Timcast IRL - MS-13 Story BURNS Democrats, Media PANICS Tries To Get Off Immigration Story w/ Tara Palmeri

Episode Date: April 22, 2025

Tim, Phil, Shane, & Elaad are joined by Tara Palmeri to discuss Democrats' support for MS-13 backfiring, the corporate press targeting Pete Hegseth in another Signal chat hoax, Tim Pool debating journalist Tara Palmeri on defending Pete Hegseth, and Andrew Cuomo being criminally referred to the DOJ over the 'COVID nursing home disaster.' Hosts: Tim @Timcast (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Shane @ShaneCashman (everywhere) Elad @ElaadEliahu (X) Serge @SergeDotCom (everywhere) Guest: Tara Palmeri @TaraPalmeri (everywhere) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

So four more Democrats are flying down to El Salvador, and that's not good news. Already Democrat Senator Chris Van Hollen is backing away from his support of Abrego Garcia saying he's not vouching for the guy. He's just concerned about due process. Despite the fact that previously the dude almost referred to the guy as an American. That's how insane they've been getting. This story is eating Democrats up because most Americans don't want illegal immigrants here and they want them deported.

Now you can take a look at CNN. You can take a look at Echelon Insights. But we got a poll from Pew. Eighty three percent of Americans want deportations, not all, but at least to a degree. Right. So you'd argue when you're talking about who you want deported. How about wife beating MS-13 gang members that on your list? Probably most Americans are OK with this person being deported. So now we're seeing the Democrats try to shift away and the media trying to pick up another story. Pete Hegseth, he may be getting fired, they claim in rumors based on one anonymous person, even though Trump said he's not going to fire the guy. And they're claiming that there's another signal gate happening with no evidence.

They are so desperate to get off this story. It seems they're trying to go back to an old one. So we're going to talk about that, plus a bunch of other stories from the day. Trump says he's going to start collections on student loans again. Sorry if you didn't get that forgiveness. He's saying no to Biden's plan. Before we get started, my friends, we have an awesome sponsor. Yo, it's Bearskin. Check it out, guys. You want to go to B-A-E-R. It's B-A-E-R. Bearskin60.com. You'll get 60% off. Check it out. I'm sorry, Bearskin60.com. Right. So I'm sure you've heard of the Bearskin hoodie guys. They're all over YouTube. They make really great outdoor hoodies, but they also make awesome outdoor gear in general. And they just released the Bearskin

Heavy Storm Rain Jacket. I got to say, the jacket looks pretty cool. It really does. I think I'm outdoor gear in general and they just released the bearskin heavy storm rain jacket i gotta say the jacket looks pretty cool it really does i think i'm gonna get one uh but let's be real either your rain jacket is good at being waterproof uh but then it's a big and bulky and hard to pack or your rain jacket is kind of small and dainty and easy to pack like a poncho but then it really doesn't last in heavy rain that's where bearskin heavy storm packable rain jacket comes in this thing's got a 10k waterproof rating fully taped taped seams. And that's interesting. And it folds right into its own pocket to a four by five inch pouch, which is insane. It's got four waterproof pockets, adjustable hood, waist and wrist. So no rain sneaking in, even when it's coming in sideways, whether you're out hiking

or just commuting and don't trust the forecast. jacket's a no-brainer and right now if you go to bearskin you're going to get hooked up with 60 off go to b-a-e-r skin 60.com again that's bearskin60.com 60 off the last rain jacket you'll ever need very cool and also don't forget to pick up some gas brew coffee i gotta admit it's the best coffee i mean we made it but you know i went to a coffee shop earlier and I'm not going to rag on them, but it was bitter and gross. I will wreck on Starbucks. I go to their coffee is always burned. And that's I know that's not just me. So we sell cast brew coffee. Pick it up. Ian's Graphene Dream is a big favorite. We've got the Appalachian Nights, Rise of the Birdo Jr. And don't forget the delicious Misty Mountains. Big news. It looks like for the Culture War Live events, we've got our lineup set. Will Chamberlain versus Pisco Liddy debating the Abrego Garcia case with actual

legal documents. And this Culture War Live will be May 3rd. It's about two weeks from now. And y'all will be able to join us on the debate stage. I believe we may have one or two tickets left, probably sold out. But if you are a member of the TimCast.com discord, you can actually submit your view of the debate issue and we will invite you on stage to join the debate. Think Kill Tony meets Jubilee. That's the plan. So we're really excited to announce that. Don't forget to smash the like button, share the show with everyone you know. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is Tara Palmieri. Hey, Tim, thanks for having me. Yes. Who are you? Great to be here in West Virginia. I kept thinking of that like John Denver song, which I love. Who am I? I am a journalist that has gone independent. I've worked for 15 years

everywhere from the Washington Examiner and the New York Post to ABC News, where I was White House correspondent. I've been in new media at Puck. I spent a year and a half just investigating the Jeffrey Epstein crime and doing podcasts on that. I just had a podcast, a political one, on the Ringer Network with Bill Simmons. So I've just decided I am going to try to follow your footsteps and try to create a media empire I'm a little minnow next to you but I already did it you know what like you just say

I quit I'm doing it on my own I think you have to bet on yourself in life let's go yeah exactly thanks for having me I really appreciate it it's going to be fun Elad is here hey everybody good evening I am Elad Eliyahu Tim Kess White House Correspond Tara, I'm really excited to hear from somebody with so much experience in the journalism space, both establishment and now in the new media space.

And it's just funny seeing the old media people saying they look up to Tim now. Crazy how things work. But is this confirmed, the press pool for tomorrow? It is confirmed. You're on it? We can announce that? I'll be in the pool with Donaldald trump and i believe you'll be in the new media seat tomorrow if there is one right if there is uh we're supposed to say that a briefing um if there is one i don't know that we're supposed to say that are we well we don't know well how's it going over there breaking news mandatory a lot we're gonna take this they're gonna take the suit back a lot uh i am shane cashman host of inverted world live we go live on youtube and rumble every sunday at six o'clock what is up phil hello everybody my name is phil labonte i'm the

lead singer of the heavy metal band all that remains i'm an anti-communist and counter-revolutionary let's get into it here we go from mediaites democrat senator tells fox news he's not vouching for the man in a brego garcia case and will support a court deporting him. Now, this is a huge turnaround from a guy who dang near nearly called him an American and then and stopped himself and then called him a resident. And with the media screaming to the high heavens, Maryland father for a Democrat senator who was leading the charge to come out like I'm not vouching for the guy and I'm OK with him being deported now. Wow. Talk about a heavy 180. Now, the issue for for Democrats, Democratic Senator Van Hollen is simply the issue of

due process, not the MS-13 gang member accused of mercilessly beating his wife on more than one occasion. I think it's fair to say that they walked face first into this one. And here's the best part. Four more Democrats are going down there. This is not I don't know what they're thinking with this. You know, we are going to be having a debate in the culture war going over all the legal documents, which I believe shows he's gotten his due process. But the American people like of all of the things Trump has done, immigration is his most popular issue.

Why are they, why are they setting themselves up like this? For, to make me laugh because I needed a good chuckle. Democrats are sitting back and they're like, what can we do? That'll make Phil laugh. Absolutely.

I mean, it's hilarious. They're, they're, they're falling over themselves, siding with the worst people that are here that are there. Their whole story is irredeemable. Like, he's here illegally.

He's probably a member, or he's alleged to be a member of a gang, but it's been multiple courts that have said it, I believe. And I don't remember what the other person, or the other organization that made allegations that he's in a gang, but they're reputable organizations. There's his ex-girlfriend has filed charges or at least made claims of abuse. His ex-girlfriend did?

I don't remember if it was his wife. Oh, it's his wife. Okay, my bad. All right, so fair enough, fair enough. But this only goes to my point. He is totally not sympathetic at all. You're describing the Democrat's favorite voter. Right, right.

Wait, wait, Shane, Shane, do you want to read the first sentence of that paragraph right there? Let me get my old man glasses on. Old man glasses. Just starting with at. At a master calendar hearing, the respondent, through counsel, admitted the factual allegations contained in the NTA and conceded removability as charged. Should I keep going? Based on the respondent's admissions and concessions, the court found his removability to be established by clear and convincing evidence as required by INA 240C3. So this is the document from 2019, August 9th and September 27th, where they again confirmed he was to be removed.

However, not to El Salvador because a gang in Guatemala was threatening to kill him. This is the story. A Guatemalan gang was threatening his family and they didn't feel that they could be protected in El Salvador. Now, the question the only question that needs to be asked based on this is, can he be deported somewhere else? The answer is yes, of course. And so then the error that the Trump administration made, they were supposed to have a USCIS interview with a baby Garcia before sending him home. And they didn't. But on the Alien Enemies Act, he was allowed to do it. So, you know, we've I feel like this horse, I would argue that we've beaten the dead horse on this story. But Democrats won't shut up about it. So let me just say we've ground the horse into glue at this point, because I don't know how many times we need to point out that this guy

was found deportable, credibly an MS-13 gang member, now accused of beating his wife. And I guess I'll put it this way. We could have opened this show with the Hegseth signal gate story. But we'll get to that. Yeah, but it's a fake story. It's not the second signal gate. No, the fake story, the story about how the Department of Defense is a total mess. I mean, his former spokesperson is saying, you know, on the record that what exactly did he say? Month from hell inside of the Department of Defense. That's concerning. And this is a guy who worked for Trump in 2016, too. This is not just some like lefty spokesperson that he inherited from the civil service. This is a true

MAGA believer who was like, oh, come on! Who else worked for Trump in 2016? And there are a number of other people have come out. In his 2016 term, 2017. Why would he have hired him to be his chief Pentagon spokesperson and lead the communications at the NSA if he didn't believe that this guy was legit?

Why were there three people leaking information to the press? Listen, you gotta take this seriously. Allegedly, in the article that the was he a chief of staff? He was the chief Pentagon spokesperson until two weeks ago. Yeah, he wrote an op-ed in Politico where he actually denied

those, the three advisors that they ever leaked anything. So I want to add allegedly here because I do feel like lawsuits are coming. All of these guys were trying to— Good point. Allegedly. All of this is very much allegedly. And all this is also allegedly because they allegedly leaked documents

about attacking Iran to try to preempt and try to prevent the strike by leaking it out there early. And that could be a part of the problem at the um pentagon but it is unusual for um this guy to be resigning or probably fired and told to resign and then have this happen um i don't think we'll see any shake-ups there what what are your thoughts on the abrigo garcia story then on this story i mean it's it is a hard one because i do think that politically no no i think it's a it's politically, you're right, that the immigration story is on Trump's side. I mean, he was elected to seal off the border, deportations.

I think the due process is the part that the Democrats are arguing about. Like, they want to make sure that there is due process and obviously the halting. This is the guy who was the hairdresser, right? The makeup artist. No. Okay. He's the wife beating MS-13 gang member. Got it. All right. Then I'm not fully up to date on this one. I was... The hairdresser's a fake story too. Why is that one fake? Because they're not asylum seekers. You don't travel from Venezuela through the entirety of Central America, come to the United States and say, now I need asylum. You go to Mexico, you go to any other country, it's typically expected of any asylum seeker

to go to the first safe country they get to. So for Venezuela, that was that that was supposed to be remain in Mexico under Trump. Right. So this guy, he's like, Venezuela is dangerous for me. I better travel to all these other countries. I have no doubt that he tried to get into the U.S. illegally and live here illegally. Of course. Yeah. And then when he went through, it's an executive hearing. We call them judges. They said his tattoos are MS-13.

And he got deported to El Salvador. To that horrible. For MS-13 gang members. Yeah. And they confirmed that he is anorted to El Salvador. To that horrible. For MS-13 gang members. Yeah. And they confirmed that he is an MS-13 member. So he was found to be an MS-13 gang member in the standard procedure by his crown tattoos on his on his on his wrists. Yeah.

Which the left is arguing are just crowns and they're not MS-13. And so I would just. They want him to have due process essentially. Right. What is the due process of an illegal immigrant? I mean, I think that they have the right to immigration court, right? And they did. And he lost. Yes. He is deportable

and he had crowns. He lost during the Biden years, right? Is that right? I'm not entirely sure. Okay, well, I think that'd be interesting to find out because, I mean, you might say, oh, the Trump's administration has different criteria. Listen, I can't really debate this one in the same way because I thought it was the Maryland hairdresser

that we were talking about, our makeup artist. He wasn't in Maryland, was he? The makeup artist was in California. I don't know. There's so many illegals that have come over since Joe Biden took office and stuff. There's probably a Maryland hairdresser

that's here illegally, so you're probably close to it. I think I'm conflating it. I'm conflating it because, you know, this they yes, some Democrats are doing this. And I do question. I mean, I think there's just a fear that it's happening so quickly and so recklessly and that people are not getting their due process in the in the process of it, especially when they're saying we are going to support homegrown. They are getting a due process. Do you think every one of them? Then why would the judge halt the guy that was being deported to Venezuela?

I mean, yeah, right. So why are you all your eyes? OK, so here's a question for you. Why a judge? Why has Trump even if he's an activist judge? You want to say that he's still a judge, but he'll give you a reason. It's that they're political activists who are trying to obstruct Trump. That's your answer.

Why? But Phil gave you a reason. It's that they're political activists who are trying to obstruct Trump. That's your answer. Why has Trump received 40% of all universal—let me rephrase—unconstitutional universal injunctions? I mean, I think that— 81 out of like 200. He was definitely pushing the boundaries of the Constitution. He tried to get rid of, what was it, the birth— Birthright citizenship. Yeah, he tried to get rid of that. He's definitely—

He didn't try. He is actively doing so now, and it's going to court. But the point— You won't see it in the birth... Birthright citizenship. Yeah, he tried to get rid of that. He didn't try. He is actively doing so now, and it's going to court. But the point in the point of birthright citizenship is falsely interpreted and does not exist. He is pushing the limits of the Constitution every single day. In what way? I mean, with that alone. But the Constitution says explicitly...

And also by defying a judge's order, whether you don't agree or not, you should have halted that plane and put the person down and then gone through the Supreme Court side with him on the appeal. The Supreme Court sided with him. They allowed him to be deported. Supreme Court said no one can direct the executive branch to commit to engage in foreign policy. And so the issue was he should it should a Brito Garcia be returnable. They should facilitate his return. And the argument from the from the conservatives is or from Trump that if he were to try to come back to the U.S., Trump must facilitate that return.

Otherwise, we have nothing to do with it. Then there's just these random guys like these German tourists that didn't have a booking on, you know, in Hawaii and they are suddenly getting deported. I just think there's a feeling like and then you're seeing students on the street just being like muzzled basically and deported because of their political activity on universities. And that's a little scary. I'm sorry, though. I mean, it is because, OK, first of all, you're a free speech guy. You are out there. Occupy Wall Street. What if you were like misidentified and deported and you were an American the entire time?

