Timcast IRL - Timcast IRL #267 - Florida Bill Grants Immunity If You Drive Through Protesters w/Will Chamberlain

Episode Date: April 17, 2021

Tim, Ian, and Lydia sit down with Will Chamberlain of Human Events and Jordan Lancaster of the Daily Caller to discuss a law in Florida that grants immunity for driving through protesters, a Fox News article that predicts that Derek Chauvin will be convicted, an independent journalist who was attacked brutally while covering a riot, James O'Keefe's fight in the courts with CNN, the New York Times, and Twitter, and the Texas bill that allows great freedom of speech on social media. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Florida Senate has passed the anti-riot bill. Ron DeSantis is expected to sign it sometime next week. And the bill is considered controversial because, of course, the left and Democrats think it stifles free speech, whereas it actually increases penalties for a lot of riot-related activities. So hey, maybe it's a good thing. A lot of people are sick and tired of the far left, Black Lives Matter and Antifa, going around smashing things, rioting nonstop, and they keep getting cut loose. But there are some drawbacks. I mean, the things they're doing are already illegal. And if many of these people aren't being prosecuted, then maybe the problem

is the DAs aren't prosecuting the law. So we're going to talk about this. But I also want to get into, as this is the week of the Chauvin trials come to an end, and now the trial itself has effectively come to an end to the extent that the deliberations begin next week. And there's an op-ed from Fox News saying that Chauvin's lost. The state has proven their case. And we're going to have to go through this because I think that's absolutely not the case. And I think one of our guests actually agrees with that. We've got Will Chamberlain of Human Events. You want a quick introduction? Sure. Will Chamberlain, I'm a lawyer. I'm the co-publisher of Human Events. You want a quick introduction? Sure. Well, Chamberlain, I'm a lawyer.

I'm the co-publisher of Human Events and run the opinion section. And I'm also senior counsel at the Internet Accountability Project and the Article 3 Project. Oh. Does that have to do with stopping censorship? Exactly. Well, Article 3 Project was getting Trump's judges confirmed. We were big in the Kavanaugh fight. And the Internet Accountability Project is still ongoing.

And that's, yeah, that's big tech and censorship. We're working on something in that area to guarantee access to platforms and create an open source networking thing. So cool stuff. We also have Jordan Lancaster of The Daily Caller. Hello. I'm Jordan Lancaster, reporter at The Daily Caller. I've covered the riots, media, pretty much a wide variety of stuff so happy to be here awesome we have uh ian crossland sup dudes shamanistic dmt trips holler back at your boy

all right all right crossing up in the house i do like dmt trips by the way lydia okay that's fair i believe i believe that and that's ian crossland.net right it is yeah yeah yeah you i was thinking of something last night i came up with a brilliant pun about iancrossland.net, right? It is, yeah. Yeah, I was thinking of something last night. I came up with a brilliant pun about Ian Crossland. You can find him at iancrosslandacrosstheland. No joke. I'm a genius. You're very welcome. I'm sorry.

Very droll. Thanks, guys. Very droll. Back to Tim. Hey, before we get started, go to timguest.com and become a member to get access to exclusive segments for members only. We are building up the site. We're going to be launching a lot of really cool things.

We got some sitcoms we're potentially going to be funding. We're gonna be launching a lot of really cool things. We got some sitcoms we're potentially gonna be funding. We're gonna be doing a new show on paranormal, weird, murder mystery stuff. And we're gonna bring on writers to produce that content. And we're gonna have general news, commentary culture,

probably films, probably documentaries. Like we're taking this thing all the way. It's gonna be a big digital media empire. With your help, that's the direction we're going. So if you like what we do, then become a member at TimCast.com. But don't forget to like, share, subscribe, smash that notification bell and well, smash the like button. I guess smash the notification bell as well.

But if you're listening on iTunes, Spotify or Google or whatever podcast platform, leave us a good review. Give us five stars. Tell all your friends how awesome we are because that really does help. Let's jump into this first story. And it's kind of a crazy story, I suppose. It's either really, really good, unless I guess you're a Democrat, then you're probably really angry about it if you're a Black Lives Matter protester. The Florida Senate has passed the controversial anti-riot bill pushed in the wake of Black Lives Matter protests. Governor Ron DeSantis championed the legislation and is expected to sign it as early as next week. One of the things it does that Democrats are really mad about is that if you are in your car and a group of protesters are in the street and you're trying to escape them,

you are immune from civil liability if you drive through them. So you want to make sure you get all that context in there. But they're freaking out because they're trying to make it seem like they're granting immunity to people literally slamming the gas and like crashing into people. That's not the case. But there are a bunch of other provisions that make certain things a felony. Now, I'll say this because I'll need your help on this one, Will. I tried looking up what the bill does specifically, like a breakdown.

Unfortunately, if you go to right-wing sites, they tell you very specific things like this becomes a felony. Certain left-wing sites say very biased things. And reading through it, it's like, I don't know, it's not that many pages, but it's very poorly written. So can you give us the gist of what this anti-riot law does? Sure. Well, I actually found their summary. I went to the Florida legislature and got an idea of what they're doing. I think the biggest thing it does, I mean's it's really first off there's a lot of

enhanced penalties so if you're you know committing one of these crimes like inciting a riot participating in a riot uh it's gonna there's like a mandatory minimum for assaulting a police officer now of six months for example um it also means that if you're participating in a riot and you get arrested you can't get bailed out before you appear in court. So it's like the sort of in and out. I think that's a great one. It has this anti-defunding the police provision, which essentially makes the state, before a city wants to defund its police, it needs permission from the state government.

It looks like it, this is an interesting one. And I think this is the one that has to do with the whole, the defense about like, if you run someone over, it says it creates an affirmative defense in a civil action arising from a riot if the plaintiff's injury or damage was sustained as a result of participating in a riot so that that's sort of interesting that sort of shuts off any sort of lawsuits by rioters like if you're in a riot and you you get assaulted or something so it's actually beyond so so the democrats are the ones framing it as though you could run a car through them. Right. But actually, it's much broader than that. Well, it's civil liability, too, right?

Say, I think that's a good example, right? You're participating in a riot. And I don't actually know the extent of this affirmative defense. I'd actually need to read it, like, you know, how far that goes. But the basic concept, if somebody is escaping, you don't have the right to sue them because you are participating in a riot and they were trying to get out of it. Why do we need a law for that? If you're committing a felony and I'm trying to escape, why am I liable for this? I mean, apparently, you know, I think it's good to just make it really clear, actually, you know,

because people, one of the things, I have a very strong view about people stopping traffic. I consider, I mean, that should be false imprisonment. It should be treated as a very serious crime. I really disagree with you on that one. You know, I think, no, like, I think protesters stopping traffic, it's like straight to jail and throw the book at those people because that's, it's incredibly selfish. There are people who are trying to just get to work, go to their jobs. It's incredibly scary, right? You're just like, you're at the mercy of this mob.

And it's just, it's the most selfish way to protest possible. It's completely indifferent to, like to the amount of time and energy you're taking away from everybody who's blocked. You're just deciding you're more important than they are. That becomes a felony, right? Blocking traffic? I think so. Part of the bill makes it like a third-degree felony?

I think they've been much more aggressive about it. I really disagree with that one. I think that if it was just a bunch of, say, like, I don't know, Code Pink, and they're holding hands in the middle of D.C. singing songs, and the cops have to walk up and one by one arrest them and remove them, and it takes 20 or 30 minutes, nonviolent civil disobedience is a good thing. We don't want people to be getting violent. I mean, I'm okay with that, except do it on the sidewalk. Like, get out of the road. Well, that's the point.

The point is to create some kind of circumstance where it generates attention. And my point is that I think that's not something we should incentivize and instead that we should deter. I think a fair point is that people standing in the road create a very serious risk standing in a road and you probably shouldn't stand in a road, period. Right. My thing is more just like we want it. We need to make sure there's a space maintained where people can be to a certain degree disruptive peacefully and unviolently and it's already illegal so typically what happens is when people are holding hands in the street they immediately get arrested sometimes takes longer if they use like chains to like link their hands together or those like metal tubes but they when a peaceful protester stands in the street the cop walks up cuffs them and walks them away they clear the traffic relatively quickly and the protesters get their point across they do get charged it's usually a misdemeanor slap on the wrist.

And then they're not going around smashing windows and beating people in the streets like they're doing now. I mean, I think, well, there's already laws that are, you know, we aren't seriously punishing people in the road. And they still, you know, I don't think that's a way to divert them from breaking windows. No, a felony is kind of intense, though, for that man. then there's don't do it like just don't do it it's the law don't do it you know i mean i think you have to think about the worst case scenario right like what if an ambulance is trying to get through this traffic and they can't or like there was a video that went viral um a while ago of some guy he got out of his car and a mob was blocking him from getting in the road and this is a doctor and he was like he like worked in the er or something he's like i need

to get to work you got patients the challenge i suppose is the difference between an unruly mob in the street and like a bunch of hippies holding hands singing and then the cops come and clear them out yeah i think those are different things but in this scenario it was a giant mob of people in an intersection right that. That's a riot. And what's stopping the hippies from getting a permit? Like, if you want to march in the street, get a permit. There's ways to do that. I don't know, man.

The First Amendment says peaceably assemble. Well, do you guys remember the L.A. riots more recently? Not the actual L.A. riots in the 60s. But there were L.A. riots. In the 60s? I'm a little bit off, like years um they blocked a highway in la and there was an ambulance that was stuck in the traffic and a little girl died because of it like that's for me the biggest argument against like blocking traffic and i kind of agree with then they should be charged with murder yeah absolutely right like that's a serious issue well i think we

should just you know at the outset just deter this behavior entirely like i mean if people actually start going to jail for serious time for doing this, it will stop. People will find other ways to make their point heard. And there's plenty of ways in this world to get your point across. Yeah. My main thing is, like, if it's already illegal, why are we making more laws for it? Because people are still doing it, so the punishments aren't severe enough, apparently. I'm not sure that they care.

I mean, I will say a point I've made in the past few days is that the cost for rioting is too low. And these people know this. Even though it is a felony to go and burn a building to the ground, they know they're going to get cut loose. You see that lady in Portland who burned down or set fire to the police union building? They released her without bail. They released her. Yeah, it's just. Rioting is not drug addiction where people can't stop, right?

And therefore it's like overly punitive and draconian. No, you don't have to riot. You have no addiction to rioting. You're just doing it because you want to. So stop it. We just need to change the law so that people go right to jail. This woman, apparently she got informed on because one of these Antifa guys in Portland is apparently a snitch. She was arrested apparently last

year, I guess, and she was released and all the charges were dropped. If this woman was, if the charges were not dropped, and she got a year in jail, or a year plus in prison, she would not have been there to set fire to this

police association building. They cut her loose, dropped the charges, and they knew she was a violent, terroristic extremist. Then she goes and does it again. And what happens? She gets five, I think it's five felony charges. Wow. And they release her without bail. On her own recognizance, I think that's called, right?

Right. And I mean, the beauty of doing this in conservative states, there's a lot of blue cities and there's still blue cities in Florida. But all of a sudden they've got, you know, the state attorney general can come in and tell them to knock it off. Right now, you're essentially Oregon is totally dependent on federal law enforcement and the FBI run by a Republican administration at some point in the future. Otherwise, you're just you're just as well. Yeah, I like the you can't get released until your first court hearing. You're caught in the future. Otherwise, you're just SOL. Yeah. I like the, you can't get released until your first court hearing. You're caught in a riot. You know, there are challenges about this. Typically, my thing is Blackstone's formulation, the presumption of innocence. It's really difficult

to, you might be walking through the wrong place at the wrong time, and they'll charge you with being in a riot. Then, you know, what then? Right. Well, I mean, I think the right answer is to really reduce the number of riots like that. Let's let's start there. If we just reduce the number of riots, then that also reduces the number of people who are randomly walking through. It makes police's job a lot easier, means they can focus on combating crime in their cities and not have to send these huge forces of people just to, you just to deal with unruly rioters. So when I asked about why make new laws if it's already illegal, you said something to the effect of the punishment must not have been severe enough.

Right. If it's still happening despite being illegal all the time, we are not deterring it sufficiently. Because the district attorneys aren't prosecuting it. That might be true, but this is a solution to that as well. If you create new state laws with severe punishments and, you know, essentially you create an environment also where the state attorney general is going to want to enforce those laws if local district attorneys are not. And that authority, I'm pretty sure, is always there. So long as at the state level.

I guess my bigger concern then is one of the statements made by Democrats is that this is going to be disproportionately used. It's going to be biased. It's going to be used against them. They're half right. I think if you look at the evidence, they've consistently, the Black Lives Matter, the Antifa, have consistently gotten away with serious violent extremism. I mean, how many people died in the riots or peripheral to the riots of last year? It was like 30 something.

30 something, yeah. There were 19, I think, deaths directly related and then peripheral deaths like people in ambulances that couldn't get to the hospital and stuff like that. These people have gotten away with it. I mean, Kamala Harris solicited donations to get these people out of jail. Joe Biden's staff donated to these funds to get these people out of jail. And then people voted for them. Then you look at the people at the Capitol.

There's one lady. Apparently, the door was open and she had no idea what was going on until she walked in, you know, dumbfounded and bewildered like everybody else. And now she's in solitary confinement facing like 40 years in prison. Yeah, I mean, that's the status quo. The left gets off a lot easier. And that's not all about like selective prosecution. That's also about, you know, 50 to 60 years of leftist organizing infrastructure and protest infrastructure still existing. I mean, the National Lawyers Guild, they're still around.

And in the 70s, they were hiding terrorists, right? Weather Underground terrorists. And it's amazing when you actually read about what the 70s Weather Underground did. They were bombing all over the place. And they just got six months. They got like probation. Who was it? They were fugitives for 10 years, and they finally turned themselves in and got probation.

Who was Weather Underground? I've heard of them a lot. Bill Ayers. Bill Ayers. So Weather Underground came out of Students for Democrats, Students for Democratic Society, a radical left-wing student group. After, I think in the very early 70s, they made the decision that we actually are, we need, the revolution is coming

and so uh after like they went to a big protest you know in chicago and a bunch of them got indicted on various like rioting assault charges a bunch of them instead of returning to face those charges they went underground um which at the time just meant well okay i'm not going to show for my court date i'm not going to be a fugitive and i'm going to go get you know new identity documents and and just live under the radar and not be you know not be employed it was much easier to do then because it was just easy to fake make get a fake id no internet right so um that was you know and so there was a big there's a group it ended up being about like 150 left-wing people and they started out they i mean apparently there was a plan to actually go after and set off

bombs in an army base while people were there. That failed, and ultimately a bunch of them killed themselves in a bomb accident in their own townhouse. Wow. And then after that, they decided we're only going to bomb things symbolically. But there was a bombing campaign all over the place where they would just set off bombs in energy stations and random places to make a political point. So we have decades of that infrastructure and the remnants of that still exist today. Yeah. So when it comes to this new law,

how long until a Democrat wins Florida? Assuming they do, maybe it swings back hardly the direction in the next few years, maybe not. Maybe, I mean, it was fairly close this time around. Democrat takes over and then all of a sudden the Republicans find themselves with a boot on their face. Well, I mean, it's possible,

but I think Republicans generally don't riot and you know one of the things i said about january 6th is the reason they were even able to get into the capitol is because republicans generally don't do that you know they weren't prepared they weren't the capitol police weren't prepared for it at all they were really what if what if a right-wing group decides to march around and they got flags and they find themselves marching in the street and all of a sudden they're all committing felonies and they all get locked up i mean don't do that the law says don't do it right but if you're if you're a regular person and you're coming out waving your flag you're on a street corner and everyone's cheering and then you start marching and then

you're in the street not realizing what's going on you don't know the law and then all of a sudden they're like thank you so much for this law that that 40 you know that that's 50 year old grandmother is now a felon. And they lock her up and they put her in solitary. I mean, one, they've already done that in federal law. Right, right. That's what I'm saying. So it's like I expect more.

