Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #1099 Grand Jury Empaneled In Trump Assassination, Maybe 2nd Shooter Or CIA w/ RC Maxwell

Episode Date: August 29, 2024

Tim, Hannah Claire, & Ian are joined by RC Maxwell to discuss a Grand Jury being empaneled to investigate the attempted assassination of Trump, the FBI blaming a "collapsible stock" for the security failure that led to the attempted assassination of Trump, Kamala Harris accused of manipulating the public with the posted letter from "Tucker," and the Supreme Court of Brazil threatening they will ban X. Hosts:  Tim @Timcast (everywhere)  Hannah Claire @hannahclaireb (everywhere) Ian @IanCrossland (everywhere) Guest: R.C. Maxwell @BlackHannity (X) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Absolutely wild story coming out of human events. We've got a grand jury being impaneled in the Trump assassination. We don't know exactly who this is for, but this is to consider criminal charges. There's a lot of wild speculation, but again, we have no idea. Some are saying, could there have been a second shooter? No idea. Some are saying, could it be maybe just a fall guy? So that they can pass the buck off to someone and say it's their fault, they're the reason for the security lapse. And they'll call it negligence of some sort. We don't know. What we do know is that thanks to human events in America first legal,

we have gotten confirmation of a grand jury being impaneled in the Trump assassination attempt. This is huge news. So we'll talk about that. Plus a bunch of other stories. Nate Silver, his predictions are swinging wildly. He now has Kamala Harris potentially or probably to win is only slightly, slightly beyond Donald Trump. So it's a it's a pretty it's a tough call. Then, of course, we have as one was weird this morning or yesterday, Kamala Harris put out this letter from Tucker, a conservative who doesn't agree on everything. And it really did feel like she was trying to trick people who only read headlines into believing that Tucker Carlson gave her a, you know, a fist bump and a nod. Not really like an endorsement, but I know we can work together on certain gun control issues or whatever.

And she said, thanks, Tucker. I know we don't always agree, but yes, we can. And, you know, a lot of these liberal pundits are like, yeah, it sounds like Tucker Carlson. The liberal media then says, oh, it's a conspiracy theory, but come on. For what reason would Kamala Harris say, thanks, Tucker, I know we don't always agree. So we're going to talk about that. Before we get started, my friends, head over to castbrew.com and buy Cast Brew Coffee. We have delicious coffee. We've got Appalachian Nights, Rise with Roberto Jr., and of course, Ian's Graphene Dream. I'm hearing rave reviews about it. It's great.

People are saying it's actually really, really good. So, wow. Glad to see people are enjoying it. Casperoo.com, but also head over to TimCast.com. Click Join Us to become a member and support our work directly. As a member, you will be helping us in our battle against fake news. So, if you like The Morning Show, which is over at youtube.com slash timcastnews, Monday through Thursday at 10 a.m.,

I recommend you subscribe. If you enjoy The Morning Show and Timcast IRL, then please become a member at timcast.com so that we can sustain this company and our mission, and you can help keep me alive as I work 16-hour days. But also don't forget to smash that like button, subscribe to this channel, share the show with your friends.

And I'll add, I didn't have a show this morning because at some point, 16 hour days crashes into your face like a tractor trailer. And so this morning I just, I was, I was just wiped out and I wanted to prioritize being able to get this nightly show up for you guys. So here, here I am. We'll be back tomorrow morning. So definitely subscribe. Again, smash that like button. Joining us tonight to talk about this and so much more is R.C. Maxwell. Thanks for having me on, Tim. Glad to be here finally as a guest. I came with other people as the man behind the cloak, but it's finally to get some shine here.

Well, who are you? What do you do? I'm a political consultant. I like to say I'm an ethical consultant because I generally I work with America First candidates and PACs. I work with two Trump coordinated PACs right now, Turning Point Action, which you guys are probably very familiar with, and the Pennsylvania Chase. You guys have had Cliff on as well. We're up in Pennsylvania trying to win there and trying to win in Arizona and Georgia and Michigan and Wisconsin through Turning Point Action. So I'm very, very, very busy. And I just had a little newborn myself. So

enjoying family life. And I'm glad to be here talking about the topics of the day. Right on. Well, thanks for hanging out. Should be fun. Ian is back. I'm back, man. And I'm glad you mentioned ethics. That's one of my favorite things to talk about. I love it. I love it. That's what I do with minds for like a decade while we were starting that company is just the ethics of social media and like how addictive should I just love it. And also a special shout out to Casper's Graphene Dream. I do think it is delicious. It's a light and crisp, low acidity.

I like to mix it in because I'll tend to drink coffee on the weeks where I do it every day. I'll have like Graphene Dream two, three, four days of that week usually. Did you end up doing a live taste test of a Graphene Dream? I have, yes, I have a recording of it. I looked so faded.

It was like, I just woke up. I was like, but I have the video. I should upload it. It'd be funny. It was delicious. Well, up. I was like, but I have the video. I should upload it. It'd be funny. It was delicious. Well, I'm glad you're both here tonight. I'm Hannah Claire Brimelow. I'm a writer for SCNR.com, Scanner News.

Let's get started. Here's a story from Human Events. Scoop, U.S. attorney has impaneled grand jury to consider criminal charges in Trump assassination investigation. The Western District of Pennsylvania has impaled a grand jury to investigate the attempted assassination of Donald Trump on July 13th in Butler, PA. A letter obtained by Human Events from America First Legal reveals that a records request for information on would-be assassin Thomas Matthew Crooks was denied because those records are

within the scope of a grand jury subpoena. So I'm going to pause real quick. I know the speculation is, could there have been a second shooter? Could this be someone in intelligence? It could be as simple as they want to charge his dad. They say that he got his, the gun may have come from his father. This may be similar to other stories we've heard in the past where they say the father was required to keep the gun secure. We don't know exactly what this could be. And I'm not trying to imply that the father did anything wrong or in any way committed a crime. I'm just saying some some people may want to jump immediately to I bet they're going to have patsy for this and they're going to say someone

did something criminal. It may be like a local street dealer named, you know, crazy gun sold him a gun illegally or something. It could be something really, really light. However, it is still big news because implies they are seeking to actually find criminal culpability in how the Trump assassination happened. They're going to say the letter from the Community College of Allegheny County in response to attorney Wally Zimalong denies the request for records on crooks pertaining to his student files, records, documents, communication, disciplinary records or other data containing his name. Quote, Please be advised that your request is denied on the basis that it requests records that relate to an ongoing criminal investigation, which are exempt from disclosure. Specifically, the records that you are that you have requested

are within the scope of a grand jury subpoena issued to CCAC by the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania and which the U.S. Attorney's Office has confirmed relate to an ongoing criminal investigation. The purpose of a federal grand jury is to consider criminal charges against a target or range of targets. This is the first indication that a grand jury has been impaneled in the district to investigate the attempted assassination. So Jack Posobiec was talking about this earlier. It may actually be something really simple, but it could be something even much more complicated, perhaps a cover up. Perhaps Crooks was supposed to be the fall guy, but he is no longer living. You know, criminally charged someone who no longer exists.

So maybe they need a patsy, not even a patsy, but a scapegoat to say this is the person responsible for what happened, and then pass off the responsibility from themselves. And the special agent from the Pittsburgh, the FBI's Pittsburgh field office, did have a meeting with the press today where he said, based on our investigation so far, we have not been able to determine a motive, although it wasn't, you know, clearly political. He definitely, Crooks acted alone. Here's a picture of the IED we found in his car. Here's a picture of the IED we found in his car. Here's a picture of the gun.

So they are sort of trying to posture as if they are making progress in this investigation. My mind tends to be the simplest explanation. They're going after his dad. We saw this with Ethan Crumbly, the high school shooter. Absolutely. And his parents were both found guilty and incarcerated in relation to their inability to keep a gun out of, you know, what they, you know, everyone, the government has said, it was a trouble, a clearly troubled student's hand. And the difference in that case is that Ethan Crumbly's parents never called

the cops at any moment in time. Right. Now Crix's parents at one point in time notified, were notified police. They were concerned Crix was missing. The rally was happening. It's a material fact that they notified police. So that almost gives credence to the fact that they knew something and maybe they didn't divulge enough information. And Crumbly was a minor in the care of his parents, right? Crooks was 20 years old. He may have lived at home, but he is an adult. That's very different. I'm going to put something also important on this radar is that, you know, during Black Lives Matter,

there was not a prosecution after a grand jury convened for Michael Brown's death. For the first time ever, we saw the Washington Post and the New York Times crawl into statistics on federal grand juries, how often when they convene do they lead to indictments. And they said 99.9% of cases when they convene, an indictment happens. So that's certainly bad news. Or conviction. A conviction happens. The conviction rate is near 100%. So this is bad news for whoever maybe have done something. The fact that a grand jury certainly exists, and they did not want this news to come out. This is just an accidental faux pas as a result of this community college. Yep.

Noob in the room. Grand jury means that there's no judge? Is that what that means? Why is a jury grand? What's the difference of a grand jury and a jury? It's just the name. A grand jury is convened to determine if there's a preponderance of evidence so that an indictment can be issued. So this is actually really awesome. It's really awesome. The state can't just be like, we're going to arrest Ian criminally charged, and here's the evidence why. Now, it's not adversarial. Sometimes in the grand jury proceedings, you can testify, but usually you don't.

You just get arrested and indicted. But at least there's that first level. The indictment is not a statement of guilt. It's, we think this guy may have committed this crime, so there should be a trial over this. If the jury agrees, and it's very easy to get an indictment, then they then you move to the next stages, which may be arrest or it really depends on the crime. So instead of getting an arrest warrant, they have to go through a jury, a grand jury to get the warrant, basically. I'm not a lawyer. So a lawyer would probably explain way better because I don't actually know why.

That is correct. You cannot before without a grand jury indictment, unless there's enough preponderance of evidence to initially arrest, but once you're actually charged, usually there's an indictment. Right. That comes with that. Yeah. Well, so in some instances, they just go and arrest you.

Right. If they catch you with coke or something, you're just getting arrested for possession. Then you have to see the judge. You've already been arraigned. You've already been indicted. There's evidence. Oh, so they got to get the warrant from the grand jury.

I'm sorry to ask a warrant from a judge, the indictment from the grand jury. Yeah. If you're suspected of being a Coke dealer, they have to prove you're a Coke dealer to actually arrest you. You get indicted. Usually a district attorney will decide, I want to have this person indicted before you're charged with a significant felony like distribution of narco and i and i do think they can issue uh their own indictments i mean again i don't i'm not a lawyer so i don't know exactly the process but there have been instances where people have been arrested before the indictments were issued and i don't know what's proper or not but what i can't say is grand juries will look at the evidence not determine guilt just determine that there should be a trial over this so if there's like a video of a guy beating a woman and then she's found dead and then they

find, you know, a bloodstained glove of his house, they say like, look, this guy should be arrested and charged. We think this is why they say, okay, arrest him and then bring the evidence to trial and let him mount his defense. Then they issue the indictment. They go arrest the guy. So there's a grand jury that'll get the arrest going. And then there's an actual, just a jury that will decide if they're guilty or not. If it goes to trial. And they're not the same jury. Maybe you want to bench trial. The grand jury just determines probable cause for the arrest.

Again, like we said, sometimes the officer conducts that probable cause himself. And in this case, there's a grand jury that's being supplied with evidence right now for some sort of action that is unknown. Yes. And it's potentially like negligence to the parents for leaving the gun out. No, who knows?

As you guys mentioned, he was an adult. So that shouldn't apply. But they should have their gun in a safe and maybe they didn't have a locked safe. I don't think that matters in PA. I believe there is a law, most states have a law about children having access to weapons. But these are minor children. These are young children. If you own a rifle, you store it how you want to store it.

If it gets stolen, it's not your fault someone stole it. The criminal stole it. Interesting. And the reports about Matthew Crumbly. Depends on the state. Some states might just be like, don't know, don't care. They're evil, you know. The reports about Matthew Crumbly come from this report that he's hired a big lawyer and that, you know, he's been speaking with the FBI and stuff like that.

I think that's why people feel like it's the simplest explanation because we're now now seeing this pattern of of parents of gunmen being investigated as part of the crime. It seems like it doesn't mean that's what this is, that the Pennsylvania, the local cops kind of got dragged through it on this one. Like they got blamed for a lot of the mismanagement that the Secret Service was supposed to be overseeing. So if they're like, yo, we're going to actually look into if there was negligence by the secret. Can they like charge the Secret Service with with crimes? Well, the FBI, again, when they did their their special agent, Kevin Rojek, who was doing this press conference today, was saying, you know, that the man who took out Crooks in the end was ultimately a Secret Service sniper.

And we're so grateful for the support we've gotten from local police. And, you know, they're kind of, I think, trying to offer a united front, mended fences approach, because I think you're right. Initially, their director, Kim Cheeto, really seemed to be saying, oh, yes, we're in charge. But also it was the local police

who messed up by not securing that building. And I can only imagine if you're a local policeman on the ground saying, what the heck? Like, you guys are in charge of this. You don't give us any support. And then you're a local uh policeman on the ground saying what the heck like you guys are in charge of this you don't give us any support and then you're blaming us oh in a community that favors trump if you were in charge of the local police that got blamed for not um overwatching putting overwatch on that on that building like the entire community it's supposed to be secret service yeah and the fbi is in charge of this investigation now. And don't forget that the FBI

placed five Secret Service agents on leave. So we don't know if that's what level of negligence the FBI is placing on these people. But certainly the FBI believes five individuals should be placed on leave.

And is that in relation to this grand jury? I mean, it's... That's not been confirmed. Right. There's so little information. And that's why I find, again, the timing of this press conference today

where they're saying, well, we did actually get access to Thomas Crooks's encrypted emails. You know, they weren't that sophisticated. We were able to access them. And, you know, we're just looking at them like they keep saying they're trying to find motive and they are still not telling us anything. But yet they are clearly moving forward on some front. What if it's as crazy as they actually criminally charge Secret Service for either negligence or even crazier some kind of involvement? Conspiracy, yeah. They put agents on leave.