And why the Americans been deported? It could happen. Sure. And if it does, it'll be a problem. But for the time being, all the enforcement's been under the law. But even if you're not an American, don't you think that part of the rights of being in this country are free speech? Not if you're illegal. I think it's scary that non-Americans are in our country calling for violence on campuses and the campuses aren't doing anything about it.

Yeah, I mean, that's on the universities for sure. They should be dealing with that. So in the case of Mahmoud Khalil, this is a guy who was organizing what, whether it was intentional or otherwise, violent protests where employees were attacked and threatened. Buildings were taken over. Jewish students were attacked on campus. And even people presumed to be Jewish. Did he direct people to attack Jewish people?

Doesn't matter. He organized the event. So if you organize a parade, if you organize a dance party, but then your dance party robs a bank, you're getting in trouble for it. Yeah. Maybe you're not going to be charged

for robbing the bank. They're going to say like whatever you were involved with. Yeah, you're kind of a conspirator. They're going to re-go you and you're going to jail. I think it's rich how the Democrats have just been speed running

through these different causes. First it was Mahmoud Khalil and then they means tested it quickly and realized, oh, wait, this guy isn't good for us. Then they moved on to this most recent gang member that they said wasn't. And have you seen his tattoos on his knuckles where they're trying to say like, oh, he is not. This isn't supposed to be a simple. I mean, this is an operating procedure. Always happens on both sides of the aisle.

They pick their like political person that they get behind. And if it's either like Lake and Riley, now it's Mahoud Khalil. Lake and Riley was murdered. I know, but this is cynical political shit that they do. It's on both sides. I have a problem with the both sides argument.

What do you mean? Why is it cynical? It's cynical because this is what they're doing. They are taking one person's example and they're blowing it up to you. But he's a legit criminal and we have 20 million or so illegal immigrants. Wait, wait, wait. I'm going to agree with you 100%. Agreed. The conservatives prop up a young woman who was murdered by an illegal immigrant criminal gang member and the Democrats prop up the criminal illegal immigrant gang member. I know which side I'm on it's listen cynical or otherwise you're right the republicans are like this poor woman was murdered by these evil you know criminal gang members and the

democrats are like please don't hurt our criminal illegal gang members it's it's i can't listen i can't really argue on this topic to be completely fair with the the topics i haven't okay so so I'm not going to argue in favor of these people because I don't even know their full history. Take the individual specific people out of it. Right. You look at the look at the people that the Democrats champion and what tends to happen after all of the information comes out. Yeah. Right. The guy that that they were championing that ended up getting all. What's the town? Kenosha burnt down. The man was trying to kidnap kids. He had a knife.

The police shot him. And then Kamala Harris goes and takes him. He assaulted a woman. Yeah, I mean, he's trying to kidnap kids. He assaulted a woman. He had a cop. It was a quote-unquote good shoot. And Kamala Harris goes and takes pictures with him. And the NFL players put his name on their helmet.

Yeah. George Floyd had committed a crime. Right. And he died in police custody. That was like a nothing. He was chewing a speedball behind the wheel of a vehicle. Yes. And when the police removed him, they brought him to the vehicle to be arrested.

You could watch all the body camera footage. It's all in the video. And he fought them he fought them yeah and he said put me on the ground put me on the ground put me on the ground so they pulled him out of the vehicle and put him on the ground a few minutes kill him on the ground so let me finish a few minutes later Derek Chauvin shows up having no idea what's going on and performed what the Minnesota police trained him to do because they even the defense showed this in the continuum of force argument in in the criminal trial for Chauvin. He was told to do that. So he shows up as a guy on the ground. He has no idea what's happening. They say,

do the restraints. OK, they put the so, you know, it's bunk. The cop who is simply standing in front of people, his hands up, not involved in the Chauvin incident at all, just off to the side. They put him in prison for life. Why? They didn't care what was true. They just wanted to lock them all up. And the Ahmaud Arbery case, that guy, Ahmaud Arbery,

he had been, he committed burglary. The guys that shot him, they were going to, it was a bad law, an old law that they were following. What do you guys want me to say? The Democrats pick bad, cynical, political characters to attack? That's the point but the right but the right is the right is trying to maintain sustained safety and order right now

and the left promotes violence when do they overstep the boundary well right now going back to a lot of saying with speed running these different people is like what we were talking about before the show the democrats are desperate to find let me let me let me let me let me have this and things are just happening so fast and furiously, and that's why I think there's a lot of concern. And the way it's happening, it's like kind of... But we voted for mass deportations. Indeed.

When we were getting the show ready, I pointed out that we often... Without due process, though. Due process, we just talked about with the illegals. I got the court document right here for Obrego Garcia that says he admitted to removability. So the question is, did he get, was he warranted a USCIS interview before final deportation? The answer is yes.

But their argument is, at first we made an error in doing so without checking for this. However, under the Alien Enemies Act, we are allowed to get rid of him regardless. So, but the point I was going to make a moment ago. When we're setting up the show, I was pointing out that we often try to find a prominent individual that represents a core of the story or the parties involved. There are no Democrats. This is what it took us. We were at it was 752. We finally got the thumbnail up because I was like, I guess Trump. I guess Trump's the only political character who's involved in the news. There's Van Hollen, but he's backing away. There's no Schumer anymore.

There's no AOC anymore. There's no Kamala. There's no Biden. There is no central Democrat party. And arguably those members that you saw in that picture, even though I'm not fully aware of the story, like they are more from the progressive wing. They are not really from the party. There's no leadership. They don't want to back these.

They don't want to get involved in this fight because, like you said, they don't want to back these they don't want to get involved in this fight because like you said they don't know the fair but even i think cory booker was even virtue signaling at least saying that like these these deportations were wrong and specifically on the uh the gang members too i think uh i don't i'm not a usual believer of trump's 5d chess but it almost feels like he is baiting democrats into defending these otherwise, these otherwise. I mean, yeah, because and then it always comes out like, oh, they defended this guy. They said there was no way he was a gangster. His wife covered up his knuckles in all of these pictures because it was like obvious that he had MS-13 written on his on his knuckles.

And the Democrats couldn't do their research to find that out, like before deciding to let me ask you a question. Yeah. Do you think that Van Holl holland and these other four democrats that are going down to el salvador are doing so with the intent to influence the foreign government of el salvador into taking action on their behalf maybe i don't know i mean so you know because i think the president of el salvador is so you know what do you think the democrats want if they're not trying to they're trying to draw attention to it but here's the

thing like you said did they have they stated anything. They're trying to draw attention to it. But here's the thing. Have they stated anything about wanting the government to take action? Yeah, of course they have. So the Democrats have publicly stated they want El Salvador. I mean, I haven't read it. Like you're asking me to talk about a story I really don't know that much about.

I'm just speaking in generalizations. But I know. Let's just share the quick details. This is not a gotcha. It's literally the Democrats. There's now five. Have they made requests of the El Salvador government to do something? I don't know.

Anybody? I don't know. I haven't read the story. I just think they're going down for a photo shoot. Yeah. What was the express stated purpose? To draw attention to it. They've actually said what their intention was.

I don't know. But I'm just thinking from like a purely political. Does anybody want to get it? Because I know everybody who's listening right now in the audience knows exactly what the Democrats said about this trip. I think Van Hollen said that he wanted to have him back. The Democrats wanted him to come back to the country. All of them said that. Yeah, that's what they wanted.

All of them said that their purpose to go down was to get him back. Yep. To get the foreign government to take an action pertaining to U.S. foreign policy, which is a violation of the Logan Act. Yeah. foreign policy which is a violation of the Logan Act which specifically states any U.S. citizen wherever they may he may be who with without the authority of the U.S. directly or indirectly commences or carries on correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or any agent thereof with the intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof in relation to any disputes or controversies with the

U.S. or to defeat the measures of the United States shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years. Can I just... Donald Trump explicitly set forth a deal with El Salvador's government pertaining to U.S. foreign policy under the Alien Enemies Act. That is the direction and purview of the executive branch, their entitlement, their right under the Constitution. These members of Congress are in direct and overt violation of the Logan Act.

I believe that we need to see some action by the DOJ. Yeah. They're trying to do a reverse Elian Gonzalez. Lock them up. Yeah. Lock them up. OK, here's the thing. So these four Democrats of members of Congress, some of them young, freshman-ish progressives, they go down there and they stage their political, you know, photo op, whatever you want to call it.

The rest of the party, you have like someone like Gavin Newsom saying this is a distraction and they kind of know they're being baited. Trump sets the story up every morning. He did this for the press when I covered him for the first four years of his administration, he sent out a tweet and he would literally say to his staff, watch the libs. I'm going to own the libs today. I'm going to overreact. So they're starting to think to themselves,

maybe we are missing the boat by overreacting. This is a distraction. We cannot jump onto every single thing that he gives to them. They are getting eaten alive. Do you think Cory Booker is one of these far-left progressives? He's kind of. As far as Democrats go,

I think as far as Democrats go, Cory Booker is a moderate. Did you hear he came out recently? As a closet? Everybody thought he was gay. Azaria was set up. That was a beard. Everybody thought Cory Booker was gay, but. Azaria was set up like that was a beard. Well, everybody thought Cory Booker was gay, but apparently he was at like an event where he was asked by some gay people, like a trans person. And he said something about we, the LGBT community.

Oh, yeah. It was something like that. And then it was glossed over. Like nobody really paid attention that he was saying that he was LGBTQ. Just like Barack Obama. I think. Are you sure about that one? Because I remember seeing that clip online.

I don't think that he was coming out. My point is, he said, we in the LGBT community. I'm paraphrasing. Oh, there's a letter in there. A for allies. No, there's no A in ally for LGBTQ. I think there is LGBTQ. It's like A.

There's some allies. I think A is asexual. You guys are killing me. Are you for real? There's definitely an ally. No, there's not. Yes. No, there's not.

No, you're onto the show today. Wait, but all of that is to say, I think you're mischaracterizing the Democrat Party. I don't think it's just the far leftists in the party. I think Cory Booker is a moderate Democrat, and I think it's wide-ranging throughout the party, and I think you might be missing the pulse of what's going on. Let's get to the story. You know, let's let's get to this. Let's talk.

Let's talk. We've got this story from NPR. The White House is looking to replace Pete Hegseth as defense secretary. OK, that's the story. Rapid response says lies from NPR, which we all know is a fake news propaganda machine. So the story they've been pushing is that there's a second signal gate. Leakers have been fired. And now you've got this op ed from this is Politico, former top Pentagon spokesperson details a month from hell inside the agency.

Now, there's a couple arguments here. Yeah, this is a fake news story. Hegseth is not going to get fired. Trump already spoke in his defense. But I'm not sure who was pointing out. I don't know if it was Shane earlier about Matt Gaetz. Trump also pointed that out. Yeah, that he Trump kept backing Matt Gaetz until he could no longer. Indeed. So maybe there is an argument that Trump is just trying as hard as not to see Hegseth out. The other argument from the right is that the deep state is trying to heavily influence the removal of Hegseth. That guy who wrote that op ed is not the deep state is trying to heavily influence the removal of Hegseth. That guy who wrote that op-ed is not the deep state. He is a guy that Hegseth hired. He's a political staffer. That guy, John Hewlett, he is a political staffer. He was a senior

communications advisor on Trump's 2016 campaign. And the other people, too, they are all politicals. They are not deep state. Does that mean he's good? What does that mean? They're not deep state. Okay, then if he's such a good manager, why would you hire a guy like that? That's a higher question. Why did Trump hire Bolt? Well, then why is Trump hiring Pete Hegseth?

And it goes up the chain. Yes, Trump hired a lot of bad people in his first term, and many people were concerned about the hires that were going to come in in the second term. Yeah. He's done a pretty good job, but I'm not surprised to see that the firing margin is a bit lower than what we would have seen in in the second term. Yeah. He's done a pretty good job, but I'm not surprised to see that the firing margin is a bit lower than what we would have seen in 2016 had he learned his lesson.

So, I think what's actually going on here is that within the Trump administration, there are rumblings between the more isolationist and the more hawkish camps. And this is manifesting right now through the debate on whether or not we should strike Iran preemptively at their nuclear sites. So I think the some of Hexeth's staffers allegedly leaked out the Iran plans early to The New York Times and and other outlets in hopes of trying to, like, help prevent the plan.

So, like, it's really those two sides knifing each other within the administration and then there's also like the democrat and left media that's taking advantage of these internal conflicts that are going on to try to kind of capitalize it is how i see what's going on right now so that doesn't mean the administration or the department of defense is in complete disarray or the pentagon's in complete disarray uh i think it's people trying to knife each other in in the back more than anything and want to influence the way the administration goes that doesn't mean hexaf needs to be fired i think i wouldn't be surprised though if they are putting this out there themselves but do you understand the context behind how it goes and then because maybe something big is coming well i wonder there

are text messages again like signal gate and everybody's well these were high up let me let me let me give you the stupidest conspiracy theory out of all of it. If you don't want to go to war with Iran and the deep states can try and force your hand, just throw the Pentagon into disarray and they can't false flag you into one. I like that. And I did say that was the stupidest conspiracy theory, by the way. Yeah. Because like, you know, right now the concern from the right is that we're going to get

forced into a war with Iran. We saw the story that Israel was trying to go to the U.S. to join them in a strike. The U.S. backed off. Trump said no. Tulsi Gabbard said don't do it. Israel said we're going to maybe do it a little bit anyway. If there is some kind of attack or false flag or who knows what, if the Pentagon is broken, we're not getting involved in that war anyway. So if you had a functional Pentagon, and again, I'm stressing this is a stupid conspiracy theory. It's probably not true at all. I'm just saying if a false flag were to happen, we would be publicly pressured into a conflict we don't want to be involved in. However, with the Pentagon broken, the response is going to be like, unfortunately, due to the disarray with leadership, we can't formulate a proper response to what happened in the Middle East. Can I just say what is probably really happening?

This is like Veep. OK, have you guys seen Veep? Yeah. It's a fucking disaster in government. You're right. No one knows what they're doing. I just say what is probably really happening. This is like Veep, okay? Have you guys seen Veep? Yep. It's a fucking disaster in government. You're right. No one knows what they're doing. Always, yeah. More likely than not,

it is just a bunch of people who have no idea what they are doing. This is the one thing libertarians get right. You know, did you ever remember that? It's not crazy too, though. Yeah, they are. Do you remember that line? I don't know if you remember that line when she's like something happens in Yemen.

They're like, when life gives you Yemen, you make Yemen aid. And it's like you can't even make that shit up. But this is just like. That's only one step away from the reset, but the misspelled reset button that Clinton took over. So regarding Iran, the administration has repeatedly said that he cannot allow them to get nuclear weapons. So I think that's why a lot of this stuff is coming to a head now, as I think we're going to see this weekend as well. Negotiations continue. Whether we'll see them actually go anywhere has yet to be seen. I don't think the admin's also going to get rid of Hexeth because once you get rid of one of these top guys in the administration, one of these secretaries, that means everybody's kind of on ice.