It's quite possible that Democrats will use this stuff against us. But, I mean, I think the net tradeoff, given how few sort of riots there are from the right like january 6th was such a bizarre aberration i mean i remember just being surprised it's like our side never does this this is left did this all summer and all all the time the right never does i literally published a video at 1 p.m that day where i was like nothing's happening trump's speaking everyone's waving little flags this is boring yeah and then 10 minutes later they pushed past the barricade and then 10 minutes later, they pushed past the barricade. And then 40 minutes later, you know. Oh, so stupid. Yeah.

So stupid. So anyway, I'm just I'm not pro-rioting. Like, I just don't care. Don't riot. I'm concerned how they redefine riot in the coming years, because if they make a law about what you can and can't do when you're rioting, then all of a sudden they're going to make a law about what the word riot means. That's in it. It changes it to three or more people engaging in tumultuous activity. So if I go on the corner and start playing music and I have four people around me yelling and they're excited, they could say I'm rioting. Maybe, but then there's always this First Amendment constraint in the background, right?

Yeah. So, I mean, I think, and I'm confident in the ability of federal courts to enforce the First Amendment and strike down laws, even just as applied, right? If they try to use one of these riot laws to something that is clearly First Amendment protected activity, I'm even just as applied, right, if they try to use one of these riot laws to something that is clearly First Amendment protected activity. I'm confident the courts strike it down. What are they going to do about journalists who are there covering it? One, there's the problem of people there who are actual journalists who have, you know, their cameras and stuff. And then there's people who fake it. You know, there have been a lot of people at these riots who have fake press credentials so are they going to arrest everybody including people who are there

as reporters or are they going to let reporters go and then have people fake it they'll arrest them they you know so two of our two of our reporters got arrested yeah yeah i remember i'll tell you this the the simple thing is if you're a journalist and you're working the protest to beat be nice to the cops like be calm very calm and have your press credentials readily available ask for a supervisor very calmly and politely if it doesn't happen keep your mouth shut so i've been in so many of these circumstances and i remember in dc on trump's inauguration several journalists got pulled out of the mass arrest. I was one of them.

Why? I had my card. I asked for a supervisor. The guy came over and said, you're under arrest. I was like, just want to let you know I'm pressed. He goes, doesn't matter. I was like, you got it. Just letting you know.

He came back later and he looked at some journalists and he was like, you come with me. You come with me. And I was like, yo, yo. And I come with me. He pulled us out. Show me your card. He said, all right, you guys are good to go. You know, sorry about that. Some other journalists were in the crowd screaming at the top of their lungs. You mother effer, you can't arrest all my journalists. They went to jail. And then

they had all of the activists cheer them on. They came out and these people are hardcore activists. That's why they're screaming at cops and they're angry. So as part of the job, you're not supposed to get arrested, but you get arrested. A real professional journalist, in my opinion, gets arrested and they grumble about it. And they keep their mouth shut and they let their boss know the moment it's happening if they can. They say, you know, they'll yell to someone, tell, you know, Channel 5 I'm being arrested. And then they'll peacefully put their hands behind their back and then go through the motions. And then when the station will call them, the police usually say,

okay, you're free to go. But when you scream in their faces and start a fight, then you get locked up. If you're screaming at the cops and starting a fight with them, you're probably not a real journalist or a real reporter. Yep. I think it's fair to say. We defend the act of journalism. Someone becomes a journalist the moment they're engaging in journalism.

But if you combine at any point the act of journalism with the act of rioting or screaming at cops, now you're an active participant. You may be an active journalism, but you're also, I'll put it this way. The First Amendment says peaceably assemble, meaning if you violently assemble or illegally assemble, then you're not peaceably assembling. Illegal is where it gets interesting, and there are probably case law challenges. But the general idea is if you are not breaking the law or putting people at risk, you're probably fine. The same thing is true for if you're engaging in an act of the press.

If you start acting violently, the press has implied that you're being peaceful. If you're now throwing bricks at people and filming it, that's not journalism. I think it's fair to say. Filming yourself throw bricks is not journalism. This is in Florida? But there's, I think, 13 states that have the same bill. So if it went through, then would a journalist who steps

onto the street be committing a felony? Doubtful. Well, they could charge it, but I don't think it would fly. They could charge it because they'll say, you know, let's say you're there, and you're filming, and you're in a group of three or more engaging in tumultuous activity. They'll say, ah, you're in the street felony. You're under arrest. Then you'll go, you'll probably have to go before a judge. You'll tell the judge, I'm a reporter. Here's where I work. The judge will be

like, okay, you're free to go. If you can't prove you work somewhere, he'll probably say, I don't believe you. You know, your coordinate is this. It's tough. It's not easy. The First Amendment is interesting. It defends the press, but now everybody's the press. So I guess the problem now is, like, the question you ask. If you're a journalist and you enter the street and you're obstructing it now, you've got a problem.

I mean, I don't know. I'm looking at the statute. It changes the definition to someone who participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons. Oh, okay. That's to be violent. Acting with a common intent to assist each other in a violent and disorderly context. So, yeah, violence is part of rioting. That wouldn't include journalists.

No. Journalists are free then. Yeah. Unless you're filming yourself throwing bricks at people and calling them journalists. I mean, if you're filming and throwing a water bottle, then the more important part is you're throwing a water bottle. Right, exactly. Well, let's jump over to the next story because the next one is whether or not we're going to see massive riots across the country. Right.

Yes or no answer, Will. Will we see substantially worse riots this year? Oh, man. Substantially worse? No, I won't say substantially worse because they were real bad last year. You don't think it'll be worse this time? No, I think the police will be better prepared. It seems like they better prepared in uh brooklyn center do you think there will be riots yes all right we got this story from fox news which i found i'm sorry i laughed when i said it when i saw it greg jarrett says derrick chauvin prosecutors meet the burden of proof in trial and he opens by saying defending

the indefensible can be futile and fatuous endeavor and then he talks a lot about stuff blah blah blah at the end he says it is never easy to reach a decision unanimously when presented with conflicting testimony as noted herein jurors tend to resort to common sense and wisdom grounded in their own life experiences in this case the great weight of the evidence favors the prosecution it has sustained the burden of proof, but a reasonable doubt that what Derek Chauvin did was not only wrong, but criminal. I can't believe that's true based on everything I've seen so far. And I'm curious,

Mr. Lawyer, if you agree with Greg Jarrett, that the prosecution prosecution has met the burden of proof, proving that Derek Chauvin was not only wrong but criminal. I don't think they've proved causation beyond reasonable doubt. I thought Dr. Fowler's testimony, I thought, was very reasonable. There's just a lot of potential alternate causality here.

I mean, the guy had a 90% blocked heart artery. He had 11 nanograms per milliliter of fentanyl in his system, along with methamphetamine. And I think it was, what, 5.6 of norfentanyl, meaning metabolized. Yeah, metabolized fentanyl. I mean, you had the testimony about him sleeping in the car. He had to be roused. He decided to fight with the officers and have this huge adrenaline spike.

That could have been a heart attack. Well, so here's my issue, right? So let's go through the charges. This guy is saying they met the burden of proof. I don't see that. We've got murder two, murder three. We've got manslaughter in the second degree and assault in the third degree, which is the murder two they're going for is the felony murder rule, correct? So that means they're arguing that Chauvin did not want to kill George Floyd.

Yeah, there's no – none of the charges require intent to kill. That's the key thing to understand, right? George Floyd yeah there's no there's no none of the charges require intent to kill that's that's the key thing to understand right they're going for unintentional murder to depraved heart murder three which is also unintentional and then involuntary manslaughter so that's all none of that requires intent to kill so that's why they didn't spend any time proving it there was a point in the trial that I've brought up several times where the defense cross-examined the state's use of force expert from LA and based on the continuum chart it's the continuum where it shows like at passive resistance which is you know going limp

or you know not standing up active resistance which is fighting and then active aggression where you're like shooting at somebody in the category this guy said in this continuum the defense expert witness i'm sorry sorry the prosecution's expert witness said george floyd was actively resisting right next to it it says it said like electro whatever you know force compliance or whatever which is a taser and nelson the defense attorney said so chauvin could have used a taser immediately upon encountering George Floyd actively resisting the other officers. And the prosecution's witness said, yes. And he goes, and then Chauvin chose a lesser force option of restraint instead.

And the expert witness for the prosecution said, yes. That, to me, right away, threw everything out the window. It seems like, based on that argument alone alone chauvin was trying not to hurt the men right i mean to minimize right you could see i mean that could in and of itself be reasonable doubt i think this the defense is going to have problems because the defense use of force expert was a clown yeah a complete clown i mean the attempt to say that it wasn't a use of force to hold the guy on the ground because well it's a constraint position so there's not even an inquiry as to whether or not the force was excessive i mean i thought that was in it was indefensible

it was revealed on cross to be indefensible he basically like retracted his entire opinion within five minutes of cross-examination so that was really bad and i think it's a it was a huge opportunity for the defense because i think you're right because you know there were the defense use of force experts plural had conflicting testimony i mean had the LAPD guy saying that holding somebody in the prone position under the circumstances was justified use of force. And then you had the academic saying it wasn't. Right. And all you need is a guy to get up there and say. Which is it?

You know, which is it? But just you have your own defense expert who says, look, under the totality of these circumstances, this was a justified use of force. Rather than trying to say it wasn't a use of force at all like you just say like given the resistance and given the fact that they thought he was going through excited delirium it was reasonable for them to hold him on the ground uh and try and and just restrain him and prevent him from moving and that's what they were doing the crazy thing to me is that they're trying to claim that chauvin murdered Floyd, that he was the cause of death, but they can't even tell us definitively what the cause of death was. Right.

I mean, they say that it's 100% positional asphyxia. Well, they changed their position. Who? Initially, it was that it was pressure to the neck cutting off oxygen to the brain. And then, apparently, because of one of their own experts testifying about how the knee had moved, they switched it up to saying it was pressure resulting in low respiratory function. Yeah.

I mean, the weakest part of it... So Tobin says it was both the knee on the back and holding him in the prone position and then also the knee on the side of the neck at times, which to me, honestly, doesn't make that much sense because, I mean, I don't know if you've done this, but this isn't near your airway, right? Like, the idea that a knee on the back of the neck would close your airway just doesn't make that much sense because, I mean, I don't know if you've like done this, but like this isn't near your airway, right?

Like the idea that knee on the back of the neck would close your airway just doesn't make sense. Is that what he said? Close your airway? Right. Like it would, it would lead to your airway closing. He's a breathing expert, I guess. Right.

He was a breathing expert. But, and the, the defense expert said there's, there's no literature on this. Like, and to me that was a moment of like, yeah, I mean, you're saying he choked via that. And then the positional asphyxia thing, it's the Fowler was able to suggest pretty strongly that the guy who came up with the idea and wrote about it said it really only applies to people who are obese because you're pressing

their gut up into their lungs it doesn't apply to people like floyd who was quite you know 66230 but very lean how do you how do you can what is the argument the closing argument from the prosecution going to be could you even predict is the argument the closing argument from the prosecution going to be could you even predict it i mean the closing argument is going to be use unjustified use of force means it's assault so that's film that's murder too uh the knee on the neck is so egregious and appalling that that means it's murder three two um and then he died of positional asphyxia dr tobin said he did listen to him and the other guy's not credible he was paid something like that i mean they had

one of their defense experts i think a couple of their experts were paid as well but sure yeah and i don't i don't think being paid in the circumstances is i mean i don't think it makes you more or less credible i mean the fact that you're volunteering and wanting to try and put a guy in jail is weird i i agree yeah yeah having this guy be like i want to fly out here and then come and speak so that i can you know make my i mean the prosecution team they had the most they had neil katyal do you know i don't know I mean, the prosecution team, they had the most... They had Neil Katyal. Do you know... I don't know if you guys know Neil Katyal.

He was my former criminal law professor. He was former acting solicitor general of the United States. He was serving on the prosecution? He was like... They brought him in for motions practice, right? To argue some of the legal points. He would zoom in and, like, argue them. And so you've got Eric Nelson, the random criminal defense attorney,

arguing against Neil Katyal, who argues more Supreme Court cases every year than any other private attorney. Wow. Like just... Why? Oh, and the prosecution team is also mostly private attorneys.

What? So Blackwell, the bald black guy, and then Schleicher, who handled a lot of the other cross-examination, both of them are like private litigators that Keith Ellison brought in to handle the case. There's only like one state prosecutor, who handled a lot of the other cross-examination both of them are like private litigators that that keith ellison brought in to handle the case there's only like one state prosecutor the the woman the woman with brown hair she was the only prosecutor who's actually a prosecutor in her day job i they

overcharged chauvin yeah they should have gone with what manslaughter i mean i think man too is the correct charge here but you don't even think he'll get that i don't think he'll get that because i think i think at the end of the day there's going to be a juror who says to himself i don't know how he died yep that's reasonable doubt but even if even if the juror is like i think he most likely died because of the knee on the neck that's still doubt right right he could still he still gets off in that case like you you know and that's going to come up that the closing is going to focus on that i guarantee you the the defense attorney is a smart guy i guarantee you that defense attorney knows he's in a lot bit you know i guess deeper water on use of force than he is on causation and he's going to drill down and be like unless you are a hundred percent certain

that chauvin died of positional asphyxia. Not guilty. Yeah. Right? Floyd. Do you think he'll bring up? I think, didn't Cahill mention in September it looked like Floyd swallowed pills? There was a tweet I pulled up from a local journalist. Yeah. I mean, there were pills in the back of the squad car with his saliva on them. The speedball. A half-chewed speedball found in the squad car. Yeah.

So I pulled this up. There was a tweet from back in September when they were setting up the trial, setting up the case, where the judge said that it looked like in the photos Floyd had swallowed pills. Do you think the defense is going to bring it to the jury? George Floyd was seen on camera ingesting what appeared to be drugs. He was with a man that was testified by his own girlfriend to be their drug dealer. They found drugs in the vehicle and he had the drugs in his system, which as you've heard already, fentanyl depresses your respiratory system and methamphetamine causes heart arrhythmia. We can't be sure how George Floyd died. Yeah.

I mean, there's a very powerful closing and it's a lot harder to rule it out. I mean, they basically have to rely on these pieces of Dr. Tobin's testimony that said, well, if you had a heart attack, you would have seen this and this and this. Who gets the last word, though? Prosecution does, right? Yeah, but, I mean, the prosecution already had its. I think, yeah, the prosecution gets the last word in opening or in closing statements. Yeah.

That's powerful. It is, but it's still beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think at the end of the day, the defense has it. I've seen, you know, I think about robert durst case where the guy literally uh uh what's the word for uh not decapitated but uh dismembered dismembered his neighbor uh the dismembered body was you know pieces of the dismembered body were found in the in the lake or in the in the river the axe used to do the dismembering was found in Durst's car. What?

