Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #1056 GOP Announces Move To ARREST Biden AG Garland For Contempt w/Arthur Bloom

Episode Date: June 27, 2024

Tim, Hannah Claire, Phil, & Serge are joined by Arthur Bloom to discuss GOP to force vote to arrest AG Merrick Garland, Tim Pool debating Arthur Bloom on the double standard on enforcing the law between Steve Bannon & Merrick Garland, CNN explaining how they will mute Trump's mic during presidential debate, and the New York Times blaming Israel & AIPAC for Jamaal Bowman's loss. Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere)  Hannah Claire @hannahclaireb (everywhere) Phil @PhilThatRemains (X) Serge @sergedotcom (everywhere) Guest: Arthur Bloom @j_arthur_bloom (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Discover the magic of BetMGM Casino, where the excitement is always on deck. Pull up a seat and check out a wide variety of table games with a live dealer. From roulette to blackjack, watch as a dealer hosts your table game and live chat with them throughout your experience to feel like you're actually at the casino. The excitement doesn't stop there. With over 3,000 games to choose from, including fan favorites like Cash Eruption, UFC Gold Blitz, and more. Make deposits instantly to jump in on the fun, and make same-day withdrawals if you win.

Download the BetMGM Ontario app today. You don't want to miss out. Visit BetMGM.com for terms and conditions. 19 plus to wager, Ontario only. Please gamble responsibly. If you have questions or concerns about your gambling or someone close to you, Yeah, maybe it's all bark and no bite, as one of our commenters has already pointed out. But the GOP has announced that they are going to make a move. Right. They're announcing their plan to initiate a vote to arrest Merrick Garland using a an obscure power they have in Congress called inherent contempt. I applaud their use of this. I want

to see them use it. The story is basically Joe Biden is not being criminally charged for classified documents. The Republicans want to know why Merrick Garland will not turn over any of the evidence. They subpoenaed him. He refused. They referred him for criminal charges. The DOJ said no. Well, there is a mechanism for Congress and its inherent contempt, which would require the sergeant at arms to go and arrest the attorney general. I assume most of you expect nothing to happen, but it's still a very interesting story. Nonetheless, we do have a lot of news. We have updates on the CNN versus independent media story, which is getting really weird. And I got a lot to talk about because it

involves all of you and this show and our plans for tomorrow, which should be very, very interesting and presents us with a good amount of risk, because as we gear up into this election, it is going to get pretty wild lawsuits, et cetera. So I hope you guys are ready for a wild ride. Supreme Court has ruled that Missouri has no standing to make a claim against the federal government for censorship. And Amy Coney Barrett wrote the majority opinion for SCOTUS saying, yeah, get out. You can't do this. But there are a few more lawsuits which may actually challenge the law here. So it should get interesting. And then, of course, we have some more debate stuff. But there is another interesting story. WikiLeaks has deleted their entire DNC email archive. It no longer appears.

And the speculation is that this is pertaining to the plea agreement sending Julian Assange home. There's a lot of backroom stuff going on, which is interesting. I don't know how much we can talk about, but we'll talk about how much we can. Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com. Click Join Us. Become a member. If you want to watch the members-only uncensored show tonight at 10 p.m. Should be good fun. Also, you can see the banner up at TimCast.com.

We have a live show at the RNC in Milwaukee with Mike Lindell, Luke Rutkowski, Hannah Claire Brimelow, and Libby Emmons. We're going to be live with you guys in the audience. If you want to go, click the link in that banner. Buy your tickets now. It's a big event. It's a very expensive thing to set up i just want i want to make sure everybody understands the rnc like owns

all of milwaukee basically like i'm exaggerating a little bit but the way it works is for the rnc and the dnc being so massive they they basically have contracts with every venue and this one was particularly rough setting up because you go to like a hotel and you say, hey, we're going to do a show and they say, sorry, you got to go through the RNC. We go to another venue and say, sorry, you got to go through the RNC. So we did set it up. No disrespect to the RNC. I get what they're doing. And we did talk to them about some stuff and, you know, and what we can do. But we're going to have that live show. It's going to be a lot of fun. So definitely buy your tickets now. And again, join us as a member at TimCast.com and help support

our work. I want to I want to mention something real quick in this intro as we're doing this shout out. Become a member at TimCast.com tomorrow. We will be live streaming commentary, fact checking, criticism, et cetera, on the CNN debate. I've spoken with many other big channels and the consensus here is CNN, and there's some lawyers involved, right? CNN is desperate. They are dying and are going to lash out in desperation. So this likely means, you know, we were warned the likelihood that they make claims against all these other channels is substantial and uh we're going to need your support as members our plan is to multi-stream so to be live on x uh youtube and rumble all at the same time we got this japanese plugin that was written a while ago hopefully it works and um hopefully it works out but i spoke to some other big channels some other

big channels told me they will not do it. And the reason is if you get a strike, it takes you off the air for one week. So this could be bad for us if they file. It's a false claim, by the way. Every legal channel we've gone through, every opinion is it's unquestionably fair use. But I'll save that for the deeper show.

I'm just saying now, become a member to support our work because we definitely need your help. Anyway, rant over, but you understand why we're getting into it. Share the show with all your friends, smash that like button. Joining us tonight to talk about this and everything else is Arthur Bloom. Hi, Tim. Thanks. Thanks for having me on. Absolutely. Who are you? What do you do? I'm an independent journalist. I've been working independently for the last year and a half or so. I've recently won a defamation suit, which is sort of an interesting story. If I'm allowed to go into that a little bit, the fellow who sued me and I've now beaten him is the

former owner of Ted Bundy's Volkswagen. Oh, that's weird. Yeah, he sued me for $10 million and I beat him a couple of months ago and he owes me 10 grand and uh and I've so far been unable to collect so if any of you out there uh are familiar with a Nash Rosenblatt he owes me ten thousand dollars and uh he he owns some other things too including a rent stabilized tenancy in the Hotel Chelsea the famous Bohemian Hotel and uh and his Chinese wife was arrested for trespassing at the Charlotte airport in 2022. So there are your clues. All right. Yeah.

So I've also started a nonprofit to look into, you know, matters related to government corruption and civil liberties. In the past, I've had bylines at a number of right and left of center publications, worked at the American Conservative, The Daily Caller. That's pretty much the story. Right on. And Phil has been here the whole time. How you doing? My name is Phil Levante. I'm the lead singer of the heavy metal band All That Remains.

I'm an anti-communist and a counter-revolutionary and I'm a little out of breath. Hannah Clare, how you doing? I'm good. It's so good to see you, Phil. I'm glad you could join us too, Arthur. I'm Hannah Clare Brimble. I'm a writer for SCNR.com, Scanner News. Follow our work at TimCastNews. We're glad you all could join us here. Hi, Serge.

Yo, what's up, Phil? Hi. Well, I'm doing good. He's here the whole time. What do you mean? Phil was here the entire time. The monologue was a normal length. Everything is fine. All right, we're good to go? Everybody knows what that meant. All right, here's the first story from The Hill.

Luna to force vote on obscure maneuver for forcing Sergeant-at-Ar Arms to detain Garland. OK, come on, guys, arrest. It's to arrest, OK, for for crimes. Rep. Anna Paulina Luna will move within days to force a vote on having the House Sergeant at Arms forcibly bring Attorney General Merrick Garland before the House by holding him in inherent contempt over his refusal to turn over audio of Biden's interview with special counsel Robert Herr.

Luna sent a letter to her colleagues Monday saying she will call up her inherent contempt resolution in the next few days when she raises the question of privilege. Leaders will have to schedule action on the resolution within two legislative days. Her move follows House Republicans holding Garland in contempt of Congress earlier this month over his refusal to provide audio recordings from Biden's October interview. Now, this is interesting. A lot of people believe that this vote will fail. If it does, Congress, in my opinion, does not exist. I mean, it literally does. There's a room, there's people there, there's a sergeant at arms. But if they cannot use their congressional authority to subpoena Merrick Garland and ask why Biden is not being criminally charged and Trump is, I mean, that's not even the root of the question. It's why are

you not charging this man for having for breaking the law? Then Congress is completely impotent. If they do not succeed in the inherent contempt maneuver, it is, I think it's fair to say it's already plainly obvious, but I think that will be the biggest and clearest sign to the American people that your government is a facade and is being run by the intelligence agencies, which most of us already know to be the case, but we assume there's some semblance of American populist power. The people still have some opportunity here. Let me break this down as Luna did. Joe Biden's got classified documents. The reason he had them was because he wanted to write a book to sell and

make money. His ghostwriter deleted some of the evidence when he found this out. He was investigated. They found numerous instances where he was holding these classified documents. The DOJ says they're not going to prosecute because he's an old man with a bad memory. Republicans say we want that recording of the conversation because the transcript first, it may have been altered. What do we know? They say no. They say, Merrick Garland, we are subpoenaing you for this audio. Merrick Garland says no. They say if you do not comply with subpoena, we will hold you in contempt of Congress, the same as the J6 committee did to Steve Bannon and to Peter Navarro. And Navarro's in prison now, Bannon's going on the first. Merrick Garland said, F off. They then referred Merrick Garland

for criminal prosecution for contempt of Congress. The DOJ said F off. Their last move is to hold him in inherent contempt and send the sergeant at arms to arrest him. If this fails, it is clear. Congress, your government, it's a facade. I couldn't agree more. Like, I'm really over the whole like essentially the government if you're in the favor of the government the government just changes the laws to accommodate you i was talking about

this with um counterpoints uh connor from counterpoints earlier essentially all of the things that donald trump has alleged to have done or has been found guilty of doing all of them another president has done to some degree and they have looked the other way. And every president leading up to Donald Trump has done things far worse. Barack Obama, everybody that watches IRL knows Barack Obama killed two American citizens without even so much as a say it. Yeah, no, I mean, I mean, not that I'm happy that it happened, but it's like that's the one that's the most egregious, the most obviously egregious.

Never mind the fact that George Bush allowed spying on the entire country. That was unconstitutional. Essentially, if the establishment approves of you, they just say, well, it's fine. You can you can have classified documents in your in your garage. You can have classified documents on a server in your bathroom. It's OK for you because you are. And they will stage evidence against you if you're if you're the political enemy like Trump. Yeah. So so I love the fact hopefully they do pick him up. If there is if there is any justice, there would be. I don't expect this to happen. They will go real quick.

I just would like to, you know, maybe I iMessage or an email stumbles upon some journalists about when and where the arrest will take place. And then at 4 a.m. there will be a news crew out in front of Garland's house, like with Roger Stone, you know, just, you know, just a nice sound to notice skepticism here. So what's being proposed here? The House has a razor, razor thin Republican majority. Four or something? It's very small.

And so what's being proposed here is to put the chief law enforcement officer of the United States on trial. First of all, I think it would fail. And second of all, it's a bad look. So the real story with Trump and the story that a lot of otherwise well-intentioned people are sort of unwilling to talk about is the story of Trump and organized crime. And over the past year or so, there have been a number of very, very interesting. Look, I don't think the Biden Justice Department is sacrosanct. I don't think they're saints, but they have had a number of pretty notable successes against organized crime. Big prosecutions of like the Gambino family, the Sinaloa cartel. We should applaud those things. And so now a party that's standing behind President Trump, who has a longstanding relationship with organized crime, is proposing to try the nation's chief law enforcement officer in Congress. Does that does that seem like it's on the up and up?

You don't care. You don't care. Let's let's slow down there. And you're saying that Congress legitimately offered up a subpoena that Merrick Garland denied and is in contempt of Congress and Congress should take no enforcement action against that. It's been routine for I mean, I don't think it's good in general that the executive branch routinely shrugs off subpoenas from Congress. But the fact is, if you're going to change that incentive structure, this isn't the way to do it. Putting the nation's chief law enforcement officer on trial in Congress with this cockamamie

triple bank shot of a constitutional maneuver. How is this cockamamie triple bank shot? It's an utterly obscure idea. It appears to be a standard order of operations. When was the last time it happened? 1937, I think. Okay. Is that what it was?