It's kind of opening the floodgates for other people to be fired now hold on hold on he wasted so much political capital yeah but to just throw what about a less stupid conspiracy theory that if hegseth were to be fired they would get an acting sec def and that could be anybody trump wants i mean i thought pete hegseth was well also he's already outlasted mike flynn let's not forget that the national security advisor who went out on February 14th, 2017. I remember that was a horrible Valentine's Day. Well, nobody's been fired yet in the administration. None of the higher ups.

Oh, is that true? Yeah, think of one. Oh, my God. Exactly. Wait a minute. So that's why he's trying to keep everything together. Because if Pete Hegseth gets fired, other people could be, you know, on the chomping box. And they spent like $10 million

to get him confirmed. He saw it on everybody on his cabinet. Also with the Walt story, you could have hypothetically kicked him out for that Signal Gates story. I mean, if you wanted to get him, if you wanted to get rid of that story really quickly, he could have just booted him out,

but he chose to stand by him. So I suspect Trump's going to stand by Hegseth throughout all of this. I do think it may largely be fake news, specifically because, as you were mentioning, I think it was you saying this, that the Democrats are just speed running through all these different narratives and these individuals trying to latch on to something. And they don't have any strong case against the Trump administration. Oh, come on. Signalgate was a fucking disaster. It did not resonate with a single person.

OK, I know. OK, I interviewed Laura Loomer for my podcast, okay? Oh, the most you did? Yes, I did. I just had her on on Thursday. And you may say what you want to say about her, but she's very close to the president. She's a very powerful person. I don't think we have anything bad to say about Laura Loomer. Okay, all right. Well, no, she was saying that she's powerful and close to the president.

She is. She had an ability to walk in the door and a side door into the Oval Office. And she had the ability to essentially take out six very powerful people in the national security apparatus, overruling, overruling Mike Waltz. OK. Yeah. And actually, when she showed up in Washington, she told me this has never been reported, but she had a video of Mike Waltz from 2016 speaking very poorly about Donald Trump. And we'll have it in the in the podcast. You should check it out on my YouTube channel at Tara Palmieri. But, yeah, she she had she came there to kill Waltz. Waltz walked in the door just in time because she knows like he's 78 years old, Trump, and she's got to show him the video. And so Waltz walks in the door. So I she told me that Trump is not happy with Waltz.

And she told me there's a lot of infighting in the administration. Do you think he'll get fired? Listen, I don't think she would have gone on my show and talked like that if she didn't think he was already on ice. So this this may be ultra incorrect. I don't I don't disagree. I'm just saying that the American people don't care about the inner workings and the minutiae. Signalgate is a national security advisor.

And I go to Times Square and ask someone about Signalgate. What are they going to tell you? Yeah, but that doesn't matter. You know how people are safe in Times Square? The way that people are safe in Times Square, a target, by the way, is because of the national security. Right, right, right. Because of that. But again, if you go to a member, if you go to a random tourist from anywhere in middle America, let's say you're Times Square and you're looking for American citizens specifically.

Oh, God. But then you don't even know the capital of Maine. Indeed. That's the point. And they vote. So when you go to them and say, what are you really worried about? They're like these gangbangers all over the country. And you're like, Trump's supporting them.

I like that. OK, but would they be worried about going to Times Square if there were terror attacks there all the time? There were. Because we didn't have a national security apparatus? There still are, and it's gang members. I mean, it's a lot safer than it was when I was in the army. Wait, is it that a big leap? Elad, Elad.

Trend de Aragua guy got arrested for shooting a gun in Times Square at people. Okay, I want—fine. So, yes, they're going to be like, make it safe. I want to tell you what it's like to live in a country where you do not feel like you are safe. You know the national security apparatus does not work. I lived in Brussels. No, Brussels. I lived there from 2014 to 2016. I was covering I was covering the EU. OK. And while I lived there, there were so many terror attacks between Paris and Brussels from the terrorists, the homegrown ISIS terrorists that were there. And the bomb went off in the airport. I was there at the airport. The bomb went off in the subway below my office. We were under lockdown for weeks. Sometimes we were told

we couldn't leave our house. There was the Charlie Hebdo shooting. There was just random plowing of people in resorts in France, in Nice. It was a terrifying place to be. And the reason that this was happening was because they had no real national security apparatus. They could not protect their country with its open borders where people were able to go in and out. Listen, and you know why you haven't heard of a mass terrorism account? Something that happened in Europe recently, like a mass terror attack in Europe. There was one in Germany recently. It's because they got the help of the FBI. It's because they got the help of the FBI. It's because they got the

help of the CIA. It's because they got the help of our security apparatus. So, I mean, I think there are issues with some of the way the first Signalgate stuff happened, but can you walk me down the logic of how Times Square is therefore not safe? You know, Mike Walsh mishandled in a part

of a Signal chat, right? If a person is in charge of security then our nation's security is a national security advisor he runs like the cyber command he runs everything he runs your bigger concern is probably christy gnome but more importantly the issue that i brought up maybe cash but the issue that i brought up is specifically i don't know will trump earn favor among voters, which will benefit him in the long run? I don't care about that. I care about being safe. I care about government. And so you agree with my point then? Yes. Regular people in this country,

they will care about this. They will care when they are not safe. That is when they care. Are you kidding? You absolutely care. You think that people are going to know what the NSC does? They may not know what the NSC does, but they may know that they don't feel safe under the Trump administration. So what do they want? That means the buck stops there. What do they want? They want safety. And how do they get it?

Through a team that works for the law enforcement. Exactly. But if you don't have rotations of Trendyaragua, it's not only Trende Aragua that are going after people everywhere. We have threats from everywhere. We have threats from Iran. We have threats from Japan. Not Japan. We have threats from China.

We have threats from Russia. We have threats from everywhere. Everywhere. Every single day. The point that was brought up was this story matters little to the American people. I am not... I forgot about this story. I care about the people that work for him. I don't know what you American people. I am not. I forgot about this story. I care about the people that I don't know what you're arguing.

I'm talking about. I'm telling you that if you don't think it matters who has these jobs, I said the American people don't care about this story. Whether they don't care about the story, they should worry about who has the job. Sure. But they don't. So if you want to argue, they're they're factually incorrect in their in their priorities. True. You only care about something until it doesn't work. And you know that you don't care So if you want to argue they're factually incorrect in their priorities, true. You only care about something until it doesn't work.

And you know that. You don't care about your car until you can't turn it on. Well, you care about your car, you need to use it every day. Exactly. And you need security every day. Is that of all of the principal issues polled, immigration is where Trump is winning. This story, they shifted off of immigration and to try and go somewhere else. I don't know how you're actually connecting immigration to the signal gate. I don't see how they're connected. Let me

try and help you out. That's DHS. Uh-huh. Okay. And then that's NSA. Slow down. Slow down. Because if you're confused, I'll need to speak. Yeah. Tell me. Okay. Regular people care about immigration. Democrats are trying to get off the immigration story because they lost. That's fair. They lost immigration. So they've shifted into something that doesn't matter at all potentially a second signal gate no one cared about signal gate except politicos i can agree with you that there are people that exist that do not know who the national security advisor is there are people that and that is the luxury of being in a country that functions and that's why i was bringing up brussels the luxury of working in a country that truly functions is that you don't have to go to sleep at night worrying about making sure that there is security making sure that there is not a terror threat where you live that you know that

the that the subways are constantly being monitored by fbi that they are constantly you know tracking just got raped in new york city okay can i follow up again though at the worst case mishandling of some classified information to now Times Square is not safe. It reflects a lack of competence, reflects a lack of competence. And regular people don't care about that. They don't care about competence until incompetence affects them. And I don't think the NSA will affect them. All right.

We'll see. I hope not either. You know what? I hope that you said that. I'm knocking on wood and I hope that we never have to experience this. And the only point I was making is that Democrats are attaching to a low-value story because they're desperate for something to go against the administration on it. I don't think it's low-value. They seem like a bunch of kids. Okay. The point I'm making is—

They are. They're my age. I'm like, what are you doing? You have no experience. What are you doing here? So anyway, will Pete Hegseth be fired? My point is probably not because this story is low value and not nearly as big as people think. If more comes out. How about I finish? Yeah. The story is not nearly as big as people think it is.

Most people actually don't care. Trump has no reason to fire Hegseth over a few texts that we don't even know if they actually exist. So why are all these big outlets running this story? They didn't deny it. They actually confirmed it. So why are all of these big outlets running a story of little interest? We've already had signal gates.

Wait, wait, wait. I just want to correct that because you said that they didn't exist. He already confirmed it himself. I said we don't know if they exist. They came from anonymous sources. No, Trump acknowledged it himself and so did the NSC.

He acknowledged it. He said it shouldn't have happened. And the NSC acknowledged it. The second signal gate. Oh, the second signal gate. If you stop talking for two seconds, you might have heard what I said. The second signal gate,

as if the first one wasn't bad enough. We'll see what happens. Why was the first one bad? I would not be a Boy Scout. Why was the first one bad? Listen, Tim, I would not be a Boy Scout for this administration

because you don't know what's coming. So what? You're arguing we should lie because we're worried Trump would do something bad. I'm not saying you should lie. I'm just saying I don't know what's coming. So what? So you're arguing we should lie because we're worried Trump would do something bad. I'm not saying you should lie. I'm just saying I don't think you should offend him so hard until you know what's coming. I don't. I think the funny thing is I might have egg on your face in literally three days. You are so emotionally attached to the liberal. I'm not. I'm not emotionally. You can't even stop talking for a second. I'm not emotionally attached. You are. I listen. You can't stop talking. So the point I was trying to make

is that this story is an old story. Signalgate happened two weeks ago. Why are they back on an anonymous claim of Signalgate 2? Because now in Signalgate 2, it is alleged that his wife, and I think it's alleged by anonymous source until it's confirmed. So right now there's no story. Why are they running this front page? Because it's important and it matters. And I bet you, I know those reporters and I bet you that it's true. And then why is Van Hollen now saying,

I'm not vouching for this guy? I'm okay if he's deported. I don't see how those two are connected. Could it be that immigration being the number one issue among Americans they're winning on, Democrats and the media are shifting off of a story and they're going backwards to a previous one.

I am not a partisan. I will not defend the Democrats. OK, if that's what you want me to do. You are doing it. No, I'm not. I will not defend the Democrats. I'm actually a reporter. I don't even vote when I cover elections.

I didn't vote in this. Why? When I said all I am telling you is that national security and competence matters because because the whole idea you just keep, you keep pulling things from here and then you bring them there and you try to tie them together, but they're not related. All I am saying is,

all I am saying is, no, I can understand. What you can't understand is what I'm trying to say, which is that competence matters in position. I do, but you're off in some other world. Tim? Let's go back in time.

The issue we brought up at the start of the show. I just don't. Yeah, sure, go ahead. The issue I brought up. You keep talking about the Democrats and media, but go ahead. Sure. The issue we brought up at the start of the show. I just don't. Yeah, sure. Go ahead. The issue I brought up. You keep talking about the Democrats and media, but go ahead. Sure. The issue I brought up at the top of the show was that the immigration story has backfired

on Democrats. Echelon, Pew and CNN all came out with polls showing the American people are happy with Trump's job. Correct. Signalgate was two weeks ago. I don't. OK, go ahead. They've now shifted to an anonymous claim with no evidence of a second Signalgate.

The point I brought up was not to defend Signalgate, was not to defend Donald Trump. So you think they shouldn't report on it? My point was that with Senator Van Hollen coming out and saying, I'm OK with Abrego Garcia being deported now, they're backing away from a story. And the corporate press is now shifting the news cycle back onto Signalgate, which was two weeks ago. Fine. Maybe they are.

But if it's real, they should still report it. They should still report Signalgate, too was two weeks ago. Fine, maybe they are, but if it's real, they should still report it. They should still report Signalgate 2 if it is real. And so they should wait until they have corroborating evidence. I think that what those reporters have, they probably have corroborating evidence because I know those reporters, they are good. Probably, maybe one day they'll share it with us.

And you know what, actually- Otherwise, I'll just believe everything they say, no matter what. I respect those reporters. I know them and I trust them. And I'm sure that they probably do have that but in the meantime why wouldn't they share it now they're corroborating evidence because it would probably expose their sources but if it's that important of a story why are we here's the question guys i don't this whole idea of like

the mainstream media is like trying to draw the narratives one way or another fine whatever maybe there are people who want to you to look one way or another but at the end of the day why would you want to censor a real story who said that no one wants to censor the story well you're like i think that we shouldn't cover signalgate like it doesn't matter you're saying signalgate 2 doesn't matter you're like who said that who cares because americans don't care about it that's literally never been said once you said that most people don't care about signal indeed that and so we shouldn't cover it i never said that just that most people don't care about Signal D. Indeed. And so we shouldn't cover it? I never said that. Just because Americans don't care about it,

we shouldn't tell people that. We were covering it. We're literally on a big show to millions of people covering the story explicitly. But you think there is a conspiracy in which the media...

I think the Democrat political party and their consultants are going over their polls and saying, Van Hollen, this is hurting you. You need to back off it.

He goes on Fox News of all places and says, I'm OK with the bankruptcy of being there. I'm sure they are. Indeed. Yeah, I'm absolutely sure. And we're in agreement then. Yeah. But the fact that that has anything to do with Signalgate is what I struggle to understand. So Democrats have started propping up this story. OK, which is a real story. It's not a prop up. It's a real story with a single anonymous source i don't think it's a single i want to read the story actually really quickly so we can actually make this clear on air so that it's so that i hope you're not disparaging these people without actually looking at it let me find out how many journalists will i was trying to talk about it

earlier there were a few advisors to pete hexeth who were who were fired allegedly for leaking that's what the administration and secretary pete hexeth said were who were fired allegedly for leaking that's what the administration and secretary pete hexeth said of them i'm sorry four people with knowledge of the chat that's four people not one anonymous knowledge of it mean you said it was one and now we know it's four okay indeed okay well we don't know it's four because we don't know the four people are they're anonymous okay well listen if you understand anything about journalism, sometimes you have to use anonymous sources. It's just a fact. And you first said it was one anonymous source.

Now it's four. So let's get the story straight. Okay. And it includes his wife. And I just want to see how the White House responded to this. Okay. It's very easy to make you believe a thing, isn't it? No, it's not, actually, because I know these journalists.

And I know that they would only go with a story like this if story like this. Has the New York Times published falsehoods before? They may have. And I'm not going to say it for a story. They've won Pulitzer's for it. Walter Durante. There's no famine. I'm not going to not. Sarah, I guess.