What was this? This is a great HBO show called The Jinx, which you have to watch if you haven't seen it. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, The Jinx. The Jinx. It's incredible. And he claimed self-defense, said that the guy was his friend. And when do you dismember someone in self-defense? So how did he get acquitted? He managed to give Prince Quaid the reasonable doubt that the thing that led to his, he's like, I didn't murder him.

I did dismember him. I think it was, wasn't it the New York Post that the headline was, Durst, who cut off body, claims self-defense. That was the New York Times that said that. Wow. Yeah, it was. That was a head. Well, hold on. Wow. Holy cow. That was a head-up subtitle. Well, hold on. There's something we've got to consider, though. If tonight we see rioting, and I think one of these jurors lives in Brooklyn Center, and the rest of the jurors still have to commute through riots to get to court,

you think they're going to show up on Monday sweating bullets knowing that if they say not guilty, that it's going to be a brick through their window and their house on fire? Maybe. I mean, I could see somebody hanging the jury because of that. They're just, like, not willing to go with a not guilty verdict. So I think, you know, I think hung jury is a real possibility here. And that means they redo the trial again later, right? Right.

It would just be a mistrial. Wow. What's the difference between murder three and manslaughter? Murder three is what's called depraved heart murder. So like that's supposed to be really, really, you know, involuntary manslaughter is, you know, killing someone without intent. Right. Generally, that's the usual crime. Like, for example, the Daunte Wright case where the woman mistook her taser for a mistook her gun for a taser and shot the guy.

That's an involuntary manslaughter charge. So the one cop says I don't think she's actually made her statement yet. Right, right. Fair enough. But like that's what they charge. That's the first thing they charged. But depraved heart murder is is things that are like really beyond the pale that indicate a depraved heart. So, you know, juggling chainsaws, juggling chainsaws.

And then you throw someone at somebody or something. I think I read that the classic case in Black Letter Law is two people are playing a modified Russian roulette where they're shooting. There's one bullet and a revolver, and they're shooting each other. And finally, one of them died. And they're like, okay, that's not involuntary manslaughter, even if you didn't have intent to kill. That's so beyond the pale. So weird. But it's not supposed to be that common. Third-degree murder is not supposed to be that common. Third-degree murder is not supposed to be that common. So they're claiming that what?

That in his mind he was like, I don't want to kill him, but man, I hope he dies? Is that kind of it? Something or like you just, I don't care that I'm putting my knee on his neck and suffocating him. Even if I'm not trying to kill him, I don't care that I'm inflicting this much pain. It's a weird distinction. It doesn't even matter. Yeah, I mean, it's there so that sometimes matter yeah i mean it's it's just it's there so that sometimes things that are really beyond the pale can get more years the prosecution's

own witness i think more than one testified that the the position chauvin was in was a ground control technique that they actually train the brazilian jiu-jitsu guy said yes that's a ground control technique so it's like what i'm sorry man look nobody wants well I should say most people don't want anyone dying right there's a faction of murderers I suppose they exist

and depraved individuals that's why we have murder charges but I mean nobody wanted to see anybody die in the Dante Wright case in the Adam Toledo case in George Floyd

but the cop shows up Chauvin was told it was a priority one right that means sirens rush in guys actively resisting. He shows up and he sees Floyd resisting and he chooses not to tase him. I'm going to

restrain him anyway. I'm going to use a ground control technique. Everyone's screaming in his face. One guy's an MMA fighter and he's being held back by someone else. That was one of the most amazing things to me about the case. This guy who's an MMA fighter testified, he put him in a blood choke. And then when Nelson shows the video is like there's the mma fighter in front of chauvin who's what five nine 140 pounds and someone was holding this guy back stands to reason that chauvin felt he was in a very serious threatening situation a little distracted like i would be distracted in the circumstances how do they not have reasonable doubt it's it's like i'm sorry but at this point i have like it's not it's not reasonable doubt it It's like – I'm sorry, but at this point, I have like – it's not reasonable doubt.

It's like what's overt disbelief? You know what I mean? Right. Like you just think he's innocent. I know. Right? Like that's simple. I love how the left – their attitude is, but we saw it on video.

Yeah. It's like all the context, the training the training policing none of it matters and i can't stand how the left is covering this like they're they are not preparing their audience at all for an acquittal like they're just they're saying that this is trial is going swimmingly for the prosecution and it's like there was a day that went really well for the prosecution when they cross-examined yeah the use of force expert. But every, every other day I would say the prosecution has not been that great. Um, you know,

they, they had like tons and tons of witnesses and Nelson was able to get out a lot on cross. I, so, so, uh, I'm not a lawyer. I,

I don't typically follow criminal trials. And I, I, I thought when the, the prosecution's use of for a use of force experts were testifying, I thought it was a defense witness. Yeah. I was like, wow, this is great. The defense is really laying it out.

And then I was like, wait, that's the prosecution's witness? Yikes. They brought in a guy to claim that Chauvin was doing what he was supposed to do and could have done worse? Wow. Yeah. I was like, are they trying to lose? Or, I can't remember who it was that we're talking to this head there's just no case i mean it won on the one hand it's really hard because there's a

lot of what chauvin is doing i mean and there's this mismatch too right like the thing that really seems be like excessive force is in particular the knee on the neck or in the neck area and also like holding on to him well after he's lost his pulse that seems like excessive force but so much of everything that led up to that was was policy like i think they conceded you know holding somebody in the prone position for excited delirium i thought that i'm pretty sure that was minneapolis policy right but but also they're like yeah but why nine minutes because the mma guy was screaming in his face and being held back and chauvin was very distracted and didn't know what was going on. And because they thought EMS was coming

and be right there and they were just trying to like hold on to him. Did you see the prosecution's expert use of force witness who said when he was asked on cross, have you ever held someone in a restraint until EMS arrived? Yes, I did.

Yeah. Wow. That's, I mean just it's just true so yeah own witnesses over and over and over again that was crazy to me and then i i was reading the crazy thing about is i'm watching the trial and like i said the first the first time i i tuned i i tuned into the to the cross-examination i thought it was the defense's own witness and i was like oh wow we're in the defense so a minute. The defense hasn't started their case yet. Wow. And then I start watching the mainstream media. And what do they do? They show only the highlight reel of one

fighter landing punches. They omit the defense. The craziest thing about that, I think it was Slate.com, right? Lefty publication, where they say, is the defense floundering and then they're i see these articles where they're like the defense is helpless and i'm like when your commentary is derivative of biased news sources and you don't double check you write opinions that are based in just yeah nobody was watching cross i mean we were watching i think think, CNN a couple days ago during the defense witnesses. And finally, their analysts were talking about cross-examination and how they were able to ask questions and things like that. And I'm like, I realize you guys haven't even talked about cross-examination yet. Yeah.

It's just you've only broadcast highlights of direct. Yep. And that gives you no clue about what's actually happening in the case these people have invested everything in the resistance in donald trump that's why there are still these youtubers and there are still these news outlets that are writing about donald trump today it's amazing they talk about january 6th almost every single night i watch seen an embassy every night they talk about it literally i don't know we'll watch that with me would you say almost every single night almost every night i mean rachel maddow did like 40 minutes on russia trump russia no what 40 minutes talked about russia trump russia and then she talked about i think it was

duante right she talked about for a little bit or it was yeah there's like there's like 20 minutes of the riots to russia so these these people have an audience of cultists that they've whipped into a cult over the past several years. And they know if they give them real information that offends them, their minds will explode. So they're like, okay, let's see. We have this trial and the prosecution expert witness says Chauvin should not have done that. That's great. We'll put that for 10 a. p.m or for 10 a.m then we have the defense they said actually he should not have done it but it was part of his training let's let's throw that in the garbage

and let's this next one says chauvin was using it because of force we'll put that right there and then but that's my opinion and not the facts because he was trained to do that and other officers do it as well let's throw that one in the garbage. Just the highlights. This is a major part of what's stirring up riots. You have all of these viewers watching what they think is the facts of the trial. They turn on CNN and MSNBC every single night and then what if he gets off?

Well, what they've been watching is showing them, to them, obviously he should have been convicted. Imagine what... Once he gets off, it's like they have more of a reason to go out and riot. Imagine watching a boxing match where they only show you, you know, fighter in the blue shorts punching the fighter in the red shorts over and over again. You're like, oh, this is brutal. It's over, man. This is, oh, geez.

And then all of a sudden they go to call it and they raise the arm of the guy in the red shorts. You're like, but he this is brutal. It's over, man. This is, oh, jeez. And then all of a sudden, they go to call it and they raise the arm of the guy in the red shorts. You're like, but he didn't land a single punch. They'll even be like, why does that other guy's face look so busted up? Yeah, right. It doesn't matter. He won. Yeah.

And then they riot. And they don't even question why it looks like. Literally, that's how the human mind is built. Or actually, maybe a better way to put it is like it's a World Series match. It's baseball, and it's the – I don't know. I don't know any teams. Give me a team. We've got the White Sox.

Cleveland Indians. Do they play against the Sox? They play against the White Sox. No, no. They play against the Cubs. They wouldn't. Not in the World Series. The World Series is going to be National American League.

Let's say Cubs. So the Cubs versus – Cubs, White Sox. Yeah. What? I guess. They both make it. It's Chicago.

So there's going to be a riot no matter what happens. I mean, it to Chicago. So there's going to be a riot no matter what happens. I mean, it is Chicago. And basically, people are watching. And then they only see the home run scored by the Sox. And they're like, wow, they got eight runs in. They must have won. And then when it turns out the Cubs had nine, they just don't believe it. Like, you're lying. We watched the game.

We didn't see any of that. And they go around and destroy everything. Riot smashing things and just anger. I mean, they're doing it again. So the Dante Wright thing, we were watching it on CNN and MSNBC. They always play the clip and you know what they omit? The part where he's being placed under arrest

and then evades and gets back into his car. They cut to begin the thing right after that happens and while he's already back in the car. I think it was either 2015 or 2016. There was a Trump rally in Janesville, Wisconsin. There was an old man arguing with a young woman.

She started screaming, he touched my breast, he touched my breast. He puts his hand up and says, I didn't even touch you. Then, she punches him in the face and someone pepper sprays her. Mike.com added the most insane edit I've ever seen because it was within

like one second where he puts his hands up then she punches him and gets pepper sprayed. So they added like a flare, a white flash, and all it did was cover up

her punching the old man. So all you see her doing is going, he touched my breast. He puts his hands up and then the screen flashes and she's going, ah, getting pepper sprayed.

They literally cut out her punching a guy in the face. She was pepper sprayed in self-defense of others. Amazing. What goes through your mind when you're like, I'm going to edit this video and make this woman not punch him? Why? Because they're like, I'm going to make so much money from this. Yeah, that's true.

Yep. Yeah. I don't know. It's so dangerous. That's the public perception. That's true. Yep. Yeah. I don't know. It's so dangerous. That's the public perception. That's the media landscape. I'll tell you what this results in. Let's jump to this next story because this is where, this is what we can expect right

now. So we had this anti-riot law come up. We got this Chauvin trial and we think there's going to be riots. Check out this story from Scriber News. Scriber correspondent attacked while covering protest. This is Kalen D'Almeida. We know him. Yes. A night covering Black Lives Matter,

Los Angeles protests had peaceful moments, but parts turned to mayhem in the evening hours. Scuffles broke out as a Scriber Field correspondent was attacked. Scriber Field reporter Kalen D'Almeida was attacked at approximately 1030 p.m. on Highland Avenue between Hawthorne and Selma in Hollywood. And this video is particularly brutal. I can't play for you the video, but this is a guy who is just doing journalism, and they chase him down. They stalk him. They follow him.

They repeatedly shove him, hit him, knock him to the ground. It's particularly bad. My understanding, and I could be wrong, is I believe he got knocked unconscious and left on the ground. Particularly brutal attack. So we have these roving bands of, I guess, terrorists?

Vigilantes? No, they're not vigilantes. That's how they see themselves. Criminals. Who should be in jail. They view themselves as like righteous superheroes. Criminals who should be in jail. I don't even know if they see themselves as a resistance.

Honestly, I don't even know if they see themselves. You know what I mean? i know no but but but but i do mean that like how many of these people just don't know they're just outside bored and then they see a group punching someone so they run up and punch them and they're not thinking anything who knows i don't know i mean like antifa would do that stuff you know they've they would love to get up in people's faces i mean i remember something as simple as like when jack went to that protest at the lincoln i think was the lincoln statue in dc yeah and just had you know clearly was just being assaulted by this random antifa kid jason charter

or whatever who ended up being arrested oh yeah jack posobic right that's a great photo there's a great photo but like you're just you're just watching it and it's like this guy's committing crimes on camera like that's assault you can't just push people and, like, prevent them from going places. You can't get in people's faces. You can't. You're committing crimes on camera, dude. You're going to get arrested for them. A friend of mine actually texted me about Kalen earlier today and was like, I guess people don't like being recorded while they're committing crimes.

That's probably correct. Serious crimes, too. I went to Black Lives Matter Plaza one night when there was a lot of people there. And it, to me, seemed like they were just randomly picking people to kick out. I couldn't really see a pattern of who they were picking. But it kind of seemed like... And it was a very specific group of people. It wasn't everybody there.

But it was a group of people. And they would just find someone who was recording and make them leave i would be fine with like a very serious like ramping up the penalties for assaulting a journalist right like five years well like how do you define journalists in that capacity i mean well somebody who's like committee if if i mean you could probably figure out a way to do it that somebody if you beat up somebody who's filming you right like in the in the middle of a riot or a protest or whatever like that's a five-year count they chased out cnn they did yeah you're right and cnn didn't even mention it not once really not once wow they're awful not in i checked the website i checked the what shows not one mentioned look

jeff zucker is the reality tv guy isn't he the apprentice guy yeah he wanted trump wasn't that him what he well no no yeah he was the apprentice guy wasn't he i don't know i think so cnn brought on yeah yeah double check me double check on that one. I'm pretty sure Zucker was the was the apprentice guy or the reality. He was reality TV for NBC. And CNN brought him on because they were like, listen, you know, here's how I imagine it. You've got the executives, you know, Time Warner, whatever, AT&T, whoever bought CNN. And they're like, we don't want to do news. We just want to be bad people.

What's the worst possible thing we can do for humanity? And they're like, got it. Let's hire Brian Stelter, Oliver Garcia, and Jeff Zucker to run everything. Did you see the Project Veritas thing with Brian Stelter? Yeah, that was funny. So for those that haven't followed the story, Project Veritas got an amazing expose as a CNN technical director, basically saying they're a propaganda network, gloating about COVID death, celebrating the numbers. I'm like, that's insane, man.

You know what I would love? Talk about Sonic the Hedgehog again. We've done segments about the Falcon and the Winter Soldier because we really want to talk about fun things and argue about inanities instead of this CNN guy gloating about all the dead people means ratings. Well, so James O'Keefe gets suspended from Twitter. They sent a journalist to confront Brian Stelter. And Brian Stelter, in the most – what's the right word? It's hard to say. I want to say a combination of pathetic and unwillingness to do your job and dishonesty is there a word for that

can we make a word for that probably a german word we'll call it we'll call it steltering steltering yeah it's like rupar yeah yeah steltering so this journalist says you have a comment you know your employee said you're propagating network And he goes, I feel really bad for you. And I'm like, dude, listen, first of all, who explains PR to these people? If I was confronted by somebody, don't you realize that insulting them and yelling at them makes everything worse for you? He could have just been like, I'm not the PR person. I'm not familiar with this guy. I don't really have much to say. And I'm sorry. I wish I did. And then it's like, can you answer this question? Honestly, I really can't.