There's disciplinary action being taken. That would rattle. There's an investigation. Yeah, it would. But it would be a great scapegoat for whoever actually wanted harm to come to Donald Trump. I think it just— Find a patsy, find a fall guy. It begets more questions.

If Secret Service agents are placed on some sort of criminal charge for negligence, it certainly begets more questions who instructed them. I mean, Secret Service has become politicized, arguably, ever since Secret Service put the kibosh on an agent coming forward during the Armed Forces investigation into whether or not troops were left in Vietnam. I don't know if you guys know about that. No, what's that? Essentially, a Secret Service agent testified that he heard a conversation between a U.S. president

and someone from Vietnam negotiating troops that were left behind. And apparently, Vietnamese left behind troops they didn't give them all give the United States all the troops back because they wanted the United States to pay reparations and apparently as late as the 80s someone testified that this was being discussed with Nixon um and then ever since oh so that was just and what happened is this this person was going to testify in front of the armed forces committee that mccain was the chair of and lo and behold the secret service kind of got in control of this guy and said you know we don't you know the secret service has known not to speak up for secrets they're not whistleblowers so this would have been a phenomenal moment i i

certainly implore you guys to do some research into this armed forces committee investigation and the secret service agent who said i think we left people behind in Vietnam. One of the darkest stories in US history, whether or not we did. And John McCain's involvement potentially in that. Oh, wow. Do you think Americans trust the secret service as an institution? I think the secret service is not supposed to require, necessitate usually American trust. I mean, Secret Service is supposed to be an apolitical entity protecting the president. But obviously, you know, recently it's become politicized, you know, not being distributed for RFK, you know, being used for Obama and his daughters decades, you know, a decade after his administration.

So we've seen something happen to the Secret Service that we've seen happen to every other agency in D.C., which is they become politicized. They're in control of the left. And, you know, they're to kind of operate in symbiosis with the FBI and this kind of deep state. So, yeah, I think Secret Service is less of a problem than the FBI. But certainly the fact that this is an open investigation gives now feds more control over the situation. You know, remember, the feds are still investigating whether or not James O'Keefe stole Biden, Ashley Biden's diary. He's not been indicted. He's not got his devices back. They're still investigating three years later.

I think a lot of Americans are, especially in this day and age, prepared to question actions of intelligence agencies. They're prepared to question military. They're prepared to question CIA, FBI. But I think probably to your point, because the Secret Service is sort of in the background, right? We just associate them with sort of shepherding around presidents and high ranking government officials. People don't think to say, oh, there could be corruption there. But of course, if you're attached to the American government bureaucracy, anything could happen. Yeah, I didn't question them at all until 150 yards away from trump the rooftop was left completely open for a shooter like now i have many questions despite them being warned

several times by local police that this was a point that needed to be secured yeah and then and i do do i need to say it three hours one hour 26 minutes 10 minutes three minutes they never once responded to all of the warnings and And there's a photo of Crooks walking around the rally with a rifle. Like them, RFK Jr. not getting Secret Service protection. I didn't place the blame on the Secret Service. I placed it on whoever's in like the executive branch, Biden. I was like, it's his fault. But now with the Secret Service being in charge of the protection of Trump during the Butler rally and them leaving that glaring danger zone.

And it was also suspicious when I was a project Veritas press secretary, we submitted information about a CNN producer who was involved in some questionable sexual activity with some minors. And there was this odd police department spokesperson I was dealing with, and he was very political from the onset, which is fine deal with it but this guy was especially political this guy is now the secret service spokesperson Anthony Guglielmi and when I saw his name out of hearing he pops up everywhere doesn't he I almost my jaw dropped I said this guy he got promoted from the Fairfax County Police Department this guy ugly Anthony Guglielmi who stifled us in that investigation and now he worked

for the secret service so they very obviously promoted someone to that role who has a history of kind of burying information and working within the symbiosis of corrupt government. And if you know Fairfax County, you know they're kind of arguably one of the most corrupt police entities. You know, they've been accused of all sorts of corruption. You know, they're so close to D.C. Who is that guy you're talking about? Anthony Guglielmi. Yeah, who's that? Spokesperson.

He's a former spokesperson of the Fairfax County Police Department. So anything that happened in Fairfax County, you know, he was the one communicating to the media. And like I said, he stifled us in that investigation. I thought nothing of it, but when I saw that he was now promoted

to Secret Service spokesperson, I knew the only reason he got promoted is because he is a, you know, he's a competent chill. He does his job effectively. I think there's something else weird in his resume too, but I can't remember what it is off the top of my head. I'm skeptical. I know there were a lot of people that were like, this guy, this guy is here. But I mean, I think that's true for, you know, the fact that the head of the secret service was actually someone who was specifically assigned to Biden's detail and had left, who didn't stay with the agency during Trump's presidency.

That, to me, indicates some sort of political devotion to a certain party over another. I mean, if you were really like working your way through the Secret Service, wouldn't you either stay with the Secret Service always? Because, like you said, it's supposed to be a political or he's their chief communication. That's right. He was the he was a spokesperson during the Jesse Smollettett stuff yeah okay that's what it is chicago yeah in chicago and then they moved him to to dc and then they moved him to the secret service pretty sure there's a bunch of stories where he pops up as a spokesperson man everyone's like why does this guy keep popping up it's like well he knows where the jobs are supposed to be i got this concern just as you were talking to our right he was on chicago that's yeah he was the justice mullet cpd spokesperson too i think that the that the establishment in in dc the federal establishment

has been consuming their own their own you know refuse yeah their own their own propagandic refuse like the media scares people about trump and then the politicians watch the media and they're like now i'm more scared we got to make sure that the media tells the people how really horrible it is and then they do even more horror stories. And then the politicians get even more scared. And then they're like, we need to politicize the Secret Service. He's too dangerous. Like that is my that's ridiculous. But I'm concerned with that. Let's jump to the story from SCNR. FBI says would-be Trump assassin had no identifiable political ideology. Quote, we have not uncovered any credible evidence indicating the subject conspired with anyone else, said Special Agent Kevin Rojek.

Now, we did talk about just a moment ago in the previous segment. For those that are just joining in this segment, we talked about the grand jury that has been impaneled in the Trump assassination attempt. I'm going to go ahead and say just with as much confidence as I've said repeatedly, I believe there's official capacity involvement in the Trump assassination, whatever that form may be. Attempt. He's not assassinated. Right, the Trump assassination attempt. And we have this from Fox 55. FBI releases photos of the gun used in Trump assassination attempt. You can notice two things. They've disassembled the weapon and then point out the collapsible stock, they call it. This is amazing.

The photos show the firearms collapsible stock, which investigators say may have been used to conceal the rifle at the site. Well, I'd like to point something out. To the average person who does not know anything about weapons, they see a photo of the gun broken into two different pieces. And they assume collapsible stock probably referenced something about the gun being broken into two pieces and that he was easily able to put in a backpack. Okay, well, collapsible stock is the stock right here and it moves like four inches.

So to imply that he could move the stock four inches in one direction or the other, if it's even four inches and that's how he concealed it is an absurdity. But they're trying to trick people, it would seem. Now, there's already been reporting that he was photographed walking around with the weapon anyway. So why they keep doing this, your guess is fine.

Thank you for pointing that out. That's been a cognitive dissonance for me. You said that he was seen carrying the rifle. I was hanging out with Luke Rutkowski doing the best political show, and he was talking about the collapsible stock, meaning that you could take the gun apart into two pieces and conceal it in a backpack, But maybe Luke was wrong about that. Collapsible stock is different from what. So there are certain weapons where you can break

them into two pieces. There are certain weapons where they actually can fold as well. Yes. I don't know if this is that. I'm not a gun guy. I can just tell you the stock. See. OK, look, look at look, look on the screen. screen this right here that little piece you press it and you can move the stock forward and backward they have those at all the gun stores over here all the time and they're like here's a collapsible stock and they go it makes it so that you can adjust it for your arm length needs or whatever but they're they're using that to imply that's how he concealed it and that's silly right certainly he could have concealed it in some other ways i guess i don't know that's why it's obviously presented with a backpack. And again, this is all part of this this press press conference that I was talking about today.

You know, it's it's really, to me, seems like they are trying to start steering the ship on this narrative with Rojek. You know, he said he gave a lot of information. One of the things that he covered was this timeline saying there were reports that he, you know, Crooks was spotted here at this time. We can confirm with visual surveillance evidence that he was actually over here at 426 outside the security perimeter. You know, they give the timeline of he was only on the roof for about six minutes. We can confirm this through body camera and local business footage that he fired off eight rounds like they are acting as if they are confirming and giving you the full story. But I think obviously the fact that they are now we're over a month out from this and they're still saying, well, we don't know what the ideology is and there's really nothing to say in his emails or his online information. They did talk a lot about his search history today. One of the lines

that stood out to me was how far was Oswald from Kennedy and the fact that he was specifically Googling like where Trump was going to stand on stage. You know, they'll point out that he was researching, you know, starting in September of 2023, he would research campaign, Trump campaign events. And when is he going to be in Pennsylvania? And occasionally would Google. It looks like the Biden campaign as well. But then he seems to continue to just be fixated on Trump. It's hard for me to believe that they are still sort of discerning a motive when also these searches seem to be pretty specific. Who discovered these searches?

Who made this announcement? Okay. That's where this photo came from too. Okay. I'd love to hear FBI give a statement on the status of these international bank accounts that the shooter allegedly had i mean i heard that that was a confirmed report they didn't talk about it today that he had international bank accounts so that my question is are we trade are we tracking like transfers there are we looking into anything

are the parents giving you access to the bank accounts? Do you have his mobile device? Can you access the bank accounts there? I mean, there's so many questions I'd love to ask. Obviously, it's an open investigation. However, the media, the ones who has access to the FBI, now, unfortunately, these are New York Times, national security reporters and stuff like, you know, Adam Goldman and people like that. They're not obviously asking FBI the real questions. They're not using their sources to find out real information. Hopefully, I don't know, James O'Keefe gets a scoop about this, because I think without a whistleblower, we're just going to rely on the FBI. Yeah.

And to me, this is the equivalent of, you know, authorities in Tennessee saying the Covenant School shooter had no kind of motivation. They can't tell what the motivation was, even though they obviously have a manifesto there. I think that they are just not wanting to incite any kind of tension before an election that could indicate that, you know, it's it's a left wing motivated person. Obviously, I don't know that for sure. They haven't definitively definitively proven it either way. But it's hard for me to believe that after all of this time,'re basically saying like oh he hasn't encrypted to multiple encrypted email accounts we got into them but we you know we're still looking through them initially they were saying he didn't use social media and then it appears that he was on some kinds of account like if this guy was a nick fuentes intel right-wing extremist they would have tell you divulge that information quickly because you know it would have been brief you

know nick would have had his meeting with his fbi agent and they would have briefed it um but yeah you know if this was actually a right-wing person the fbi would have released it so clearly this indicates the fact that they don't know anything i mean he has parents i mean we're not doing any sort of character analysis the fbi uh who found out grandparents tracked them down who took one foot on the capitol were expected to believe the FBI is not incapable of doing anything. They still can't figure out this guy's motive. To be fair, they got their hands tied

with this January 6th thing. You may have heard of it and they're very busy so they can't be bothered by this. This foreign bank account narrative thing is first I've heard that crooks had multiple foreign bank accounts. Do you know what companies, what banks they were with?

Has that been released, the information? That's a great question. It was confirmed an AP. I'm trying to look into this right now. I don't know much information. His name was Crooks. Kind of like everything that's interesting. It's like it was revealed and then never followed up on.

I mean, for a 22-year-old, 22, was he? To have foreign, 20 years he, to have 20 years old to have foreign bank accounts, that's not normal. But again, I don't know. I've heard this rumor. I don't know if it's true. You have MSN saying Shooter had three encrypted overseas accounts, and then you have the USA Today

doing a fact check saying he didn't have these accounts. But the FBI said that they were overseas based encrypted email accounts. That's what they said today. Email accounts. That's't have these accounts. But the FBI said that they were overseas-based encrypted email accounts. That's what they said today. Email accounts. That's different than bank accounts, I see. I mean, I can understand that there are a lot of people trying to get some information out there.

And if you're in a position where you don't really trust what the FBI is going to say. I mean, this says at a congressional briefing with the FBI and Secret Service, they divulged that Crooks had accounts in Germany, New Zealand, and Belgium. Accounts? Does that mean bank accounts or email accounts? It says offshore accounts. See, that would imply banking to me, but again, they only talked about overseas encrypted email accounts

today. And they also connected that, by the way, to the Iranian plot. So this was remember two weeks ago or three weeks ago, a part of that, which was totally a national security leak. But they're also saying that he acted alone, that there's no indication that anyone else is involved. So are we going to tie it to Iran? It's just like stir the pot, make it as crazy as possible. So you have no idea what ingredients are in there because we got an election coming up.

That's what it sounds like is being done right now. They want to take away the political power that Trump would get from what a massive story this is. I think that's a big part of it. I think that after the Kamala Harris is now the nominee bump, especially after the DNC, the media is now going to sort of calm down on that a little bit. She's not really releasing any policy. She hypothetically is going to talk with her, you know, best friend Tim Walz tomorrow. But the media is now kind of ready to turn back to the assassination attempt. And I think that's why the federal government is trying to get out ahead of the narrative right now, because there

are a lot of Americans who rightly have questions. I mean, even if you are not a huge Trump fan, the fact that one of the most influential politicians in our country could be attacked like that on stage, that Corcombatore could die because of it, and that two other men could be severely injured. I mean, it just, it doesn't make people believe that we are as safe as, you know, hypothetically, the government is trying to say we are. No, we're like, I was thinking earlier how we live in like this organized danger of a system where you drive by a car at 50 miles an hour. They're going 50 miles an hour. No one swerves and hits each other.

