Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #1047 Biden's BRAIN BREAKS, Tries To WANDER OFF At G7 Summit, HES GONE w/Mike Benz

Episode Date: June 14, 2024

Tim, Hannah Claire, Chris, & Serge are joined by Mike Benz to discuss Biden getting lost & walking away at an air demonstration during the G7 meeting, half of voters expecting Joe Biden to forget where he is during the first presidential debate, Sandy Hook families looking to seize Alex Jones' social media accounts, and Trump endorsing Larry Hogan for Maryland Senate. Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere)  Hannah Claire @hannahclaireb (everywhere) Chris @ChrisKarr17 (X) Serge @sergedotcom (everywhere) Guest: Mike Benz @MikeBenzCyber (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It happened again, this time at the G7 summit, where Joe Biden is supposed to be asking China to calm down, stop supporting Russia. We need to stop the expansion of war. At a skydiving demonstration, he seems to completely disassociate from what's going on, turn around and then start wandering off in a random direction. Yo, it's the weirdest thing. And then I think it was Italy's prime minister runs over and grabs him to like turn him around. And he's just like completely confused and lost. Man, coming off of that other video where everyone's dancing and he's just frozen and just like completely out of his mind. Now, some people are saying, is this really the big news? And I got to say, we have concerns. Donald Trump is slamming the Biden administration and Biden himself over Russian naval vessels off the coast of Florida. Joe Biden at the G7 is supposed to be representing the United States. And one of the big issues is talking to China to get them to back off of Russia to stop the escalation of conflict. So this doesn't turn into World War III. And the dude is just not there.

So I don't know. I mean, maybe we got someone else there who has no authority and they're not going to respect. But this is it. The other big, big news. This is a really big story. Apparently, the Sandy Hook families have filed to seize Alex Jones's ex account, calling it a customer list.

And this is, I mean, this is huge. They outright say in the news article, the goal is to prevent Alex Jones from being able to ever promote another venture. This is not about defamation. This is about destroying InfoWars and Alex Jones and making it so he can never work in media again. So we'll talk about that plus a bunch of other stories that are pretty weird. Head over to Casperoo.com before we get started and buy coffee. We got Ian's Graphene Dream now available. It's a low acidity coffee. It looks like we already sold several hundred bags since the launch about a week ago.

So we really do appreciate it. But of course, everybody's favorite is Appalachian Nights. That wasn't our intention. Rise with Birdo Jr. was expected to be the flagship, a light roast breakfast blend, but everybody loves Appalachian Nights, both in the literal sense and our coffee. So head over to casperoo.com to support the show,

buy our coffee. Also head over to timcast.com, click join us, become a member to support our work directly, and you will be making the show exist. That's really what it comes down to. But as a member, you get access to our members only call in show. And if you didn't see last night with Matt Gates, it was it was absolutely fantastic talking about active legislation, talking about the goings on of Congress and his views. And it was absolutely fantastic to have Rep Gates here.

But become a member, get access to our Discord server where you can submit questions. And then Monday through Thursday, 10 p.m., we have the member call-in show right after the live show on YouTube. And y'all can actually call in to join the show, be on the show, and talk to us and our guests.

So I do recommend it because it makes the show run. Smash that like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show with all your friends. Joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else is Mike Benz. Thanks for having me.

Who are you? What do you do? Mike Benz. I'm the executive director of Foundation for Freedom Online. It's a free speech nonprofit. We're sort of a watchdog of the censorship industry. And so I basically specialize in stopping internet censorship. Right on. Should be interesting talking about the Alex Jones stuff then. So thanks for hanging out. We got Chris Carr hanging out. What's up?

I'm Chris Carr. I'm the executive editor at scnr.com. That's Scanner News. And I'm joined by the outstanding. I'm Hannah Clive Rivelo. I'm so excited that Chris Carr is on. We don't get to do the show enough together. I'm also from scnr.com.

That's Scanner News. You can follow all of our work at TimCastNews. And if you hate my articles, send hate to Chris on Twitter. Hi, Serge. Hey, what's up? Let's get started. Here we go. It's the big story from the New York Post.

Biden wanders away at G7 summit before being pulled back by Italian prime minister. This video is wild. It's already got 10 million views because we're all deeply concerned about the mental capacity of the president of the United States. Here you go. Here's the video. Oh, is there no audio on this? Or is our audio just not turned on? Is our audio on? Okay, I guess it's just no audio. Here you go. Here's Joe Biden. And he just for no reason starts wandering off. And you can see her get more and more concerned, try to act like it's casual. And then she has to grab him and pull him back

in like, look at his face. He doesn't even know what's going on. They make excuses for him every step of the way. He has no idea what is happening around him. He's just gone, man. And what does everybody say? It's elder abuse. This went up today at 1 does everybody say? It's elder abuse.

This went up today at 1 p.m. It's got 10.4 million views already. But then, of course, there's this video. You probably saw this one. This is when Joe Biden, I don't know how you describe this. I'll just play it for you. My favorite part. OK, so for those that are just listening, you got all these people, they're dancing, they're smiling, they're clapping. And Joe Biden is frozen. And look at his arms.

That's the weird thing. His arms are like slightly sticking out and bent and not moving. But here's the best part. Watch this. This is the weirdest part of this video. Biden grimaces and then looks over to the guy next to him like he's really pissed off. Well, and and what do we call him? Second gentleman, Doug is is looking. You can see that he's looking past Kamala at Joe Biden like, you OK? What are you doing here? I saw the funniest caption on this. It was, hey, these edibles aren't working. And 20 minutes later, I have no rhythm.

So there's a level where I can understand maybe standing still when everyone else is able to, you know, keep up with with some kind of tempo. But it doesn't look like he is present. It doesn't look like he even knows the emotional reaction he's supposed to be having to this event. He walks around with a death mask, like the same horrifying death mask that you imagine on a dying person.

And did you all see the video where he saluted Maloney? He saluted her. Yeah, at the G7 today. He's just gone. It's crazy because we've talked about his cognitive failures before, but we are well beyond whatever. I mean, we played that video. I should probably pull it again. We was talking about U.S. weapons in Ukraine, and he can't say more than a few words without going out of breath. I think whatever drugs they got pumped into his veins are not working anymore, and they know it. It's kind of like a low power mode on a computer or something like, cause I actually think if you were to put him in a debate, he would be able to summon the power to be able to actually be somewhat formidable. Uh, but that he sort of gets that by being in effectively sleep mode for the other 98% of the day. And, uh, you know, he's sort of

like a device that is, is old and worn out and, uh, just has to conserve that. But he, you know, he's sort of like a device that is is old, absolutely spanked Paul Ryan, basically turned around the Obama campaign. And, you know, I wouldn't underestimate that aspect of Biden still having a heartbeat, but these are definitely funny. I'm going to play this clip. This is the interview he had with David Muir. I don't know exactly what this clip is, right? So we know that at some point in the interview on ABC News, he mentions, he gets asked by Muir about U.S. weapons being authorized to be used in Russia. And he sounds absurdly out of breath. So what I did was I searched for the clip just now, and I grabbed a random segment from the interview, which I've not I don't know where it's specifically at, but I'm going to play it. Let's let's hear how Biden sounds.

Lost on us where we are today, what these brave young American sons did 80 years ago. And we know what we're witnessing in the world right now, the wars, the deep divisions at home. What do you think these American heroes can teach us right now about the wars, the deep divisions at home. What do you think these American heroes can teach us right now about meeting this moment? Stand up, tell the truth, serve your country. You know, imagine what they had to come through. I was here 30 years ago, came in on a landing craft. You could see from out there what they saw here.

The idea that they got off those boats, they got off those landing craft. Many of them died sinking. They come across that beach as long as it's just astounding. It's astounding. What it says to me is how critical alliances are, how critical alliances are for our security. Man, that one was not the worst, but that was pretty bad. You can hear his heavy breathing. He sounded like that when he was throughout that stop in Normandy.

He was addressing a kind of a gaggle of reporters at one point. It had this like breathy, almost to the point where I had to like check to see if he has a history of asthma, which I think maybe he does. Like if you're having some kind of weird allergic reaction, I don't know. It was odd, but it's also not the change that I always see in Biden. I feel like his voice has gotten lower.

He doesn't have the same cadence that you see from even when he was running with Obama. But that one in particular, it was just so odd and sort of all of a sudden it seems to have gone away. He's concerned me for 40 years. He's not a decent man. He's a dictator and he's struggling to make sure he holds this country together while still keeping this assault going. We're not talking about giving them. Oh, it's crazy. You can hear him every step of the way. It's weird. The thing that I find interesting about the debate is so what I was

reading today was that basically Biden doesn't hasn't started debate prep. He's got what, two weeks until he's supposed to debate Trump. And he's kind of back to back booked. He's in Italy right now. He's supposed to go to California for a big fundraiser and then return and have like 10 days to do debate prep. Now, he's a career politician. He's been in debates before. Maybe he doesn't need it. But on the other hand, like it doesn't seem like he is the same Biden that was in the Senate that, that was in Obama. And so I just wonder how do you prepare someone like this for the debate? Is it like you're saying,

you just have to hope that he has enough energy, you let him rest. Or is it like, you have to make sure he has key talking points. He has to go back to every single time to be able to stay kind of punchy? No, I think they I think they know that there's nothing left. And I can't remember who tweeted this. Man, I feel bad.

They said that they're going to sink Biden, but they're going to focus everything in terms of the shadow campaign mail-in ballots on senators and members of Congress so so that they can impeach Trump and target Trump, go after him that way, because they're not going to win the presidency. Yeah, it's interesting seeing his failing memory, because there's, you know, there's a quote that, if you're an honest man, you don't need a good memory. And I'm almost sort of, I sometimes flirt in my head with thinking about, you know, the Biden family intrigues are so vast. They go back such a long time. Biden, you know, before he was president, before he was the vice president for Obama, he spent 40 years on the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee, which is really the, you know, the Senate arm of the American empire on every continent. And it's essentially, it's got oversight over the State Department. And the State Department essentially has oversight over the intelligence community. His own family is involved in it a thousand different ways. He's a guy who's basically an international dealmaker who half of his life is diplomacy. The other half is sort of duplicity about that diplomacy. There's a lot of lies you need to keep straight, a lot of stories you need to be able to sort of tell to different audiences about the same fact pattern. And I kind of feel like when you live that life for so long,

you don't really age gracefully with a good memory because you can't keep your own lies straight. He doesn't know when he lied and what he lied about. And it doesn't matter, ultimately, because the corporate press is going to run cover for him. But the thing is, I think that at this point in his life, he's sort of running on the fumes of his 50 years in government. And he's still kind of like mastered substanteless speech, even though he can barely speak or get it out. There's no substance to what he says. And it's just like second nature for him. Yeah, he can kind of convert into or like shift into a gear where it's like, I'm addressing a crowd. And when you heard him at the gun rally

the week, he's like, knows how to build to a point and then say something kind of colloquial. But again, I just don't think that you could, you could, if you're a young voter, right, you didn't see him, you know, when he was involved in different hearings in the Senate. You didn't see him before. You maybe remember him as the VP. Do you look at him and think strong, capable leader, definitely able to convince me to vote for him? No. I mean, it's concerning to me that he's at the G7 summit. He's supposed to be negotiating all kinds of stuff and making all kinds of deals. And, you know, shout out to the prime minister of Italy for just sort of escorting him back to the fold. I mean, he needs a handler always. And that's that's not exactly what you want in your world's leader. I mean, when you look at the leaders of Europe, when you look at what's going on with NATO, the United States has become an appendage, a vassal state of this international organization that will do

whatever it wants. You've got international volunteers. I mean, geez, in Ukraine, fighting the war, flying the Ukrainian flag. They're not Ukrainian, but they're fighting there. Who's paying them? What are they doing this for? They're not doing it for free. They are. Okay, well, then I stand corrected. Volunteers. There's something else there. Joe Biden's brain don't work. This country is running effectively as, I don't know, we are being forced along by a corrupt Congress that won't do anything, an executive branch that doesn't exist, and a Supreme Court that can barely get its head straight half the time. I mean, Roberts doesn't even know what he's doing. And then you've got the liberal justices like Katonji Brown Jackson doesn't even know

what a woman is. So we desperately need to make this country great again. And there's a lot of people who are like, you know, the country was never great, blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, dude, I don't know, man. Look, I guess great could be a semantic

definition where everything, the threshold is. How about functional make america functional mafa make america functional again because wow this is like joe biden shows up to the g7 summit it's like he's not even there at all he's just bumbling about confused he is incapable of actually doing the job as as the president And I'll shout out, you know, you get these Democrats like Harry Sisson, he made this video and he's like, why would you, if you want a better economy, you got to vote for Biden, blah, blah, blah. And I'm like, dude, you know, look, man, anybody who's voting for Trump or Biden on legislative issues,

