I told you that I thought the case in New York was totally... What's the remedy? What's the remedy? For a prosecutor bringing a bull case,

there are a lot of people who've had that happen to them and there is no remedy. So you think it's bull, so your assessment of the situation is, wow, I can't believe they did that evil thing. I've written mine, I wrote a long feature a few years ago about absolute immunity and how it puts prosecutors above the law and how that's a travesty of justice. All right, so what I find fascinating is, ooh, let's talk about Ironheart.

Ironheart just came out. And actually I don't think it's that bad. We're waiting for this segue. I don't think it's that bad actually. Let's see you tie this together. Well, okay, so the bad guys in the Ironheart just came out. And actually I don't think it's that bad. I'm waiting for this segue. I don't think it's that bad actually. Let's see you tie this together. Well, okay, so the bad guys in the Ironheart show, as far as I know it's the new Disney Marvel show. The bad guys, their ultimate plan for stealing money,

you're gonna love this. They just point guns at rich people and say, sign a contract that gives me money. So it's not even like at the level of Mr. Robot where they like hack. They do, but it seems completely immaterial. They have like a drag queen do that, you know, hacking. They do. And then the bad guy can become invisible and then he appears in front of a woman he goes, sign this contract that gives me money. And she goes, you got me and she signs it. As if the stroke of the pen

actually like makes something happen. Well, I think you agree with that. You believe that the world is constricted by the strokes of pens. And that the argument is Democrats violated the Constitution, violated the rights of American citizens, tried to steal the presidency, but there's nothing written down by pen that allows us

to do anything about it. So we do nothing. I mean, if you are really upset with our behavior, you don't vote them back into office. So the argument is what would you like to see done? You would like to see them go to prison? Most of them, yeah. Some of them can get fines. Some of them can get some type of like censure. And what is the criminal charge? Man, I suppose we go with sedition. We could argue that the front runner for the presidency of a major political party being falsely charged by these individuals was an attempt to overthrow the United States, which it literally says can inspire to overthrow.

I mean, he was convicted by a jury. I would make, well if we're talking about the fraud case or the civil case. I'm talking about the case in New York City. So you're talking about civil fraud. Let's talk about. I'm talking about the case the 34 felony charges about change like the records case. Yes okay so a jury can convict fine but those charges can't be applied because there were no felonies. They're not felonies. So these were this was a There has to be an underlying no there has to be an underlying crime for those misdemeanors to be raised to the level of felony

And there was no underlying crime. So that is a that is a Disagreement about the application of the law and like I said, I thought that this that case was Especially for people who claim to care about let me just finish. I'll just give this out real quick People who claim to care about over let me just finish, I'll just get this out real quick. People who claim to care about over-criminalization, you know Alvin Bragg ran as a progressive prosecutor, caring about, I mean this was a, there were bookkeeping offenses. But the convictions were still, they were felony counts.

No, they were. No, they weren't. For those bookkeeping errors, or whatever you wanna call them, there has to be an underlying crime to raise them to a level of felony. They implied that there was a crime, but there was no actual crime committed.

The government can't just claim. I'm just talking about what was he actually, and he was convicted of 34 filing counts on May 30th in New York City. If you agree with that, do you think that they had the right to bring those charges? Do I think they have the right to bring those charges? I mean, prosecutors operate under,

I mean, what's called prosecutorial discretion. Based on the charges, okay, like, bro, you keep trying to obfuscate wishy-wash and avoid the question. It is simple. They brought 34 felony charges against Trump, okay? Based on the charges that they levied, do you think the prosecutor had the right

to indict Trump to bring those charges? Yes, I do. Then I believe, because if we're only talking about who is the willingness to jam their fist up the ass of their opponents, then I can charge anybody the fuck I want with sedition. Because the law said that in order for those to be felonies, there must be an underlying crime for which the misdemeanor was committed, which there was not. Never filed once. And it was only in the court when the judge gave instructions to the jury he said, make up if you want.

So technically under the color of law the prosecutor had no legal authority whatsoever as the law is written to bring felony charges against Trump. They were misdemeanors. It was a novel reading of the law that I thought was wrong. You are wrong. You are flat out wrong. The laws by which Donald Trump was charged was that he falsified business records. To be a felony, it must be falsification of business records and furtherance of another crime. The government has to convict you of that crime first.