Presidential candidates walk outside in the middle of a crowd and just talk. And we just trust that no one's going to open fire for the most part. Yeah, because the fear-mongering that we get from Democrats on guns is BS. That's it. They didn't even have Trump on stage when they had all the victims of gun violence on stage. That's true. How dedicated are they to this cause?

They lie all the time. They claim that AR-15s are dangerous, need to be banned because of mass shootings, when handguns are typically what's used in mass shootings. It's just not correct. It's all lies. Or pharmaceuticals. I mean, not that they're actually doing the shooting, but people that go crazy tend to be the reasons for mass shootings.

More people are dying from peanuts, I believe. You know, like peanut allergies. And so the argument always then goes, but that's an accident. We're talking about people with the intention to use weapons of war, blah, blah, blah. Okay, then why are you bringing up fake ones? And for that matter, how come Maryland has banned the M1A as an assault weapon, literally, but the SCAR-20S is not? The M1A Garand? Is that what that is? No, there's M1 Garand and there's M1A as an assault weapon, literally, but the SCAR-20S is not. The M1A Garand? Is that what that is? No, there's M1 Garand and there's M1A.

The M1A is an assault weapon banned in Maryland, specifically on their list of banned weapons. And I'm like, okay, I guess. And then the SCAR-20S, which is a, I don't know, people probably won't argue, but it's a much more modern and better gun. Totally fine. Both semi-automatic.

Both semi-automatic. SCAR is lighter. SCAR is lighter, right? I would presume, yeah. M1s are pretty big. You would more likely use the lighter weapon in an assault if you need to run through a trench. I'm just thinking about it because Luke had one, and Luke's was pretty heavy. And so I'm like, when we were at the range, I don't know, Luke's was pretty heavy.

And so I learned this specifically because I live in West Virginia, but I've got an M1A, and you can't bring it to Maryland. It's an assault weapon. And I'm like, what? I think it holds, I think it could hold 10 in the magazine, at least mine. And then Luke's got a SCAR-20S with like 30-round magazine. I think it's 308. I'm not sure.ke's got a scar 20s with like 30 round magazine i think it's what was it 308 i'm not sure it's been a minute 762 all i know is that they they they uh fire the same thing one's more modern and better but for some reason they've been it's because they're lying about why

they're banning these things they're banning these things for no reason they're fear-mongering to make money and and get, and they want to terrify people, and guns are scary. That's it. But as you're pointing out, 99.9% of the time, people are walking around and ain't nothing happening. Yeah, right. But gun lobbyists, they get paid big bucks. Anti-gun lobbyists, excuse me. There's lots of organizations shelling out money for anti-gun lobbying, and they have to figure out a way to justify their salary. They got to do something. So they drum up all this fear and all this propaganda. I always liked the phrase, an armed society is a polite society. I'm not sure who said it. It was someone very influential from the past. In the chat, you might know who that was.

And it's true. When you think that everyone around you is armed with a weapon, with a gun, ain't no one going to be talking crap. It's very rare that you're going to get in someone's face and provoke them if you think they're armed. Like in Miami, I feel so safe walking around thinking like, everyone around me is armed right now. We're good. Even if there's an external threat, we're good.

If there's an internal threat, we're good. We're good. And then people look at me and they're like, he's probably armed. We're good. It's just a great feeling. Odd're like, he's probably armed. We're good. It's just a great feeling. Oddly, I didn't think I would think that as an adult. People, you know, you respect the potential for catastrophe. And there are a lot of people out there who think they can do whatever they want because there's no one who can do anything back to them.

And this leads to bad circumstances. And then you look at places where people get to be armed and they think twice do you want to get into a fight on equal footing with these people no but bullies you know you you create a jurisdiction where only criminals have guns and criminals are going to enjoy that i'm gonna look up who said that let's by the way let's jump to the story from the daily dot why is kamala harris getting accused of trying to frame tucker carlson the letter was from from an Alabama, a man in Alabama named Tucker because she did this. And right away, anybody who's saying does exactly the game she's playing. She learned this from Tim Waltz, I imagine, because Waltz is the master of assumptive

manipulation. Make a statement that, you know, will mislead people because the assumptions they will make from it and then let them believe falsehoods. Kamala Harris tweeted, Tucker, thank you for writing to me. While we may not agree on every issue, we both know that every person in our nation should have the freedom to live safe from gun violence. The majority of Americans stand with us in support of common sense gun safety legislation. And there's this letter that looks like it was written by a, you know, 12th grader or whatever.

Vice President Harris, one of my absolute favorite things in America is how people of different backgrounds and beliefs have the freedom to communicate with each other. We're so blessed to live in a country, blah, blah, blah. In the spirit of establishing common ground, even though I am fairly conservative and we may have our disagreements, blah, blah, blah. All the best, Tucker. Now, immediately, everybody says, Tucker Carlson, we get the point. Ed Krasenstein, you know him, you'll love him, says, I bet this letter everybody says Tucker Carlson. We get the point. Ed Krasenstein, you know him, you'll love him, says, I bet this letter is from Tucker Carlson, to which I responded, remember when I called you evil? Tucker Carlson responded with a fake letter of his own from Kamala. Letter from a fan. Dear Tucker, I can't believe I'm writing you this

letter and there's hearts over every, you know, and then it's signed Kamala. This looks like. So why is she being accused of trying to frame Tucker? It's not so much frame is she's trying to trick people into thinking Tucker has been cordial with her and offered her up some support when he absolutely has not. Because most people only read headlines. You're going to hear rumors of, oh, here's their intention. Their intention is that someone's going to say, oh, did you see that thing where Kamala was thanking Tucker because they found some common ground on gun control? That's going to what we call purple monkey dishwasher into liberals being like, even Tucker Carlson was saying we should have gun control. That's the manipulation play. We only see it because we're on the internet every single day. But if this was back 20 or 30 years, this would have landed on the news,

and people would have just genuinely believed that it was a conservative praising Kamala Harris. I'm sorry. I was reading. It's Robert Heinlein, Beyond the Horizon, an armed society is a polite society. That's the quote. But did it say it's signed from Tucker? It says Tucker. Yeah, it's vague on purpose.

And there's even a mention that even though I'm conservative, I think X, Y, Z. And then she says, Tucker, thank you for writing me. We may not agree on every issue. It's really sounding like she's having a conversation with a prominent conservative person

that she personally knows she doesn't agree with. Otherwise, it makes no sense. A constituent who writes to you and says, I may be conservative, you don't be like, well, we may not agree. Why would you say that?

If it's someone prominent who has publicly disagreed with you, you'd say, you don't be like, well, we may not agree. Why would you say that? If it's someone prominent who has publicly disagreed with you, you'd say, thank you for writing me. I know we don't agree. It's a manipulation game. Tim Walz does it when he says stuff like, you know, when I deployed and the things that I saw and then I come back and

they say, you're on your own, buddy. I just can't believe our mental health issues in this country. And then he wants you to believe. He wants you to imagine in your mind he's this shelling going on. So what he actually said was he was at a hearing on mental health for veterans. And he says, when those of us who deployed

for, you know, enduring freedom, we come back, they give us the horse whisper and they say, be nice. Well, we're not going to be nice. We? Bro, you were in Italy. And the joke was that the war he's got PTSD from getting bad spaghetti or something. Granted, he was doing he was doing security work in Europe. That's not where the war was. But he wants to trick you. He wants you to assume when he says when we were deployed for Operation Enduring Freedom,

we came back and they gave us the horse whisper and said, you play nice. Or when he says, you know, millions of family like mine have been affected by IVF, right? But actually, he didn't use IVF as a fertility treatment. He's a different fertility treatment that doesn't involve creating an embryo outside of someone's body. Like, you know, he is implying this. EV Magazine had posted on X where they're saying the Harris campaign is basically girl bossing and gaslighting. Like, that's how they're going to win this election, they think. And I just find that to be kind of sick and gross. I mean, they will tell you that Trump is the captain of misinformation and false news and he has to constantly be fact checked.

And then they pull a stunt like this. He's got an actual speech where he said something to the effect of, you know, we deployed for this country in Operation Enduring Freedom. And he's like, and I had, you know, my kids and they did this. One night I remember being on the Air Force Base in Bagram and I saw this and blah, blah, blah. It's called assumptive manipulation. So what he did there was I was in the military and was deployed. Man, my kids, I got to see her because I came back right away. But I remember being in Bagram one day trying to make it seem like he was deployed.

Break. For plausible deniability, I was at Bagram. He was at Bagram as a member of Congress, not on a deployment. But that's the game you play. And the families like mine, millions of families like mine have been influenced. Not my family, but families like mine.

Exactly. And then he tells this story on stage about the treatments. We didn't know if they were going to work. And then he's like, oh, those are my kids right there, and I love them. And then his kid's crying. He's like, I love you, Dad. That's my dad. And I'm like, your dad's on stage lying.

With this, I bet they got the thing. They're like, oh, my God, his name's Tucker. We got to run this. No. No way, dude. Oh, I think it's a real letter from some kid named Tucker. How many views on this tweet? 2.9 million. But who doesn't

sign their full name? You're gonna write a letter to Kamala Harris and be like, from Ian. It could be fabricated. It could be, but if it wasn't, I could see them being like, ooh, let's hit this one hard. Let's just say Tucker. People will think it's Carlson. Let's just make a big thing out of Tucker. Okay, here's what you do.

If Tucker truly got a letter from a girl named Kamala, that would be something he might do. Thank you, Kamala. So what you do is you go and find someone. You ask your assistant, find me someone named Kamala who wants to write a gag letter. We'll pay him 50 bucks. And then you can literally say this letter actually came from Kamala. Here she is. And so they'll be able to be like,ucker actually wrote this but i got a question um it's written in pencil handwritten and there's no last

name signed to it who just tucker was vague intentional that's me i don't sign my full name i just say ian but i have to give the campaign credit i i've as annoying and i think you called it evil you know all the factual inaccur Look, they're trying to win an election. So the Trump campaign, be aware. Kamala Harris is pulling on all the stops to win an election. Dude, it's the dirtiest thing. Just so like the saying that Trump

is a threat to democracy and then the Democratic Party installing a candidate with no primary is the threat to democracy. And they say, accuse your opponent of what you are doing this is like an old tactic solilinski rules for radicals that's like what the is that like a antifa origin of antifa marxist code book essentially they they live and die by that book

marxism is the idea of if you want was that just about getting power is like making your movement successful. Yeah, it is the most blatant, dumb manipulation. But if people aren't ready for it, then I guess it's easy to find if you hear it enough times. Well, the next headline is going to be, you know, conservative political commentators freak out about Kamala Harris level. Like they're going to act like the response is calling it sort of a manipulation tactic is actually just like conservative hysteria. I mean, this is the thing. It's do something wrong, get caught and then just act like the other people are being unreasonable. And we'll do this over and over again until we get to election day. And I think that, you know, should be a concern for Democratic voters. Right.

Obviously, you know, Republicans are Kamala Harris fans. But if you're moderate or independent, and this is her strategy, which is to sort of be manipulative to get her way, what do you think she'll be like in the White House? It'll get worse, because at that point, she has no reason to try and sort of even play moderate at all. And I think that American people, we were talking about this a little before when we're talking about, you know, low trust and intelligence agencies and the FBI and CIA. If you think your president is just there for herself and is going to do or say anything to promote left totalitarianism to her own benefit, I don't think that she is as beloved, is beloved enough to pull that off. So, clarification, it was not Marx nor rules for radicals to accuse your enemy. It was the Nazis. What it was. Joseph Go rules for radicals to accuse your enemy.

It was the Nazis. What it was. Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propagandist. Cues the other of that you of that you are guilty. It is so blatant. And it's like, I don't know what the right adjective is to describe what that is. It's it's I mean, you should know by now that that is a totalitarian tactic. If you study Nazism, which you should, and understand the history of how a small political party can seize control of a government, it's pretty blatant. You repeat a lie enough times and then people will start to believe it.

That was another one of their tactics. I mean, Marx may have said something similar, too. You accuse your enemy of what you are doing. That is just. Well, that's that's how they got got out of the Burisma scandal. Joe Biden was guilty of a quid pro quo. He committed crimes in Ukraine. He went to the president of Ukraine and said, I want a personal political favor in exchange for the United States is congressionally approved loan guarantees. And they said, you have no authority to block. Then he says, call the president, see what he says. If you don't find the prosecutor in

six hours, you're not getting the billion dollars. So they did it when Trump found out because Biden bragged about it. Trump's calls. I think it was Lenski calls and says, what was this? This is video of Biden saying is something about, you know, get the billion dollars. You're not fine unless you find the prosecutor. What was that all about? And he's like, I don't know. He's like, we'll take a look into it. I want to know what this is about. And so with that, they go after Trump and say he did the quid pro quo. So Joe Biden breaks the law. Trump trying to investigate it is Trump breaking the law. That's that's how that's that's the game they play. Then when we come out and say Joe Biden did a quid pro quo,

they go, oh, nice try, because Trump did. And this is this is actually fairly common in all scales of law enforcement. Whoever calls the cops first wins, period. It's not absolute, but there's an old con artist trick where what they'll do is they'll take a dummy wallet with their ID in it, empty, wait for you to leave an ATM. Most people, like you can see the screen, you can see their receipt, you know how much money they took out. Or you pick a small number. If you don't take money out of the ATM, they got at least 20 bucks. Reverse pickpocket, call the cops and say, I'm following the pickpocket. I've got my wallet right now. The cops show up. You point to them and say, that person stole my wallet. The cops search the person, find your wallet.