So it's been about 90 years. Uh-huh. Okay. I'd say it was? So it's been about 90 years. Uh-huh. Okay. I'd say about 100 years since it was ever enforced. So I suppose the issue is, if Peter Navarro's in prison, and Steve Bannon's on his way to prison for contempt of Congress, this nation, the DOJ, we expect that when a subpoena is issued by Congress, it be answered, or else. And for the DOJ to for Merrick Garland to deny Congress's authority when the Republicans finally have some kind of majority to take some kind of investigative action. They don't criminally charge Joe Biden, but they do

criminally charge Donald Trump. OK, we've got a problem here. It's one or the other, not both. The FBI staged evidence in a photograph they released to the public that is tilting the public public opinion against Trump. We've got a clear conflict of interest. So then we say, OK, how about this? Merrick Garland, give us the audio recording of that interview Biden had with with with her so we can understand exactly why Biden is not being charged. But Trump is we want it. We want the context around Biden. They say no. They deny a subpoena. Well, Bannon's going to jail in five days for the same thing. This nation does not exist if laws are only applied on one side of the aisle. If if Merrick Garland denies answering the subpoena and the only other the only other thing Congress can do is inherent contempt, which hasn't been used in 100 years. Sounds like we're in a really, really dramatic and drastic

circumstance requiring such an action, which is in the standard order of operations. Eric Holder was held in contempt over the Fast and Furious scandal in about 2012. Basically, nothing came of it. And I mean, that's just how things have been done. Is it a good thing? Well, that how they used to be done. How they go now is if you're Peter Navarro, you go to prison. And if you're Steve Bannon, you go to prison as well. I suppose. And if that's the standard, then this is the actions we take. Yeah. I think Steve Bannon has done a lot of somewhat suspect things, to be perfectly honest. What does that have to do with a balance in how our law is enforced? I don't understand why Congress has to act because something happened to Steve Bannon.

That doesn't follow to me. Steve Bannon was charged with contempt of Congress. Yeah. If Congress is going to criminally, is going to refer for criminal indictment over what is a criminal action, contempt of Congress, then we expect that standard to be applied to all. You do not have a country. I mean, Steve Bannon is not the nation's chief law enforcement officer. Doesn't matter. No one's above the law.

I don't see why, I understand what you're talking about, but at the same time, what you're implying is that there are people that are above prosecution and people that are not. No, it implies that there are separation of powers issues well i don't know steve bannon working as uh an advisor of the executive branch was instructed by donald trump not to turn over executive documents under executive privilege the biden administration said we as the new executive branch waive that well this is a constitutional issue regarding whether or not the previous administration retains executive privilege. They do. We would be asserted to claim otherwise. When Steve Bannon said, I'm between a rock and a hard place. If I comply with the subpoena, I'm in violation of the executive branch. And if I don't comply,

I'm in violation of the legislative branch. What should I do? Eventually, Trump relented and said, Steve, we're waiving privilege. Turn the documents over. The J6 committee said, it's too late. We don't care. Bannon, you're going to jail. He appealed this and lost. If Bannon, as an advisor and as an actor of the executive branch, is being held in contempt, then Merrick Garland, under the same exact standards, will as well.

And they are denying this. Here's your problem. If two agents of the executive branch are being held to different standards based on their political faction, then you do not have a country. A country cannot function if the people do not have confidence that laws will be upheld. This is fundamentally Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson. The reason why we have Blackstone's formulation, why Benjamin Franklin multiplied it by 10. If the American people believe that even if you are innocent, you will go to prison, then there is no reason to be innocent.

And there is only a every man for himself. Yeah, I mean, there are often cases where people go down for reasons that are that are not really the reasons they deserve to go down uh for and bannon is probably one of those cases um is uh you know is does he are you raising a legitimate issue of kind of uh fair treatment on either side yeah but steve bannon has been taking some interesting Russian money. He's got a number of... None of this is neither here nor there. Okay. I mean, I'm just saying, if you're going to have your sort of Thomas... If you're going to have your Thomas Paine moment, let's have it behind a Thomas Paine. No, absolutely not. We are not going to say,

I object to the moral standards of the individual. So he is not he's not receiving inherent rights. It's not about moral standards. It's not at all about moral standards. It's about he's been taking Russian money. So what? But I mean, doesn't there doesn't there have to be a trial before you can even say that? Like, has he been taking Russian money? So what? I don't care. I don't care. I don't care if Vladimir Putin personally handed him a gold bar. The fact is, you cannot have a country if your government explicitly states, we will hold our own to different standards and not charge them, and you will rot in prison. I think it's farcical to get into high dutching over somebody that's,

you know, that's been in bed with the Russians. That has nothing to do with the laws of this nation. Yeah, I mean, Al Capone went down for tax fraud, not for being a mobster. Well, I mean, he committed tax fraud. Okay. And so we uphold— That's not how we remember Al Capone. Sure, but we enforce tax fraud laws against people, and that's the one they were able to catch him on.

That's actually—you know, I think actually— And we caught Steve Bannon on contempt of Congress. This is actually a fascinating thing that Capone, we could not prove of the mobster stuff he was doing. And so we did not put him in prison. That's amazing. We couldn't prove it, so we didn't do it, but we could prove the tax fraud stuff. And so we did. Steve. OK, so fair point. Merrick Garland goes to prison next. I don't see how that follows. Merrick follows. We get people on tax fraud, right? We get Merrick Garland on contempt. We get Bannon on contempt.

We get Merrick Garland on contempt. That's the way this country works. Yeah, I don't think it's going to work to throw an attorney general in prison. What does that mean? I'm afraid not. Do you think it would be good to set a precedent where we're throwing our attorneys general in prison? Do you think it's a good idea to prosecute the president and impeach him twice after the no i think i actually think we do all kinds of things that are terrible greatest precedent ever one of the greatest things

ever done in this country would be to say you do not violate the uh the subpoenas from congress and if you are referred the DOJ cannot intervene and say, we won't actually enforce the law. If we're to put Merrick Garland in prison, that would be a strong statement that no one is above the law. OK, well, he clearly broke the law. That's a fact. That's not a dispute. I look at the executive branch has been standing up to congressional subpoenas for like decades. If that's a situation you want to end, you're not going to end it with a four seat majority. Let's just be realistic about this.

That's also, again, not the point. As I already stated, many, many people don't expect the vote to actually succeed. But that's a different point. And that's the point where I made is. Why are you setting these expectations for something that's not going to happen? That has nothing to do with the principle of how a country will function and the fact basis of what happens to a country that doesn't abide by these standards. OK.

That's why I said if they do not vote in favor of inherent contempt, your country doesn't exist. It's a facade. So this is about telling Republicans how to vote on this one. This this is about maintaining the fabric of a country based on the standards set by law enforcement and the co-equal branches of government that have been acting in complete violation of the Constitution for decades.

And we're on the verge of the fabric shredding into a million pieces. Where we are now... I mean, are you going to cross the Rubicon with this Caesar and this army? No, the Rubicon was crossed with the arrest of Peter Navarro and the charges against Steve Bannon. The Rubicon was crossed by accusing Donald Trump of being a

traitor to his country falsely and impeaching him over what Joe Biden was actually doing in Ukraine. The Rubicon was crossed a long time ago. And now the issue is, how do we prevent total decay and chaos and disorder? Clearly not this way. This is the only way. No, it's not. Yeah. See, if you're approaching this from we hereby publicly declare that Democrats can break the law, but Peter Navarro goes to prison for it, then here's what happens. So let's let's go back to Blackstone's formulation, a very rudimentary elements of American constitutional. Well, I would say the American, the Constitution of the American people, that is what constitutes the American people. The reason why the United States

holds its views on, say, the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth Amendment is that, Blackstone, you can go back to England, it is better that 10 guilty persons go free than one innocent person suffer. Sure. The reason for this, as articulated very well by the founding fathers, was that if a nation comes to believe that if you as an innocent person, you will be prosecuted and persecuted regardless, then the incentive of the public is to defy population and government and act in accordance of only themselves. Well, look, I think Peter Navarro has gotten a bad rap. I'm not so sure about Steve Bannon. but, you know, if you lie down with dogs, you wake up with fleas. Neither here nor there. Okay.

Like, you keep making these personal arguments like, I personally don't like Bannon, therefore this is just— It's not about that. It's about when you're dealing with mobsters, you use the knife at hand. So the issue then becomes, and this is why the Founding Fathers opposed this, and Benjamin Franklin said it is better, Blackstone was wrong, he said it is better that a hundred guilty persons go free than one innocent suffer. Which is to state that even if Bannon is a mobster, you do not use the law incongruously to lock him up. Why? It hasn't been used incongruously. You're trying to create a double standard.

Merrick Garland defied a subpoena, was referred for criminal prosecution, and they said no. That's an ex post facto thing. You're creating the double standard with what's going on right now. The double standard didn't exist until Anna Paulina Luna decided to create it. What double standard? What you just said. The double standard was when the DOJ said we won't

prosecute Merrick Garland. Right. Okay, and now the response is we have no choice but to enforce our legislative authority, which is the next step would be Garland. Right. OK. And now the response is we have no choice but to enforce our legislative authority, which is the next step would be inherent contempt. OK. If we live in a country where the people of this nation are looking to the highest level, the executive branch and the DOJ says explicitly we are above the law, We get exactly what the founding fathers feared. You will see small communities fracture off from confidence in the government, start acting within their own accordance and defiance of federal law,'s going to jail, Merrick Garland has to answer in the exact same way. Otherwise, the last semblance of any kind of cohesion in this country is ripped to shreds. And it is at the DOJ level, the highest level.

We are hearing them say explicitly, we will charge your candidate, the front runner for the presidency. Under the same law, we will not charge the current president, Joe Biden. There's a question of immunity that only applies to Trump and not to Joe Biden. The DOJ will absolutely ignore contempt of Congress targeting our political party, but yours we will go at with full force. And this is what precipitates social disorder, chaos and eventual fracturing like Soviet like the Soviet Union. You have to have the American people, the people of a nation, must believe the government is functioning. And right now, if they don't do this, then the word is out. The government doesn't exist. Prima facie, I don't buy the argument that America falls if we

don't prosecute the chief law enforcement officer. Think about what you're saying. Yeah. Think about that. I mean, it's like upside down world. Pretty sure I thought about it quite intently and then expressed myself for 20 minutes already on the issue. Can I raise a question just for both of you to consider? So yesterday, the House said that they were considering holding in temp the biographer of Biden who's written these memoirs and he's refused to comply with the subpoena, asking him to turn over documents and audio recordings and things like that. How does that compare for you? You know, you're saying the chief law enforcement officer versus this this biographer who's refusing to comply with subpoena. Is one better than the

other or are they both ridiculous? What's the take here? I think in general, congressional subpoenas should be respected. It's a little bit different when you're dealing with the sitting Attorney General. Because some people are above the law, right? There are real separation of powers issues and like, what is being asked for is like basically investigative documents. I mean they're... Can you articulate the separation of powers you're concerned with? Can you just like lay out the idea that you're actually concerned with? Do you want Congress getting involved

in the investigation of criminal matters? I didn't ask you to ask me a question. What are your thoughts on it? We do not want Congress to get involved with the investigation. I mean, if Congress gets involved in the investigation of more or less ordinary crime, though this is admittedly extraordinary crime,

that's a road we don't... There's a reason why we have an attorney general. You're starting to go down the road where we actually don't believe in attorneys general in the first place. If a president commits a crime, who investigates him? His own DOJ? Typically, I mean, this is kind of what impeachment is for, right? High crimes and misdemeanors. Okay, well, how do you begin the process of high crimes and misdemeanors without an investigation? Should Congress then investigate? Yeah. Okay, so what happens when Congress says, give us the documents, and they say no? Yeah, I mean, this is a strange hypothetical. There's literally no hypothetical here right now. Presidents have committed crimes, and the process is their co-equal branches investigate them.

That's why they have these powers. We don't know that the president's committed a crime. Well, you need an investigation first, right? Who investigates the DOJ? Well, no, that's the branch we're concerned with. So you would need a co-equal branch to perform a check and balance on the other branch, which would be— I mean, should we get a special prosecutor or something like that? But it would be Congress.

Congress initiates impeachment inquiries all the time. So if you'd like to initiate an impeachment inquiry, you're going to need preponderance of evidence. OK, well, Joe Biden committed a crime. That's not in dispute. We know for a fact that he did. Those documents he had in his house is a violation of the law. They did not prosecute. We are now aware of a high crime or misdemeanor, and we would like evidence, preponderance of evidence, to launch an inquiry and a formal impeachment.

That's what Congress does. It's why Congress has these powers. If a branch of government is acting in defiance of the law, the DOJ is not going to investigate itself. No, Congress does that. And then Congress requested the evidence. The attorney general rejected this, refused to do it. They're not holding anyone accountable. The order of operations then is, yeah, here we go.

Inherent contempt. The sergeant at arms of Congress is going to be the one who has to take enforcement action. So that's it. This is all standard order of operations, in my opinion. It's not standard order of operations to have the House sergeant of arms arrest the attorney general. But it is. It's not. Well, yeah, it's in in there but it hasn't happened so if so biden committed a crime that's a fact right no it's not he didn't have classified documents the purpose of a trial is to determine if somebody could joe biden have classified documents a lot of politicians

have had classified documents did he have the documents documents? Yes or no? Yeah, he did. Was that, is that illegal? I mean, so did Trump. Sure. And he's being charged for it. Yeah. So is it illegal? Yeah, of course it's illegal. So Biden committed crimes.

I mean, I totally get what you're saying about all the double standards when it comes to the over-classification of things. But what you're talking about is going forward with this crazy triple bank shot that isn't going anywhere. What's a triple bank shot? What does that mean? This. Having the House Sergeant at Arms arrest the Attorney General. That's a crazy triple bank shot. What's your remedy for Joe Biden having committed crimes and there being no accountability? I think in general, this happens so much that overlooking this is not the end of the world.