Wait a second. Can I just say one thing? When the first Signalgate came out, OK, can we just all acknowledge the fact that Hegseth denied that it was real and that it was anything? And he said those chats weren't real. And he just said blatant lies on TV. And then Trump acknowledged it an hour later. What did he say?

Hold on. I'll pull it up. Let's roll the tape, as they say. I just don't think you guys should be defending these guys like this. It's just going to—you're going to have to hang on your face. I think the interesting thing is you conflate stating true thing with defense of Trump. Okay, deny signal. Here it is. Right. Is stating true thing defending Trump of Trump. OK, deny signal. Here it is.

Right. Is stating true thing defending Trump? OK, here we are. No, I guess. I guess there's a lot of things I criticize all the time. Just not for this. That's that's from today, actually. That's from today.

OK, that's that was denial. Let's see. Oh, no, no. This was the one when he was in Hawaii. Yeah, this was a good one. And he was like, this is an old story. They're bringing it back up again. Talking about a deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who's made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again to include the.

They couldn't even get their denials. Russia, Russia, Russia or the fine people on both sides hoax, or suckers and losers hoax. So this is a guy that pedals in garbage. This is what he does. I would love to comment on the Houthi campaign because of the skill and courage of our troops. I've monitored it very closely from the beginning. And you see, we've been managing four years of deferred maintenance under the Trump administration. Sounds like you're misquoting him, Tara.

I don't know. You have to wait for the whole thing. Percy disparages. I don't think it's the right video. Wait. There was no denial there. Yeah. He was just insulting the guy.

Okay, so then he gets the one where he denies it. Just so, like... I don't know. I want to find it because he denied it and then yeah but i'm i'm still cool with him just sliming the guy that's totally fine with me why is it why is it cool just to slime somebody he's a liar because the journalists lie to us constantly guys it's like okay goldberg was a purveyor of the russia actually can i ask you guys you guys are like a bunch of badass journalists or media guys.

No, not at all. You're not. Okay. I am. You care about the chat. Tara, wait. I'll take that one. If you were on this chat, would you actually report it?

If what? If you were on the chat, would you share it? I would have contacted. If I was included in a single chat, I'd say, hey, guys, discontinue. Wrong person. I actually have the text. I have the phone numbers of many of these people. Yeah, me too.

Indeed. And if they texted me, I'd say, guys, wrong chat. Boot me out. And they'd say, whoops. And there'd be no story. There's no issue. I don't know how your information about war plans against the Houthis in Yemen. Tara, you better have this quote right if we're running through all these videos.

Nobody was texting war plans. Indeed. Who was that that said that, though? No, now it depends on how you define war plans, because he was just talking about coordinates. The whole thing's semantics now. It always is. Was it war plans or was it war attacks? Tara, how would you respond to somebody who says

hey, these are just... Wait, you didn't finish what I said. Pete Hegseth and others in the administration were saying that these are just a few disgruntled employees. John Yuliot, he said he resigned, but, you know, he probably could have been asked for his resignation. These guys are probably pissed because they probably got caught allegedly leaking, which is what Hegseth said. So if these guys were found to be the leakers, it would be worth firing them, correct? I think if they were leaking classified information, yeah. Do you believe that these guys were involved? Do you know the story enough to comment on that part?

Because these guys were, again, allegedly involved in the leaking of the war plans. Which, the Iran war plans? Yeah, about Iran. I'm not going to comment on that. I don't know. OK, so I feel like, again, like we're leaving some parts of this story in the dark now because is again, is the department in disarray or is it in disarray because there are leakers and Trump

and President Trump now is fixing it because there are leakers and this is making it better, not in disarray, if anything. Right. Like I'm trying to flesh this through. There were leakers in the Department of Defense, right, in the Pentagon. We're assuming these people are leakers. Allegedly. Allegedly. Allegedly. You saw the reports from the New York Times. The New York Times, somebody in the Department of Defense was leaking.

Pete Hexeth said it was them and fired them as a result of it. Right. Now they seem to be disgruntled. Yeah, now they're willing to. Isn't all of this. No, no, no, you're right. Now they're disgruntled. And you got like people in the media are opportunistically

using this story to try to veer narratives off of you know what they think might be dispopular elsewhere but is this making sense to you as i'm running through this like it makes sense so isn't it a good thing that they got fired allegedly if they were leakers like isn't it not disarray it's repairing the only thing i think is good about it is if that they now feel like they can talk about what they saw um i do think that if you were i—I'm still in shock that if you guys were on this chat, you wouldn't have shared it. Why would— I don't— Wait, for real?

I didn't respond yet. You have sources that you would expose? You would expose private sources, private information? That wasn't a source relationship thing. That was a—that was a, I am watching classified information. That is like almost like walking in on someone doing a crime. Let me ask you a question. If you walked in on someone committing a crime, how would you not cover that?

Can I ask you a question? Yeah. Why do you have the phone numbers of government officials? I have sources. Okay. If they accidentally texted you private information, you'd report that? If you want to say there, source you would. I would have to say, if it was an accident,

I might reach out to them, but that was not what happened to them. That's not what happened. What do you mean? They accidentally included Goldberg on this? The reason that he decided to go with this one is because of the way they were communicating classified information.

What was classified? All of it. What? Oh, come on. They said it wasn't classified. Yeah. That's not an answer. Are you dealing in facts or opinions?

I mean, you should be the one who's talking. Indeed. I'm asking the question. And we have an official statement from the executive branch and their plenary classification powers that it wasn't classified. They can declassify also. Indeed, they can. So when they say it wasn't classified, it's not.

Oh, if Trump decides it's not classified and it's not classified. Indeed. But so if so, my question is, you have wanted those people in Yemen or our service members to be exposed by that information. And if say, which information, which information, the plans for the plan, what was what are you talking about? Exactly how they were going to attack these people in Yemen. What were the what what what what details are you referring to?

All of the details in that plot in that. You know, the details. Yeah, I'll read them. You're going to look these people in Yemen. What details are you referring to? All of the details in that chat. Do you know the details? Yeah, I'll read them, actually. You're going to look them up? Yeah. I don't know them. Do you think... I do.

Okay, then tell us. F-18s and launch times. No targets, no personnel, no locations. So whether or not... It was much more detailed than that. It had a date. It was the time. Listen, I'm going to pull this up.

The reason why they argued it wasn't classified is because the launch of vehicles. I'm sorry. I think it was vehicles, not weapons. No specific targets and unspecified locations. And so they argued this is not classified information. In fact, on top of this. And why did he share it with them anyway? With other members of the cabinet?

The people that needed to know where Mike Waltz and the other people. They were having a conversation about whether they were going to carry it out. Very, very much. But would you want would you want anyone to have that information before it happened? Let me ask you a question. Yes. Why? Why does why does the military let Richard Engel embed with them on military strikes? But they have agreements when you do that. I've been I've been I've done that kind of thing before. You can't report it before it happens. How come it wasn't a big story that Richard Engel brought his personal cell phone to Syria during the Assad missions? I don't know about this story. And this is substantially worse than Signalgate will ever be.

It was never a story. Richard Engel, correspondent for NBC News, carried his personal cell phone into Assad territory, giving away all U.S. intel to a foreign adversary. And not a single journalist cared at all. And now they're going, signal gate. And I'm like, so someone accidentally got texted vehicles in an attack that everybody knew was going to be happening at some point because Trump said they were going to do it. And so it's not a pretty moment, I suppose, to accidentally loop a journalist in. But I will add the government brings journalists in these conversations all the time and their security compromised unintentionally by these individuals.

And not a single journalist will ever call out one of their own. OK, here's one. I'm still waiting for any journalist to call it. I think VP building collapsed, had multiple positive. Which building? Where? I'm just reading the text. Where?

Time now. Eleven forty. I'm reading the text that you say are just like nothing. Eleven forty four. Weather is favorable just confirmed with centcom we are a go for mission launch jd vance the strongest reason that doesn't matter anyway what he says all that matters what pete hegseth says because that is obviously the um here you can see blah blah i mean am i gonna have to sign up for the atlantic to read this one

um establishing a principals group for coordinating on hoodies, particularly. No, guys, don't laugh. I'm going to read through it all. Nobody left. Okay. I mean, to be fair, we've gone over this probably 17 times. Yeah, but I'm just saying you minimized it and we're like, yeah, it's just like a text message. It's no big deal. Just friends chatting.

This was a war attack. It's a question of is it classified or not? So the information given, which is surprising to me, is at first I thought, did they include Goldberg on purpose? Because this is actually routine stuff. I've been given tons of private information from government sources often. And they say, just don't repeat it. It's off the record.

With every single person's number on there and like the chief of staff and the vice president and the entire national security apparatus essentially on there. I think you're a hypocrite. Oh, sure. Thanks for the name calling. Well, I'm describing a behavior you just engaged in. What is that? That you say, I can't reveal sources that sometimes they have to be anonymous.

I wouldn't expose my sources. That's why we don't reveal their information. Then Goldberg gets given privy to access to a communication. And you're saying, I can't believe you guys wouldn't have shared this. Indeed. I know people who work. It wasn't intentional and they were sharing. OK, but I want to go back to that.

Would you expose your private sources if they accidentally sent you information? And you didn't know you didn't have an answer. It depends on the situation. And I don't think I would expose my my sources. But if it was this situation where he was mistakenly added to a chat that includes— This was a rare situation. Why not just be like, guys, take me off? Okay, here's this.

Weather is favorable. Just confirmed with CENTCOM. We are a go for a mission launch. That was at 12.15. F-18's launch. First strike package. Trigger based. F-18 first strike window starts.

Target terrorist is at his known location, so should be on time. Also strikes drone launch. MQNs. 14-10. More F-18s launch. Second strike package. Okay. I could keep going because it's 12-14.

15 strike drones on target. This is when the first bombs will definitively drop, pending earlier triggered-based targets. 15-36. F-18 second strike starts. Also, first, like, do you want me to keep going? Like, this is obviously— No, because we know all of this. These are obviously detailed attacks.

You made it seem like it was two text messages. I didn't say that. You did. We've gone over the story extensively. You also said there was one source and there's four sources. It's like— Is that the only argument you have? No, yeah, because you're not—you don't keep the facts straight. You are overly emotional on

the story. You are overly defensive of Democrats and the media apparatus. I'm not defensive of Democrats and I'm not defensive. I am defensive of journalists. I'm defensive of journalists. And I was just as, and I'm just as critical of Biden as I was of Trump. And I was one of the few journalists that said that he was too old and that he should be running. So here's how journalism should approach Signalgate. Oh, OK. Indeed. Is it routine for journalists to be given access to this kind of information?

No, it's not. Yes, it is. It's frequent. Yes. If you got that, there would be an embargo on it. No. No, that kind of information we would not get access to. Yes, there could be an embargo.

Indeed. Agreed. And I don't think of would not get access. Yes, there could be an embargo. Indeed. Agreed. And there would. And I don't think that we would get access to that. Honestly, Richard Engels was given

direct access to go on U.S. missions. When? What year was this? This is the beginning of the Arab Spring 10 years ago. OK, so it is a fact

that U.S. journalists embed with the military on classified missions. Very, very, very like it's very tight. It's if it's a classified mission.

Indeed. It's not.'s a classified mission. Indeed. It's not a signal. My point was the questions we need to ask on Signalgate if you're actually trying to understand what's going on in the truth is, is information like this routinely given to journalists? The answer is yes. Not routinely. The answer is yes. No, it's not routinely. That would be a very rare situation.

You referenced something that happened 10 years ago. Give me another routine time when this happens. Should I pull up all of the war footage from every news outlet ever in every conflict? Okay. War footage is when you are literally in the war with them and you cannot report until the actual thing happens afterwards, right? So you're misunderstanding. They mistakenly.

You are misunderstanding. This was a mistake. You are being. A mistake. You are, you are being way too emotional and jumping the gun on the point I'm trying to make. And you're talking over. Okay. So the first thing I said was, is information like this routinely given to journalists?

The answer is yes, that it is. In this regard, it may have accidentally been given to a journalist. So the question then we have is, was there damage done? The answer is no, there was no damage done. So the question then after that is. That we of who cares that we know of. I mean, we might not have sources in Yemen anymore because of that. We might not. I can speculate 15 million things all the time, but a journalist isn't going to do that. They're going to say, I don't see any ramifications from the story. It's an interesting thing that happened. Maybe it's over. Maybe it was a

good thing that it became public because they won't be using Signal again. They all use Signal. Why wouldn't they? For classified information. And I agree they shouldn't if it's disappearing. Wait, you know Signal is regularly used improperly, but this isn't the first time. But not for classified. But in past administrations and classified information is regularly put onto Signal. The issue was that it was leaked accidentally from Goldberg.

But no, you don't think past administrations have used this? Signal is used regularly. No, they have. So the real issue was Goldberg being in there. The issue is, the extent of the story from a bland assessment is, wow, who did that? I guess don't do it again. Instead, we've gotten a two-month ongoing,

it's the apocalypse? But if there, but you have to, if there is another chat, okay, there are multiples. It wasn't just that. There was the Houthi, there was the Houthi one, and then there was another one.

Which other one? Mike Waltz set up a second chat chain. Are you saying signals in general? I just, yes. You're not supposed to use signal for this kind of information. I agree. You can't use signal for like, you know, hey, let's have a meeting. Let's do this.

No, no, no. None of that can disappear. It's also corporate. Signal, they should be used for encryption, but all of that needs to be left for the public to have after the fact. The problem with signal is that they're disappearing public records. They shouldn't be doing that. The previous administrations had done it as well,. They shouldn't be doing that. Exactly. It's a previous administrations had done it as well. And no one should be doing it.

Exactly. You said Signal is fine so long as they don't delete the messages. I can. I agree with you. I believe in holding on to records. And that is a violation of the National Records Act. We'll jump to the next story here. Otherwise, we're talking in circles. Let's just go to the Postmillennial.

Andrew Cuomo has been criminally referred to the DOJ over COVID nursing home disaster. Now, the story does sound fun. It actually is just James Comer saying that Cuomo made false statements to Congress and he's referring him to Pam Bondi. The rumor is, I believe it was Steve Bannon who said we should expect to see some arrests by summer, but I won't hold my breath. So seeing this story does make me feel, I would say the dried withered husk of hope that's just disheveled and lying within my core,

maybe pulsed once as soon as this story popped up. But again, does anybody really think they're going to indict Cuomo? No, because he's going to be mayor. Exactly. i was going to say i'm truly conflicted because if they did indict cuomo the the runner-up uh in the uh new york city democratic uh mayoral primary is this socialist named zorhan mamdani this aoc wannabe so that would be a huge disaster it's crazy how i'm actually rooting for cuomo in the new york genocidal maniac why would you be rooting for cuomo against against communists in New York? Because I don't... Wait, is that a serious question?