And then you say, and that 20 bucks was mine. And they give you the money. Whoever calls the cops first wins. The cops play. It's a game of timestamps. If two people get into a fight, whoever calls cops first wins. That's the game of time stamps if two people get into a fight whoever calls cops first wins that's that's the majority of times majority yeah you'll get i saw a video of a domestic violence a woman called the cops the cops came and they're like uh they didn't know and the kid there was a third party so the cops were able to discern that actually the woman was the guy beating the dude so they arrested her the woman that called the cops but probably like you're saying bias it's like confirmation bias.

It has to do psychologically with what comes down to who do you give presumption to. In any situation when there's two competing clauses, you have to give presumption to someone. So psychologically, whoever makes their claims first is assumed presumption. And when the cops are like, well, they called for our help. They must be the good guy. So I love it in Airplay GTA. What you do is if the character, if you push somebody, you know, you can do in GTAs if you like keep bumping into someone, eventually fall over and try and fight you. So you instigate the fight, then run away from they follow you and then find a cop car. And then once they hit you, the cops come out and arrest the other person.

Sounds like NATO. Pressing up on Russia. Hey, they attacked us. That's yep but anyway yeah i think that i mean it's like accusing the russians of trying to conquer europe when it's the liberal economic order that put military bases in germany and has basically created nato and has taken over europe yeah and iraq and libya and attempting syria yeah you know the that new reagan movie is coming out and they have that cover version of everybody wants to rule the world. Tears for fears.

What a great song. I know. And I'm just like, you know, guys, you got it wrong. Everybody doesn't want to rule the world. They really don't.

I know it's a fun song, but I'm just thinking about it and they're playing it with the movie. Reagan making a point about presidential power and the conflict and all that stuff. But it's just like, the reality is most people just want to be left alone and they want to watch the game and have a pizza with their kids and they want to make sure their kids are getting a good education. And then they're doing the right by their family. Very few people actually

want to rule the world. Vladimir Putin, I do not believe is one of them. I should say this. It's possible Vladimir Putin wants to rule the world. He certainly doesn't have the capability to do so. I don't think he's a good guy. I think he's a power hungry maniac who's maintained power in Russia for decades by manipulating the political system. But he is not someone that I view as a prominent threat. China is a much bigger threat to the United States in terms of economic expansion and the exploration and colonization they're doing. But NATO has taken over and colonized Europe and is trying to take Ukraine. They've got NATO's got Latvia, Estonia. They're bordering Russia already. Russia's got Belarus and then NATO is trying to take Ukraine and Ukraine's got a Russian base in Sevastopol. And that's their only access. That's their access to the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.

And NATO tried to take it away from them. And so, yeah, sorry, like Russia was there and the U.S. came in. And when the pro-Russian regions of Ukraine said, yeah, we're going to declare this little decree and we're going to say we're pro-Russia, Ukraine was quite literally about to go F their up. I don't know if you're aware of what happened. Mariupol, similar stuff happened. What happened? Well, Russia maintains that their whole operation was to protect the individuals of the pro-Russian separatist regions from the Ukraine government. And there were lots of skirmishes between the Ukrainian government and the pro-Russians. Look, lots of pro-Russian Ukrainians have gotten quite literally taken out of their house and tied to trees. We've seen many of those viral videos.

So, yeah, the Ukrainian government is not very kind to the pro-Russian regions of Ukraine. Well, and Zelensky's saying right now there's no reason to even talk about a ceasefire. He's going to talk to Biden next month and we'll just press forward. I thought they were this oppressed underdog that we had to spend millions and millions and millions of dollars on. I don't think people have an accurate picture of the dynamic between Ukraine and Russia at all. Very interesting through line between what happened to Germany after World War One and what happened to the Soviet Union after the breakup of the Soviet Union in World War One. Eastern Germany was split off and given to Poland. And then the Polish government started excising the German, the actual Germans that lived there. And Hitler, that was one of his complaints, is like,

you can't just genocide Germans just because you control the land. So when the Ukraine was split off from the Soviet Union, and then there's Russians living in Eastern Ukraine, and they start abusing those people because they're ethnically not whatever borderland, Ukrainian, Ukrainian. And then the Russians are like, you can't just slaughter native Russian. Like that's a very similar danger that can lead to like we're going to take our land back so that you can't oppress the people or slaughter the people. I wish I had more information about what they did to the Germans in Poland. We got some big news. This is Chuck Colesto tweeting, breaking now,

Brazilian Supreme Court minister summons Elon Musk. Musk has 24 hours or X will be banned. And then we have this tweet from Nicholas Ferreira. I don't know. We've got STF official tweeting this. This is the Supremo Tribunal Federal, looks like Brazilian Supreme Court, issuing a statement. The Brazilian Supreme Court minister, Alexandre de Moraes, has issued a summons for Elon Musk and threatened to ban X in Brazil in 24 hours.

Dictatorship continues. So, again, this is coming from this is really interesting. Global Government Affairs on X verified, says last night, Alexandre de Moraes threatened our legal representative in Brazil with arrest if we do not comply with his censorship orders. He did so in a secret order. This from the 17th, by the way, which we share here to expose his actions. Despite our numerous appeals, the Supreme Court not being heard, the Brazilian public not being informed about these orders and our Brazilian staff having no responsibility or control over whether content is blocked on our platform. Morales has chosen to threaten our staff in Brazil rather than respect the law or due process. We then have this post from STF, which has got the government seal on it, Brazil, and

will transit the Supreme Court federal, the highest instance in the judiciary works to guarantee your rights. The Constitution is yours, they say. Posting this, and I can only assume this is the mandate for Elon Musk to appear. Elon Musk appears in it. I don't speak Portuguese, so give me a second to translate this. But, well, following the Pavel Durov story. Didn't we just learn from Francis this is a bad time for tech billionaires who have controversial social media platforms to be traveling internationally i mean it is wild to me that this would come the day that pavlodorov is uh indicted in france and told he has he can't leave the country has to check in at a police station every couple days

or i think it's like twice a week uh you know elon musk is in a different position because he's i would argue even more high profile in pavlodorov but you know, keep in mind, they're threatening his legal representative with jail. They're threatening a lawyer with jail time. So if you've been following the Brazilian Supreme Court, they've been overrun by radical leftists. By the way, this is what they want to do in America. They want to have judicial activists on the court, people who will interpret the law and do a bunch of things. So they've been this has been coming down the pipe for a while. By the way, this is the same Supreme Court that indicted Bolsonaro for not doing enough during COVID. So the Supreme Court in Brazil has

become very politicized. They've detained actual US citizens, some people who are some pro-Trump folks in Brazil before. So it's a scary time for Brazilian nationalists in that area. And certainly it's a scary time for anyone associated with X in area. And certainly it's a scary time for anyone associated with X in Brazil, because I would not be surprised if Brazil actually throws someone in jail. Again, their Supreme Court has a bunch of power and their Supreme Court is acting as activists. So this is certainly concerning for X. But do you think Elon Musk will go, though? I will never set foot in Brazil if he has any brains. No.

So I took the image and I put it in Google Translate, and this is what came out. It says, Minister Alexandre de Moraes petitioned Federal District Brazil August 20th, 2024. Minister Alexandre de Moraes, reporter, I like how they spelled it, in accordance with the decision handed down in the aforementioned proceedings. The Judicial Secretariat of the Federal Supreme Court proceeded with the intimacy by electronic means of Elon Musk of the decision handed down in the aforementioned proceedings, which determined the indication within 24 hours of the name and qualifications of the newly

representative ex-Brazil in the national territory. So it's going to be all garbled because it's translated, of course. Under penalty of immediate suspension of the activities of social network ex, formerly Twitter, until the court orders are effectively complied with and the daily fines paid in accordance with Article 12, item three of law number blah, blah, blah, given it passed. There you go. They are going to shut down X in Brazil. Wow.

That's amazing. This is I think these are inevitabilities of social networks. We had this with mines. The Chinese wouldn't run mines in China unless we complied. So we just said we're not going to run in China, which sucks. And China's done that with a while. I think the solution is you decentralize the platform so that you as an owner of the system have no control over it, that it's meshed device to device. So there are no central servers to shut down and then let the protocol function because really it's the function of X that's valuable, not the ownership, not the

money. Elon can make his money off SpaceX and just oversee the protocol translation that would be really great for humanity because I'd love to see X proliferate and they're gonna obviously in Brazil try and stop it from being on the play store that doesn't mean people can't find it on like Pirate Bay or you know dark web stuff in Brazil and find it against the law down there and use it anyway, which sometimes if governments go totalitarian, they'll lock you up in Brazil. I mean, we're doing that kind of thing. It'll, it'll, there's no free speech in Brazil.

It'll massively thwart your ability. Look, there's been a lot of discourse on X in Brazil. Like there's lots of, if you're an American, if you're talking about Catalonian issues, you're getting a bunch of follows from Brazilian accounts on X. The intention is to shut down all that discourse. So they're actually probably, I don't know if they'll arrest people for accessing X because that just makes them look like tyrannical a-holes. But I think it's just going to massively shut down the conversation to where certain free-flowing of information isn't happening. Things aren't getting organized, rallies, people aren't meeting for events.

That is the intention, to shut down X as a discursive tool in Brazil. So if I could access X from another network, like I don't, I agree with you. Some people like you will, but it's going to be smaller percentage of, you know, like if it was interoperable with other networks, like YouTube, Facebook, uh, minds rumble, if you could be on minds and access your X account or access other people's x accounts then no matter what they you know obviously not no matter what they try and censor on x but you'll still have access to the platform without being on the platform that could be kind of a way around it you know dictators always will always try and just shut it down with brute force right but

inevitably but the you know metaphorically speaking the chat will never get that big in brazil right if you do all these underground ways of interacting on X, whether through proxies or whatever, it'll never be as many people as it is in the status quo. And that ultimately is the goal of the Brazilian government. And I think they're going to probably succeed because, again, they've been researching this ever since April. And what is their goal is just to either have them do specific censorships on the entire platform or just on the Brazilian part of the platform? Yeah, they think that Elon Musk is fueling disinformation. That's the crux of it. It's a small group.

They don't think that. They know that Elon Musk is allowing people to speak freely, so they're claiming it's disinformation. They're claiming that. Right. Okay. And then with the Pavel Darov stuff, is it the same claim by the French government? They're claiming women, abuse of women.

Yeah, they're saying that the platform allows child trafficking and drug trafficking and criminal activities that he's not appropriately moderating. And they say we moderate to the standards set by the EU and you're going after us unfairly. That's like going after cops for the cops, not finding the criminals. You're saying you're, you're fault because crime is happening in society and you're not stopping it. They're like,

dude, we can't stop all the crime in society. Well, it's actually much simpler than that. It's the lie. They're telling stupid people who believe it when, what they're really doing is saying this guy's Russian and French. If the,

if the FSB, if Russia gets ahold of him, then they're going to have him unlock telegram and all of its users to Russia, take him in France, have him decrypt, give access to Western forces instead. And that will use Telegram against the Russians. The rumor going around is that Macron invited Durov to dinner. And so he flew to France to meet with Macron and was greeted instead by a bunch of police officers who arrested him. Now he's not allowed to leave the country. Keep in mind, this guy is very anti-Putin. So, I mean. And the UAE, where he's also a citizen, has started saying they're asking for the ability to meet with him in a consular capacity. So it's interesting because it's really opening kind of an international skirmish over him

because, again, Telegram's headquartered in Dubai. So France is now going up against a company that's not even based there and saying you guys are doing something that we don't like. It's very messy. I mean, very similarly to X. The UAE just said they're not going to do something with the French, that they're going to violate some contract they have with the French. Did you see that?

Yeah. Was it the plane thing? I can't remember what it was. Oh, man, it was like a big deal, like a $50 million, $500 million. It's like they're willing to take some sort of economic reaction. They were suspending a fighter jet deal. Fighter jet deal, right? With the French over this Pavel Durak situation, so there's a boycott.

Man, it's shocking shocking i don't know i i and that's just a way to diplomatically send a signal hey um this is a priority all other diplomatic channels are now shut down until this issue gets resolved which is a pretty big sign for the uae to send it means they value him which i don't think uh europe really thought thought much about. And they believe that Europe is not protecting his interests. They believe that Europe is not engaging in free, you know, Western democracy. They're not protecting his interests.

They feel the need to make these brash measures. Certainly not buying fighter jets is a brash measure because you're interfering with your country's national security because of this humanitarian issue with someone who's not even a citizen. So the UAE is not buying the fighter jets from France? No, he's a citizen of the UAE. Oh, he is.

He's got a lot of citizenships, which is why it becomes interesting. He's a Russian native, but then like you pointed out, he left Russia because of conflicts with the Kremlin. And it's not just him. It's also his brother. I think his name is Nikolai, who there's also France has also issued an arrest warrant for. So it's just clearly targeted at these two guys who are in charge of an app that they would like more access to. But he has different countries vying for, you know, willing to step in to protect him. There were similar conversations coming out of Russia being like the circumstances are very unclear to us and we want more information from France. I'm thinking about World War II and how Einstein fled to the United States. It was like they wanted some scientists to work on the Manhattan Project. They didn't have to arrest them and force them to do it. Like if they arrested Pavel because they want to force him to use

TikTok, not TikTok, but Telegram as a as part of the war effort. Well, you shouldn't have to arrest the guy. He should want to go help you. That's what Einstein and the scientists did. And he probably said no. He definitely said no. They've already talked to him on numerous occasions, and he's refused to comply with what they want. So as the story goes, they first will offer you, they'll first ask, then they'll offer you money,

and then they'll use brute force. He's refused to create a backdoor for child porn investigations, and this is what the feds have leaked previously. I don't know if that's true. Hasn't he responded that that's not the case, and he has allowed them to do that? This is what the feds have leaked previously. I don't know if that's true. Hasn't he responded that that's not the case and he has allowed them to do that? This is what the feds have said. Feds have said previously.

