Timcast IRL - Iran Suspected Of ATTACK ON US w/ Julie Mastrine & David Bozell

Episode Date: August 1, 2026

SUPPORT THE SHOW BUY CAST BREW COFFEE NOW - https://castbrew.com/ GET OUR MERCH - https://merch.timcast.com/ Join - https://timcast.com/discord Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere) | https://www.shoutout.fans/timpool Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) | https://allthatremains.komi.io/ Ian  @IanCrossland  (everywhere) Producer: Carter @carterbanks (X) |  @trashhouserecords  (YT) Guest:  David Bozell @DavidBozell (X) Julie Mastrine @AllSidesNow (everywhere) Podcast available on all podcast platforms! For advertising inquiries please email [e-mail]

The United States is investigating several cyber attacks in the U.S., notably in Minnesota, water systems were hit by cyber attacks. The question is who's responsible, and it is believed it may be Iran. Now, Trump has come out and said, no, not Iran. It's the corrupt Tim Walts. That's who's responsible. So we don't know for sure. There are many conservatives saying it could be a false flag to try and muster up support for a war with Iran, but we don't know. We will break this down. We also have major updates on what is going on in Suta, Spain, as we saw some 50 to 60,000 African migrants storm into this enclave. It is getting absolutely insane. The military is being deployed or threatening to deport everybody.

They're coming by water, which is interesting, which lends to the idea that this is about a court precedent that migrants that arrive by sea can't be immediately turned away. but many of course are saying this is an invasion. How else would you describe 50 to 60,000 people now some 30 are already dead as they just storm into this portion of Spain? We'll talk about that and a whole lot more before we do, my friends. You got to go to casprue.com and buy coffee. We got Casperoo coffee. It's the best coffee. Everyone agrees, and that is a statement of fact. We've got Appalachian Knights, Ground and Whole Bean.

It is the best coffee you will ever have. And I'm allowed to say that because what defines something as the best is vague and nebulous in an opinion statement. So I guarantee it. Rise with a Burdo Jr., breakfast, a light roast, stand your grounds. Don't forget we got a bunch of flavored coffee as well as bottled pool water, which you should buy.

Don't forget to also go to Timcast.com. Join us, become a member of the Discord. Smash that like button and subscribe to this channel. We have a couple of guests joining us today to talk about this and so much more. And it's actually fascinating. We've got two individuals with prominent, with particular expertise in media bias.

Would you like to go first, sir? David Beauxel, president of the Media Research Center. largest media watchdog operation in the country. Also president of For America, doing everything we can to get the Save America Act passed. Hope we have a good 2026 midterm cycle. So appreciate the opportunity. Absolutely.

And then another expert on media bias. Yeah. Julie Mistrini, Director of Communications at All Sides and Director of Bias Ratings. We provide balanced news and bias ratings for over 2,000 media outlets. Interesting. And we've already been just going at it on media bias, manipulations, what these stories mean, what words mean. be very, very fascinating. I could probably talk about it for 27 years, but Du Bois are here as well.

I'm about to bias the media, so get ready. I don't know what that means. Lay my weight all over the camera. Get ready to change your opinion because of what I said. I'm down. Yeah, it's going to be they're going to change their opinion to the opposite of whatever. How can you not be biased in media? I mean, it's a deep question, but maybe we'll introduce ourselves before. Hi, Phil. How are you doing, just waiting for me to splurge out? Wait if you to stop. I have no idea what that means. I'm Phil. I think for all the remains. What's up Carter? Hi, I'm Carter. I saw a guy like, did you get my tag on X? There's this dude doing like a water, a rain control thing. I did. Nice. What did you think? Uh-huh. Anyway. Uh-huh. I'm talking about moving clouds around. Uh-huh. I'd rather talk about media bias. Because I worked with mine, so you probably know you're going to introduce a story, but I was an admin with mine social media deciding who gets to be promoted on the front page and who doesn't. Oh, no. No policy.

Hard rule for me was I had to decide off the pre-AI. Right. What you were saying is no, no politics. You can't have politics, but of course being anti-Trump isn't political. So that was always important. Because there was the politics I agreed with. I wanted up, but I was like, I can't. No politics was my argument.

I would like destroy good politics. I'm like, what am I doing? We'll get into that. But we'll start here with the terrifying news from CBS. US investigating if Iran was behind cyber attack on water systems in seven states, including Minnesota. They report malicious cyber activity. affected technology and water systems in at least seven states this week, including Minnesota,

forcing some utilities to switch to manual operations as state and federal authorities dig into who is behind this attack. CBS News has learned. Investigators are probing to determine whether the activity is the work of Iranian hackers, according to U.S. officials and sources familiar with the incident. Sources cautioned that since they had not definitively attributed the attack, their assessment could change as additional technical evidence is collected. They're also probing whether the actor could have attempted to appear, to appear Iran-based as a way of stirring the pot amid the ongoing U.S. conflict with Iran. The FBI reported incidents in at least seven states, but didn't identify them. Trump has come out and said no to the, to blaming Iran, is instead

blaming the Minnesota cyber attack on Tim Walts. President Trump dismissed speculation that Iran was behind a cyber attack targeting dozens of waters since Minnesota, blaming instead the state's, quote, corrupt governor, Tim Walts. I just want to mention that we heard in Minnesota there was a cyber attack and they blame it on Iran. I don't think so. I think I blame it on Minnesota because they're grossly incompetent. There was a cyber attack of 30 water plants and I would blame it on Minnesota and the governor, the corrupt governor of Minnesota. They like to say, oh, is Iran? Iran should be so lucky. Iran's got bigger problems than worrying about Minnesota, which is a weird way to phrase it. I got to be honest.

because he's not saying it wasn't a cyber attack. He's not necessarily saying it was in Iran. He was saying it's the fault of Minnesota for being corrupt. It's like blaming the hot girl for getting raped because she was wearing an outfit. I don't like it, the victim blaming stuff. Well, regardless of that, right? The point is he's saying Minnesota was cyber attacked. Iran's got other things to worry about, but it's the fault of the government, the government for not protecting against it.

Most commanders during a war would be like maybe it was the bad guy. Like he's staying straight up. I don't think it was our enemy. But there are six other states. I mean, is Walls responsible for all of them? You know what? I'll tell you what happening. What's happening?

See, this is where Trump and Ian are very similar. You know, oftentimes during the show, we'll all be having a conversation about something deeply esoteric but very important. Ian, in his mind, is imagining like graphene oxide being taken and brought into like frameworks of industrial, you know, strusses, and then it just blurts out randomly. And then we're just like, what are you talking about? Like, it's something unrelated we're talking about. So Trump is sitting there in his mind imagining Tim Waltz like as a turtle banging on his chest playing, you know, old McDonald. And then someone asks him about the Iranian hackers.

And then in his mind, he has nothing to say about Iranian hackers because he was just thinking about Tim Walts as a turtle. And so he just goes, oh, the hackers, I think it's Tim Waltz. and you're just like, are you just saying that because you weren't paying attention to what we were talking about? Ian is shocked because that's describing me perfectly. It could be, yeah, I think about what's related to what you're talking about rather than what you're saying, usually. You have four topics. Which is my point. Which is how my brain works, dude.

Analogies and what idiotos. But all that being said, I mean that seriously, that Trump is sitting there and he's thinking about Tim Waltz and the Democrats. Someone asks him a question about Iranian hackers. And he's just like, yeah. I don't know, but Tim Walts is corrupt. Even if it were Iran, the president of the United States is not going to credit that, credit them publicly. Yeah, I mean, if Trump came out and said, yeah, Iran did it, he'd have to.

We might have to drop some bombs on them, right? In the past, you would always want to make the other country look like the villain, like, oh, we think it might be Iranian hackers. There was an Iranian attempt on Trump's life. Because you want the public to be like, oh, they're the bad guys. Then the war is okay. I'm surprised he didn't do that. Yeah.

Yeah. I mean, he must really, either he knows they didn't do it or he is really weird. I do kind of feel, well, I mean, he's wicked weird. I do kind of feel like people have kind of settled into whether or not they look at Iran as an enemy or not, right? Like, there's not a lot of people that have a lot of wiggle room anymore. If you're against the Iran war, you're generally like, oh, we could be allies with Iran if it wasn't for, you know, our meddling in the Middle East or what have you. And then generally, I think, more people than, than, then, you know. not think, yeah, Iran is at the very least hostile, whether they're a direct threat to the United

States or not, that could be, you know, debated. But most, most Americans are like, yeah, Iran's hostile. You look at the Beirut bombing. You look at most people know that Iran is funding terrorism in a bunch of different places in the world. You look at all the people that went to the GWA in Iraq that were, you know, dealing with roadside bombs that were, you know, that the militias were taught how to build those things by Iran. Most people kind of settled in as what they think. I think it's AI, man. I had to pay. Oh, really?

I think that rogue AI is out there doing stuff right now. I don't know. I mean, I saw Wisconsin was listed, but I don't know where the other states were. I'm curious, Julie, because of your work, do you read often left, right, and center on all of these big news stories? Yeah, yeah.

So you have a balance to be on it? Yeah, I have to because whenever I'm in, whenever I'm analyzing media bias, I have to like compare and contrast what details were included by the and versus the right. And honestly, sometimes you don't get the full picture until you're saying you're trying to find the other states. Is it in the CBS article?

So I'm curious, you know, Phil mentioned Iran is engaging in acts of terror. And just putting on your journalism hat from all the stuff you've read, from the like neutral journalistic perspective, is that an accurate assessment? Iran is doing these things. They are funding terrorism. They are attacking allies and other targets. I mean, this is the thing is we talk a lot about whenever you're talking about international

conflict and how to report on that. And it's like, again, like what source of authority? You're going to go with what the U.S. government is saying? You're going to go with what the foreign government is saying? I asked. Yeah. And so it's like there's not really an easy answer because there are cases, and we've written

about this before, like there are cases where your government's lying or the other government's lying. And really what we do is we try to provide context around like what the source of the information is so that you're very clear about who's saying what and what their interests might be. So there are ways to do this, right? but like, you know, American news media, like, I mean, I don't know. They're not always super clear about, like, the interests of the different sources that they're getting the information from.

The reason why I asked just because of what you said is that they're conservatives saying this is a false flag, right? So maybe something happened, but the argument is blame Iran to create a justification for the war. And so, I mean, maybe it's a false flag, but maybe Iran act. Look, I got to be honest. if you came to me and said Iran launched cyber attacks against U.S. critical infrastructure in response to the war that's going on in Iran, I'd say, yes, I predicted that four years ago. We've been talking about on the show that Iran would engage in cyber attacks as their only means of striking at the United States. So it's plausible outright.

It's also plausible that the U.S. would blame Iran to justify an ongoing war. I mean, so how are you supposed to actually figure out what's going on? Who's telling the truth and whether or not they're just trying to trick us into war or whether we're being attacked? If there was a lab leak in the AI got out inadvertently, I don't think that they would tell us that because they don't want to scare us about AI right now. They literally have there's been a bunch of stories about it happening. Like Anthropic just was talking about it yesterday, how four different AI models got out of the sandbox of their frontier models. The companies, remember, most of the AI that you hear people talking about, they are privately made and these. companies have an interest in making people aware of how capable their AI are.

There are people even saying that the AI companies will overstate how capable their frontier models are in hopes that it will attract people to use their AM model because if their frontier model is basically Ultron and the one that's available to the public, well, the one that's available to the public, surely that's going to be able to help my plumbing business organize itself, you know? So they don't hide that stuff. No, the company's going normally. And what you're saying is the AI is attacking us and blaming Iran. I don't know.

Nobody blamed Iran, which is a weirdest. Well, you just have to presume, you said plausible. I'll say probable, that Iran has tried to launch a cyber attack against us. You just have to assume it. Daily, I would think. So that's not news, I would not think, on a Friday. On a Friday. What is, is the water, just looking at the.

board here, the water, the multiple states, and why Minnesota is getting sick. Yeah. It's kind of weird. Yeah. Well, actually, you make a really interesting point that I want to kind of shift into. You mentioned on a Friday. What do you mean by on a Friday? Well, that would be a major development if they were able to successfully launch a cyber attack

on major American infrastructure, and I'm just kind of surprised that if they had the report, they waited until getting in front of the president at the cabinet meeting to get his comment, which he launched, which he said, made the Wall's comment, which got Minnesota inserted into the headline.

Just what is this, for you guys that work in media, for those that don't know, what is the significance of having information earlier in the weekend waiting until Friday? Well, it's usually where you want news to go die. Yep. They don't want people to hear this story. So if you had to put on a conspiracy hat,

maybe assume that we confirmed it. Yeah. And we confirmed it with the stipulation that it doesn't get launched. It doesn't get released until Friday. Dude, this all sounds fishy. He said it's not Iran. He doesn't think it's Iran. He didn't say it's not Iran.

He said, I don't think it's Iran. He said, I blame, no, I blame Tim Walts. Which is so weird. And then he said Iran has other things to worry about. He says, let's clarify. He's blaming the governor. We heard the cyber attack. They blame it on Iran.

I don't think so. Okay, fair point. I think I blame it on. No, no, no, no. Okay, hold no no. I blame it on Minnesota because they're grossly incompetent. There was a cyber attack of 30 water plants. He is confirming there's a cyber attack.