Because I don't want the communists to... I'm an anti-communist. Ooh, buddy, I'm not so sure about that there. We had that all fight about... No, he changed his mind, remember? You changed your mind about Pratt? He said Bezos shouldn't be taxed. Do you think that Eric Adams should have a shot?

I mean, he doesn't have a shot in the race. I just think Cuomo should be in prison. Yeah. For this. For killing all those people in those COVID nursing homes? This is for sure. Nuremberg trials for Cuomo. For sure.

Were the sexual assault allegations kosher and not kosher? They were kosher with all the women that heard about them. Tara, your time at ABC, I don't know. What's going on with Cuomo? Because I know a lot of the news networks had a really good relationship with him, especially during the pandemic. He was supposed to be like— I wasn't at ABC during the pandemic. I left.

I wasn't into the corporate media. Oh, never mind. I went to go do an Epstein podcast. So as much as you think I protect the corporate media, I wasn't my jam. No, I think just one of them. Oh, yeah. I respect reporters and journalists. When I was a child, I really wanted to be a muckraker. I don't know if. No, I think just one of them. Oh, yeah. I respect reporters and journalists.

Like I actually, when I was a child, I really wanted to be a muckraker. I don't know if you know much about them, but they were Nellie Bly, you know, these type of investigative journalists that could get their hands dirty and they could expose the powerful and hold them to account by getting real facts and information. So to me, accountability journalist, journalism is super important. And I side with people when they find information. Of course, it has to be accurate and it has to be correct. But I do believe at the core of journalism, it's to bring information to light that protects people. I call that activism. I don't call that activism because I don't. Which people do you protect? Because I don't. I go after both sides. No, no, no. I didn't say politically. I said, which people do you protect? I don't protect people. In fact, you know, you just said to protect people. No, no, no. I didn't say politically. I said, which people do you protect? I don't protect people. In fact, you know.

You just said to protect people. No, to protect human beings. Like in general, like as like from from from people who have power, from people with power. And what do people with power do? They abuse it. Like who? We talk about. I mean, at that time it was the robber barons and the way they were treating people in the meatpacking industries.

But now it's people in power. They like look at what happened with the Biden administration. What was that? Would you say like people like Bezos and Bill Gates? Yeah, everyone with power needs to be held into account. No, no, no. What I'm saying, are you implying that they are abusing people? Because it's one thing to say you're in a position of authority and you're in a position of power,

so you should be scrutinized. But it's another thing to be like, I think you're actually doing. No, I would never accuse anybody of anything until I had actual information to be able to do that. What degree of power do you think warrants this kind of spotlight? I think that if you are an elected official, for example, I think if you oversee, you're like a major CEO of a company that sells products to people and maybe there is some sort of like poison in the products, you know, it's about like it's really. So like what is a big corporation that has a customer base? Yeah, a mass customer mass deceiving their customer base. Exactly. It's like I think it's about protecting the masses.

I think it's populism driven. It's a populist form of journalism. Let me ask you. There's like a big company with a million customers. Yeah. And they have deceived all of their customers. Yeah. If you found there was an employee of that company

who knew what was going on and was deceiving these people, that person is to be targeted as well, yes? The employee would be a part of the story for sure. I think... What if the employee is the one doing it? Yeah, that's is to be targeted as well. Yes. The employee would be a part of the story for sure. I think what if the employee is the one doing it? Yeah, that's the story for sure be exposed. Of course, if the employee was doing it, and if they were doing it, like independently, or were they being told by higher ups to do it? I think in general, like this is it is just a populist form of journalism. I started my career at the New York Post, like I've always believed that like the to me, the best thing was when we got, you know, a dinkus as a post got

action. And that meant that whatever we reported resulted in some sort of change. Like what, what degree of proof do you need? Like if there's, let's say that this employee then breaks off and starts his own company and is like, I'm going to do this thing. What degree of proof of intent like menso, would you need to actually publish something that damages their business? Here's where I, this is what I look at. I think, does this story matter? Does it like have impact on human beings' lives? I think about the sources.

I consider my sources. And also, I have a reputation. Like, I've been doing this for 15 years. And I want to make sure that people, when they read my stuff, they're like, oh yeah, that shit's legit. In the same way that when I saw that New York times article, I saw the bylines and I was like, oh, I've worked with those people before. They're legit. And others aren't, you know what I mean? So let me ask you of this company where the guy, he comes out, he's doing this. What do you think they should do? Like, let's say a new story breaks and says this person, they left this

big corporation. They're still doing this evil's say a news story breaks and says this person, they left this big corporation. They're still doing this evil thing. When that story breaks, what should the individual who is accused of evil do? Well, they should defend themselves if they think that they are defensible or they should admit guilt if they did something wrong. Well, who's going to think they're guilty? I mean, everyone thinks they're doing something justified. I don't know. Some people have to admit guilt.

I mean, some people, they don't admit guilt or they just say no I don't know. Some people have to admit guilt. I mean, it's some people, they don't admit guilt or they just say no comment or they hide. It's not like sometimes you have something on tape and it's almost undeniable. I mean, I don't think AI times, it's hard. What if they weren't intentionally deceiving the customers, but they were just wrong the whole time? It's something that it'd be a nuance in the story. Should they shut their company down and say, wow, I can't believe I did did that i think that it depends on the story like i think it really depends on i think there are shades of gray in everything in life like i know it's easy we want to live in this world where there's an answer for everything but there isn't an answer for

everything sometimes you have to make calls you have to make decisions based on what the evidence shows you what if the reporting destroys this person's life? They lose their job. They get canceled, all that stuff. And they never intentionally did something wrong. They just didn't realize what they were doing was wrong and hurting people. I mean, how much power does this person have that they don't know what they're doing is wrong? And it's like, again, it's got to be a story.

A million customers, they think that they're doing something good, but the product is actually bad and the people are being lied to. Well, they have to take accountability for what happened. So whether it's an apology and they say, I am so sorry that this happened. I didn't know that what I was, the chicken I was selling you had whatever chlorine. I know they use chlorine in chicken actually now, but whatever you want to use, some sort of product. But should they quit? Should they shut down? If there, if it depends on the situation if the if it wasn't like it depends i don't know i guess what i'm saying is like if they may not even have to shut

down they could try to keep going and they just might my argument is if a story breaks accusing this person of wrongdoing yeah no no one's going to accept that yeah yeah so it's it's like what is actually accomplished what do you mean it's exposing something that's happening in the world like we can't live in a place where information is like you need information to make decisions we need truth we need that's power so if so let me ask you truth is how we protect ourselves if you got i don't want to live in la la land if. If you got a leaked message from this company and maybe some people who worked with this person and releasing it would destroy their business, it didn't necessarily show that they were evil,

but that what they were doing was probably hurting people. You would release it for sure. If I had the sourcing, if I had done the reporting, if I had gotten down to the story and had as complete a story as possible including the fact that this person may be unaware of what they're doing which I would include in the story allowing the readers to decide you know um I would if I thought it was harming the public I would release it yeah I would because I think it's important for people to know and I I do think that like we don't live in this world that we live in right now if it wasn't for those people who have who have risked, you know, they risk their own

lives to try to report. I hope and I pray that that journalist exists and they get you. Why? For what? Well, you worked for the big corporation that was lying to the American people. You started your own company. You still lie to the American people. How do I lie to the American people? Your defense of the corporate news industry. I'm not defending the corporate industry. But I'm just making a point. I'm not. You view yourself as largely righteous. I'm not righteous. I'm doing this. I have a goal. What's wrong with having a mission and having a goal in life? What's wrong with wanting to do the right thing? You said that. The point is you think you are morally justified in going after these people. And I'm not saying you aren't. But going after who? People that you'd view as having power. Power is like. You have power. You have lots of power. You have

substantially more power than 99% of people in this country. And you know what? If people, if I do something wrong and someone finds out about it and they have correct reporting, fine. I will answer to it. What if you report on a manufacturing business because some guy at the top took a kickback of 10 grand and it results in the company going out of business and 100 employees lose their job? And now middle class working guy in the middle of the country says, I'm homeless and destitute because of you. I mean, these are complex questions, but indeed it is. Which is my point is when you say that you're saying that we shouldn't just not cover powerful people. We should just let everybody run amok.

Certainly not. I'm saying to be Russia. Like, what do you want? You have a myopic, morally righteous worldview where you think you are you are true and correct and other people are not. I don't think I'm I don't think I'm perfect. The point I'm the point I'm making is that I have an appropriate response in the Signalgate story would have been to just for Goldberg to just say, oh, my God. Yeah. Yeah. Right. You can calm down. It would have been for him to just say, guys, take me off this chat instead of destroying the lives over a stupid texting error.

Say, guys, never let this happen again. It could get people hurt. You shouldn't put me on it. We'll keep it private. That employee who loses his job because you blow the whistle on one at one guy at a mid-level who took a kickback would say, why didn't you just keep this under wraps? We would have all kept our jobs. Why did you have to destroy our lives because he did something wrong? But here's the thing. How do we know that because one guy gets fired that the whole company goes under?

How do we know that somebody else doesn't just get promoted and take that job? It looks like three people got fired from the DOD because of the Signalgate reporting. Yeah, they'll get another job, I'm sure. I'm sure they can learn to code. They'll be fine, right? You said Americans don't care about SignalLeak,

but apparently 74% of US adults do. And I'm sure they can learn to code. They'll be fine. You said Americans don't care about signal leak, but apparently 74 percent of U.S. adults do. And that includes Republicans. That's according to YouGov. And you've also referenced the question. The question was, yeah, I tend not to reference share of Americans who you did, though. Many times you said Echelon, you said Pew. Is that three polls at once? You definitely mentioned at least three in this. Exactly. I like to use polls that are multivariate results, different polls. If I'm not allowed to use polls, but you are, let me know. I'm allowed to use three polls. I'm asking you if you're citing one.

I don't give it as much weight. You also said Rasmussen earlier. And 48% of people— I didn't say Rasmussen. Rasmussen, sorry. You did say it at one—Rasmussen, whatever. You said it earlier. I didn't.

I'm pretty sure I recall you saying that, but 48% of people. We learned recently that's pronounced Rasmussen by the guy from Rasmussen who came here. And also, I just want to say the definition of classified information includes, quote, information providing indication or advance warning that the U.S. or its allies are preparing an attack. Does Pete Hexheff have the authority over the DOD's information, whether it's classified or not? I think Trump is the one who decides, right, about classification. I don't know that.

Universally, but what about specifically DOD information? I don't know that answer. It is Hexheff. Okay. So if he says it's not classified, it's not. The ultimate issue that I bring up with all these questions is. Well, he better hope he's right. The appropriate way that you handle a thing like this is to say, guys, take me off this text chat. And there's no story. But what if they take you off the text chat and carry on committing a crime, like you said, the National Records Act violating that? Well, the Biden administration did that, too. So perhaps the response should be, hey, guys, you know, the Biden administration and probably Obama and now the Trump administration are all doing this thing. Yeah.

It seems like all the administration. I don't think there was Signal during Obama years. There was. It was? Yeah, but I doubt they used it because it was new. I think it was like 2014. I don't remember. Actually, I'm pretty sure we used Signal back in 2011.

Really? Yeah, but I don't think they used it. The point is, the use of this is more an administrative issue between, it's like, we're not going to go and arrest Obama, Biden, and Trump because of a National Records Act violation. We're going to say, this should not be allowed. Congress needs to quash this immediately. My point is there is this this argument about journalism is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. But what we often end up with, especially in this generation, I don't think that that's absolutely what journalism is. That's the famous quote.

OK, some people say that it's some one person said that. I don't know. And journalists and go to J school and they preach it and they love it. So my concern is when you see instances like this, there is appropriate ways to handle things for the betterment of humanity. Yeah. But the but Goldberg did not do that. But actually, in some ways, I think if he caused division, chaos and fighting. Or he showed the American people how that what a text error happened, how white how the White House conducts itself, how it's the national security apparatus conduct itself. Errors happen all the time. Trump tweeted Kfefi. That's not that wasn't a that wasn't a preplanned information about an attack. Joe Biden stole classified documents for the purpose of selling a book and making money.

Right? So did Trump. Trump didn't do it to make money. Trump had knickknacks from various boxes from his daily briefings. Whatever they wanted to use it for, both of them did. So did Pence. So did Pompeo.

All these guys take their classified documents. Only Trump got prosecuted for it. No, I think they tried to. And I agree with you that the Biden thing was pretty weak, just saying he was an old man. And that was the reason they weren were prosecuting him was pretty pathetic. So it is clear that there are appropriate ways to handle things that minimize damage, solve the problem without causing disarray for the United States. What Goldberg and the media apparatus did with Signalgate and what they're continuing to do now isn't actually solving the problem of signal being used or of accidentally texting people.

It's just a part as partisan hackery. How do we know that that hasn't stopped the use of signal? It hasn't stopped the use of signal by elected officials. I mean, by appointed officials, according to the four anonymous sources, I'm saying in their view, it's still happening. I don't know if they said it was still happening. I thought that they said it was or it was happening concurrently. I haven't read. And the other issue on top of this is the second Signalgate story, which, again, is largely a liberal Democrat phenomenon because the right doesn't care about it. Yeah, I mean, you can say what people there's no information as to what was in these chats. It's just vagaries. So why is this the news? This is not speaking truth to power.

This is not holding anyone to account. This is not a mission. This is partisan nonsense. I don't think it's partisan nonsense. I don't know why you're defending them. They look like fools. I think this is the issue. You believe truth is the defense of Trump. I believe truth is truth. Truth is the defense of Trump. Me saying a flat statement. We don't know what's in these texts. You said, why are you defending them? I'm not. I'm saying we don't know what's in the texts. We saw the text. They printed. No, no, no, no. Second signal gate. Oh, that's still to come. I mean, I have to look at the story. Sure.

When the anonymous people want to publish information, maybe they will. We can have a conversation about whether it was good or bad. I just, okay, let me see if they've actually published. This is the issue with modern journalism today is that dispassion is viewed as defense of Trump. Dispassion? You're fighting me. This is passion. On truth, not Trump.