Or the French feds? No, this is the U.S. government. The U.S. government previously requested a backdoor over child sex crimes or something. That was the reason why they wanted it. Now, this is typically what the government will say every time it's a sex sexual you know investigation obviously to gain sympathy but i don't i think i think it's it's a principal issue for this guy it's it's into and encrypted his app i mean it's not you know i'm sure he'd love to help those kids but

it's like for him it's just he's created a secure app he doesn't work with governments yeah And Telegram is one of the biggest messaging platforms in the world, second only to Meta's WhatsApp. Is France going to bring in Mark Zuckerberg and say, hey, we know that people use WhatsApp for nefarious reasons. I don't know that for sure. I'm just making an assumption. People use all kinds of communication channels to do all kinds of terrible things. Why specifically are we going after this encrypted platform? Because of its ties to Russia? No, it's because Zuckerberg is neutered and WhatsApp's

not encrypted. He gets a call and they say, do it, and he goes, yes, sir. Yeah, there's already backups on WhatsApp. But if their problem is, you know, the exploitation of cyber channels for all kinds of malicious things, whether it's, you know, sexual exploitation of children or money laundering or whatever it is, like, shouldn't you just be doing this to all apps?

Why just Telegram? Because they don't let you? I think they do, actually. I think the Feds have free reign with Apple and Microsoft. That's in America, but I'm wondering about France. Does France treat everything the same way? I think that France would get the Five Eyes treatment. I don't know.

Meaning that, what is it, England, United States, New Zealand, Australia, and who's the fifth eye? Is it France? They cooperate very extensively. Yeah, they trade spy data, so yeah, France would have that. Or is it Germany? God, who's the fifth eye? Come on, guys, tell me. Anyway. Five eyes?

Yeah. It's the US, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and the UK. It's the British Empire, basically, plus America. Israel, right there. Yeah. Israel, yeah. They're not part of five eyes. How convenient for Israel. Yeah, they're not part of Five Eyes. How convenient for them. Yeah, they're part of Five Eyes, I would imagine, too. There's more than five.

The sixth eye, your pineal gland. Anyway, it's brutal. What should Pavel do? Should he flee France? I can't say it. I can't encourage this guy to commit a crime on TV. So I'm just concerned for his life, his livelihood, and the progeny of telegram. So he's restricted to France.

Yeah, he has to check in at a police station twice a week. I mean, I don't think he should flee. He's too high profile. Where's he going to go? Yeah, where's he going to go? And also, you know, if he flies, except for maybe the UAE, you know, I think any other European country would be like, we're going to send you back to France. And if he goes to Russia, he's basically becomes the enemy of the people forever. I also think the look would be bad, right? That would be it would be marketed as him fleeing from the consequences of his terrible actions. If he really has nothing to hide, if Telegram is acting in good faith and they have the right to behave the way

they are, which I actually assume they do, then him fleeing makes him look more guilty than he is. It's kind of what, what France wants. Man, the end to end encryption is important. I don't like,

I look at two futures of the world. There's one where we all know all of each other's thoughts, except for the people that control the system and don't want you to know what they're thinking, but that we're all in like this, this Borg except for the people that control the system and don't want you to know what they're thinking, but that we're all in this Borg-like neural net where there is no encryption and everyone is moving as you do. There was a queen. Yeah, a Borg queen that you couldn't read her mind,

or maybe you could. She was unique and had her own will. Yeah, so even in a system where you think we're all going to be unencrypted and know each other's thoughts, there's going to be people that are watching and you don't see, unfortunately. But then there's the other system where there's all this encrypted secrecy going on.

And then you have room for error, room for crime, room for horror and the destruction of individuals and societies in secret. And that's like that's what it's always been up to this point is you could have a secret conversation in your home with somebody. And then they built spy satellites and they could tap your phone and stuff. And we're like moving towards the board like crap perhaps but let's uh let's pull up this tweet i got this tweet from radio genoa an englishman so the story goes posted a british flag on facebook and the police actually tried to arrest him for uh being offensive now there's no real reporting on this i don't know exactly what happened as a business videos got millions of views

and uh... asking us well I'm sorry. These videos are so annoying because they put music so it makes it impossible to hear what the police are saying. But they're saying you're in violations of the Communications Act for posting something grossly offensive. The guy says, what, I posted the flag to 30,000 followers. And then they moved to arrest him. And then these other guys basically pull a I am Spartacus. And then they back off.

But this is social media in the UK. And you can Google all of the stories of people who have been arrested in the UK. Take a look at going back to Count Dankula in Scotland. He made a video of his dog raising its paw, and then he was basically having the dog do a Nazi salute as a joke. His joke was to have the cutest thing do the most disgusting thing imaginable, and he actually had to go to court over this. They arrested him. They charged him. I believe he got convicted. He had to pay a fine. This is the UK on social media. You post your opinion, and now apparently it's the flag of your country,

and they're going to try to arrest you. What was the context of that post? I wish I could see it. I imagine it's something like maybe he responded to somebody by posting the flag or something. But either way, the UK is screwed. Yeah, a lot of these arrests, you'll hear these reports, it'll be like 70-year-old man sentenced to five years behind bars for something he posted wherever.

Like the U.K. is such a bizarre place because they view people who say like, hey, I like being British and I like my country as some sort of threat now. And that's how you lose your country, right? I mean – Oh, they lost it. It's one thing to be actually threatening, but these kinds of, you know, and I feel this way about hate speech in America, these kinds of vague claims of like, like this cop is saying, well, he posts something that could give someone anxiety. Well, I think it's coming to America. If you look at what Tim Wall said the other day on the news of right to free speech isn't guaranteed. There are the left in the United States are already talking about some things being beyond the pale of being protected under free speech. So, I mean, this is just an omen to just cherish what we have in America even further. You can't rely on other people to give you free speech.

We need to build systems that are—the freedom is integral in the system. It used to be where you just had gun rights, property rights, get off my lawn, I can say what I want, we're all armed, we're not going to mess with each other, we agree. But when you have central overlords trying to mute this and that, you need systems that can't be censored if you want free speech, literal free speech. Of course, that doesn't mean there's no consequence for certain types of speech. Dude, it's been a decade. Where are any of theseos to actually do this jack dorsey was was talking about like well we're gonna make um you've got to make a system where you can have encryption and and and then people can't be censored and then he did nothing i think because the video is so slow

on decentralized systems on like mesh networks it's so takes so long for like bit bit torrent to like load a video or something and so people just go to the what's convenient and i mean god the technology is amazing without youtube and google central systems we this this tv show the the ability to produce at this level is phenomenal for our consciousness as a species but the danger of centralized systems getting hijacked is like paramount like free speech allowed us to get to the point where we could build this stuff we needed to argue and make better stuff and and fuck the government i mean that's the way we build as a as a private entities these amazing systems so that we can have a great government and and that's why we have a first amendment of free freedom of speech and an assembly to to make

these kinds of things but so i I feel like it's out there, that the threat is coming from out there. I know it's just like, it runs through every man, like the desire to censor, and we need censorship when it's righteous. Damn, man, this is, it's just a tumbling cascade of what do we do? We are moving in the direction of global totalitarianism.

Especially when you evaluate how many links are disappearing from the internet. I don't know if you've also done analysis on that. There are so many links going away from the internet. Information, old articles, paid for hosting. Hosting platforms are just getting taken off. Links are just going away. They want to control information. Information is currently at your fingertips.

So this is why what Elon's doing is such a big problem. This is why I support the mission however I can, pay for Twitter Blue, encourage others to get on, because what Elon is doing is contrary to what the World Economic Forum is pushing, right? This idea of controlling information. The censorship is certainly out of control. And the United States, we just need to cherish what we have access to. There are these technologies called the permaweb, where it's like an R-weave is a company that works on the permaweb, where it can't be censored, it can't be changed. Once something gets written to the database, it's permanent. But the problem with that is if you're 14 and you post some racist joke and you don't know any better, it's permanent forever. Like you can't delete your post, like oops made a mistake that's there forever so there's

a value to being able to kind of like walk away from your past and become a new better person without it following you everywhere I you used to be able to just move to a new city and kind of start a new life and if there's a permanent permanent database of everything you've ever said and done then that's that's also kind of kind of dangerous but for some central from other some authority to be able to change and twist your life from a distance digitally like that's that's super dangerous and crazy i think it's the problem is the authority especially right now in america has one bent right they don't treat people who expose extremist ideology on either end of the political spectrum the same way.

There's one side that is bad and there's one side that we just don't really talk about. And, you know, I could understand the idea like, oh, you know, people post things online they don't really mean or it's a bad joke or whatever else and you want them prosecuted for that. But also maybe we should become a culture that doesn't post all these things online they don't really mean or it's a bad joke or whatever else and you want them prosecuted for that. But also maybe we should become a culture that doesn't post all these things online. And obviously a little bit intense for me to be here on an internet-based podcast to say that. On the other hand, you know, I think that people do make their bones right now on the internet saying shocking things to get attention and to build a base. And sometimes they use that platform for good and sometimes they don't. But, you know, we should all realize that our words have consequences. And the reality is you don't want to live in a world where because you hold some views, they are, you are treated worse than others. I mean, that's why I think hate speech laws are

kind of, you know, one of the clear signals of the end of free speech in America, because who is anyone to say, well, you can't say that thing, because ultimately that means that there is a higher power discerning and policing your speech. Yeah. Context of what you're saying, like the emotion behind what you're saying. There are things that I won't type on Twitter, that I won't post in text, that I will say live with my voice, because you can hear my intention. You can sense what I mean when I'm saying these, what might even be considered cruel in text. They're not. It's just they have to be communicated properly. Imagine tweeting at Ian, you smell bad, right? Yeah. The interpretation of that tweet

would be insulting, derogatory. But imagine Ian was hanging out with a good friend and they went, you smell bad. Yeah, I'd be like, thank you. Yeah, it's like they're not trying to insult you. They're trying to give you a heads up like, hey, man, you stink. Whereas online, it's like, you smell bad. Right. The context is missing. And then you might discern it as hate.

It might be conceived as hate. And then they'll be like, we got to go after that account. And they're like, don't. I wasn't hating. I was expressing the danger of the corruption. Here's another one. What if someone tweeted at Ian, Ian, you're funky.

How would you interpret that on X? Imagine someone went up to Ian and went, yo, Ian, you're funky. Totally different context means something totally different now. You know what I mean? Like we got to understand text is very different from speech.

I got the funk. You know what I'm saying? Or what if someone said, Ian, you're funky, and he was playing bass. Exactly. You know what I'm saying? Or what if someone said, Ian, you're funky, and he was playing bass? Exactly. You know what I mean? All that's lost in text.

And there's some songs where if you wrote the lyrics of the song on a Twitter post, they'd be like, ban the account. Yeah, it'd be crazy. But if you sing it... Every rap song is like hate speech

against a fellow African American. Out of context. And threats of violence. And that's why we protect free speech for arts in the creative space. That's another beautiful outcome of free speech is you can make wild, crazy songs about beating women like Guns N' Roses.

Their Appetite for Destruction album wouldn't have gotten made in a totalitarian society. And just for clarification for everyone in the chat, whenever Ian walks into the room, there's an immediate aroma of bakery fresh cinnamon buns. That's my fault. Indeed. Yeah, it's his perfume or cologne.

Cinnamon. You did make me laugh when I first started working here because you said you would go out and you would buy like goat soap or like just cool fancy things that you'd give to Ian. But it always ended up being soap. And you're like, I think I might have accidentally implied he needs to bathe, which I'm not. He was right. I think your mom said something about that too. He just And you're like, I think I might've, I'd be accidentally implying he needs to bathe, which I'm not. But I think your mom said something about that too. He just knows you're into like holistic products. And I just have to be like that. Because Ian's like,

you know, like a hippy dippy lentil eating dude. Whenever Allison and I are out and we see like hippy dippy stuff, it's usually handmade soaps. And I'm like, I bet Ian would dig like handmade soap. Big time.

And then it was like the fifth time I was like, the only items we ever actually see that make sense for Ian are soap. And I keep buying him soap. I wonder if he thinks we think he stinks. Not anymore. So you did take it that way?

No, no. I mean, I think subconsciously I understood the message. Goat milk soap. It's just so good for your skin. How can you resist? It was literally not. We were not implying Ian stank. We were like, oh, it's like a holistic, like a healthy, natural oil, goat milk-based soap.

I'm like, this is the kind of thing Ian would like. We also got him little mushrooms, the little stone mushrooms. Yeah, those mushroom crystals. I should bring them back. But it did make me laugh when you were like, I feel like I might be sending him a message. You know, I guess ultimately,

ultimate, ultimately, that we need to move away from central authority only because the pendulum has swung so far towards it. And it's not that we always need to escape central authority. There'll be a time when we need to go back towards a central authority. But at the moment with social media, we need to kind of distance ourselves from central servers.

I'm begging you guys that are running the code at Google, decentralize it, open source it, make it AGPL3 free software code, get it out of your hands so that other organizations can't come and try and stop you and take it. Let's jump to the story from the Silver Bulletin. Nate Silver has got his new forecast and he's basically saying RFK Jr. actually may be boosting Donald Trump after all. He says that Kamala Harris's lead peaked at 4.3 points on the national average the day Kennedy dropped out. Now it's down to 3.5 in the now RFK-less version of our model.