He's saying it's the fault of Minnesota for not being more secure. Like you said, there's seven states involved, Minnesota and Wisconsin. It sounds like Great Lakes. Maybe they're going after the water supplies of the Great Lakes states. They said the other five states haven't been disclosed yet. Oh, okay. But it sounds like Trump is covering up something by blaming Walt. So that's actually a good point. No way way. This is a really good point. Let's let's dissect

the media here. They put on a Friday where news goes to die. Trump shifts and makes it a pars an attack because partisan attacks will get more play in the media. And like the state of Wisconsin has nothing to do with Tim Walt. So I don't know why he did that. Exactly. Because no, because the headline now is Trump attacks Tim Waltz instead of Iran attacks water systems. All the while all the while kind of triple confirming that Iran has done this or at least attempted to do this. And all the while you have to assume that they've been attempting to do this for years, even before the conflict. They absolutely have.

Our industrial control systems aren't wanted to tissue. And what is the definition of success? I mean, I still don't know what, I mean, okay, so we just turned one switch off and we went to manual. Okay. I'd do that with stuff in my house all the time. If something, I've got to reboot my stuff.

That seems like all it required. We just rebooted our switch. Okay. I don't know if that is the definition of a successful cyber attack. If there were significant impact. actually, you'd probably be hearing more of it actually out of Minnesota, like if people didn't have water. Right. Right, which we haven't heard. Well, unless they're just not going to tell you. I mean, to be honest with you, it makes sense that, and when I say makes sense, I mean it fits Trump's

general pattern, that he would blame his political opponents because he uses things that are functional constantly. Let me ask you guys. Did you all know that like about two weeks ago, I think it was, or it might have been a little bit more that a guard working at an ice facility shot a protester in the foot? No. No. See, now that sounds like a big story, right? Yeah. It was a security guy. It was a private contractor, worked at an ice facility, and these women were, there were protesters obstructing the vehicles coming and going. Guy gets out of his car, draws his gun, and shoots her in the foot. A protester. A protester. Yeah, like, zero justification. He's been criminally charged with attempted murder, I think. Now, I didn't find out about that story until like four days after it happened.

And then I asked the crew, like, how did we miss this story? A guard in an ice facility pulled it as a gun and shot a protester, like, unwarranted. We did talk about it, yeah. Yeah, we talked about it on one of the day. No, no, no, I know. We talked about it like a week after it happened. Yeah. And so my point is...

She was already back protesting when we talked. Right, with a cast on, yeah. So, but ultimately, my point is, if there were people without water right now because it's attack, that's possible, we just don't know. In the age of social media, we wouldn't know? You don't think? An ice guard shot a woman and we didn't hear about it for a week.

It's possible, but I feel like there'd be a boatload of TikTok's blaming someone. there'd be a boatload of Instagram reels. Not if the algorithm doesn't allow it to surface. The left is still talking about water issues in Michigan. I mean, remember the... Oh, yeah, I think that story was fake, by the way. I think that story was completely fake, and I'll tell you why.

So when the Flint stuff happened, I was working in Fusion, and I said, I got a great idea. Let's go collect water samples from Flint, from businesses, private homes, and from the river itself, run them through a mass spectrometer to see what's actually in it. And nothing. It was all fine. And we couldn't reconcile that so we didn't publish the story. So let's talk about media bias. So we come back. I get a sample from two private residences, a business, and two samples from the river. So it's actually, each sample is two vials.

So I get two vials from the river at one point, walked on a mile to a different point in the river and get two more samples, and mark where I got the samples, went to a private business, got two vials full. Went to a home, got two vials, another home, got two more vials. Then I went to my house in Miami and filled up two vials as a control. And then we went to New York and we ran all the water

through a mass spectrometer and the Flint water was nothing of consequence. From the private residence of the business to the water itself in the river, all was relatively similar. The water that came from the homes was a little bit different because it got treated.

And they found no significant heavy metals or anything. And so the water from my house had heavy uranium deposits in it. and that was because of fertilizers. So we're in the redlands in Miami. So I go back and we have the report like we're preparing and we go to the bosses and we're like, do we come out with the report and claim we ran multiple samples through a mass spectrometer

and it debunked the official narrative that the Flint water was tainted with heavy metals? And we decided we're not going to run the story because we don't understand how we're wrong. that is we did these tests it's counter to every narrative from every mainstream news outlet can we publish this and the consensus was we're probably wrong so let's just bury it

were the other news outlets doing independent testing like you were doing they weren't where were they getting their information from pictures of bottles that were foggy or dirty and people getting sick and then experts saying it and our concern was we must have done something wrong and we're going to look like idiots if we come out and say that we did something wrong and they're just going to say we did something wrong so let's just do nothing.

Now I look back and I'm like, oh, they were probably just lying. Well, they wouldn't have picked you up anyway, even if you had run it. No, this is ABC News. Oh, it was. Yeah, well, I mean. Yeah, this was a fusion, ABC Univision Joint Venture. So I was doing this report out of the ABC building. Oh, wow.

Yeah. And we were just like, what do we do? And they were like, I don't think we can run a story that says everyone's wrong. So what was the broader, I'm trying to think back, like what the broader political context was of that story at that time. Poor black people in Michigan were getting dirty water. Right. So, yeah. And the pipes had lead in them and things like this. And people told me the issue could be that the private resident samples you got are just anomalies. And we don't want to publish anomalies. What year was that? I mean, that was the hot topic in 2012, like the 2012 primary.

2014 or 50. It might be 2015, I believe. Okay. It could, no, actually, it might have been winter of 2014. I was like climbing down into like the river and ice and snow to get the samples to. No kidding. Yeah, it was really funny when they were like you have too much uranium and your home water, stop drinking it. You're like, you're on farmland and they've got heavy fertilizers down there and it's getting into your groundwater.

And we were like, oh my God, let's not drink that. Well, maybe the Iranians did us a favor. Clear all that up. Well, I got farmland in Minnesota too. Anyway, I just as an aside, I don't, I just think everyone's lying these days. I just mean like what would have been, like if you're like left-wing

media outlets really pushing that Flint story like are you just trying to tie it to like inequality like what's the broad? Well yeah of course it was it was all about inequality. Inequality yeah so that's the thing like the media always runs with and pushes stories that are like really gonna you know suit their agenda so

if if it yeah I mean it could be the case it wasn't like super well I'll give you another example like do you remember the whole like stop Asian hate their hate crimes against Asians like that kind of story that was big until they found out who was committing the crimes Well, no, I think it was just, there were a couple of things.

It was like, this was like the Jesse Smalley era, right? Like, hate crimes are always in the news. But if you looked into it, like CNN was reporting an increase in hate crimes. But something that was going on is that more agencies were reporting data. So what, there was not like a baseline to actually understand if there was an increase. But you know why they stopped the hashtag stop Asian hate, right? No, I don't know if I found out who was committing the hate crimes. Other Asians?

No, black people. Well, I think my point was just when I looked into the data, the numbers were like very low. It was like in cities of me. millions. There were like, you know, five hate crimes and then it would go, if it went to like 10, they're like 50% or whatever. So you can like manipulate. But the, uh, there weren't that many. Yeah. And then they found that perpetrators tend to be black. And then all of a sudden that stopped. That's why that stopped. Okay. Yeah, because they were like, it actually counters our own narrative. Yeah. Yeah. What a terrible indictment though that you, that you say you can't

trust anybody. And, and I don't trust you. Well, but even though, even though you're biased, you're going to have to lie to me. Isn't that funny? It is. But I mean, what a terrible indictment our whole ecosystem that you feel like you've got to go to the right wing sources and the left wing sources and there's just there's no no no no you go to the left wing sources for the lie

you go to the right wing sources for the truth fair enough there's a good look at the all sides lady I will say that sometimes the left is the left wing medialites are more well resource or something sometimes they are doing more of the like original reporting and then the right tends to do like the commentary

on top of it so you do still have to read the left I mean... No, I agree, I agree. Yeah, yeah. Right. So we got CBS here, but do we consider CBS left wing anymore since it's been purchased by the essence? Oh, we just did a whole...

We just looked into them and they're still lean... We did, because all the Barry White stuff, right? We just did a bunch... If you pull up their rating, we have their source page well updated where we looked at all this. And we actually, I think we also pulled Americans as well. I agree with that, actually. Yeah. CBS...

We found no meaningful indicators that they have become... that they're becoming more to the right. If you scroll down, I... I think there's also a blind survey that we did. See, look, that's how Americans rated them in December 2025, blindly. They didn't know they were rating CBS. They sent independent investigators to Minnesota to investigate the fraud claims that Nick Shirley brought up, which I think is indicative of Barry Weiss. They've done a couple of stories.

They did, L.A., same thing. Same type of story. They actually, they're the only network to devote any time about the diaries before the hearing. They devoted 24 seconds to their diary. diaries before the hearing. We're talking about the Fauci Diaries, right? The Fauci Diaries. But they are not this MAGA super store.

No. Not like people claim. They want to think that they are. They're not. The fact that it leans left, do you think that that's just a, you know, result of the fact that people in the media tend to be urban,

they tend to be more cities and have a kind of a more left-leaning perspective in general? It's because people in media tend to be retarded. I'm not biased. Who said I was biased? There are actual stats on like what percentage of journalists identify as like being a republic. It's like, so I don't remember the exact number. Yeah, it's like 5%.

Like for some reason and I would love to dig into why this is, it seems like people with liberal views are like drawn toward the profession in the first place. I'm going to pause you real quick. I think actually that's not correct. The presumption is that these liberals are journalists but they're not. What's happening is and what happened 10 years ago when I was working for ABC and University vision, activists are coming into these positions that are liberals for the power. Yeah, they want to affect change. We were talking about advocacy journalism, right? It's like, how can I shape society to my view, right? Like to my vision? Well, one way is through

working in the media, for sure. Let me tell you guys some. And I'm curious your experience with this kind of stuff. I was interviewed in 2011 over Occupy stuff. The journalist comes in and he was a freelance writer. He worked for a bunch of big outlets, Wall Street Journal, near Times wired. And this guy that I was, with offered him a shot of whiskey of this high-end whiskey, because I can't accept that. A guy that you were with? No, no, no, a reporter.

The reporter, okay. Was interviewing me in this guy. Guy offers him a shot of this fine whiskey, scotch, and he says, I can't accept that. I'm sorry. Journalists, traditional ethics is you do not accept or give anything to the subjects of your interviews. I've not seen that.

I mean, that was the last time. Are you seeing people accept gifts now? Absolutely. Journalists will come by and be like, I'll take whatever I'm offered. Oh, wow. You could literally hand a journalist a bottle of beer. Like, thanks. Oh, yeah, yeah.

Yeah, the lines are all blurry. Yeah. Well, I mean, the left traditionally will gravitate to the media, academia, or the arts. Those are the three centers, the professions that they really love to, you know, to try and tell. What about bureaucracy? Do you think bureaucracy has a left-leaning bias? And that, and that, too. And you could draw a through line between what's happened with Fauci and the media coverage.

Fauci. Having grown up in Washington, I've been in Washington since I was two years old, the Washingtonian bureaucrat believes in their soul that they and only they can be and should be the one to determine public policy determinations for the United States, for the American people. They consider it an insult if you question them, and they have no ability to self-reflect. They have no ability to self-analyze or express regret. They're never wrong. That explains the hostility to Donald Trump as well. Correct. Correct. And they think that they're the only, like I said, they're the only, if not me, then who? But you know, you know,

and the media are the same way. I would describe it this way, you know, because we were talking about this a bit. we did a longer interview, which is coming out soon. The left and right, what does it mean to be left and right? I would just argue that the right, as it's generally used, whether intentionally or not, just means closer to reality and the left means further from reality. And I will explain this because I know immediately the liberals are going to be like, how dare you say that? When we're describing the tribes in bias, the examples I like to use is that Jimmy Dora is called

right wing despite being a socialist. I'm called right wing despite having left libertarian views. Lincoln Project is called left wing despite being clearly old school conservatives who hate Trump. So it's not the policy positions the person holds that defines whether they're going to be left-leaning or right-leaning. It's which, who do they side with? And when you side with someone, you side with them largely based on their interpretation of facts. What we know is that let's just go with the very fine people hoax. Let's go with the Shinsau Abe hoax with the fish.

Let's go with everything said during COVID. the corporate press, legacy media of the left, left-aligned media has consistently misled people, either intentionally or otherwise, subdued to determine why they were misleading, but whether there was an accident or on purpose, people were being misled. And the right has, while sometimes they get things wrong, tended to break through that noise to get out the correct narratives. So if you look at like the barisma scandal with Joe Biden and Hunter Biden, for instance, liberals largely believed that Joe Biden never engaged in a quid pro quo to get a prosecutor fired. Everyone else, you would be, I'll put it this way.