I got, I got, I got, I got to let you know something. It's called Congress. They handle legislative issues. The president, of course, signs laws and can work with Congress. But the real reason to vote for a president is they negotiate for the country. For Donald Trump, it's because of foreign policy. That's the big factor in who you're voting for for president. Now, Trump's got better economic policy, trade policy, border policy. That is what the executive branch does. Biden has none and he's not he's not he's not there. His brain his brain's gone yeah it's interesting because joe biden's moniker in washington uh from the 1980s until he was vice president was mr foreign policy you know because he sat on the the senate foreign relations uh committee and he was the chairman of it and the ranking member

so biden's whole strong in, you can look up some of these articles from when Biden was running for president. The main force behind him was the U.S. foreign policy establishment, the, you know, the stakeholders that we have who coast off of the activities of our State Department, our Pentagon and intelligence services. A great example of that is BlackRock. You know, BlackRock, everyone sort of knows for their $10 trillion of assets under management, but they're a global firm which has portfolio companies operating in every country on earth. And Biden actually hemmed and hawed a lot before he actually ran for president. Times who published this, a January 2019 meeting at BlackRock HQ with Larry Fink. BlackRock pledged their support behind him. And basically, one of Biden's top advisors in the White House is one of the Donilon brothers, the Tom Donilon, the brother of the main advisor in the White House. Tom Donilon is a former military guy, former intelligence guy, former State Department guy.

He did the hat trick. And now he runs the investment arm of BlackRock. So you have Joe Biden's top advisor being the brother of BlackRock with 10 trillion dollars of assets under management, many of which are in Ukraine. And a brain that doesn't function? Well, I think the Donilon brothers brains function. I think that they don't want a president. I think actually Biden is ideal because if if you were to have a popular president, they tend to be charismatic. They tend to have thoughts of their own. No personality is better that way. you win the vote, then they'll be compliant. You know, the issue is there's this trade-off where they need to sort of get them up to a certain point. And it's hard to think of another Democrat who will be as not there, as have no ideas of their own,

no vision of the world, no principles of their own. You know, Biden, in the 1990s, he had a quote where he described himself as a prostitute. Now, he was saying this in the context of how unfair it is as a senator if you don't come from means. Because he said he bragged that he was the poorest person. He was the poorest person in Congress when he won in his, whatever, 29 years of age. Or he was very young when he came to Congress.

And he was complaining that you need to sell out to donors. You need to prostitute yourself. And that he himself effectively did that. And then he becomes chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Well, who is he prostituting himself out to? To that same foreign policy establishment. And to Tim's point about Trump running on foreign policy, it's precisely for that that they're coming after him. You know, the Ukraine impeachment, the Russiagate FBI investigation, the Soros prosecutors and the Soros global interests behind the present lawsuits.

I want to give a quick shout out to Power Wheels CD in the chat who said Trojan corpse. I thought that was a pretty good one. Let's let's jump to the story of the Daily Mail. This is the greatest poll I have ever seen done. I am so excited for this and I can't believe they actually did this poll. JL Partners polled 500 likely voters about the upcoming debate. Half of voters expect Biden to forget where he is during first debate in Atlanta and walk off the stage on the wrong side. That's an amazing poll. Could you imagine a pollster calls you and it's like, hi, we're here about the presidential election.

Do you think Joe Biden will forget where he is and wander off the stage in the wrong direction? Half of them said yes. This is awesome. So 79% expect Trump to interrupt biden agreed uh 70 expect biden to mess up his words yes trump to tell a rambling story 61 now that i don't i don't know if i i get he loves a good aside i feel like he he has a couple uh moments where he's like but at a rally maybe i think rambling rambling rambling story is charged language. Yes. He does like to tell some stories. At a rally, though, not a debate.

You know, but you can control the time. They're wrong about that. Fill up time. Trump's mic to be cut off, 54%. See, that's the issue. They're saying there's going to be like a hard time limit and they're going to cut mics when that limits up. It's ridiculous. 49% expect Biden to forget where he is.

41% think he'll walk off the wrong side of the stage and 40 percent think he will have problems standing up. Didn't they want chairs? I think they did at one point, but I don't know if that was that. I don't know if that was that was I think they wanted to share something. I just want to hospital beds. They were like, we just would like it to be virtual and free recorded. But what's interesting about this too is they have a stipulated agreement that Trump's mic will be cut off if he interrupts. That was one of the stipulated terms because they were so afraid of Trump's sort of pithy Arnold Schwarzenegger type comments like because you'd be in jail. And so, and Trump does have that sort of one liner quality. So it is kind of I think it's good as a meme. But, you know, this I don't think Trump really is prone to rambling. And again, like they fear Trump interrupting with those because it interrupts a Biden ramble and sort of reveals it for the ramble that it is. Yeah, if the goal of the debate is to be the one who speaks for the most time,

who kind of controls the pace, then, you know, being able to sort of out talk your opponent isn't bad. You know, again, rambling feels like it might be a sort of biased question. But, you know, in terms of all of this, do you think that these low expectations for Biden, like the fact that there's even a conversation that he'll exit on the wrong side, it sort of works to his favor because people don't believe he can do it. So sort of any sort of basic performance is a win for him. I think it totally does. You know how when they do those Oxford debates and they determine the winner, not by who in the audience agrees with the issue most, but they sort of take a baseline. Who is on this side of the issue before the debate? And then they measure the winner by who came over to the other

side, whose expectations essentially changed in favor of one versus the other. And this is another one of these reasons why I just caution not to underestimate Biden in a debate context. And I go back to the low power mode, because even the videos that we watched, that was Biden when he was at one of these, one of a million of these perfunctory presidential things. You're in the garden, you're watching a paraglider. Okay, I need to just, you know, smile for the camera. But in your head, you're thinking about everything else you have to think about as president. And there's so many of those functions that are perfunctory. I would not be surprised if behind closed doors, low power mode comes off and we need to be sharp for an hour or two. And I do expect that in the debate. You expect him to sort of tighten up in time? Yeah. I mean, but is that sort of a low

expectation for voters that we can get Biden to be high performing for an hour or two of the day? I mean, there's no doubt that being the president of the United States is a demanding job. I remember seeing those before and after pictures of Obama who had gotten very gray. You know, it's it's I can't imagine that the demands time, travel, stress, everything else. But if Biden can only perform for one debate with multiple weeks of warning, is that good enough in terms of a political leader? Well, there's another aspect of this that I find interesting that's sort of related, which is the lack of celebrity endorsements in the summer of an election season. You know, part of this is because while it doesn't necessarily cripple Biden to be so absent

and to be so sort of easily dunkable on for these kind of moments. The total absence of charisma makes it hard for people to tell their own audiences to go out for this person without looking either profoundly uncool or looking like a naked shill, because what do you really see in this person? Because there's nothing really to go on. And Biden doesn't do press conferences. Trump did press conferences every single day during coronavirus, and he was probably the most accessible press person. Biden does not do public press conferences. In the limited context that he does every couple months, it's a couple of questions, none of them adversarial, and then tightly controlled. i what i find really interesting is typically you know they they say that politics is hollywood for ugly people that that politicians aren't necessarily highly

charismatic by nature but if they are up to a certain point celebrities can kind of do the rest and right now there is almost no i mean you have a couple of these, the De Niro's. But, you know, we're used to seeing I mean, remember in 2016, you know, the the the tapes of a hundred celebrities. You know, you could do a two hour supercut of all the the musicians, the actors, every field of entertainment and academia and and cultural celebrity coming out for Hillary Clinton. They did the same thing with Obama. They did the same thing with Obama. They did the same thing with Bill Clinton. But this election season, it's almost on mute. So there's actually a list of endorsements on Wikipedia. Joe Biden, I noticed something interesting.

Joe Biden doesn't have categories for't have categories for like celebrities. It just has notable individuals. And so it mentions Mark Hamill, Goldberg, George Conway, Stephen Colbert, George Clooney, J.J. Abrams. There's a good amount here, right? George Clooney, Obama and Julia Roberts are hosting this fundraiser. Yeah. And you've got Steven Spielberg, Martin Sheen. I don't know, Matthew Iglesias. Congratulations. You're listed as well. But when you go over to Trump's, he actually has so many, it breaks them down into political operatives, actors, musicians, sports figures, religious figures, and activists and public

figures. So certainly Trump has substantially more than Joe Biden does. Biden does have his celebrity endorsements, but they actually, like, when you look at the list of endorsements for Joe Biden, I mean, how many of these are actually OK? How many actors do we have? Let's see. One, two, three. Let's go. Let's go. Let's go. Four, five. Oh, Eva Longoria. Six. Seven. He's got he's got about nine, ten, eleven. Kim, how many of these are A-list actors that were in a movie this year?

I mean, all of the- Yeah, but to be fair, I mean, like Dean Cain and like Kevin Sorbo, they're doing like parallel economy stuff. That's exactly what I was going to say was what you're talking about, is that I don't think these celebrities have the same cultural clout that they used to. Like we're in a totally different landscape than we were in 2016. Their endorsements really don't matter that much. Maybe it does at an LA fundraiser with Julia Roberts and George Clooney, but culturally speaking, I don't think they're relevant.

But take a look at this, right? So if we look at Joe Biden for, let's look at like music. Okay, who does, let's see if he has any names in here that we can actually be like, oh, wow. Lenny Kravitz. Where's Lenny Kravitz? Well, the AP wrote about this yesterday. Yeah, but Lenny Kravitz is a Gen X. He's not a big deal right now. I mean, shout out, whatever.

He's all right. Lizzo's popular. Lizzo's on the list? Liberal. Yeah, she is. Okay, well, there you go. All right. What's her name?

Most of the rappers are supporting Trump. But when you look at Trump, you've got Azealia Banks, Benny the Butcher, Kodak Black, Orgeato Blow, Waka Flocka Flame. Sexy Red. I do like that they included Naked Cowboy.

Sure, I guess. DaBaby. Oh, I didn't know that. Aaron Lewis. Ted Nugent's also a bit older. Lil Pump, Sexy Red. Lil Wayne. And Snoop Dogg even reversed

his position on Trump. Did you see that? Yeah. Snoop Dogg, who, if you remember, held up a, you know, did a music video essentially shooting Trump in the head or holding a gun to Trump's head when he ran the first time. He actually came out a couple of weeks ago and said, I got nothing but love for Trump. And, you know, basically, effectively all but did a formal endorsement.

So who does he got for sports? He got Andrew Tate as sports figures. I do love that. I feel like Trump's, it's not like the lists are, Trump's list is obviously bigger, but Trump's got more relevant figures than Biden does. But I think that's kind of just obvious. When you look at the polling,

when you look at public sentiment, it leans slightly towards Trump in a lot of different ways. Not that it matters because all that really matters is whether or not Republicans can figure out how to win an election. When you look at the polling, when you look at public sentiment, it leans slightly towards Trump in a lot of different ways. Not that it matters because all that really matters is whether or not Republicans can figure out how to win an election. I mean, it is interesting because typically Democrats lean on Hollywood and celebrities to say we are the cool, youthful party. I remember in 2020 at their convention, they had Billie Eilish perform. And at the time, she was really on her come up. You know, she'd been huge during COVID and everything. And, you know, maybe young celebrity starlets

are just not interested in endorsing Biden, although we know that they tend to be politically active. I'm thinking of Olivia Rodrigo, the pop singer, handing out the equivalent of Plan B at her concerts. Like, they have political positions, but for whatever reason, it's not translating this cycle into Biden endorsements. Even from what I can see, people who have endorsed him in the past.