It's not bad. With the convention bounce adjustment the model is applying, the November forecast is about as close to 50-50 as it gets. Then he goes on to say he's off to England or whatever. But right now he's got this forecast model where he talks about where the states are currently at, his polls, the polls he trusts and what he uses or whatever. And what he said in a Twitter thread was that if Kamala is ahead nationally by two points, then Trump has an 88% chance to win. I believe that. I believe that. If she's ahead, I'm getting it wrong. Yeah, I think two points. No, no, no. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm wrong. If she's ahead by one to two points, Trump has a six. It's 66 to like 33. If Kamala is three to four points ahead, then she has an 88% chance to win. He is forecasting her as being ahead

over three points, which would give her this massive bump. However, now I suppose he's saying, considering that they're adjusting for the convention, it's looking like it's actually close to 50-50. I don't know how correct he is, but when you go to the RCP battleground average, the place that actually matters, Trump's actually doing really well. So in the battleground states, the place that actually matters, Trump's actually doing really well. So in the battleground states, I think, oh, did they get rid of the actual average? It looks like Harris has taken the, it's tied. Absolutely tied right now. This would imply Donald Trump is expected to win the battleground states. Unless there's some weird dramatic thing where like

Texas flips, it's looking good for Donald Trump right now, but nowhere near guaranteed. Which is what we always thought since day one. We've not known this is going to be a close election. If you follow what, you know, the folks, you know, Tyler Boyer and Charlie Kirk, I mean, and they built the ballot chase program that I'm working on. We won Wisconsin by 23,000 votes in 2016. And then we lost it by just over 20,000 votes in 2020. So it's going to be just around that margin again. It's going to be very close. There's going to be a lot more black swan events from now until the end of the election. And I don't think they'll matter. It's going to come down to the normie individual people who don't know anything about politics. They are quite literally going to determine this election. Take a look at this

graph that Nate Silver's got. He says, how big is the electoral college bias? So he says, if the popular vote is from zero to plus one. All right, let me show you. Real clear politics currently is Harris at 1.7. If it's zero to one, Trump's got an 85.5% chance of winning. If it's 1 to 2, Trump has a 61.4% chance of winning. Well, RealClearPolitics has Harris at 1.7. And if that fits his model, Trump's looking at about a 2 to 1 chance to win right now. However, he says if it's 2 to 3, Harris has 69.3% of Trump's 29.9%. And of course, Nate Silver has Kamala Harris at 3.5%. So Nate Silver is basically saying she's got an 88% chance to win this one. There's a compounding effect between two and three where it drops from 85 to 61.

That's 24%. Then it goes from 61 to 29, which is 32%. Why is the difference in one point point 24 but then it's 30 30 you have to ask nate silver how he models out his predictions and whether or not anyone should care yeah because anyone should care none of this data correlates with each other so like for example kamala can just do really well in california and she can win the national vote by a certain percentage and that necessarily wouldn't coordinate into how things will shake out in the electoral college. So, look, Nate Silver is often wrong.

I think what you're seeing from a lot of pollsters is they're trying to create the illusion of momentum for Harris, everyone within the Borg of posting. There was no reason to do that when Biden was running because he was a corpse and we all knew it. But I think they're really trying to put on the fact that Harris can win. And this obviously just helps Democrat fundraisers. This helps them say, hey, look, we're just close on the margin. Your two million dollars is going to push us over the edge. I think that's the reason why you see this grift taking place the way you do, because there hasn't been a bump for Kamala in Georgia amongst suburban voters. And that's where she's headed right now. I mean, they're about to spend some time in Georgia.

What swing states are you expecting Kamala to win versus Trump? I do think Kamala is going to win. I think she's going to win Virginia if we count Virginia as a swing state. I think she's going to win North Carolina if we count that as a swing state. Arizona, I think Democrats are going to get trounced in, specifically because Turning Point is based there. And what we saw in the primary was increases in voter turnout in pretty much every precinct in Maricopa County because of the work Turning Point's doing there I think that's going to

translate to Georgia I think that's going to translate into Wisconsin and I don't think a lot of you know your blue your blue dog Dems aren't excited for Kamala. Let's do this. This is the 270 to win map using the polls from Nate Silver on Silver Bulletin. So you can see that Trump is only ahead in Georgia and Florida in the battleground states. So if we go here and we apply it, Kamala Harris has got 303 to Donald Trump's 235.

But let's start with what you're saying. You gotta take Arizona off the map. You say Arizona's going red. Gotta take Arizona off the map. Arizona's going red. We're also hearing that Virginia could be getting close to flipping. But you think it's going to go blue? Everything I've heard indicates Yunkin was a fluke. He had to run so moderate even to win. And a lot of those independents now don't like Yunkin because he's been...

But he just mandated paper ballots. We don't know what the effect of that is going to be on the state. It's hard to know for sure. Now, what about Michigan, Wisconsin, and PA? I'm feeling good for Wisconsin and PA. Michigan, I'm unsure about. I was there for the People's Convention. Well, if this is it, if Trump wins Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona, that's it.

He said PA, red. Michigan, unsure. Yeah. Oh, you said PA is red. Michigan, unsure. Yeah. Oh, you said PA is red. Yeah. And then Michigan is unsure. Unsure. Yeah, Trump still wins.

This will be interesting. Is there a lot of mail-in voting in these states? I can't imagine Wisconsin, honestly. He's going to have to win somewhere else. I don't see how Wisconsin goes red. Do you think he'll take Nevada? Nevada? I don't think so. I don't know. I goes red. Do you think it'll take Nevada? Nevada? I don't think so.

I don't know. I do not think so. Yeah, that's tough. Arizona makes sense because of TPUSA and their massive outreach efforts. But we'll see. Maybe Steven Crowder pulls off a miracle. But North Carolina. You think North Carolina goes blue? I think North Carolina goes blue. Interesting. Well, it's not looking good then, is it?

So he'd need either Michigan or Virginia in that case. Let's just say, what does he need? Four electoral votes? Could still win North Carolina. We won our Senate race there in 2020. If this map happens and New Hampshire goes for Trump, it's a tie. Let's go, New Hampshire. You can do this.

There are actually a lot of different outcomes that create a tie. And New Hampshire going red is unlikely, but in the realm of possibility. And the rest of these states are all in the realm of possibility. I would imagine there's a very low probability of happening. But wow, it would be a Trump Harris presidency. That'd be so awesome. Oil and water, man.

That's what I want to see. Very, very weird buddy cop sitcom. Yeah, that's, that's the way politics, I was going to say should be. I mean,

at one point in history, we did have that kind of thing. I don't remember who, but 538 says 58 times out of a hundred. This is interesting. The, the chance of a tie is increasing they now say there's a five it looks like they're arguing there's a 0.5 chance of a tie it looks like a 0.5 chance yep 0.5 that ain't nothing you know so there's is a chance hey what would happen if there's a time? They'd literally be the president and vice president would be?

The House would choose the president and the Senate would choose the vice president. So it would be Trump-Harris. Wow. Yep. Look at this. That's a compromise. Five circumstances in their prediction model that resulted in no winner. Amen.

I think our country is so broken that that might be what helps pull us out of this. 1 in 200. Ain't crazy. If Trump and Harris were having to govern together, we're in a place in politics where no one is willing to say, I could be wrong. No one in politics is willing to say, which is pretty prolific.

If Trump wins, there's no way Democrats have the Senate. There's just no way. I mean, let me pull up the— Well, they're saying—there's people who are saying—the police association just endorsed Trump, and then they endorsed Kerry Lake's opponent. There's more than just that archetype in Arizona. I'm saying it's hypothetically possible Arizona goes for Trump, and then they elect—they send a Democrat to the Senate. Is Ohio going Trump?

Oh, I think so, yes. Then Ohio is going to go red. I think so. And then you've got 51. Yeah, I think so. That's it, it's over. I don't see a reality in which Trump wins and doesn't have the Senate.

So, it'll be interesting. What this means is, if Kamala Harris is the VP in a contingent election, she does nothing as VP. There's no tie-breaking vote for her to cast so another if if the senate's 50 50 and kamala is vp through a contingent election she can disrupt trump's plans by blocking republican policy by casting tie-breaking votes in favor of democrats as vp in a trump administration which is crazy which is crazy but there's no reality where trump uh where uh, at the very least, goes red and doesn't also, you know, elect a Republican.

Right. Because Ohio is less like Arizona with all these independents and the McCain faction. Or Montana. Come on. Ohio is going to send Bernie Marino to the Senate. And you think Montana is a toss up right now? That's what they're saying. But do we really think Montana's a toss-up? I think it really depends on how much people rally around the Republican there, but I think that they will. I mean, I think there are, like every major, or a lot of these rural states, like in Colorado,

it's largely red outside, but Denver's really blue. I think that, you know, know you're right like there is a blue influence in montana uh i just think don tester is not doing that well as far as i know he still hasn't endorsed kamala harris so it makes me think that there is a chance that he loses his seat if he felt more secure he would if he thought it would benefit him to line up behind harris he would have done it by now i'm just over here making uh my forecast map and uh a sweep what is this purple garbage no we're making a red get out of here there we go there you go seven 69 republicans that's oh wait what's this rhode island connecticut they're too small you can you can barely even click on

rhode island we'll click it right there there you go go. Rhode Island. All right. And what's a VP? Vice president. Oh, that's right. That's right. That's right. And then we'll make a Hawaii red as well. And 71. Just the whole country.

Wouldn't it be amazing if Hawaii went red this year? That's not going to happen. Yeah. And the vice president. This will be really interesting. So does the VP. They usually don't count it. Oh, I see. The VP is just literally the little tiebreaker in the middle. So Ohio goes red. Now, I got to tell you, what's what's alarming is the forecast that Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin are going to go Democrat senators.

That doesn't bode well for a presidential election either. It's not going to make a lot of sense that they're hyper-partisan voters are going to be like, I'll vote for Donald Trump, but the Democrat, because people who hate Trump, hate Trump, Democrats are not going to vote for Trump. I mean, I wonder if they're posturing the same way that that tester is right. Like testers not endorsing Harris to try and seem more moderate. You know, the Democrats have this this. Unusual phenomenon where they have several independents who caucus with them, which makes me think that there is a wavelength of Democrat aligned voters who think, oh, but the you know, identify with libertarian politics. But the fact that like the three independents I can think of that are in Congress right now, all ultimately caucus with Democrats or I mean, Joe Manchin's kind of not. He's done a lot of work with Republicans recently.

It makes me think that this party isn't as unified on every level of government as they are necessarily on the federal level, or at least when it comes to presidential elections. You see this right here? Now, how does this make sense? Oh my gosh, I love that area. See, you see this blue? That part that wants to secede into West Virginia? Yes, and right above it, dark red, dark red, dark red, dark red,

all around it, yet for some reason, it's because of, I believe, Frederick, right? I think so. It turns the whole thing blue, and the people who live surrounded, this is MAGA country over here, no question. You go there. This is the place where all the bars have pictures of Donald Trump riding a velociraptor with a machine gun.

In Maryland, Western? And it's blue. And yeah, in the Western panhandle of Maryland. That's all the Potomac River there that's at the border on the south. That's why it's carved like that. You go out there and hang out, and it's mega country. Yet it's being represented by a Democrat. That's ridiculous.

Yeah, it is interesting that that I was deeply studying the C&O Canal going from Chesapeake Bay up the river. And they wanted to connect the Ohio River to the Chesapeake Bay, the Potomac. And that that area is like mountainous and not the same at all anymore. They only carved it that way because it made sense probably to control the riverways and the canals back in the day. But the canal is gone now. It got destroyed by a flood. They use cars.

I mean, the trains, they still have trains, but like almost like Maryland could split in half and it would be fine. Like maybe it'd be ridiculous to have Western Maryland be its own state because it's not that populous. Well, the counties in Western Maryland be its own state because it's not that populous. Well, the counties in Western Maryland asked if they could join West Virginia and West Virginia's capital was like, we would love that. But now you have to talk to what Annapolis is the capital of Maryland. They should not have to at all. It is.

We're a nation built upon a declaration of independence. Any county should be able to declare in their state, like we held an election in this county. We have hereby democratically chosen to join another state. They're not they're not changing the amount of representatives. They are not changing the structure of the federal government. And they should be allowed to do it so long as the state agrees to accept them. The other state, if we had that function, imagine what would happen. The people who lived in these counties in Maryland would say, we have hereby voted to secede. The state would then say, wait, wait, wait, wait, what do you want to not do that? And they would actually have to offer up something

to the people who lived there. Instead of saying, shut up, you can't do anything about it, or you'll go to, you know, do we tell you or else? Imagine you actually could just say, no, no, we're going to secede and go join Idaho or something. It would give them a bargaining power that I think, especially more of rural areas in states like Maryland, where there are two more dominant cities. They just don't have right now.

They really are held captive by people who don't have their interests at heart and don't care about the way they live. Yep. Like Cumberland, Maryland? I haven't been to Cumberland yet. I want to go there. That's like the old... You haven't been there? No, I don't care about the way they live. Yep. Also in Maryland. Yeah. I haven't been to Cumberland yet. I want to go there. That's like the old been there.

No, I don't think so. I've been there several times. Railroad capital. I mean, that's where the, what was it? The Potomac like splits goes North and South.

And it's like, Will's Creek, I think is there in Cumberland, George Washington at a fort there. It washed George Washington was obsessed with building canals and, and connecting. Anyway, I don't want to, this is what I've been studying a lot over the weekend intensely,

because I walk by the canal, the remnants of the canal, the C&O canal every day. Well, often. Do you do a lot of on the ground work with the stuff you're doing right now? Yes. Most of my work is on the ground in both Pennsylvania and Arizona. So I'm not usually that type of person, but this election, this has just been my calling to just really dig in here and just try to you got to keep in mind, Republicans have never had a traditional get out the vote effort that has nudged people in this kind of way ever requested a mail-in ballot who never turned it in. So when you look at the people, the amount that should have requested a mail-in ballot, that number doubles. So you're talking about right there, 300,000 Republicans who were just left just by the wayside because we don't put the money into staff to knock on folks' doors. So I feel very good about our chances in these states that I'm seeing the groundwork. That's why I don't feel great about New Mexico, because I just I haven't seen the work there. And I feel less positive about Michigan, because I'm just not quite so sure how that's going to shake out. But we'll find out more toward the end of September, toward the beginning of September and the end of September. That's when all these ballot chase operations are going to have door knockers on the ground. And then usually there's a 30 day period open for mail-in voting for early

voting. And now for the first time you have Republicans saying, Hey guys, election day is actually the last day to vote. It's not the day to vote. Election day is your last day to vote. So please vote beforehand. So I think that's going to be significant and we're going to see significant gains in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Arizona. What about like online voting, you know, inside incisions, like getting people to vote through like online campaigns. Is it just that the people online are already activated and are going to, and it's more about the people that aren't online that you got to go to their house and be like, Hey, vote. Or what, what is your experience of that? Is it illegal to get people be like, remember to vote with like internet targeted internet ads?