If you say publicly Joe Biden told the president of Ukraine, if you don't fire the prosecutor, you're not getting the billion dollars, they would call you a conservative for stating a fact. So I think for me, especially after 10 years, I mean, working in this industry longer, but over 10 years of independently just reading nothing but news all day every day, we see that the left tends to mislead with incorrect information and the right doesn't, I would describe it as you just did, they don't do the primary sourcing journalism. They do the commentary fact check and debunking of the corporate press narratives. So if you're following the right, what are you going to see? Joe Biden on video on X going, I told him, if you don't fire the

prosecutor, you're not getting the billion dollars. Son of a bitch. I got fired. But if you watch CNN, you'll have never seen that video. I'm thinking to like 9-11 and like, because that was the right was in charge. I mean, it was the Republican Party, but were they always leftists? I got to pause you. The world has changed. Yeah. When we have the liberal economic order, but that means liberal leftist are all of us leftists

without realizing? No, let me, let me explain. The Lincoln Project are those people from back then, but they're anti-Trump and they along with Democrats these days. What is now left and right is fundamentally different from what it was 20 years ago? There's like a left and a right within this far left ecosystem that we exist within, this liberal economic bubble that is, I guess you would call it far left, democratic, socialist. Well, that's immaterial to what we're talking about. So the point is this. You are accurately describing that under the Bush administration during Iraq, the media was marching in lockstep with what

the conservatives wanted. And that was the right, far right. However, Trump was an insurgent candidate, as was Bernie, the right populists have assumed large control of the Republican Party. And those Republicans, you describe, formed the Lincoln Project. Bill Crystal. And are now aligned with Democrats and advocating for Democrat politicians and opposing the right. So when I say the right tends to be closer to reality and the left tends to be misleading, I am not talking about 20 years ago. I'm talking about what's happened since then with, don't get me wrong, back then,

all of the media was in this bubble. The Democrats and Republicans were marching in locks. step and and Bill Maher got fired from his job for for talking for criticizing the U.S. government and the military operations in the Middle East. So how do you guys define left and right when you're working in the media sphere? Well, I was explaining this to Tim earlier. It's like we have we do have on our website like if you click on any of our ratings. We have some like general descriptions of left, center and right.

But our process is actually to capture the average view of Americans and a panel of experts. like today, right? So you're talking about the history of it changing and things like that, right? But what we're actually trying to do is capture what are largely subjective views. It's true. Like we, if you look at our page for the Lincoln Project, there was a ton of discussion about whether or not about what they're rating ought to be, right? And we have some really interesting discussion capture on that page. So we're not actually trying to define it. We're trying to capture what Americans think and also what experts think when they read news content. and they see it straying from objectivity and neutrality.

And we have a, like, we have a rubric for that, essentially, with types of lives. I was just telling us here, Felder. We got MRC.org pulled up. It says, shattering liberal media influence. And I said, I don't think you should put liberal because if there's a news story that says politician tries to kick dog, that's not left her, right? That's just did it happen or not? However, when, was it, Jay Jones, what his name?

I don't know. Jamal Jones? No. Jay Jones. Jay Jones was the guy in Virginia, right? He tried to kick a dog. Jay Jones was the guy who wanted to eat the children of his political opponent. Jay Jones kicked a dog.

Yeah, here you go. From the Hindu stand times. Jay Jones tried to kick a dog. Well, he did. He wasn't punting the dog or anything. But he took a swing at the dog, right? So here, let's pull this video up. And it's like a weird video because you're like, why would he do this?

There's the dog. He kicked at the dog. You didn't actually kick the dog. So here's the bias. He took a swing of the dog as it was running away. Did he try to kick the dog? Well, he did. I'm not saying he was trying to kill the dog or anything like that.

It is not liberal or conservative to point out he tried to kick a dog. That's like me being like this and you'd be like Ian tried to punch Tim Poole. No, no, no, no. I was six feet away from him. Yeah. I swung. Kick, kick. At least he didn't Christy gnom it, the dog.

It's true. Punch is definitional. Punch is to strike with force using a closed fist. in typically intending to cause serious harm. But there's playful punches. However, a kick doesn't always mean. If you say kick the tire, you don't think they're going to soccer ball punt the tire. They're going to tap it with their foot.

That's why I'm saying it's not partisan to say he tried to kick a dog. And I always clarify, I don't think he's trying to hurt the dog or punt it, but he didn't. That's weird. Now, here's the point. Liberal outlets would say he tried to shoe the dog away or that he didn't. That's what I'm saying. There's what happened in the video, which is him, let's say, swinging his leg. and then there's interpretation.

And you're interpreting it as him trying to kick the dog. Liberals are like he's, they might say, they might soften it, say like swung at or like, like that was maybe a more relaxed gesture, right? So there's two points. Off of the dog a true issue on. We're not here, I think for the most part, I think your mission actually isn't about the politics of the outlet. It's whether they're lying about what happened.

Sure. So it doesn't need to be liberal or conservative. It's just did they lie? And I will stress this. This is why people don't trust them. media. I think it is perfectly, I think what I described is completely reasonable and let's just call it a 98 at 100. I said he, like when you kick a car's tires to check it, you're not using full force to break the car or damage it. It just means to swing your foot against an object. He did try to kick the dog. I don't think he was

trying to punt the dog into another universe, injure the dog or hurt in any other way, but he did kick at the dog. Now, I don't know. Kick at is different from kicked. Tried to kick. Yeah, tried to kick. I think it's fair to say he tried to kick the dog. The dog, the dog. Strong at? I mean.

But here's the point. I didn't say, dude, try to punt a dog. That's biased. That's unfair. That's not an accurate representation of what happened. But the point ultimately is, the way I described it is not right biased. Would it be better to call it? It's reasonable to say, I don't think he was trying to hurt the dog, but it did take a kick at it.

Do you think bureaucratic media is a better phrase than liberal media? because it's like media owned by black rock and stuff. I love the term elitist because I do think there's a... The right is already kind of engaged in this war on expertise anyway, and these guys very much feel like flyover country is beneath them. And their presentation, you see this in the Fauci coverage, it's just this elitist mentality. But to your point, and actually, when you're talking about this video,

I can feel like the soul of Scott Adams, like, say, everybody sees a video differently, sees different things. But to you point earlier, what the Wright invests in when it comes to journalism, this all kind of started back in 1992. Roger Ailes and Rupert Murdoch figured out that, okay, CNN can go invest in the basic blocking and tackling. If you want to see what happened, go turn on CNN. If you want to go see what it means, turn on Fox. Yeah. And so they invested in an analyst where CNN invested in big, gigantic computer boards of electoral college maps.

all these fancy toys and gizmos that nobody watched. Because we believe them. And so that has sort of permeated. And he can't argue with Fox's approach, the number one network, 24 hours of every single day for 30 years, every single hour every day. I mean, who are we to judge any of that?

But that is, now that's not to say that the Fox has not, that the right wing ecosystem is not invested properly in the basic blocking of tackling and tackling of reporting. Breitbart is a terrific. example of this. In January, the Minnesota Star Tribune shot up the news website rankings to be the top 40 news website in America in January, all with anti-ice coverage all day long. Based purely on the fact that Apple News picked them up 11 times and Google News picked them up six times. And I was sitting at a panel with Alex Marlowe, I'm sure we both know, and I said,

were you, did you deploy a reporter and during the Minnesota, the ice rise? He said, absolutely, we funneled, he processed three stories a day. Did Apple News pick up, BrightBart and anything that? Nope. Did Google News? Nope. MSN? Nope. Yahu? Nope. So, this website that nobody asked for,

one of the most liberal operations outlets in the country, the Minnesota Star Tribune, was showcased and vaulted up to the top 50 rankings in the United States based pure on the app love that they got. And it's all anti-ice all the time. So that's kind of the system that we're trying to change. Because the right-wing ecosystem, talk to Miranda Devine.

Tell Miranda Devine she doesn't break stories on the rights. Did you know the Minnesota Star Tribune reported that Elhan Omar may have married her brother? As of... This was years ago. Yeah, she was broke. In 2019, when the story... Right, right. Right.

And it's funny because that story is considered fake news and right-wing and what even though it's the Star Tribune that published it. Right. There's a great meme going around with the main guy. What's his name, Jackson? No. Jackson, the new one, he's married his cousin. Oh, yeah.

And Omar's out there like, hold my beer. Well, he married his second cousin, right? Something. Well, in Maine. Second cousin is there's still a line. People need to understand. Second cousin is far away from first cousin, but it's like second cousins. That's like your dad's cousin is your second cousin?

No, I think it means they shared a great-grandparent. Yeah. I'm like, sorry, nah. No, you gotta wait seven generations until there's like zero genetic danger. We did all this math on the show. Dude, you make a good point about alphabet controlling the media, like these corporations, Apple, like, since 2006, you get featured on YouTube, you're bigger than Fox News. A majority of the country. Two different companies that are kind of co-monopolizing, duopolyizing the media.

Reuters had a great poll in July of 25. A majority of the country reported that they get their news from one of the five. following four, Apple News, Google News, Yahoo, or MSN. And it makes sense. They're at the point of entry, right? If you got an iPhone, you've got Apple News preloaded, Android, Google News preloaded. If you're on a desktop computer, if you're at the nurse with the graveyard shift, if you're, you know, whatever, whatever, you know, white collar job you've got, you've got MSN preloaded. So it makes sense. So it's also important to analyze what these guys are putting out there and what outlets they're choosing to showcase. And what are the financial arrangements

between these things. We got to do it. We got to do it. From the New York Post, Maine Democrat Senate candidate Troy Jackson fathered two kids with his second cousin. Off break. Okay. So I saw this story and that's just it. Jackson 58 and Lana Peltier. How do you say that? Peltier? L-A. L-A. Share two adult sons and the same great grandparents. I see a comment where someone's like, well, second cousin's very different from first cousin. And immediately everyone's like, oh no, found him. Here it is. I just want to show you this chart. This means this dude had kids.

This is his dad's cousin's kid. That's what you were saying, right, Ian? His dad's cousin or his mom's cousin. One of his parents' cousins had a kid. He married that kid and had kids. Okay, that means they're the same great-grandparent. I met my great-grandparent. This is not outside of like the family. This is great-grandparents in traditional in American, in American. tradition are at your family reunion and you know them. It's like, so in recent history, great grandparents have fallen out of, like, the immediate nuclear family, the immediate family, because we're not having kids until way later. But if, if at 22 years old, they have a kid, that kid at 22 years old has a kid. That means the newborn kid's grandparent is in their mid-40s.

that means when that grand kid has a kid their grandparent is in their 60s while they're in their 20s and that means your great-grandparent is going to be in their 80s when you're having your kid and your great-grandparent

is going to meet their great-great-grandchild. So I'm going to go ahead and say second cousin is too close and very weird. How do they meet? Genetically, Genetically how close. First cousins are close.

I think second cousins, because aristocrats, didn't they use to do this all the time? Oh, they bang their sick. Yeah, but like I think second cousins are genetically far away, but you're right on like a social level. Look, it's, uh, to be Romaine, I mean, there's always so many options. Maine doesn't have that many people.

You gotta get what you can get. Did you, did you pull up the percentage chances of birth defects? I'm pulling that up right now. It's very small for second cousins. It's just about the same as unrelated. Really? You can genetically get, it's like, I think we share three percent genetic material with you. So I'm, I'm, I was going to pause and say, it is very strange.

It is very strange to go to the family reunion with your wife. and kids remembering your great-grandparent how they came to this country and you're like, yeah, you know, and you're like, hey kids, when we look back in our family history to how we came here, remember your mom and I have the same parent who emigrated here to have you. Maybe they're trying to keep assets in the line. Like, that's why they used to do this stuff. Just bring on it all. The bloodline cure.

I'm with you. I mean, in rural Maine, 50 years ago, this is probably a lot more common. Now, that's not saying you should elect him to the United States Senate is not. an endorsement, but I'm just saying, like, up in Maine, you know, things get weird up there. And Omar says, hold my beer. Yeah, there's a lot of pine trees

and not a lot of people. Maine's a big state. If you're in, like, if you're in Massachusetts, it's, like, where I come from in Western Mass, it's the same distance to the tip of Maine as it is to down here. It's like a six hour, seven hour drive to get up there. So people don't think about how big Maine is. It's

a fairly decent-sized state, especially for an East Coast state. A lot of lobster, too. Very good. For the record, it's just a 2 to 3% chance of a birth defect from unrelated parents. Two to three to three percent. So then how? So there is a point five to 3.5 for second cousins. There is an additional risk.

There's an additional risk of between 0.5 and 1.5% for second cousins. And you get to keep the familial wealth in the family. And if everyone else is idiots, you know that your family's well educated. Let's just clarify. There is a 0.4 to 0.7 increased birth defect and congenital anomaly risk among second cousins and around two times greater lethal genetic conditions among second cousins. That being said, two times is still only about a point or two. So your genetic anomalies are about 2 percent. Birth effects are 2 to 3 percent. Second cousin is going to be like 3.5 percent to around

3.5 for both. So it is like two times greater, but we're talking about a single percentage point. I'll put it this way. If you go to some, if you want to win an election, here's what you say. Did you know that this Democrat who's running had kids with his cousin? You don't say second cousin or first, right? Now, if you want to make it seem like you're more honest, you can say he had kids with the second cousin, which has two times the rate of birth defects. And they'll go, whoa. It sounds like a lot, but we're talking about like a two percent chance.

This is what they were doing with the hate crime data. They were like, it's a, it's been a, I don't remember the exact number. 50% increase, but it was like from one to two. You know, so you can just manipulate those numbers. I will, I'll make a bet that Susan Collins doesn't mention any of those things. Oh, no, no. That's just not going to be her cup of tea. No, it's going to be, it'll be regular, you know, I guess the down in the mud house members that are going to make us think about it.