I'm fighting you against the media. You're telling me that this journalist should not have actually published these. I don't agree with you on that. I don't agree with you. I'm not talking about the corporate media. Don't try to conflate it. That's what you're trying to do. I think that in this situation, that if I had those messages, I would have done what Jeffrey Goldberg did. Why are you defending Jeffrey Goldberg? Because you're attacking him. And I think that I would have done what he did. Why are you defending Jeffrey Goldberg? Because you're attacking him, and I think that I would have done what he did. I really do. Okay. Well, I'm not defending the

Trump administration's use of Signalgate. Okay. I'm happy to hear that. Or use of Signal. That's cool. I'm happy to hear it. Right. So my point is, when you say, why are you defending them? This has been the trope in the Trump era. The thing that you keep saying over and over again is that Americans don't care. So this is just a made up manufactured story. It's political. And people don't care. People don't care. People don't care. People don't care. Okay. A lot of people don't care about a lot of things that matter. And we can acknowledge that. We don't know what's in second signal gate. We'll find out. So for what is the purpose of running the story front page in New York times? Because his wife is on it. How do you know? That's what they're

reporting for sources, not one, like you said, or anonymous sources. We don't know. We've seen no evidence. OK, so why are you defending this? This this attack against Trump? Why are you anti-Trump? I'm not anti-Trump. Why would you say I'm defending Trump if I said we don't know what's in them and you call you call that a defense? Then I call you anti-Trump. How about this? Why? If it's not true, then why did I don't know if it's true? I don't care what now we don't care if it's real or not. That's my point the whole time. No, no, no. If the second chat isn't real, like you said, and you're questioning why it's on the cover

of the New York Times, why did Sean Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesperson, not deny it? Why did he not respond to the New York Times and say, this is fake news? Because they still haven't denied it. Don't know. Can't read his mind. Even Hegseth, which we should, if they still haven't denied it. Don't know, can't read his mind. They have not denied it yet.

They have not, even Hegseth, which we should, if you have produced this year. I don't know, I can't read his mind. We should probably play the actual video of, I could probably find it because I think I played it by accident. But we should play what Hegseth says because I don't think he's denying it again.

So my view is that we have an accusation with no evidence and there's some politicking going on. Well, first of all, the Pentagon hasn't denied it yet. So what? So you're saying it's fake, but no one else has. No, I did not say it's fake. You're the only one saying it's fake.

I don't think you can understand what I'm saying. No, I do understand what you're saying. You don't. You said it's based on one source. There are four people that said it was not. It's based on one source. I genuinely think you can't understand the words that I'm saying. I can understand the words that you're saying. You don't understand what you're saying i do okay we

have a political story with no evidence for what reason is this front page news because this if the i bet you that this wouldn't be front page news by the way if the pentagon just denied it i bet you can you answer the the question. I know it matters. It matters if he's doing it again, because as we said, it was a mistake. If you commit a mistake twice, Signalgate, in your words, an accident, a mistake. If you can, he didn't accidentally text anybody wrong in this in this story. OK, this story says that he's on a text chat with his wife about with with more classified. He didn't accidentally text a journalist again. OK, let's just listen to what he said, because I don't think he's—let's see what happened.

It's not about texting the journalist. It's about sharing classified information again. How do we know he shared classified information? Because that's what the story says, that the Pentagon is not denying— It says specifically classified? Explicitly said that he shared classified information. About forthcoming strikes. That's, again, future strikes.

And like I said, when I actually gave you the definition of classified, which we can go over again, classification, information classified, according to definition of classified information, information providing indication or advance warning that the U York Times. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth shared detailed information about forthcoming strikes in Yemen on March 15th in a private signal group chat that included his wife, brother, and personal lawyer, according to four people, with knowledge of the chat. Okay? And if—he can—sure. Listen, he could declassify it after. You could—sure, you could say that. It could never be classified. But then here's the question. If it's not real, why not deny it?

Why not deny it? I think we're missing the forest for the trees. I agree. And why I'm saying that is because in the second signal chat, there wasn't a journalist added. So one might ask, oh, how did these leaks get out?

It was most likely that one of the people that was fired for allegedly leaking is now continuing to leak against Hag Seth because he has an ax to grind. One of the people that was fired for allegedly leaking is now continuing to leak against Hegseth because he has an axe to grind. One of the people who was fired for allegedly leaking was the same guy who was Pete Hegseth's contact man in the first Signalgate chat. So it makes sense that this guy,

one of the same guys who was his contact man in the first Signalgate chat, continued leaking, got fired, and now he's continuing to leak because he has personal animus and has an axe to grind with hexeth and the prior and uh with the that's interesting does that make sense to you because i think when we're doing journalism we also need to understand when why do sources come forth why did any of these guys come forth because again they haven't

they're disgruntled employees with an axe to grow i don't think they also are concerned about the way that the department of defense is being run no not one You don't think they also are concerned about the way the Department of Defense is being run? No, not one. I don't think they give a shit at all. You don't care. I think these are guys who didn't want us to attack Iran and leaked our attack plans to the New York Times. Yeah, you think that. Well, what do you mean I think that?

You have no evidence. Did the New York Times have the reporting? You said you have a hunch. No, I'm asking you a question. Did the New York Times have the reporting that said that we were going to attack Iran? About our attack plans for Iran, correct? But you're saying who you think the source is.

The Department of Defense came... Pete Hegseth said these guys were the leakers. Yeah, yeah, he could say that. Okay, so according to Pete Hegseth, the leader of the Pentagon, right? Yeah, but he also says a lot of things. Like, he denied the last thing. So, no, I think it's pretty obvious, too, because, again, these guys were fired.

And, again, if you looked at the Signal chat, which you were reading to us earlier, you'd see the name of one of the people who was fired was his contact man there. So, obviously, there's an ax to grind, and it's a disgruntled employee. And if you were a good journalist, you'd know that this actually comes up all the time half of the sources for people are just people who are pissed off at others and people in their company all of these sources are former i do i listen i agree with you that there are a lot of people no but that's what we're missing here that this is really about iran and uh whether in the iran nuclear deal and the jcpoa part two potentially and i think we're missing that.

The story here is about those two camps fighting within the Department of Defense. The establishment media would rather run with this and say the whole department is disarrayed because they want to just slander Trump. And here's the real issue here. Tomorrow, potentially, when Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt has a press briefing. The first, you know, 80% of the questions are going to be on this essential non-story that, again, I don't think matters to most Americans. I think most Americans are worried about the economy. I think most Americans are worried about safety. And the question

is, in any investigation, is qui bono? What's that? Qui bono? Yes. What is that Latin for? For who is to gain. Okay. So when a source comes forth a is that Latin for? For who is to gain. Okay. So when a source comes forward with a story, the question is for who is to gain. If there was a story about toxic sludge being put in our milk and kids were going to drink it,

the person who is to gain largely is the people who are saved from drinking it. Right, yeah. But the source who comes forward, what is their motivation? What do they gain by bringing the story forward? Maybe they are actually whistleblowers. Right. Yeah. But the source who comes forward, what is their motivation? What do they gain by bringing the story forward? Maybe they are actually whistleblowers. Do you believe in good people? For most people, it's because, holy crap, kids are going to die from this. Yeah.

Some people are good. In a story like this, with four anonymous sources about a signal chat with information that Hegseth is allowed to disclose, who gains? What is gained from this? I mean, it's unclear if he's really allowed to disclose it, though. No, it's not. He's the head of the DOD. He decides what operations

are going to be classified. Also, aren't you concerned about him disclosing that kind of stuff? To his wife? No. And not just his wife, his brother and his lawyer?

Yeah, no. Isn't his brother also listed as one of his advisors or legal counsel? Which is also weird nepotism. Should make sense for his lawyer to be there. See, that's heavily biased.

Why is that heavily biased? If that happened to the Biden administration, you'd be like, what the fuck is happening? Two of my brothers work for my company. OK, why wouldn't I hire people? I know you are in a private company. This is public. So what?

This is the government. This is American taxpayers paying their salaries. There are anti-nepotism laws out there. You know that you hate this administration. So I don't. Why do you keep saying that? Because no matter what comes up, you don't ask out there. You know that, right? You hate this administration so much. No, I don't. Why do you keep saying that? Because no matter what comes up, you don't ask basic questions. You want to know why?

You just keep attacking the administration. I'm not a Girl Scout, OK? I don't like any administrations for any reasons. I am here to get down to the bottom of it. Not the Trump administration or the Biden administration or any administration. I've never been a cheerleader, OK? This is the CNN ethos. No, it's not. It in fact is. I've never been a cheerleader, okay? This is the CNN ethos. No, it's not.

It in fact is. I am, listen. Christiane Amanpour at News Exchange in Morocco said that this is the idea that the people in power are always bad. And she went on to add, that can't always be the case, can it? This mentality that Trump is always evil is insane.

Listen, I'm not saying- Hanketh is wrong no matter what he does I am not saying that everyone is always wrong but I think that you need to hold power to account that is our right as you define it sure if you think that they're not powerful people fine they certainly are but I think that the corporate media is substantially worse I am not a part of the corporate media stop like telling you I haven't worked in the corporate media two or three years from now when in that statement did I am not a part of the corporate media. Stop telling me. I haven't worked in the corporate media in two or three years from now. When in that statement did I say you as part of the corporate media are worse? Because you keep being like,

I'm a defender of the corporate media. I'm a defender of journalism, okay? And sometimes good journalism is committed at corporate media. We define this as factual but not truthful. What do you mean? It means that you will say things that are only technically correct

to mislead the audience. I feel like you're doing that all the time how i mean you are actually saying unfactual things too what like when you said that there was only one anonymous that the only thing you got and there were other things as well but i can remember that you're really latching on to me misstating one detail of a story that just came out today you want to know you you know you know what the things that are are unfactual that you say the attacks on me. Those are unfactual. Those are opinions. I still think that they're unfactual opinions. OK, well, opinions aren't facts. And my opinion, based on the way you behave, is an opinion based on the way you behave.

My opinion based on the way you behave is very unfair. I think you're heavily biased. And instead of assessing the facts of a case. You're really biased. Your bias, though, is towards defending the administration. So once again. So you're acting like you work for them. You might as well be Caroline Leavitt. And I would not want to be that. I just think that's so lame.

You're overly emotional. I think that is so lame. Lame is an ad hominem. Okay. Instead of saying. That's an ad hominem attack. Who benefits from. I'm emotional.

But lame is an. Who benefits from the leak? Emotional versus lame. I would rather be emotional rather than lame. Emotional is a fact statement. Lame is an ad hominem. Okay. Sure. Who benefits from leaking the story about He versus lame. I would rather be emotional rather than lame. Emotional is a fact statement. Lame is an ad hominem. Okay, sure. Who benefits from leaking the story about Hegseth in the second single chat?

What is the purpose of this story? It shows the American people that they are continuing to do the mistake that they did the first time. There's no journalist on this chat. And also, why is his family on the chat? Because he talks to his family. And why does his family need to know in advance about an attack on a country? Maybe he's saying, I'm going to work and I've got a meeting because there's going to be something happening in Yemen.

I don't understand why they would need to have the details. You don't know what's in those chats. You are assuming something bad happened without evidence. Facing it on the reporting from The New York Times that the chief spokesperson to the Pentagon has not denied yet. And you are assuming until he denies it, I will assume it is true. Why are you assuming it's bad? Why are you assuming it's bad? It sounds great. Why are you assuming it's a bad thing? I think it's a great thing. No, it's not a great thing for to share details of an attack with your family.

You don't know what's in the texts. We know this is why all of these outlets got obliterated on the Covington story. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We do know. When these kids were at the Lincoln Memorial, all of the corporate press rushed to do exactly what you're doing. Instead of actually waiting till we know what's going on, we're going to assume every degree of this that it was wrong and bad. And that's what separates me from them.

And that's what separates the new media sphere. People who are actually saying, well, what happened? What are the facts of the case? And the people saying, I don't care. I just know it's bad. OK, well, I don't know it's bad. I don't know what happened, which is the same deal with the Carmelo Anthony story, which many on the right jumped on. We have a police report with 33 witnesses and two statements.

It sounds bad, but we don't have all the details. Why has the corporate press for 20 some odd years assume? Let's just do this. During the Trump administration years, the corporate press has assumed every single instance of has been framed negatively against Trump. We now have the Maryland man hoax. We had obviously the very fine people hoax. We had the injecting bleach hoax. It's always the worst possible interpretation, no matter what. Why couldn't Jeffrey Goldberg say, guys, don't put me on this chat? And there's not a story that doesn't it doesn't need to be brought up. OK, I just I just found something that I remembered. So that the whole thing with Goldberg, right, he didn't want to have to reveal the text is what he said. He said if he had any regrets about how the story played out, he said that he wished the Trump administration hadn't challenged his first story, forcing him to write a second one with the compromising details. So what? Why did they have to deny it if it was real? Deny what? That it was war plans? Deny all of it. They denied that there were war

plans. No, they denied that day three after the plans came out. What was the, you never played for us the audio of him actually saying it never happened. By the way, qui bono means who benefits. Right. To whom benefits. It's Latin if you want to phrase it one way or the other. Fine. Okay. But here you, they denied it all. They called him a slime ball. They denied it. And then, so then because of that because he said he denied it because they all denied it what the next day was just published the text what was what was his his direct verbatim statement about what was included in the texts that was semantics like everyone who is watching this is smart i asked you a fact question plans versus attacks that's not what i asked versus attacks i asked you what he said was included in it the specific details i'm sorry

what are you asking about the first the first story or the second story first story jeffrey goldberg says yeah it includes this specific information yeah he didn't give the information though he just he did outline it he generalized it was he wrong no he wasn't no he said it included locations it did it did not yes it did It said the apartment of the guy and his girlfriend. Which one? Do you want me to go over and read this over again? Because I feel like your listeners are going to be bored. Does the word apartment identify which apartment and where? Dude, I'm going to play it. I'm going to read it again if you're going to make me do this. Because you can't understand that house. I'm going to go to a house. Does that tell you where and

when I'll be somewhere? What city I'll be in? What state I'll be in? What country? Okay. So to say that we have the locations of strikes and then you don't have them? Strike Jones on target. This when the first bombs will definitely drop.

Where? Pending earlier triggered base targets. Second strike starts. Also first sea-based Tomahawks launched. More to follow per timeline. Okay. Where? Let's keep going. I know. C-based. Tomahawks launched. More to follow per timeline. Okay. Where? Let's keep going.

I know. I asked you where. Why are you reading random things? BP building collapsed. Why are you reading random things? I'm not reading random things. I'm reading the text message. I'm reading through it.

Do you think I have this on the back of my head? I don't just spew things out of my head. I actually like to have facts. Okay. Apparently you don't because you had to pull it up and you didn't know what he said. Yeah, because I actually want to make sure that what I say is accurate. I don't just say it just for the, just to sound excited and enthused and just say it. I mean, I suppose you could actually read the story before making an assertion. I am reading the text. Afterwards, you've already made the claims for several hours, for an hour and a half.

I have read it. I just don't remember the actual quotes you're you're just now you just seem like a jerk just so you know this you are actually just bullying me i am reading centcom i don't know the story so you're being a bully i'm not saying i don't know come on i gotta look it up i'm looking okay so where is i'm reading it centcom was slash is on point great job all more there's no location in the hours tonight okay there's no location he was wrong that's the point you didn't even remember what was said but you were starting a fact without more strikes going on for hours tonight. There's no location. He was wrong. That's the point. You didn't even remember what was said, but you were asserting a fact without checking.