I respect that you're doing journalism. I'm sorry. Talk to the networks. The network has a PR arm. You can talk to them if you want. Comment on the record. I'd be like, look, you know, I don't really know this guy. He doesn't work on my show. I'm not familiar with his opinions. I disagree with them.

I appreciate you guys are trying to get to the bottom of something you think is malfeasance you're gonna have to talk to cnn's network and get a statement that's all i can really say is that all he said he didn't say he didn't say that at all i'm saying he should have said no i'm saying is all he said i feel bad for you yes wow twice he said it and then he's like looking at security and going like get this pro away from me i wonder so i look at this guy um you know caitlin he gets brutally beaten in the quest to film and give the public a view into what these people are doing in the in the process of being beaten he's still done that he's shown you know the country in the world who these people really are i still done that. He's shown the country and the world who these people really are. I love how the activists like to say the whole world is watching. They

chanted a whole lot. They don't really chant all that much, but the world is watching and they can see these people for who they are. But you won't see that. You won't learn these things on CNN because Brian Stalter is too busy complaining about Tucker Carlson's opinions, opinions he's allowed to have. Opinions that are decently influential. Opinions that only passively affect policy. And that's his show. That's CNN.

You have these people at CNN who brag about being liars, manipulators, fear mongers. And they're millionaires for it. I can't stand that guy, Brian Stalter. And there are not a lot of people I can't stand. I'm pretty open. But, like, Mitch McConnell and Brian St it. I can't stand that guy, Brian Stelter. And there are not a lot of people I can't stand. I'm pretty open, but like Mitch McConnell and Brian Stelter, I can't stand. That's a weird combination of names. How are those guys in any position of power? Only by name recognition?

Did CNN stelt that guy up? I have no idea. Well, I mean, look, for Mitch McConnell, you know, growing up as a young turtle in a sewer who was exposed to the ooze. Oh, he got the mutagen. After he was, you know, retired, he went to a life of politics, and his notoriety as a ninja turtle really, really helped him. And as for Stelter, little known that when the ninja turtles were doused in the ooze, someone had thrown some potatoes into the gutter and the ooze at that as well. I don't really understand that.

That's pretty much it, yeah. I don't take him seriously, but that's a problem because sometimes if you just ignore people and mock them, they become very dangerous. Well, it's like in a normal world, he would be like this fringe lunatic who'd be struggling for any airtime. He'd be like Alex Jones.

You'd see him and be like, oh, that's a horrible disinformation. He would be like Alex Jones? Right. Or treated like Alex Jones is currently treated. Exactly. That's a better way to put it. Because he is. Right. Actually.

No, no, no. Right. Like, I think, I mean, if you force me to. That's unfair to Alex Jones. Exactly. I think that's a very unfair comparison. I didn't, I mean, and I'm sorry, Alex. I didn't mean to, you know, dare compare you to Brian Stelter.

But you mean he'd be ostracized by society? Right. He'd be ostracized by society. He'd be, you know, struggling to even get work. He'd be struggling to stay on platforms because people would be like, wow, this guy's super dishonest and spreading disinformation constantly. And I feel that way constantly. Like, there's so many things that the left does. And it's like, I just imagine if you were, you know, I think about the kind of tightrope I have to walk to keep my platform.

And I'm like, you guys can just do the most absurd fake news. I mean, the Russian bounty story. Amazing. Election disinformation, right? If the right had something like that and it was revealed, everybody who promulgated it would have been deplatformed. Yep. Imagine how it works with the fact checkers.

I'll tell you a story. There was a guy. The AP published a story. There was a guy uh the ap published a story there was some guy who took credit for some action and i said based on my investigation and and you know i did preliminary preliminary investigation this is fake news the ap is publishing you know bunk information youtube deleted my video saying it was like a guidelines like community violation i don't know the exact reason because i wasn't given a legitimate one it was you know community guidelines violation and then two days later i think it was or a day later the ap issued a retraction saying we were wrong here's what really happened and it

backed up my story and then youtube reinstated my video the assumption is that the ap must be correct and tim pool random youtuber must be wrong meanwhile we're the ones fact checking the establishment they call those gatekeepers and they're very dangerous for a free and open society. If ABC News has an intern who writes an article that says, Ian Crossland did a backflip. We're back on the Ian Crossland does things. I'm down with this backflip thing. And then I come out as someone who knows Ian and say,

this is just not true. Don't defame me, Tim. The fact-checkers will say, Tim is just not true. Don't defame me, Tim. The fact checkers will say, Tim Poole lied and published false information. ABC News reported this happened. And if I would say, no, Tim is right, ABC lied, they'd be like, Ian Crossland is not a credible source.

That's right. They'd say he's lying to defend himself. So the point is, when CNN, NBC, or ABC, or MSNBC, or any of these outlets make a claim, it is assumed to be true no matter what, with or without sources. Here's what I love about Veritas. James O'Keefe literally posts a video where it's a guy saying that CNN is propaganda. And they're like, that's deceptively edited. Meanwhile, the New York Times is like a source familiar with how Trump thinks, believes

that Trump wants to kick a puppy. And that's like a headline story because what some guy in an alley was ranting about, he can read Trump's mind. That's fact news, though. Remember that video I took of the Trump worker being kicked out of the polling place? The poll watcher. That got fact-checked into oblivion. Nobody ever called me. And the fact-checks

were wrong. They were all like, he was let in later. False. He was not. He never went back. I was with him all day. So some context. During election day, you went, you were there, and you filmed a poll watcher being removed. Yeah. Or being barred entry. Yeah, being refused entry into a polling place. We needed a certificate that guaranteed him, that gave him the right to enter any polling

place in the city of Philadelphia. They wouldn't let him in. They wouldn't let him in. Fact checkers claimed you were lying. Fact checkers claimed, I was first, there was one fact checker who claimed i was it was i was just lying that the guy didn't have the right to be there false then fact checkers later claimed based on a report you know they got a they called the city and the city said oh this guy was let back in they didn't call us i have i have a twitter account you know like you could reach out and say

like did was he ever let back in because the answer was no he never was let back in it's good oh sorry interrupt no but it's just it's just i was gonna say it's funny to think how much people actually lie but it not it's not funny like i'm not laughing about it but it's so prevalent like i don't think about it because i don't lie during the day for the most part i'm honest but there it's just so common you know why people are scared of james o'keefe because they're gonna get caught lying yeah and you know who people are scared of James O'Keefe? Because they're going to get caught lying. Yeah. And do you know who's not scared of James O'Keefe?

Me. Anybody. Everybody here, we've hung out with him because the things we say in the show are the things we say in real life. There's no secret where it's like, okay, James, here's what we really think. No, it's like I invite him on to tell him what I really think. Yeah, we all say our opinions. I do recognize there's a problem in that in the digital space. Certain opinions are banned, and we're just happy to have a – we're lucky enough to have opinions that fall into the right area.

But when I'm talking with anybody from the left or the right, I say the same things I say on here as I say off the show. The only difference is I won't say people – like I'll avoid saying someone's name if they're like a – certain individuals to avoid causing like a brigade or something. I'll say people's names privately because it's not going to go out into the ether and then cause someone to get a bunch of emails or something. That's about it. A lot of people are scared of it.

This deception world is crazy that like the city would say that he came back. Yeah, and they didn't check up with us i mean i think some other poll watcher eventually went back to that polling place but it wasn't the one that was in the video because i was with them all day and they and they just reported that as like as true without reaching out to us and i mean the fact that the original fact checks were wrong i mean it was just it was really embarrassing for them even like when you call the bank and you're like i have an overdraft fee can you help me they're like like, I can't. They're lying to you.

Of course they can. And then if you push them a little bit and say, can I talk to your manager? They'll go, okay, hold one second. Oh, hello, Mr. Cross, and I was able to take that charge off. I want to talk about Project Veritas because I mentioned this a bit yesterday, a bit earlier today, but I really do think that what they're doing is probably the most consequential and important, whatever you want to call it, fighting battles that anyone in the culture war is doing. Because James is not only doing the investigations, publishing videos of people saying these things. He's fighting the legal battles, suing the New York Times, which has, let me ask you this. I'll make a few more

points. Suing the New York Times, suing CNN. Now he's going to be suing Twitter. He's not backing down. He is going nuclear and he's doing so much more than anyone else is willing to do. He's willing to just refuse to bend the knee in any capacity. And there are so many people that, I get mad at these cops in the Minneapolis area who can see what's happening with show and his other cops. And they're like, well, I'm going to stay here. It's fine. I'm not going to stand up. I'm not going to speak out because a lot of cops did. They quit. They refused. We had this story people mentioned. I think it was in Denver, I guess, like 20 cops were like, nope, we out. But some of these cops are like, I'll keep my head down

and say nothing. James is the opposite of that. That's why I respect him because he's like, I'm going to stand up and scream twice as loud now. So let's, let's, let's, let's talk about this. I have a question for you. Will, um, in the New York times lawsuit for with Veritas, the judge said, uh, when he, so the New York times filed a motion to dismiss saying that their reporters were making opinions, which are unactionable. And the judge said, if you, if you have a fact-based news story and your reporters interject their opinions, it stands to reason you should inform your readers of that.

For one, I'm curious of your opinions on his ruling and what that might mean. But does this in any way set precedent that we could use moving forward? I mean, a New York state court opinion is weak precedent generally because it's a New York judge applying New York defamation law in a New York court. But it works for New York? I mean, it probably works in federal district court. It's also not an appellate court ruling, which really, you know, if you actually want precedent that binds future courts and really influences courts far and wide, a single state district judge is not going to do it generally. That said, I think this could go up on appeal and you could get an appellate opinion from the New York, because I assume the New York Times is going to appeal this if they don't settle it.

And I think it could be valuable there. I think it's just generally, I mean, it's a great opinion though. And it provides a sort of template for how to approach these things when the New York Times does this in the future or any other outlet does it i mean that's a very persuasive point like you don't get to suddenly claim you're an opinion outlet when you're writing a news article and then saying somebody is deceptive and misinforming people i've had a lot of lawyers tell me this that when a news article smears me it's an opinion and i'm like how does someone claim to be fact based real news publish opinion pieces and and get away with it without any accountability? I mean, it's, you know, even then, remember, he just got passed a motion to dismiss.

He's still got to prove actual malice. I mean, he's alleged it. And I think there was a circumstance where, you know, for some reason, the timing of, in particular, I think it was the timing of this article and how quickly it went up. Right. It's like within 63 minutes. Within within 63 minutes or something that was what the judge used to infer actual malice and infer that they didn't even have time to try right they still published it anyway the new york times i think they claimed that if you read james's wikipedia that shows that he has no ability to sue anyone at any point because he is so defamed it's an interesting argument because i get it right the average person sees this and assumes all of these things are true and correct

so that brings me to the wikipedia argument where if wikipedia is claiming that like we got very serious problems right now i guess the issue is james is like one of the few people going to war like where's everybody else i don't know how else you you you you you know well for rally the troops for just a little help i pull up bill ayers wikipedia i don't know if you guys can do that oh yeah but like i just from the weather this is the weather underground terrorist right weather underground terrorist uh excuse me will excuse me william charles ayers is an american elementary education theorist. Oh. Oh, yeah. And he was a leader of a militant group

described by the FBI as a terrorist group that opposed Ayers' involvement in the Vietnam War. Oh, that's all they did? He is known for his 1960s radical activism and his later work in education reform curriculum and instruction. Oh, he is? That's what he's known for?

Not setting off bombs all over the country? And they say Project Veritas is a far-right activist group that engages in disinformation. You're talking about Enrique Tarrio, the chairman of the Proud Boys, a far-right neo-fascist and male-only white nationalist that promotes and engages in political violence?

That sounds right, yeah. Not setting off bombs, by the way. Right, yeah. How many bombs has Inri Atario set off? Zero. Zero? It does say in the next paragraph he engaged in a campaign of bombing public buildings, including police stations, the U.S. Capitol, and the Pentagon.

Secondary. Wow. Thanks for bringing that to my attention in the second paragraph. Why doesn't it say, William Charles Ayers is a far-left terrorist and conspiracy theorist who is most known for engaging in terroristic plots and insurrection

against the United States. That would be pretty accurate. Yeah. Or at least like you've got to have the same sort of neutralizing like I mean I've seen so many people on our side who have Wikipedia profiles that begin just like the one about Enrique Tarrio for rights and opinion. It's yeah it's an immediately it's an opinion saying

William Charles Ayers and an American elementary educational theorist is rick itario far right's an opinion it's yeah it's an immediately it's an opinion saying william charles ayers an american elementary educational theorist is a fact you can argue some of it's an opinion like what does it mean to be a theorist but no like he does that yes you could also say he's a terrorist that's also a fact also true but if you said he was far left far right you know or whatever they say self-described communist. You know why? Because calling him a communist could be an opinion. They say he was, you know, a founding man, a co-founder of the Weather Underground, a self-described communist revolutionary group. They're very careful when it comes to Bill Ayers. With everyone else from people like Mike Cernovich, Jack Posobiec, or Project Veritas, James O'Keefe, they assert a bunch of opinions. They're deceptive,

they're misleading, they're conspiracy theorists, they assert a bunch of opinions. They're deceptive. They're misleading. They're conspiracy theorists. They're far right. None of which are statements of fact. Why is Wikipedia engaging in opinion articles about people? It's 230. 230 is so broad. And I mean, this is actually one area where I think I really think we could do without 230.

I mean, I think, you know, or very much narrow it so that like, you know, Wikipedia, OK, it has its little it has its pages and people can access them if they want. But if they show up on Google searches, which they do, then that's Wikipedia publishing them. So they're now liable for whatever. I made this argument the other day. This bill, this, let me pull up James O'Keefe. This is going to be good. Well, we showed this the other day.

We'll pull up, We'll pull up James. He's an American conservative political activist and provocateur. What's a provocateur? That's an opinion. What has he done that can be definitively stated as being a provocateur? He's a journalist. American journalist. He's an investigative journalist.

Has James ever called himself a conservative activist? I don't think so. I don't think he's ever referred to himself that way. I don't think he's ever referred to himself that way. I don't think he's ever referred to himself as an activist. I mean, again, Bill Ayers bombed a federal building. Yes. James O'Keefe filmed people saying some things they wish they didn't. One's a far-right activist.

Or they're both activists in this respect. But one is first off defined as being an education theorist. So here's the point I brought up the other day. Wikipedia right here, this is, whose name is next to this statement? Wikipedia.

In a comment section for which Section 230 is designed, the username appears. On Twitter, your picture and your username appears. On Facebook, your profile picture,

your name appears. On Wikipedia, it says, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. James O'Keefe, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, James O'Keefe from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Let me stop right there. The article says from Wikipedia.

I rest my case, your honor. I mean, I think, you know, as I was saying before, I think 230 has been interpreted broadly enough by the courts that it would probably be a defense to any lawsuit based on this stuff. So you're saying if I publish an article, okay, let's slow down. On timcast.com, I take the comments from people under a video. I then take the text,

put it all as an article, and then put timcast.com. This article is from timcast.com, and it says all of these insane things. They can't sue me? I mean, it depends. I mean, they could sue me, but I could argue Section 230. This is user-generated content.

Yeah, I mean, I think you probably – I mean, the way that it's been interpreted, I think you'd probably be safe. I mean, it's a very, very broad grain of immunity. I don't think we need it. I'm sorry. I know it would very much disrupt Wikipedia's current model. Good. And I'm like, good. It's a defamation engine.