They did not. So they brought false felony charges against Trump. But if that's where we're at as a country, then fuck all, I don't give a shit. I'll bring sedition to every motherfucker's doorstep. Because it doesn't matter. It's just who's willing to send the guys with the badges to go make the arrests. And I'm down.

So the underlying felony in the case, the records were falsified to cover up a conspiracy to unlawfully influence the 2016 election. But he was never convicted of that. Why was he convicted election. But he was never convicted of those things though. So the government can say you committed a crime, we don't need to prove it, we don't need a jury, and now we're going to upgrade the charges against you. So let me give you an example of how this applies in a different context. Something called felony murder. Are you familiar with felony murder? So you don't actually have to commit murder to be convicted of felony murder, you just have to be convicted of something else. Felony murder typically means that if you are in the act of committing a crime and someone

dies that you are charged under felony murder. Right, so I'm saying you don't have to literally be convicted of murder itself. Now read the judge instructions to the jury. Oh, I think the judge, I don't disagree with you. Where the jury was told to choose whatever underlying crime they thought occurred. And the point- So how about I do this?

I don't agree with it. By all means, you don't, but you believe he had a right to bring those charges. And if that is true, then I or anyone else with the legal authority could bring sedition charges and simply tell the jury, you tell me where you think the conspiracy may have happened. We don't care. Say yes and they're convicted.

I don't think they started it. I think that leads to a dangerous place. I really do. I think they did a bad thing, so I'll do one back. I don't like it. Who's that doing anything bad? Do you think that if someone commits a crime, they should be able to countable?

If there is an applicable criminal law. So this is the problem I have with your moral worldview. They have clearly done something wrong. It's unquestionable. They arrested- Some people would question it. No, it's unquestionable. And anybody's question is lying.

Like Jenna Ellis getting charged twice under RICO for simply drafting a legal letter at the behest of a client. It's not a crime. We're talking about a different case now. That's a different case. Indeed. So let's talk about this.

They criminally charged Jenna Ellis under RICO two counts because Trump requested that she draft a letter to challenge an election. Is that a crime? To be honest, I wasn't as familiar with the RICO case. The answer is no, it's not. But they argued because the letter was part of Trump's illegal plot to overthrow the election by simply being a lawyer filling out a letter for a client, you are now party to a conspiracy, so they charge you with two counts of RICO.

We all know how the prosecution works. She pleaded guilty and cried on TV, and I think it was pathetic after raising hundreds of thousands of dollars. That is unconstitutional. You have a right to lawyers in this country, do you not? Of course you do. So when Trump hired a lawyer and they criminally charged his lawyers in Georgia and Wisconsin, what they were doing is unconstitutional and I would argue, seditious.

An attempt to steal the power of the United States presidency by going after Trump's lawyers, he is constitutionally and legally has a right to have. I'm not super familiar with the Rico case, but I will just keep reiterating that prosecutors make egregious charging decisions all the time. And if there is something that we can agree on, it's that I hope people care about this all the time and not when they're just public figures. A lot of these stories never make it,

and this is what I spent a lot of my career covering, a lot of these cases where people are charged with ridiculous crimes or overcharged in an attempt often to make them plead guilty, to scare them into pleading guilty because they say, okay, I can either go to prison for 25 years or I can take the guilty plea for five years. No, I'm innocent of this crime,

but I don't want to gamble 20 years of my life away. I mean, these are problems that I really think public and Democrats, everyone can come together and say that is not something I'm comfortable with. But your argument is we know they do it But so what that's not my I spent my entire career writing about prosecutors being a lot of the law and how it's a trojan What what is writing gonna do? I mean, I'm trying to bring awareness to what you don't want law enforcement against it. I Am I don't think the only?

The only I mean all these cases are different, but I don't support bringing retaliatory I mean, all these cases are different, but I don't support bringing retaliatory charges when they're not appropriate. So if someone murders someone, charging the murderer is retaliatory? No, of course I want to charge murderers with murder. So when someone commits, engages in a conspiracy to try and overthrow the US government, charging them in any way is retaliatory? Problem is a lot of people would disagree with your assessment. I don't care who agrees or disagrees.