I'm going to speak specifically about Taylor Swift here. Read my mind. Yeah, they can't get Taylor yet. Also, I'll just shout out the rest of the list includes like Kimberly Guilfoyle, Jackson Hinkle, Charlie Kirk, Carrie Lake. You got Malik Obamaama that's great you got me jack posobic amber rose uh scott pressler's on the list so i don't know man whatever i guess well this is really where i see the low power mode though coming into coming into it more so than in the debate in the sense that look at what trump is doing today with Logan Paul, a 90 minute interview, you know, Nelk Boys, like 60, 90 minutes. I think what's hurting Biden about

this kind of low power mode and then save it for an hour or two of the day is that you can't do this kind of these kind of media tours and these kind of, you know, the media blitz of connecting with all these celebrities because, you know, they can't get together to produce a video, to produce an interview, to do a little song together. He can't hit the road and do four cities to go to L.A. for this, to New York for that, and Chicago for this. Whereas Trump is flying four or five cities a day. That was one of the things that Democrats were arguing was so great about the trial is that it hemmed Trump down physically in the trial room so that he couldn't go out and do the blitz that brings you the hearts and minds. And so I actually think part of the

celebrity endorsement drought in the Biden election cycle here is the fact that he has to be on low power mode so much. He can't expend the energy to do these high not he has to be on low power mode so much he can't expend the energy to do these high profile have to be present have to deliver because you now you are in front of the cameras in front of all their audiences you actually have to be on point and so he's he's cut off from that and i think part of that also has to do with a kind of left-wing civil war on the israel palestine thing where because of that issue dividing the left, a lot of celebrities don't necessarily want to to endorse Biden because not only Chapel Rowan, this pop star who's really popular right now, she's really coming up. I think she was at the Governor's Ball in New York, this music festival. And she said the Biden administration asked her to come to the White House and perform during Pride.

And she was like, no, and seemed to say basically because of the Israel-Palestine constantly when Trump was in office was how many of the, you know, sports teams that would win whatever tournament, you know, whether it's Super Bowl or whatever it was, refused to come meet Trump because he was bad, I guess, or whatever. And now it seems like this is starting to happen in the Democrats' backyard in Hollywood, in the music industry. They're saying, well, I don't want to be associated with Biden because either I personally don't believe him or he's too controversial because of the stances he's taken on this international conflict. I'm wondering if it might be like a really smart strategic move on their behalf to just keep him out of the media tour, like Trump is on. Well, he only has an hour a day. Yeah. Well, not just that, because like, think about it. I mean, he doesn't. Well, as you pointed

out, he's not a free thinker. You know, he doesn't have any sort of personality to offer anybody. The people are going to vote for him anyway or have been ideologically compromised for what, at least eight years now, probably longer. So who is he really like advocating to support him? Like he's already got the support that he is going to get. Like nothing he's going to say on a media tour is going to necessarily bolster that. Right. He can't. And I think part of it is if you send him on a media tour, people are going to be like, I have questions about this policy you put out and I don't think

they want to answer to the record they currently have. Yeah. Let's jump to the story from Reuters. This is huge news. Sandy Hook families want to seize Alex Jones's social media accounts. This is wild. Families of the Sandy Hook massacre victims want to seize Alex Jones's social media accounts in his bankruptcy, saying that the conspiracy theorists' frequent posts to fans are a key part of the InfoWars business being liquidated to pay Jones' debts. Jones filed bankruptcy protection 17 months ago as given up on trying to reach a settlement that would reduce the $1.5 billion that he owes

to the relatives of 20 students and six staff members that killed in the 2012 mass shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Jones and the Sandy Hook families now agree that Jones's assets should be liquidated in bankruptcy. I don't know if that's true. I think Alex Jones may have contested that, saying they're reporting this, but that's not the case. But I don't know. They're going to say the families on Wednesday asked a U.S. bankruptcy judge in Houston, Texas,

to additionally take control of Jones's X account, X.com account, and prevent Jones from using it to promote new business ventures. That is wild. They say it's, quote, no different than a customer list of any other liquidating business. First, I will stress that you don't own your social media accounts. X owns it. And they grant access to Alex to use that. That's terms of service and agreements. They would have to seize access, not from Alex, but from Elon Musk. I don't see this ever happening, but this is an insane move.

They argue that Jones has used a social media account to push down the value of InfoWars by diverting sales from that site to his father's Dr. Jones's Naturals dot com, which sells health supplements and other products. A quick question. Is Alex Jones's dad a doctor? I'm going to Google that right now. Dr. Jones's Natural. Or is this like a doctor philosophy? That does seem right.

I think I read that somewhere. That his dad's a doctor? Yeah. I think I read that in Shane's profile of Alex Jones's, as a matter of fact. So they say a bankruptcy judge is scheduled to hear the family's demand at a Friday court hearing in Houston. The judge is expected to convert Alex Jones's bankruptcy case from a Chapter 11 to a Chapter 7 liquidation. Jones claimed for years the San Diego killings were staged. He did later then say he didn't think that was correct.

Jones has estimated that he has less than $12 million in assets, meaning that he will carry an enormous legal debt even after InfoWars and his other assets are sold. Alex Jones' dad is apparently a dentist. Oh, wow. Look at that. So he is a doctor specializing in dentistry. So he's a doctor. Dr. Jones is naturals. This is not about restitution. Shutting down InfoWars doesn't actually get them any money.

If they're going to be filing, they should be filing to say, we get X amount garnished off of InfoWars revenue per month or something like that. Taking his Twitter account from his ex account from him, they're literally just saying, like, no longer can this man speak in public. It's an impossible thing they're doing. There's literally nothing they can do. Alex can make a new ex account tomorrow and tweet one time with a video of him talking and it's going to skyrocket. I don't even know how they seize a social media account. But this is wild. I suppose considering we're moving closer

to the election, we're going to see more. I don't know, man. I guess the question is, do we see more censorship attempts like this? Well, this is absolutely terrifying, mortifying, stupefying. It's brutal to watch what they're doing to Alex. On top of that, you know, I see this potentially being a Supreme Court issue three years from now because this gets to the fundamental question of what is a social media account. This is almost an extension of the Section 230 debate about platforms versus publishers. If a social media account is a business asset and can essentially be rolled up in bankruptcy, this gives the censorship industry a brand new tool everywhere, anywhere to take out an opposing voice simply by driving them into bankruptcy and

seizing the account. So, which is to say that anybody who, because in this case, it's gross because it's a billion dollar debt, but what happens if you're bankrupt? Because if you have to declare, you know, chapter seven or chapter 11, because of a, because you're a hundred thousand dollars over the hole when they do the seizure, any, if they can, any lawsuit that you're $100,000 over the hole when they do the seizure. Any lawsuit that you're unable to compensate on, if the precedent is now that they can take your ex-account, this will be gamified to take down basically everyone, anyone. Anytime you've got a bad investigative journalist writing about your company or your

financial institution or your political candidate that now, boom, operation mode. How can we get rid of this? Well, we tried going to the platforms. We got them banned on Instagram. We got them de-boosted on YouTube. They still have their ex-account. Okay. Well, what if we do lawfare, uh, force them to, to file a chapter seven, then we know because we've got legal precedent that we can just seize it from them. So the issue, I think the issue is, is what is, you know, what is a social media? If it is a platform versus a business asset, then I would think that this would, would not be touchable, but this is now basically a brand new

novel legal theory. And, you know, this is something that I think we should all support the side of freedom on. You're never going to be able to stop Alex Jones. There's nothing they can do about it. They'll file all of these things every day and night. And let's say they get his ex account. Let's say they get all of his accounts. Then he makes a new account. But then they seize the new account. They say they sure account. Let's say they get all of his accounts. Then he makes a new account. But then they seize the new account. They say they sure do. And then he makes a new account. And then it gets better. Then some random guy on the street named Joe Joe Schmo makes an account and says, wow, Alex Jones is standing right here. I'm going to film him. And now Joe Schmo's account

is getting tons and tons of viewership. And then they go what? They go to Joe Schmoe and say, we're seizing your account because you keep playing videos of Alex Jones. You can't do anything about it. The issue is, is it does damage for it keeps what would be a burning fire of speech to a to a low to to a low burn to a low ember constantly. It's almost like the insurgency strategy, the counterinsurgency strategy that our military uses to contain insurgency movements, where the goal is not to eradicate it completely, but simply to render it functionally ineffective by keeping it at a sort of low burning ember where it never has a chance to actually have real influence. So it takes time to build up a large platform.

And any time you start to get close to influence for it to be able to be ripped from you and start back at zero all over again, it is very effective. I mean, it was a game changer when Elon let, people were trying to do band evasions all the time, but it rendered you, and you could still sort of get a Twitter platform

for a couple of days before someone flagged you or for a couple thousand followers or 10,000 until somebody said, oh, they're evading a ban. This is their all. We did not have freedom again until Elon came back in. And I do fear that this strategy could seriously, seriously work. And this is why this is such a threat in tandem with the fact that the censorship industry right now is plotting seven ways from Sunday how to use legal strategies to get their power back. They're plotting this by using with the EU Digital Services Act in order to have this disinformation compliance to spiral back on U.S. companies. I have clipped countless hundreds of videos of high level censorship industry insiders. In fact, in April this year, they had a whole conference on legal solutions to stopping disinformation. And this new toolkit on

the legal side to coerce this, I mean, this is just like when Alex got kicked off of social media in 2018, and a lot of people thought, well, that's so extraordinary because he's such a big account, and people were hoping and praying that would just extraordinary because he's such a big account. And people were hoping and praying that would just stop there. And then that turned out to be a canary in the coal mine. And I think legally this would be the case if they succeed. And my fear is because it's Sandy Hook, they will win at the trial court level with some favorable judge. And now it's going to be in the hands of an appellate court and then a Supreme Court. And if Biden is able to change the majority of the Supreme Court, we would be looking at a whole new world. Apparently, Alex is saying they're also going after his Cruz social media as well.

Now, don't get me wrong. I get it. This is a bad and psychotic thing. My point is there is no point at which you can remove Alex Jones from the sphere. And what happens if they seize his act? Well, first of all, they can't seize his act. Elon Musk is going to say no. Just outright no, you can't. And then what are they going to do? Try to get some kind of injunction?

Alex, you're not allowed to log into X then. That makes no sense. I don't even, sure, a favorable judge and crackpot courts. That I believe. Alex Jones uses X. The court says you are hereby banned from using X. And he says, I'll do it anyway. Well, then we're going to hold you in contempt or something for violating the order.

I don't know how they legally pull this off. And thank God, by the way, that Elon understands the importance of the legal here. I mean, he has fought Australia on their legal prohibitions and won. He has entered the legal battle against the Center for Countering Digital Hate and against Media Matters and others. He has a legal defense fund for people who get fired from X. And so thank God. I mean, in addition to the free speech policies, the actual economic resources behind legal defense, you know, we are in as good as position as you could possibly pray for to be able to take on something like this. You know, the issue is, is at the end of the day, the justice system is kind of the the straight of Gibraltar is very narrow, straight. And if you are ordered by the court, you know, at that point, I could see hands getting tied.

And it would it comes down to two judges in a world where we just saw what the judges, you know, what our judges are doing to people like Donald Trump in New York and in what they just did to, you know, so many other folks. So the issue is when justice is politicized this way and you have a political figure like Alex Jones, law almost doesn't exist in this country anymore. I don't think law exists in this country. I wonder, too, you're pointing out that if Alex Jones is what he's saying is true, they're going after his crew. I mean, part of the issue is, you know, Alex Jones might be able to make something else work, but it's part of it is the Sandy Hook lawsuit is sort of now being used to shut down anyone else who's in his sphere, even though they may or may not have been involved with InfoWars at the time of, you know, the incident that kind of set all the conversations or whatever. And that seems to me to be sort of a creeping judicial reach because ultimately it's not about Sandy Hook anymore. It's not about, you know, what was said or not said or anything like that.

It's really about how can we strangle and muzzle what's going on here, whether or not we think that the people who are tangentially affected have any have any actual influence over the situation. Think about this. Donald trump had corporate bankruptcies they could argue that donald trump i mean he had multiple corporate bankruptcies they could argue that if donald trump used his personal account to promote a trump business then they can seize donald trump's accounts uh there's the bankruptcies whether personal or corporate. And again, this is an Infowars bankruptcy. This is a corporate bankruptcy proceeding. Corporate bankruptcies happen all the time, every day. If every single time that happens, the social media account of the individual officers or directors or senior leadership or even staffers are now in play.