That's what it is. Okay, I have a question for anybody. So 230 means that social media companies are not liable for what people say on their site, correct? So if you take that away, wouldn't that lead to more censorship? Because if they're liable for what people say, then take more of it off. Theoretically, yes. It could mean that Twitter can't exist

unless Twitter vets the people who are posting and it might revert back to everyone having their own website, which might be something better. I mean, the thing that Ian and I have been talking about for the past, I guess, what, three or four weeks is people having their own websites with open source networking technology built in so that if you have humanevents.com,

you can install this plugin, which creates a networking function where you can choose what to exclude from people who are redirected. But it basically creates this recommendation system so that I'll say, I definitely want to have human events recommended in the networking

tab of Timcast.com, and it creates a social media function on my website. I mean, I'd be okay with just a narrowed 230 that essentially allows Twitter and Facebook to continue their current business model, assuming they knock off the censorship, but also really puts the screws to Wikipedia, right? Because I think there's something particularly damaging about Wikipedia posturing as an encyclopedia that is authoritative, and yet it is just an engine of defamation. It's an opinion aggregator. But my main point is the other day I was saying that if – I mentioned your username appears next to what you say. We say that's definitively from you. What Wikipedia does is it takes the opinions,

opinions, literally opinions, framing and opinions of random people, but then it publishes them to a front-facing page that says Wikipedia on top. And some of these articles, notably the James O'Keefe article, is protected. That means Wikipedia has decided the general public is not allowed to edit this.

Only their select group of individuals. So what's defining this as user-generated? That they're not paying these people? That's it? Yeah, I mean, well, what do you think? Who's got plenty of time? So I can have users, three of them, come over to the studio, and I'll say, anyone is allowed to write on this website,

so long as you're a pre-approved user who's not getting paid. And they can write whatever they want. I can't be sued over it. That's an amazing standard. The main issue, though, is, sure, maybe someone argues, yeah, but everything on the page is a user in the back end. It says, from Wikipedia. It doesn't say, from user John Smith 123. It doesn't say, from user johnsmith123. It doesn't say, from Ian Crossland.

It literally says, James O'Keefe, from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. They are asserting. They are the people speaking these statements. Yeah. James, sue them. I mean, well, we need to rewrite 230 so that it doesn't cover this. Like, I think. How could it cover you saying, I wrote this?

It shouldn't. But you're saying it does i'm i i'm pretty sure that under current case law it does so so what if what if i said oh won't someone rid me of uh oh won't someone write me this article claiming that ian did a backflip it's just user generated content i mean you know maybe that's a little bit closer to the edge because you could be construed to be actively soliciting a defamatory content i don't know i hope no one writes that ian did a backflip still same thing so what if i say we allow everyone to submit through the website's forms like wikipedia whatever they want. And then we arbitrarily just publish some of them.

Boop, boop, boop. I don't know. Good question. I need to be deeper on current 230. No, no, no. 230 does not draw distinctions. No, it doesn't. If you're a platform, you have specific protections. But if you're a publisher, no.

Those words don't appear anywhere in 230. What the heck? Well, it's that you're not publisher... No. Those words don't appear anywhere in Section 230. What the heck? Well, it's that you're not the speaker of the content. Right, and Wikipedia is acting as the speaker of the content in this case. I'm paraphrasing, but online digital platforms cannot be held liable for content provided by users of that platform. And then it also adds another provision saying you cannot hold a website responsible for the speech of its users if they're acting in good faith to remove lewd, lascivious, or otherwise objectionable content. It's a slight tweak on that. It's that you can't – they're not liable for that removal, right?

Good faith removal is – they're also shielded from liability for that. So they're allowed to moderate. They're allowed to remove things they don't like. And they're allowed to literally publish things. But it's not their opinion. So it's fine. Is it for any website? Or is this just any social network? All of them. I don't think that these contributors or users... It protects the New York Times from their comment section. No, no, no. Why wouldn't it protect an article?

An article is like that's actually the New York Times speaking, right? Well, what's the difference between the New York Times publishing an article on Wikipedia saying, from Wikipedia? It's an employee of the New York Times who's actually writing the content. This is great. This means I can start a newspaper

and just not pay people. People would love to write for me, and then I can never be sued. you can just put the pages on the website and let people write you know and and not well well look the goal is like with wikipedia they put protection on these articles so only their select people can make changes yeah i mean i think that that's an interesting argument i wonder if that's been tried it's it's like we're deep into 230 law now and i'm i'm not a i am i know a decent amount about 230, but I'm not deep enough about the finer points of when something is protected and when it's not. All right. How about we just start a fund, raise a couple million dollars, and then just launch a volley of lawsuits based on Wikipedia claiming the articles are from Wikipedia?

Let's just write some new state laws. Texas has got a great law that's on the books right now. It basically says if you wrongfully censor someone for their political beliefs you're liable they can walk into court get an injunction that's great and get an attorney's fees but how do you how do you deal with the the defamation machine the defamation machine i think smear merchants i think i think you need you just need to amend the law that basically says if you affirm if you amplify or like redirect the comments basically what Basically, I think a world where Wikipedia was just a web page where people could post

and that's all that happened, I would be able to say, okay, you're protected from liability for what people post since you're just opening it up to the world. But the moment Wikipedia is redirecting information about Wikipedia entries to Google, okay, now you're speaking.

You're adopting these views now. And so I don't know how to... I think you could probably write a law. It would be tricky to do it. But in general... general you're not going to get it at the federal level yeah i mean not not anytime soon so i mean maybe but and the state law can't conflict with federal law too so you can't that particular law couldn't be done at the state level right if you like if if it conflicts with existing federal law revolving around uh section 230 you know federal there's the supremacy clause, right? The federal government can't legislate everywhere.

But when it does, state law can't conflict with it. So I guess we need we can't wait for this law to get passed. I mean, look, Texas might be doing that, but I mean, we can try suits, but I don't think the suits will work. Right. I really think this is one of those cases. Sometimes the federal government writes a law that insulates people from liability, and the only way to be able to sue them in the future is to get that law repealed.

All right, so someone needs to call Ron DeSantis and be like, can you guys do this, please? They're doing that censorship bill. They're doing a good censorship bill. I think the Texas one's a little better. Texas one's a little more focused on protecting just average citizens. The Florida one was focused on political candidates, if I remember correctly, and didn't provide, like, a broad private right of action for citizens who were censored.

Texas has got it nailed down. Texas is doing it exactly right. When can we expect that? Do you know? I think it's working its way through the – I don't know. I'm not exactly sure. It might have passed already. I don't know.

I mean, I know that it was Governor of Texas announced his support for it, and I think it was. I've got to be honest. If Texas passes that law, some soon, I think we might relocate there. I think it's a strong possibility we would relocate there. Oh, yeah. I mean, that would be the state where you'd actually have protections. Now, again, there's another interesting problem, which is does 230 preempt that, too? Because 230 says you have this liability

shield for good faith removal and texas is saying no you don't effectively like private citizens can sue you if you censor their political beliefs now you know maybe there's no tension there because good faith might not be political censorship that's one avenue but there's also justice thomas had that opinion a few like a week ago i don't remember exactly what day it came out. Oh, yeah. But he made an interesting argument that he says, actually, if a federal law preempts a state law that is granting people free speech rights, the federal law has a First Amendment problem. So 230 as applied to try and overturn a state law

that protects people's right to speak online, as applied, that might fall apart on a First Amendment challenge. So that hasn't been tested at all, but literally that whole opinion was just Clarence Thomas being like, hey, states, here's how you can protect people if you want to try. And here's some ways that this will survive legally. So I need to find out more about this because i gotta be honest you know a lot of people are moving to texas uh i've got you know i just did a quick google search texas senate committee heard legislation on monday aiming to prohibit social media platforms from censoring users based on their viewpoints senate bill sb12 filed by senator brian hughes of miniola let Let's pop this open to what we got here.

Introduced Senate committee report engrossed. I don't know what any of that means. I'll have to look into this. But I got to be honest. We got a big operation going on here. Here's the thing, though. If Texas offers up these protections, we have no choice but to move there.

You know why? My business could be shut down overnight. Yeah. These platforms could just nuke us overnight. Everybody loses their jobs. Go to Texas. We have recourse. I would have no choice if this bill passes to do that. Well, I guess I'll need to move too. I guess we'll all need to move. I think, I think most people would go to Texas. I mean, I, you know, there, there is interesting things about DC. I mean, you know, there is interesting things about D.C. with, you know, political viewpoint, political party or affiliation as a protected class. But that doesn't do anything about big tech. No, I don't think so. I mean, and this is what, you know, the funny thing is I remember two years ago I've been advocating for exactly this type of law.

I was hoping we'd get it done at the federal level. But, man, if we can get it at the state level and, you know, we get some friendly judges who look at it the same way Thomas does, right? Federal preemption of a state-created speech right. That would be, I mean. That's fascinating. I mean, and because that would basically, and honestly, it would have to, I think, you know, Twitter and Facebook and YouTube would probably at that point stop censoring everybody because they wouldn't want to risk somebody being in Texas and having a cause of action. But wouldn't, so let's say you're in Texas. They pass this bill.

You know, it becomes law. The governor signs it. You get censored. And so you immediately go into a court, file the paperwork or whatever. What would you say? You file an injunction? So you file a, I mean, you file a complaint, right? That's any lawsuit begins with a complaint.

And then you also file a motion for a preliminary injunction. Which gives you your accounts back. Right. Like if you win that motion, you get your account back. That could be really quickly, couldn't it? Yeah. I mean, injunctions can get heard very fast. Sometimes there's temporary restraining orders that are super fast.

But then a preliminary injunction can happen. You can get a decision on that within weeks if you want. So let me ask. Let's say I'm in Texas and we're doing the show. And then one day, boom, YouTube's gone. So I file a complaint and I request an emergency injunction because my business is now at risk and all of my employees could be out of work unless this is reversed. You think it's likely a judge would say, reverse this until we can hear the case. Probably.

Probably. They would probably issue, you know, you'd probably win your injunction given the nature of the law. And then, right, once you win your injunction, they have to let you keep your account until, I would assume, until it's adjudicated. Now, then they say, but Section 230 grants us this immunity, right? Mm-hmm. Let's say that the – so who would hear that case? Would it go to a federal court then? So, I mean, they could – so it depends.

I mean, they could probably remove it to federal court, right? Like there's enough money at issue that that would be what's called diversity jurisdiction. So two bases of federal court jurisdiction. This is one out. What else learned their first day of civil procedure. Okay. Two bases of federal court jurisdiction.

And there has to be a federal question, meaning it's a federal, you're suing under a federal law or there's diversity jurisdiction, which means the parties are from different States and there's at least $75,000 at issue. So this would be a state law, so it probably wouldn't be a federal question, although they might make a First Amendment claim. I'd have to reread my work to think about how that would work.

But it's certainly diversity, so they could remove it into federal court in Texas. So let's say in the federal court the judge hears it and says, I understand Section 230, but we have a free speech issue where the First Amendment is supposed to protect the rights of the individual. And if Texas is protecting the speech rights, the First Amendment can't supersede that. So I rule in favor of the complainant, right? Right. They sue. It goes to the Supreme Court, I'd imagine.

If it goes, it could potentially. I'd actually have to think about whether or not they'd have the right to appeal at that point if you have an injunction granted. I think you probably would have the right to appeal that right away. So let's say YouTube then appeals. You'd appeal that to the Federal Appeals Court. So that would be the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Then they would have a fairly quick hearing on the injunction. And then if they lose there, they can appeal.

So let's say they agree with you, and then YouTube appeals again. Then it goes to Supreme Court? Yeah, Supreme Court. They would be applying for a stay of the injunction. Now here's my final question. If the Supreme Court agrees with me in that case, would it impact the rest of the country? Depends on how they wrote the opinion.

So if they write it unpublished or non-precedential, it wouldn't, but they could easily, just as easily write a precedential opinion on the injunction if they wanted to. And then that would be binding law. Why would they do one or the other? Sometimes they don't like putting out precedential opinions if it's like a very new issue. They kind of want to let lower courts handle it and like get more reasoned opinions. Also in a rush, they don't like putting out, uh, because the part of the thing is there, whenever they make a rule, it affects everyone, everything, a variety of different body of

laws. So oftentimes like when they're forced to issue a ruling or an opinion on, on kind of short notice, cause it's an injunction, they are reluctant to make it like precedential. So there, there are reasons, you know, they want, so whenever something's precedential, they want to be careful and give it full review. So there's some reason, you know, in a very, very emergency circumstance, they might issue, like, a non-precedential opinion. It seems tough, though.

It seems like the likelihood throughout the, first, the Texas judge is probably going to side with you because the Texas law says you can't do this. But then they're going to kick it to a federal court. And then you have what the first federal judge, the appellate, and then the Supreme court. Yeah. I mean, I mean, probably wouldn't even, you know, the, I'm not sure the state judge might grant you that immediate temporary restraining order before the case is removed to federal

court. Could the federal judge say, I don't want to hear it. State, state law stands. A federal judge could, I mean, the federal judge could maybe say there's not even a federal court. I mean, it's possible there's not jurisdiction. Probably not. The federal judge would have to mean, the federal judge could maybe say there's not even a federal court. I mean, it's possible there's not jurisdiction. Probably not. The federal judge would have to rule on the injunction.

They could say, they could disagree, right? They could say First Amendment doesn't apply. We're denying your injunction. Then you could appeal or vice versa. They could go either way. So basically, Texas is granting you the right to this platform to speak, and the federal government would have to deny you that right. Right, exactly, which is sort of – and there's precedent in different contexts where – not in the tech context, but it's like in the union stuff. There was some Supreme Court case where the Supreme Court said something like if a federal law preempts a state right that grants the right to speak, that's a First Amendment issue.

And there's a First Amendment prohibition against that. I wonder if you were suing YouTube, for instance, in Texas, but if YouTube's like a Delaware corporation, and you were in Texas, would that automatically be across state lines and immediately become a federal issue? Depends. And so this is another classic 1L civil procedure issue, which is a corporation is located in its principal place of business and its place of incorporation for diversity purposes. So Google is a primary place of business in California, Delaware Corporation.

So if you are a resident of either Delaware or California, diversity jurisdiction wouldn't be available. But if you were a resident of Texas, it would. Man, I think there's an easier solution to this. I think, Ian, you were saying in three months we can have this thing up and running? That was one person mentioned that if we had 10 dedicated full-time developers that it could be ready in three months. So that's like optimal pie in the sky, I think, three months. But, yeah, something, I mean, within the year for sure, I would imagine.

But what if we got like 100, you know, open source community active communication in a Discord server? It would be good, and we're getting close to that, but there are diminishing returns when people code over each other. Forking. Yeah, too many cooks in the kitchen. So you want a crack team of experts and specialists. So what I want to do is I want to make it, there's one

big thing that makes YouTube dominant and that's you make money on YouTube. There's a reason why people don't use these other platforms. People get banned from YouTube and they'll say, okay, fine, now I'll go to minds.com. But you make money on YouTube. Now, Minds was smart about this and they implemented a way to make money on Minds as well

and the token's actually worth like three bucks now. So I have all my videos automatically post on Minds and everything. But for most people they need to make money. So we want to make a way that you get an open source piece of software free for everyone that makes it very easy to install a website. You buy server space, boom, you install it. It's a functioning website where you can

easily post things. WordPress already makes it particularly easy. So we're also going to provide instructions for people because there's some learning curve. But it includes subscription functionality so that you can easily plug in if you're using PayPal, Stripe, or some other e-commerce platform. Then you have a members only. Isn't Ghost doing something like this? Because this sounds similar to Substack. But Ghost, I think... Except this is going to be you on your server with your domain however you do it you own it and no one can ban you but yourself that's ghost i'm pretty sure i don't know if

you guys are familiar with no i'm gonna look them up though yeah it exists yeah i think it might exist already so you like drop drop it onto your server and boom and then you got right right good like i don't know if you know balaji srinivasan he wrote about this right he was like writing about like how you know after twitter, how do you do this? Substack is still centralized. Substack is its own platform. But Ghost is something you implement on your own website. Do you know what the website is?