So overlook the crimes being committed. Well, look, are you going to prosecute half the civil servants in Washington? I mean, I would. Okay. No question. Absolutely. Yeah, if I was president, then I'll be in jail. It's an interesting idea.

I mean, if the guy who's pushing for this has been taking a bunch of Russian money for years, does that seem like... Steve Bannon is not the guy pushing it. I am, and I've not taken any Russian money. Well, okay. It seems like this is unwise. It seems like this is an imprudent action. That's all I'm saying. Because a party that's standing behind a guy with a longtime relationship with organized crime

proposing to arrest the nation's chief law enforcement officers. It seems like the sort of thing gangsters would do. Completely meaningless. It's not meaningless. So why we have Donald Trump in the first place, why we have Steve Bannon in the first place, is because of people like you. Because we are witness to crimes committed by political elites. Most of my writing has been fairly supportive of Trump. Sure, sure.

And the reason why we have Trump is because of people like you who make the argument that Joe Biden should be allowed to commit crimes, that Merrick Garland should be allowed- I haven't made that argument. Well, you said there should be no enforcement action. You said we shouldn't pursue action

to go after a man who's not being charged for crimes. I mean, this guy, Joe, where nobody's talking about Joe Biden like beating up an old woman while she's carrying her groceries like we're talking about standards in law enforcement. OK, we either have a standard of law enforcement or we don't. And if we as a people do not understand where the line is, there is no line. I get oligarchy and you get Soviet style collapse. And then you can look at Ukraine and we can look at history to see what happens to nations that do exactly what you're describing. I think the direction toward Banana Republic kind of begins with arresting chief law enforcement officers.

I think it begins with accusing your president of being a Russian traitor in 2016 or 2015 before he even got elected and then spending $35 million on a false investigation, continually accusing him and running smears in the press over and over again, only to find out the whole thing was fake. Yeah, I'm not going to defend Russiagate. You're right about that. OK, so now we need some accountability. OK, this is probably not the way to get it. And so far, well, a Congress has to investigate. The only thing Republicans have been able to muster up in the past several years after while Trump has got his feet stuck in concrete and he's barely able to get anything done. Mind you, a lot of it was his own fault. He hired a lot of these people. You end up with

Republicans getting back Congress and using Congress. In the meantime, when Democrats had Congress and they launched the J6 committee, of which Matt Gaetz has explained was not properly formed, didn't have a proper minority representation on it. That's fair. They begin to pull people in, criminally charge them under these these ridiculous lies, give up information, link to the press. We need accountability. I'm not even asking for anything extrajudicial. I'm not asking for anything over what's already been done. I'm asking for equal standard of the law to be applied. If we don't have that, the American people will disregard the rule of law in this country. That's what the founding fathers feared. That's why we have the first, fourth,

fifth, and sixth amendments. That's why we have Blackstone's formulation at the core of how we handle our law in this country. I mean, look, if you're going to make that argument that there's a different standard for powerful people versus unpowerful people. And I think in a lot of cases, that's quite true. How about the recent indictment of Henry Cuellar? He's a Democratic centrist congressman with connections to Onderill, which is a company that's quite right wing. It's got connections to Peter Thiel, Trey Stevens, the Founders Fund, these sorts of guys. And the congressman who's the chief backer, who's a Democrat, by the way, has recently been indicted. How about all of the indictments of powerful gangsters that have

happened over the last year and a half? I mean, this is to me fairly strong indications that things are heading in a positive direction rather than a negative one. So I don't really buy the idea that the sky is falling unless we arrest the attorney general. OK, so Peter Navarro's in jail. Steve Bannon's going to jail. They're pretty short sentences. Even if it's not. Even if I grant that, or if we say that it's not, you know, the sky isn't falling.

And I think you're probably right. Like, it isn't like this is going to change the the course of history. If you if you do, I still think that the the idea that it's it's beyond the pale to to use procedure that exists to try to at least incentivize proper behavior. And part that's part of the reason why we have law enforcement for regular people. Right. You have cops on the beat because you want to deter crime. If you don't, if you only have one political party, even if they're the party out of favor, like Donald Trump and his his friends, even if you look at them with this favor and you think that they're corrupt, that's you can have that opinion. Fine. them. You shake the country's trust in the institutions at a time when we have already gone through COVID and we went through all of the lawlessness of 2020 and stuff. You've got

the American people have never had less faith in their government. They're even having a shaking of the faith of the things that we have consistently had generally positive opinions of the military. So we've got a massive problem in America with people not believing in our institutions. And as long as our institutions are not handing out justice equally, you're going to only intensify that. So I can understand your perspective about this isn't worth it. I get it. But I do think that just to say, to blow it off and to say that it's not worth the effort,

not worth talking about, or too crazy, at some point, the American people are going to say, look, it's always one-sided. The guns always point in one way. And that only leads to more people. I agree with everything you just said. We know what happens after this. You look at any country, you look at every country that's gone through this. The Soviet Union collapses. We get the rise of the Ukrainian oligarchs and the Russian oligarchs. You look at the Spanish Civil War. You cannot, as a country, function when one political faction targets the other without any kind of accountability. That's it. This is where this is.

This is why you get January 6. This is why you get Donald Trump in the first place. Barack Obama was a Democrat and you got Occupy Wall Street under him. A left wing protest. Regular people are watching the big banks get bailed out, the corporations get bailed out, and they get screwed over every step of the way. Now, what do you what do you end up with this following Occupy? Nine million people who voted for Barack Obama end up voting for Donald Trump. Michael Moore explained it pretty well.

Trump was the human Molotov cocktail being thrown into the system for so many people. I agree with that. Then they accused him of being a traitor. They falsely impeached him twice. And you end up with one of the impeachments as the result of January 6th. That that rage you see on January 6th, which that's a particularly complicated issue. I mean, they certainly could have had security and prevented the worst of it. But the rage you see from that unprecedented and the summer of love being unprecedented is a dramatic escalation of social disorder that we have seen historically. We may as well just have Joe Biden exact enact presidential directive 51 and hereby declare continuity of government in a new constitutional single branch government like George W. Bush outlined back in 07.

Yeah, because that's what we're looking at right now. Democrats would become the uniparty. They would cite covid as their reason for having done it or inflation or whatever they want to do. And then they just say, considering that no one cares at this point and no or no one believes in checks and balances of the branches of government, then he could just do it. Well, so if we're going to send around subpoenas to Merrick Garland or if we're going to haul him up to the hill, maybe the one that should be sent his way has to do with what he might have known about, you know, the Oklahoma City bombing. He was the prosecutor in that. There are still a number of unanswered questions. Rather than, you know, trying to, you know, force this double, you know, make sure that there's no double standard in defense of some admittedly rather dubious characters like Steve Bannon and President Trump. This is why you end up with Trump, because of the historical things you reference and

the breaking point of the American people who finally said we are sick of the double standard of the lies and manipulations. And so they bring in the bull. I get all that. And I'm totally with you. Like but you know, when when we start crossing Rubicon's, you better make sure you're standing behind a Caesar. And like, yeah, I mean, that's how this that's how these sorts of crises work. But the fact is, when you when you start, you know, pulling out the big guns, they're going to come back at you.

And this is the argument that they should be allowed to imprison any Republican they want. And then Republicans should just beg for forgiveness and mercy? I'm saying that this is not a remedy that works. Should Trump just beg? Should Trump go on TV right now and beg for mercy? That would be kind of funny. So you think he should? I would love to see it.

Right. OK. I mean, look, I get like I said, I get what you're saying. Like, I understand what you're saying there. There are things that are, that can be counterproductive. There are procedures that can be counterproductive that can hurt the cause. I understand what you're saying. Um, and I don't have any kind of emotional attachment to this, to this particular issue,

but I do think that the argument that always tends to show up is always in the favor of the establishment because the establishment is there. They know how things work. Look, we can't change like this. We can't do this. These people are the serious people, et cetera, et cetera. And it turns into whether it's intentional or not, it turns into the American people continuing to have a degraded sense of trust in not only their their their government, but in their justice, in the justice system itself. And that is a problem that I personally think is clear and present. It's not something coming down the road. It's something that we're dealing with right now. And I think that we're going to have serious ramifications downstream in your average everyday American's life.

People don't if people don't believe in the average everyday American's life. People don't, if people don't believe in the law, they break it. And you saw that with all the, as soon as the ACAB stuff came out, people were like, Oh, you know,

the ACAB sentiment came out. You saw the response in the, in the population right away. Murders went up. And not only that, you had way more people dying because of car accidents. And people think, why would there be car accidents? Look at the raids on department stores.

Yeah, the raid. Absolutely. But the reason that people were dying of car accidents is because police were going to have much more significant downstream consequences than whether or not, you know, A.G. Merrick Garland, who's on his way out anyways, because or is likely on his way out if President Biden doesn't win. So I think that that's that actually becomes a secondary issue. There is only one thing that constitutes government and that is confidence. The only difference between the mob and the government is the confidence of the people. You take a look at the function of a mafia in a local area. They go around, they tell people, you're going to pay us and we're going to

provide protection, things like that. They decide to operate under their own terms. We saw this actually very well in the favelas of Brazil. The government had no control over the favelas. They were ruled by gangs. But the gangs who were there were effectively the governments of those favelas. Everybody knew they were in charge. They kept the peace. They kept the order. It wasn't random criminals running in and smashing up people's homes. No, they were the neighbors, the kids, the fathers, the brothers of the people who lived there who enforced if you came into their neighbor and you caused problems, they would deal with you. They were the government. The government didn't like this and they wanted to do what's called pacification. They wanted to take control of the favelas. They built these big cable cars to get from the ground to the top of these hills.

Then they sent in what's called the Bopi with high powered rifles to start gunning down and removing the de facto government of these areas. The only thing that mattered among those people who lived there was in the belief of who had the ability to exact force with impunity. And now it is the official government of Brazil. In the United States, you have an inversion happening. Regular people are no longer believing in the rule of law, as evidenced by numerous videos of roving bands smashing their way into department stores, stealing whatever they want and leaving people fighting with police in more and more videos. Leftists will actually do what they call de-arrest.

They don't even fear assaulting officers anymore. They get released right away. When the people begin to believe that the police can do nothing and the government can do nothing, the government becomes nothing more than a gang. And my fear is, as I describe it, one day someone shows up to a house with a warrant and the person inside views them as no different than if a guy dressed up like Bugs Bunny showed up. Your badge means nothing. Your uniform means nothing. You do not enforce the law. When you get social order breakdown at this level with Merrick Garland, you're right. He's the highest in force of law in the land. And even he breaks the law because there is no law

anymore. Simply, they arrest who they want to arrest. They drag Trump, the front runner, into numerous courts. They change the statute of limitations on laws. They actually make new laws so they can sue him for whatever they want. The message is clear. The Democratic Party has done everything in their power to show the American people the law does not apply. It hasn't for the past 10 years, and it will not in the future. What we need now is accountability and a show of force from Republicans to say the rule of law will be maintained and inherent contempt is that path. So I'm still kind of, if we're going back to Merrick Garland in Oklahoma City, we can also talk through Eric Holder in Fast and Furious. And I was around during all of that.

And what that story is really all about, we're actually starting to find out about now. This was the issue for which Eric Holder was held in contempt. And the real story was a deal between the federal government and the Sinaloa cartel. There are pieces of that that have been made known. And a number of the recent indictments that have come down just in the last couple of weeks are kind of showing the other sides of that. One of them is the use of Chinese financial infrastructure to launder money for the Sinaloa cartel. And then another one that is becoming evident is that the Sinaloa cartel was availing themselves of Israeli technology. And so the role of Israel behaving in totally unconstitutional ways and illegal ways,

the, I mean, the accountability is starting to happen for that. And if we talk about like the legal absurdities of the war on terror, which motivate, I kind of get the sense, your politics and to a great extent mine, these legal absurdities, these, you know, going and doing things that we shouldn't be doing, a lot of that has to do with Israel. And now we're finally getting some accountability for that. And I think that's actually a good thing. Like the accountability is coming. A number of Israeli spies have been indicted, including Gal Luft, who was supposed to be at the center of the Republican impeachment effort last year. I mean, this is the entire Hunter Biden laptop affair seems like it was more or less managed by Israeli spies. Either, I am all for legal accountability when it comes to this sort of thing. The lights just flickered when he said Israeli spies. He made the agency upset. Assad does not approve.

It's like they're warning. They're like, flicker his power. And we could talk a little bit more about why that's a crisis. I mean, I'm prepared to talk about it more moderately than some of the people you spar with on Twitter. Let's actually move on because, you know, 40 minutes is probably enough for the audience at home. But we do have other stories to talk about. We do have this one.