What this opens up is a strategic field of play for censorship operatives and for political folks. It's a brand new world. What's to stop John Doe from starting a company called The War for Information and hiring Alex Jones as his host? What could they do about that? Someone else starting the company and him. A contractor, not even an employee.

He's a contractor, produces content. When he feels like producing, he gets paid $48,000 a year. It's a good question. I don't know legally how that would work. I would presume that the lawyers would make the argument that this is a sort of deliberate evasion attempt. They would probably probe know, they would probably probe all communications in discovery or get some sort of court-ordered subpoena to see if there

was, you know, to get the text messages and emails to see if they were trying to do a, it's basically like ban evasion, right? Yeah, I get it, but think about what that means. And I'm not saying it's not going to happen, but that means that a private business that has done nothing wrong, that seeks to enter into a private contract with an individual completely outside of the scope of this lawsuit will be targeted with federal harassment. I do not believe right now that there is functioning law in the United States. We have roving bands smashing up department stores and stealing everything. You have people defecating all over the streets in California. The Westfield Mall has abandoned, the company abandoned their lease, and some of the, two of the biggest hotels abandoned their, I'm sorry, not their lease, their debts. They, what is it? I forgot what it's specifically called, but they

surrendered. They basically told the lender, you know what? It's yours. We're out. Collateral is all yours. We'll lose the money we have on this. We are seeing just insane levels of crime, corruption. You've got the trials in New York. You've got the Georgia trial. Fannie Willis. I mean, this is insane what's happening in Georgia. Can we just break this down? They go after Trump and his lawyers.

And now the whole case is at risk of being thrown out because the prosecutors bang another prosecutor she hired. And it's thrown the whole thing into into a conflict of interest because they are literally corrupt. Now you've got to think it's Wisconsin, right? That filed their AG filed charges against Trump's lawyers again. Yes. The level of corruption and extra judicial attacks that are happening. And I don't understand why people tolerate it. Like, I don't understand why Alex Jones or Donald Trump are just going like, well, I guess. I'm like, I don't know what you do, and I don't have answers. But if, like, a clown showed up to my doorstep demanding I hand over all of my bananas,

I'm going to say, get off my property. It's psychotic to assume that we know what Georgia's doing is not within the confines of the law. We know what New York did was not within the confines of the law. Fact. We just have rogue police officers pointing guns at people and threatening them like those cops in New York that are facilitating that trial against Trump that facilitated it. Those they should all be in prison and heaven forbid I ever get any kind of political power because the first thing I'm doing as president or governor or whatever it might be is those all those cops are the first first to go prison for the rest of their lives. You are not acting within the law.

You have no authority under the law. Just because a guy claims he's ordered you to do it does not give you the authority to do it, and you have broken the law. But unfortunately, Donald Trump goes along with it. Real quick, my argument for Trump was that he should have told Georgia, he should have told New York, you get a legitimate claim to Florida, hand it to Ron DeSantis, put it on his desk, and I will talk to him about whether this is an actual legal proceeding or not. I'm really glad you brought that up because I've been banging on,

and folks who follow me have seen me tweet this every week, every month for the past year, year and a half now, which is that we effectively need a kind of sanctuary state for politically heterodox folks. And in particular, something that I published about last week, which I think if there are any state assembly members listening right now, I'm speaking directly to you, what you can do right now in your state assembly, if you are a state legislator in Florida, in Texas, in Tennessee, in Arkansas, pick your state. Amend your malicious prosecution law. Every state has a malicious prosecution law that allows a civil action against a prosecutor who brought the suit, not in the interest of justice, but for a political reason or a malicious reason, and simply broaden that law to apply it to out-of-state prosecutors who target an in-state

citizen. So, for example, if you are a citizen of the state of Florida, you simply say that there is an in-state nexus to the state of Florida when a Georgia prosecutor or a New York prosecutor, you'd probably be barred legally from doing this with federal because it's a state, but allow you to bring an in-state action against Alvin Bragg, against Fannie Willis for the malicious prosecution of an in-state person. This is effectively what Florida and Texas have done with their social media laws that allow now a civil course of action for certain censorship activities under. Now, those laws are sort of being chewed up in the in the appeals process currently. But you can do the same thing for malicious prosecution and allow Donald Trump to then

sue Alvin Bragg and Fannie Willis in front of a Florida jury. And then we'll see if the same outcome happens. I agree. I guess the way you'd see it is they file the paperwork. They say to Donald Trump, he says, don't I don't care. You talk to law enforcement in Florida the moment they say you're this is legit. We say, OK, then with the malicious prosecution laws under the law in Florida, Trump files and says this is an illegitimate case. Ron DeSantis and the state police then say we cannot go anywhere

near Trump. And this is a dispute between states that has to go to the federal courts. What this would allow is a parallel trial every time this happens. As New York is doing this trial to New York, well, guess what? Now New York's on trial in Florida under a concurrent malicious prosecution case. And that, first of all, makes these things very expensive for the state to litigate. It has liability for these New York offices. It basically makes you a porcupine. So if you want to reach out a state for it, well, there goes the money for the New York prosecutors who don't make very much, by the way. You know, this this now makes the city of New York or the or the state of New York have to think about its own budget before it goes after an out of state person

in the prosecutorial in a prosecutorial way. And then it allows this concurrent ongoing trial for all this evidence to come out in the Florida trial about how rigged the ongoing New York one is. So level design operator in chat said, plea asked, that's not the chat I'm looking for, but it was level design operator asking what laws specifically were broken. So the first thing we have is,

and I don't know the degree to which it's criminal. So this is a level design operator says, what laws have they specifically broken in that so called lawfare endeavor so this is clearly malicious prosecution in a variety of ways we have multiple cases that are malicious prosecution and I think any reasonable human being were it not for the culture one this country in hyperpolarized state could conclude this in New, they changed the law to allow people to sue another person for sexual assault claims after the statute of limitations, but only for one year, only this one small window. Trump instantly sued on a 30 year old claim that can't be corroborated

in any way. Yet somehow a jury still says yes to anybody who followed that case and went through it knows the story makes no sense. It's even been challenged by people on CNN and MSNBC as being weird and making little sense. Then you have the criminal fraud trial against Trump's organization, which never committed fraud. They claimed that because Trump's filings for loans were incorrect, that's fraud, despite the fact that each and every one of those filings to the banks had a disclaimer that the information may be incorrect and requires the due diligence of the lender. The lenders, like Deutsche Bank said, we recognize that we did our due diligence. We

then told Trump his numbers were wrong. We agreed to give him a lesser amount towards the loan. Trump agreed. We all made money from doing this. If we could, we'd do business with him again. Still, Trump found guilty of fraud. Kevin O'Leary, a realist, a major real estate mogul, said this is absolutely insane. No one in New York is safe if this is what they're doing. Then you get the latest hush money trial. There's literally no direct evidence that Donald Trump did anything with Stormy Daniels other than he paid Cohen, who has lied about everything. Cohen admitted to committing grand larceny in stealing, they say, at bare minimum, $60,000. But under the defense's premise that Donald Trump had no idea

that Cohen took out a loan on his own home to pay off Stormy Daniels of his own volition, he didn't know that was happening. That means Cohen stole $250,000, yet they still criminally charged Trump for doing this. Now, anyone who's run a business knows it makes no sense criminally to go after the CEO for what underlings have done that he's not even signing off on. You're the CEO of a company. A mid-level manager says, we're going to pay this lawyer off. Then another manager says, or your CFO says, pay them off. And Trump's just like, sure, I'll sign the check. I don't know, whatever. It's a legal fee. Then they come back and say, you're criminally responsible for what those guys did. None of it makes any sense, but more

importantly, let's go to the malicious prosecution. Alvin Bragg campaigns. I'm going to get Trump. I believe, uh, Letitia, Letitia James as well. You have in the hush money case, it is a misdemeanor charge whose statute of limitations expired years ago, falsifying business records. You're not bringing back up eight years later, seven years later. They claim he was trying to influence an election, but the crime happened after he already won it. So what did they do? They said, OK, but if he falsified business records in furtherance of a secondary crime manipulating the election, then we can upgrade it to a felony. Thirty four, in fact, for each time he signed a check. What was that

underlying crime? None of us know, because the judge said the jury doesn't have to unanimously agree on any underlying crimes, just that they think something did occur and then Trump is guilty. Now, here's where it gets great. Here's the best part. I could be wrong about this, but I would assume at the very least to be a reasonable person. There are very rare circumstances in the United States where a prosecutor goes to a felony suspect and says, if you flip on this misdemeanor, we're going to let you off. You got a guy who admitted on the stand to committing grand larceny, stealing tens of thousands of dollars, openly admitted it. And they're like, no charges.

But if you help us get this guy who falsified a business record, none of it makes sense. And it is all patently obvious, malicious prosecution. Now, as the police officers who facilitate all of this, I make no distinction and no excuses for anyone just doing their job. If you are the officer who is kidnapping someone at gunpoint under a perceived authority that does not exist, heaven help you if I'm ever in charge of law enforcement in this country. If I was the president, the FBI would bet each and every one of their doors and they'd be like, you're all going to prison. I am. I am. People say, oh, that's so dictatorial. What? That you don't allow cops to I don't know. How about CBP trafficking children on the border, which they're doing?

And we know they're doing. It is dictatorial to stop human trafficking, to stop corrupt cops just doing their jobs. That's the bare minimum of what legal accountability is supposed to be in this country. Well, that's where we're currently at. So how are you guys doing? That's an amazing rant. And again, to get back to this state legislators watching anybody who knows a state legislator watching the beauty of this strategy, simply expanding your malicious prosecutor law, malicious prosecution law in your state is Tim's rant right there is presented to a jury and the jury simply decides on the basis of a preponderance of evidence standard because this is a civil tort. So all you need is a 51 percent likelihood in the minds of the jury that everything Tim just laid out there, what renders it malicious? I wonder what it is. You know, we're in this, we're at this point where if New York accuses someone of a crime,

Florida just says, well, okay, complies. No question, nothing. It seems kind of strange to me. Yeah. I'm a resident of West Virginia. Am I supposed to assume that if Nebraska accused me of a crime, that my own police will come and arrest me without evidence because of another state claims to have an indictment? I think that's bunk. I think we need to move forward with state protection for its residents or perhaps it does exist. And I just don't know. I'm not I'm not a lawyer. The issue is, is I would be concerned and I don't know the specific answer on this on this either. I would be concerned with that, that because it's a dispute between states, it would then make it a federal issue, and then federal marshals could come in and supersede the state,

which is why the sort of malicious prosecution law strategy sort of gets around that through all the costs imposed on the prosecutors and on the DA's office and on the state budget. Because even if if they sort of seize the guy, so to speak, they're paying they could be paying. And again, the uncapped damages, punitive damages on if you want to throw it in treble damages so that you're effectively bankrupting, you know, the DA's office for going after it. And again, especially, you know, a civil trial tends to take less time. I could see it having a huge deterrent effect, even if you could not get around the fact that the police, the federal marshals would technically be able to take the person into custody, you know, to Rikers. You're at uh doing that economic devastation in kind which is currently their strategy to try to take out trump because even in everything you just laid out 500 million

dollars for trump on as you mentioned on the on the on the mar-a-lago valuation case 100 million dollars on the defamation case uh they claimed mar-a-lago was worth 18 million dollars the toilet seats worth 18 million dollars anybody who has driven past mar-a-Lago was worth $18 million. The toilet seat's worth $18 million. Anybody who has driven past Mar-a-Lago knows it's worth more than $18 million. Not a question. They are clearly lying. And again, Trump should put it on Ron DeSantis' desk. The great thing, though, about that, too, is that selective prosecution, because everything you just said, you know, during your, you know, Academy Award speech on all the ways they, you know, dicked over Trump there is they had the exact same fact pattern with the Hillary Clinton FEC violation.

But they didn't do it. This selective prosecution is malicious. So you blame the cops. So but having a legal hook to that in state allows you to highlight that selective prosecution instead of just whining in the press. Oh, these people are hypocrites. Now you get to hit him back in the piggy bank, which is where it really hurts. In this in this issue, I will say Donald Trump volunteered himself to New York, went along with this. I don't believe he was ever grabbed by police and forced to do anything. He's not even been held in jail or anything yet. Should that be the case that he is given house arrests or anything, then we're talking some very serious crimes, in my opinion.