Hold on a second. The location is not included. Location and weapons were not included in the story. I know this because I've read it and we've covered it like 17 times. Why are you covering it so much if you don't think anyone matters? Because it was the top trending news story and the argument we made

was that it was a non-issue being brought up by for political reasons. Because the appropriate response from Goldberg is, guys, just take me off the chat, not sit on it for several days, accuse them of wrongdoing, refuse to publish only after getting called out. Turns out you didn't actually have the information you claimed you did. I'm going to find it because it does say the apartment building. How would I how would we know about this apartment building in Yemen if it wasn't for this?

Which apartment building? Where? In Yemen. I know, but what's the target? Hold on. All right. We're going to go, while you're doing that, we got to grab a sponsor before we go to our Super Chats.

My friends, AMAC. AMAC. Advocacy. Very cool. I was actually surprised to hear this. Did you guys know the AARP has promoted Drag Queen Story Hour events? This is terrible news. You might know about it.

For real. For real. I just got my first AARP mailer. No, no, no. I don't. I don't. None of that. None of that.

So it's AMAC.US slash Timcast. You can join. Let me say this. I actually I read that. I looked it up. They did and they do. This is the same group that claims to represent America's seniors, but they've backed radical left wing causes for years. They supported Obamacare, opposed Trump tax cuts. They're pushing a progressive agenda that most people never signed up for. That's why there's a Mac, the Association of Mature American Citizens. It's a conservative alternative to AARP. It's not just for AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens. It's a conservative alternative to AARP. It's not just for seniors. Anyone can join it no matter your age. AMAC fights

to protect Social Security, security, election integrity and stand up for American values in Washington. Plus, members get serious perks, discounts on travel, insurance, prescriptions, and their award winning AMAC magazine actually respects the truth in your values. Right now, you can get a five yearyear membership for just $31. That's 47% off the regular price, but only until April 30th. Unlike AARP, your dues won't fund woke nonsense. They help AMAC fight for the country you believe in. Go to amac.us slash timcast.

Join today. That's amac.us slash timcast. Shout out. We really do appreciate the sponsorship. We'll grab your chats. Don't forget, we're going to have the members only uncensored show coming up in about a half an hour. I'm not going to be here. Phil's going to be running the uncensored show with all your call-ins because a lot and I have to leave at the wee hours of the morning to go to the White House, which I'm not sure a lot was supposed to say, but he said anyway, so now

everyone knows. It's a really exciting day tomorrow. Hopefully we're still invited. No, no, no. They sent out another email saying that TimCast is going to be in rotation at the White House press pool, which is a great privilege, and we're excited to be there. Indeed, we'll be fun. But we will go to your super chats unless you wanted to make a point before we do. Yeah, one last thing. There was enough information in that text that the Israelis complained that their sources were compromised and they were upset about their sources via the apartment leak.

Interesting. Yeah. It was enough information to upset our allies. Israel. Now I'm mad about it. Just kidding. We like to have a good time. We like to have a good time. Good luck tomorrow in the White House. That'll be fun. Thanks. Oh, interesting. We got so many super chats. Guys, I hate to say this to you,

but when we get too many, YouTube deletes some, which is really annoying because it shouldn't do that. But we do have your Rumble Rants and the chat is on fire tonight. P Coro Rod, is that how you say that?

With current events, I'm reminded of the book and movie Angels and Demons. I quite enjoyed them. But what do you guys think of the story? I don't know that one. Angels and Demons. I quite enjoyed them. But what do you guys think of the story? I don't know that one. Angels and Demons, the war book?

No, no. It's the prequel to Da Vinci Code, I think. Oh, that one, yeah. Oh, yes. Is that the one that has CERN in that one? I prefer National Treasure with Nicolas Cage. Nicolas Cage is one of our greatest actors. Independence.

Yeah. The Dan Diamond book? Diamond? Who wrote it? I don't know. Dan Diamond.. Yeah. The Dan Diamond book? Diamond? Who wrote it? Is that, I don't know. Not Dan Diamond. Who wrote the Angels and Demons?

Hold on a second. I feel like I read it at some point. Angels in the Outfield? I have to warn you, the chat is, is. Spicy.

Spicy. St. Miles says, thanks Tim for bringing a Krasenstein clone on the show. Dan Brown wrote it. Dan Brown. Oh, well thank you.

I can't imagine that your fans would be fans of me, but you know what? I like to go into the fire. I'm not afraid. It's respected. It is respected. I'm not afraid of the storm. We appreciate you coming. We did. That was good. In fact, I actually would like to engage more with people like you

because I think it's important to have that kind of dialogue. It's not like I came here thinking that you were going to be like a softball. I actually think most people were enjoying it. I hope you come back. I will, actually. Definitely. Hopefully. It's the most engaging conversation. However, I'm going to

try to find chats from people that are good, but these are the first few. I'm just warning you. Sausa says, look, another reason women should never be in positions of power. All emotion, no actual argument and plays the I'm not able to speak on this BS. Or I don't just shoot out bullshit out of my mouth. I like to be backed up. Or maybe women want to be substantial and have substantial arguments.

I don't just say things with confidence and then everyone's like, yeah, she's right. It's just that's not how we work. We're actually trying to be, you know, have some evidence. Three Star Perfect Deer says, we finally get a guest woman who can talk against Tim's bulldozing off subjects. Dumb, I bought a cheeseburger story and y'all hate her. She's awesome. And y'all are dudes with insecurities. Thanks, guys.

There you go. You can find me at Tara Palmieri. And I do interview people on both sides of the aisle. And actually, last week, I interviewed Rahm Emanuel. And I gave it to him. I asked him, you're going to appreciate this. When did you know about Biden's conditions? And who did you tell?

And he was very flustered. It made news. It was everywhere, probably on some of the websites you read, because he had a hard time. I was like, you were in a very top position in a strategic place in the world. So why didn't you? Yeah. And then he said to me, I was like, are you going to run in 2028? Because that's obviously why he's on podcasts.

And he was obviously very squirmy about that. And I was just like, stop being a politician. How long ago was that? It was last week. Oh, really? Because I was under the impression that he was going to get a job in like the financial world. He already has a job there, but he's running in 2028. Really?

Yeah. He's got a sub stack. This is like a thing right now. So all these Democrats are now out there like doing podcasts. They're trying to catch up. Yeah. Newsom's got a podcast. Yeah, exactly.

They're trying to demons trying to infiltrate. It was my sense that because that because he was he had kind of decided to go into the financial world that that was kind of being like, OK, I'm the Democrat Party is not really for me this round. I feel like that's bad. That's a bad vibe. If you're in the financial world, especially now, Democrats, I mean. OK, he not only is working in the financial world, he's got he worked for The Washington Post and CNN. I mean, they're it's just such a weird. I think they're trying to they're like 15 years behind the Republicans right now when it comes to media and they're catching up. And it's really awkward and kind of like, listen, I'm happy to have guests on my show, but I do look at it and I'm just like that.

You can't come on here and think I'm just going to like not. I think every single person who worked for Biden needs to answer in their first question. What did you know? When did you know it? And why didn't you say anything? The crazy thing, crazy thing to me about liberal. Accountability. That's accountability.

The crazy thing about liberal personalities and podcasters to me is that they have arguments they can make that they never do. Like the arguments they present are usually like half brained and easily dismantled. And I'm just like, who's's one of the liberal podcasters that you pay attention to and watch? Pac-Man. Would you call him a podcaster, though? He's more of a...

Bill Maher? Bill Maher, I wouldn't call him... He's a podcaster now, but Bill Maher's issue is not so much that he's got bad... His arguments are easily debunked. It's that he's missing a lot of the facts. He's trying, though.

So I do think for him... He's also a comedian. Well, he hosts one of the premier political talk shows in the country for the past— Right, that's true. Comedians not talk about war? What was that? I was just going to say— No, like, Bill Maher—

Bill Maher is not—I don't think it's fair to call him a comedian. Okay. And what I mean by that is he is a political commentator and comedian. And I believe comedian is the subset because his principal shtick for his whole life, as far as— as long as I've known him, I should say, since I was a kid with politically incorrect, has always been talking about politics and then being kind of funny about it. He's a comedian like Colbert is a comedian, like they're late night guys. No, no, no. Like Colbert is literally just a comedian. Colbert is a propagandist, but sure.

Sure. My point is Colbert, John Oliver, they're making they're writing jokes and trying to jam politics into it. Bill Maher is talking politics and then trying to sometimes make a joke. So I view Bill Maher first as a political, a pundit political commentary guy. He has monologues, though, on his show. They try to be funny and he does stand up. But it's like you never think of his stand up. He actually trained in comedy, though, for most of his life. I know. Yeah. But my point is is what is your what is what is your principal role and for colbert it's uh colbert is a talk show it's it's entertainment it's whatever so he's a comedian and they do some politics john oliver it's make jokes but make it political

bill maher is talk politics on friday night with a variety of high profile political guests and then do a monologue or something after the, like before or after the fact. So the show is largely political. All right, let's grab, Kay Shiloh Williams says, quote, I respect those reporters. First mistake, journalists are worthy of nothing but contempt, a den of snakes to the last. They are a den of snakes. I will agree that some of the worst infighting is in a newsroom. Like it is so hard to work together and just getting through the bureaucracy and the bullshit and the competitiveness like that is why i am so pro

independent media because like just dealing with everybody's even different agendas happens everywhere though it's human nature it's new it's human nature so like the sooner you can get away from that i think that's when you can do the best journalism problem it's like there's some people need to have some experience so just like learning how to be investigative and investigators and make choices like the kind that tim brought up like when do you go to print like do you go like i wouldn't go on one source you know what i mean but someone who maybe doesn't know it they do and then there goes their whole career nobody's ever going to listen to anything they're like the boy who cried well so the the issue with the corporate press today is that intelligence actors have been doing this for a long time, but largely in the

past 20 years. There is a particular individual who I will leave unnamed to avoid litigation. But what the intelligence agencies did was they contacted her when she was very young and entry-level position at a publication and said, hey, I work for this organization. I've got a story for you. She was making a low salary. She then goes to her boss and says, I was contacted by this person. I have a source now in insert intelligence agency. And they say, wow, can you vet this person? Indeed, vetted. We have an official source in intelligence in the United States telling us Trump did bad thing. Yep. Run it. Oh, I know. Yeah. Story gets a million views. Source high fives his buddies saying Operation Success. We fed bullshit to the media and she ran it. Let's keep doing it. The editor of the news organization knows a single source

with a partisan bent is a bad source. But they're saying, I don't care. We're a blog and we're getting a million views, an article and we're making 20 grand every time she does this. She gets promoted. She transfers promotion promotion promotion premiere on all the talk shows late night hosts all of that stuff and it was propped up by intelligence officers trying to push a narrative that was anti-trump i've got another story that i can't show on youtube so we will show in the uncensored portion i'll have phil yeah take it but he knows exactly he'll understand when he sees the link that i pulled up. Actually, I'll just describe it and then he can show the photo. It's a photo of a dead girl and an award winning, I believe was an award winning photo, except the real photo,

in my opinion, that everybody recognizes as the real photo is one of the photographers walked away from the gaggle and took a picture of all of the journalists huddling around a dead girl to get a photo. And I believe the real photo that may have won the award was a spattering of journalists all getting the perfect angle of a corpse and that's what journalists are vultures and that's why they call themselves vultures because they know it i don't know about that they do call themselves vultures what was this i've never heard journalists revolt refer to themselves as vultures. Indeed. What's the context of this? What's the context of it?

Let me, I have the story pulled up but I can't show the clips. How did the girl die? Is it a war zone? A 15-year-old died from a stray bullet in Haiti. Okay, it's a war zone.

It's Haiti. I mean, it's a conflict zone. It's not, it's a conflict zone. I would call it a war zone in Haiti. Well, there is a difference.

Okay, I mean, the distinction matters, right? Because I've been in conflict. I've been in active conflict, but I've never been in war. OK, so. OK, fine. Maybe you don't want to use the word war. One, two, three, four, five, six, seven journalists are all crowding around with photographs of her dead body. But does it? But here's the question, though. Does the picture of that woman who is already dead, it's not like they were crowding around a girl who was gasping for her last breath. Okay. And again, this is actually a really interesting like question, you know, like, what do you do as a journalist when you're around people who are suffering? Like, this is this is so crazy. I'm not even making this up. But I put the video on my phone. But

last week, I was walking down the street, and I saw one man being attacked by seven people. Okay. And he was just a security guard outside of a Lululemon. And these guys were just like pummeling him, punching him, six guys. And so I was like going up to him, like, stop it, stop it. And I'm like, what do I do? Right. And then this girl comes out of nowhere and like punches me in the face.

Okay. This is happening on 14th street in New York city. Yeah. Crazy. And then I called 911 and then I stepped away and I started recording it because obviously like they saw me and they punched me, although it wasn't a hard punch. It was like, she couldn't hit, you know, you would appreciate this. Women aren't the best at throwing punches. Right. So I was lucky in that case, but, um, I was recording it and I got the, you know, I got the, luckily the police came, they arrested two of the kids.

I gave them the footage. But like, there is sort of a moment you're like, you have to decide, like, are you supposed to get involved in the story? Are you supposed to document the story? You know what I mean? In that case, I was like, I was like, this guy's going to die on the street if I don't do something. And then I have a question for you.

Yeah. And let's say you're in an active conflict zone. And a woman carrying a bag of groceries gets shot in the leg and falls down and she's bleeding. Yeah. Do you film that? I don't know. I honestly have not been in that situation before. And like, it's really hard. Like that was the closest I had really gotten to. And that was just last week. And it was like, and my instinct was to jump in and try to save them. The reason I ask is journalists are conflicted on this point. Yeah, it's a hard one. There. I've been in numerous circumstances. Maybe you have a lot where, say, a cop clubbed some activist over the head and left them bleeding. And they've got medics tending to

their wounds and they scream, stop filming me. And the journalists on scene. So this actually happened in Chicago during NATO protests 10 years ago. There was a group of protesters. The cops were pushing the group out. Don't know how it started. I'll blame the protesters when they actually start to bounce. But I don't know who did at this point. One of the guys got hit in the head by a cop with a billy club. They were bleeding, brought to the side. And then journalists started crowding around filming. And the person started screaming, get away from me, stop filming me. The medic said, stop filming him, and the journalist said, we have to film this,

we have to show the world what they're doing. So then the activists physically attacked, the group of protesters formed a line and then screamed, charged the journalists and started attacking the journalists. No, I mean, listen, it's not, I don't, it's a hard situation to be in i don't know yeah it's a really but i think you can't like paint that entire profession um listen journalists have a very low approval rating they already have about like what is it like 23 they're basically at congress a couple of things on this um as somebody who's been field reporting for over five years um and my experience with other journalists in the field

makes me totally self-loathing. A lot of these reporters and camera people are absolutely some of the worst people you could imagine. Tim's spot on when he was describing them as vultures. I do come across some moral quandaries, though, in my reporting. So, for example, protesters do get mad at me when I film them doing illegal stuff. And do they have the right to be? Probably not.