The CNN has unveiled how their microphone muting is going to work. Dominic Michael Trippi says CNN is 100 percent rigging this debate. Here's how the ridiculous microphone microphone setup will work. Check this out. We go behind the podiums. You can see two green lights when they're on. They signal to the candidate his microphone is on when the green lights are off. They signal to the candidate his microphone is off. Now, I want to give you a sense of what it will look like for viewers at home. If a candidate whose microphone is off interrupts a candidate whose microphone is on.

So I'm standing at one podium and I'll ask Phil to come in and take the other podium. And so let's say I'm answering a question. My light is green and I'm speaking. Phil's microphone is off and his green lights are not illuminated. He's going to interrupt me as I'm speaking and this is what it will sound like. My volume remains constant while Phil's interruption can be difficult to understand. Let's try the opposite. My microphone is now off. Victor's microphone is off. It's like for kindergartners, I guess.

My volume remains constant, while Victor's interruption can be difficult to understand. A Senans production team has shared this demonstration with the campaigns earlier today, and we're sharing it with you, our viewers, so everyone fully understands how tomorrow night will work. Now, we should note, by agreeing to participate in this debate, both campaigns and candidates have also agreed to abide by these rules. The CNN presidential debate airs live tomorrow night at 9 p.m. Eastern. I don't think this matters.

I actually think it's going to be moderately tame. I think Trump is going to be in line. We saw the debate in 2020. It's not going to be like 2016 when he was saying you'd be in jail and all that stuff, funny stuff. It may be, maybe. But I also think that you see how close they are to each other in this video. Trump can yell. It doesn't matter if we can hear Trump or not. Biden can. And it is very difficult to talk when someone's yelling at you or talking over you. And that's all that matters. And I also think they're both hot-tempered to a certain extent. Definitely there are reports of Biden being pretty hot-tempered. So even being able to hear someone saying stuff off-camera will be distracting and potentially sway any sort of coaching that he's

had if he's thinking he's going to spar with Donald Trump directly. And, you know, if we're talking about his mental acuity, if he's easily confused, having someone talk to you while you're trying to make a point is not going to help. You realize the power this gives Trump. It's the guy whose bloodstream is entirely Adderall and adrenaline versus the guy whose bloodstream is entirely McDouble cheeseburgers from McDonald's. That's kind of what we're looking at, I guess. Well, I don't. I pepper to it. Could you say that? Just just check this out. Donald Trump at the podium and he's saying, look, we're going to have a very great immigration policy. It's going to be the best we've ever seen. And and then and I'll tell you, and they cut his mic off. And then as

soon as you see the green lights goes off, he he looks over, he goes, Biden, your mother. No one will have heard him say it. And Biden will go, hey, what are you? And and Trump will just go, whoa, that was what? What? What? Cutting off the microphone of Trump doesn't hurt him. It allows him to say things the American people will not hear that will trigger Joe Biden. It's that you'd be in jail, but now it's just going to be in Joe Biden's ear. Like we all enjoy the side remarks. On the other hand, it's just going to be Joe Biden.

The moderator is getting more and more deranged and irritated. What if what if what if they cut off Trump's mic and he just starts going, I'm coming for you, Joe. You should do the most disruptive. He's like House Hunter doing House Hunter. Is Hunter OK? Like he's just going to provoke him in these ways that get really under his skin. He should do the most disruptive. He's like House Hunter doing. House Hunter. Is Hunter okay? Like he's just going to provoke him in these ways that get really under his skin.

I mean, I don't know that he will do this. I'm just going to say that it was great that you're talking to your granddaughter now. Trump should do this because nobody will hear him. And Biden does not have the mental capacity to handle these kinds of emotional attacks. One of the things about people who are suffering from Alzheimer's or dementia, we assume Biden is in deep, deep senility, is they have a harder time controlling their emotions. If Donald Trump says something like, you know, maybe Biden's in the middle of an answer. And then he says something like Donald Trump convicted felon. And then Trump says audibly to to him and you are the worst father this country has seen.

You're a disgrace. Shame on you. Shame on you. Your son's dead. Yeah, I think pretty much pretty much everybody on the Biden campaign is probably dreading this moment that it seems like Trump, you know, is very, very quick on the draw. And it's just everybody's expecting him to eviscerate Uncle Joe. Well, that's also one of the things that I think works in the Biden campaign's favor, right? I mean, the fact that we're all trying to figure out if Joe Biden can even make it through this tells us that the expectations for him are much lower than they are for Trump. And again, I think, you know, I've said this a couple of times, but I think the best thing Trump could do is to push Joe Biden to answer directly on his records. Are you audibly gasping over there? No, no. Phil thinks I'm boring tonight. I'm sorry. Every night. I'm doing the best I can. You take that back immediately. If you throw meatballs up, I'm going to hit them,

all right? We're off the tour. Anyways, I think ultimately the function of the debate is to see these two clash. It's like the long-awaited rematch between two fighters. People really want to see what's going to happen and what's what the time in between has done. And I think really the last four years have have been marked by the fact that Biden seems to be less with it. And he has a terrible economy and the border crisis is undeniable. In fact, it is so undeniable is one of the major issues in this campaign. Immigration is something people used to stay away from. And now it's front and center. I think it's it's going to be obvious that Biden can't defend his record. And it's really

the emotional aspect of this debate that his campaign is trying to manage. Tomorrow's going to be wild. I mean, this is history. It's a historical debate. It's it's outside of the Commission on Presidential Debates. It's the first time, as my understanding, that a president has debated his predecessor in an effort to win for both of them to win the presidency. We've never had this happen before. And Joe Biden is an 81 year old bumbling dotard. And Donald Trump is a reality TV real estate mogul who eats fast food religiously. I mean, this is Big Mac King. Big Mac, wow. I mean, like, everybody who knows Trump knows he's a fast food guy. It's like you were saying, his

blood is Big Macs and Diet Coke. And Joe Biden, you said Adderall. Oh, they got him on everything. I bet he gets stem cells. I bet he gets NAD+. I bet, what was the Myers protocol or whatever? It's a vitamin drip. Just like tons of B12.

Oh, yeah. Just up in it all the time. For sure. For sure. I bet he's got a blood boy. It's funny how many people actually assume this. Like I said, I was talking to Connor from CounterPoints earlier today, and he was like, oh, yeah, he's going to have about an hour of whatever

where he's going to be all hopped up, blah, blah, blah. And then after that, it's going to be all downhill. I feel like that's essentially what's assumed about the guy. And, you know, you know, it'd be really hilarious if just like halfway through the debate, you see Biden just with something in his leg and then he goes, his pupils dilate and he's like, all right, let's go. Hypothetically, they're not allowed to bring props on stage. An EpiPen is not a prop. Oh, okay. For his asthma. Yeah, it's actually working. It works. It's not a prop.

It's not fake. No, I mean, the other thing that I found really interesting is that they can't interact with their campaign staff in the commercial breaks. So there's 90 minutes, two commercial breaks, and they both just have to, what, stand there? Well, one thing that makes that interesting is that Joe Biden and President Trump, President Biden and President Trump, I should have the same standard for both. They both have better instincts than the people around them. I think that's basically true. I mean, Joe Biden, you can say that he's somewhat calculating and amoral, but like the guy

knows about power. He knows how it works and he knows what's going to like help him win. His abilities seem to be in decline. But one of the things that frustrates me a whole lot about this moment is each side is not really hitting the other in a way that really works. If Joe Biden wanted to hit President Trump in a way that worked, I would hit him by saying that President Trump doesn't actually want to solve immigration. And the reason for that is, you know, if you look at the technologies at play here, if you look at all of the kind of absurd backbiting of his first term to consolidate the restrictionist kind of sensibility behind Stephen Miller, like all of all of that, I mean, Stephen Miller was famous for sandbagging other restrictionists in the executive branch. And so, you know, Trump letting that go on is to me a sign that he doesn't actually want to solve the problem. And likewise, if Trump wants to hit Biden in a way that hurts, Republicans are not willing to say and really hit Biden hard, hit the Democrats hard where they're really failing, which is that Joe Biden is failing to rein in the Netanyahu regime or the Netanyahu crime syndicate, if you prefer. It is Joe Biden's

biggest failure. While our bombs rain down on Gaza, Republicans are silent and they're not hitting the opposition in the way that they ought to be. It's too esoteric for the average person watching CNN. Dead babies aren't esoteric. No, these issues are absolutely too esoteric for the average person. I don't think that's true at all. You look at polling. What are the two biggest issues Gallup's got right now? I mean, the polling shows that

America's general pro-Israel sensibility has declined by a notable amount. That doesn't even measure anywhere on the top charts of what matters most to Americans. People care about ethnic cleansings. People care about that. But when you ask the average person, list your priorities, they don't mention Israel. Well, I think in a lot of cases they aren't allowed to know what's really going on.

But that's besides that. That still doesn't affect anything that my point was. I said this is too esoteric for the average person to, you know, honestly, the reason we're paying for an ethnic cleansing isn't esoteric. Your taxpayer literally is like you just saying it's not esoteric does not change the fact the average person has no idea what you're talking about. We just had a had a half an hour discussion about an obscure constitutional maneuver. Absolutely. 100 percent. OK, we are not at a presidential debate talking about how sway middle of theroad voters who don't know the record for Biden or Trump.

I mean, this is the biggest albatross around Biden's neck. It's causing enormous fissures in the Democratic coalition. Only among their laws. The way to exploit them is to say that Biden is too weak. That's the absolute standard attack line of an opposition party. You say that the guy in power is weak. That's not esoteric. It's not esoteric. of an opposition party. You say that the guy in power is weak. And instead of doing... That's not esoteric.

It's not esoteric. Saying something simple and generic and lowest common denominator, this guy's too weak. Look at him. He's a weak old man. He's weak on the Netanyahu regime. That's getting too complicated

for the average person. I think that's nonsense. They can't even point to where Israel is on the map. They can't even point to where Ukraine is on the map. Well, these evangelicals sure love it a whole lot. You're talking about a minority population. You ask the average person... I mean, they're Republican-based voters. You ask the average person where Iraq and Afghanistan is,

they can't find it on a map. And the funny thing is they most most of them don't even know. The average person who can even tell you about the slight nuances of Iraq and Afghanistan won't even be able to tell you that, in fact, Iran's right in the middle. I mean, that's fairly obvious to anybody who paid attention to the Bush years about what we were doing with our military bases. This stuff is over the head of the average person. I respect your point of view that we stand for the people, but they're dumb as shit. I really love that. As a sort of an elitist guy, I kind of agree with it.

Saying something is esoteric is quite literally the opposite of you demeaning and insulting them. Me saying if you're trying to speak to the average person, you have to meet them where they are, is very different from you saying, ha ha, you think they're all dumb as shit. Well, I think they're smart enough to know what their tax dollars are going to. Yeah, most of them don't. Smart enough and having knowledge are two completely different things. And you clearly are a very elitist individual who is very concerned about Israel and thinks the average person lives in the same world you do. Do you think the average person wants their tax dollars being spent on bombs that kill children? Absolutely not.

And you know what? The issue there is not, hey, Israel, Netanyahu, and Gaza, because they're going to go, I don't know where that is. But the issue is, we shouldn't spend money on foreign war. And they'll go, that I understand. I think this is just you not being willing to talk about Israel. No, I think you are obsessed. And if you look at any of the polling and the top issues, Israel doesn't register.

But you live in a world where you think it does. And you're refusing to accept that. You think this I refer to as Israel derangement syndrome. I don't think it's. Look, my point of view on this is actually quite moderate. But I do think that it matters. Like we need to reign. I said it didn't.

We need to reign in Israel for the benefit of Israel. I think we should stop spending money on all the foreign wars. It's not even that simple. Like the Israel has been, even before October 7th was going through a constitutional crisis. And I don't care about Israel at all. Like you, you bringing up Israel's constitution is like saying the marshmallow man from My Little Pony turned blue. I don't care. There are several hundred thousand people in Israel who vote in American elections, and some of them in rather important states that are often very close. I mean, it matters.

They're American citizens. Sure. But if I were an American citizen who lived in the West Bank, what would be the number one issue you voted on? Your security. I think that's normal. How many Canadian dual citizens are there? And how many of them are influencing our politics particularly in hollywood uh i'm seth rogan a canadian i'm canadian i'm a dual citizen we got a problem here we got dual citizens i think the real issue with the israel palestine thing uh for for the debate at least is, that people are unwilling to talk about it as an issue.

And also that it has become a major issue for young activists in America, not all of them, but some of them. I think this is the major, I actually personally think this is the reason why there's not a live audience at the debate, because they are too afraid that there will be protesters who are going to bring this issue up. And Trump's going to laugh. That's the thing. There's no audience because they're unpredictable. They don't know where they'll fall. And they know at this point that this has become an issue that is siphoning voters away from Biden. There are reasons that people voted no confidence or someone else in a primary where Joe Biden's the incumbent and no one's challenging him. Do you think that the average American is against the idea of supporting Israel?