Illegitimate authority. I do not respect the idea that cops just get to dictate something for no reason, not reality. And I reject it outright. So there's there's too many conservatives who are like back the blue no matter who. And I'm like, not if they're communists. Communists join the police forces. You got them in the West Coast. You got them in Washington, Oregon. I'm not going to back the blue.

People are people. You need legitimate legal authority if you're going to take actions. Now, when it comes to Georgia, I said Trump should stay in Florida and say this is not legitimate. I believe this should be challenged to the federal courts. There's an election going on. They're interfering. And let the federal courts decide. I just don't know if the state of New York could then call in the federal marshals.

And I think the Justice Department— Put it on DeSantis' desk. Ron DeSantis then gets the choice to be the man who ordered the arrest of Donald Trump, or he can be the man who said, this must be settled in the courts and you will not enter my state. Yeah, it's interesting. It's sort of a sequel to the standoff that Texas, you know, had around the border situation. And, you know, that would test the limits of federalism, you know, that would that would that would test the limits of federalism, you know, with. Yeah. What we're seeing is Democrat corrupt forces screaming at the top of their

lungs and chasing Republicans and the Republicans are running full speed away. And I have to wonder if at any point the Republicans were to turn around and scream back, the Democrats might stop where they're standing. If they try to send in if they accuse Trump of a crime which is beyond its statute of limitations, has no underlying crime to warrant its upgrade, and then say Trump's wanted in New York and then Trump says it's clearly illegitimate. Even CNN called it an illegitimate case. I don't recognize it. Trump could come out and say, I'll tell you this. Fareed Zakaria went on CNN and said this is not this would not be brought against anybody else. This case. So I think that's the barometer for the American public to recognize is an illegitimate use of authority. So here's what I'll do. New York can send their paperwork to the governor's office of Florida who can discuss it. And if they make the determination, this is a legitimate case. I'll abide by it. And if they say it's illegitimate, then I expect it to be recognized the same as everyone else recognizes CNN. Well, actually, well, that's sort of the sanctuary state idea that I was I was outlining before the malicious prosecution one, because I think both of these can work in tandem and

legislatures should adopt both. But that essentially creates an in-state political test. Essentially, you can bring in an action in-state for a determination about, you know, whether you qualify to essentially be a sanctuary in the same way that that, you know, California and all these different blue states have sort of become these sanctuary states that have a unique set of laws that protect illegal illegal immigrants. Then then that would that would be interesting because that might provide a countervailing force to the to the threat of bringing in the federal marshals because now you have a state law that protects that person because of you know but that would start to get an interesting issues there but i see that essentially being a sanctuary state

for political dissonance so i suppose that the question is this, right? So the other night I said to Matt Gaetz, at what point do red state AG secretary of state governors or whatever, start demanding criminal accountability from the Democrats that are engaging these things. And he said, is that really what we want? Extrajudicial, you know, retribution or whatever. And I never said that. I'm saying people are committing crimes. We need people to be held accountable for it. Hillary Clinton's campaign was accused of a lot of impropriety. She was accused of destruction of records. I have to wonder, her campaign operated in a bunch of different states, right? Couldn't any one of those states go after Hillary Clinton and the people who worked with her? They could. I joked about this the other day. You know,

there was the whole Whitewater scandal with the Clintons in Arkansas. That's a red state. The Arkansas State Assembly could turn around tomorrow, change the statute of limitations the same way that New York changed the statute and bring up all their Hillary Clinton crimes from the 1990s. Or any one of those circumstances with Joe Biden. Any one of these states could do exactly what New York is doing and say national records are state level jurisdiction. Now, we hereby declare it. Hunter did business. And then go. Yeah, taxes could do it.

They won't. They won't. So what's going to happen? Corrupt federal forces and Democrat forces are going to keep mercilessly politically beating, beating people like Donald Trump, and it won't stop. I'm not even convinced, you know, one of the theories I suppose people are bringing up is that Joe Biden's going to lose. They know he's going to lose.

The focus right now is winning in Congress and in the Senate. And when you look at the polling, this is interesting, I pulled up the polling and I asked our good friend Chet GPT, based on current polling trends, what its projection was for the presidency. Trump wins. Interesting. What about the Senate and the House? Chet GPT, in numerous different simulations, predicted the Democrats will take the Senate and the House. Should that be the case, expect everyone to be in prison. Donald Trump will be president, powerless, concrete strapped to his ankles, thrown in the water, and he'll be impeached in two seconds.

Then they're going to start locking up everybody else. Bannon will go to prison again. You name it. They're just going to start locking everybody up because Republicans do nothing and don't care. Well, it'll be interesting, actually. We might know next week as early about how far Republicans are going to go, because I feel on most things the same way the same way you just identified. There have been some heartening things, especially recently. So finally, and this should have been done two years ago, frankly, but there was a contempt motion that passed the House against Merrick Garland. They found him guilty of contempt and for the same crime that, for the same actions that no less than Merrick Garland himself locked up Steve Bannon and Navarro for, Peter Navarro for, which was defying a congressional subpoena, a congressional committee subpoena for the same reason. Merrick Garland is citing the defense

that he invalidated for Bannon and Navarro. And there's my understanding is that Representative Anna Polina Luna has actually committed that. I think there's going to be a sort of final final floor vote on the on the on the resolution, I believe on June 25th, and that there are recourse, there's two forms of recourse. One is the Justice Department honors the Contempt Act and effectively, you know, takes action against them through the Justice Department path. The other one, if the Justice Department defies Congress, and of course, it's Merrick Garland's Justice Department. So, you know, that's going to be rigged. But the other option is there's technically a rule that he can be immediately arrested by the House acting sergeant at arms.

And so Republicans technically have the chance to do that exact thing, effectively have Merrick Garland be placed in prison the same way Merrick Garland for the same crime as Merrick Garland placed Steve Bannon last week, you know, in prison or sentence. Ordered him to. Ordered to. Yep. And so that is we will know on June 25th or 23rd whether or not there's still fight left in Republicans in Congress. But the overall problem is that Republicans fail to wield power when they have the opportunity.

And I can't really quite understand why that is. Why does that happen? Well, there is a kind of Achilles heel to the inherent philosophy of the limited government types, which is that, you know, the idea that government should be small, that the private sector, you know, should be, you know, should be the lion's share of what American activity involves. Effectively makes state action an inherent evil unto itself almost doctrinally. And so the act of wielding government power is sort of and this is something that I think is beginning to change. There was this kind of, you know, strain, I think, around, you know, free enterprise, limited government, republicanism that was more true when the Chamber of Commerce was completely

republican. You know, the Chamber of Commerce, our major blue chip companies from basically from Truman until Trump were all Republican. It was basically the main support system that Republicans had against the Democrats who controlled the unions, the universities, the entertainment industry, the media. The countervail, the counterpressure from that was that Republicans control big corporations, or at least they were backed by they had that they had that donor support and that political support. But that changed in the Trump era. A lot of that has to do with Trump's nationalist policies and his perceived war on globalism. These are all globalist companies where the lion's share of their business is done in foreign countries, foreign markets for exports, foreign, foreign, you know, labor for their manufacturing. And so they preferred a sort of Bush Biden, globalist president type. They shifted to that actually, I think, ushered in this kind of

coinciding reformation of a lot of current Republican. We're sort of reforming right now around this idea that actually we should we shouldn't fear state action as much as we used to. This free enterprise thing has basically created this tyranny that we're talking about. The balance has to be restored. What do you think the odds are that the Republicans can retake the Senate during the election? Tim, what does ChatGPT say on that? That who can what? Who can retake the Senate. What are the odds Republicans can get control? When I asked Chad Chepiti based on current polling trends, polling and trends, it said Democrats will take both.

It's interesting because it's like why? I mean, I don't know if you want to pull up this story. 270 to win has Republicans favored to. Right now, it's Republicans to lose. There's two seats that are toss-ups, and Republicans are expected to take 50 seats and there are two toss ups. So it may go 52 to 48. So this is why I think Larry or Trump's endorsement of Larry Hogan is so interesting, because there's the argument that theoretically Larry Hogan was I don't know if I'm jumping ahead, but Larry Hogan was such a popular governor that he could potentially deliver Maryland. Yeah, we'll pull the story up. So we had this from Politico.

Trump supports Hogan's Senate bid after conviction comment. Trump's support for Hogan could end up hurting the former two-term governor. Hurting him, huh? Maybe that was the real play. So Hogan's awful. Anybody lived in Maryland? Well, not anybody. He clearly won elections.

But we don't like him. He's trash. He says all Americans, he said he would urge all Americans to respect Trump's guilty verdict in New York, a hush money case. I'd like to see him win. I think he has a good chance to win. I know other people made some strong statements, but I can just say from my standpoint, I'm all about the party and I'm about the country and I'd like to see him win. Trump told Fox News, Aisha Hasney in an interview that has yet to air. Hogan drew the wrath of former president's team after he refused to defend Trump following his conviction on May 30th. You just ended your campaign. I hope so. Hogan's terrible.

I mean, I can't I don't even understand how he wins in Maryland. I mean, he just has longstanding support in Maryland. He just you know, he was previously the governor. People, for whatever reason, really like him. I don't think he's, you know, the Republican that Trump's Republicans like. But again, to me, it's interesting that Trump is signaling that he would back Hogan for the Senate bid because if you can get, you know, if you can oust the Democrat in Ohio, you can oust the Democrat in Montana and you can pick up Maryland, then you can theoretically tip the Senate in your favor. And I think that signals a level of strategic thinking from the Trump campaign in terms of they want to have a really effective win and they want to go in as strong

as they can be. Because I think you're right there. There are institutions that Republicans controlled historically that they have lost. And it's sort of the argument of what can we regain the fastest to be able to shift the boat in a favorable direction without having to hit these constant blockades. The fact that we have to look to the, you know, when we held Mayorkas in contempt or we wanted to impeach Mayorkas, it just died because we know the Senate is never going to do anything about it. It's all of these institutions that I think we're trying to find a real, or I think, I think conservatives are trying to find a real alignment for it and able to become productive should Trump win in November. I'm curious, are we able to look up

who, who Larry Hogan's biggest financial campaign contributors are? Like is, you know, who, which industries and, um, yes, perhaps individuals contribute the most to Larry Hogan's campaign. Let's see if Chechi P can find it. Who is the largest campaign contributor to Larry Hogan? Yeah, like top five or something like that. Top five, top ten. Normally you'd have to search like open secrets or something. The largest campaign contributor to Larry Hogan comes from individual

contributions. Okay. Hogan's campaign overall raised 3.1. Let's do this. Outside of individuals. $3 million. Who gave the most. From FEC.gov.

Okay. Outside of individual contributions. Other committees. it doesn't actually say okay well one of the things i find interesting about this is that the tango dance that trump has to do to keep his you know his friends close and his enemy his enemies closer you know i think i think back a lot to um something that i think Carlson revealed that when Trump was considering that Trump had called him. I don't know if I'm recalling the story 100 percent accurately, but I remember it being reported somewhere that Tucker said that before Trump bombed Syria in I think it was early 2018, that Trump had called Tucker and asked for his opinion on it. And Tucker said, don't do it. It's insane. It's warmongering. And then Tucker asked Trump,

well, what do you think you're going to do? And Trump said, I think I'm going to do it. And I remember that there was some suggestion that Trump didn't necessarily want to do it, but he was under a lot of pressure from the Russiagate, from the Russiagate Mueller investigation, which at that point people thought Trump might be arrested by Bob Mueller in the Russiagate thing. And that Trump felt a need to make sure that Republicans in his own party in Congress were, who were prone to war, who were prone to maximum pressure on Russia, would be on his side on on Russiagate because he was doing what they wanted on Syria. And I and I look at this Larry Hogan situation and I can't help but but suspect a kind of similar political calculus. So I was finally able to figure it out after asking several questions.

So Better Path Forward PAC is one of the leading PACs. And then it mentions other committees. I said, who is the biggest PAC donors? Robert Smith, a private equity firm executive, and Jeffrey Lurie, an NFL team owner, among other contributors. So whatever. I don't know. Private equity. I'd be curious what industries

that private equity firm specializes in, for example. Because what that would reveal to me is, is it military? Is it the Carlyle Group? Is it energy? Is it oil and gas? Is it... Software, data, and technology-enabled businesses.