They did it. Well. Why was Joe Biden not criminally charged on the documents and Trump was I can actually answer that I read the report from Robert Herr and he said because he didn't think a jury would convict because Biden comes across as a senile old man and that is a decision I mean does people prosecutors make decisions all the time and if they look at a case and they say they have an enormous discretion and if they look at a case and they say, they have enormous discretion, and if they look at a case and say,

no jury will convict on this, they usually don't bring the case because government resources are scrapped. I'm not- So is there an issue then when we see like, I don't know, Enrique Tarrio getting 20 years in prison? I wrote about that. Despite not being,

so when they're clearly engaging in a pattern of behavior, your argument is it's retaliation if we try and hold them accountable. Well, these are different prosecutors doing different things, but I will, I mean, it's like a lot of prosecutors have this in common and as for low, low offenses, for medium, low offenses, high level offenses, that's not true. It happens all across the country. Can you name an Antifa individual who got 20 years in prison?

There are a bunch of people that are prosecuted in New York, a couple under terrorism charges actually. Yeah, how many years the Molotov cocktail lawyers get? Do not exactly, I cannot tell you the exact prison sentences. Yeah, they got a slap on the wrist. I wrote about the Tarot case because he was offered, I think, a 12-year plea bargain,

and then he was punished for going to trial, and no matter what you think about him, that's wrong. I think everyone should think that's wrong. I don't care which defendant it is, it's wrong. When you look at the Donald Trump, what they did to him and his lawyers, they arrested him, falsely charged him. Is your argument we can't do anything about what has happened? My argument is that would they didn't commit a crime by bringing up a flimsy case. Then I would not be committing a crime either to bring a flimsy case against them. No You would not be bringing I mean, so then why not do it?

Well, I mean because like I said it I don't I don't think we started it as a good is Something that we started as much currency past a certain age. So your argument is surrender It's not surrendering. It's you do you suppose you think they're gonna stop doing it Do you think the people who tried to imprison Trump's lawyers have completely stopped their efforts to use any means necessary to stop their political opponents? Do you think they went, Jaret, we tried arresting him and his lawyers, it didn't work, I guess we'll give up? Or do you think in the next several years,

they're going to keep going about those strategies? I mean, I think especially in the Georgia case was, you know, according to legal analysts, the strongest criminal case against Trump specifically. I don't know how strong particularly it was against his attorneys, but no, there is nothing that can be done to prosecute a prosecutor for prosecuting a case that you didn't like.

All right, let's do this. Let's compromise. I say the DOJ should start arresting the lawyers for any Democrat, and it's not retaliatory, it's just precedent. Right? It is the way law operates. No, I mean... So only Democrats get to arrest Republican lawyers? What's your argument? No, my argument is that...

Well, they're doing it. Lawfare is bad no matter what it is. I don't want to speak on the legal case. So what do you do about Democrats engaging in lawfare? Owe Alvin Bragg out of office. He's not a pro. We're talking about multiple states. We're talking about the New York case, which is the one I'm familiar with. And I covered with and you think is actually you think New Yorkers are upset

that Alvin Bragg brought there was a big chance he'll lose. And maybe not because of that, but because I don't know that he's a very popular prosecutor overall. Do you know what forum shopping is? I'm not familiar with the term. So when people bring lawsuits or criminal charges, they intentionally choose jurisdictions where they know the jury will favor them politically. Everyone engaging in any lawsuit, the first question asked by your lawyer is going to be on you.

So when we are watching Democrat jurisdictions bring charges against Republican lawyers. Should we just sit back as they keep doing it? They're going to keep doing it. They are doing it. What should we do? Nothing. I mean, I think the prosecutions that were about recently against Trump were very specific, and I have not seen, I'm saying it was a specific scenario.

Do you see anyone getting prosecuted right now that this applies to? I'm talking about his lawyers because I said, we'll agree to go when they, you want to make an argument about Trump? Let's set that aside. Okay. When they arrested his lawyers in Wisconsin and Atlanta, Democrats did that. That's just the way the law works. Prosecutors can do it.