It's just not that simple. I would argue that what I think should be done is pro-Israel. So, like, what I'm trying to say is that the U.S. has a role to play in stabilizing what's happening in Israel. Israel, before October 7th, was going through a constitutional crisis. In general, the country is drifting into the Chinese and Russian orbit. If that continues, that poses risks to American Jews. That's bad. And we need to actually act to rein them in. And nobody's willing to say that right now. And it's a really sinister deferral of responsibility. In general, I think like a lot of these activist lefty types, they say some unfortunate things,

but their hearts are in the right place. But their biggest problem is that they make it all about Zionism. If I were a Jew living in Israel, I would be a Zionist. And I think it's just like a perfectly normal and healthy nationalist sensibility. They want to embark on a collective project. But we need to just, in this moment, it's not about being pro-Israel or not. It's about how we want this relationship to be. What about our relationship with Saudi Arabia? I think that there's an even better case for cutting ties there.

So do you think the American people care more about Israel or Saudi Arabia? Definitely Israel. Why Israel? All sorts of bonds of affection. The fact that our technological infrastructure is intertwined in all these ways. I understand. I agree with you on that. There are Israeli dual citizens, less so with Saudis. But I mean, as it pertains to the domestic policy of the United States with foreign spending and foreign interference and foreign treaties, which issue do you think affects the American people more and they'd be more interested to hear about, Israel or Saudi Arabia? Definitely Israel. Why? Because of the,

I mean, I think a lot of evangelicals care quite a bit about Israel for all sorts of strange and, I would argue, rather heretical theological reasons. And then also Jews for, you know, sort of ethnocentric reasons. How many people is that? Between evangelicals and the Jews? Many tens of millions. Tens of millions in the United States? Yeah, I mean, there are a lot of evangelicals.

I'm just asking you the number. And I think, you know, evangelicals, their problem is that they just don't think about this in a sophisticated enough way. Like what needs to happen is even to preserve a U.S.-Israel relationship, we need to act to rein them in. There are people in the streets every day protesting Netanyahu's government. There are hundreds of thousands of them. So you were saying, you said that you think that because we're not reining them in, that's pushing Israel into China and Russia's orbit? That's right. I mean, the Israeli right has a number of huge Russia problems. A lot of Russian Jews are involved on the Israeli right. And then in 2017, Benjamin Netanyahu said,

Israel makes the perfect junior partner to China. Now think that through a little bit. I mean, if Israel becomes essentially a client state of China, every Zionist in the United States becomes a security risk. That is a eventuality that we should do almost anything to avoid, because that's the moment things actually do become dangerous for Jews. When being anti-Israel or anti-Zionist becomes coterminous with being anti-China, that's when things get dangerous. And my argument is that we need to act right now to prevent that from happening. And also, Netanyahu is a criminal.

What policy or prescription do you think the United States should do to prevent that? I think the Israel lobby should be subject to the Foreign Agents Registration Act, a number of the key organizations. In general, Israel flouts foreign influence laws more than any other. So how does that deter China?

How does that deter China? Sorry. Because it forces them to be more of a vassal of the United States. So this—I want to explain. This is why I call it Israel derangement syndrome. So I don't care for anyone's particular ideology, their pet peeves or personal issues that they think are the most important. I care about what can we look in aggregate data? I don't I don't think it's fair. Shut it to David Pakman when he makes a video

saying Trump is his disapproval rating skyrockets and he finds a singular poll to back up his ideas. At the same time, he made that video at the time I made a video where I said Trump's approval rating is better than ever based on aggregate polling, where we try to assess as much information as possible and find that data. When you go to Gallup, which is numerous months where they've been tracking this, there are many, many issues that outweigh. In fact, Israel isn't even a single issue. Did they poll on it? They did. And it bundled up with Middle Eastern war. In fact, the federal deficit. They know more than we do.

The federal deficit rates higher among the interest of the American people than Middle Eastern conflict does at 5%. We can take a look at the cost of living in the economy in general. That's true until there's a Middle Eastern conflict. And there is. And so you have government poor leadership in the current month at 21%, immigration at 18, poverty at six, abortion at four, elections at four, unifying the country at four, ethics, more religious family decline at three, foreign policy at three. Maybe we can add foreign policy and war in the Middle East and make that six percent. And still, immigration and economics dramatically outweigh that as an issue. Going back to the main point, if Donald Trump wants to actually win over voters, the issues he should focus on are going to be immigration and the

economy and particularly the number one issue, Biden's failing mental acuity, which is currently number one and actually was number one five months ago. But immigration was number one for three months in April, March and February, according to Gallup. Gallup may be wrong as a single point of data, but using this source, these are the issues that people generally care about. Typically, the other polling we've seen didn't list government poor leadership at number one, which is why this one was surprising to me. Immigration tends to be the number one issue, because immigration ties to everything else, but Israel isn't even on the map.

I mean, the fact is, if immigration is going to be handled by Anderil and Stephen Miller and these sorts of people, it's not going to be fixed. That's not the conversation we're having. Something else needs to happen if Trump is going to be credible. So if we're talking about at the debate, what can Biden say? What can Trump say? It has nothing to do with that conversation about who is going to be running it. The question is, what will Trump or Biden say that will win over voters? The big weakness Biden has right now is that, according to Gallup, the biggest one of the biggest concerns, the biggest concern right now is poor leadership in government.

And that is something Trump can easily attack on. If Trump gets ultra specific on, you know, the reason I ask about Saudi Arabia is that over 100000 people have been killed in Yemen in the past, I think, what, five years? And that never comes up. Saudi Arabia recently, the petrodollar deal, the 50-year deal expired. That's over and they're not re-upping. So now they're starting to do deals in rubles and won. That never comes up. That is a bigger threat to the American economy and the American people than anything pertaining to Israel. That's why I mentioned that. And still, I will say this. If Donald Trump on the debate stage says under Joe Biden's watch, the Saudi petrodollar deal has ended without an extension or a plan, the American people are going to say, I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't matter to me and it will win over no voters, despite being probably the most important issue affecting the U.S. outside of perhaps escalation into World War III with Russia. Like if we're talking about

what's going to happen to this country, you've got a handful of things that really matter. The petrodollar deal expiring with Saudi Arabia means China is going to start selling, buying and selling oil in Chinese currency. And the U.S. doesn't manufacture enough to bolster its economy outside of producing dollars in the Federal Reserve. Without that deal, Saudi Arabia can dump oil into the market, undercutting the U.S. and destroying our economy, which is why we used to beg Saudi Arabia not to pump oil. And then Saudi Arabia, getting mad at the U.S. administration, whichever it may be, would be like, we're going to pump some oil into the into the global market and it's going to screw over your numbers. That matters dramatically because we're talking about mass inflation,

standard of living dropping dramatically because the whole system of petrodollar economics in the United States is built on U.S. military power. Without that deal with Saudi Arabia, and it's not the only thing that matters, but it's one of the most important, our economy is undercut. Then you can look at immigration. Then you can look at civil disorder and social decay at the government level in these various issues. These things matter the most, but are so far, they are so esoteric. And so in the weeds, the average person is going to be completely lost if you try and bring it up to them. Yeah, I suppose so. Letting the petrodollar agreement expire is probably desired by somebody if you're if you favor like a green energy transition it is true that an oil-based economic system is underwritten by

american military power it would also be true that a green energy-based economic system would be underwritten by American military power. You're just talking about metals instead of fossil fuels. I mean, it's still necessary to get the metals to produce a battery. This is, you know, letting that expire is probably part of like a long-term shift. Well, where do we get those metals? They come from all over, but Africa is quite important. And Afghanistan.

Yeah. Lithium. Yeah. Africa is probably more important, but yeah. And who's developing in Africa? Everyone is. Well, China. Yeah. China is the dominant force investing. And there was, there's a really funny meme actually, where I don't know if it's a real conversation, but it's presenting the idea where some guys, an African guy said, whenever the British come here, they give us lectures. And whenever China comes here, they give us roads and money. And then the guy responds with, what do you think is attached to those roads and money? And they go, oh, here we go with the lecture again. Right. They don't care. I mean, yeah.

It will serve China's interests if China builds them roads and hospitals and wells. It's all debt-based development. Absolutely. And so what that will lead to in the long run is a government burdened by that amount of debt will eventually fall. And that might even be a good thing for American interests. It won't fall if it's backed up by military hegemony. That's the American model right now, and it's starting to fail. The U.S. is not going to defend a government that's falling because it's overridden,

you know, overloaded with Chinese debt. Quite the opposite. We'll encourage that. If in the end of this economic shift we're seeing between the U.S. and China, China wins. China's debt's meaningless. Ain't nobody going to enforce the debt against China when China's in control of global military power. Yeah, I mean, I think attempts will be made to take those minds away from them before that happens. To take the countries away from China? Yeah.

Right now, China's... I mean, Africa is a battlefield and it will continue to be so. South America is too. And China's expanding rapidly. The Nicaraguan Canal was a huge story 10 years ago. China abandoned that, however, but they were going to they were going to destroy a massive aquifer, a major water source in Nicaragua just to compete with the Panama Canal. And then they ended up banning the project like we were at a serious. Maybe it's true always that there's always a major turning

point in global politics. But right now it's a precipice, especially with Russia, Ukraine and Yemen and Iran and Saudi Arabia and all of these things. The shape of the world in the next 10 years could be dramatically different from what anyone alive today has ever experienced or would expect to actually happen. And the scary thing about it is gradually, then suddenly we're all sitting here thinking, you know, we can order our MacBooks from China off cheap labor for a thousand bucks. But if the petrodollar system collapses, that laptop's going to cost you 10 grand. You're going to you try to make it. You're going to start.

They'll bring manufacturing back, but you'll get a dark period for 10, 20 years before they can they can reset the economy. I think that's what Trump's vision was with securing our borders and bringing manufacturing back to the U.S. and get a jump start on it now before it's too late. Let's do this. So let's jump to the story. This one you'll like. The Postmillennial New York Times blames pro-Israel money for Jamal Bowman's loss, then abruptly changes headline. We also have AOC taking aim at AIPAC after Bowman's loss. It's big news. The group, which has historically funded more Republicans than Democrats and rarely spent on Democratic primaries, spent at least 14.5 million dollars

against Bowman. Quote, this is about 20 million dollars in big money being spent in a historic sum, unlike any seen in American history, point blank, period, AOC told reporters from the Capitol on Wednesday. I think we need to have a real conversation about AIPAC. I think that we we do need to have a real conversation about is a typo, a Republican, primarily Republican and largely Republican financed organization playing and dumping money and playing an extremely divisive role in the Democratic Party. So right now, there are a lot of people on the right who are defending Bowman having lost because Apex spent, I believe it's a record amount of money in a congressional race.

And I think they probably didn't need to. The story with Bowman is that he was redistricted. And Bowman is the sort of guy who's going to do great in the Bronx, but he's not going to do so great in Scarsdale. AndAC, it is true that APAC is a powerful lobby group. They're one of them. I think they're probably up there with, you know, most powerful. They're powerful. I don't think anyone denies that. Yeah, this story has always been really interesting to me because the redistricting aspect, but also, you know, a lot of the media is talking about it like the more progressive candidate, Bowman, lost to a more moderate Democrat. And people might not think that label totally fits, but it does seem like it's reflective of a conversation that's being held within the Democratic Party about the influences that are impacting their races, as opposed to a typical race that we think of where it's Republican versus Democrat. Because this is a primary, it's more of a chance for Democrats to evaluate,

you know, where the money is coming from and what values they are looking to elect to Congress. Yeah, and Latimer hardly seems like, you know, the sort of, if I were a young person, he's not exactly somebody I would be enthusiastic about voting for. I mean, he looks like one of those fancy Japanese goldfish with the googly eyes. I'm trying to look up the spending from AIPAC on Open Secrets, and it doesn't come up. I mean, I don't get the sense that so I wasn't aware of the redistricting redistricting with with Bowman, but I kind of get the sense that a lot of his problem was that he didn't go door to door in Westchester. Like he wasn't going up to try and. He also always had always had part of Westchester from what I understand. Yeah, there's a really toxic thing about some of these sort of celebrity Democrats is that the star power is going to carry them through. And I think that's, you know,

maybe a little hubris there. He specifically said that he, you know, he made, he was giving thanks to Dearborn, which is clearly because of the progressives in Dearborn, the attitude in Dearborn about the situation in Gaza and Israel. And I think that the Jewish population of Westchester just wasn't having it. And then you throw that on top of it where he is, you know, he's got the brain of a shoe

because everyone knew that the pulling of the fire alarm was, you know, he did it. There was no covering that up. So I think that I got the sense that it was a combination of he embarrassed the Democrats and he had the issue with the population of Westchester. I don't know that the redistricting had as big a significance as anyone else. If you want to go ahead and enlighten me, I'd be welcome to hear it. His district now contains, it's a lot more kind of northerly focused.