Okay. Interesting. According to the FEC.gov. Yeah. Yeah. He's also the lead singer of The Cure. What? Oh, that's a different one. All right. Let's see. I asked I asked Chet GPT. OK, so right now that I asked it based on the current trends. So this is not a simulation or a prediction. This is Chet GPT's analysis of pundits.

Republicans are expected to secure 222 seats. Democrats are expected to win 213 right now. They'll have a narrow majority. So what I had done before is I actually asked Chet GPT not just to look at polls, but to look at individual districts and changes in population, changes in youth vote, youth vote expected turnout. When you added all of these things together, it said Democrats will end up winning. When you ask it based on the latest polling who's going to win, it says Republicans win. But I don't know that that's a sufficient analysis. I think you need to look at immigration, which has been massive, and we need to factor in. And I said based on immigration numbers, based on youth vote turnout, and in-country interstate migration. It's a Democrats win. Interesting. Yep. And then it's going to be a wild ride. I mean, right now having the House, I mean, as much as much criticism, I think that is completely owed and due to Republicans in Congress, there actually has been a fair amount of

really incredible things that folks in the House have done that I did not think were politically possible a couple of years ago. I mean, even think about the fact that we have a Senate subcommittee to investigate the origins of COVID-19. To even ask that question was to not be allowed to have a social media account a couple of years ago. We have this weaponization subcommittee, which has subpoenaed everybody under the sun, done a lot of damage to a lot of malign actors, as they like to say.

And the January 6th committee was because Democrats, you know, because again, the role of that majority is not just in getting bills done. It's that all the committees flip. And and so the entire subject of investigation either turns on essentially a one vote majority. And this is what we're actually seeing is one of the sort of scandals of the George Santos situation and others. But, you know, a lot of the momentum that we have right now on a lot of fronts, because even when Brazil came after Elon and the House Foreign Affairs Committee, you know, sort of left to his defense. And even right now, even as we speak today, there was a whole hearing on Merrick Garland's abuse of the Justice Department where all of the facts about Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro were publicly aired. to folks in the private sector, folks like Elon Musk, folks like David Sachs and Chamath and other

Silicon Valley types that Congress will have your back if you are honest and act with integrity. There will be investigations. It will be legitimized by the People's Assembly. And the idea that like literally just a couple of seats in a random state could flip, could end all of the ongoing committees and immediately flip them to the same justice department that is imprisoning everyone. Yeah, I would agree with Tim's assessment. That is like, that's a pretty terrifying thought.

Just because Trump is ahead. Doesn't mean that everything's going to swing Republican or that the Republicans who win will even do anything. Yeah. I mean, the main issue is the Republican Civil War, though, because Trump inherited a Republican House and a Republican Senate when he came into office after the 2016 election but he was screwed over by paul ryan he was screwed over by his own party because of the gop civil war between the globalist half of the of of congress which is funded by the the large multinational corporations and financial firms which you know is basically invested in the military industrial complex the oil and gas industry and the chamber of commerce types. And then you have this sort of nationalist populist faction. And until that civil war is resolved one way or the other, the Republican Party is going to sort of constantly, it's going

to constantly lose to the Democrat Party on political issues, because either whatever your issue, one wedge of the GOP can be turned against the other to create a Democrat majority with the holdouts from the warring factions. Let's jump to this story. Ladies and gentlemen, it may be the apocalypse. Saudi Arabia's petrodollar deal with the U.S. expires with no new agreement in place. A petrodollar agreement with the United States and Saudi Arabia has expired. As per reports, the Gulf nation has decided not to renew the deal that expired on June 9th. The move can be seen as a global finance paradigm shift from the USD as a reserve currency.

The termination of the deal may also have implications and consequences for America. The 50-year-old agreement has had significant geopolitical and economic implications. It acted as a catalyst in shaping the global energy market and influencing international relations. The petrodollar system was signed in 1974 as a result of a bilateral agreement between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia. Both nations decided to price and trade oil in U.S. dollars. With oil standardization in terms of dollars, every country purchasing oil from Saudi Arabia would be required to pay in dollars. Several other oil producing countries also began to standardize their oil pricing in U.S. dollars, which gave push to the petrodollar system. Well, ladies and gentlemen, what does this mean for you? The United States produces very little. The only reason the U.S. economy

is as good as it is relative to other nations is that we have global empire. We point guns at other people. We take them over and remove their leaders. Saudi Arabia getting off the petrodollar deal likely means they're going to start trading in other currencies as well, which means no one has any reason to buy U.S. dollars. The way it worked is rather simple. If a country, we'll just call it country A. How about Freedomistan? We'll call it Freedomistan. They want oil.

What do they have to do? They have to trade Freedomistani currency for U.S. dollars first, then buy oil in U.S. dollars. There's faster ways of transacting and doing the flip, but basically this means the Freedestani currency must be strong. The nation typically has to maintain higher exports than imports, selling more than they're buying so that their buying power stays strong and they can buy oil for their country. The United States doesn't do that. The United States just creates currency upon the issuance of debt and then buys oil with it. Now, if the Biden administration or anyone else just buys a ton of oil by printing money and producing debt, then you'll get inflation. This means something magical is about to happen. It means if the petrodollar system breaks, the economy will likely implode and you will all find your standard of living miserable.

The U.S. does not produce enough to maintain a strong currency. It's the petrodollar that allows the currency to be strong. That is, what does the U.S. does not produce enough to maintain a strong currency. It's the petrodollar that allows the currency to be strong. That is, what does the U.S. produce? Dollars. What are dollars good for? Buying oil. Not anymore. So now why is anyone going to buy dollars?

They're not. So the value of the dollar is going to start sinking. Your buying power is going to collapse. Good luck. I have no answers. I'm not an economist. I find this to be one of the most fascinating things to happen. I mean, the the the decision tree spiral from this is is, first of all, let it be said that this would never have happened under Donald Trump.

Saudi Arabia loved, loved, loved Donald Trump. And they hated, hated, hated the second half of the Biden administration and and of the Obama administration and Joe Biden. You know, a lot of this comes down to the fact that Saudi Arabia has been essentially our vassal in in the Middle East for for oil and and the economics of that for, you know, for a century, effectively. And I heard something really interesting by Snowden on a Joe Rogan interview a few years ago. And I've been meaning to go back and track down the trip, the clip, because I could, I can't get it out of my head when I see this, which is that Snowden let slip. And I don't know where he got this information or, or, or how strongly he was, he sort of was suggesting that this was true,

but he, in one of his, I think two Joe Rogan appearances, he appeared to insinuate that U.S. intelligence had, that Saudi intelligence had awareness that Khashoggi was involved in a U.S. sort of color, in organizing a kind of U.S.-backed coup of the Saudi government, and that that was part of the calculus of their assassination in the embassy of Khashoggi. And I find that to be really interesting because Obama really alienated Saudi Arabia with the Iran deal. By opening up Iran's oil and gas exports, it effectively makes

Iran a regional rival to Saudi Arabia, whose entire economy revolves on their regional energy dominance. And Iran actually has, I believe, more gross exploitable oil and gas than Saudi Arabia, if they were allowed to export to full capacity, and the Obama administration opening them up and partnering with them through the Iran deal, brought Saudi Arabia and Israel into a joint, this is actually sort of the roots of the Abraham Accords, which is that the Biden administration and the Obama administration with the Iran deal in 2015, by building up Iran and Qatar by proxy, they were effectively creating a security threat to Israel because that money would go to pay for Hamas and Hezbollah and an economic threat to Saudi Arabia because now they would only, they'd lose a huge amount of their market share because now there'd be all

this Iranian oil. And then it would drive down the price of the oil that they do sell because you have all this new supply on the market. And so this basically put Israel and Saudi Arabia into a partnership for the first time in decades, which was brokered by the Trump administration. The first act, if you remember that Trump did when he took office, was to kill that Iran energy deal. And so MBS and Saudi Arabia loved Trump and then immediately went hostile on Biden. And I can't help if part of that has to do with the current policies that the Biden administration have on Iran, the backdoor Iran deal they effectively have allowing China to have this $400 billion oil and gas deal with Iran evading the sanctions, while Hunter was actually partnered with the Chinese energy

company doing that. And then you have, well, I mean, years, same company, but this is Hunter five, six years ago. And then you have, you know, I can't help but think that Saudi Arabia sees the trajectory of the United States under a sort of permanent Biden government as being something that's going to coup Saudi Arabia from the inside and bankrupt them from the outside. And so they are now breaking this 50-year petrodollar pledge and saying, listen, you're going to sink and we're going to partner with China and they're going to, you know, they're going to be our new U.S. big daddy. Joe Biden is not inspiring confidence in everybody, in anybody. And so I can't imagine anybody's going to think. Imagine you you you you want to go start a business with someone.

You want to enter into a contract with someone. Let's say you make a comic book and you need a guy who can, I don't know, come up with ideas, you're a great artist, and then you meet Joe Biden, are you going to do a deal with him? It's actually great you bring that up, because just today it was announced at the G7 summit that the U.S. Treasury is going forward with this plan to fund Ukraine with frozen Russian assets.

That's right, yeah. So we've always, just sort of putting on the State Department hat here, we've always made the argument that you should invest in the United States instead of China because, hey, China is an autocratic government. You never know if your investment is going to be safe because any day the CCP could just nationalize your company, take all your assets. Haven't really done it before, but the looming threat of it because of the way their system works is always the sword of Damocles hanging above you. So Brazil, you should be using our phones instead of Huawei. You should be using Amazon instead of Alibaba. You should be investing your assets on U.S. territory instead of in Chinese territory.

And now the State Department and the Treasury have just done the big, bad, you know, apocalypse claim. We've always been saying for like 30 years now that China might do someday, and that's the reason they're bad. It's the same thing with the prosecutions, where they're saying, you know, oh, Trump is threatening to prosecute people while they're actually doing it but they made they made a deal under our legal system as it existed at the time like the russians hate the russians think they're the worst thing you know think putin is hitler they invested the assets in this country they They did not attack the United States. Whatever you want to say they did, it happened 8,000 miles away to another foreign country.

If the new terms of dealing with the United States is any time we squint and say, hey, you know what? We think you attack democracy. Some ethereal concept. Then billions, basically I think it's like $ 200 or 300 billion dollars of total frozen Russian assets. I know that there was three billion dollars that they pledged that they're going that they're immediately taking to fund Ukraine with. Why would you deal do a deal with this country in this way? I mean, if this is not reversed immediately, this is going to be catastrophic diplomatically. But it won't be reversed immediately, right? Like we're kind of in gridlock in free fall in terms of our foreign policy, in my eyes, until we figure out who's going to handle the next four years. You could see a world where Trump wins the presidency

and some of what happened, what has happened, some of the worst excesses, not all of it, but some of the worst excesses just sort of feel like a bad dream. They threatened to do this. They did a little bit of damage, but it was stopped before it's too late. America gets to preserve, you know, preserve, you know, the century of diplomatic statecraft that we'd had for that time. You say, OK, there was a period where we went off the rails, but we reined it in quickly. And this actually shows how robust our system is, that even when we do overstretch, even when we look like we're going to renege on this deal, even when it actually is safe because we will always be able to catch ourselves. And that is just one more reason why

the fate of the universe kind of hangs in the balance this November. What really cracked me up about the people that were at the G7 that were making this catastrophic deal is that six out of the seven leaders are all unpopular. Like they have insane internal struggles in their own country. Like Politico had a great report about this where they said this is the meeting of the lame ducks. You know, so I mean, you have unpopular leaders that are making deals that are catastrophic. Like that's pretty much where we're at. Well, that's why I find it so funny that populism is the big dirty word in all of this.

That populism is inherently a threat to democracy, the will of the people. Because they basically redefined democracy from meaning a consensus of individuals, i.e. voters, to a consensus of institutions, i.e. that same blob, cloistered, elite institutional set. And so, and you even see this, this i mean if you run a google search for phrases like you know elections are you know are a threat to democracy you know there's there's a lot of literature from the foreign policy establishment about how we need to transition away from looking at elections and votes as being our definition of democracy because populism is on the rise the will of the the people is threatening. And they're really, they're redefining what democracy is to mean democratic institutions, basically pillars of society,

like our Justice Department, or the mainstream media, or these, or NGOs. And that's really having a healthy and robust ecosystem of essentially, you know, CIA assets or State Department-funded institutions or military contractors, you know, their will is what democracy is now. And so it is funny that they're unpopular and they're in power, and what they're at war with is the concept of populism, which is basically popular opinion against elite institutions. Just to make my comprehension easier, when I'm reading the headlines, I just instantly, when these freak shows are talking about democracy, I just instantly translate in my head as hegemony.