Like if you live here, then you're gonna get a an email or a nothing Facebook notification. Nothing can replace the in-person reminder To nudge to vote you associate it with a face. We're also doing a lot of just long game on some of this stuff So we're building connections with these individuals. So by the time we're getting to election day, we've already seen these individuals two to three times. We have respect with them, we have credibility. We can say, hey, you got your ballot, can you get it in? It's like a neighborly approach as opposed to last second shotgun.

This is what like, you know, Young Americans for Liberty last second, you know, they usually send out a bunch of kids at the last second to just like drop little leaflets. We're not doing that. We're doing long game, getting to know people. And that's going to be key. That's going to be essentially the crucial. I mean, some of this time, some of this stuff is handwritten notes. I mean, you'd be surprised the amount of people who respond to handwritten notes left on their door as opposed to a business card.

So the personal touch, it's more costly, but the Democrats have invested in this quite literally billions. I wrote an article on ballot chasing for red state. You can read this and you can read the amount of investments Democrats have put into ballot chasing. It's just a drop in the bucket comparatively to what Republicans are finally doing, but at least we're doing something. Where's the article? It's on red state, red state. What's the website? Uh, red state.com.com. It's Maxwell. What is ballot chasing and why have Republicans finally embraced it? What were you going to say?

I was going to ask how you got involved with what you're doing now. I was working for James O'Keefe in 2020 trying to confirm that voter fraud was happening in our country. And I felt like we proved voter fraud happened at a massive scale throughout the country in Georgia. I think we've proved it. However, we still lost. And I felt like my work was meaningless. So I kind of decided that, you know, in 2024, I'm not going to just, you know, indirectly do something for the election. I'm going to go old school like I did in 2016 and really get involved. So like I said, I have three jobs currently and I'm doing a lot. And I just, I just feel this is the key.

I know we always say it's the most important election of our time. But quite literally, you know, this is life or death. You know, I don't want to reveal people's personal information, but I can reveal tonight that one of the persons who was indicted over the fake elector situation, you know, one of their spouses just passed literally today. So this woman had to literally split time between these trials and her dying husband. And I know this woman. She's just a magamom in Arizona. She's a great lady. So, yeah, I'm all in invested in this election because they are quite literally trying to

imprison my friends. So, all right, we're going to go to super chats. So if you haven't already smashed the like button, subscribe to this channel and share the show. If you like it, head over to Tim cast dot com. Click join us. Become a member because without your memberships, the show doesn't exist. And if you like the work that we do, we we rely on you guys as members. So instead of doing sponsor spots, the decision ultimately was let's promote memberships instead.

And it's just it's a healthier show you're not gonna do ad reads mid-show and if we're gonna shout anything out we'll shout ourselves out gives us more control and uh hopefully that that spiel convinces you guys to go to timcast.com and become members and uh help sustain what we do all right poly puree says am i first indeed poly you are you win you nailed it. Kenny Cab says, Roger Stone for FBI director. I hope just Trump wins and then just does all of that. I've seen Stone all over the place.

Yeah. Keep seeing his face pop up. The Clay Way says, ever heard of Colin Rogers, the Trump supporters? No. Moving on. I'm just kidding. Anybody heard of that guy? No? Nope. Okay, well that's a no from everybody, so not sure. Not sure of that guy? No? Nope. Okay, well, that's a no from everybody. So not sure.

Not sure. Serge didn't answer, though. Here in Gaming News, as if you're watching your segment on RFK, I've decided I would like to party with the man. We need more fun and relatable people in politics. Amen. Indeed, he does sound like a fun guy. Yeah.

You know, there's another story where the bear story came from. I just have to know what he was up to. I got to be honest. He might be one of those dudes where it's like, we're hanging out and we're like, you wanna go do something? And then someone will be like, we can hit up Bobby and see what he's up to and we're gonna go, ugh, dude. Maybe. Because he's the kind of guy where you're sitting around and he goes, guys, there's a dead whale

on the beach. Let's go get its skull and mount it. And you're like, bring a carving knife. And you're like, ah. And so it's like, when you were 19, the best memories of your life, but now you're in your mid-30s and you're like, a carving knife and you're like ah it's like i want you to gut it when you were 19 the best memories of your life but now you're in your mid-30s and you're like bobby i have kids i got kids too did you see the someone said he ate a dog and then he made the video that was great i would never eat meat for his dog he's like the fake news offended my dogs and he's cooking their yeah he cooks them like liver and beef and puts it in their food. Those dogs are happy.

Yeah. All right. Barrett says, I'm selling at Spring Mills Flea Market this Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Please thank Ian for stopping the rain over those three days. Kid clothes and shoes. New. It's my pleasure. I put a little positive energy in the clouds before the show started because there was some heavy thunder.

It seemed to work. No, the storm was pretty bad the whole time. I don't hear it anymore. Well, we asked you to stop the storm before the show started because there was some heavy thunder. It seemed to work. No, the storm was pretty bad the whole time. I don't hear it anymore. Well, we asked you to stop the storm before the show started. I wasn't channeling super hard because I was socializing. Oh, yeah, right. And Ian said he ate seed oils. It's a channeling spell. Yo, inflammation interferes

with the ability to confluence the energy. That I noticed because I ate cheesecake over the weekend and I had cheese puffs with like safflower oil or some junk in it. No, that cheesecake was legit. It tasted great. There was no garbage in it. But the inflammation. There was chocolate, sugar.

I don't know what it was, but it was a lot. A lot of sugar for me. And I noticed if you can feel the inflammation in my muscles. Because a lot of that energy goes through your musculature out of you. What kind of energy? Positive energy and negative energy. Those aren't forms of energy. What kind of energy? Positive energy and negative energy. Those aren't forms of energy.

Let's investigate. You should go on an energy retreat. Thermal energy. I think it's magnetic resonance. I'm vibrating and creating resonance. Resin? Resin. Vibrations.

Actual resonance. There's some sort of recharge of batteries, pun, going with the energy retreat, but I just didn't get there fast enough. Graphene anodes. Jonathan Peter says, Tim, was there no morning show or was it shadow banned? There was indeed no morning show. I don't know. I just had a headache and it was hard to focus. And then I was like man i just been you know

burning the candle at both ends so one of the only people i know who could like need to take a personal half day or whatever half day and people would be like but are you shadow band like you could be like yes i was i didn't have anything personal to attend to i was shadow band what got you um inspired to do the morning show i like it well i've i've always you killing it with like 25 000000 people and stuff. Yeah. Because I record a morning segment at, at 9am. I would record at nine and publish at 10.

And then, uh, instead of there, there's a difference in the show. It used to be that I record four segments from between 9am. Well, I'd start doing research and everything at eight and then record at nine. And then after that 20, 22 to 30minute segment, start doing more work and research. And then throughout the day, I've got between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. segments going up. And then the week we went to the convention, it was just a lot easier to go live with the breaking news, the assassination attempt. And so I was like, this news is too big to not be a live show. And then I figured, I don't know, it's just easier to go live for two hours.

And so now I come in at like eight, start pulling up stories. Plus, I already know a ton of stories. I've already retweeted and shared things. Line up. And then during the live stream, people might submit stories. But then by noon, I'm basically wrapped. That's cool. So they bring the news, some breaking news and stuff.

Yeah. A couple times I've had people. You clip it and then do clips. Yep. I press record during the live stream for the segments and then upload them awesome so there's a morning so everyone listening subscribe at youtube.com slash timcast news monday through thursday 10 a.m i'm live for two hours and it's just me talking and then i do like 30 minutes super chats 30 minutes super chats then like 10 minutes 10 minutes and uh you know people will like send in stories and be like yo the story just broke and then I'll pull it up and then we'll do we'll do a segment on it I like it but then I get wrapped

around noon and then I finish doing all of the logistical work for it uh like uploading the podcast version by like 12 30 and then uh probably have a snack and then by one i'm exercising oh that's great and then by like three i'm eating food and then there's usually just like ancillary work stuff you know paperwork medications none of that nope maybe a cold plunge here or there oh you got one no i just uh just, our cold water is like 50 degrees. We do have a cold plunge. You do? I get one at the house. I just filled the bathtub and the water's near freezing.

It's crazy. Oh, man. I don't have that at the castle. I got to get, I got the sauna. People keep being, it's like, get the cold plunge. Get the cold plunge. I have had tremendously good results from the cold plunge. God, they're amazing.

So after I'm done skating, I've been like, my right calf has been really knotted up, and so I need to use a Theragun on it. And so it's hard to walk. I brought my Theragun with me here. It's great. That's how old I am. What is it? A massager.

Yeah, it helps get knots out and stuff. So after I skate, probably about an hour after, I do a five-minute cold plunge. You don't want to overdo it because it can inhibit protein synthesis. What temperature? I think it's around 50 degrees. Yeah, it's cold. I couldn't believe how cold our cold water got, but it is pretty dang cold. I don't know why.

I've seen them oscillate from like 52 to 39. It's like stingingly painful, the real, like the 39. I tried it in Austin. Really? I think i got in the 42 degree one and i was like this hurts it actually hurts my skin like it yeah the surface pain the other one was just like bone chillingly cold the 50 and you do the do you have the uh the respiratory oh yeah yeah do dragon breath vim hoff dragon breath well no no when you when you get

splashed with cold when you get splashed with cold water, you have a breath response. Sharp intake, long, hard exhale, and your body temperature will go up. That's how Wim Hof can walk in blizzards with his bare feet. The goal of the cold plunge is to compress the capillaries and force out lactic acid. You don't need to heat your body up when you're in a cold plunge. You need to be cold. So you like that feeling where your body's like shocked or whatever it is? I don't know. Like. Just do it. I like it is? I don't know. Like.

Just do it. I want to control it. I want to dive into ice cold water and be fine. I've never had yet to do it. Just do it. I mean, that's the thing. We get NAD frequently, and there are a lot of people that don't want to get the IV. And it's just like, I don't know.

It hurts. Grow up. This is welcome to life. Like, what do you, I don't know, man. You know, like the nurse is going to be like, okay, here comes the needle or whatever. We're going to give you the IV. And it's just like, yeah, it hurts. And then I'm like, wow, that's very painful.

At a certain point in your life, maybe not everybody goes through this, but I don't know. At a certain point of falling and busting my shins and whacking myself in the legs and all of that, I'm just like, you're not, like pain isn't doing anything for me. Thank you, body, for notifying me of the damage. There's no point in dwelling on it. So you don't feel pain? No, I feel pain. You're like Batman. I don't. So I'll put it this way.

When we're getting an AD and the nurse says, you know, they're going to find a vein, they're going to give you an IV drip. I just sit there and I'm like, okay, like here comes the IV and it hurts. But what am I supposed to do? Cry, whinge, scream, go out. I'm just like, okay. There's different kinds of pain. There's pain that indicates damage and pain that indicates growth. And like if you know that the pain is something good is going to come out of it, I think it's way easier to tolerate.

That's exactly it. It's like the pain reaction I might have where I like jump back is going to be an unknown reaction. Like if something stings me or bites me, I'm going to move because like, hey, whoa. But I kind of feel like I'm at the point where I don't know what pain is doing for me. I don't know. Maybe when I for me. I don't know. Maybe when I was younger, you get hurt, you cry or whatever. But as an adult, I'm just like, yes, it hurts. I don't know how to react other than that.

Thank you for the pain. I'm not happy it's happening. It's just I don't understand why me. Well, I just I don't get why going like I'm like rocking back and forth or groaning. It's not doing anything. Well, that's what I would do if you saw me get in a cold. I just can't handle any pain. I whine.

You can ask my wife. She'll tell you. But I just don't. So good for you. So I do a cold plunge. I just, there is no hesitation. I just go and I go in it. And I hear people say like, oh, it's going to suck so bad. And I'm like, I don't get it.

Like, it's just, these are things that exist and they have to happen. But those shock proteins are really good for autophagia. I think where your body starts eating its own refuse, like the immune system kicks into high gear, starts cleaning itself up when you're in like intense states of temperature trauma. And same with stress shock proteins. There's heat shock proteins and stress shock proteins. Heat's a type of stress. I think at a certain point, pain just makes me angry. Like, I just get really angry. Hey, last question

about the cold plunge before more super jets. Do you put your head under? Yes. Not the entire time, though. But for a little bit. And then I just do about five and a half minutes. I do the low end. It's beast mode. You sit in there for five minutes straight? Yeah, but it's not an ice plunge. It's a cold plunge.

I'm not sitting in a bucket of ice. Have you done a hand... You should upload a video of yourself doing this. Oh, yeah. If you did it with the beanie, it'll probably... It's hilarious. ...perform very well. Give me the beanie.

Give me the beanie. It'd be so cold. It's like 50 degrees. And then I read that you're not... Like, it was like... Apparently, that's like intermediate. And you're supposed to start at like 60-something. And I was like, what? That's just like a bath 60 ease into it that's probably for

the common man yeah i don't know i just saw on the internet someone jumped in a bucket of ice so i got the water up it's like 50 some odd degrees i think it's like low 50 50 50 ish maybe because it comes from the well where it's usually about 55 degrees underground or whatever but our water is cold in austin there was like three tanks in the same room 50 40 and 30 basically well 35 have you done it before i've done it a couple times uh and you know sometimes i do think there's especially if you're training a lot i think feel like it is good for muscle recovery but i remember doing more was when i was younger and ran track and all stuff if you get shin splints like if you submerge your your calves or whatever in ice for a long time, I really think that does help any kind of inflammation or injury.