Yeah. I don't know. I imagine, this is the problem. Well, here's a question for you guys. Is it a legitimate question to bring up in a debate? This. Why did you do it? No, no, no.

I would ask. Is she hot? Is she worth it? You can see a picture of her, bro. Like, okay. Did you imagine a debate? It's the Senate debate, and the debater is just like, so you had kids with your cousin, was she hot? Your kids?

No one is going to be like, actually, yeah. Like how she meets her wife. Why do you think? It's a great episode for South Park to tackle. Actually, that's a good point. I don't know if I would bring it up in a debate. I think your normal guy wouldn't bring it up because he'd be like, no, it's, I want to be professional,

but like Donald Trump would bring it up. I think it should be brought up. I think it's legitimate. I think the issue of family values are extremely important to Americans and are extremely important to uphold. This is why they say, this is why Tim Scott got married.

Remember, like he was a contender for VP, all of a sudden he gets married to his longtime girlfriend. The speculation, of course, is that you can't win the presidency as a bachelor. You got to be a family man, because too many people have kids. have families, duh, we all mostly do, and they want to know that you understand their interests. This is interesting. Now, I wouldn't ask it in a, like, if I was going to ask him personally,

I'd say, I think you shouldn't have done this, but I'm not going to pretend like it's the apocalypse because the genetic anomaly rate is 10 times lower than first cousins. And I'm sure your kids are well-adjusted and totally fine. But people are going to raise questions about your family values, having fathered kids with your second. cousin. What are the, I mean, what are the chances they know, Mainers know this already? And this is just percolated up to the national. It's the first time I have it. Um, I bet it has, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know because he, he was, I don't think he was extremely well known before they brought his name up after Grant Platner. Yeah. If this had been, if he'd have been,

if he'd have been, if he'd have run before for something or he'd been in politics before, maybe. Yeah. But I don't, I don't, I don't, I mean, I could be. wrong. It makes me wonder, like, did he say, I can't win because of this? I'll like, go nominate planner. Did you guys see the viral story of the woman who met her husband at their family reunion? And everyone started commenting. Like, she made a video, she said, like, I met my husband of family reunion. They're like dancing. She got a bunch of comments where they were like, you married your cousin. And she was like, no. She's like, it's my cousin's cousin. I am not

related to him. And then people were like, what? Your cousin's cousin has related to you? And then she had to explain that her mom has a sister and what is it? Her sister married a guy, had a kid together. So it's her, what is it? No, no, no, that would be her cousin. It was, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. She has a cousin. So it's her mom's, her mom's sister's kid. And her dad is not related to her had a sister who had a kid. Hold on. Sounds like you're saying she banged her cousin, but you're just kind of obfuscating it. Listen, here's her. Here's her mom.

Mom's sister. Sister marries a guy. Have kid. They're cousins. Guy has sister, right? She is not related to her uncle. Uncle's sister has kid. Cousin by marriage.

So now her cousin's cousin is not related to her in any genetic way, and then they got together. Which is, it just sounds weird. But actually, she was right. They're not related in any way genetically. They don't share grandparents or anything like that. cousin by marriage but maybe there should be a different word for it because it's like the word rape

you know like there's different kinds of rape you should have different words what there's like underage statutory which is like consensual I'm like let me say the most shocking word to add to the story being from Virginia we're all related to Robert Lee that's what we all claim

and you look like everybody claims it everybody is like the gangus con of the United States I mean it's the that's The lore of it, right? So it's easy. But like, okay, if you ask this guy this in a debate, like, and you're trying to get at his sense of family, like, what does it imply about him politically?

You know what I mean? Like, couldn't argue he would bang his cousin. He's more family-oriented than the average person. Well, no, I would say this. Hold on. This story is getting a lot of attention. Yeah. Why?

Is it because, is it because it sounds gross? Do you think? Probably, yeah. Okay, well, hold on on. It's the right wing out. Why does it sound gross? Because it's taboo. Like, they're trying to set him up as engaging in taboos.

Simply put, I think if you are trying to be a proper journalist interviewing a candidate, and there is a story of general interest that people find to be a value, you should ask him about it. That being said, I also understand it's salacious, and it's not apocalyptic, but it's bad for him politically. It's sex, jugs, rock and roll. Yeah. Is this a Fox story? New York Post. I guess, yeah.

I mean, look, the headlines. pretty straightforward. Main candidate, fathers two children with second cousin. Troy Jackson. He replaces Graham Platner after multiple scandals for Plattner,

including a Nazi tattoo, sexual assault allegations. No, I think we was talking about it. The post headline I'm talking about. I mean, it's pretty straightforward. That is an unbiased headline. You're saying this is getting a lot of play on other outlets because the New York Post

is known for this type of like. Well, let me ask you. Is that headline biased? Honest question. No. Perfectly unbiased. Well, okay, story, we're now back at story choice bias. The fact that they're choosing to cover it could have an information. See, I'm not a fan of that idea of story choice bias in a sense.

Well, think about this, like go back to the days of print news. The editors had to select the stories that most people are only going to see what's above the fold, right? When the newspapers fold it and it's sitting there. So the editors have to select the stories that they, if you don't even pick up that paper. I agree with that. Yeah, so that's what we mean. But I don't agree with this. I don't agree that in a digital era, we are constrained by space.

So story choice, I don't think. Well, you could look at the, like, is it on their homepage? Like, we look at that a lot. We're like, is it on their homepage? Like, how important do the editors think that this story is? They're calling it an unspeakable horror. I'm kidding, that's a different story. I would say if the twists and turns of every relationship Donald Trump Jr.

has been in in the last eight years of the Trump era, and that's been widely reported from girlfriends and ex-wives and new wives, then certainly the candidate for in the most important Senate race in the country, his family relationship is newsworthy. Absolutely. Story choice bias is super important because every day before we do this show, we'll be like, what should we talk about today? That's biased.

That's not correct. We say, what's the biggest story of the day? According to this framing, like the things you've seen, the things I've seen. I say, what's the big news, everybody? And I ask everybody what the biggest story was. I have a specific algorithm in Twitter that I pick from that I'm, I have, it's like an echo chamber. It's a big echo chamber. But like, how can you deliver news and not be biased?

Because you're deciding what you're going to cover. But this is the point. We're all bias. That's why we're perfectly unbiased in every way. You're the only neutral news sources. But to say that like story choice bias isn't relevant is just not accurate because exactly what you're saying. Like even if you go look at a. all the media outlets of the day

and what are they all covering? Like, I mean, sometimes they're not all covering the same thing. Sometimes they are all covering the same thing because everyone agrees it's the biggest story. Every day when we come in at pre-production and I ask, what's the big news? I'm not suggesting the most viewed.

I'm saying, which is generating the most interest attention and as requesting of opinion and commentary? Well, do you ever choose based on what you think is really important, even if it's not being widely covered? Sometimes, yes. Yeah, story choice bias.

Indeed. Typically, though, for this show is... Which is fine. It's not like it's bad. I would actually say, technically, the inverse. Sometimes we cover stories we know people aren't going to click on, but is the most important story. Like, there was, you know, earthquake and hurricane hits.

And we're like, this is going to be the most valuable in terms of people to know. Arguing about the color of Trump's tie, it's the biggest story, but who cares? Yeah. I'm not going to do that. Yeah. I mean, if you went with the networks, you wouldn't have covered Fauci. Indeed. You wouldn't have covered Nick Shirley.

Yep. You wouldn't have covered Hunter Biden. There's a lodger list. And if you were a big tech company, you'd have banned anyone who did. Absolutely. Yeah, so you're just editors or commentators. They're always having to choose what they think is the most important for people. If people just look at the New York Post's homepage today, what are they going to take away?

To be fair, that wasn't on the homepage. I looked. Yeah, yeah. But it is, it is, there's a storage source bias, but there are editorial decisions being. made every single day by these big media companies. To not cover Fauci, those diaries should have been one of the biggest stories of the year. Oh, yeah, because it proved that he was lying about everything. Absolutely. And to give it a glancing 24 seconds on one network is a crime in an other side. Here's the important point to the liberal mention. It is not a policy position to point

out that they're obfuscating and downplaying some of the most important stories of a generation. So the issue that I take with the, you know, we're conservatives and we're calling out the liberal bias. The issue I take with it is that what Fauci did is not partisan Democrat conservative. It is just atrocious. He committed atrocities, in my opinion. And I'm going to clarify, he secretly, he surreptitiously provided funding for gain of function research, lied about it, defied mandate from the U.S. government to do so and doing it in a foreign country. And when And he found out that it was likely his work that resulted in this lied to the American people and advocated for things that were detrimental and that caused harm and death.

He committed atrocities in that capacity. I'm not acting like he's Hitler or anything. But when he went out and he lied to people, what did he say? How about an easy one? He said, don't buy masks. Then he later admitted, I only lied to people because I wanted to make sure our people got him first. We wanted to make sure that our medical professionals got access to these masks before the general public. Now that we have secured our supplies, now you can worry about it.

That's not what someone who is being honest and neutral should be doing. Not just can, but should. Indeed. And then mandated. And then started, even though he admitted you don't need to wear two masks, once the media told him you should, he went along with it and told people to wear two masks. When we knew for a fact that the vaccines were causing myocarditis and paracarditis, and I'm saying new isn't behind the scenes, not media speculation, he came out and lied over

and over and over again. And now we have Stanford and Nature.com proving that not only could the vaccine increase your likelihood of getting COVID, but that it was. causing myocarditis and paracorditis, which contribute to a five-year shortened lifespan, and that the rate, according to Stanford, is for males 30 and under, one in 16,750. That is a common side effect. Fauci lied and people died. And we had millions of people locked down, millions of people forced to get mass medication. And the media didn't want to cover the story. That Fauci was privately acknowledging he was lying to everybody the whole time. That when COVID patients were being put

nursing homes and the elderly were dying because of what Covue was because of what Fauci was recommending and because of what these governors and blue states were doing, they won't cover it. By all means, we can point out that there is a correlation between the Democratic Party liberal policies and with the media's reporting. But I don't think it's helpful to your run-of-the-mill default lib who doesn't pay attention to when they think they're a liberal because they don't know better to say the liberals are doing something bad. And then they go, what? I didn't do anything. What do? We didn't do anything wrong. You guys are crazy.

Right. So. We're watching an entirely different movie. I think the truth is they're not watching the movie. The best way to describe it, Scott Adams said it's one screen with two movies. The thing is, most of these liberals are sitting on the couch on their phones with the movie in the background. Yeah. People think he can, he's allowed to plead the fifth, even though he had been pardoned and that was not, he was not allowed.

People still think it. And in fact, Brett Weinstein did a piece on Dark Horse podcast. I think yesterday the day before I saw a clip where he was saying, this is the thing about Anthony Fouchie. You got to look at it. him like he's part of a mafia. He's a made man and a mafia. He goes up there. He flunts the law. He says, I plead the fifth. I don't care about you. You can do nothing to me. I'm untouchable. And if he did, he flouts the law, flouts the law. He flouts the law. He said flant, maybe a little bit of both. But like, I think that if he were, to be honest about what he'd done, they'd kill him.

They'd whack him. Oh, yeah. So he, and he's just essentially untouchable by the law because for whatever, he's already literally been pardoned. So here's the issue of if he came out and said, yes, we did these things, it would implicate other people. So he can either choose to lie and then get perjured, perjure himself, or he can just plead the fifth when he's not legally allowed to do that and get held in contempt. So he's chosen the contempt route. That mafia is like the business, the bureaucratic liberal order, this global homogeneity to come out of Switzerland. Someone had told, someone told Senator Paul that there's a, there's a diary on a government. Oh, yeah. I mean, so to your point. Well, let's clarify this too. It's not even a diary. It was his, it was public notes. That's all it was.

So I also take issue with the framing as of a diary because it makes it sound like he was writing in a book and then someone snatched it. These were public records that he was tracking what was going on during COVID in his capacity as a government actor. These are public records available to the public to be released to the public. No one snatched his diary up and then leaked out. And I wasn't seeing that in a lot of the coverage. When I was first reading the story, I was like, where did these come? Diary? What? Did someone like go to his house?

Like it was like very unclear like what the source was. which is relevant. Well, so here's one of the issues I kind of have with the left-right distinction in media is that when I say Fauci lied about the origins of the virus in his public writings in 2020, he acknowledged that the market was not the likely location for the generation of the virus. And that he also had emails from, I think it was someone from EcoHealth Alliance that they believed it came from the lab. So this was the best evidence they have that he ordered it suppressed.

and he was also behind the funding illicitly because the U.S. government had banned this. I will be called right wing for saying that. That is right wing to state a fact. And they'll say, if anything, well, story selection. I kind of think that the biggest government lockdown authoritarian action, unconstitutional actions and mass death we've seen in generations, it's not partisan to choose to report on it. But we are in an interesting place now in our culture where,

if you accurately point out what Fauci did, you are called biased, and the media just won't even cover it. Well, this happened on Monday night on Abby Phillips show on CNN, and whoever was the right-wing commentator said, do we want to talk about Fauci's diaries? Because that seems to be like a big story. And Philip said, nope, we're not going to discuss that. We're not going to discuss that.