Is it understandable, though? Maybe because... You want to just read that for me? It's too small. A secret Facebook... No, no, start from the beginning. The Vulture Club refers to a secret Facebook group for freelance journalists to share information and resources related to news production,

particularly concerning fixers, safety, and other aspects of international news gathering. It is a platform where journalists can ask for advice and connect with other freelancers who have experience in specific regions or situations. Is it tongue-in-cheek or is this really like... Why pick the vulture? With a grain of truth. No.

So for eight or so years, I covered Confident Crisis explicitly. And these people are vultures. Look, these are people who are like, guys, guys, we got a dead body. Let's roll. Yeah. And I'm like, look, I mean, you were also working at Vice, too, which wanted provocative content. Oh, bro. Vice.

You know what Vice would do? What would they do? So during Ferguson, I was doing the actual news coverage of the Ferguson riots. Yeah. And we were told that the documentary crew was coming out with I'll just leave them unnamed because it's bad enough I'm telling the story and so I'm like awesome

these guys are great I love the documentaries let's meet up with them they showed up the host walked up on West Florissant turned around looked at the camera lit a cigarette the riots are getting pretty intense but we're going to stick with it. And, you know, we'll see how these things play out.

Put cigarette out. All right. We'll see you guys. We got a flight. That was it. The rest was B-roll. Something like that. Here's the question.

I love it. Here's the question, Tim. Do you think there should be no journalists? There should be journalists. Okay. But there should be real journalism. Okay. And what's real journalism to you?

Truth, facts, data. Okay. And that's real journalism to you? Truth, facts, data. Okay. And that's what we're all trying to do, right? No. Not even close. I think 90% of journalists, I mean, you should know, even in the spaces that I occupy, it seems like everybody has an axe to grind. Everybody's politically motivated.

Nobody just seeks truth. Here's a question. You know what actually bothers me more than having an axe to grind, to be honest, is not actually pushing hard enough. Like people who are going for agenda journalism, that to me is the, I'm not agenda, access journalism to me is the worst type of journalism. That is when you are trying to get interviews and you are willing to look past things and you're just trying to cozy up to people. That's literally the whole media, the entire Biden administration. We all agree. We all agree. We all agree.

Let me ask you a question. Why do these journalists, why are they attacking us so mercilessly for simply being at the White House? I don't think you should be attacked. In fact, I've said this. I said it on TMZ.

No, I'm not saying you do. I'm asking why they're doing it. I think... That's not journalism, right? No, here's the thing. The New York Times did it. I think that... i think this is the here's the facts the media has changed so much and that the room does not reflect that change

the room does not reflect the fact that you have a million or so maybe more you know people watching you on youtube that you have a huge reach that is probably bigger than a lot of the people in that room especially the state of the media that it is right now. So it needs a revamp. Absolutely. There's no doubt about that. And there's not a lot of space. They need to blow up that whole like newsroom completely and create a bigger newsroom. I think there's a, but it's not about you guys.

It's not about you. And it's not about you being in there. It's about the idea. I think that the administration gets to pick the pool. And when you hand over the keys to the administration, that's a problem. But so the issue we have is, let's start with the very fine people hoax. Are you familiar with that? What do you mean? Every major news outlet reported that Trump called neo-Nazis very fine people, which he did not. He said there were good people on both sides. He said, and I'm not talking about the neo-Nazis

or the white nationalists because they should be condemned totally. Is that the full quote? Yes. Oh my goodness. You didn't know that? I mean, I have to look back on it. Wait, now can you pull up the video of it just so you know, because we were wrong about the Hexeth stuff. Oh man. But kind of what I was getting back to. This is the only video we're pulling up.

No, journalists, I mean, you tried to pull up many earlier. But I guess the point the point again is, as you know, don't worry, don't worry, don't worry. I just got snubs for you. There you go. Tara, just take a look. No, Trump did not call neonats and white supremacists very fine people. I mean, this was this. This is how Biden launched his campaign. And so my point is, these people in the White House, in this press pool, are not journalists. Right now they're pushing the Maryland man hoax, where they say Abrego Garcia is a Maryland father. Well, he's not. He's an El Salvador citizen. He's not a Maryland man. But they're doing this as a framing narrative.

We call it factual but not truthful. All right, I've got to ask you the rudest question. Go for it. I thought— No, no, no. Let me really buckle up jonathan foreman says tim ask her how would she have felt if she didn't have breakfast yesterday let me think about that i had breakfast yesterday um probably not great today

what is that supposed to mean is that some sort of like a pun or something or something dirty that i don't understand nope no um just as factual as i give you a c plus i think you answered it correctly what do you mean you said i probably wouldn't feel that good the the question is to uh it's it's it's part of a meme related to an individual claim to be a uh like a prison psychotherapist psychologist who said that people with iqs under 80 can't understand conditional hypotheticals. And so they would go to prisons and ask a prisoner, an inmate, if you did not have breakfast yesterday, how would you have felt? And they say things like,

but I did have breakfast. And they would say, yes, but if you did not, how would you have felt? They go, what do you mean? I had breakfast. Failing to understand the conditional hypothetical signifies a lower perspicacity as it were oh well thank you I appreciate that as I'm sure they're also like she's a fucking idiot she passed boys

she said I probably wouldn't have felt great but also yeah I'm sure there are just as many people saying nice things about you oh I'm sure well I yeah I try to rate them when they're saying you know Tim Sotts

you guys are you're not getting a fair representation in me, but that's okay. That's okay. I came into the lion's den, but I'm a lioness, okay? What is going on? Keep going. I want more questions. Go for it.

All right. L33B says, have you heard of Palmer Lucky? He created the oculus rift and got fired by facebook for supporting trump in 2016 he would be a great guest indeed he would i wouldn't i've actually talked to him before he is matt gates's uh brother-in-law too right really yeah he's matt gates's brother-in-law wait what yeah go to you can see it in his wikipedia page i'm not making it up and palmer lucky palmer lucky uh Palmer Lucky is, there's a story that said that Palmer Lucky, Elon Musk, and the guys from Palantir are going to be the ones that are doing the Golden Dome. Yeah, but Elon denied that.

Can I ask you a question? Andrew, I think, is the name of his company. When was the last time that you criticized Elon Musk? Probably recently. I don't know. What did you say? There are people that hate Elon Musk. What that you criticized Elon Musk? Probably recently. I don't know. What did you say? There are people that hate Elon Musk. What do you think about it?

Yeah, I think we've talked about how AI is going to destroy the world and he only bought X so he can get access to the fire hose so that he can create an AI system which is going to destroy the Earth. He's a degenerate, anti-human, transhumanist. He's got 14 kids and he probably should be a dad to one of them. He's way too open to climate with X. You were the one who was saying that we should repopulate the earth, right? I do not believe that... I am wearing a ring and I believe in death before

dishonor. Elon Musk... Wow. That's righteous. I have tremendous respect for his... I'm a big fan of him scientifically, but morally he is far from virtue and that's me being very nice. That's very nice. His business dealings in China have him compromised, I believe. We've criticized.

Yeah, he's censored people when he claims. How about this? I pulled my ad campaign promise of $250,000 from X because he reinstated the misgendering policy. I said that much. And with all due respect to Elon, as much as we've routinely brought these things up, he follows me on X. He doesn't seem to be a baby about being criticized. Because he wants to feed your ideas into grok. I mean, he doesn't need to follow me to do that.

Well, he wants it, though. Yes, true. But, you know, he— That's true. I can respect that we have criticized him over his misgendering policy, his censorship in Brazil. We've criticized him over being a dad to probably third like they say 14 but it may be more yeah it's conservative and uh but i also deeply respect his mission to mars i think

tesla is a great company and i can respect that as long as you're actually reporting accurately even if you're critical yeah he seems to be fine with it and the left hates him for all the wrong reasons indeed why is that because they think he's's a Nazi who's going to take over. I think he's going to take over, but he's not a Nazi. I think he's trying to install an AI government. I even stated when he threw his heart out, how does one accidentally do that?

They hate him only because he's associated with Trump. That's literally the only reason. If it wasn't for the fact that he's... I mean, he says some crazy shit, too. They would give him the pass if it wasn't for him being involved in politics. They did, though. Oh, yeah, yeah.

They made Tesla the biggest electric car manufacturer in the world. Listen, I don't disagree. If he gave $250 million to the Democrats, we wouldn't be talking about him. Yeah, absolutely. He could do whatever he wants. He should be, because he's creating the apparatus for AI

to funnel into the military. Ooh, ask me when the last time I criticized Trump was. Yeah, when was that? When he bombed Yemen recently? And I have an interview with him where I asked him about Yemen and how Obama killed an American citizen. And Trump said, you don't have to do that. We can negotiate this.

And I said, we don't want war with Yemen. No one's declared it. And he agreed. And then he does it. And we're not happy about that. But the issue is with Trump, the Trump administration and the people in his sphere, Charlie Kirk, for instance, they they don't get mad if you criticize them. They get mad if you lie about them. Yeah.

If I say Charlie Kirk is wrong on TikTok and his flip flop, I don't. Why did he flip up on TikTok? Charlie doesn't say, screw you, Tim, you're never welcome. He invited us on stage at TPUSA. Yeah. And he's and he's invited there. There are a lot of people at TPUSA who are that this is the – who are critical of Charlie or critical of people on the right. This is the thing about the anti-establishment now that – I guess technically the establishment, although technically the institutions aren't completely converted.

But I can say Trump was wrong to launch a commando raid in Yemen in his first term, and he should be criminally investigated for the – and investigated, not saying charged. But there's an allegation that the raid resulted in the death of an American girl, a seven-year-old, the little sister of Abdurrahman Al-Awlaki. Now, the Obama administration admitted to killing Abdurrahman. They should be criminally charged over this admission. The evidence should be compiled. As for Trump, I would welcome an investigation into that. I think the DOJ should investigate it.

They're not going to because no one's going to investigate and arrest Obama. Trump would never do it either. But this is why I like Dave Smith, because Dave Smith's a guy. He goes on he goes on Fox or whatever. And then he starts arguing about the things that the Democrats are doing wrong. And they go, yeah, well, Trump did a bad thing. And he goes, you're right. He did.

I don't like him either. It's like the left thinks everyone who will defend Trump on one issue literally believe everything he does is good. No, I'm I'm actually surprised to hear this, that you have people watch the show, aren't yeah, that's that's the funny thing about when people on the left say, so we had Ro Khanna on. Yeah. And he said, people warned me not to go on your show. They said it was far right or whatever, but you're actually kind of reasonable, moderate. And I said, really nice. I'm like, yeah, I'm like, I'm like moderate, some liberal. Like, did you like try to fact check him on everything and treat him like you treated me?

Oh, yes. Yeah. But it doesn't matter if you're a liberal conservative. Otherwise, if you come here and say something, we'll pull it up. Did you just keep saying like, you're a liberal, you're a liberal, you're a liberal, you're defending the liberals? I said that I'm defending the corporate media over and over again. But I think you missed the point. OK. You told me I was defending Trump by asking a question about motive. So I said you are attacking Trump, making the point that you are making towards me. What do you mean?

I'm not attacking Trump. You said, why are you defending this administration? You are defending that. And I said the signal gate was no big deal. I'm not defending the administration. I'm asking the question of what is the purpose of the story and why does it matter? I think that it matters. When you countered, I said, if you're making that point at me that I'm defending Trump by saying this, you claiming it matters as you attacking Trump. I wasn't attacking Trump.

And I'm not defending him either. You get my point. So then we're clear. Exactly. That's why I said that. But I think— Now you understand. But I think the thing that we disagree on is why that story matters.

Right. My point is neither of us are defending or attacking the administration for arguing over the merits of a story. But you said I was defending it because I did. So I said you were attacking Trump because you did, which is not to say you're literally I was making the point. Yeah. But anyway, I digress. We're going to go to the uncensored show and I'm going to go to bed because I got to wake up at 530. I got to leave at 530 in the morning.

So I got to wake up seven hours from now, get in a car, drive to D.C. And we're doing I don't know. I'll just leave it at that. I'll leave it at that because I don't know what we were supposed to say or not supposed to say. But Tim Kess is on the official press announcement. So we're good. Are you doing the should we expect the regular show tomorrow as well? You don't know.

So Libby will be hosting the morning show on the noon live and we both i believe that i will be able to record my morning segments as normal but i'll be doing it from the white house all right can i can i ask you what's the first question or for who for trump i'm not talking to trump oh i thought you were talking to trump no if i'd be lucky enough for him to have to take questions um I'll make you wait and see but honestly though you probably will I've like probably will get an audience with him I have three or four questions I mean I've interviewed a lot asked Donald Trump if he knows where a woman is yeah my first question to Caroline Levitt was what do they think about pardoning Derek Chauvin the second one was what is a woman

to Trump you have to always be ready for him to let you into the Oval Office to ask a question so what if you had a chance would be your first to always be ready for him to let you into the Oval Office to ask a question. So if you had a chance, would be your first question. So like right now, boom, I'm bringing lead into the office. It's President Trump, will you allow Hamas to stay in power in a post-war scenario?

Question two would be, President Trump, do you believe there's any national security concern when it comes to the quarter million? You would not let Hamas run in control. Don't you think it's huge if he says that publicly? If he says it, yeah. The significance?

No, of course there's. That means the war doesn't stop. Yeah, that's gigantic, actually. That means Israel will have to wipe out Hamas. He literally calls them terrorists every single day. We're over. We got to go to the Uncensored Show. Okay, fine.

Smash the like button. Share the show with everyone you know. Go to rumble.com slash timcast IRL for for the uncensored show and the member call-in. And I'm going to go to sleep, but Phil will be here to man the ship in my absence. You can follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. Tara, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah, follow me at Tara Palmieri on all of my accounts, my YouTube channel. I just started up.

It's at T-A-R-A-P-A-L-M-E-R-I. That's just one I. You can follow me on Instagram. And of course, X. It's all the same at Tara Palmieri. And sign up for my newsletter, The Red Letter, where you can get investigative journalism. Because I know some of you care about it. Tara, that was a really pleasant podcast.

And I hope you come back and do it again. I mean that seriously. I had a lot of fun. I like it when people have different ideas and we kind of get into it on here. Waffle says, can we do two more hours please hopefully soon Waffle can I eat you for breakfast tomorrow I'm joking

oh my goodness my name is Alad Eliyahu you can find me and Tim tomorrow at the White House it's going to be very exciting we'll leave it at that for now Shane it was a fun one you can find me online at Shane Cashman and the show is Inverted World Live on YouTube and Rumble every Sunday at 6.

I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. New record dropped on January 31st. You can check it out all over the Internet on the streaming platforms of Left Lane. It's for crime. We will see you all over at Rumble.com slash Timcast IRL in about 30 seconds. Thanks for hanging out.