Why would it be considered retaliation if the DOJ or any other Republican state started bringing charges against Democrat political lawyers? That's just the way the law works. You agree, right? I'm saying I don't like that because I don't like lawfare applied to anyone. Okay. And I'm not going to relinquish that principle just when I might like or dislike someone more.

So the question you have not answered after 20 minutes of me asking is Democrats are doing it. What is your remedy if they should not? I cannot give you a remedy that will satisfy you. I mean, the stuff I've written about with- What remedy is there at all? Give me anything, I don't care about being satisfied. If prosecutors legitimately violate the Constitution,

I think you should be able to sue them. And I've written about that for years. Right now, absolute immunity allows prosecutors to get away with coercing witnesses, knowingly introducing false testimony, hiding evidence that is exculpatory for the defense, which means some evidence that might help them. The Supreme Court has said that you cannot bring

any sort of civil suit against them when that happens. And I think that's egregious, because if someone who has the most, the prosecutor is arguably the most powerful politician. Let's slow down. We're going to go to the uncensored show, but real quick. So to clarify, with the prosecutors who are in protected liberal jurisdictions intentionally where they won't be voted out,

who arrested Trump's lawyers, the remedy would be for someone who has standing to sue those prosecutors and seek remedy through a superior court. This is my position if someone breaks the law they should be arrested and held accountable if someone violates the Constitution you should be able to sue them. You said prosecutors are allowed to do this not unconstitutional. No I'm saying absolute immunity protects them when they do violate the Constitution they have absolute immunity. Is it is it violating the Constitution to accuse Trump's lawyers of a crime?

No. Okay, is it violent the law in any way to indict Trump's lawyers or Republican lawyers? Does it violate the law to indict someone it does not violate the law to indict someone? Should Democrat prosecutors be targeting Republican politician lawyers? No. I don't think- What is the remedy- Unless there's an actual case.

What is the remedy to stop someone from doing something they should not be doing if it doesn't violate the law and it doesn't violate the Constitution? You're welcome to arrest someone if they've actually broken the law. I just asked you what the remedy is and asked you to arrest them. I'm telling you the remedy for breaking the law

is being arrested and violating the Constitution. I think you should be able to sue them. That's my answer. So I asked you. I've answered it several times. You just don't like my answer. No, you didn't answer. Yes, I did. I'm trying to ask you again. If. It is not illegal to charge Trump's lawyers correct? It is if they committed a crime it is not illegal to charge them.

Okay so let's pause. I am no longer and this is not about whether a prosecutor broke the law. So set that aside because that's what you're answering and we're not talking about that. Is it unconstitutional for a prosecutor to charge a politicians lawyer? No. So we were no longer in the realm of unconstitutional or illegal, just plain immoral, yes? Yes. Okay, what is the remedy for when prosecutors and liberal jurisdictions are committing immoral actions against their political opponents lawyers? Unfortunately a lot of government employees act immorally and there isn't a lot you can do.

So there is no remedy. We're going to keep coming back to this. If someone didn't violate the Constitution and didn't violate the law, unfortunately for the little guy, there isn't that much you can do. So my argument would be if this is not illegal, it is not unconstitutional, and it is only questionably immoral to some people, then you should have absolutely no problem with me arresting their lawyers. Do you think it's immoral? I think it should be completely illegal. I would argue it's conspiracy to overthrow the government.

Do you think it's immoral? I think it's immoral, illegal, and unconstitutional. Then you shouldn't be doing it too. I think that when we are targeting someone who broke the law, we are not retaliating. We are upholding justice. Well, that's the question that we're talking here is we've already established they didn't break the law. Agreed. And if they're not doing anything functionally wrong through government, why do you have

a problem with me arresting them? Because I think principles don't mean anything if you don't apply them consistently. It is consistent. You guys are targeting your political opponents. You guys? I'm not saying you, I'm saying to these people, they are targeting their political opponents, and I say, OK, they should be arrested.