You know, cackle, cackle, cackle, bark, bark, between the panelists, we're not discussing that. It was worse than that. They all started yelling at her at once. Exactly. And so she couldn't even say one single word. Yeah. The reason you do this, and there is media training for this,

is do not let them speak. So what you'll see at protests, the common thing the leftists would do is called the mic check. If you walk up and said something, they would all just go, Mike check, Mike, check, Mike, to make sure you can't talk. So when you watch that CNN clip,

I should pull it up, and she says, what about Fachi's diary? They immediately all go, so that. Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. so that no words can be said. Yeah. But then Philip says,

we still don't know if it hasn't been proven that the origin was lap. And so this was on a subsequent night. So it's like, it's almost like Candice Owens-esque. Like, yeah, no matter what, it had a lot of Candice Owens energy to it.

Like, no matter what evidence. Because like, you know what? Let me, we still haven't proved is gravity. We still don't have all the evidence to prove the gravity is real. Still a theory. This is not.

I mean, they do have... The names came down. They claimed it was an accident. That's some kind of glitch. But then they did not restore them to where they should be. They put them in a different place. Right. So I'd like to see that...

I'd like to see that restored. I think we need to have transparency around what's going on. I think one situation that, frankly, where we saw the government was certainly obfuscating didn't have any transparency was Anthony Fauci, who were getting his... Forgetting his diaries today. where he was purposely off-stating about... And now everyone's just yelling,

so she can't say anything. No, that's actually... That's actually something where we know he was purposely off-second. Lydia, we're sitting here talking about Americans who were killed in theater, okay? As a result of a war. We are not going to pivot to Anthony Fauci's diaries.

That's a different conversation. I wonder if the diary war was put forward by liberal actors to discredit them. Because it sounds like Ashley Biden's diary. is what I thought of. If you say Fauci's public, a private correspondence during COVID or the public, you know, Fauci's public writing as an actor from the government, these are things the public should have access to. Yeah, public records and stuff. Oh, yeah, the press has framed it as his private, his private diary, and it's not, it's on government. Owned by the public and available for public reading, and it's just shocking, man. He also, I think it's as abhorrent, how he wrote in a, he violated confidentiality by writing about Barbara Streisand's ass sores.

I mean, it's embarrassingly funny to a certain degree, but I'm serious. How dare he write in a public record available for the public to see about Barbara Streisand having ass sores from shingles? HIPAA violation. I was stunned at the amount of obsession with himself, but then that surprised. This was the same guy who sat for an in-style full profile shot, sunglasses on at the pool. During a pandemic. Okay, I got to pause you there. He was supposed to manage.

How about the, how about Fauci having a painting of himself? What? Yeah, so this is, this is, this was, this has been known up for a while. This is Snopes. He's actually writing in his diary. Does Fauci's home office feature a painting of Fauci? Mostly true.

Mostly true? This is, this is one, I can't handle with Snopes, right? It's literally true. Here's him in his office with a picture of himself three times. What? What's most? like, well, it is there. Now, Mike Sternovich made a great point. It guys, don't dig too much into this. If his daughter painted a picture of him and he hung it

on his wall, that's not like, you know what I mean? Right. Like, I have a statue of myself that I commission. At least one. At least one. No, I'm kidding. Someone actually did send a bust of me to the studio and I was like, I appreciate it, but I do not want that. I have one of my old headshots, but Raymond set it up right outside my office. Considering, considering however, so when this story came out, you know, Mike made a great point saying if his daughter painted this picture and he hung it up, are you going to rag on him for it? And I said, right, let's get more context. Now that we read the context and his public writings where he's like, me, right, me. I'm like, okay, yeah, that's him. But why is, what is Snope saying that it's mostly true? Like, what are they saying here?

A viral image shows a portrait of Dr. Fauci hanging on the wall of Fauci's office. While the portion of his image showing the portrait is real, other aspects of the viral image were manipulated. So is it not the viral image that they're saying was manipulated? Oh, is that what they're saying? I don't know. It's a genuine image of Fauci in his office. The red circles in his image highlight a portrait. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, hold on. That was the, yeah.

The manipulation is the red circles? Yeah. That's the bad thing. That's what you do. No, no, no, no, no. I think that's what it is. A portrait was painted by Joan Baez. Now, I'd hang a portrait of myself painted by Joan Baez on the wall. I would too. That's fine. That's awesome.

That's awesome. Well, that's what Mike was saying. It's like, you know, are we really going to rag on them because someone, you know. So, yeah. But again, but looking back, I mean, that's easy to say in that moment. But now that we've learned about every single interview, Zoom call, phone call, email correspondence that he had with a major minor celebrity, he basically transcribed it all. And meanwhile, well, I'm just tasked with managing the government's response to a pandemic. and he was more interested in writing about how Kim Kardashian loved his Zoom call. I mean, it's almost redundant when he said, I am the science.

He told the world he was, like, that's the most psychotic thing. Any doctor could ever say, one of the most psychotic things a doctor could tell you. It's also, oh my God, this is what Snopes does. I call this out all the time. They play these games because these people, I'm sorry, I'm going to tell you right now, evil, okay? this is evil. Does Fauci's home office feature a painting of Fauci? It's not mostly true. It is definitively factually true. And the reason why they put mostly is because somewhere else, as a joke, someone put a picture of Fauci sitting in, they, look at this. This is what they're,

someone edited the image so that they made it a recursive loop where on Fauci's screen, it's the image of Fauci sitting at his own desk. They took the image, put it on the screen, and made a recursive loop as a joke. That is not the fact being challenged. And they put mostly true to add doubt. And they add it to the end of the story. What Snopes does all the time is they will write, so Donald Trump will walk out into the Rose Garden

and do a perfect roundoff back layout. You know what that is? No. It looks like a cartwheel filed by a backflip. And then everyone will go, oh, my, Trump just did a round off back layout right there in front of everybody. the video will go viral.

Everyone on social media will see it. CNN will then go on TV and say it never happened. MS now will say Trump fell down. It was embarrassing. They'll say Trump went outside and did a tumble and stumbled. Ha ha ha. And then Snopes will write, did Donald Trump do a perfect roundoff back layout in the Rose Garden? Dot, dot, dot on Sunday.

False. Then it will write this big long thing about what a roundoff back layout is, what Trump was doing. Then at the very bottom, it'll say, while Trump did perform a perfect roundoff back loud in front of a crowd of onlookers on Sunday or on Monday, it was not on Saturday. The thing is manipulating people to your will isn't always evil. It's just if you're evil and you think you're doing good, it's evil. But if you are good and you think you're doing good, it's good. Evil's evil. Well, it's hard to define it though because it's perspective.

If you think you're doing good, then wouldn't it not be evil? Some people are doing evil, but they think it's good. Most people that are doing evil think they're doing good. That's speculative. We don't know that's true. Generally, people think they're the hero in their story, but... Sure, but that's different from doing evil and doing good. So let's say there's a guy and he's like, we need a water reservoir.

Every year, our town goes through a drought in the summer and in the summer and we go without water. We should build a reservoir. So he goes to his buddies and says, I'm going to build a small dam so that we can have... It will create a pool of water, which will persist into these drought... into this dry period at the end of summer. And so he goes and he builds and thinking, this is going to save my people. And then the village floods and he kills everybody.

That's not evil. That's an accident. Now, the guy goes, hmm, I want to build a dam to have a large reservoir for myself. It's going to kill everyone in the village. I will lie to them so that they let me do it and help me do it.

And then he goes and does, everyone dies, and then he has his water. That's evil. That's William Mulholland. He went north to the Owens River Valley of L.A. he tricked the farmers to signing away their water rights, and then he diverted their water to Los Angeles. So they named a street after him, Mahalan Drive.

He's a hero. He's a beloved hero in Los Angeles, but he's an evil villain to the farmers. So that's still different. You're saying to say that he had the intent. Indeed. Yeah. That it was all evil about intent.

So I think to a great degree, not always, because there's the banality of evil. But typically how I would define it, because, of course, We're going to be subjective and biased on this one. My point is an individual was attempting to help everybody who accidentally causes a problem that hurts people isn't engaged in evil.

It's more than accident. It's not even necessarily stupid to say you want a water reservoir. That's smart. But he couldn't foresee the flood would kill everybody. And now he lives with that guilt and shame for the rest of his life. What I see with Fauci, though, let's be clear. He is evil. Why?

He knew he was lying and he kept lying because it felt good for him and not for anybody else. He wasn't benefiting the greater public. He wasn't benefiting his community. He wasn't benefiting some other country or even a small pocket of individuals. He was benefiting solely himself for his emotional satisfaction and to avoid liability. And he killed people because of it. That's evil.

And there's no convincing him of that. Oh, no, no. He knows. I do not believe it as reasonable that this man is not cognizant of what he did. Right? It's like that scene in Superman, did you see the new Superman movie? Where Superman's talking Lex over the radio and he says, the truth is Lex that you're jealous. And then Lex goes, duh, I know. You think I'm a child? I know I'm jealous of your power. Fauci knows exactly what he's doing. It just feels good for him.

I think I, to him, I believe that he thinks, well, I've testified in front of Congress 200 times. Therefore, I've done no wrong. I've put all this out there. I don't think so. I think if that were the case, he wouldn't have pled the fifth. Pleaded. Sorry, pleaded grammatically either. Well, that's, his lawyers, I mean, say what you want about it, but their job is to reduce to the absolute minimum any potential punishment their client could.

You're going to test this theory out. It's never really been tested. You know it really bothered me about that hearing? Let's start with the surface level. It accomplished nothing. he invoked the fifth, and then we sat there, and he got yelled at. It champions him among the left who are making him out to a martyr where, you know, what's his face?

Levin from TMZ is crying. Harvey. And then on the right, you're not learning anything new. We already know this stuff. So it was a large WWE waste of time, in my opinion. Now, what I would have done, and the reason why no one with any level of intelligence or comprehension, The reason why they would never let me anywhere near Congress, the Senate or otherwise, is because I would have said, Dr. Fauci, when you killed those three people, did you solicit help from the government to cover up the murders you committed?

Or are you going to plead the fifth right now to avoid implicating yourself in that crime? I can't answer that on behalf of my counsel. Because the point is, it's a Kafka trap. When he then says, under the advice of counsel, I'm pleading the fifth, he's now walked into a rhetorical trick, which, admittedly, it's going to just emboldened people on the right. But that's kind of the point to antagonize. Or it's going to force him to say, how dare you, I never killed anybody. What?

You ask a loaded question to accuse him, forcing him to break from the traditional, under-advised counsel, I'm respectfully invoking my Fifth Amendment, right? Ask him something that he has to reject. Has to. When you abused those beagles, right, which is a fact, he did. You guys all know the story, right? He had flies eating their faces. flies, I think. Yeah. And so you just get real heavy with it.

You know. But for him, I think the whole time you're sitting there is like, if I deviate, they will kill me in my sleep tonight. So all he's doing is just saying, I plead the fifth, I plead the fifth, get me out of here, waiting. Listen, you're not going to win a conflict against someone as evil as Fauci and the people behind him by sitting there being like, oh, rats, he's not going to answer my questions. I mean, people, the argument that, the argument that he would make, though, is like, I didn't answer any questions because I'd been there. I pled the fifth because I was not going to answer questions. Which is why you load the question.

Well, yeah, but the- Because it creates a sound bite you're looking for. Well, fair enough, but that does- If you want Fauci to say, I lied or to lie now, what is the function of the hearing? You want Fauci to say something on camera that exposes him. Well, he's not going to give that to you. And at worst, he's going to get three months in jail for contempt.

So get your sound bite. If that's all you really wanted, and he's not playing fair, and they're liars, and they're evil and their manipulators, guys, take a PR class. Fauci, when you personally murdered that child, did you solicit anyone in the government to help you cover it up? Or are you going to invoke the Fifth Amendment to prevent you from being implicated in the murder of the child that you committed? So his only choice is to break from the Fifth Amendment line or play into your Kafka trap. Get your soundbought.

I'm not going to plead the Fifth. I'm going to plead the Fifth and not answer the question. And then you say, whoa, this is weird. What made you just change your response? is something that I said causing you to feel fear or anxiety? Because you were answering every single question with a scripted line and all of a sudden you changed it. I hope there's, you know, if no consequences for him, I hope that there's that the medical community, hospital systems, we've talked a little bit about this off air, hospital systems across the country, I think were ashamed and aghast at what they saw the other day. because if science is supposed to be the lead dog, the lead foot here that you take and you're supposed to trust it, you can't.

This reputation is destroyed. Big Medicines's reputation is destroyed. He was their hero. He was the guy, he was the top paid bureaucrat in the city. He testified over 200 times. He's holding celebrity Zoom calls. He was the alpha and the omega. of so many public policy decisions that were made by the federal government.