But it's not something I do regularly. There's some foot baths in Miami. I bought this machine that heats up on its own. You pour the water in, and then it heats up the water and bubbles, and then you put salts in there. Those are great. When I was little, I was watching X-Men, the animated series, I think is what it was.

And Beast gets hurt, and was watching X-Men, the animated series, I think is what it was. And Beast gets hurt. And then he says to himself, what is pain to overcome it? And as a little kid, that one stuck with me. And so, you know, whenever I get hurt, I would think about it and I would analyze it. And it kind of neutralizes the reaction. Yeah, when I messed up my elbow, I had to, I ran on the wall. I had to rip the skin. It was like hanging. So I pulled, ripped the skin off, I was like, well that didn't, that didn't feel good, and then I took nail clippers and like clipped off the skin

around the wound to make sure that it didn't get dirt underneath it. I was like, this hurts, but this is good pain, this pain indicates that I'm going to be healthy in the long-term. You know what the Marines say, right? Pain is weakness leaving the body. There you go. There's a level of like, you kind of have to tough some stuff out. All right, let's grab some more superchats. We got Wyatt Caldenberg. He says, I had to appear before a grand jury for two weeks.

The DOJ and FBI didn't know ish, and they were fishing to find who to frame for the crime. This will be a fishing trip too. They are trying to redirect blame. Yep. I'd imagine. I'd imagine. Yeah, I can see that.

Ian says, Dude, that's a normal AR-15. The bag is too short to hide the upper, though. Yeah, and someone else pointed out, wasn't his gun shot and damaged? No. Well, that's what I've heard. But then today when they were doing this press conference, Rojack, the FBI agent was saying, we've tested the gun and it's still intact. It still works. Was it shot? The gun? was the gun hit with fire. FBI is currently saying, no, I had heard reports that it was.

But, you know, Crooks was killed with a singular shot to the head. So I don't know how much gunfire was actually directed at him. Alan Smithy says it's not a collapsible stock. It's an adjustable stock. Every AR has them. You are being gaslit like the shoulder thing that goes up and the barrel shroud. But if you do Google search collapsible stock, you literally get alternately an adjustable stock. And they are, the terms are used interchangeably on the internet.

And there are gun shops that call it this. And the gun shops that I've been to out here have called them that as well. So I don't know. I'm not, I'm not, I'm not a big gun person. All I know is that that's what they said. And then there was one shop that I went to where they had the one that folds all the way in. Those are cool. I like those. Folds all the way in. Those are going to drop in a backpack.

And then there is one. I don't think we got it. But it was really cool because I think it's a Ruger 10-22. Except you can snap, twist, and take off the upper or whatever it's a Ruger 10-22, except you can, like, snap, like, twist and, like, take off the upper or whatever it's called and then switch it for a different caliber or something. Something like that. I can't remember. I don't know. That one I might have.

I don't know. I live in West Virginia. Guns are everywhere. You're allowed to have them. All right. Sean Seiss says, Tim, I read a news article that says immigrants commit less crimes than native citizens. In these types of studies, are they adding illegal and legal migrants together? Maxwell was smeared in article.

In the article, you got to read the crosstabs, you got to read the studies. Some do and some don't. But I'll tell you this, the crime rate among undocumented migrants is 100 percent. If I call them illegal immigrants, it's kind of implied they're all criminals. And if you didn't get caught, did you commit a crime? Yes. Technically? Have you ever met someone who got away with it? I don't know.

The answer is usually no, because people go around bragging that they got away with it. Don't get away with it for long. Yeah. There was a, you know, we talked about, there was a, in Wheaton,

Illinois, and Glen Ellyn around this area, the West suburbs, there was a bank robber who operated for a couple decades. And he got away with it. They never caught him. Never figured out.

It's real simple. He just never told anybody, probably. And then there was one point at which, like, multiple banks got hit right at the same time, and they think it was his retirement. And then there was one point at which like multiple banks got hit right at the same time.

And they think it was his retirement. Yeah. One last one. Did he walk in with like a face mask on and demand the money? Yep. I can't remember the exact story, but it might have been a motorcycle, duffel bag, ski mask and gun. And then he walks in, fills it up, walks out. That's it.

He's gone. So wild. Yeah. I mean, the scary thing is people don't realize this, but premeditated murder is almost never solved. It's terrifying. People think, you know, crime is like CSI. Like, they find a dead body, and then the cops come in and they're like,

tape it all off, and we're going to do all these crazy things. They don't. Very few jurisdictions have the capability to do that high level stuff. And so premeditated murders, they'll find a body and be like, we have no idea how the person died. We'll figure it out maybe in a week. Whatever. I don't know. That's just it. That's scary. They try though. All right, let's go. I did find this New York Times article that I mentioned in, and they do make the claim that Trump surrogates are claiming that illegal immigrants are committing crimes without evidence. Illegal immigrants literally committed a crime to enter the country.

It's 100%. Yeah. All right, let's see. It always seems like certain superchats just disappear from the chat. Because I'll see some and be like, oh, here's a good one. I definitely want to make sure we read that one. And now I'm here and it's like, it's gone. The superchat is nowhere to be found.

Let's see. Let's see if I can find another one. Dim Sum Nim Sum says, wasn't there a Democrat commercial to stop a bill for mechanics having codes for cars because they said mechanics will do naughty in parking garages? I have no idea. Here's when Max Ravensky says, oh, my God, please open Google Maps on Black Sea and check how much of the coastline Russia has and where Sevastopol is, quote, only access to the Black Sea LMAO. Yeah, but the Sevastopol's a giant industrial seaport. That's the thing, is they didn't have one of those before. They had like one, I think, east, on the east side of the sea, what were you going to say?

Yeah, but I don't think they control Abkhazia very well. And I think that's their only other port, and it's not as big. And so this is actually, you know, this is a really good example. Max, come on! Yeah, so this is the problem. The problem here is, we're talking about a naval base that was Soviet after the Soviet Union broke up. Russia retained control of and paid Ukraine in a lease and is a massive naval base, an industrial center for bringing in goods. They're not just going to

build one of those overnight or establish trade routes overnight. They want to maintain control of one of, if not their only, warm water seaport where they get access to the Black Sea, move through the Bosphorus into the Mediterranean, and sell their energy. So to imply that, well, of course, Russia has some coastline along the area. It's not developed. So they're not going to give up a multi-b dollar naval port, as well as I believe it's the home of their Black Sea Fleet naval forces. They've got weapons there. They've got military personnel there. They have food there. And they're not going to go, well, we do have barren coastline over there. Let's just give it up to NATO. Let NATO take control of our naval base and seize all of our infrastructure, and then we'll go build somewhere else. And maybe in 20 years, we'll have something comparable.

So when I'm talking about their only access to the Black Sea, it's in reference to this is their shipping lane, trade routes and massive industrial port, as Ian mentioned, and naval base. They also have ships in Tartus. So they do have other in Syria. But it's they're different things. They're different things. By all means, make the argument they should start building now. And if Putin was smart, he'd be like, we should start building a massive industrial infrastructure in territory we can better secure. Or he probably weighed the options and said, we're not going to let NATO take Sevastopol. It's ours. It's been ours for 100 years, and we're not going to give it up now.

So there you go. Let's go. We'll read some more. All right, where are we at? Jake T says, bring back Ian's crystal corner on the table. That was really funny. The guests didn't.

This is dusty. It got too dusty. Well, no, it's because sometimes, unlike culture war, we have four guests and you're not here. And other people sit in that chair too. What am I forced to sit down? And it's just,

they're in a, in a crystal. It's vibrating me. I should bring like a crystal. Maybe I'll bring one and just leave it here. Andrew. The great says we need a meme of Trump as captain America with Thanos and end game.

JD flies in on your left. Then Tulsi RFK and others portal in to help finish the job. Endgame. J.D. flies in on your left, then Tulsi, RFK and others portal in to help finish the job. I veto. Yeah, I'm tired of the Avengers meme. And it's and RFK said Justice League anyway. Veto. I don't know. Look, the memes that really helped trump in 2016 were more like pepe memes and jokes about issues now it seems trump is the issue and i think that's bad for him so you'd see memes in 2016 about things you know like a bunch of dudes jumping over a wall or something like that right and it represented the border crisis or you'd see like Barack Obama, you know, like something related,

like political cartoon related to him bombing some country and George W. Bush lying. The memes that we were getting were jokes mocking everything. Pepe the Frog would be like a little guy pulling a lever and a wall dropping down on the border. Now the memes are like Donald Trump dancing,

you know, and they made a whole bunch of them. They're like, this is cool. And I'm like, that's what Hillary did. Hillary made Trump's Hillary had memes of her dancing. And that's why Harris can run a campaign where she still has not given us a platform, but instead she's running on the let's talk about Trump all the time campaign, right? Like the vibes campaign is actually completely Trump focused, but not in a way that benefits Americans when it was Trump focused and they were saying, well, he's talking about the border wall, it's 2016 and people hadn't really embraced the issue the way they have now. It was different. But now it's really just about Trump as this larger than life supervillain that the Democrats

think that he is. And, you know, I think that's to the detriment of everybody. I'd love to see a technical his campaign, because I don't like emotionally when he's like, there are really bad people. I'm just tired of that crappy meme. But I feel like the Harris-Walls campaign does that more. I think that you're more likely to get a policy suggestion from the Trump-Vance campaign. Good. Yeah. We need to talk about specifics about industry because he's the captain now. He already won the game. Now he just needs to show us, like, what is the plan? I personally asked Trump, how do you deport? And he said, you know, oh, you got it. We got to do it. But how do you do it? And he says, local police. And I'm like, OK, there you go.

That actually is the best answer I think we could hope for. We don't want mass military mobilization for deportations. We don't want this extreme people being loaded in buses, local police receiving warrants and then going methodically and slowly to deport starting with criminals. J.D. Vance pointed out, you start where we know we can start with criminals

and we deport them. And then after that, we figure out where we can go next. And Trump flat out just said, we will have local police begin this process. Kamala Harris doesn't answer any of these questions. She doesn't, she won't even do an interview. She doesn't even know what she wants to do.

Mars is pre-recorded, right? It's pre-recorded and Walls is there to hold her hand. Look, I would try to hint, oh, what I'm going to do is I'm going to build 3 million new housing developments. She was eventually immediately beat back by Democrats who said, no, no, no, that's too pro-developer.

And then union groups came out and said, hold on, we haven't heard about this. We're concerned about it. So Kamala, even when she tries to steal Trump's thunder and mention a policy idea that she knows she can't get past, she's getting beat back by Democrats who are like, hold on, that's not progressive. We didn't agree. Or they're Trump's ideas. We didn't agree we could do that.

The wall and taxing tips. We're going to go to the members call-in show now. And if you'd like to hang out, go to timcast.com, click join us, become a member. And we have this massive library of all of our call-in shows. You as members actually can submit questions, call into the show, join us and our guests, and ask anybody you want a question. And the way it works is you propose your question. The community then decides which question they think is best to be on the show. And that elevates it. So we usually have some pretty great callers who bring up some

really interesting points that often people have not considered. One recently was that the shadow campaign will be to to fraudulently vote for Trump. If the Democrats think they're going to lose no matter what, then the shadow campaign would be make obvious fraudulent votes for Trump. So when he wins, they can grab select ballots and say, aha, look, we found Trump was the one who committed fraud and throw the whole election into question. Not saying it's true. Someone called and entertained that and no one had brought it up before. So I think it is interesting. So definitely check out the members only show. Smash the like button. Subscribe to this channel. Share the show. If you do like it, you can follow me on X and Instagram at Timcast.

R.C., do you want to shout anything out? Hey, check out the Pennsylvania Chase. And if you're interested in ballot chasing, we're asking everyone to commit 100. You can sign up at commit100.com. I think it's turning point action actually slash commit 100. And then you can work with people like me. We'll tell you how to ballot chase. We'll probably even ballot chase with you. So that's the way we're going to win this election. Every individual, every patriot actually saying that they're going to reach out to individuals of their neighborhood and their community. You can do that. Follow the Pennsylvania chase, follow turning point action. No need to follow me unless you want to get a lectured on racial consciousness. That's hot. Where can they follow you if they want to? Follow me on Twitter. I'm Black Hannity. Look up RC Maxwell. You can find me online.

I write for Human Events, Red State, and American Thinker. And I'm Ian Crossland. I got asked to do a movie. I'm going to go fly out to LA and shoot a movie next month, I think. Still, everything's in the works, so I haven't confirmed anything. I'll tell you more about it as it progresses. Also, I want to see us start taking Boyan Slat's Ocean Cleanup Project plastic, sending it down to Rice University and turning it into graphene or sending it to wherever Universal Matter uses their flash jewel heating process to turn this plastic into graphene.

Proof of concept. And then we'll do like a global revolution of energy that way. And also, I've been crushing Diablo 4 lately with my Frost Sorcerer. Elon's got me inspired to start streaming on X. He's like, I think he's like tier 174 druid, and it's hilarious to watch him just blasting these end bosses and taking forever because he's a druid. So I've got a glass cannon, and maybe I'll go,

maybe I'll play multiplayer with him if he's got Eternal. But if he's seasonal, then I don't know if our characters are cross-compatible. Yeah, me too. I wonder. Diablo's hot. How about that? That game is fire.

Yeah. I've owned it for a while, but I just got into it pretty hard over the weekend. Right on. See you later. I'm Hannah-Claire Brimlow. I'm a writer for SCNR.com, Scanner News. You can follow all of our work at TimCastNews on the internet. I say this the same way almost every single night.

If you want to follow me personally, I'm on Instagram at HannahClaire.b. I'm on X at HannahClaireB. Thanks for everything you guys do. You're definitely the backbone of the show. Have a good night. We will see you all over at timcast.com in about one minute. Thanks for hanging out. you