That's basically it. And the new map dropped like not all that long ago. Yeah. I mean, the thought is that he lost a section of the Bronx that he had had before, which means that he lost a certain amount of support there that especially if you're saying, you know, he irritated people,

if there's a large Jewish community in Westchester and they are now irritated with him because of his comments or anything else, it makes him more vulnerable than just a traditional primary matchup because of the geopolitical influence on American politics this year. I guess nobody cares about APEC. I mean, from my perspective, I know APEC gets a lot of attention. But if you look at the race, just a handful of races. So the Jamal Bowman one, yes, Jamal Bowman lost and APEC spent money. But you look at the Kentucky race with

Thomas Massey, and they weren't able to unseat Thomas Massey. APEC spent money against Massey? APEC spent a lot of money. One point that I would make. Hold on, let me finish. He said, it's like they went after him. Now granted, some people will say he's an incumbent, and so that's why. And there's validity to that. But still, if AIPAC was as powerful, the money that AIPAC spent, they should be able to unseat him.

Furthermore, in Texas, there was the, I forget the number of the district, but it was Tony Gonzalez versus Brendan Herrera. And Brendan Herrera lost by 400 votes against an incumbent incumbent and the incumbent was backed by AIPAC. So as much as people like to make remarks about AIPAC and talk about AIPAC money, I honestly don't think that AIPAC has the kind of juice that people like to see. I don't think so. The kind of backing that people say. I think that it's, and especially when you look at the left, they're blaming AIPAC, blaming AIPAC and ignoring Jamal Bowen's own personal failures.

They're ignoring the redistricting. They're ignoring the fact that he didn't get out. And it's just an easy scapegoat. Oh, AIPAC. Oh, AIPAC. And it becomes a lazy man's reason for losing, especially in an age when people like to hate on Jews and hate on Israel. Go ahead. I think in general, you're right that Republicans have a better record of standing up to their establishments than Democrats do. But if I were to make kind of the case against AIPAC here, I've seen some kind of – there are a lot of really smart right-of-center guys that are kind of thinking through how to negotiate this. And I have no problem with limiting AIPAC's ability to affect – like I have no problem with registering or whatever. That's fine with me too. It's not like I'm pro-APAC. I just wanted to articulate that.

Well, let me explain why the way that they fit into the ecosystem has been a little bit strange in the last couple of months. It's not that APAC is powerful that it needs to, that it ought to, if you ask me, register. It's that APAC formerly had, so, mean, AIPAC is full of, you know, that old joke about Jews is, you know, two Jews, three opinions, right? And so there is a lot of disagreement among donors. And the way that they paper that over is that AIPAC has sort of made the decision that we're not going to kind of, the way we're going to present ourselves in the United States is to support what the Israeli government wants. And it's that form of that kind of, you know, formal, you know, papering over of the disagreements, more or less on behalf of the Israeli government and like agreeing to represent their position that effectively, if you ask me, makes them a foreign lobby. Even if most of the donors are

not Israeli, they're American Jews. And moreover, I would argue that that point of view, that kind of bargain, the way that they avoid airing the disagreements in public, the reason why it started to break down, and it was breaking down before October 7th, and in some ways, October 7th served to consolidate a lot of American Jewish opinion. But before that, Israel was going through a constitutional crisis. What was happening was a lot of lawyers wanted to do in Israel what was successfully done through FedSoc to the American judiciary. And the problem is there are a whole lot of other checks and balances in the American system that if you really limit judicial power, everything's probably going to be okay. If you do it in like a highly majoritarian state of

9 million people that feels constantly besieged, that's going to tend in a direction that's like somewhat volatile. And so if you're going through a constitutional crisis, a constitutional crisis by definition means we don't know who the government is, that there are fights, and you know, the different branches of government are fighting with each other. And so for, you know, from AIPAC's perspective is, what Israeli government perspective are we speaking for here? Are we speaking for the left that's, you know, the left that's against Bibi's judicial reforms? Are we speaking for the maximalism of the Israeli right? And there's just, there's no way for them to kind of speak to that. And October 7th, you know, gave the Israel lobby

certainly something to rally around. But I think the big mistake right off the bat, and now the IDF spokesman is starting to concede it, which is that completely eliminating Hamas is probably not a realistic goal. And moreover... Yeah, I'm sorry, getting rid of Hamas is not a realistic goal, you said? Completely eliminating it. And if you're, I mean, the fact is, that's what they started to say off the bat, and now even an IDF spokesman is conceding it's probably not in the cards. And right after October 7th, when, you know, emotions were running high, that was a very difficult thing to say. But, you know, this is sort of the course these things normally take. So, you know, this is kind of, there are limitations to AIPAC's formally, you know, sort of formal bargain to only support what the Israeli government

is doing, both in terms of like, the way it obscures what's actually possible when it comes to fighting Hamas, and because it obscures what's actually going on in Israeli politics, which is well reported in the Israeli media. I think that more, you know, certainly conservatives should read the Israeli newspapers. I think for a lot of evangelicals, certainly the Israel that they love exists only in their minds. Shall we? We'll squeeze in one last lighter segment here because I want to. It's from Mediaite.

Painfully cringe anti-woke cartoon starring Dave Rubin and featuring Elon Musk deemed one of the worst things ever made. Elon Musk is not in it. It's a drawing of Elon Musk. And this show called The New Norm has like eight million views on x everyone's sharing it because they hate it so much and so we played a little bit of it last night but uh it's interesting i'll give you a quick glimpse of what this show is and uh you can you can you'll, we'll get, well, here you go. What's that? Progress.

It's the new norm. The new norm ain't the same as the old norm. Okay, so for those that are just listening, he grabbed a beer can and it's got a rainbow on it. That's it. I'm the old norm. I want a beer can and it's got a rainbow on it. That's it. I'm the old Norm. I want normal beer. Warning. Warning.

Priority reached. Okay, so he's under house arrest because he went to a school board meeting and yelled because they're indoctrinating his daughter. And then Dave Rubin is a non-binary guy. And, you know, this brings up an interesting question around attempts at building culture, because everyone has basically said this is the worst thing they've ever seen. But, you know, I don't want to discourage people from trying. I, you know, I have opinions on this. So, like, as far as I'm concerned, like, if you're going to build culture, trying to build culture that caters to one political group is probably not the best idea like everybody that listens to all that remains and pays attention to the the members of the band

they all know me they know that i've been you know uh partial to libertarian politics or conservative opinions and stuff they know that i'm not particularly conservative um socially but they have an idea right but all that remains as a band, I don't get on stage and talk about anything political. And other people in the band have very different views. And I think the important thing about building culture is to be able to welcome people that disagree. That is one of the fundamental pillars of the United States is you can disagree just so long as we can exist peacefully together.

We don't have to have the same opinions. We don't have to agree all the time. And I think that as much as it's important to make places that are acceptable for right-leaning opinions, it's more important, in my opinion, to make places that are acceptable for right-wing opinions that don't exclude people that are not exclusively right-wing. This show, it's basically just a whole bunch. And this is their like mini pilot, so who knows, but it's basically just a whole bunch of,

hey, here's a thing that happened. Here's another thing that happened. Here's another thing that happened. And it's just like, none of it is actual jokes. It's just showing you things that you may have seen. And I'm like, well, that's not a sitcom. I guess it's a laugh track telling you when to laugh. But this is, you know, I'll put it this way.

I once went to McDonald's and I wanted to get an Oreo McFlurry. A classic. A classic. And the dude who was working the McFlurry machine thought he was being real nice. And so he dumped a load of Oreos, just went nuts with it. Like, you know, people like it. I'm like, you can't eat this. It's basically just crumb of Oreo crumbs.

Like, they think by jamming as much Oreo in there. So this whole thing is just like, remember, woke stuff, woke stuff, woke stuff. Okay, you want to make culture. I don't want to rag on you. I want to support you. Do it. But this is an obvious mistake. Here's my recommendation for what the show should have been. It should have been a normal family. It should have been a daughter in high

school. She's not woke. The guy's not under house arrest. The neighbor should be woke. The neighbor should be friends with the family, should introduce weird scenarios that get the family into some hijinks. And the moral at the end is the family ultimately decides the woke thing isn't working because it's kind of weird or causes them problems. Then it's our kooky, woke neighbor. What a weirdo. And you're creating culture that will be understandable and related to relatable to by regular people that makes wokeness look like an other this some many people are calling this a PSYOP, and they're saying the intention is to show the old stodgy man out of touch

with the young people, and the young people with establishment authority are actually normal, and he's not. That's why it's called the new norm. I don't watch a lot of animated shows or anything like that, so I'm not sure I'm the best person to criticize this. I think generally, I prefer art and cultural projects that are kind of more subtle, right? I mean, there is a history of political cartooning, we're kind of calling things out more

directly. And so maybe this is the modern version of that. But generally, I think that there's a level of like, you want there to be room for interpretation. You want people to be you don't want to have to be able you don't want people to like know the joke you're making before you make it right. We kind of know all know what there's no jokes. That's what I mean, though. It's not a single joke. Oh, your daughter's getting corrupted. The beer is has the rainbow flag on it.

Like there's a level of like I kind of know what's being said. There's nothing creative. Real quick. In the show, the dude is sitting in his chair with a beer next to him. Then he is surprised by the beer that he bought and put next to him. Like the right.

And then there's when the Dave Rubin character walks in, he's like, who's he? And the wife is like, the judge agreed to conditional parole. And he goes, what condition? What do you mean? What condition? You were there.

You were in court. What is this writing? Yeah, the writing is something that probably is where the biggest problem is. You essentially see this kind of stuff done properly with South Park. And the South Park guys know it's like this happened. So not this happened. And then this happened and this happened. It's this happened. So they had to or because of that they did this and that's the way your story makes sense but if it's just you know reference a thing in woke culture reference

another thing in woke culture reference another thing in woke culture you're not going to make something compelling you're not telling a story and like i said the guys in south park have got a lock on this to make current things and make them relatable to people that may not have this i just got to point this out in the article. It says the show did receive some praise. However, Bill Maher described the show as brilliant. He was high hoarding to the new norms official website. No, he didn't do this.

Bill Maher didn't call it brilliant. Okay. He didn't. It's I feel Bill. I feel bad, Bill. I feel bad for you that they are besmirching your good name. In fact, I think... Are you confirming that Bill Maher never actually said that?

I can confirm this, yes. You asked him? No, I don't need to ask him because I went to the New Norms website. Oh, I see. And I looked up... Oh, it's there. What does that say? You want to read that?

Read it in full, Phil? Having a hard time there, huh? Real-time host. No, you've got to get in the microphone. Brilliant. Bill Maher, real-time host. Speaking of shows creators' previous work. Nice.

Oh, my goodness. This has got to be a prank or something. Like, this was made by some leftist who tricked Larry Elder, Dave, and being in it. Yeah. Like, because was made by some leftist who tricked Larry Elder, Dave, and being in it. Yeah. Like, because this just makes. Oh, man. I got a text from Seamus. Seamus Coughlin the other day, and he was like, we've got to make something, dude.

This is so bad. I'm going to come back. He's great. Yeah. He's fun. Freedom Tunes is hilarious. It's okay, you know. I was talking about Freedom Tunes earlier today because I'm like, there's a.

I'll give you. Here's a funny one that Seamus did. Tanahisi Coates, I think his name was several years ago, he's drawing a comic and he makes the Red Skull, the Nazi character in Captain America, presenting his rules for life. And it's very clearly that they depicted Red Skull as Jordan Peterson, you know, as one in the same. And Jordan Peterson was like, what the bloody hell? Like what? Like they're making him the Red Skull. So Seamus says, OK, let's roll with this. So he makes a cartoon where the Red Skull's evil plan is to get young men to clean their rooms and repair their relationships with their fathers. And it ends with the Avengers sitting down for a lecture from the red skull like that's the natural conclusion it's funny he presents in a funny way with jokes in between this is you know it breaks

my heart i'm hoping it was a legitimate attempt at making humor or whatever it didn't work and uh oh it's bad now Now, I'm wondering. Can we just stop trying to make Dave Rubin happen? Dave Rubin's not happening. I don't understand why Dave is in it. Did someone reach out to him and he said, I don't know. Because I get pitches all the time. I just throw them in the garbage.

You know what I mean? I like to give Dave the benefit of the doubt and and be like he's out there trying he does a lot you know what i mean and i'm wondering who made this because there's no information on who made it anywhere the the twitter account doesn't list anybody they've got a bunch of cal arts graduates locked in a basement somewhere and they're chained to a radiator and uh yeah that's probably what it is i will point out however is one clue. Maybe you can figure this out. Because whoever made this... Wait. Oh, this is the wrong website.