If I Google search Ghost, I'm not going to find it. Not that hard. Not that hard. But listen, there's one other thing. Maybe they've added this. Ghost.org, if you want to find it. We want to add a networking functionality because the next big thing about YouTube is that it markets you for you. Instead of buying marketing like a traditional show, if YouTube likes you and thinks they'll make money off you, they'll start promoting your work.

So what we want to add to these websites is a networking section that's part of the package. Now you'll have on your site the ability to remove certain people so they won't appear on your site, certain words, phrases, or things. It's your choice. But it's your website. So then if someone goes to TimCast.com, then this software allows people to comment, be users. It's connected to the Fediverse. So the networking section functions like chat rooms or Twitter. But then they can also see recommended shows that are very similar based on keywords. So it'll be like human events and Carl Benjamin, Lotus Eater's podcast.

And then they'll be like, oh, cool. And they can get that recommendation feed like they would on any other platform. But it's a decentralized network of people just running these sites. I was just thinking a cool feature would be if you opted in for your site to be found on other sites, then Tim could put my site on his site and if someone found me through tim's site tim would get five percent of the revenue so you would be able to opt into that it's not ghost ghost is a free trial service sign up it's like you get 14 days free trial i'm talking about we would give you there's like a plugin oh it's like

free it's just totally free absolutely free for everybody and you own it 100 it's open source code it's just free to free to use when you open it boom all of a sudden your website has like a post section for you you log in you just like click a post like you would be on twitter or whatever you upload a video and then you can click a lock button and lock it and say five dollar members only and then people can click become a member you'll need your own accounts maybe Maybe PayPal bans you. Maybe Stripe bans you. Maybe your domain bans you. Well, those are other services you can't get around. But there won't be a Patreon CEO who bans you. There won't be a Jack Conte who bans you. And then in order to, he's the CEO of Patreon, in order to then network with other people, it's in the Fediverse.

The Fediverse, for people who don't know, is basically like a Twitter protocol where different servers can communicate with each other. So you could follow someone on Gab, but also see them on a different server, a different website altogether. So then we basically create probably the way it should be. If we do that, we don't need Section 230. That's true. I mean, I really would like to create a world where these people are irrelevant, right? I think that's the end goal. And I mean, I'm all for it i'm not a tech guy i don't know tech i know law and so i'm just like okay how do i use how do we change the law to solve the problem that's my you know that's my role i hope you guys can solve it via tech i think you can't legislate away every problem that's for sure that's true but i mean you know some people i i still have a product like

people underestimate how effective law can be solving at particular types of problems. I mean, there's a lot of background for how to solve common carrier-type problems and discrimination-type problems. I mean, that's the whole thing Clarence Thomas wrote about. He went through. You can make big tech a common carrier. You can make them have public accommodation laws. And then you create private rights of action. You don't need a bureaucracy to solve civil rights like you literally can just do it through people

litigating very briefly how do you feel about legislating gun rights like saying limiting people's gun rights when there are 3d printers that can print those weapons in secret i mean i i basically think i'm a constitutionalist on that i think you know heller is right we shouldn't you know guns that are in common you shouldn't be regulated uh i think you know i mean i'm not a i guess i wouldn't say i'm an absolutist in the sense that i think all current gun laws are unlawful or something via the second amendment because i think even at the time of the founding there were some some restrictions out there and i think i mean i remember there was some stuff you were saying about like for example i think it's okay to prohibit like violent felons from owning guns

right like i i'm okay with that law i disagree with it what gets me is when they try and say it's illegal to have this kind of gun but then it can be 3d printed in someone's basement like you can't yeah you can't back that like you can't enforce that law Yeah, it's bad to have laws that are unenforceable in general. I don't like unenforceable laws. But, you know, I mean, I saw you were like, you were going through the Daunte Wright case and be like, that person should have been arrested or whatever for the gun check. Well, but there was also the aggravated robbery, which is a different story. Right. Well, I mean, but yeah, like my view is, okay, so the guy gets out, you know, he's arrested for aggravated robbery and indicted and trial dates in two years. Well, we want to give him bail. Okay, but he's been's arrested for aggravated robbery and indicted and trial dates in two years. Well, we want to give him bail.

Okay, but he's been indicted for aggravated robbery. Like, I think it's a reasonable condition of bail that you not possess a firearm at that point. Yeah, I agree. Right. Right. My position is after they get out of prison and we're like, you've paid your debt to society, they get their rights back.

I think that's more defensible, but I'm still okay with laws that say certain violent felonies. If you committed a violent felony, you forfeit that right in the same way that you forfeit a voting right. I think you should have the right to vote. If you're in prison, maybe not. If you're in prison, you obviously don't get a gun. But if you're out, I just don't like the idea of second-class citizens for any reason. I agree. People have to be brought back in, and we have to give people the opportunity.

Because the problem with these felony laws – I'll tell you a story. I worked at a smoothie shop once, and this woman who worked there apparently was like telling – so I overheard this, so I could be wrong. It's been like 15 years a woman applied for a job and on the application she said that she was a felon and her felony as she explained it was that she was arrested for sleeping in an airport she was there she overstayed her ticket and she remained in the airport so they eventually arrested her with a felony for being in an airport without a ticket something like that and then they gloated about how they would not hire her and they were like as how they would not hire her.

And they were like, as if we would hire that person. And I'm like, she's trying to work a minimum wage job selling smoothies, dude. Yeah, no, I mean, that's a different, actually a different issue where I'm like totally okay with certain government programs to like subsidize the hiring of people. It's not necessarily what I, you know,

just what I mean. I'm just saying, if someone knows, no matter what I do, I am going to be a second class citizen. Why would they bother reforming themselves or trying to come back into society and doing better? They can't travel. They can't have a weapon. They can't defend themselves.

They can't vote. They're not. No taxation without representation. I don't care if you're out of jail. If the judge says your punishment for doing this will be 10 years, then after the 10 years, then we're like, welcome back. Now don't do it again. And you'll enjoy the fruits of American citizenship. But if you're a second-class citizen, you're much more likely, in my opinion, to do it again.

I agree. So then you have more people in jail. Because you view yourself as an outsider at that point. You're like, I'm not a part of your system. I'll do what I want. And if you can't get a job, then it's, you mean that seems i mean i would focus on the job part i just don't think you're entitled to vote at that point i don't think that i mean i'm also more of a utilitarian when it comes to voting i don't like you know then i'll say this shall not be infringed

yeah but shall not kill should 13 year olds 13 years be allowed to buy guns no shall not kill. Should 13-year-olds be allowed to buy guns? No. Shall not be infringed. In 1789, were there 15-year-olds who owned their own property and were running businesses? I mean, there are still those possession laws, right? For example, Rittenhouse. I mean, I'm pretty sure. I know they're trying to prosecute him for unlawful possession of that firearm, but my reading of the law says it was lawful. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I've heard some other experts talk about this. Now, let me clarify, too. I'm actually just giving a very harsh interpretation of 2A. I don't think 13-year-olds should be allowed to buy guns or have guns. I think there should be – it is difficult, though, and the reason I say this is back then, way back when, the age limits were much lower for a lot of things. We've moved them up repeatedly. 18. So we set it at 16, and then it's 18.

Now it's 21. They're trying to make it 21 in some places. Eventually it'll be 30. Eventually it'll be 35. I non-ironically think we should raise the voting age to 30. Is there a constitutional amendment that says the right to voting shall not be infringed for any persons in the United States? I don't think so. There was a late constitutional amendment that reduced, I think, the voting age to 18 for everybody.

There are, I think, three amendments. It's voting age, women, and race, I believe. Yeah, but we just need to revise that one that's made it 18. We're not going to get that that that uh constitutional amendment anytime soon i don't think i was so excited um anyway let's read super chats my friends time thanks for hanging out on this friday and i don't know many of you probably want to be out you know drinking and partying clubbing but you're here listening to the uh very important conversations over at teamcast irl so i greatly appreciate it if you haven't already smashed that

like button and comment because it really does help. You're basically, you know, the engagement is a great thing and we appreciate it. And if you're listening on iTunes or Spotify, leave us a good review. Give us five stars. Go to TimCast.com, become a member and, excuse me, we're going to have a bunch of really awesome content coming up in the future. New shows. We're in the process of reviewing new hires. So we've got, I shouted this out yesterday, a paranormal and mysteries writer which will be a part of the podcast show

and a news editor and a fact checker. We're going to have an in-house fact checker who will be despised by everybody because they're not going to hang out.

They're going to be isolated. They're going to be like internal affairs. A pariah, yeah. But we're in the process of going through these new hires. It's not so easy

to just grab a random person and be like, you're hired. We've got to check for skill, do interviews, make sure people are cool and able to do the job. So yeah, go to TimCast.com. Let's read some super chats and smash that like button if you haven't. Christian Jemgochian says, I work at a small business and I just found out that one of my coworkers watches your content as much as I do. So I'm finally able to talk politics with someone who respects free thought.

Awesome. Hey, glad to hear it. Good stuff. John Lee says, hey, Tim, when is the chicken stream starting and is it 24 hours? Yes, and soon. You see the chickens we have outside? No, I do not. They're getting so big so fast.

Growing fast, yeah. Spring chickens. Okay. We had eight. Unfortunately, two didn't make it. They were... They succumbed to the worm. I was listening to some podcast by Ryan Holiday,

and he was talking about if you own a farm, you get much more familiar with death broadly because you own chickens and they die. They had parasites, and we immediately went to a vet, was provided with medicine, and the medicine wasn't enough. It's too late.

We called the chicken farmer guy who we bought it from, and he's like, look, sometimes there's weak chickens. They don't make it. And you try everything. And so we were sad. You know, two of them didn't make it. But these ones we have that are six are awesome. One of them almost died.

So they were getting sick. And when we started giving medicine, two didn't make it. So we immediately, one of them that looked like it may be a little sick, we immediately just started giving it the medicine. And it's smaller than the rest because I think it would have died if we did not give it that medicine. But we're going to be setting up a series of cameras. It's going to be 24-7 live chicken camp. Tim Pool's chickens.

That's right. Absolutely. It's called the Chicken City. Well, according to this article from PETA, chickens are arguably the most abused animals on the planet not ours not yours ours are the most pampered i'm glad you're taking care of these yeah we're gonna we're gonna have them lovely ladies we're we're gonna get the eggs from them it's gonna be fantastic we're gonna have a camera a camera on the on the the chicken city 24 7 and they're hilarious little things uh they're smart enough to know not to drink their water that's full of feces, but they're not smart enough to not take a dump in their water.

So it's like, yeah, so Andy, who does the construction stuff around here, he was like, they're right in that sweet spot where they won't drink the water with their crap in it, but they're not smart enough to not crap in their water. So it creates problems. Do you build like a drinking thing like at neck level? A little higher. Yeah, maybe. Well, what we're going to do is we're going to create – we have some ideas for a water system that will automatically funnel.

Plush through. Yeah, it will be at an angle. Oh, yeah. So if they dump in it, it will float down and the water coming at the top will always be cleaner. But you got to just change their water and give them food. For the most part, they take care of themselves. They walk around eating bugs

and they eat grass a lot and they destroy everything around them. Yes, they do. It's going to be great, but we also have the Chicken City connected to our garden. Cool. So what you do is in the springtime,

you let them into the garden and they till the ground for you. They scratch it looking for bugs and then you get all this loose dirt and then you go and you plant your new plants. All right, let's see what we you plant your new plants. All right. Let's see what we got in some chats. Gouda says, when Doge crashes and lots of people loose their money, crypto will be heavily regulated.

It will hurt the industry. I don't think so. There's a funny comic. It's Cyanide and Happiness, and it was on AgedLikeMilk on Reddit. And it was someone getting... It's like a guy's robbing someone. He's like, hey, you, give me all your money. And the next panel is he goes, I don't have any.

I only use Bitcoin. And then the robber goes, you need this more than I do and handed a bunch of money to him. Because in 2014, Bitcoin went like 20 grand and then dropped down to like some really... People lost their houses. People were taking out like loans to buy Bitcoin. Yikes.

That's just a bad idea. And here's the best part. The people who panicked and sold are probably crying right now. Who could have held it? It's at $63,000. The smart investors knew. I know it dropped. I'm going to hold it until it's back.

The worst is that people... Diamond hands. I don't know anything about Bitcoin or cryptocurrency, but there's apparently the keys where you can get into your money but there's people who lost them and there's no way to get them back yeah and so i was reading this article and it's it's guys in there who have this one guy was like yeah i have two million dollars in bitcoin just a normal guy he's like i can never get it it's like a special kind of you get like 10 tries and then it self-destructs. And he was on like try number eight.

Yeah. And had no idea. Like, that sucks. And then the entropy makes the value of the... Those coins are basically out of circulation. They're going to be used. So there's less Bitcoin than it looks like. Which means they're actually more valuable than the numbers say.

It affects trade value. All right. Powder PC says, Tim, just want to let you know that the Scarlet Witch is a bad guy. She's going to be the villain in the upcoming Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness. Is that confirmed? Because that sounds really awesome.

Yeah. Yeah. It's her buildup. There was a post by Bruce Campbell where it was on April 1st. So nobody thinks it's real. Probably an April Fool's joke where it's a script from Doctor Strange where Doctor Strange goes to Evil Dead and he sees Ash, who's got the chainsaw arm or whatever. And then he's like, I'm looking for the Darkhold.

And then he's like, what's that? He's like, it's a book. And he goes, does it have a face on it? And then Doctor Strange is like, what? Because, you know, you've seen Evil Dead, right? The Necronomicon's got a face on it or whatever. Something like that. I don't know.

Whatever. If they start – I have no idea what you're talking about at all. If they start crossing – You are not a man of culture, Will. If they start crossing Doctor Strange. You look so offended. I'm sorry.

Very offended. I appreciate this look. I think the best thing Disney could do is start crossing Doctor Strange to every Disney story that they can. I don't know if they own Dark Tower or not. But Benedict Cumberbatch is such a good actor. Possibly one of the best actors on earth, maybe. I think he's top three actor, in my opinion. He could cross over into any genre,

and it would be the Doctor Strange character. He's amazing as Doctor Strange. He's fantastic. It's brilliant. I thought he was awful as Julian Assange. It was the weirdest trash I'd ever seen. Oh, I didn't see that. Yeah, I was just like...

What? It's a big role. Very weird. So I've met Assange, and I'm like... I don't know. I don't think it's Cumberbatch's fault. Wrongly cast. First thing I saw...

No, no, no. The writing of what they view Assange to be just seems like makes no sense. Did you see Star Trek when he played Khan? I liked it, yeah. He was incredible. I didn't know who he was when I saw that. I just was like... But people were mad because it was...