Then I'm just like, okay, now it makes sense. Tyranny, fascism. Yes. Do you think this continues to drive people to populism, though? I think as it becomes more clear that, you know, we're speaking different languages, people feel more, not everybody, but there are a lot of people who feel more insistent

that they have to act now. They have to become part of populist movements to, again, have some sort of impact on where we're going as a nation. I think presently we're on a razor's edge about that. The fact is, is like North Korea does exist. You can beat people down to a point, and you can use the levers of police power, the levers of censorship, the levers of the government and its asset institutions to be able to truly subjugate a people for a millennium. But the issue is right now is they were on track for that, I think, before a handful of fortuitous turns of events in about 2022, which included the House turning over, which allowed basically taking some of the

foot off of the gas of some of the worst excesses of what the government was doing. The House has blocked a lot of things. They have forced negotiations on everything from the budget to investigations, hearings, subpoenas, hauling everyone in for transcribed interviews. You've got Elon Musk, who, I mean, think about, for example, even the commerce of media in this country and how brutal it was to be a content creator or an alternative media institution and have nobody, not a single platform. And not just to have that platform, but to have the ecosystem of sort of Musk-ism around you, that he also owns Tesla and SpaceX

and has the institutional sort of connections. And the fact that that sort of opened up Silicon Valley, the fact that they just had a sold out Silicon Valley, you know, fundraise. Right now, there is this, I think, tenuous moment to, you know, to fight back. I don't know that that will always exist. There could be a century of darkness if, you know, if the next five years play out the

wrong way. We're gonna go to Super Chat. So if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button? One like equals one FJB. Also head over to TimCast.com, click join us to become a member and support our work directly. As a member, you'll get access to the uncensored call-in show coming up in about a half an hour over at TeamCast.com, where you as members get to call in and join the show. But for now, we'll read your super chats. Clint Torres says, Alpha Turkey says, Put a chick in it and make her gay. Rip Star Wars.

Isn't it funny that South Park made fun of Star Wars for that and then they literally did that it's like I wonder if Disney went uh oh they're calling us out and we didn't even release the episode yet that's the new Star Wars story that lesbian space witches created the force

is that what it is? Oh my god I didn't see this they birthed immaculate babies through witchcraft or something they don't eat men Is that what it is? Oh my god, I didn't see this. They birthed immaculate babies through witchcraft or something? They don't eat men. You know how it is. You know what, that's just a green amplify. That's just game right there. It's like, all right, a green amplify. Yeah, we are going to put a chicken. We are going to make her gay. All right, Blue TMC says, being under the influence of a substance, no matter the substance, doesn't make your right to self-defense vanish. We already have laws for brandishing, negligent discharge, assault, murder. That's a good point.

That is a good point. So then I guess we could, the clarification should be, if you are actively wielding a weapon while under the influence, you have committed the crime. Perhaps influence can be, I don't know,

extenuating factor of some sort. Tim Jakes says, I'd love to see Ian take a class on how the British government actually operates so he'll stop making so many ignorant and asinine comments about the empire and emperor. He doesn't seem to understand this. Ian lives in this like fictional world where the king of England, the king of, I suppose of England, can just take control of Australia or Canada or New Zealand, which is not correct.

Just, it's not reality. What does he say when he says that? It's like on paper a long time ago, but it doesn't recognize the formal relationships of government and how these governments function. Yeah, there's no reality where the king is going to be like, all right, Canada, you have to do this now. And they're going to be like, okay.

It's just not going to work that way. It's written in invisible ink on the back of the Magna Carta. Yeah, that's where it is. I mean, initially, yeah, the king was the king of the Commonwealth, but I think modern politics is just, it is not reality to see something like that happen. It doesn't work that way. All right, let's grab some more Super Chats.

Blue TMZ says, it's the acts you conduct with that firearm that determines whether or not you're breaking the law. Well, all right. That'd be an interesting debate. The Highlander says, Ian has Hulkamania energy. Okay.

Anthony Shaw says, let's go. What are the adjectives for Hulkamania? Like, is there a synonym to this? I'm not sure I understand what that energy is. The fan of Hulk Hogan. Impassable says, use this to buy more BuzzFeed. Yeah, I bought a bunch of BuzzFeed stock. You have a vague taking over?

Not me. I can't buy nearly as much as he's bought. But I was just like, you know, I'm going to buy some stock. And then I saw BuzzFeed and I saw what Vake was saying. And I was kind of just thinking like he's the best reason to believe it's going to become more valuable I guess. So I don't usually like talking about the

stocks that I buy because I don't want to have any influence on them. But we talk about BuzzFeed and the Vivek story enough to where I figured I'd mention that I bought some. I didn't buy nearly that much. It's not... You have been secretly buying it up quietly for months and then you make a big announcement. You're not going to send an open letter to their CEOs saying, here's how you change

the business? I would love to own BuzzFeed. And their market cap is down to like $95 million. Let me check their current market cap. What company would you secretly take over if you could, Chris Carr? Wow. AMC. I would take over AMC.

Didn't AMC just invest in alamo draft house or something if they did that's a really smart investment because alamo draft house is the movie theater of the future sony bought it i think 94 million is buzzfeed's market cap so you need 94 million probably more actually to uh buy the company but if you buy too much the price goes up so it gets harder and harder it's probably why vivek is doing it slowly otherwise you just you know if you say right now you wanted to buy 10 million you'd crank the price way up and price yourself out so i don't know exactly what he's doing all i know is uh i am part owner of buzzfeed now yeah it's interesting you know buzzfeed played such an interesting role in the in the steeleele dossier. And they really pioneered. I think I read because a book called Attention Merchants, which sort of goes through the history of mainstream media and into the social media age.

And there was a whole thing on sort of, you know, BuzzFeed pioneering that sort of viral kitten listicle kind of concept it but and then sort of turning the whole news industry into sort of appreciating the power of newsifying things you know in these in like in listicles and sort of on making it sort of in internet speak making it uh less like the sunday edition of the new york times and more something speaks, you know, to modern culture. And I actually think, was it Ben Smith? Was he the original CEO? No, no, no, no. The editor-in-chief. Editor-in-chief, yeah. Yeah, Jonah Paredes is the CEO. Okay. I feel like when he went over to the New York Times, when Ben Smith, I feel like something,

they lost a lot of their, I don't know, I just didn't see him around as much, I guess, breaking big stories. Ben is a morally good guy who don't know i just didn't see him around as much i guess breaking big stories and ben is a morally good guy who doesn't know what's going on around him because i've known him for a while and uh i've talked to him a couple times he has very little deep understanding of what's actually happening in the country but he's not a bad guy there are a lot of people in the corporate press who are evil, know what's going on. He's the opposite. He has no idea what's happening, but he's a good guy. Yeah, it's unfortunate because he's the kind of guy where like, if you can prove something is true and he will recognize it, then he'll say it. But I will give him this shout out. When BuzzFeed News fabricated a story about a black man killing another black man over a fried chicken sandwich,

I got pissed off that they published the fake story because it's disgusting. What happened was when Popeyes released their new chicken sandwich, remember that big trend that happened? There was a guy who was at Popeyes. Someone cut in line. And it was nothing to do with the sandwich. It was just a guy cut in line. He went outside and I can't remember exactly what happened, but the guy was like, hey, you know, don't cut. Like, who do you think you are? And then the guy,

I think, stabbed him and killed him. And it was not over a chicken sandwich. It was people got into a fight at a Popeye's. But they couldn't resist the story. The family members were shocked, outraged and upset that the media was lying and claiming that they were fighting. The implication was that there was one chicken sandwich left and there was so much of the guy to stab him when buzzfeed ran that story i reached out to ben smith and i said hey this is not correct here's the proof the family is saying this is not what happened and he said so what he did not care that he published fake news that's scumbaggery yeah well that kind of makes me revisit that he's a good guy well i'm not going to condemn

he's there have been many instances where he has done the right thing on stories of you know more importance like a viral clickbait story he doesn't care about i think is scummy but there have been bigger more important stories where he's done the right thing uh that being said based on the conversations i've had with him he has like some of the thinnest, like the most shallow understanding of like what's going on in the world. Right. It is interesting that BuzzFeed really made its bones on going viral. That was true of their news team, but that was also true of their list to close to their content, the video components that they launched at one point, like it was about getting as many eyes on whatever you're doing as possible. So it's not surprising to me that like that would

take precedence in their newsroom, especially when you come up with possible. So it's not surprising to me that that would take precedence in their newsroom, especially when you come up with headlines. But it's definitely not something that other news outlets that were online were doing the way they were. Right. Cain Ables says, I don't like Biden.

He is corrupt and has done so many illegal things, but wow, I pity him. This is definitely elder abuse. He is gone. This is Obama's third term, not Biden's term. Dude, that video today i mean

there's a reason it got 10 million views in only a couple hours in like six seven hours he's standing around at a skydiving like presentation and then he just like cornholio arms spins around and then starts walking in a random direction like Like, he's just gone, man. There's people defending him, though. They're saying it's not a big deal. Like, he does have staunch defender, like this one guy I pulled up. What's happening here is that you're an old guy who moves kind of stiltedly.

It's very easy to find brief clips that look strange to people already committed to the idea he's lost it. He has lost it. I've heard him talk. Yeah, but you're never going to get through to these people. The Crashers had one that Newsweek cited, and they were saying, oh, well, what's happening is, like, you can see that eight out of the ten people look one direction. When one of the guys starts talking, then they look the other directions, and Biden just is still listening to someone else.

Incredible. Like, I—it would be impossible for you to know that unless you were there, but also, like, the video evidence sort of speaks for itself. Even if that—even if what you're saying is true, he's actually listening to someone else. Like he doesn't convey confidence. He doesn't convey strength. Like he looks like he is a slightly lost old man. And that's,

that's sad. Like, I don't like that either. You know what I like? I like these video games where they present you with a problem and then you can solve it however you want. Right. An example of one game is a game called Human Fall Flat. Have you guys ever heard of it?

So it's this game where you play this wonky little dude, and you run around, and you've got to open doors. The goal is to get to the exit. That's it. But the controls are really weird. You can press the right trigger, and he'll grab something. And you press the left trigger, and he'll grab something. And then you have to lift yourself up. And it's a very funny game,

but it doesn't matter how you get to the exit. You can get to the exit any way you want. There's no cheating. I love these games because I don't play them the way you'd expect them to be played. My character, you fall from the sky, you land in this little level. And then I'm just thinking, how do I get from here to there? And they have a path, but you don't got to take it. So I like doing things where I like climb under the level, figure out how to control the guy in ways that it's not supposed to be done. And I figured how it gets done. I feel like when it comes to people like the Krasensteins,

before we actually entertain political debate from the likes of them or other Democrat pundits, we have to give them some kind of basic logic puzzle to see if they can solve it first. And then if they can, and anyone else, like I will gladly solve a basic logic puzzle before I walk into a debate. And if you can't, we kindly ask you to leave. It's like an IQ capture. Yeah, right. Yeah, yeah.

No, they would just declare it immediately systemically racist and be like, you can't impose this on me at all. Many would. And I don't know what their solution would be. Perhaps they take the very boring and bland, they walk right to the level. So, you know, there's one level where you're like, you hit a button and the door opens and then you have to walk and you got to pick up a rock and put the rock on the button. Another door opens.