Whoever made this is followed by Dave Rubin. See this? Rubin Report follows you. I suppose I could literally just ask Dave who made it. But, you know, that would be a lot of work, to be completely honest, for something I don't care that much about. You know, criticizing the show makes me feel bad because we want people to build parallel culture and challenge this. But a lot of people are ragging on the Daily Wire's

Mr. Burcham as well for being the same thing. I've not seen it. Have you guys seen it? I haven't seen it. I've seen some pilots. I think there's a danger in, when we say we want to make a parallel culture, right? That doesn't mean that we're copy pasting

and changing the colors of the things that already exist in culture. Like when you say you want to be like the south park of whatever like that doesn't mean you actually are trying to literally rip off south with south park because you won't be able to right it's already established people love it it has a structure that people are going for you have to be able to say okay i want to work in cartoons i'm working animation but i'm going to come up with my own thing and there's a way in which the parallel culture or we need, you know, sort of an alternative conservative ecosystem runs the risk of throwing people into bed with some unscrupulous characters.

There's the Nugent Bauer lawsuit that just broke a couple of days ago, that this guy who is running this app called Glorify, which was like an anti-woke marketplace online, is now suing his previous backers, some of whom were notable Silicon Valley figures. And what it looks like is there were a couple of these anti-woke marketplaces competing. And the one that was sort of blessed by the Silicon Valley financiers was Public Square. And that one's sort of taking off in glorify by Nuka Bauer, who's sort of evangelical, is close to Texas oil and gas. He's the one who got kind of thrown under the bus, and now he's upset and he's suing about it. And so, you know, who runs the parallel economy? You know, these are, you know,

questions a shrewd, unwoke person ought to ask. So someone superchatted saying to go to the Wayback Machine. There's way more there. And I did. And now we, I think there's more information. John Ratzenberger is the voice of the guy. I don't know what this is. Was this like a funding campaign?

Oh, look at this. There's scripts available. This is so weird. Like, what is this? Maybe they scrubbed it because they're embarrassed, but they got like eight or nine million views on it. We'll do some digging. Norm, the grumpy dad.

Janice, the mom and counselor. Chloe, the woke wannabe. Who is this? Chaz, the woke warrior. Charlie, the boss. And Billy, the emotional support dog. Genius. He's not a boss anymore, though.

He got switched to being the friend, it seems like. Brilliant. Bill Maher. Did you see that? They actually wrote that. Wow. Bill Maher. They're dragging you through this one, huh?

All right, everybody. We're going to go to Super Chats. So if you haven't already, would you kindly smash that like button, subscribe to the channel, share this with your friends, head over to TimCast.com, click join us, become a member.

If you'd like to watch the members-only call-in show coming up at 10 p.m. And I'm going to tell you this, our plans for tomorrow night, let me give you the update. So I've had numerous phone calls and conversations, DMs and such, with many other channels about their intentions for the show, the debate tomorrow night. Basically, every lawyer legal opinion is that CNN has no legal grounds for actually taking down any commentary stream. It's an absurd claim they're going to try and make. However, it at least in one instance, the legal advice was the presumption is that CNN is collapsing. Their ratings are in the gutter. They're they're bleeding money and they're in a panic, desperate state. They likely will take whatever action imaginable, you know, for just because they have to.

It's it's why you don't try to you get when you're when you're trying to rescue someone who's drowning, you got to come from behind and lift them. Otherwise they will they will drown you. And so that's what the concern is. The concern is that CNN is going to file live takedowns on every single channel that tries to provide fact checking, commentary and criticism on the debate. Now, here's the problem. YouTube's an automated system and they don't want to be involved. So they just allow people to do whatever they want. If you are live streaming and you get a DMCA complaint, not only does your show end, so there's not going to be a show to restore. It's just gone. They destroy it. You are banned. You are suspended from streaming for seven days.

I spoke with a few channels and they said, I can't risk that. Like we do live streams. If we get taken down, we're off the air for a week on YouTube. Like, that's crazy. And so a lot of people are saying they want to do like side by side. So it's like, turn on the debate, then turn on our show and listen. Yeah. OK, well, I'll tell you what we're going to do. Our plan right now. And we had the discussion. We are going to be streaming on X, YouTube, and Rumble. I talked to YouTube already. They are unhappy with this. It seems that CNN is directly targeting YouTube.

So CNN has already clarified to numerous channels, we are all allowed to broadcast the stream with commentary so long as it is on our websites and not on YouTube, which is really weird. It's a weird thing to request or demand or whatever that is. They've explicitly said that we can run for profit members only 10 bucks if you want to watch our commentary debate stream and they have no problem with it. Yet, if we're on YouTube providing it for free with no ads even, that's the problem. I talked to YouTube. I said, YouTube, guys, you realize they actually aren't complaining about us. CNN is not saying Tim Kass is bad or any of these

other podcasts bad. They're saying YouTube, they're going after you guys. YouTube is not very happy about it because it's literally CNN is making a move against YouTube as a whole and telling us, feel free to use it. Just not on YouTube. We don't want YouTube to have it. They don't want YouTube to have it unless it's on their channel. So whatever that means. Well, I tell you what, it will be up on X at so follow me on on on on X at Timcast.

It'll be on my TimCast account. Rumble, TimCast IRL. And of course, it will be live here. The first hour of the show, of course, will be our normal show. And the second hour is when the debate begins for an hour and a half. So there will be no Super Chat section

and no members only. I told YouTube, you know, I'm telling you right now, CNN has no right to take down the first hour of our show over a complaint over however many minutes from the next portion, which they would falsely claim is fair use. And if if YouTube is to take action against us over a false claim, like we've got a problem. So it's tough right now. I would say this. Our intention is I'll say 90 percent, 90 percent likely you will see this on YouTube. And I say that because something may change tomorrow pertaining to a call from YouTube or something. It will be on X and it will be on Rumble so long as the system we've set up does work and it seems to be working rather well.

And so that's the case. So I'm looking forward to it and we'll see what the CNN tries to do about it. But I think I think it'll be fine and I think we'll see you here on YouTube. But let's read your super chats. Polly Puree says, am I first? You are. Congratulations. All right. Restless Medic says, if the House does not have the sergeant at arms, remove Garland

from his office in a highly publicized perp walk, which I'm under no delusion they'll do, then the rule of law is done and disobedience is the only solution. And that is, regardless of your opinion, what we have seen historically. As Matt Taibbi described several years ago, countries come to the point where two cars drive full speed down the road, drive up to the police station, two men jump out of the cars, run up to the chief of police and scream, arrest that man at each other. And this is this is where we're currently at. We are at the point where the question is being asked, arrest that man. And Matt Tybee's point was a decision will be made. And that is your coup. That is your revolution. I don't know if that's his point, but that is what you get ultimately.

All right. J3TL4G, great name, says embarrassing to see you mock Bowman's loss and cheer on establishment Democrats taking his place. Anti-establishment left is not our enemy, boomer brain. I'm not a boomer. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's sad, really. Bowman should be mocked. He is a criminal who broke the law and pulled a fire alarm and lied about it and got a slap on the wrist. He's a scumbag. That's it. I celebrated when AOC beat Crowley because the establishment losing is funny. And then AOC joined the establishment. Bowman is he's not the same as AOC. That's true. But yeah, they are all working at the behest of the establishment. They flipped a long time ago.

Also, it's good when commies lose. Yeah, I don't care. Like, dude, he's a bad guy. He's a bad guy. He lost. Oh, I'm not going to cry about it. Like, whatever happens over there, fine. Grant Arnett says,

Did you see that Newsom is a surrogate for Biden for the debate tomorrow? I called this. I said, Biden's going to be at a rally and he's going to grip his chest and go, and then Gavin Newsom is going to throw his jacket off, run out on stage and save the life of the president. I just didn't think it would be live on television,

broadcast by everyone. I mean, there is no studio audience. So that means he's got to be waiting in the wings or strapped to one of those things where you can like drop in like pseudo Spider-Man, pseudo Spider-Man. What do we have? What do we have? J3 once again says, so sad to see you defend lobbyists stealing races. I wish, I wish these lobbyists would fight half as hard for populist right wing congressmen as they did against Bowman. So I don't care if lobbyists are doing anything. As far as I'm concerned, I would support all kinds of lobbying to get communists out of the government.

I would send checks in. I will help them out. I will endorse them. I will talk about it on the government. I would send checks in. I will help them out. I will endorse them. I will talk about it on the internet. If you're going to get commies out of the government, I don't care who's getting them out. Just get them out of there. Do you know what lobbying means?

You know, yeah. Yeah, it's really funny. People think lobbyist implies something beyond like, dude, there are people who walk up to members of Congress on the street and say, hey, are you going to vote for that Green New Deal thing? And they go, I'll think about it. Have a nice day. That's literally lobbying. If you can get access to a congressperson or whatever and all you're doing is saying, hey, look, there are people that really believe in this.

And if you want to get their votes, blah, blah, blah. And that's it. And it's not it's not some kind of nefarious thing as much as people are going to imply that it's that it's nefarious. The idea that lobbyists actually have significant effect on the policies that the the Congress people are selecting. It's not the way it works. The Congress people go and they look at their constituents, at the the people that they're representing and they will select things that those people tend to agree on or tend to tend to like because they do try to represent their their their district because if they don't they lose all politics not all not all but generally there are lobbyists who are effective and have an effect on government and what's going on and part of it is all politicians who take money from anybody are ultimately beholden to whoever gave it to them.

So that's why I think the difference between all politicians who gain office through grassroots funding versus someone who's really trying to have the big dollars. I mean, ultimately, everyone answers to someone. It's just a question of who. I think that I think that most of the time it's people answering to their constituents, specifically the politically motivated ones, because these people have to be able to rely on their votes when it's not, you know, in the midterms when you don't have a lot of attention. So like the people that are politically motivated and that have agendas that they care about, they're going to go ahead and they're going to contribute to organizations that have lobbyists. The NRA doesn't get people elected. The NRA supports people that already support the Second Amendment and they support the Second Amendment because their constituents support the Second Amendment. If you go to if you're looking at people that are

in the oil lobby you tend to find people that are working for like in Texas that are working for oil companies and stuff like that and the the politicians support those ideas then the lobbyists come to help get them elected because they already support those ideas because they're representing their constituents. I do understand that there is some influence, but I don't think that it's as much of an effect as people generally think, because most people that complain about lobbyists, they tend to have the idea that like the lobbyists can just shovel money into their accounts and their bank. I mean, lobbyists are able to shovel money in a way that a lot of independent donors,

grassroots donors can't. And I think the other part is that a lobbying group could look at a candidate that's moderate on issue and say, hey, we really want to support you, but we need to know that you would vote a certain way on this. And that's the problem, right? They have an influence. I get that ultimately we want to believe our politicians represent people and maybe on certain issues they do.

And maybe there are, and I think there are groups that we technically classify as lobbying groups that are, you know, legitimately trying to do good in their communities. But it's also equally as likely that lobbying groups are able to look at who they can influence and divert money in their direction. Like, we have to be skeptical of politics in all directions here. Lobby groups don't get a pass. All right, let's, we'll read some super chats here. We got, Ogun Maddox says, Tim, you read my super chat last night but never addressed my question about Matt and Blonde possibly appearing on IRL other than howdy people.

Love the show. Matt and Blonde are always welcome to come on the show. Matt's fantastic. He's a good dude. Would be great to have him on. But he's in Montana, isn't he? He's far away. They're way up there.

Yeah, but we'll fly him out. You know, I'm down. We'll go to Montana. No, I'm just kidding. It's hard to pick up the show and go. isn't he he's far away yeah they're they're way up there yeah but we'll fly him out you know i'm down we'll go to montana no i'm just kidding it's hard to make up the show and go let's go we'll try and grab some uh super chats here heath hansen says congress has to act because people flagrantly lie to lie to and ignore congress and have made their inquiries impotent. Exercising congressional authority should not be out of the norm. I agree. All right. Let's see what we got. What do we have

here? Bucket Aquatics says Al Capone was not a government official making laws and enforcing them in this country. The comparison is apples to cactus, dude. You are way off. Apples to cactus. I've not heard that one. I enjoy it. Let's grab some. We got a lot of super chats in here. It's a fiery conversation. People want to chime in.

Absolutely. Jacob Ali says, Phil, I just wanted to thank you. You responded to my chat a couple weeks ago about my mom's medical stuff and money issues. You talked me into going out to talk to anyone for help. You have no idea how close I am, how close I was to ending it. You and family helped. You saved my life. I remember that day. That's really great to hear, man. Thank you.

Was that when you said lift heavy thing makes sad voice go away? I'm not sure exactly what it was, but I'm extremely blessed to be able to touch people. And I really appreciate you taking the time to let me know. And I'm glad that you are feeling better. It is important to get out there and make a change in your life if you're feeling down. And I'm so happy that you did. Thank you so much.

All right, we'll try and grab some super chits. We have very, very many. Nexus Layer says, should OJ Simpson have been found guilty in violation of criminal procedure because everyone knew he did it? Should George Floyd have died because he was high behind a vehicle? Guest's position is unprincipled and insane.