I hope, whether, I hope, I mean, we've watched, I think we all have families here, there's no, we've watched our local pediatricians just go out of business and have to just fold to hospital systems and big, you know, corporate health care. Now you don't trust any of that anymore. And I hope there's a return to your family, to a family doctor experience. across the country. I just trying to verify to make sure that. But the speech and debate clause protects,

it grants you great immunity as a member of Congress in hearings. They could have literally gone up on that and said, Dr. Fauci, you murdered a child with your bare hands, and we want you to answer for it. And you can't be sued. You can't be held liable in any way because members of Congress are immune from defamation suits. But there would be an article written and be like,

Rand Paul accuses Fauci of murder. Yeah. Which totally unbased. That's already been written. You just put Fauci, when you told Governor Cuomo to murder those elderly people, were you concerned about your request that he murdered those people being exposed? Or are you going to invoke the fifth right now to avoid implicating yourself in that crime? And then he's going to be like, okay, well, hold on. This is where it's interesting.

Did Fauci actually tell Cuomo to do that? Because the article then is, Rand Paul says, Rand Paul, you. So first of all, you're not standing upon a pedestal and then asserting a fact. You're asking him a question. The question is loaded. The question implies a thing to be true, and that is that Cuomo didn't intentionally kill those people. Fauci told him to do it.

Now, is Fauci going to want to have on the record that there is a loaded implication that he's the one who told Cuomo to murder those elderly people? So you force him to break from the line, I plead the fifth. Because when he pleads the fifth, you then come out and said, as we all know, not Chris, I'm sorry, Governor Cuomo, not Chris, his brother. put COVID patients in nursing homes, which resulted in the death of an estimated 15,000 people. Fauci did it. Fauci is the one who said kill those people.

You're protected from defamation. The story is true, not that Fauci did it. The story is true that Cuomo did it. But the implication that Fauci was involved is believable, plausible, and Fauci will be forced to issue a statement. I don't think you could get anything out of it. I think he would have pled the fifth, same on the advice of counsel. Because when Rand Paul asked him... Let me just pause you real quick.

I am acknowledging that. Yeah. That is my point. My point is... Get on record. You know, you've created a circumstance where he has no choice but to at some point come out and challenge what was said. I don't think he would ever have to.

In that case, that the narrative becomes that Fauci is the one who murdered those people. Or that he's a made man above the law, which is kind of obvious anyway. Fauci is terrified of losing his legacy. That's my point. He doesn't want... And his life. Yeah, those two things. Sure.

I mean, I think it's fair to say that he'd find a polonium sandwich if he ever crossed these people. he pled the fifth to what day is it? Like that is some... Throwing it in the face. It's because the point was he's just not saying anything. He's not answering any question. He did plead the fifth to what day is it?

He pled the fifth to what colors the carpet in front of me. Like that's in total, like, I mean, that's flouting the law. That's like saying you have no control over me, Congress. You have nothing. And it also proves that it's not a fear of incrimination. It's a fear of something else. You're never going to get found to be perjured because you misidentified the be appropriate shit of red of the carpet.

Yeah, that was really weird. It's, uh, Mov, Maroon! You're under arrest! You lied. That's not gonna happen. It's like, I thought it was... Actually, I don't even, is Mov Brown? I thought it was like purple. Is the Fauci thing just like... Oh yeah, it's like a purple. Let it go, move on.

It's like a periwinkle. Because Epstein's stuff is like that too. The Epstein files, I'm like, that's just like dirty, dark, secretive data that... No, I, I'd like to see the, the constitutional question get answered. The legality of it. of what he did. That's going to have to get work through the courts. I think I would disagree.

I think his reputation is destroyed. Not on the left. They're crying for him on TV. Fine. If you loved them, okay, so you've got the TMC guy. But you got a lot of people scattering. Look, here's the problem. You say it's got to go through the courts.

I don't know what it has to. I had genuine curiosity Like how can you do that? The right's worldview is We must adjudicate the left world The left's worldview is The law is what we say it is Right

That's true As far as Fauci goes though I mean a lot of times lawyers say If you're going to stand on the fifth You don't answer anything right You don't there are no questions that you answer If you're going to plead the fifth You don't say anything at all

Now granted like I understand your point It's like the he was saying to Congress I'm not you know I'm not playing this I'm not going to engage in this and you know you can make your own decisions about the morality just just get a little sign you know with a with a fifth written on it and then you can just go let's Chappelle a bit fifth yeah I mean there's no point in there saying the same line over and over and 11 times they count because they say like one of the things that that I'm

just googled it and they say once you clearly invoke your rights you must stop talking immediately when you're in front of Congress you're not allowed to stop talking so you have to continue it continuously invoke your right I don't think you have to do that. That's the advice. I'm fairly certain any legal context a judge is going to be like, we understand that Fauci has said he would plead the fifth on all questions from this point forward. Well, Congress wasn't going to, the Senate wasn't going to stop asking questions. Indeed. And you can just say, fifth. You know what this? You can go like this. You could literally just be like, at the first question, for this question you are asking and for all other questions asked, just presume

my responses, I invoke my fifth amendment right to not answer this question. And then just stop. It's just all theater. It's all WWE. Unfortunately, we're not able to assume anything, Mr. Fauci. So how are you feeling? I plead the fifth. You know, they should have asked him. If you did not eat breakfast yesterday, how would you have felt?

How gay are you? That's a good question. I ask myself every morning. I want to make a movie. Dr. Fauci, you came to me before this hearing and told me that you found me sexually attractive. Would you like to state for the record now? How attractive on a scale of 1 to 10? Or they just could have made a statement?

Fifth, well, well, I can respect Fauci, no kissing and telling you. So should they have him back to Congress and just humiliate him by telling him how attractive he is for like an hour and just like totally make a mockery of him? Members of Congress are mocked the process. Members of Congress can say anything they want with impunity. Like they're immune from civil claims and for what they say. This is one of the, not the first, but an egregious example of people being above the law. They're like, how, what would you like to plead, Dr. Faustine?

like the fifth. You could get a different answer that way. Or I don't know. Yeah, I mean, he made it a point to not answer any questions and, you know, every time they asked, he's just like on. Let's talk about the invasion of Spain. We got this from the Washington Post. Migrants overrun a Spanish outpost.

Is that biased? Yeah. We ask our all sides expert. Staring European outrage. So, wow, it's not an outpost. Guys, Suta, Spain has been a part of Spain since 1580. It was a part of Spain longer than the current government of Morocco existed by about 50 years. 48 to 60,000 people stormed into Suta.

This is, I would describe this as the most shocking and egregious thing we've seen so far as it pertains to mass migration. I'm going to explain why. A handful of boats, even thousands of boats, all across the Mediterranean, farrying dozens to hundreds of people into various countries. Mass migration causes problems. Bad. 60,000 people from one country storming into a territory of a foreign country is an act of war. It's an invasion.

It is not mass migration. What we are seeing is recolonization. It is not, actually, actually it's not even, it's conquer. It's conquering. It's colonization. You conquista. Suta was a part of, was Portuguese in the, and it was part of Spain in the 1400s. Portugal broke off.

Spanish letters came down and it officially became Spain in 1580. Morocco's government as the current dynasty is, I believe, is like 1632. So this is older than Morocco. It is not land that was taken from the Moroccans. for them to invade now to try, excuse me, to try and take it. That's just a straight up invasion. I think the Spanish took it from the Abbasid Empire, one of those, one of those, 1430?

Yeah, they took it from like an Islamic caliphate back in the day. There was always battles over land. The caliphate took half of Spain. No, there was the jihad. There was like 500 years where Islam was predominant in Spain. But before that, Spain was Spain. Yeah, it was mostly European. It was like Spanish is actually all European because it's in Europe.

Spanish is Arabic Latin. We were talking about CBS earlier. Their morning show today, their co-hosts were arguing that you got to remember guys, they're just looking for a better life. Did you show the video last night of the... They're looking for a better life

at the Spanish people's expense, though. Right. And honestly, at the rest of Europe's expense. But not conquest, not takeover, just a better life. It was chilling. Did you show the video on the show last night? Of the Dudes rushing in.

We talked about it. I don't think we actually got to plenty of videos. When you see the video, of them pouring through the gates and this could happen in my town and and and and and being physically violent this is crazy like if this happened to your city you realize they just keep coming they just in there it's not water it's not a tsunami it's human beings the police opposable thumbs the police are putting the police are putting up walls around grocery stores because the migrants

have begun breaking into grocery stores because they don't have anything they came in with nothing in there's an invasion yeah they're like breaking into homes and stuff this is the first time I've really seen it of an action migration as an invasion. How do you stop it? You bust out the military and start opening fire. I mean, that's the only way. You have to call in the National Guard to protect the homeland. Other than that, you ask them opening fire, but these are unarmed migrants looking for a better life. If there's an invasion on your territory and you're asking me as a military, as a commander, what I would order. That would be something like defend the homeland with weapons. Yes.

I would say this. In any historical context, the immediate response from any government seeing this would be butterfly trigger 50 BMGs. Yeah, you have to make an example immediately so they stop. However, it's not an example. That's not historically, they just wipe them out. We do not have the social capabilities these days to do anything to stop this. In fact, I think the PM of Spain said, told the guard to stand down. That's one of the more concerning things.

He told the military and the police to stand down and let it happen. What I'm saying is there is no action you can take that would solve this problem. Because if you used physical force against these people, you're going to be accused of beating innocent migrants. The media would come out against you. You'd never win an election again. Special interests would dump money against you. You'd probably lose your life to extremists. It is crazy to think that governments have become so emotionally neutered that they can't order violence on invaders. I understand that that's a contextual argument that some people would not consider these people invaders. But I mean, I imagine it's going to get to a point where there's going to be something like this and a government will order the guys to open fire. And it'll be a snap. It'll be bloody.

It'll be the whole world will see it. It will set a new precedent of the 21st century. Never going to happen. No way. But countries, I don't see them continuously allowing mass just invasion. I mean, this is an act of violence and war against Spain for sure. What in recent history gives you any indication that they won't continue to continue to allow it? well um in the past 10 years what have you seen out of europe that gives you an indication that they're going to stop this

i'm just looking at human nature like over time like eventually a government like a little more that maybe is a little more conservative Italy for instance you know georgia maloney was like we are not allowing this stuff do you better believe we're not allowing this and i think if if they did this in Italy, you might see the National Guard open fire. If 70,000 people showed up on the shores of Destin, Florida and tugboats, what would Trump do? What does Santos do? Nothing. You don't think you'd order?

Nothing. 70,000? That's a lot of people. That's what we're talking about. How many people came through Texas? And what did we see Texas do? First, they tried to put up barriers. then the Biden administration removed those barriers

and Texas stood there and watched. So what would Sanders do? He'd send out National Guard to stand there and watch. I think the thing about this is how shocking it all happened at once. Like the Texas invasion was over four years. No, no, no, no. You're wrong. Underreported.

But this is like a wave of humans. How do you not have intel that that's coming? What do you think the caravans were? There were caravans of hundreds of thousands all marching in at once. They were running through the barriers, punching cops, beating our border guards. We covered all of this. And the Biden administration physically removed

the barriers to allow them to do it. And then CBP stood there and watched and the Texas state guards stood there and watched. But what would Trump do? Nothing. Well, I mean, think about like, you really believe that. Yes, absolutely. Trump would would, what I'm saying is the actions Trump would take would not involve anything pertaining to violence against 70,000 people. It would be more so like, this is ridiculous. Congress needs to pass a law immediately to build construction on a new barrier, and it would keep happening because that's what literally happened. In January, whenever ICE deportations were happening in Minneapolis and two people got shot, that essentially led to, you know, pulling back on those operations, right?

So like- Right. And or not-man-name. Because all the media coverage was about that. It was about, you know, the violence that happened as a result of, you know, deportations, and all the focus was on that, rather than, like, why are we doing the deportations, right? So I think you're right, like, if a government were to use force to stop this, like all the media coverage would just focus on that,

and then it would be wildly unpopular. But maybe, I mean, maybe the media wouldn't even be covering. The scene at the border. Yeah. Dramatic pictures of the chaos in Tijuana, Mexico over the past 24 hours, hundreds of migrants from Central America, attempted to storm the U.S.

As a border desperate to reach U.S. soil. Oh, no. 2019. U.S.S. authorities and Mexican police took unprecedented measures to stop them. And photographers captured this image. A woman leading her young children running from the tear gas fired by U.S. authorities. Life-dangering children. That is getting a lot of attention even this morning.

So let's go to Lindsay Duncombe, who's in Washington on this story. All right. You can't process them. No. This is why, like, last year. Like last night we were talking about this a little bit, and the real solution for these problems is policy. I'm sorry. Here's Trump.

We got to fund the wall. This is a 2018 when this happened. You have to have your society. Your society has to desire policy change enough to get the government to actually do something. And the policy changes that we need to see, you need to make sure that illegals don't get any kind of social services. You make sure that illegal people cannot get jobs, that they can't, that they cannot rent a place to live. You need to make sure that they can't use the banking system, right? These are all things that are possible, whether or not they're palatable to the American people right now.

I don't know. But at some point, there are enough people that come over, and we might have already passed that. But there are enough people that come over that will say, oh, well, that was me, or that was my family, or those are my friends. So, no, we're not going to allow the government to enforce immigration. We're not going to allow the government to enforce, you know, enforce. restrictions on who can be hired. The best solution that we have is to go to the companies that hire people and put them in prison. Arrest them.

Here's the National Guard of the United States being physically attacked by criminals, criminal aliens, and doing nothing about it. I mean, seeing them in melee is, they have long-range ballistic weapons for a reason. Having them up close like that is like that. I mean, bro, they could use rubber bullets. They could use any. They just don't. You're talking about you verify.