Who was it? Ricardo Montalban? Is that his name? Montalban? Montalban or something? I didn't know who he was when I saw that. I just was like, God, that's awesome. But people were mad because it was, who was it? Ricardo Montalban? Is that his name? Montalban. Montalban or something? I don't know. He played Khan in the original movie. Oh, okay.

So now they have this tall, white dude. Everyone got mad. He talked like this the whole time. Khan. He was very intense. I was like, oh my gosh. All right. Wayne Smith says, quote, the FBI has made an average of more than four arrests a day, seven days a week since January 6th, says Acting Deputy Attorney General John Carlin.

They can do it for the Capitol, but can't do it for looters and riders. That's right. Yeah. Well, you mean embrace the fact that you're second class citizens already? You know? Yeah, kind of. Yep. All right.

Voltage Voltage Volt says, Hello, everyone of the Beanie Compound. I finally subscribed to the website right before the show started. Been watching for about two years now. Haven't missed a show. Love you guys. Awesome. Nice. We have a massive library of content.

So if you go to Timcast.com, we have this new streamlined members area. When you click it, you actually can see just just scroll down very easily, all of these different subjects that you can watch. Some of these are like an hour long. We've got one with James O'Keefe. It's an hour where it's like a full podcast episode. So that's just part of the members only stuff. So go become members. Check that out. All right. Turk Longwell says, Tim, I mentioned in a lefty Chauvin YouTube live stream about giving 16-year-old guns with their driver's licenses. They hated the idea and called me sick. 2A, right?

You know, it's interesting. Hardcore leftists are very pro 2A. Yes. And I think it was Vosh who was tweeting that in the event things fall apart, it stands to reason you don't only want the right-wing militias to be armed. Yep. So you probably, leftists should probably want to have guns. Like it's a really good point. Yep.

I mean, that's that's Weather Underground, too. Like, again, I've read this. I read this whole book about Days of Rage, which I can recommend by Bill Burroughs, I think. And something that, you know, Bill Ayers like was famous for being in front of like a Weather Underground conference. And he's like, do you guys own a gun? Do you not understand what's coming? Like the whole idea is they're revolutionary communists they thought they wanted to do cuba here and so they're like of course we want guns yeah that's important the problem is they're

allied with the establishment left and the establishment left thinks guns are like nuclear bombs it's the craziest thing you know i really i genuinely believe if you've got somebody who's like, I'm a gun owner and guns should be banned, that's a grifter. That's absolutely a grifter because if they've actually held a weapon and they know anything about it, they know the Democrats are wrong or lying and they have no idea what they're talking about. When someone says, you know, I was in the Marines and I had a gun and we shouldn't give weapons of war to people. It's like, okay, I know you're grifting because that means you know an AR-15 is not an M16. You have no idea what you're talking about. Those people are almost always like some back office types. They were like Jags or something.

And so then you have the rest of these people. I'm confident they've never held a weapon in their life. Just not even, I wonder if they've even held like a super soaker. It's not part of the culture. There's a big cultural difference. I think that's something that liberals really struggle with, the idea. It's completely alien to them that guns would be something like you go with your kids, you hunt, you target shoot. It's like part of.

The way I described it is when I cross a busy street, I'm not worried about getting hit by a car. There's cars driving all crazy and you're walking and there's a stop sign. You really think that that sign, which is just a representation of an idea, will stop someone from slamming into in that car? Yes, because people don't want to kill you. So when I see someone walk around with a gun,

I'm not worried about them trying to kill me. Yeah, but you got to look both ways because those stop signs won't stop a car. That's right. So when you're walking near people you don't know or trust, you have to be aware of your surroundings at all times. It doesn't matter if it's a car or a guy with a gun. And if you're going to use a gun, you better know. Or a lady with a gun. You better know how to use it.

You better be trained with that thing. Yes, be responsible. Alright, David Norman says, blocking traffic during a protest is a violation of the non-aggression principle. Interesting. True. Agreed. The libertarians found something they're right about. Congratulations. Burn.

But they are quite correct, and that's why they should go to jail for doing that. All right. VBDC says, Bill Ayers also wrote Rules for Radicals. Well, that was Solinsky, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure that was Solinsky. I mean, Ayers wrote some things, but he didn't write Rules for Radicals. Well, that was Alinsky, wasn't it? I'm pretty sure that was Alinsky. I mean, Ayers wrote some things, but I don't... He didn't write Rules for Radicals. He might have written some, like...

He possibly wrote something for radicals, but that's not... That was Alinsky, which I think most people should read. I think, you know, Alinsky dedicated it to Satan, I think, as the first radical. And I just see that as... Maybe I'm my Harry Potter. I'm a little rusty, but it's like a horror character. And I just see that as... Maybe I'm in my Harry Potter, I'm a little rusty,

but it's like a Horcrux. It's something designed to prevent... Horcrux. It's something designed to prevent conservatives from reading it. They see them like, oh, gosh, terrible. Horcrux preserves the soul of the person so they can't die. Okay, well, then I have no idea what I'm talking about. All right.

But, yeah. Interesting. It repels them, yeah. Imran says, Tim, stop spreading disinformation. Firearms Policy Coalition is going after NYC and Chicago's de facto gun bans. Oh. They're already going to court for NYC, and they're building their Chicago case. Well, there you go.

Very neat. Glad someone is doing it. Ted 2 says, Tim, check out the channel Ranger Up Video. They make a weekly news segment that's legit, and more people should people should see it veteran company that started out making t-shirts you should have nick and matt on the show would be great conversation we will yeah we'll look into their channel all right let's see we will find some uh steven a says i made a bunch on the holy doge so here's a tie to the high priest of the beanie i love love my gorilla shirt. It's super soft. Awesome. Legit. Yeah. Teespring has really great shirt

quality. Yeah, I noticed it was soft. I love it. Yeah, I was impressed. Remember, if you're making money on doge, that you need to declare all that stuff as capital gains for tax purposes. If you sell it. If you receive doge from someone, you've already gained.

So that's where it gets interesting. I wonder how that would work. Let's say you give me a Doge, right? And it's worth $0.05. At the end of the year, it's now worth $0.50. Do I owe on $0.50 or $0.05? I mean, you owe on $0.05. It's the value.

I'm pretty sure you can value the gift when it was given. Ah, okay. Right. But then if you sell it, you have to pay taxes on the gain. Rad number two says, I don't care how peaceful you are blocking traffic, you're still halting everyone's right to travel without being unreasonably stopped.

That's a civil rights violation, so a felony charge is perfectly suited to that. I just love how the commenters are totally supporting my side of the debate. This is fantastic. It's a war. We're open to differences of opinion. I got mixed feelings because I agree with you, but I also acknowledge the United States is an act of civil disobedience.

Right. You know, this is sort of a dilemma. I mean, this is the Hamilton dilemma, right? Hamilton really quickly realized, like, hey, you know, we can't just be revolting all the time. People actually do need to respect lawful authority. And, you know, that's part of it. Now that we've removed the king everybody must stop

revolting because i'm in charge now and must respect me no he's not a tyrant yeah but i mean he you know he was second in command you know he was a hamilton basically built the federal government like yeah we sort of underestimate that but a primary author of the constitution responsible for many of the early departments and a lot of brilliant, like the plan for manufacturers and economics. I mean, brilliant guy. But yeah, I mean, he was, you know, he was sort of a half monarchist in his own way. And anyway, so I'm a big believer in law and order. So yes, we are founded on revolution.

That's great. Like, we don't want to have revolutions every week. Stephen Sherman with a massive super tip says, you are a Republican. You just don't know how our freedom works together. Now, do you mean like little are Republican as in like the Republic or the political party? Because I'm not a fan of the Republican Party. Yeah, not either. Well, I remember still, I always chuckle because I remember we had like a conversation before we did one of our shows, like a YouTube show a couple years ago.

We had a conversation where you're like, well, you know, it seems like we agree on everything. And yet you're a Trump guy. And then you became a Trump guy. And then you became a Trump guy. Yeah, but the issue was Trump released a comprehensive list of things he was going for. And I was like, I can get behind that. That's good. I mean, that's all true. I don't know.

Like, I was always, you know, my view of, you know, I can be annoyed at the Republican Party, but at the end of the day, like, I don't think it's responsible to let Democrats have power if it can be avoided. That's true. I get that. But I think my bigger point was that on the issues that are relevant today in politics, we mostly agree. That's true. But even though there's probably a wide range of things we completely disagree on, like we disagreed today on, you know, that's true on the protest stuff. I have a fairly lefty view on the protest stuff.

That's true. And it's interesting how when you're honest and you understand the truth, and you're like, we actually know when the news is lying. So there's no issue when we're like, oh, I disagree. Oh, okay.

The issue is when the left believes things that aren't true and you confront them with the truth and they lose their minds because of it or they don't want you to say things that can conflict their worldview or they're just bigoted. I mean, that's a big problem that I see.

I mean, just people losing friendships, people disowning their family. I mean, that's, that's cult stuff. You know, it's,

we were watching a lot of the Scientology in the aftermath, the Leah Romney show. and you know, Scientology has gets all this flack for disconnection, um, which is the policy, but like somebody leaves the church, their whole family needs to disconnect from them.

And I'm like, this is what woke liberals do. Woke liberals watch the show and are like, oh, that's crazy. I would never do that. Also, I disown my racist uncle for being a racist. This is the problem. There are a lot of people who are like, I'm a big fan of the show. And I'm like, prominent people are like, why don't you come on? Well, I mean, look, I work with a lot of people.

And I'm like, dude, do you really want to live that way? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Hold on. I'm not entirely sure how you really could be a fan of the show if you're also unwilling to actually just stand up for yourself and say, I just happen to like the show. There's nothing more freeing than being in this space, honestly. Like, at least, you know, I don't have to worry about Twitter. I have to worry about somebody else. But at the end of the day, like, I don't have to worry that I'm going to say something

that leads to me being fired, and I don't have to worry about saying something that, you know, I just can say what I think. The thing is, for most conservatives that come on this show, this show is leftward for them. No conservative is going to be like, Will, why are you talking to Tim Pool? Don't you know he was yelling about taxing the rich? What are you doing, man? No conservative will do that. Conservatives will come here and be like will why are you talking to tim pool don't you know he was yelling about taxing the rich what are you doing man you're no conservative will do that conservatives will come here and be like i think you're wrong and i'll be like i think you're wrong like well that was fun yeah but if we go if you know if we cross that line to the tribal left or i should

i'm sorry if the tribal left crosses the line in this direction to rightward then they get harassed and berated and attacked and they're scared i mean the funny thing is they probably sorry i'll let you go just one last point they would probably say like how dare you give tim pool a platform yeah which is like the most hilarious thing yeah well because for them they say things like oh speech is this speech is violence exactly it is literally not like that is quite literally untrue yes but like and sayings like that, when you actually believe stuff like that, then it does become unacceptable behavior to go on Tim Pool's show. There is one way that speech can be violence.

If it's really loud? If it's really loud. There you go. If you scream and – I hate loud bars. Does anybody else hate loud bars? It's violence. Silence, I can tell you that.

I hate loud bars. No, but if you called? It's violence. Silence, I can tell you that. I hate loud bars. No, but if you got close to someone and screamed the Second Amendment over and over again into their ears as loud as possible. We're not the ones screaming, okay? Your speech is hurting somebody. Literal violence. Literally. Yeah.

All right, Corey. It's the only exception. Corey Hill. Ooh, this is important. It says, Tim, we have been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty. Oh. Have you guys been getting those calls? You should answer that.

Yes. Why? I was just kidding. No. When they call me, I go, which one? I have been getting those. I've been getting some call. I usually delete it after the first three seconds.

Scam likely. Yeah. Scam likely. Ruslin says, hey, Tim, Ian, SB 519 in California is going to legalize DMT. This is weird because I am on the fence with this bill. That's so weird that California is like, we will lock you up for the stupidest things, but you can smoke drugs. SB 519? Yeah.

Controlled substance decriminalization. So it's not legalizing it, but it looks like it's decriminalizing it. Right, right, right. Which means you can have it and you won't go to jail. So we're going to learn tomorrow Joe Rogan announ like it's decriminalizing it. Right, right, right, which means you can have it and you won't go to jail. So we're going to learn, like, tomorrow Joe Rogan announces he's moving back to California. It'll be a misdemeanor or something. California is just going straight to Mad Max, right?

Like, just endless homeless encampments. They're not going to do a thing about them, and then you can do whatever drugs you want. Yeah, sounds great. It is... Psychedelics are way different than amphetamines, though, so I'm kind of down with that. It's true. At least with the medical... I don't have a strong view on whether dmv dmt should be have you ever smoked it nope it's amazing i've only smoked a little bit but apparently when you talk to people that go deep

it's the one spiritual yeah ayahuasca oh is dmt ayahuasca is the same thing ayahuasca causes your body to produce large amounts of dmt. That's where that experience comes in. VBDC says, by the way, Kalen from Scriber was on your show. Lydia said, we know him. That's why we wanted to talk about him getting brutally beaten. Because that was the context of the segment. Here's a guy who's willing to go on the ground and actually risk his safety to get his information versus CNN, who surround themselves with security

guards while complaining about guns and lying to people so it's like inverted yes sorry having him on with a bruised beat-up face i don't want to objectify you kaylin i'm not doing that but i mean having having someone on that has experienced physical trauma like so you can see the effects would have like a more of an impact youtube might might take that down. Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. Yeah, YouTube says you can't show like violence. What's it called? Yeah. But I think they wouldn't take that one down. Real hurt.

Actually, this is really interesting. YouTube just relaxed their rules. There was a big announcement that as of the 15th, you're allowed to have some swearing, moderate profanity at a certain point to the other. It's weird. But you're actually allowed now to show violent interactions with police officers. Oh, wow. Like, straight up, you can show it

and you can monetize it now. That, to me, was crazy. I was like, but you don't... So they're letting that cost again. Yeah, they love the show. No, no, no, no, no. But listen, listen. The issue, I think, was that

a lot of leftist activists were getting demonetized for showing... Dante Wright or what? Dante Wright or Adam Toledo. And so YouTube was like, okay, okay, fine, fine, fine. You can do these now. Cool.

Interesting. Yep. FineCastleIE says, congrats on the one million, Tim, and cast. Since Our Pillow was a success, would you ever sell a T-shirt called Our Gorilla with the gorilla wearing a beanie holding a hammer and sickle? Maybe. We're trying to figure out I am a chimpanzee full of snakes. Yes.

But I think that's a Jordan Peterson. Well, hold on. Seamus of Freedom Tunes made a joke about it. Jordan Peterson apparently said something to this effect where I guess Seamus pointed out that Interlecture Peterson said, like, what are you even anyway? You're a chimpanzee full of snakes or some approximation of that. Yep. So then he did – Jordan Peterson is the Red Skull joke where the Avengers are watching Red Skull lecture. And he says, what are you?

You're a chimpanzee full of snakes. So then we sat down at the show. Everyone laughed. And they were like, make a T-shirt. But maybe Seamus should make the T-shirt because it's his joke. That would be perfect. Yeah. That would be fun. I'd hawk his merch. be great. It's his joke. That'd be perfect, yeah. You know.

That'd be fun. I'd hawk his merch. Heck yeah. Yeah. It's probably a shirt he should be selling. Chimpanzee full of snakes. That's bizarre. Look, man.