You respond to that? Sorry, can you read that again? Should O.J. Simpson have been found guilty in violation of criminal procedure because everyone knew he did it? Should George Floyd have died because he was high behind a vehicle? Guest's position is unprincipled and insane. Is that in relation to what I was saying? Earlier on. Okay, I don't really see any relation.

Okay. Let's grab some more. Brandon Parker says, this is very simple. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So if it's okay to prosecute the right for contempt, then it's okay to prosecute the left for contempt, regardless of who they are. Justice is blind. I suppose so. The difference is that, yeah, I'm all for the principle. I'm questioning whether this is actually a one-to-one comparison.

I don't really think it is. All right. Kai says, Tim, ask him how he would feel if he did not have breakfast yesterday. Jesus. I don't know. Probably a little different. All right. Let's scroll down and see what we got here.

We've got a lot of super chats. People are very, very opinionated about the conversation. All right. What do we have here? Copper Lobos says, Phil, can't wait to see you this summer. How did you manage to score Jason Richardson? He is a beast. Well, we met Jason like back in 2011 or something like that was the first time i met him

and uh we we just hit it off really well like everyone in the band and also jason was a big fan of ollie so not only was jason a fan of ollie but ollie was a big fan of jason now the first tour that we did with him ollie came up to the bus and he's like you guys have got to come watch this kid he is 17 years old and he's amazing. And at the time, I had never seen a person that young play like Jason. So Jason and Ollie stayed friends and talked and stuff when they got the chance. And Ollie had said, if anything ever happened to me, and this was apocryphal, I guess, but he said, if anything ever happens to me,

Jason Richardson is the guy that I would want to take my place. And so when Jason offered to fill in, and he wasn't in a band at the time, we were like, look, man, Ollie said you're the guy. If you want the job, it's yours. And he was like, yeah, dude, I'd love it. And it's an amazing, wonderful thing to be able to say that if we can't have Ollie because Ali's passed away,

we can have the guy that Ali wanted. And that's a big deal to me. So I'm forever grateful for Jason. And I'm also forever grateful for Ali. So cheers. Hal Gailey says, Trump, quote, Joe, when you leave office, I'm going to go to your legacy. Fragile, timid creature it is.

I'm going to set it in front of the people and hawk to a spit on that thing. Your legacy is garbage. Yes, yes. Everybody likes hawk to a big lean, says Trump's mic will only be muted to live television. And then they will turn the mic up 1000 percent. And they are hoping he won't think about that and will say things under his breath. We already know ethics aren't real to them. Do you think Trump's saying stuff under his breath would would hurt him with the voters, right? But I was actually thinking, what if,

and they could easily do this, create different streams highlighting. So let me say this first. Emphasis matters dramatically in what a sentence means. If you were to read the sentence, I never said she stole your money. Depending on where you put emphasis, it dramatically changes the meaning. I never said she stole your money. I never said she stole your money. I never said she stole your money. With that in mind, what if a network, and I'm not saying this will happen, had multiple versions of the same feed showing different things at different times, creating different perceptions of how the debate is going.

The metaverse. Well, I don't know about that, but notoriously when it was what JFK's Nixon debate. I think this is where they said that people who listened on radio thought Nixon won. People who watched on TV thought Nixon lost. I think it was the first televised debate to those. Right. The reason. Well, people on TV saw him sweating and nervous and shaking. And shaved, too. Yeah. And

people who listened on the radio heard this collected debate and they thought he was the winner. So they could they could effectively do something like that by giving different streams to different networks. Well, it makes a different camera angle. It's like when Biden did his dark Brandon speech, they did a little bit of that like the close-up pictures showed him with this red background and he looked like darth vader picture that's right and uh but if if you you put the camera pulls out a little bit and there's like white and blue on either side and so you know it looks like just you know the usual bunting but uh in theory you could you could there would be a great like sci-fi novel you could write about like

an ai man in the middle attack into into the feed of a major network. And just you have three different AI debates. It reminds me of when this announcement came out that Biden was going to challenge Trump to a debate. Tim talks about it. He saw the video, but I heard it over the radio first. And it sounded like actually kind of a strong statement from Biden. He was speaking relatively quickly, but it's all actually, when you look at it, super cut together to give him an edge. So if there is, you know, if CNN controls the live stream, any sort of delay or any sort of clipping that they can do

obviously could benefit someone and make someone else look bad. They may have to use the body double. Yeah, maybe. All right. Ginger McIsaac says, dead babies. I right ginger mcisick says dead babies i agree people don't care about dead babies americans support abortions we are immune to dead babies i i agree yeah that's a fair point yeah i it's it's the dead baby argument only applies when it's the politics of the person is trying to advance yeah the dead babies the dead babies argument to conservatives dead babies are bad yeah to liberals it's. The dead babies, the dead babies argument. To conservatives, dead babies are bad.

Yeah. To liberals, it's depending on the situation. That's why they shouldn't want the dead babies in Gaza either. It speaks to the, to the fundamental philosophy going on.

They don't believe that words have meaning. They use words to get a, to evoke emotion in people. Let's go. Oh, here's, Sparky says, Tim, you're obviously Israel's stooge. Let's go. Oh, here's Sparky says, Tim, you're obviously

Israel's stooge. It's obvious. That's right. You can tell by the tiny beanie that he has underneath the regular beanie. Well, I have to wear the beanie because it hides the yarmulke.

Yeah, there you go. It's not nice. Otherwise, people will find out underneath the beanie. That's what's there. Y'all are stupid, man. The thing that gets me about it the most,

like shout out to Nick Fuentes when he was chanting, we want independence from Israel. It's just like there's literally no other foreign ties and foreign obligations and things the U.S. is entrenched in. I get that Israel is a big one, but there are a bunch of foreign obligations the United States has given itself up to and bent the knee to foreign dignitaries in horrifyingly ridiculous ways. And it's just like there's only ever one in the mind of these people. Only one. Only one. I'm like, Israel counts as one. And then there's like Saudi Arabia. There's, depending on how you want to describe things with NATO,

the U.S. is NATO. You can take a look at the spending in Vietnam in the 70s. You can take a look at the spending in Ukraine now. The spending in Ukraine now eclipses basically everything. There's just so much. The Americans, the U.S. administration, U.S. administrations for several decades supporting Saudi Arabia, the United States acting as the military force for Saudi Arabia in Yemen, resulting in the

death of hundreds of thousands of people. Heavens. So much more. All right. All right. Sandman says Americans don't care about Israel. We care about our economy and border. Tim, you're right. He just cares about his own view well i think people who there's there's i have never met anyone who has ukraine derangement syndrome saudi arabia derangement syndrome south korea china taiwan literally any other sudan i mean the the Sudanese conflict. I don't know. In my experience, Armenians tend to have Turkish derangement syndrome and vice versa or, you know.

Agreed, but it's not at this scale where like I don't have Armenians coming in the chat posting Turkish flags all the time. It's crazy. You don't have Armenians marching to conservative conferences with a thousand people

screaming independence from Turkey. It's so bad. The difference is, and I would totally concede that some of it is indefensible, but there is no other lobby in Washington that is so lawless as the Israel lobby. The amount of targeting of individuals within America that they do, much of what they do is is actually illegal here in America. I do not believe that for a second. No, no, no. I'm saying true. I'm saying that your description of this as like the biggest the military industrial complex is a substantially bigger concern across the board than the Israel lobby. The Israel lobby is a fraction of the military industrial complex. I mean, what conservative commentators tend to do is say that

you're obsessed or deranged about it when you bring it up. That's just me. And that's my thing. No, but that's been the common attack, you know, on anybody who brings this up is that you're either obsessed or deranged if you think it might be a problem at all. No, that's a gross oversimplification. I think it's important to criticize Israel. I think that it's good that people criticize Israel. I think the U.S. shouldn't be spending any money on Israel. And yet, for some reason, a tiny fraction of the military-industrial complex and foreign spending dominates the minds of so many people in such shocking ways. With respect, here's why that's wrong. If you want to get to the point where you actually can cut aid, you're making yourself an enemy of the Israel lobby. And so to even get what you want, you have to make yourself an enemy

of it. So what if you actually want to achieve that, you better understand how it works. And what about the oil lobby? What about Saudi Arabia? You think that going up against them and cutting ties doesn't put you in their crosshairs? What about going up against Ukraine? They were banning people for their statements about Ukraine. They killed a guy in Ukraine. Like, Gonzalo Lira is dead. Like, they kidnapped and killed a guy. I mean, look, the role—

Ukraine has spent—the president of Ukraine came to this country, and we spent substantially more money on Ukraine than Israel. It is Ukraine that is in control of this country, and the Ukraine lobby is too powerful, and we've got to cut ties. But you better understand what happens if you go up against Ukraine. How many people got Ukrainian flags in their bios right now? More than Israeli flags. I'm telling you.

I wish I didn't live under the Ukrainian-occupied government. Yeah, the idea that Ukraine is in control of the U.S. government is silly. The U.S. is trying to maintain international hegemonic military power. Thucydides' trap is a real concern with the rise of China. And Israel is a large, a large faction, a large component of U.S. foreign policy and military strategy. But so is Saudi Arabia. So is Ukraine. So was Vietnam. So is South Korea, Germany, NATO, et cetera. And the money we're spending in Africa is also ridiculous. I wish people would come out and say, stop spending money in Sudan.

Well, so the Saudi Arabia question, it has to do with the general posture, which exists to... So the kind of strategic vision of the Israeli right for many decades is that there should be rapprochement with the Gulf states and hostility toward Iran. And so the bombing in Yemen, you know, that the Emiratis and the Saudis that have been backing it, it's been quite brutal, is part of a strategy of which Israel is the cornerstone. There's a whole part of this. And what's happening right now is that strategy is failing. I mean, the— So we're in war in Ukraine because of Israel?

I'm talking about the Middle East. We spend more money on Ukraine, I'm saying. Not over the scope of the relationship. How much do we spend on Israel per year? It's tens of billions of dollars. And we've spent how much, $200 billion in Ukraine? Yeah, I mean, it's— It is more?

But over the scope of the relationship, it's not really close. You know the numbers? Not off the top of my head. And how can you make that statement? Because, I mean, Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union until the 90s. What does that have to do with what I just said? The long term. If you don't know the numbers of how much we've given Ukraine or Israel, then don't make that statement.

Okay. Do you want me to open my laptop? The U.S. has given over $260 billion since the 1940s. 260? 260 billion. And we've given Ukraine, what, 200? Oh, we may have recently beat them because we just gave them another 60. But I think we're probably higher on Israel.

But we do got to go to the members-only show. So instead of debating Israel again, we'll wrap it up there. Smash the like button. Subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends, become a member. Tomorrow, the show may be taken off the air. Wrongfully, I will stress. And in the event that it is, if we get a copyright strike on a live show, it shuts the show down for a week, which will be funny. But more to elaborate on that later. I won't say too much, but, you know, they're in the wrong to do it if they try. And we'll see how YouTube handles this. So but we could use your

support as members if you want to make sure that in this election season, I was talking to Benny Johnson earlier and he was like, look, man, the vice presidential pick, you've got the presidential immunity, you've got all of these things coming, and they are going to try and take us down to make it so that we cannot speak up about what's going on and counter their narrative. And he's 100 percent correct. Shout out to Benny Johnson. And so here we go. Become a member at TimCast.com. You can follow me on Twitter on X at TimCast. That's where we'll be streaming tomorrow. You can follow me on Instagram as well. I just posted some skate clips. And we'll be on Rumble at rumble.com slash timcast IRL.

Arthur, do you want to shout anything out? Yeah. Please subscribe to my sub stack. I've started a nonprofit also recently. And then Nash Rosenblatt, you owe me $10,000. Are you on Twitter or anywhere? I am on Twitter. My handle is at J underscore Arthur underscore Bloom.

So please come and follow me there. I am Phil that remains on Twix. I'm Phil that remains official on Instagram. The band is All That Remains. You can catch us this summer on the Destroy All Enemies tour with Mudvayne and Megadeth. It starts August 2nd, and it goes all the way through till September 29th.

We just announced a couple headline shows in the middle, because there's two legs of the tour, so we've got a couple headline shows, and I think there's a couple shows that are going to be playing where we're direct support from Mudvayne. You can check out our brand new video

for the song called Let You Go. It's available on Apple Music, Spotify, Pandora, YouTube, Amazon Music, Deezer, you know, the internet. And don't forget, the left lane is for crime. Bye, Phil.

Bye. I'm Hannah Claire Brimel. I'm a writer for scnr.com at Scanner News. I'm really grateful to be part of that team. You follow all of their work at TimCastNews on the internet. I'm on Twitter at HannahClaireB, and I'm on Instagram at HannahClaire.B. Thanks for everything you guys do. Bye, Serge.

See you later. Bye, guys. We'll see you all over at TimCast.com in about a minute. Thanks for hanging out.