Well, no, I'm not talking. I mean, I don't know. Maybe E-Verify is the solution. I'm not talking about a specific policy that's been presented. I'm saying the broad way to stop it is to remove the incentives. I'm just a little bit more libertary on that specific process. Because I just don't want, I don't want DHS to be let off the hook and outsource our national security to private corporations. No, no, no, no, no. What we do is if you are found, to have employed illegal immigrants, knowingly, you go to jail. If you employed illegal immigrants because the illegal immigrants defrauded you and you did not know, they go to jail. But we need to start locking these business owners up. And I'm going to stress this. If you were negligent in your duties in the hiring practice, and I'm not talking about the owner because the owners don't always handle hiring. So let's say you're the owner of an IHOP. You don't handle hiring of a manager who handles onboarding for stuff. If that manager on boards an illegal immigrant negligently, meaning

they knew something was off, their ID might be fake or they weren't provided accurate information, but they hired them anyway, jail. If you're deceived by the illegal immigrant, then nobody's in trouble. You were tricked, you were defrauded, you're the victim. If the hiring person, be it the boss or a manager, knowingly, right to jail. negligently, jail, but for less. Look, in our society, and actually in modern society, like, it is really hard to prevent this unless you're willing to do things that look unpalatable

when the media is against you, to your point. Like, you saw the video. The first thing they did was that within the first, what, 45 seconds of that clip, they had a picture of a woman with two children running away from tear gas because, oh, my goodness, who's going to think about the chilling? Right? The chilling, the chilling, the children, it's so bad the chilling, my poor chilling. Well, the chilling are coming here and they're going to be taking all the social services for, or they're going to be taking up social services. They've driven the cost of renting up 30%. Between 20 and 30% is the cost of housing now, the rise that we've seen because of illegal immigration.

They are taking jobs that Americans will do. All of these things are real. These are things that the left continues to, assert that do not happen. They say that doesn't happen. These people that come in, they're actually a benefit to society. Well, guess what? They take up space at the emergency room. And so that means that there are longer waits for health care. And these same people... Increasing costs in health care. Increasing costs as well. And these same people that say they don't actually affect, or they're a net positive, they're also saying we should have free health care for everybody. Well, when you have free health care for everybody that just extends the weight lines. And you can look at any countries that have socialized medicine. And you see there's a massive increase in how long you have to wait

to get basic care. I figured it out. See, you were pointing out this image and how it's the propaganda where they're like, the children are being machin. Machillian. Well, I have an idea. Thanks to the power of artificial intelligence. We'll just do this. And then we'll go, what's that man doing to those children? We need to send law enforcement to save the children, please. More barter guards. I'm... The guy from Breaking Bad and a nursing home? I've got fairly thick skin...

He's wearing an else's shirt. I've got fairly thick skin when it comes to the argument of the children because I've been kind of like a pro 2A guy for a long time. And that's the argument the left has made about gun control forever. And as we see a liberalization of gun laws in the United States, there has not been a corresponding increase in deaths by gun violence. it turns out the people that are likely to commit violence with guns they already have them the gun crime is not going up even though 29 states have a constitutional carry you've not seen a

massive increase in in children dying because of the liberalization of gun crime so or gun violence I'm sorry gun laws my apologies um so that argument of oh you've got to think of the children it's like I just think of the meme it's like oh poor child crying we have to throw the constitution in the border away. I'm thinking about the children. I'm thinking about all the labor they could be doing in our country cheaply if we just allowed these child slavers to bring them to their pot farms. Yeah, right.

Well, that's what was happening. Trump had the Marines go out to aid in these migrant enforcement operations. And they found a bunch of children doing slave labor on pot farms. Yeah. Yeah. And then the left is like, Trump's deploying the military. And I'm like, he did to assist with stopping child slavery. Why are you mad?

But, you know, they're mad about a lot of things. I was down in Del Rio a few years ago during the Biden administration. Remember Bill Malusian descended on a house for a string of summer reporting where they were crossing over the Del Rio River? He had like a week's worth of like this is untenable. Because it was the water had gone shallow and they were crossing over in this one sort of a thin spot. And it was wild to, I went to that exact spot a few months later. It's gorgeous. I mean, it's like the land that time forgot.

I mean, it's like something out of Red Dead redemption. I mean, it's just, it's gorgeous. As it turns out, the guy who owned that house had, it was a winter duck hunting retreat. He, this was going on in the summer. He was, I think he lived in North Texas. He sees his house on national television. being overrun by illegals. And as the story that was told to me by the National Guard,

our Border Patrol guys, this guy comes back to his house and finds Texas Department of Public Safety just on his deck with rifles pointed across at Mexico and orders Texas Department of Public Safety off of his deck and orders the Border Patrol away. And there's this sort of ethos deck. down there, like, we will take care of this ourselves.

We don't want the Border Patrol to take care of this. This is my lot. This is my land. Get the hell off. I have a headline for you. Wild to watch. Can you read that one? Minors among suspected illegal immigrants detained after clash at California Farm. Okay, let's ask a few questions. When children enter this country illegally, is the presumption that they came here of their own volition or are they brought here by somebody else? Someone else.

Someone else, but they're minors, right? They can't handle legal contracts. I mean, they were brought here. Okay. Yeah. Now, they're working on a California farm. Do you know what kind of farm it was? You said it was a pot farm, right?

Well, the BBC just calls it a farm. Oh. In fact, it is described as two glasshouse marijuana farms being rated simultaneously. So, oh, that's interesting. And these miners, who we've already determined, likely did not come here of their own volition, they were detained. So I'm just going to ask this question. When law enforcement engaged in an operation, a law enforcement operation on a drug farm and arrests illegal immigrants, detains them, I'm sorry.

Is it appropriate to describe the children who came here against their will to work illegally on a drug farm? Would we call it detaining them? Or is there another word? Rescue could be another word, indeed. And now, even if you wanted to be neutral, that is not how you describe this. Law enforcement operation on California marijuana farm results in several miners being rescued. Right. That's how we would describe it in a neutral sense.

We do not describe underage individuals operating, working on a drug farm as being detained. That's insane. They didn't come here by choice. They're not working on a drug farm by choice. Welcome, welcome to the BBC, welcome to Western media. That's how they frame it. Framing is a remarkable thing. Yeah.

Ian run, I want you to see him. Donald Trump runs into a burning building, rescues two small children in a sack full of puppies, and he runs out, coughing and gagging, falls down to his knees and says, it may have taken years off my life, and I am horribly burned, but I saved these children.

And the media is going to write, Trump grotesquely coughs and gags at meeting with the public. And you're going to be like, well, yeah, it was coughing and gagging because he was choking on fire and smoke. If they could rescue those children. And they'll put that at the bottom. If they cover them at all. Yeah, they'll just say Trump grotesquely coughs. Now you're in a situation, you know, I'm old enough to remember when Obama gave a speech, one network didn't like it.

And another network, it gave them a thrill up their leg. But at least we were watching the same speech. now Trump gives a national televised address about you know Chinese voter file infiltration and not only are we not going to run it okay we're going to debunk it after we don't run it

and on top of that now we're going to pre-bunk it before he starts which was a no it's where Brian Stelter invented word we're pre-bunking things now in the press I fixed the headline for everybody from freeze child slaves how are you doing that you just right click it

Liberals protest. The HTML. Trump trees, child, slaves. Yep. That's great. Liberals protest. There's no little HTML and you can have any headline you want. There you go. Cool.

Yeah. You just go to a little one. It really is choose your own adventure. It can be. It doesn't take very much. There you go. They're emphasizing the detainment, right? That's what they're so.

Yeah. No wonder you've got a bad rating on all sides. It was a baby pit bull and it had already locked its jaws around my ankle. I was just swinging my leg wildly. Here's the important thing. Lock jaw. This is actually pretty funny though. If the media reported like Ian Crossland kicks dog, it'll be like,

it would say Tim Poole co-host Ian Crossland caught on camera kicking dog. And then at the very bottom, it's a pit bull just ripping Ian's legs to shred. There's blood everywhere and he's screaming for help and kicking it. It was a baby pit bull. So its jaws were just forming. but it had clenched around my ankle and I couldn't get it off. And I was just waving my leg like a crazy man. You saw a lot of that and Renee Good.

You saw a lot of that with the kid in Minnesota. This reminds me of married with children when Al Bundy punches a guy in the face. And then the show resolves with him saying, like, they got him and Peggy saying they were fanning money. And he's like, the system works. Peggy's like, I sued him for hurting my fist on his face. Like, that's the way it goes sometimes, you know. Like control of the media? That's like.

No, just like, it's, it, well, the joke there is that he punched a guy, but then sued him because he hurt his hand. I was just thinking about, like, the bigger, like the whole world manipulating people with the media to win a war without firing a shot. There's, there's a NASCAR fight in the Daytona 500, 1979, and they got into a big brawl. And that was the famous quote. It's like, he ran into my fist. Oh, right? He ran into my fist. I mean, it's accurate, right? Yep. Look, this is how the media does it.

How's their lead? Like, scroll down on this. Well, let's reset it. Farm workers were badly injured. There we go. Oh, my God. And you have to look also at how they're actually reporting this beyond the headline. Badly injured.

Yeah. Okay. Look what's emphasized here. Underage. How about. Servitude. How about criminal aliens suffered injuries during a raid at a California marijuana farm, which child slaves were found and rescued?

Look at this. Detained. Listen. When a firefighter runs into a burning building and carries out a child and then hold on. And that child is then placed on a gurney and told not to go anywhere because they need oxygen. They are not detaining that child. Oh, yes, they are. I don't know where you're getting your news from, Tim.

What is it? Timothy Poole. This is BBC. Yeah. So BBC is a top seven news website in America in America in America. 98.3 million hits a month. Yeah. Is that a lot?

Look, well, here's an anomaly. Why does the UK have count on one, two, three, four different outlets in the top 35? In the United States. Because Americans are like, if I go to media outside of the United States, I'll get a more full and clear picture of reality. Here you go Phil out. They're getting hooked up by the apps is really. Good Samaritan detain. Bain's bedridden man from burning home.

The media goes. Hold on, hold on. Let's play this game. The story from Fox 35 Orlando, this is from just yesterday. I first want to give a shout to the actual Good Samaritan. A fire broke out in Osceola County, and a Good Samaritan saved this man's life. Let's see. Did they say who the guy was?

I don't think so. They just say it was a Good Samaritan. Neighbors are grateful the man. They don't tell who the man was. We can have fun with this. Let's do this. Now, what can we determine from this? Well, good Samaritan, that's a loaded term.

That's biased, right? Yeah, yeah, yeah. We can't call him a good scenario. They're telling us he's good. Yeah, they can't do that. Maybe he's not good. No. Well, no.

And then rescues a bed-ridden man. Did the man say he wanted to leave his home? Maybe he was just enjoying. How about this? Potential arsonist. Kidnaps. Kidnaps. Yep.

Sleep. man from bed who was enjoying the warm temperate chair. Resting man. Violates sanctity of man's Wait, wait, I gotta add one last

bit. After committing burglary. Aggressively. Intruder Yeah. There you go. Yeah, there you go. Intruder forces man from home. Yeah.

No, but to your earlier. Oh, yeah, intruder. I like that. Yeah, intruder forces man from home amid... Chaotic. Forces disabled man. It's frightening how good you are at this already. It's wild.

Mid-violent, intruder forces disabled man from home. Wait, wait, invoking extreme emotions in an angry public. Now, see, I didn't say what those emotions were or why they were angry. But now I know I want to. feel them. Yeah. Isn't this story just so dramatically different now? Incredible.

But the headline is, what does Malice say? What does it say factually true, but what's the, what's the saying? I know what you're headed at. Factual but not truthful. Yes. Oh, yes, yes. Factual but not true. Right, because the facts are the same here.

And like a fact is not the truth. Is it framing that a fact can be wrong? If I said like, those curtains are blue, that would be a factual statement that is incorrect, but still a fact. Well, yeah, exactly. You can state something as fact without it being true, right? Like, you stated that like it's objective truth. So that's not true. But you're that you're stating something as fact, but it's not true. It's not a fact either. Right. You're stating it as fact. You can't act like it's not a fact. We can write one for the libertarians here. Or like a declarative sentence. Right. Like you're you're you're declaring it as fact, but it's not fact.

So this one is firefighter hurt occupant rescued in Hamilton House fire. So we can do. this one for the libertarians. Government employee injured in injured let's see, and then occupant. How can we describe homeowner? Well, we don't know he owns the home. Okay. Sovereign citizen. Overreasing private

homicide. Government employee injured in fire. Man inside uh... What do we say for this one? He's rescued, right? Oh, oh, I got it. I got it. Government employee injured in fire after intruding in home to forcibly remove occupant.

Yeah. Evicts man from home. Yeah, there are you. Perher employee injured in fire after intruding in home to forcibly remove. Yes. There we go. I think he spells forcibly wrong. I do too.

Everything is stupid. And that one, that BBC story also, did you catch the quote in the second? Like, so the lead was all biased. But then the quote right after it was like some United Farm Workers quote that was like, this chaotic raid. We can confirm that farm workers were hurt. Right. So like they're also like choosing whose voice to elevate and and whose perspective to elevate.