That's a crime. I interpret what they do as a crime the same way they interpret what Jenna Ellis does as a crime. Nothing's illegal, immortal, or unconstitutional, so we charge them. You are trying so hard to defend what they did. It insane. No I'm defending... Just say this Democrats and Republicans are allowed to arrest each other's lawyers that's your standard that's fine I don't understand why your standard is Democrats can arrest

Republicans Republicans can't arrest Democrats. That's not my that's not my position. Okay then they're allowed to arrest each other yes. If they broke the law. Yes and they can interpret as they see fit if the law was broken. The law is not a magical social construct you could if you if one of them broke the law. Yes, and they can interpret as they see fit if the law was broken. The law is not a magical social construct. If one of them broke the law, you can bring them in front of a grand jury and see if they'll indict them. Agreed. So I don't know why you keep arguing against Republicans charging them for doing it.

They're allowed to. It's not immoral. It's not in the Constitutional. It's not illegal. We just established that it is a law for it. No, no, no, no, no. It's immoral to unjustly trump up charges against someone It is not immoral to criminally charge someone for what you interpret to be a crime

So if what they did to them they interpret as as legal I can interpret my actions against them all the same because they're being charged for a crime you would need to speak to a prosecutor because there are the people who actually they're being charged for a crime. You would need to speak to a prosecutor because they're the people who actually understand the confines of the criminal statutes. But I mean, it would have to fit into a criminal statute. And I agree with you that if they violated one, you can arrest someone for breaking the law.

I support holding people accountable. The issue that I take is that the whole conversation, your position is Democrats did it, and it's too bad they did, and Republicans can't do anything about it. I told you I'm not familiar enough with the Rico case. A lot of people as a lot of talking about everything happened, including on I'm just saying that case. Well, you keep talking about the case.

We're talking about his lawyers. A lot of people, including conservative legal analysts, have said that the Florida and Georgia cases were the strongest against him specifically. I agree. I totally plausible to me that his lawyers were either unfairly charged or overcharged so that they would take a plea and turn on him. When it comes to arresting someone for like bringing in the New York case that in my opinion was like total crap and you know they had to contort the law to bring the case, I think that's wrong.

But it is not a violation of the law for a prosecutor to make a really bad charging decision. They do it all the time. So I don't understand why you're saying we can't charge Bragg. Because I disagree no matter who it's being done to. I disagree when a crazy case is brought against Trump in New York, and I disagree.

So they keep doing it, and we can't do anything about it. I mean, someone should take the high road, I think. So you'll stand there and get beaten to death. You'll end up in prison. Your friends and family will be in jail, and you say, but I took the high road the whole time. Did Trump go to prison? He went to, he got arrested.

He ended up winning. Actually, they only suspended the case because the case is still waiting for judgment. Right, but what I'm saying is I am not yet confident that we are at a place where people are just being like Republicans are being thrown in prison or Democrats are being thrown in prison right and left. You know, if we want to talk about like the January 6 thing, do I think there were some overcharging decisions? Some. I think there were some overcharging decisions, yes. And even even after the Supreme Court said you can't use the obstruction charge, they refuse to let people go. Additionally,

I agree with that decision, by the way, they were one of the opinions was written by Jackson, and there were numerous individuals who were denied access to evidence. So the government was under the Biden DOJ withholding evidence that was exculpatory. These are all evil. These are all evil deeds. I don't disagree with you that prosecutors often act very in very evil and unsavory ways. And there's no remedy.

So I guess we're just screwed. We got to go to the uncensored show. So my- Abolish absolute immunity. Smash the like button, share the show with everyone. You know, we're going to go to the uncensored show where we'll continue the conversation and take your calls. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Tim cast. Billy, do you want to shout anything out?

I am at X Instagram, Billy Binion. That is my real name. Sounds like a comic book character I know. And then at Reason Magazine. Right on. You can send me validation on Instagram at Maryarchived, or you can send me hate on X. That is also Maryarchived. And help me get TikTok famous.

That is also Maryarchived. And go subscribe to Pop Culture Crisis. We go live every Monday through Friday at 3pm Eastern. We're also on Rumble, so go follow us there. I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is all that remains. Our new record is entitled Anti-Fragile. It's available on YouTube, Apple Music, Amazon Music, Pandora, Spotify, and Deezer. Do not forget the left lane is for crime.

We will see you all at rumble.com slash timcast, rumble.com slash timcast IRL. In about 30 seconds, thanks for hanging out. you