Then you have to like push a boulder and it falls and then it makes an elevator come up. Very fun game. Very simple. I don't like doing any of that. I just like figuring out I've and anybody who's played the game for any amount of time, people know what I'm talking about. You can you can sort of cheat. There's ways to swing your guy up and up and around to make him climb over anything and bypass anything and get into places you're not supposed to get to. I love

doing all that stuff. If they solve the puzzle, one, two, three, four, that's fine. If someone else solves it, five, six, seven, eight, whatever. Totally acceptable. If they get the answer, 120 and someone else gets five exclamation point, we accept it. Right. Yeah. It's like agreeing on a process and or like, yeah, my basic level of comprehension required to have these conversations. The reason I bring this up is, you know, I'm thinking about how the people are defending Joe Biden. Like, I just want to know that their brains work and that they're lying intentionally or if they're just stupid. Because like Joe Biden is standing up on D-Day. He squats down, grimaces, he stands up, he squats down a little bit again. And we're all like, well,

that was kind of weird. I wonder what that was. There is a probability that he was pooping himself. We don't know for sure that he did. But I do believe based on his age, the propensity for people over the age of 80 to suffer from fecal incontinence, the existence of depends is proof of this. But you can actually get the number. I believe it is then reasonable to assume there is a strong probability Biden had an episode. Not only that, but he's been accused of having episodes before. We entertain the reality that these could be political attacks against him, that they're trying to insult him. But you cannot ignore the fact that as an 80 year old man who made a weird squat position, he wasn't trying to sit down. There's a chair right behind him. No one's saying anything. Everyone's supposed to be standing. I don't know what the percentage

is. One? Fifty? But it's a possibility. And there are people like, it's completely impossible. He must have been adjusting his posture. And I'm like, how often do you see people do anything like that that's adjusting their posture? Okay, maybe. Let's throw that in there. But the idea that outright you would say no, I put it this way. There is more evidence that Joe Biden pooped his pants than there is that Donald Trump is a Russian asset. Yet they ran through the news a million and one ways that Trump was a Russian asset, and it was all completely made up. They said that the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation, and they're maintaining that lie. There is more evidence that Joe Biden crapped his pants on stage

during D-Day. I did not say definitive proof. There's just more evidence that that's true than Hunter Biden's laptop was part of a Russian disinformation scheme. It was actually his laptop. It was admitted into evidence. It was his serial number confirms it. All of his stuff is on it. And right now, journalists are still tweeting. But it still is part of a Russian disinformation campaign. The argument they're making now is the Russians stole the laptop and then secretly handed it off to a pawn shop so that some Trump supporter could pick it up. That is ridiculously assumptive and circuitous. That being said, there's more of it. And so there are people who are like,

there's no way he pooped his pants. You're making that up. But the laptop, that's a Russian spy operation. I'm like, okay, your logic doesn't exist. I want you to, I want to get, with those little puzzles we bought from, you know, Gamers Parabellum, what are those places? I don't know what know, game gamers pair. What are those? I don't know.

This game stores are called. What's different games? You get like, not GameStop, but you go to the mall and they have like, they'll sell puzzles and things like that. Actually, GameStop might sell these and it'll be like three triangles. And you're like, how did these get together? And you have to like spin them to make them come apart. They're so fun.

Yeah. I'm going to put that on the door outside and be like, before anybody comes in for a debate, figure this one out. I don't care how long it takes you. If you can figure it out, you come upstairs. I think it's probably more fun to be illogical, though, right? Because you don't you're not tied to any sort of map or path to making, you know, straightforward conclusions or things that make sense. Like it doesn't it doesn't have to add up. And that's sort of more fun. You can just continue to twist and add and take away and subtract and go back on things.

Like it doesn't matter if you're illogical. It's like an LSD trip for logic. The Xbox gamer says it was Enterprise B in yesterday's Enterprise. So I was talking about Star Wars being complete garbage. And there is this woman who made a video saying or talking about the birth control pill saying that it makes women like their brothers like it makes them attracted to their brothers because what happens is when they're on the pill it simulates pregnancy so their their hormones tell them to be with family so the men they want to be with are more effeminate weak and more like brothers or sisters or moms and not like strong masculine men who can fight when women women are not on the pill, they're looking for the strongest guy when they're on the pill. So she says, and I'm not talking

about your cool brother who was handsome and play on football. I'm talking about your effeminate bi brother who watched Star Trek. And so I made a video basically pointed out Star Wars. You want to rag on Star Wars today and Star Trek today? Like, okay, fine. But Star Trek, the OG stuff and the next generation is some of the manliest, most masculine thing ever. And I recommend people who have not seen the next generation watch it. And I recommend their kids watch it. One of my favorite stories in the next generation. I'll make this one quick. I did a longer thing about it earlier today.

In the original series, it in the original series it's the federation that's the main character kirk and everybody and then there's klingons they're bad guys and then in the next generation when they rebooted the series and created a new crew and everything and it was one of the most popular shows ever they decided so this is what happened the writers were like how do we show that the passage of time and the story's advanced put a klingon on the Enterprise. An enemy from the first series is now an ally in the new series. The writing they came up with was that the Klingons and the Federation are at war. Romulans, another enemy faction, attack a civilian outpost,

a civilian colony of Klingons, killing women and children, a massacre, just wiping everybody out. And then the Federation intercepts a distress signal from the Klingons, their enemy. They warp full speed. They rush in as fast as they can and encounter four warships they are completely incapable of handling. Instead of fleeing the battle, the Enterprise sacrifices itself, getting destroyed in the process in an effort to try and save as many Klingon civilians as possible. The Klingon Empire then, seeing this as an act of bravery and honor, decides to enter into an alliance with the Federation. That's the story they wrote. That is based AF. The idea that you in your ship would sacrifice yourself for honor and the integrity is an amazing story for kids.

It's amazing writing. What we get now with Star Wars, and don't get me wrong, modern Star Trek is bad too. We get lesbian space witches chanting to impregnate women with the force. Yeah, okay, look. You want to talk about manly? Kids learning about naval tradition,

which is the basis of Star Trek. It's effectively naval tradition, but they put it in space. And you have perpetual stories throughout this whole thing of sacrifice, honor, what it means to be a good person, what it means to be strong, what it means to be a man.

Those are great lessons. Yeah, we don't have a lot of those stories these days. So I'll call Star Trek, at least what it used to be, very masculine. I thought you were gone somewhere different with that at first because um you know of like a Klingon being you know someone from the enemy side being on on your ship I was re-watching Austin Powers uh on I on a plane it was just like a movie while I was traveling and there's a really funny scene because I think Austin Powers was made

in like 1997 the original one and there's this scene which you know it when i watched as a kid like i just thought i didn't even process its sort of geopolitical sort of implications especially today when we're at war thrush but essentially austin powers is like cryogenically unfrozen and instead of being in the year like 1960 is like uh you know guy with mojo and and everything, he's now in the 1990s in what was then the present day. And, you know, British intelligence cryogenically unfreezes him. And there's, standing in front of him are, like, two Russian scientists in this, in the British intelligence, you know, lab here. And he immediately gets in his fighting posture and is prepared to karate chop them.

And then he's told by the MI6 guy, no, no, no, no, no. It's Austin. It's 1997 now. The Russians are our friends. And it's so funny because 1980s was all like hardcore Cold War propaganda. They're the enemy. We're back to that now, but we had this period during the Yeltsin years from 1991 to 1999 where Austin Bowers was made where it was like

we have a Klingon on our ship and it's a good thing because they're not the enemies. We have this alliance now. Of course, now that can never be made today as a comedy. What's-Her-Name says, lost my mom a few weeks ago unexpectedly. She was a huge Timcast fan and got me watching. We would always discuss the show.

You and Luke, her favorite, woke her up and she walked away from the left. Thank you. Wow. Sad to hear it. Sorry about your loss, but I'm glad you found the show and you shared something and I hope for the best. Wish you the best. Let's grab a couple more super chats here. Danny O'Shea says Mayorkas has been trafficking people, especially children, through red states. Where's the arrest warrants? Absolutely. Tennessee. Huge story several years ago that the Biden administration was flying trafficking children into Tennessee and Tennessee legislators were upset about it. No action, none whatsoever. Wow. That's amazing. Slow Brain says,

did West Virginia spend $1 million on a pride mural on the street, or did I read that wrong? I do not believe they spent $1 million. Is that? There is. I don't know how much it costs, but there is a huge pride mural in. In Huntington, right?

In Huntington. It's basically Kentucky, I think. It's on the border. Far west, West Virginia. So it's the LA of West Virginia, I guess. So it's the L.A. of West Virginia, I guess. But it's already getting completely obliterated. People are just destroying it. They're just driving their cars over it.

They're squealing their tires. It's nuts. Or is that case now where they've made it a crime to do a donut on it, right? Yeah, I think in Washington, right, desecrating a pride flag is a felony or something like that? Yeah, I know there's some crazy ongoing case where they threw the book at this guy. Oh, there's like 50 right now. Probably. There are some kids who are riding scooters, and they're getting charged with felonies.

Scooters? It's all the way down to scooters? They were riding scooters around, and it left scuffed, so they said it was vandalism. And there's not even evidence presented yet that they were intentionally trying to scuff the road. There is a video of them just riding around. Yeah. And they called it damaging the mural. I don't really understand why we need to do this and also why pride is taking over more and more and more like now it's the street art, I guess, with the Huntington mural. They're saying, oh, it's supposed to serve as a center piece for the upcoming pride festival in the fall. Like, no, they're tearing down our June. They're tearing down our statues.

They're tearing down historical statues. When I say our, I'm talking like Hans Christian Haag and Frederick Douglass. I also don't like the Confederate statues being torn down. They should be in museums at the very least, but it should be done through a democratic process. And then after they destroy symbols of our history, they put up their garbage. So now all of these should be fought to the to the highest degree possible. But I think it's got to be done legally. That's the point.

The problem is, and I blame the police. How come no one how come very few people ever got arrested for destroying all of our statues? Now they're now they're arresting anybody who even accidentally drives over these things. Yes. So if you scuff a pair of white Nikes with a pride flag on it, it's like a crime. I mean, it's just incredible. issue and the transgender issue transitioned into sort of the transgender of children issue, it began to, I think, add an element to the LGBT alliance that encountered a level of political opposition that was not as formidable as it currently is. I think you have so many parents now who are afraid of their public schools. They're afraid that their son is going to come home, a daughter,

that the state child protective services will seize. And we've seen so many stories like that. You now have J.K. Rowling and other, you know, very, it's dividing the left, frankly, you know, with TERFs versus feminists. But they're not the left anymore. J.K. Rowling's far right. I'm not kidding. They call her far right.

There's a viral story of this woman. The right. I'm not kidding. They call her far right. Right. There's a viral story of this woman. She's gone viral every so often. And she says she realized that she wasn't pro-choice because she found out a friend of someone she knew got pregnant. And she was like, the state's pro-choice is getting abortion. And then the woman was like planning on keeping it. She's like, why are you keeping it? And then her friend said, because she can choose to. And she's like, oh, wow. I was just, I didn't realize pro-choice meant you could keep

it too. Wow. This whole woman, this woman's shtick on her TikTok, 100,000 followers, I don't know, a decent amount of her videos is, I was raised Christian and now I'm, you know, a bi progressive or whatever. And I'm like, well well that's because the parents handed her to the state and that's what parents do and they think it's they don't care i i this i never understood they hand their kids to the state and they say good luck and then the kid transforms into exactly who they're surrounded by from a christian conservative she said she protested gay marriage even and now she's marching in pride events and covered in makeup and all that. Well, once you go down it, I mean, you get committed. It becomes your friend network. It changes you physically. I mean,

especially with the transgender stuff, it changes your hormones. It changes your brain. It changes your impulses, your desires. It's kind of like one of these, you know, in some ways, a lot of it, once you go down the road, it becomes physically and spiritually irreversible to some. You are the summation of the five people who surround you. And if your parents handed you off to the state, you will become a facsimile of state agenda. But we'll wrap it up there. We're going to go to the members onlyonly uncensored show right now. So head over to timcast.com. Click join us.

Become a member. We're going to go live with that on the front page in just a few minutes. You can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast. You can follow the show at Timcast IRO. Mike, do you want to shout anything out? At Mike Ben Cyber. That's all one word. At Mike Ben Cyber on X.

I'm a rabid tweeter. Nice. Chris Carr 17 on X. I'm a rabid tweeter. Nice. Chris Carr, 17 on X. Be sure to check out scnr.com for all of your news junkie needs. Yeah, it's the best. I really like it and I work there. So does Chris.

I'm Hannah Claire Brimelow. I'm a writer for scnr.com. Follow our work at TimCastNews. If you don't have the website, go at TimCastNews for Twitter and Instagram. You can get all of our updates there. If you're not following me personally, I'm HannahClaireB on Twitter

and I'm HannahClaire.B on Instagram. Guys, thank you for everything you do. Bye, Serge. See you later. Peace out, guys. We'll see you all over at TimCast.com in a few minutes. Thanks for hanging out. you