Like right off the bat, you're like concerned that people were hurt because they were being detained, even though they weren't supposed to be that. Right. it just flips, it just flips everything. I think this is very important because the way you prompt AI is a direct result of how that AI treats you and thinks of you. So like it's one thing to like complain about media buys, but we have to kind of master it in order to manipulate the AI properly. I just love this good Samaritan. Well, I mean, that's why I want to see more center outlets, more right wing outlets get up to the top of the rankings because AI is going to

spit back out what's popular and what's popular. We got a good one. Is being what's driven by the Connecticut firefighters on vacation in Maine credited with saving two people from house fire. Oh, this one's too easy. This one's too easy. This one is government agents

operate outside of jurisdiction. Operating. Okay, operating. Outside of juris diction. Forcibly removed. I do you spell forcibly?

It's got an I instead of an A where you have. Okay. Forcibly. I think I'm right. Right? It's not a word that I normally use. Forcibly remove two people from private residence for sparking outrage with the EA is what I would say foreseeably. It's F-O-R-C-I-B-L-Y. Cibble.

Yeah, there we get. While on. Form. Form. While on P-T-O. Sparking outrage. Government agents. Form.

I like sparking outrage. Sparking outrage. Sparking outrage. It's an adjective. Yeah, that's right. Government agents operating outside of jurisdiction. Right of residents. Yeah, operating outside.

Oh, yeah. It's a good one, yeah. Oh, I think it, how did I do this one? You just say creating controversy. I'm sure the New York Post has a blast. Critics allege. Yeah. Because those are all like this, like the New York Post.

Like, they are, they are, this, this is what they do. It's all, yeah. This is what they do. Yeah, yeah. It is. I mean. Okay. The DSA has had unprecedented success.

It also has serious internal divisions. For now. Let's fix this. Let's fix this. The, the DSA, let's see, experiencing major victories as leaders. debate future. Republicans pounce. Yeah.

That's the other thing that they'll throw in there. Republicans pounce. And Trump is... Hitler. There's an M-Dash in there. Incredible. That is... Is this how we fix the media?

Coming up at 11. Now, all you have to do is, like I said, just take a screenshot of that and start posting that stuff to X. There was a great idea. Somebody said... Of course they would. There was an idea that was bouncing around when the PBS NPR fight was percolating.

Okay, fine, you can keep your funding, but you have to have a conservative ombudsman correct all your mistakes in the last five minutes of the show. Which would have been just hilarious in its own right. We audit news outlets for bias,

and so I would like, hire us. We'll have a balanced panel review and tell you where you can fix and become more trusted. The idea is sort of surface when you talk about these licenses with the broadcast network. Like, okay,

if you want to keep your license, you've got to have an ombudsman that potentially corrects any misreporting. I like the idea in the last couple of minutes. I mean, ESPN has that on a couple of shows. It's kind of a bit. It's kind of like a funny bit. Like, what did we get wrong? You know, Barry

Bond's only hit two. home runs instead of three, whatever. But that was kind of an idea that's like, all right, if you want to keep your ABC, if you want to keep your broadcast license, you've got to bring on a fact checker to correct you at the end of each show. I like this common dreams website. You know, I'm beginning to understand what they're talking about. Democrat launches witch hunt targeting President Trump and his noble allies.

Wait, we can do it. We can do one better. Wait, did you write this? Is that real? No, I wrote it. Hold on, hold on. What was the original? I don't know.

How do you spell that? Unhinged Democrat? How are we biased? Wait, did just close on me? Oh, we got it. Yeah, okay. Democrat launches witch hunt targeting President Good Samaritan Trump and his noble allies. Here's the original story.

Askin. Good Samaritan. I just love how all of the article. are like good Samaritan does thing. Angel from heaven. That's an opinion. What a useless story. Yeah.

Selling inside to Trump's social. Let's do demonic. Yeah. Bring it angels and demons if we really want to trick. Democrat. And I don't know, but maybe child predator. I don't know, but me. Some have claimed.

Bruce Springsteen sycophant. Swartz. Targets Angelic hero Donald J. Trump in which hunt attack

on him and his noble allies. The subline should be hell suspected to be involved. They should just say that right under it.

Some have claimed. And I don't know, but maybe. It's actually not worst program idea. Here's what the headline is. Here's what the headline should be. Yeah. Well, I do this when I train. It's really not. Especially with AI, you can kind of do it in a flash. We have trainings where we will go to, we train journalists on how to see this sort of spin and to unspin the headline. And we like challenge them to rewrite it. Fix the New York Post. Yeah. Nobody would ever click one of their articles again, I'd imagine. Let's go to, here we go. Fight and words. Trump warns migrants catastrophe in Spain would look small time if Dems regain power.

Oh, he's warning, migrant catastrophe. Yeah. Let's fix this headline. We'll be Spain. We'll be Spain if that Democrats are ever in power. That's fun, yeah. Immigration policies

are better under the Republicans. Boom. That's it. Boom. Yep. That's about his bland. Or you could say Trump citing Spain or whatever. I actually think this headline

It's not, it's just referencing his quotes. It's saying what he said. I mean, warns is like getting into spin territories. Typically we say, just say someone said something. We got to fix this headline. Okay, wait. Thousands of illegal African migrants overrun Spanish enclave turned streets into open toilets and bathe in fountains and apocalypse.

No, no, no, no, no, no. Let's fix this one. Let's fix this one. Here we go. Many new friends rush over for party. in Spain. Looking for a better life. Swim party?

To enrich. Culturally enrich Spain. To enrich Spain. Form culturally. On beach. Some bring many new friends. Hot luck. Dinner.

Some guy brought a bike. Some guy brought a bike. And some guy brought a bike. Just put that. Innocent hungry families fleeing. Danger. poverty and despair. No, no, no, no, just danger because, you know,

bring cultural enrichment and wealth to Spain. There we go. Is it not? All right, all right. How about this one? I'm not going to read one because it's going to be better when I just posted it. Let's see the enrichment begin. I am kind of stunned that Spain's Intel operation didn't pick.

this up. Or that they let it happen. It's one of them. Well, I mean, that's the obvious, but I mean. Like they were like, it's, we're literally spread so thin they couldn't defend it if they wanted to. Right. Right. Do you want to read that one, Phil? Violent horde of criminal immigrants run rampant in Spain, invading border, defecating in the streets and destroying local town. I mean, that's, that's a little on the nose, don't you think, Tim? Yeah. You know? Maybe, uh,

In Search of a Better Life. Destroying local town in search of a better life. In search of a better life. I'm Tim Pool. Keep it on bias. New York Post. Yeah. Play both sides.

We don't know why they're doing what they're doing. It's not like they wanted to. Who? You got the what? You get the where? They get the why? Let them use the bathroom. It's a long swim.

What are you going to do? Ask him to hold it in. You know, it's funny. It's like, that's basically the argument where, getting from left-aligned press. Yep. When it's like the actual story is a violent horde of migrants stormed the borders of Suta, defecating in the streets, destroying a local town, and then by their metric,

it's in search of a better life. Now we know. I got the clip right here on CBS this morning. Of them actually saying it? Yeah. Enriching us culturally. How are they enriching us culturally? Well, they're enriching the soil.

How are they enriching the soil? With the nuts. Nitrogen. How do you think? In their curds. All right, all right. Guys, that's about getting us there. We got a question here from Sir Jacks.

He says, Tim, what did you think a new Spider-Man movie? It is the best movie Marvel has ever made. And I'll explain. It is the best Marvel movie. That's it. As a movie with Marvel characters, it's the best they've ever done. Maybe Infinity War is better for a variety of reasons. Like the cinematography of Infinity War really is brilliant.

three different color palettes, three different stories with one protagonist, Thanos being the protagonist. We follow his story and he succeeds. So it's a really well-done film. Endgame was kind of, it was fun, but you know, Spider-Man, brand new day is actually a Spider-Man movie. It's the first actual Spider-Man movie that they have made with Tom Holland, home-coming, I'm sorry, home-combing, far from home, and no way home.

Was that all of them? Yeah, no way. Those were all Avengers movies. with Spider-Man in them. They were. Nick Fury is in it or Tony Stark is in it. This was a Spider-Man movie about Spider-Man with Spider-Man being no longer just the high school kid.

Punisher is in it. Of course, you know this. There's a couple of Spider-Man villains that are in it that, you know, they're kind of in it. But Punisher is in it prominently. And this is the screw-up. Everybody wanted to be like, you know, who know who Sadie Sink going to play?

right? When they finally revealed Sadie Singh, no one in the crowd cared. If they had, so my, my fear was in the trailer, you see Punisher a little bit. If I had known that this was a Punisher movie, a Spider-Man Punisher movie, I'd be way more excited. Having watched it, knowing that Punisher gets almost equal time to Spider-Man, it is the best movie I've ever seen from Marvel. Punisher is, it's just, it's so incredible. And I don't want to spoil too much, but I'm going to spoil one thing. You are being warned right now. It's not the biggest spoiler. It's not a plot point. You may have already inferred this from the trailer. It's a very teeny bitty spoiler. But it is the greatest thing I have ever seen in a Marvel movie. Punisher fighting the Hulk.

Sort of yeah. Sort of yeah. But you get my, like, because canny, really. But it's so good. There is one thing that I will spoil. And actually, no, I'm not going to spoil it. I'm just going to give you some advice. Don't wait around for the after credit scene. It is not worth your time. No, there isn't one. Yeah, essentially. There is a... I'm going to spoil the after-credit scene.

I'm not going to tell you what it is. It's just, it's not a scene. It's an animation that gives you zero information on anything. It's not a reference to any feature movie. It's just we sat through it and then went, oh. Yeah. It's not worth your time. Don't wait around.

In a couple weeks, you'll be able to look at it on the internet. You probably can now. Yeah, maybe that's true. It's not worth it time. only reason I'm not going to say what it is is because it does have a minor reference to the film, but it's an animation that gives you nothing. It may as well have been Howard the Duck saying, thanks for watching. That's personally, that's my only criticism of the film. I thought it was really good. But yeah, it's not worth waiting around for the after credit scene. You're not getting

some kind of cool little scene where people are talking. It's just not worth of it. It is a Spider-Man Punisher buddy cop movie. It was good. It was really, really good. I'm exaggerating a little bit. Punisher is in it maybe half as much as Spider-Man, but he's in almost like, He's a principal part of the story. And it's just so good. John Bernthal's Punisher. Oh, good. He's good.

It's amazing. Oh, okay. And the interactions with Spider-Man. Those guys love each other, too. Tom Holland and John Bernthal. They get along so well. And just the punisher wanting to kill people all the time. Burnthal's so good.

Is he'll have done with this after? No, no, no, no. He's preparing to move on the series, though. He's talking about what they're going to do with Spider-Man, who the next Spider-Man's going to be? He's going to, maybe they're talking down the road, but he's going to be in, he's he's probably going to be in Doom's day. he'll be in Secret Wars, and he's going to be in two more Spider-Man movies.

This is the first of a truth. So, Sony worked out, worked that out? Oh, it's been there for a decade. Well, yeah, but... But Sony might actually give up Spider-Man because they're kind of burned on it, you know? Okay. But I have one thing that I want to say

where I feel there was one opportunity they didn't take and they should have taken. And it has to do with... You already know this from watching the trailer. There is some kind of psychic entity. there was a great opportunity for the Punisher's character that doesn't occur in the movie that I won't describe but is related to the Punisher, who he is, his mentality, and a psychic entity. They didn't take it.

So that might give away a lot, but I was waiting for it. It didn't happen. And I was like, oh, but it's okay. I have no complaints. I think it was the best movie they've ever made, yeah, from Marvel. Tom Holland is yet to be in his prime, I think. He's such a good actor. He's so great.

We're going to wrap it up, though, guys. So smash the like button, share the show with everyone you've ever met. You can follow me on next on Instagram at Timcast. Sir, would you like to shout anything out before we go? I just want to thank you guys for the amazing opportunity to be here. You guys have a good thing going here, and I hope it continues for a long time. I appreciate it, too. We're going to be in a new DC studio in about a month and a half, so.

Be a lot easier for everybody in the area. Would you like to shout anything out before we go? I don't think so, but it's been fun. And, yeah, we should just have a whole show. rewrite headlines. Where can people find you guys? Ladies first. Oh, thank you. All Sides. I'm at AllSides.com or at All Sides now on all social media.

Go to NewsBusters, MRC.org, ForAmerica.org. We're trying to change the world. Well, I'm at Ian Crossland. I am Ian Crossland. I am Ian Crossland. That's about all I got today. At Ian Crossland, if you like it, Philibati. I am Phil that Remains on Twix. You can check out my Patreon where I write about a lot of the things we talk about. That's Patreon.com slash fillet remains. You can check out the band

All that remains at Apple Music, Amazon, Music, Pandora, YouTube, Spotify, and Dezer. Don't forget the left lane is for crime. Carter. Carter Banks, you can follow me at Carter Banks everywhere, mainly on Twitter or X, whatever you call it these days. Pleasure having you both.

It's a really fun conversation, really chill Friday. Let's go. Yeah, let's get into the weekend. Thanks for hanging out, everybody. We've got clips up throughout the weekend. We'll see you there. Have a good day.