I think Jordan Peterson's great. But a lot of people who are passive viewers of him don't realize he says a lot of things that you would absolutely be baffled by. Without context. Yeah, without the full context of his lectures. Like the snakes and the... It never struck me. Seamus really gets it. Yeah, I heard it.

It never struck me. All right. Brown Bear says, if I'm stuck in traffic because of a bunch of protesters decided to protest in the middle of the street, I immediately hope whatever their cause is fails no matter what it is. I agree with that. Yeah. Yes. Absolutely. Yeah, it's selfish. I mean, it's fundamentally a very selfish way to protest.

It's just indifferent to other people inflicting pain on third parties who have nothing to do with your protest. PR suicide. Yeah. Jail. All right. Christopher KB says, Tim, are the chickens getting a YouTube channel? We did mention this.

The answer is yes. It is going to be called the Chicken City or something to that effect. We don't know the full name. But we double fortified the Chicken City. So we used to just have one layer of chicken wire, and then we doubled over it with a stronger metal. And we want to make sure.

So we added another latch, too, because we had something try to break in. I think it was maybe a stronger metal. And we want to make sure, so we added another latch too because we had someone, something try to break in. I think it was like maybe a raccoon. Oh, snap. So we set a trap and, you know, we'll have to... Put some lights up,

motion sensor lights to scare it off. There are those, yeah. It doesn't work. No, it doesn't help. You're bold. 24-7 live stream. There you go. I like this.

Yeah, just running permanently. I'm looking through my mentions and I tweeted about the video and somebody said to tell Tim to fire Ian. Hashtag fire Ian. No, not happening. No, they're saying Ian's fire. That's right.

There you go. All right, all right. Let's see what we got here. We got fire Ian. Nick Nast says, hey, all. I was listening a few days ago and heard Ian mention he was looking for a PHP developer for the open source project. I emailed info and jobs at TimCast but got no reply.

Should I contact Ian directly? If so, what's a good contact email? You messaged me on Twitter. That seems to work. Do I follow you on Twitter?

I should. You sure should. Definitely. Uplifting. Air traffic controller says the Texas house passed a law making open carry legal even

without a permit. Come on down to Texas. That's a pretty good reason. I follow you, Ian, but you don't follow me. How rude. I know., Ian, but you don't follow me. I'm about to, Will. How rude. I know. I watch you. Owned. You too.

You too. All right. Let's see. You got me live. Chris Rose, 1986, says, we need to change the 13th Amendment. There should be no slavery at all. All felons that have done their time should have all their rights back. The pink gorilla t-shirt is great. Don't tell that to Joe Biden, who said that no amendment is absolute.

Yeah, right. You know, all those exceptions to the 13th Amendment that need to be made. Alright. White Metal Baby says, Tim, it's time. Announce your intention to form a new independent media center dedicated to true and valuable context opinion. Dibs on

first name chicken media or is that is that a rooster or a turkey i can't tell it's a chicken oh it's a rooster oh oh rooster rooster media i like it well now you can't use the name because it was his idea which means he'll come and sue you for copyright good idea though i like it all right waffle sensei says will is correct about not voting while having a felony the The felony will come off your record eventually. And if we expect immigrants to follow the law to get in, we should expect citizens to follow higher classified laws to vote on those laws. When you're...

Wait, wait, wait. Is there a period after you leave prison as a felon, you get your voting rights back? I mean, I think if your felony is expunged. Yeah, but how do you... But that's like... Some felonies don't get expunged, I assume. Most don't. I don't know the details of that, but that's not...

I don't rely on his rationale for saying why felons shouldn't have voting rights. Hey, look at this. Sterling Morris says, Tim, look up chicken nipple waterer. No joke. They are top-down waterers. They can't crappen. I will get that. I will look that up right after the show, and we will get that.

They have good waterers. They understand chickens. RoboCheezit says, I will watch this later, but I love the show, so thank you. But Tim, I'm curious. Would you go around your of video calls if you could have Edward? Oh, okay. Yeah, your rule. Would I have video calls if I could have Edward Snowden on?

No. I wouldn't. But RoboCheezit, your name is sweet i love it no exceptions demaco says tim when are you back when you're going back on joe rogan probably never um simply because i am dedicated to making this project work timcast.com is growing we've got a ton of work we have to do and i have no time for for for anything uh so rogan's podcast is fantastic. Rogan's an awesome dude. Big, big, big, big fan. But I get a lot of requests. There's some shows that I've done where it's like I can turn the camera on when I'm already here and just talk for like 10 minutes. Hiring people is hard work. We have so many resumes and there's a lot of people who email

us who have no experience and are like, you know, I work in a warehouse, but I can totally do this, I swear. And it's like, look, man, I'm glad you guys are interested. I'm glad you're fans. But it's really difficult to quality control everything, and we literally can't hire someone who doesn't know how to do a job to do a job. It's hard enough because we're not Joe Rogan level. We don't have that kind of money. So we're trying to get top level people at premium rates, essentially, and it's very difficult. If we want to make this work,

we're going to need some talented, free thinking individuals who are the best of the best of what they do, or to the best of our ability, the best based on how much we can afford to spend. So it's tough. It's not easy. I should say, I'm not specifically looking to hire a PHP developer. I want to get in touch with people that are doing that and then bring you into our Element chat, our Fediverse chat, and we'll go from there. Yeah, and the open source project, too, is external. It's not

going to be owned. I mean, I don't want it to be owned by anybody. Right. We might do a foundation that collects donations that can help fund the project, which the foundation would be owned probably by tim cast or something but the product the things that are made would be free for public use we probably just keep making tools that are free you know i'd imagine why would we stop there if we could do it all right danine s says tim the youtube channel nando versus v movies has a series

called one small change you should check out the episode he did for wanda's last episode in my honest opinion, it would have been way better to convey the message they were trying to make. You know what I want to do? I want to do like short sketches

of changing movies and it's like just ending movies very easily by getting rid of the Deus Ex Machina or the idiot plots. God, Game of Thrones did that.

The Deus Ex Machina in Game of Thrones was just so awful. Yeah. Like we flew from the south to the north in a few hours. Here we are.

God, they just destroyed that series. I couldn't finish it. I love how they're, like, trapped, surrounded by the White Walkers in the ice behind the wall. And then, you know, Khaleesi flies in the dragon in a matter of, what, an hour? Like, you just knew that the writers were trying to reverse engineer a way to give the White Walkers a dragon. Like, that was the the writers were trying to reverse engineer a way to give the white walkers a dragon like that was the problem they were trying to solve and they're

like well we can have all the main characters do something obviously and horribly stupid like walk go all the way north to get a live white walker for some reason to prove that the white walkers are still here i could rip on that show for hours yeah Yeah, seriously. Isn't it amazing how it was like the best show ever until the last two seasons? The first season was so good. And Sean Bean, hands down, probably the reason why. I mean, it was an amazing show because they just, they kill, I mean, I don't want to, actually, I shouldn't say anything. Well, spoiler alert, the show's been over for five years.

Yeah, right. They killed the main character. They killed the protagonist at the end of season one. That's amazing. And I get it. It is. It's amazing. That was bold. All right. Let's amazing. And I get it. It is. It's amazing. That was bold. All right.

Let's see. We'll do a couple more here. Soran989 says, Tim, you don't know what you're doing with your chicks. Roosters offer more than just protection, and there's ways to keep their food and water raised. Yes, this is true. And the problem with roosters is that we record, so we can't have one. Cannot have noise.

So we had to figure it out. We were thinking of consulting with a chicken whisperer for a one-off to come. John Goodwin says, is it possible to consider anti-gun laws as racist due to an impact on black men carrying in unsafe neighborhoods? Yes. Also, chickens keep ticks and fleas down. And if one chicken gets hurt and bleeds, the other chickens may try to eat the wounded one.

Yes. Yes. It's horrifying. Wow. Dinosaurs. Christopher says, Tim, you're wrong. I'm a felon. Been to prison.

Trust me. You don't want people getting guns back when they were released. Some people make no effort to change and are planning next crimes before they before the release. Wow. No, I'm not wrong. I understand that fully. But the Constitution says shall not be infringed.

And so long as we're not incarcerating someone anymore, I don't like the idea of a permanent lingering effect that strips you of your rights. Are we at like five zip in the... Will, are you paying these people? I don't know. I'm not. They're paying to comment. No, no.

You have to understand, right? These are all of Will's burners. Oh, I see how this works. That's what I've been doing on my phone this whole time. Arguments are great. And a lot of the super chats want to have their opinion heard when there's an opinion in the show and they disagree with and then we read their opinion because it's not typically not agreeing with me and that's the point interesting you really think that non the that violent felons should get a gun the day they

get out of prison i didn't say that oh what do you think exactly if they've paid their debt to society perhaps we say it's five years in prison plus five years probationary period, which is not necessarily probation, but like a probationary period where you don't get to vote, you don't get your guns back. I'm talking about when all is said and done and what we deem to be the end of their punishment, they get their rights back. It's some way that has to happen. I think we need to have prison reform. I think the bigger problems aren't so much whether or not a felon should have a gun it's more so what's resulting in crime poverty felonies anyway i don't think people are inherently evil i think we have problems that need to be solved that could root out a lot of the issues the problem is you have

a political class hell-bent on manipulating people into making these problems worse so they can sustain their power. Ah, yeah. And it's true for the left and the right, unfortunately. More so, I would say, on the left, to be completely honest. Hence why we find ourselves in this position with the establishment left lying and manipulating and cheating. And sometimes conservatives saying dumb things. But it's the rule of the left and the exception on the right.

All right. Joseph Walcott says, motion sensor sprinklers for night defense outside your coop works like a charm. Yeah, we were thinking about that. All right, my friends. If you haven't already, you must smash that like button because it really does help. And thanks for hanging out. Go to TimGuest.com. Become a member because the members area will show you a huge list of all of these guests and all these bonus segments, I assure you. If you're not a member

and you sign up today there is too much content for you to be able to watch it's just too much because i think we've been doing this now for like three months and there's going to be probably days worth of content you will be you will be permanently and it's not it's not all new stuff like we had uh jim hansen on he talked about his war stories in the philippines we're eating rotten eggs and we try to do a lot of that in the Philippines. We're eating rotten eggs. And we try to do a lot of that for the bonus stuff that's always evergreen and always entertaining. Fun. I love that guy.

Yeah, it was fun. Check out TimCast.com. Become a member. But don't forget to like, share, subscribe to this show. We broke a million subs with all your guys' help. So we're really, really grateful for all of that. We're live Monday through Friday at 8 p.m. You can follow me on all social media platforms at TimCast.

And you can check out my other YouTube channels, YouTube.com slash TimCast and YouTube.com slash TimC 8 p.m. You can follow me on all social media platforms at Timcast. And you can check out my other YouTube channels, YouTube.com slash Timcast and YouTube.com slash Timcast News. Will, you do stuff. Yeah, I know. So you can follow me on Twitter at Will Chamberlain, but I also do human events, and that's a bigger thing. So we are available at humanevents.com and publish news and opinion regularly.

We also, you can go to YouTube.com slash humanevents, which will give you access to my live streams that I'm not as regular as Tim, but I'm getting a little more consistent with them. And also facebook.com slash humaneventsmedia will also get you access to those as well. Read the Daily Caller. I write a ton of stuff every day.

And you can follow me on Twitter. I'm Jordy Lancaster. Or Instagram, I'm JordanNLancaster Yeah I'm at IanCrossland.net and one of the things I like about TimCast.com I was just thinking about today is as the days go on

the subscription becomes more valuable because the library keeps getting bigger so it's like you get more Great point Once we start the new uh the new shows might be like hbo plus yeah so i'll put it this way right so when everybody's becoming a member we're using that money to make the site better and and and there's there's bump roads uh

there's bumps in the road but the money we're making is we're hiring more people i am not going to be let me let me me put it this way. I see a lot of these people. They get a bunch of subscribers. What do they do? They buy – Ferrari. Ferraris, infinity pools.

They take selfies. I do want an infinity pool, by the way. Private jets. Oh, man. They fly $20,000 flights first class. They're all rich. And I'm like, that's money you could use to hire someone for like – to write stuff, to make content, to produce videos. But would you be down

to get an infinity pool? No. Come on. I would like an infinity pool, but I'm not going to spend money on a pool when I can spend money on someone who's going to do awesome stuff.

I would like an infinity pool too. I'll put it this way. If I had my choice between an infinity pool and giving someone a job where they're funded to create awesome content and culture,

I'd choose the kind of culture. Yes. Invest in the people. I am more interested in creating awesome things that inspire people than I am in being able to sit in a pool. I get inspiration from sitting in a pool. I think that's fair.

I mean, we have a sauna. Synchronous. It's not like this place. We have a skate park. But I'll tell you this. Everything we do is with the intention of making something of it. So when we built the skate park in the garage, it's because it's actually a venue where we're going to have events and we're going to do live streams.

So the goal is in the future for everyone listening, Friday nights are going to become big events where we do the show. And then we segue into the outdoor cameras where we have a comedian or musician or maybe a skateboarder. And we just have a hangout with beers and barbecue. And we make it a free probably hour-long, maybe two-hour-long thing skateboarder and we just have a hangout with beers and barbecue and we make it a free, probably hour-long, maybe two-hour-long thing where it's like a Friday night hangout. Now we're going to do one night where members actually have the ability to buy tickets to come

out. It'll be limited, probably like 20 tickets because we want an audience watching and the camera's rolling but it's not a big venue. We can't literally have everybody but that's the plan man it's going to be it's going to be amazing we could do cool stuff

like we could stream live TimCast IRL like one camera angle of the venue and then if you go to TimCast.com as a subscriber you get like five more angles that you can watch

no no no we're going to have it produced with multicam and everything nice yeah yeah because we're going to have panning cameras mounted

and then all we have to do is just you know have one person on controls and so uh i want to do i want to do events so like friday night there are probably a lot of people who are like uh you know i don't care to watch a talk show but i'd love to see a stand-up comedy thing from somebody with multiple comedians the other thing we're going to do too is periodic very very special events that would be effectively pay-per-view where it's like i would like to get prominent comedians to do a show as if it were any other venue but that means they'll want standard venue procedures where

it's like people pay tickets they get a percentage of the ticket sales so we would just do a digital venue where it's like okay we're going to do a special event you know sunday night with like these four comedians it's a five dollar ticket for entry and then it's online and then they get a portion of the of the sales as they do. So yeah, man, a lot of big plans in that direction. Love you, Tim. Awesome. It's going to be fun.

It's going to be a whole lot of fun. Did you shout out? I did not. So I will say my two cents on this is that I think the issue that the guys are talking about is entirely cultural, which is not something that you can fix from the top down. You fix it from the bottom up,

and that's one of the things we're doing at TimCast.com. But you can follow me at Sarah Patchlids on Twitter and Mines. Everybody, it's Friday night. Thanks for hanging out. We are going to be back Monday at 8 p.m., and we're going to be doing some fun stuff this weekend. So we did film a vlog last Sunday, and we had this Pro BMX guy, Mike Feedy,

he did a grind on the grind bar, and we're building out the new vlog section. You can see it at TimCast.com. It's just nothing there yet. But we have a video that's going to go up, and we're going to be filming more this weekend. And we're going to start filming more. I'll give you this advice I say to everybody to explain why we're doing it this way. You just start doing it.

That means we're not going to have it daily, even though it says daily. But eventually the goal is to get it every single day,ming something, doing something, having fun, making it exciting. So I hope you're around for that. Thank you all so much for hanging out, and we'll see you all on Monday. Bye, guys.